Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Covid

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

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
noblegiraffe · 31/08/2021 19:32

Right, so you agree that certain cranky opinions should be 'censored' in that they are not platformed on the BBC, you just disagree with where to draw the line.

Some people think that a bloke who claims that the vaccine causes covid should go in the bin with the other cranks, you think that because he's previously respected he deserves a listen.

HarveySchlumpfenburger · 31/08/2021 19:53

Isn't allowing people to debate stuff in the media so the public can decide how we got from nearly eradicating measles in many places to not nearly eradicating measles. I'm not sure it's the safest way to advance scientific knowledge in the middle of a pandemic.

And that isn't to say that the people deciding are stupid or uneducated, just that they might not have the right skills to be able to assess and research properly.

knittingaddict · 31/08/2021 19:53

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.

I think this thread demonstrates the very opposite IvorBigarse.

IvorBigarse · 31/08/2021 20:05

@speckledostrichegg, I am indeed jumping around. Too many things to cover, trying to respond to different points and also concurrently making bolognese :D

But these are the basic things I'm trying to say:

  • People like Peter McCullough should not be censored or put on some nebulous "conspiracy theorist" list, but should be listened to. If they're talking bullshit, let the bullshit be actively and openly debated.
  • It's possible to add biases at so many levels from conception of research ideas, funding, peer review, reporting, picking up by media.... (and many more). There's evidence of foul play at every level.
  • At what point do we stop writing off each of the hundreds, probably thousands, of knowledgeable and intelligent people trying to highlight that there are some serious issues with the narratives being peddled?
  • The general public are not idiots, and should be allowed to make up their own minds.

@noblegiraffe, I don't think I've said I'd censor anyone, as far as I can remember. I'd have a very high bar for this (inciting violence etc).

Porcupineintherough · 31/08/2021 20:10

It's not really much of a debate if all 1 side has is opinions though, is it? Just bias vs reality - and reality tends to come off worst because science is complex and nuanced.

speckledostrichegg · 31/08/2021 20:11

At what point do we stop writing off each of the hundreds, probably thousands, of knowledgeable and intelligent people trying to highlight that there are some serious issues with the narratives being peddled?

This is not the same thing as letting people spread misinformation, like the vaccines are causing miscarriages, or anyone who's had them will be dead in two years, or indeed that it is safer to take ivermectin than be vaccinated.

You do see the issue with spreading misinformation regarding heath issues right? It leads to deaths. Yes it would be great if everyone was able to see misinformation for what is, but they don't, especially when it is coming from people using a Dr title, quoting from research papers and using scientific language. This means they will take this misinformation as fact, leading them to make decisions that will harm their health.

IvorBigarse · 31/08/2021 20:13

Opinion and interpretation has influence on all sides, @Porcupineintherough. Sometimes, yes, that's all there is. So - let's air it. In the case of many of the people currently being censored, on the other hand, it's very much NOT all there is to it. And let's hear them, too.

severelysound · 31/08/2021 20:23

after being informed of the risks

But how could anyone have known the risks for pregnancy Confused I genuinely don't understand.

I'm not trying to be argumentative and I'm not actually 'anti-vax', I'm just skeptical. About a lot of things surrounding this pandemic.

Thalidomide, for example. Don't the risks depend on the post-fertilisation day it was taken?

How could they have known all that for a new vaccine using new technology without doing any trials?

And I do understand the high risk part. The study I'm reading says a 1.6% fatality rate, but there seems to be some logical limitations in my layman's opinion. Firstly, why were the rates of diabetes 3x higher, hypertension almost double, chronic respiratory disease 1.5x higher, 2 or more conditions double, and 10% more overweight/ obese in the covid group than the control group? And secondly, the study says, sadly, "These deaths were concentrated in institutions from less developed regions". So how is that relevant considering "less developed regions" were are the end of the line in the vax queue? If anything that study says: "get the vaccines to less developed regions asap and do everything possible to shield pregnant women".

And if it says anything else it's that every resource needs to be poured into getting pregnant / TTC women within a healthy BMI since, I quote: "Women who had overweight at the first antenatal visit and subsequently were diagnosed with COVID-19 had the highest risk for the maternal morbidity and mortality index (RR, 1.81)".

So 48% of women in the positive cohort were overweight and they had RR1.81 but 100% of the positive cohort had RR1.6. Does that not suggest some skewed averages?

(I might be wrong on that last part, I'm an engineer not a scientist Grin so if anyone is willing to correct / explain I'm happy to listen).

To summarise though:
I don't believe they knew the risks when they started giving it out.
I believe the case for 'risks of disease outweigh unknowns' is valid to some extent, but doesn't seem to take into account that,
A) pregnant women could be supported fully (practically and financially) to shield for the high risks months.
B) there are less high-risk ways of reducing the risk of severe disease
C) the blanket advice based on blanket evidence of worldwide morality could potentially have removed a splinter from the eyes of some women only to replace it with a plank. Covered in rusty nails.

I wonder what the in-depth pros and cons information was for the pregnant women who had it in the early days, or if it was as simple as "benefits outweigh risks get jabbed". Like the AZ for young people (before they realised that wasn't actually the case).

LemonSwan · 31/08/2021 20:33

@noblegiraffe

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.
I think the original tweet could have been better. It doesn't matter if theres also a link. If a tweet annoys you because you perceive it as demeaning, you are not going to click on a link.

If you think its fine well not sure what to say sorry.

IvorBigarse · 31/08/2021 20:40

I agree with you @severelysound, and I also am not at all an "anti-vaxxer". Actually, I'm pretty pro-vaxx, I'd say. But the idea that we can give truly informed consent to the jabs, especially for groups like pregnant women and children, is bizarre. It's a leap in the dark. To be fair, so is getting Covid. But there is so much individual risk assessment in weighing up all the different factors (known and hypothesised) for specific individuals that the blanket policies and shutting down of legitimate questions and debate is nothing short of sinister.

speckledostrichegg · 31/08/2021 20:41

But how could anyone have known the risks for pregnancy confused I genuinely don't understand.
A) pregnant women could be supported fully (practically and financially) to shield for the high risks months.

This is genuinely ridiculous, you realise it was a choice for pregnant women? Not everyone can shield (i.e., many of my clinical colleagues who wanted to continue working in hospital throughout their pregnancy) and for even for some of those that can, COVID would have been a death sentence. Proper shielding, if you are pregnant and COVID is like to kill you, means all family members not going out the house.

In both these scenarios women benefitted from being offered the vaccine. No one was forcing women to take it whilst pregnant.

We know the mechanism of action, we know how mRNA vaccines works, and therefore there was a huge amount of confidence in it's safety in pregnancy hence why it was offered. Vaccines aren't drugs Confused

noblegiraffe · 31/08/2021 20:44

It got 68,3k retweets and 111k likes - way more than an FDA tweet normally gets. It went viral and stirred up discussion and awareness in a way that 'here is some useful information about taking horse dewormer' wouldn't have done.

'You're not a horse' might actually be the message some people need to hear to snap out of whatever rabbit hole they've fallen down.

IvorBigarse · 31/08/2021 20:45

Actually, @speckledostrichegg, some elements of the action of these jabs were very much unknown. Like the biodistribution, for example. We were confidently told by some that it remained local. Now there's evidence that is not the case - the majority of spike expression is not local to the injection site. And since the spike is itself pathogenic, this is not a trivial thing. Still overall probably a good thing to take for many people. Not for all, though. It's complicated, and there is a LOT to still find out. And you're right - pregnant women aren't being forced (yet). But there is a lot of fear manipulation and coercion going on.

speckledostrichegg · 31/08/2021 20:45

C) the blanket advice based on blanket evidence of worldwide morality could potentially have removed a splinter from the eyes of some women only to replace it with a plank. Covered in rusty nails.

What does this even mean?? As it was then, it is a offer, not something mandated.

The RCOG has a helpful decision making tool for all pregnant women who are unsure if they want it or not.

frumpety · 31/08/2021 21:07

Has ivermectin been used as an anti-viral before with success ? I presume it has which is why it is being discussed as a potential treatment for covid ?

severelysound · 31/08/2021 21:19

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

The ones in hospital after eating horse dewormer?

This is the end result of our current 'strategy' and probably one of the best examples of why it's not working.

It's the equivalent of a church telling teens not to have sex, not providing them with condoms because abstinence is the only way, and then looking around and wondering why the fuck your rates of teen pregnancy are through the roof.

(And my analogy isn't alluding to giving human ivermectin out like condoms lol).

The church doing the telling: works on the people who believe, has the opposite effect on the people who mistrust it.
Telling them not to: works on the people who do what they're told, has the opposite effect on people who want to. The people who see all their friends doing it, and aren't they fine?
This is the way: works for some, makes others ask questions. Why? Says who? What proof? Why can't I ask questions? Why is my friend saying her coil prevents pregnancy?
Not providing condoms: only works if nobody knows they exist. And people do know they exist because they can probably use the internet better than you.

And the result for the people those things don't work on is to either A) do it anyway, risks be damned or B) get more and more curious, suspicious, hungry for answers.

This has been the entire strategy throughout the pandemic.

The ones injecting bleach and eating horse dewormer at the exact opposite extreme from the ones using curdled milk in their tea because it's not essential and dettoling their apples, or the ones desperate to inject their healthy four year olds with unapproved vaccines because they're convinced they're going to die but also because it makes a great virtue signalling opportunity.

Neither people are engaging their brains by most people's standards.

The vast, vast majority of the population are somewhere in the middle of that.

But this all seems inevitable to me. Ramp the entire population up to hysterical levels of fear so they comply with rules and then wonder why people are refusing to leave the house on one end, injecting themselves with horse paste on the other. Calling for unvaccinated to be held down and injected, or refused medical attention, or slaughtered (I'm not kidding) versus picnicking in front of bars in France and destroying photos of the leader.

Blanket fear and policies and narratives and tru-science is causing this.

Have you seen the vids from china with people falling to the ground in the fakest way possible? The 'doctors' on national news talking about being swamped and overrun but accidentally bursting out laughing (because they're actors, not doctors). The sensationalised headlines about new Omega Kappa Deadly Spready Delta + Steroids + Bubonic Plague variants?

= "If you have sex you will DIE!!!" When we can all see / hear / know of people having sex and not dying...

It makes the entire thing feel fishy. All of it. To the point that people are so suspicious of everything, they listen to people who are saying things are fishy too. And sometimes they're valid and sometimes they're not, but my point is - the more fishy you make something the more people are going to look towards people who validate, or put their finger on why.

You do understand that some opinions are dangerous?

Opinions are just opinions. Surely it's actions that are dangerous?

And even if we agree that opinions can be dangerous... that needs a whole lot more context than you are giving it.

The first opinion that rubbing two sticks together causes fire was undoubtedly dangerous. For the person who was about to get burned all the way through to the women accused of witchcraft to our great-great grandchildren who'll be left an depleted planet.

Who has the authority to say that opinion should have been censored?

speckledostrichegg · 31/08/2021 21:25

It's the equivalent of a church telling teens not to have sex, not providing them with condoms because abstinence is the only way, and then looking around and wondering why the fuck your rates of teen pregnancy are through the roof.

No it really isn't.
-All the information is out there on ivermectin - individual trials that can be read as the primary source of evidence, various iterations of meta-analyses, comment from a range of epidemiologists
-Oxford are currently for running a trial using it for early treatment which presumably should be reassurance it is being taken seriously
-And as I said earlier, if you want you, you can email FLCCC, pay £200 for an online consult and then pay through the nose for ivermectin directly. They'll prescribe for prevention, acute treatment, or long COVID.

noblegiraffe · 31/08/2021 21:25

It's the equivalent of a church telling teens not to have sex, not providing them with condoms because abstinence is the only way, and then looking around and wondering why the fuck your rates of teen pregnancy are through the roof.

Isn't it more like saying 'here have condoms to protect you against pregnancy, we've done trials, they're 97% effective' then wondering why the fuck some people are sticking vinegar up their foof because they read it works on the internet?

HBGKC · 31/08/2021 21:48

"All the information is out there on ivermectin - individual trials that can be read as the primary source of evidence, various iterations of meta-analyses, comment from a range of epidemiologists."

Presumably, @speckledostrichegg, you mean you've concluded that it doesn't work..?

However, the individual trials, meta-analyses and comments from a wide range of medical professionals that I've seen have led me to a different conclusion. More pertinently, there are MANY doctors who have reached a different conclusion to you. They can't all be quacks.

It's disingenuous to state as Gospel truth that there's complete consensus in the 'respectable' medical community regarding potential treatments for Covid. The FDA, NIH, WHO etc may all agree with each other, but that's not actually much of a recommendation in my book, given how compromised their intellectual independence is. And the demonisation of anyone who steps out beyond the party line on this is quite chilling.

severelysound · 31/08/2021 21:49

@speckledostrichegg

This is genuinely ridiculous, you realise it was a choice for pregnant women? Not everyone can shield

That was exactly my point? Why not give them every resource available in order to do that?

I can only imagine I was pregnant myself and if the choice was: 1.6% chance of dying of covid vs unknown risks of vaccine vs shielding with gov support to actually shield - that's a no brainer for me. I would properly shield for 3 months if I had a 1 in 100 chance of death.

In both these scenarios women benefitted from being offered the vaccine. No one was forcing women to take it whilst pregnant.

I haven't once said anyone has been forced?

You said they'd have been informed of risks and offered it. I said I didn't understand how they could have known the risks (or anything) when it hadn't been tested on them.

You've said they knew the mechanisms and how it worked but they didn't seem to know about the clots or the heart problems or the missing periods (or if they did, they didn't make it widely known).

So you're saying they did know about this stuff and just kept it quiet?

In which case... why is it taking Pfizer until 2025 to study it? (And that's not even the one on the long term effects of the myocarditis, which is due in 2027).

Or did they not know?

speckledostrichegg · 31/08/2021 21:57

@HBGKC

"All the information is out there on ivermectin - individual trials that can be read as the primary source of evidence, various iterations of meta-analyses, comment from a range of epidemiologists."

Presumably, @speckledostrichegg, you mean you've concluded that it doesn't work..?

However, the individual trials, meta-analyses and comments from a wide range of medical professionals that I've seen have led me to a different conclusion. More pertinently, there are MANY doctors who have reached a different conclusion to you. They can't all be quacks.

It's disingenuous to state as Gospel truth that there's complete consensus in the 'respectable' medical community regarding potential treatments for Covid. The FDA, NIH, WHO etc may all agree with each other, but that's not actually much of a recommendation in my book, given how compromised their intellectual independence is. And the demonisation of anyone who steps out beyond the party line on this is quite chilling.

What on earth? I was was responding to the random church analogy about denying people condoms Confused

I explained that all the information is out there in various forms (so not being censored), oxford are literally running a trial (so it is being tested) and that you can email FLCCC and pay extortionate amounts to them for it (so you're not being denied it)

speckledostrichegg · 31/08/2021 21:59

It's disingenuous to state as Gospel truth that there's complete consensus in the 'respectable' medical community regarding potential treatments for Covid. The FDA, NIH, WHO etc may all agree with each other, but that's not actually much of a recommendation in my book, given how compromised their intellectual independence is. And the demonisation of anyone who steps out beyond the party line on this is quite chilling.

FGS

Why oh why would all these bodies conspire to cover up ivermectin as a viable therapy for coronavirus whilst simultaneously running RCTs to identify existing drugs that can be repurposed for COVID.

(Ignoring the fact that well powered well designed trials for ivermectin are currently going)

What are they gaining from blocking ivermectin specifically, but allowing other cheap drugs to approved?

speckledostrichegg · 31/08/2021 22:02

This is genuinely ridiculous, you realise it was a choice for pregnant women? Not everyone can shield

That was exactly my point? Why not give them every resource available in order to do that?

I clearly stated in my post two examples of women for whom avoiding the high risk of COVID was not an option - clinicians who wanted to go to work in hospitals whilst pregnant (I know many) and the very high risk CEV pregnant woman for whom shielding was still not a safe enough option (given that true shielding if you have cystic fibrosis or similar means that no-one in your family leaves the house)

jeez

speckledostrichegg · 31/08/2021 22:10

As an aside, I find it fascinating how every ivermectin thread very quickly descends into an anti-vax thread after a couple of pages.

noblegiraffe · 31/08/2021 22:29

It’s almost as if there’s a connection between the two, speckled.

Swipe left for the next trending thread