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?!

@userperuser

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.

She hasn't analysed the data. This involves comparing the rate of death in vaccinated people to the rate of death in a comparable unvaccinated population. If no-one died after receiving a vaccine it would mean they were protective against death and we'd found the cure for immortality.

Instead she is stating that all reported deaths are caused by the vaccine and and the roll out must be stopped immediately. Saying she is anti-vaccine because she is spreading misinformation isn't "playground name calling tactics", it's pointing out something really problematic.

speckledostrichegg

She was pointing out that based on the available data that it would be best to further investigate before the roll out continued.

@userperuser

speckledostrichegg

She was pointing out that based on the available data that it would be best to further investigate before the roll out continued.

A quick look seems to show (to me) that she’s not applying the same standards with ivermectin though. It doesn’t inspire much confidence in me personally, I like consistency.

Although I’d be interested to see her comment on the issue of her analysis of yellow card data as @speckledostrichegg pointed out (I’m presuming they’re not the first to pick up on that). Being a respected scientist I’m sure she’s happy to defend her findings openly.

Cornettoninja

You can find her letter to the MRHA with a simple google.

The problem is that the Yellow Card and VAERS systems have been hijacked by antivaxxers.

The vast majority of the most recent reports are vexatious or malicious.

Until that data can be analysed and followed up and the outright lies dismissed, it's useless.

Disingenuously using that data to 'prove' your point is wrong, bound to confuse people and put off the iatrophobic.

She has relied on the Egyptian Elgazzar study for other meta data analysis which can be found on the internet if you look up her name - she's deliberately been using shonky data and producing worthless results from it - all lapped up by her following.

Her data is compromised, her analysis 'naive' to say the least and the results simply prove what anti-vaxxers want them to prove.

This argument is called 'an appeal to authority' - a doctor says it's true, it's a medical issue, therefore it's true and unassailable.

There are doctors and then there are doctors.

Always research the source of the data being analysed.

Always research those who analyse it

See if their meta analysis can be reproduced.

If not, it's not worth reading.

and doctor M

Ah fuck it.

I tried to link to that cool bible bashing scene.

@speckledostrichegg

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.

Interested in your view on this @userperuser?

I have genuinely never come across a clinician/scientist who promotes ivermectin who also agrees the majority of experts on vaccination (i.e., they're safe and should be rolled out to the general population).

agrees with*

Gingernaut

All the more reason that the MHRA should be conducting a full investigation and publishing their findings.

A group of ‘rubbished’ scientists wrote to the EMA warning of blood clot risks before the first reports of them.

@userperuser I’ve read that thanks, I’m talking about her addressing questions regarding her findings. I’m particularly interested in why, throughout her letter, she didn’t include comparisons of general rate of incidence of reported symptoms in the general population. Deaths is only one of the figures shes used without context, 90, 000 reported headaches doesn’t mean much unless you compare it to an average number of headaches in the population.

Tbh though, I don’t really care what she thinks. Regarding ivermectin it’s pretty clear that anyone making solid claims isn’t deterred by the simple fact that we just don’t know yet. She’s either accessed data that has highlighted issues that damage its credibility, run her own trial (doubtful) that hasn’t met standards to be used as evidence or has another agenda that could be anything from personal financial gain to personal ego boosting.

She’s clearly aligned herself with a bias which in itself damages her credibility.

Cornettoninja

I suppose only time will tell.

@userperuser

Gingernaut

All the more reason that the MHRA should be conducting a full investigation and publishing their findings.

A group of ‘rubbished’ scientists wrote to the EMA warning of blood clot risks before the first reports of them.

Yes and then the data backed up their findings. You don’t expect the same for ivermectin?

@userperuser yes it will. Rushing to call it first so (it appears) they can bask in the glory of being right doesn’t sit very well with me when there are people obtaining veterinary medications to self medicate and actively pooping out the lining of their intestines. Even if you think you’re right, in the position Tess Lawrie is in, and happy to promote herself in, she has a responsibility to ensure that she isn’t adding to the lack of caution certain members of the public are showing by providing them with flimsy justifications.

Cornettoninja

As far as I’m aware the trials for ivermectin are still ongoing. Based on the finding so far it’s certainly miracle cure but maybe useful in some circumstances.

Certainly NO miracle cure.

@userperuser

Cornettoninja

As far as I’m aware the trials for ivermectin are still ongoing. Based on the finding so far it’s certainly miracle cure but maybe useful in some circumstances.

There really isn't any good quality evidence to show it is effective in treating COVID, that's why it's so controversial.

Finally, after all the crap science, there are well designed, well powered RCTs going on to identify it's causal effect in treating COVID early. The results of one came out recently and it was null, but we shall see what the rest find.

@userperuser

Certainly NO miracle cure.

So if we agree on that then can we agree that this is pretty much the only thing that can be said about ivermectin with any degree of certainty?

Given the following ivermectin has gained in the public arena it’s at best irresponsible, at worst dangerous to publish a professional opinion in a format that isn’t open to immediate challenge eg. Journals that invite comments published alongside the article and encourage discussion.

Cornettoninja

She’s given an opinion based on what she’s studied. Trials are ongoing and hopefully they do show a benefit with early treatment. People’s frustration is more with the government’s lack of focus on effective treatments.

Neil Ferguson was highly irresponsible with his incorrect modelling and it wasn’t the first time, additionally and quite unbelievably he’s still given an audience and a lot of the more dramatic posters on this site have clearly been swayed by his ‘misinformation’.

And actually, I wasn’t defending TL’s stance on ivermectin, I was responding to the unfair labelling of her as ‘anti-vax’ based on a letter she wrote to the MHRA giving her opinion on the yellow card data.

Everything is safe after the right exposure & everything is dangerous with the wrong exposure. There is a big problem implying that something is "proven safe!" (and a seemingly "secret" miracle cure) as though it's always safe -- never mind whether it's useful or appropriate.

It's just so sad that the mistrust among people are so deep that they can't trust the safety of the vaccine that huge numbers of people have already taken and proven to be safe, but can willingly take something unproven just because someone said they work.

Love the FDA's take on it

"You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y'all. Stop it."

Another day, another fraudulent ivermectin study

This one had massive red flags anyway - claimed a 100% prevention in ivermectin cases compared to controls (literally no intervention has such a huge effect size), an apparently 0% drop out rate, errors in tables, poor methodological design, analyses/graphics conducted in excel, no discussion section of the paper.

Oh, and it was accepted within 7 days into a predatory journal, and was by a lead author who despite having been an academic for 25 years had no previous publication.

And now it looks like the study was never actually conducted:

www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniemlee/ivermectin-covid-study-suspect-data

And here we have American Frontline Doctors, a far right political group who have been promoting anti-vax misinformation along with pushing inaccurate information about ivermectin.

Turns out they've been doing things like this:

Over the past three months, a TIME investigation found, hundreds of AFLD customers and donors have accused the group of touting a service promising prescriptions for ivermectin, which medical authorities say should not be taken to treat or prevent COVID-19, and failing to deliver after a fee had been paid. Some customers described being charged for consultations that did not happen. Others said they were connected to digital pharmacies that quoted excessive prices of up to $700 for the cheap medication.

time.com/6092368/americas-frontline-doctors-covid-19-misinformation/

The ivermectin situation is a mess, to put it lightly.

"And here we have American Frontline Doctors, a far right political group"

Out of interest, @ollyollyoxenfree, on what basis do you characterise them thus?