Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Covid

Mumsnet doesn't verify the qualifications of users. If you have medical concerns, please consult a healthcare professional.

Original poster

Ivermectin bonkersness

405 replies

Thebookswereherfriends · 31/08/2021 13:18

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?!

OP posts:
Thread gallery
8
IvorBigarse · 31/08/2021 18:33

Well, I think we should give "the public" a lot more credit. Very patronising.

MareofBeasttown · 31/08/2021 18:34

Ah I found a reference to the small state of Goa using Ivermectin.www.forbes.com/sites/siladityaray/2021/05/11/indian-state-will-offer-ivermectin-to-entire-adult-population---even-as-who-warns-against-its-use-as-covid-19-treatment/?sh=7975a5a06d9f I don't think there is any evidence that it was effective though. And it was a while ago.

noblegiraffe · 31/08/2021 18:36

Well, I think we should give "the public" a lot more credit. Very patronising.

Some of them seem to be taking horse dewormer against covid instead of the vaccine...

IvorBigarse · 31/08/2021 18:37

@noblegiraffe

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?

Nope, I do not think that. But I do think the roll out has been too wide and too coercive. Many other people - some extremely well qualified - think this, too. And many of them get censored.
noblegiraffe · 31/08/2021 18:40

But I do think the roll out has been too wide and too coercive.

That's a very different type of opinion to 'the vaccine gives people covid' don't you think?

IvorBigarse · 31/08/2021 18:46

@noblegiraffe

But I do think the roll out has been too wide and too coercive.

That's a very different type of opinion to 'the vaccine gives people covid' don't you think?

Yes, I agree. But I think "the public" are not idiots, and can make up their own minds. So stop censoring people, because some of them are likely telling the truth.
speckledostrichegg · 31/08/2021 18:47

IvorBigarse

8Well 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.

IvorBigarse · 31/08/2021 18:48

Also, "the vaccine gives people covid" is very different to "the vaccine temporarily lowers immunity to covid via temporary reduction of certain types of T cells". We should allow people to speak to prevent opinions being lumped together as generic "conspiracy".

noblegiraffe · 31/08/2021 18:48

But I think "the public" are not idiots, and can make up their own minds.

The ones in hospital after eating horse dewormer?

Disinformation during a pandemic can be dangerous.

IvorBigarse · 31/08/2021 18:49

@speckledostrichegg

IvorBigarse

8Well 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.

So allow different doctors with different opinions to debate.
IvorBigarse · 31/08/2021 18:50

And then give people credit to make up their own minds.

speckledostrichegg · 31/08/2021 18:52

So allow different doctors with different opinions to debate.

They do? This is pretty much the basis of peer reviewed publishing

But it isn't analogous with letting anyone make any fraudulent claim that they want.

mumwon · 31/08/2021 18:58

I remember the French (I think) doing a trial on nicotine (or was it tobacco?) because there SEEMED to be a link for patient survival in China - there wasn't when it was checked & it didn't work but they DID do trials
In fact they have done lots of trials across the world on all sorts of random possibilities but only a few have proven to be useful
When doing do research you: have to check sources, is there any financial profit (think MMR & Autism), CAN IT BE REPRODUCED in other settings. how large a scale etc etc etc
& if I remember rightly - if a drug can be used for another disease/condition the drug can be re-patented & a higher cost - so if I am right (memory!) obviously if the drug WAS proven to be useful/effective it would be in the companies interest

noblegiraffe · 31/08/2021 18:59

@IvorBigarse

And then give people credit to make up their own minds.
Horse dewormer....

You do understand that some opinions are dangerous? And that some people are not actually stating them in good faith? See "we need to seed the thought that vaccines cause covid" for example.

Sciencing things up to make them sound more intelligent and harder to argue with by the average person is a known tactic.

IvorBigarse · 31/08/2021 19:01

@speckledostrichegg

So allow different doctors with different opinions to debate.

They do? This is pretty much the basis of peer reviewed publishing

But it isn't analogous with letting anyone make any fraudulent claim that they want.

I'm talking about what the general public gets to see. So many people in BMJ, academic journals etc voicing stuff that never reaches BBC because it doesn't fit politically. If you don't see it, I suggest - wih respect - that you look harder.
mumwon · 31/08/2021 19:02

Another point - stats from India or many (not all) African states are unlikely to be accurate as many deaths & illness from covid will be undiagnosed - especially if casualties are poor & more especially if they live in poor & remote rural areas

IvorBigarse · 31/08/2021 19:05

There's also plenty which could be said about the peer review system, research funding sources etc, but we don't even need to get into that. Look at what DOES get published in the BMJ which has and has not reached mainstream awareness.

noblegiraffe · 31/08/2021 19:09

voicing stuff that never reaches BBC

Do you think that the BBC should give a voice to those who think that the vaccine is caused by 5G? Or that it will kill everyone?

noblegiraffe · 31/08/2021 19:10

That covid is caused by 5G, I don't think anyone thinks the vaccine is caused by 5G. Probably activated by it though.

IvorBigarse · 31/08/2021 19:14

@noblegiraffe

voicing stuff that never reaches BBC

Do you think that the BBC should give a voice to those who think that the vaccine is caused by 5G? Or that it will kill everyone?

Are there papers in the BMJ by respected professionals arguing this? If so, then yes - absolutely.
IvorBigarse · 31/08/2021 19:17

I know a lot of people who've read openly and widely. None thinks covid is caused by 5g, despite having probably encountered the opinion.

IvorBigarse · 31/08/2021 19:18

Meanwhile, the BBC is fine with people saying "the vaccines are 100% safe", which is a ridiculous statement.

noblegiraffe · 31/08/2021 19:19

None thinks covid is caused by 5g

We imagined the masts set on fire then.

speckledostrichegg · 31/08/2021 19:23

@IvorBigarse

There's also plenty which could be said about the peer review system, research funding sources etc, but we don't even need to get into that. Look at what DOES get published in the BMJ which has and has not reached mainstream awareness.
No one is denying any of this.

Walach managed to get a paper published in JAMA peads stating masks cause CO2 poisoning, it's fraught with issues.

I was simply replying to your point about doctors needing to be able to debate. But you seem to be jumping from point to point without any logical process from your original points about defending McCulloughs misinformation.

IvorBigarse · 31/08/2021 19:24

@noblegiraffe

None thinks covid is caused by 5g

We imagined the masts set on fire then.

People are angry. A lot of people - far more than say it publicly - know we are being bullshitted on a grand scale. This, in my opinion, is partly caused by the shutting down of opinion. We can tell we're being lied to, but further details are obscure. It's a recipe for unrest