Ivermectin bonkersness

[Thebookswereherfriends]

I’ve just been reading about people all over the world who are buying a horse dewormer medicine to “cure” Covid-19. It makes people crap themselves, go blind and causes your intestinal lining to shed! How on earth does someone think taking a medication for animals is a good idea, but having a vaccine which is designed and tested for humans by actual doctors and scientists is crazy?!

@Lostinacloud

I used the term anti-treatmenters tongue in cheek because I was highlighting the fact any questioning of the main narrative is met with an accusation of anti-vax. My term is just as ridiculous but attempts to demonstrate that.

I don't think this is true though?

It just so happens that every expert promoting ivermectin happens to be anti-vaccine (and often anti-mask, anti-mitigation policies etc)

This doesn't mean that the posters promoting ivermectin think this way, they've just been caught up in the arguments pushed forward by those with the agendas above.

It’s exactly what happens on mumsnet every time and is infuriating because, just like out in the real world, any voice questioning the National response, the restrictions, the vaccines or reported treatments and success in other countries is immediately shut down and the poster ridiculed as an anti vaxxer, anti masker, conspiracy theorist etc.
Just as this thread proves, there are always studies and theories on both sides of the science and it is wrong to shut down any one side as that is the only way science and thought and understanding can progress.

@Hoppinggreen

This post has been hidden until the MNHQ team can have a look at it.

MNHQ Please can you let me know the issue with my post? I posted a link to a Pro Ivermectin site with the warning that no drug should be taken without MHRA licensing and if not prescribed by a Doctor Can you explain what you are having a look at exactly?

What is wrong with you, Hoppinggreen?
People are taking meds without dr prescribing and causing concern. That's the main idea of this thread. And you post a link to pro Ivermectin site?

@Lostinacloud

It’s exactly what happens on mumsnet every time and is infuriating because, just like out in the real world, any voice questioning the National response, the restrictions, the vaccines or reported treatments and success in other countries is immediately shut down and the poster ridiculed as an anti vaxxer, anti masker, conspiracy theorist etc. Just as this thread proves, there are always studies and theories on both sides of the science and it is wrong to shut down any one side as that is the only way science and thought and understanding can progress.

But in the case of ivermectin there really isn't robust evidence it's effective, and nor are there any non-biased (i.e., those that aren't also spreading misinformation about COVID/vaccines) experts promoting it's use.

@illuyankas

What is wrong with you, Hoppinggreen? People are taking meds without dr prescribing and causing concern. That's the main idea of this thread. And you post a link to pro Ivermectin site?

With a warning to only take approved drugs from their Doctor I think there should be a debate and the site is one run by UK based Doctors not people who get their information from Google I have repeatedly said that people should not take drugs not prescribed by their Doctor and I am very firmly pro vax Nothing wrong with me at all - what’s wrong with you?

the site is one run by UK based Doctors

@Hoppinggreen

Didn't see the site but assuming it was FLCCC. Given that they merrily say only get it from a doctor, and that no-ones regular HCP in the UK will prescribe, that leaves only two option for the people who stumble upon their website

1. Spend £££ on a consult with a FLCCC member and buy marked up ivermectin
2. But veterinary grade paste version of ivermectin for much less, and try and calculate dose and appropriate usage yourself.

Can you see the issue with this?

Never mind they're still backing up all their protocols with the "meta-analysis" they did which still includes the retracted studies proven to be fraudalent.

I have repeatedly said that people should not take drugs not prescribed by their Doctor

Then why the need to expose people to the meds that isn't likely to be prescribed by the dr? If the drug is on trial, and if found useful, it will surely be used by the dr. Until then, no point in regular people like me knowing there are drugs that may or may not work but can't get legitimately.

@Lostinacloud

It’s exactly what happens on mumsnet every time and is infuriating because, just like out in the real world, any voice questioning the National response, the restrictions, the vaccines or reported treatments and success in other countries is immediately shut down and the poster ridiculed as an anti vaxxer, anti masker, conspiracy theorist etc. Just as this thread proves, there are always studies and theories on both sides of the science and it is wrong to shut down any one side as that is the only way science and thought and understanding can progress.

It isn’t any voice, it’s voices feeding a dangerous narrative that is only dangerous because people without the knowledge to really understand what they’re reading have taken it upon themselves to champion as fact because nobody is allowed to admit they just don’t know these days. Transparency has led to a massive pool for charlatans and egos to misinterpret for their own gain.

The sum of a discussion about ivermectin amongst laypeople at the moment can only go as far as ‘we don’t know’. We have no access to raw data or the capability to hold trials or the knowledge to make a sound judgement on the downsides of it.

If you’re a professional and want academic discussion MN and other social media outlets aren’t the place for it tbh.

If it wasn't miraculous enough (both apparently preventing COVID, and curing acute COVID and long COVID), FLCCC are now claiming it helps with adverse reactions to vaccines.

Is there anything it can't do?!

Can Ivermectin help reduce the severity of vaccine adverse reactions?
Yes. If someone is suffering from a post vaccine syndrome, FLCCC clinicians and a growing network of colleagues have reported significant clinical responses to ivermectin. Please refer to our I-RECOVER protocol for further information.

@speckledostrichegg

the site is one run by UK based Doctors

@Hoppinggreen

Didn't see the site but assuming it was FLCCC. Given that they merrily say only get it from a doctor, and that no-ones regular HCP in the UK will prescribe, that leaves only two option for the people who stumble upon their website

1. Spend £££ on a consult with a FLCCC member and buy marked up ivermectin
2. But veterinary grade paste version of ivermectin for much less, and try and calculate dose and appropriate usage yourself.

Can you see the issue with this?

Never mind they're still backing up all their protocols with the "meta-analysis" they did which still includes the retracted studies proven to be fraudalent.

You assume wrong. It’s a not for profit and they don’t prescribe yet and won’t be doing so unless there is MHRA approval.

I can absolutely see the issue with the site you mention though

Who are the clinicians running this NFP @Hoppinggreen?

I would be happy to PM you the site if you like

@Hoppinggreen

I would be happy to PM you the site if you like

thanks, yep I'd be interested!

Done

@Hoppinggreen

Done

Ok so that is from the Bird group. As has been seen throughout the pandemic with these groups, it's just another iteration of FLCCC and they direct you to their website.

Unsupsringly, like FLCCC, they're making all the same, misinformed claims about ivermectin.

Don't know if this reply is breaking the "don't make me regret this" caveat you put in your PM though!!

And so it just comes back round full circle, because Tess Lawrie (head of BIRD) is yet another anti-vaxxer promoting ivermectin. Her most repeated claims were in the following letter.

freedomalliance.co.uk/2021/06/10/open-letter-from-dr-tess-lawrie-to-chief-exec-mhra-dr-raine-urgent-report-covid-19-vaccines-unsafe-for-use-in-humans/

I would... “like to draw your attention to the high number of covid-19 vaccine-attributed deaths”.

“The MHRA now has more than enough evidence on the Yellow Card system to declare the COVID-19 vaccines unsafe for use in humans. Preparation should be made to scale up humanitarian efforts to assist those harmed by the COVID-19 vaccines and to anticipate and ameliorate medium to longer term effects"

etc etc

Genuinely - if there is a credible expert who is promoting ivermectin, who doesn't also spread misinformation about vaccines I'd love to hear from them!

Nope, your reply doesn’t break the caveat at all.
As I repeatedly have said I am very pro vax BUT whatever Dr Lawries views, the Bird group are seeking MHRA approval, which I think is the correct way to go about things. The MHRA are the ones who should assess the evidence and decide whether Ivermectin should be used for Covid
I don’t know anything about FLCC and would never share info about an organisation which seeks to sell or prescribe any drug not approved in wherever it is being used.

There’s just no need for labelling respected scientists who have worked for many years in their field as anti-vaxxers. What do you think these people have to gain from this when it’s never been their position before?

Im not closed minded enough to be dismiss people with previous good track records.

@userperuser

There’s just no need for labelling respected scientists who have worked for many years in their field as anti-vaxxers. What do you think these people have to gain from this when it’s never been their position before?

Im not closed minded enough to be dismiss people with previous good track records.

I take a good track record into account when assessing someone's credibility which includes looking at their portfolio of research.

However, if they're now making obviously wrong, disproven anti-vaccine claims that clearly that makes them an anti-vaxxer. Take Mike Yeadon - PhD, used to work at Pfizer, huge number of relevant publications. However - his claims that everyone who has been vaccinated will be dead in 2 years, and that the vaccine is not designed to protect you from COVID, but rather put you in a "database" - are so obviously nonsense from an anti-vaxxer.

It's the same for Tess Lawrie. The statements she's making - that the vaccines are "not safe for use in humans" and the roll out must be stopped immediately, is harmful misinformation.

It is also clear she's not an epidemiologist from the quality of work in her meta-analysis - it would be usual protocol to draft these people in as co-authors.

As I said, can no-one see the issue that there aren't any experts promoting ivermectin who don't also spread misinformation about the vaccines?

The two hypotheses are not related (i.e., vaccines are harmful and ivermectin cures COVID), so it is bizarre there's such a high level of correlation.

It's the same for Tess Lawrie. The statements she's making - that the vaccines are "not safe for use in humans" and the roll out must be stopped immediately, is harmful misinformation

Tess Lawrie wrote to the MRHA with her opinion based on her analysis of the yellow card data, I’m not sure how that makes her anti-vax, that term is being seriously miss used.

It’s not unusual for scientists, doctors, experts to have different opinions, and often refer to colleagues for 2nd opinions.

Disagree with the position yes but don’t rubbish people.

@userperuser

It's the same for Tess Lawrie. The statements she's making - that the vaccines are "not safe for use in humans" and the roll out must be stopped immediately, is harmful misinformation

Tess Lawrie wrote to the MRHA with her opinion based on her analysis of the yellow card data, I’m not sure how that makes her anti-vax, that term is being seriously miss used.

It’s not unusual for scientists, doctors, experts to have different opinions, and often refer to colleagues for 2nd opinions.

Disagree with the position yes but don’t rubbish people.

I'm not "rubbishing anyone" I'm pointing she is deliberately misinterpreting yellow card data to imply all reports of death are caused by the vaccine. This very obviously not true, and is a lie promoted and spread by anti-vaxxers.

Not sure how this doesn't put her in the same category?

speckledostrichegg

Labelling a respectable scientist is most certainly ‘rubbishing’ them it’s resorting to playground name calling tactics.

Given her background I’d say she was sufficiently qualified to be analysing that data.

Disagreeing is acceptable, labelling is not.