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?!

@noblegiraffe

Even more depressing when you see the impact that they've had on schools policy, speckled. No one should be taking any of that lot seriously.

Yup, and the damage done on policies regarding vaccination in 12-15 year olds.

They were very very smart and deliberately kept all the known anti-vax lot behind the scenes (and let them be the face of their other more extreme groups) in an attempt to keep credibility. It's all the same people, spreading misinformation and pseudoscience through the UK.

I think they've blown their cover now though.

@speckledostrichegg thank you, I had a quick look and started reading his medium article, bookmarked it for later.

Re the fact checkers it wasn't so much specifically ivermectin more just in general. I can't remember the exact things I was trying to research but twice in the last month I've looked at them and found no actual evidence to say the thing being claimed was false - merely that there isn't evidence it's true. Which doesn't mean it's false.

@HBGKC Consider this: why would such an eminent, successful, respected physician risk his entire career to stick his head above the parapet and make such statements? What does he possibly stand to gain?

This is the part I really struggle with too. Dr Robert Malone is another example. Has had the vax himself, clearly understands what he's talking about, could go as far as saying he's an expert in his field. Is all for vaxing those at greatest risk of severe disease but he's been written off as another quack.

The Atlantic did an entire article on him recently and wrote a lot of words without ever actually using evidence to prove that his main points and opinions are lies or false or factually incorrect. It's actually quite clever how little substance there was to it. But it's practically impossible to prove him wrong because... well, his arguments are based on the lack of long term safety data, of which there is none. His other fears re boosters and universal vax might never materialise, or, they might.

'"In May we have over 4,000 vaccine-related deaths and over 10,000 hospitalizations. […] this is far and away the most lethal toxic biologic agent ever injected into a human body in American history.”
^
False - this was VAERS data. Clearly if it was the most lethal toxic agent ever injected into billions of people we'd be seeing 100,000s of deaths.^'

Why is it false data because it's VAERS data? It's more likely to be under-reported because it's VAERS data, I'll give you that.

And no, we wouldn't need to see 100,000s of deaths, just more deaths than the next-most-lethal agent injected globally.

Neither of your statements are logical refutations of what was said.

^“Two months for COVID, […] two months of observational data. This idea that we could vaccinate people that were not even tested in the trials. That has never been done before. We have never just thrown a vaccine at somebody without having any data.”

False - all necessary data was collected before rolling out vaccines to the gen pop.^

Again, no. No pregnant women were included in the earlier clinical trials before the vaccines were rolled out to the general population. I don't call that 'all necessary data'.

"Re the fact checkers it wasn't so much specifically ivermectin more just in general. I can't remember the exact things I was trying to research but twice in the last month I've looked at them and found no actual evidence to say the thing being claimed was false - merely that there isn't evidence it's true. Which doesn't mean it's false."

Exactly, @severelysound.

And it's always worth checking who the 'fact-checkers' are owned/funded by. They're not actually the bastions of independent thought they purport to be.

Again, no. No pregnant women were included in the earlier clinical trials before the vaccines were rolled out to the general population. I don't call that 'all necessary data'.

This is ridiculous.

Pregnant women at high risk (either clinically or because they were HCPs) were offered the vaccine, it saved countless lives. This was an informed decision that they would have made after being informed of the risks and benefits.

It's just insane the hoops you're jumping through to try and defend someone who is talking complete and utter nonsense.

If 'he's previously respected in his field' is a reason to take him seriously now, does that include Yeadon? Who thinks that the vaccines are going to kill a lot of people in a targeted mass depopulation?

Do we need to take that claim seriously?

How much of a crank does someone have to be before 'previously respected in his field' isn't going to work any longer?

There has been a concerted effort on MN to argue that the vaccinated cause Covid to spread. I will leave it to the actual scientists here to debunk the nonsense on this thread but peddling ivermectin is really beyond the pale...

MilesOfSand

I didn’t prescribe it because I’m not a doctor.

I think this is very dangerous actually.

And I am not talking about Ivermectin horse paste or Invermectin full stop.

I am talking about the general quality of discourse during this pandemic.

Incredibly dangerous to have this incessant shutting down, ridiculing, disrespect continually.

This achieves nothing in harm reduction - the only thing it achieves is a few giggles and pats on the back by people who already agreed. It does nothing to reach out to the people you are trying to help.

The post could have easily been informative and factual - along the lines of:
We have had reports of many people using Ivermectin Horse paste. This is not the same as the Ivermectin safe for use in humans. Trials are still ongoing as to whether Ivermectin is beneficial or not against COVID. Please do not take Ivermectin Horse Paste as this is definitely not safe for human consumption.

@speckledostrichegg you're flinging words like 'ridiculous' and 'insane' at me. Why?

You stated that 'all necessary data was collected before vaccine rollout to the general population'.

I pointed out that actually, no, there was NO DATA collected on the safety/efficacy of the vaccines in pregnant women, because Pfizer didn't test the vaccine on any pregnant women pre-rollout.

What's ridiculous or insane about my stating that?

@LemonSwan

I think this is very dangerous actually.

And I am not talking about Ivermectin horse paste or Invermectin full stop.

I am talking about the general quality of discourse during this pandemic.

Incredibly dangerous to have this incessant shutting down, ridiculing, disrespect continually.

This achieves nothing in harm reduction - the only thing it achieves is a few giggles and pats on the back by people who already agreed. It does nothing to reach out to the people you are trying to help.

The post could have easily been informative and factual - along the lines of:
We have had reports of many people using Ivermectin Horse paste. This is not the same as the Ivermectin safe for use in humans. Trials are still ongoing as to whether Ivermectin is beneficial or not against COVID. Please do not take Ivermectin Horse Paste as this is definitely not safe for human consumption.

:) Do not eat your dog's food. It is definitely not safe for human consumption. Informative and factual.

I wonder how many intelligent, previously respected professionals who are now seen as "quacks" it takes to make a group of people we should actually listen to?

It is admittedly fairly hard not to sneer at people yelling that they 'will not take this EXPERIMENTAL vaccine' at scientists, doctors and nurses, while being totally fine with taking horse worming meds once they have the thing they refuse to be vaccinated against, on the say so of a random person on the internet.

@IvorBigarse

I wonder how many intelligent, previously respected professionals who are now seen as "quacks" it takes to make a group of people we should actually listen to?

None, if the claims they're making aren't based on robust evidence.

It isn't about tarring people with labels or ignoring them because they're promoting a specific policy or drug.

It's about actually looking into the claims they're making and if there's evidence behind them or not. With McCullough, there isn't. I've given the example of his 291x increase in viral load in vaccinated people claim - when you look at the paper (ie the actual primary evidence), this is not what is says.

For each false claim he makes, there are hundreds of experts with relevant experience and expertise who disagree. I find it baffling people are happy to ignore this.

@LemonSwan

I think this is very dangerous actually.

And I am not talking about Ivermectin horse paste or Invermectin full stop.

I am talking about the general quality of discourse during this pandemic.

Incredibly dangerous to have this incessant shutting down, ridiculing, disrespect continually.

This achieves nothing in harm reduction - the only thing it achieves is a few giggles and pats on the back by people who already agreed. It does nothing to reach out to the people you are trying to help.

The post could have easily been informative and factual - along the lines of:
We have had reports of many people using Ivermectin Horse paste. This is not the same as the Ivermectin safe for use in humans. Trials are still ongoing as to whether Ivermectin is beneficial or not against COVID. Please do not take Ivermectin Horse Paste as this is definitely not safe for human consumption.

On previous threads I have very carefully gone through claims/websites/papers that claim to find a protective effect of ivermectin that posters have linked, and explained the methodological limitations and why they are at a high risk of bias.

I had linked above to Dr Gideon MK, an epidemiologist (with no skin in the game) who factually goes through ivermectin papers and explains any limitations and how it may affect the results obtained. This isn't shutting down discussion, it's enabling it.

A previous poster claimed that Ivermection is being widely used in India with good results. I am from India and nearly all my family and friends are there. I am unaware of:
Any data that shows it is effective
Anyone actually taking Ivermectin amongst my huge network. Everyone is getting or has got vaxxed.
Any consensus from India's medical experts that Ivermectin works.

If India appears to be doing better now, I think it is because it has managed to vaccinate 50% of its population with one shot ( fantastic for a v poor country). Or it could be under reporting.

Well then, why censor people? If they don't have any decent points, why not let them on mainstream media and the "consensus" people can debate them openly? Isn't that how science is meant to work?

I was on low dose Ivermectin (medical grade obv) for 8 years. It's a great and very safe way to treat filariasis. Against a virus- well it seems pretty damn unlikely that it would help.

@IvorBigarse

Well then, why censor people? If they don't have any decent points, why not let them on mainstream media and the "consensus" people can debate them openly? Isn't that how science is meant to work?

Because the majority of people will assume misinformation is fact, if it comes from someone using a Dr or Professor title, quoting from scientific papers (doesn't matter if they're deliberately misinterpreting them) and using technical language.

The general public trust (to an extent) scientists and doctors when it comes to something like a pandemic, so if an expert is saying "hey don't get vaccinated, buy ivermectin from me instead", people will be drawn into it instead of debating it and "science working" as you put it.

It costs lives. This isn't an academic hypothetical scenario, it's a public health emergency.

speckledostrichegg

I haven't seen your posts so wasn't commenting at you, or any poster directly.

It was a general comment mainly directed at discourse through the whole of the pandemic - ie. demonising those who think it came from a lab as conspiracy theorists, calling those who were worried about the vaccines as anti-vaxers (when it turned out there were issues with Astra)

The original tweet from the FDA on this topic just sums it up

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

Theres nothing informative in there at all. Its just bait for a bun fight.

I think we can do better.

@IvorBigarse

I recommend listening to Dr Peter McCullough on treatments to keep people out of hospital. He's now getting smeared as an anti-vaxxer, etc (which he's not). However, worth keeping in mind that he's one of the most published medics in the world.

keeping in mind that he's one of the most published medics in the world

Is he? His H-index is 42. Mine is 30 & you never heard of me.

To put in perspective, Neil Ferguson has 16,952 citations since 2016, and an H-index of 84. Peter Diggle has H-index = 90...

If we're talking just cardiologists,
Venk Murthy has H-index = 44.

L. David Brown has H-index = 40

I just don't see how PM can be called 'top publishing medic' compared to others, at all.

The original tweet from the FDA had a link to a blog post on their website summarising exactly why you should not take horse dewormer, I posted an extract from it above. It was informative in exactly the way you are asking, Lemon.

@MareofBeasttown you say:

^"A previous poster claimed that Ivermection is being widely used in India with good results. I am from India and nearly all my family and friends are there. I am unaware of:
Any data that shows it is effective
Anyone actually taking Ivermectin amongst my huge network. Everyone is getting or has got vaxxed.
Any consensus from India's medical experts that Ivermectin works."^

Does your 'unawareness of any data' prove that ivermectin isn't effective? (Genuine question.)

Your 'network' may be huge, but the population of India is 1.36 billion. I don't think your lack of 'awareness of anyone taking ivermectin' can be considered proof of anything at all; do you? (Genuine question.)

And finally, the PP didn't say there was 'consensus from India's medical experts' about ivermectin, did they? You're arguing against something that no-one's said.

So many straw-man arguments.

How would you prove that Ivermectin was useful in India without data? I am pretty confused. Genuine question.

The PP didn't say there was consensus from Indian medical experts, but are you arguing that India should take advice from outlier medical experts?

I wonder how many intelligent, previously respected professionals who are now seen as "quacks" it takes to make a group of people we should actually listen to?

You can always find well-respected scientists who will sign up to any old shit. That's why their arguments also need to make sense.

I'm assuming you don't think that the vaccine is a targeted mass depopulation strategy?