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?!

Hiding this thread because it is genuinely bonkers. Glad ivermectin is available to those people who distrust the FDA, the WHO and Big pharma. Carry on, free thinkers.

Why this drug though? did someone treat a patient for a parasitic infection and they also were positive for covid ? Or as I asked earlier was this drug used successfully as an anti-viral previously ?

@frumpety

Why this drug though? did someone treat a patient for a parasitic infection and they also were positive for covid ? Or as I asked earlier was this drug used successfully as an anti-viral previously ?

Hypothetically ivermectin could work as an anti-viral and it was considered in the shortlist of candidate drugs to be repurposed when RCTs were originally set up. There were however other contenders with a much stronger biological rationale which is why it wasn't one of the first to be tested.

Unfortunately, this left a gap where many low quality studies were set up, reporting positive findings, but pretty much the entire body of literature is not robust - including some trials which were fraudulent and others faked. Lots of the anti-vaccine crowd have jumped on it and are saying it's being covered up, using anecdotal evidence from doctors which is obviously not high quality.

We are finally at a point where well powered well conducted RCTs are being conducted on it's use as an early treatment - the findings from one recently were null. Oxford has not released it's findings yet but I personally do not expected it to show evidence of efficacy.

This is worth a read from an epidemiologist who has been looking into the current evidence base, which started when an MSc student here in the UK realised the data from one such trial had been made up:

gidmk.medium.com/is-ivermectin-for-covid-19-based-on-fraudulent-research-5cc079278602

gidmk.medium.com/is-ivermectin-for-covid-19-based-on-fraudulent-research-part-2-a4475523b4e4

Baffled by the people saying ‘why do we need an RCT to show something works when we have a doctor (or a bunch of doctors) claiming it works?’

Like homeopathy.

No worries @Mummyford this thread has been legitimately insane

I have no idea why this is still so contentious with people screaming cover up. The existing body of literature is not good quality, there is currently no robust evidence for efficacy.

The solution is of course to set up well designed RCTs in large samples, with the protocol pre-registered and published so everyone can agree the results should give a reliable estimate of the causal effect of ivermectin on COVID outcomes.

This is exactly what's happening- not sure why "big pharma" would allow this to go ahead if they were focussed on blocking it's use.

The number of people who won’t take the vaccine but love the idea of ivermectin is fascinating.

I am really, really tired of hearing it dismissed as a ‘horse medicine’ or ‘for animals’ though. It’s used routinely as a human medicine in many parts of the world and if you’ve never prescribed it that just tells me that you’ve never practised medicine in a whole raft of communities.

A bit like the people who call ketamine a ‘horse tranquilizer’, I suppose because ‘dissociative anaesthetic’ is harder to say, it’s just revealing ignorance.

But people are taking the horse medicine that is intended for animals not the human medicine. That's why it's being called horse medicine.

Yup re: ketamine, I'll never know why "horse tranquiliser" is used to scare people off from taking it recreationally when it is literally used to put people into induced comas

@mummyford, I've looked elsewhere than the BBC and the mainstream newspapers. I've seen perfectly reasonable things on YouTube be removed because they don't accord with the narrative from our politicians.

Someone said upthread something about not knowing about the possible jab side effects in advance... well, interestingly there are some people who've said since very early that they would cause clots and described in detail the mechanism for why and what blood markers you'd then expect. And the data are consistent with it. Strong predictive power, The extremely well respected and well published microbiologist Prof Sucharit Bhakdi, for instance. Oh, and some of his material has been censored from some mainstream platforms too. Why not let him on the BBC to debate his thoughts about this with doctors who disagree? If he's wrong, why is he wrong? We'd all love to hear these discussions. To not do so is to add fuel to all the conspiracy theories.

And the points about Ivermectin threads becoming "anti-vax" (though I suspect this label doesn't fit for many)... It's not surprising. It's probably about the fact we know we're being lied to about so many things, and that there are clear links between many of the subjects of the lies. And many of the lying mechanisms are similar. I don't know if Ivermectin works. I don't know the precise group of people for whom "the benefits of the vaccine outweigh the risks". I'm not sure anyone really knows. But I certainly won't be trusting what the BBC and The Guardian and the Telegraph (other papers are available) appear to conclude, when I've seen too many times that it is patently not the truth.

[quote IvorBigarse]@mummyford, I've looked elsewhere than the BBC and the mainstream newspapers. I've seen perfectly reasonable things on YouTube be removed because they don't accord with the narrative from our politicians.

Someone said upthread something about not knowing about the possible jab side effects in advance... well, interestingly there are some people who've said since very early that they would cause clots and described in detail the mechanism for why and what blood markers you'd then expect. And the data are consistent with it. Strong predictive power, The extremely well respected and well published microbiologist Prof Sucharit Bhakdi, for instance. Oh, and some of his material has been censored from some mainstream platforms too. Why not let him on the BBC to debate his thoughts about this with doctors who disagree? If he's wrong, why is he wrong? We'd all love to hear these discussions. To not do so is to add fuel to all the conspiracy theories.[/quote]
What does any of this have to do with ivermectin?

The extremely well respected and well published microbiologist Prof Sucharit Bhakdi,

Give me strength, his video was removed (still up on rumble) because he claimed the vaccines were designed to "decimate the worlds population" and that the pandemic was "a fake". His words, not mine, and it can all be seen online.

“They are forcing vaccination on people, and I believe they are killing people with this vaccination,”

“Guys, don’t get a third or fourth or fifth (shot), because if you do that, you are going to contribute to the decimation of the world’s population,” he says later.

Oh, and some of his material has been censored from some mainstream platforms too. Why not let him on the BBC to debate his thoughts about this with doctors who disagree? If he's wrong, why is he wrong? We'd all love to hear these discussions. To not do so is to add fuel to all the conspiracy theories.

Many posters have said this to you but I'll say it again - spreading misinformation not based on robust evidence is harmful. Allowing free debate is not the same this as letting anyone say whatever they want, no matter if it's complete bullshit.

I still don't think you 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.

He's also a raging racist and anti-Semite, as tends to go along with these types of views (this is an ad hominen attack btw, unlike all your other examples).

Look @speckledostrichegg, I like to think I've been clear that I don't necessarily believe any of these people. I certainly don't take everything Bhakdi says as truth, and agree that some of his stuff sounds far fetched. But he has also made some excellent points, and clearly knows more mechanistically than I suspect either you or I will ever know.
Do I think we're witnessing genocide? No. Do I think the vaccines are bad? No.
Do I think we should listen carefully when people like Bhakdi and McCullough (and hundreds of others) talk. Absolutely.

The problem is that the systems intended to ensure "robust evidence" are biased at many levels? So who decides? I agree it's not easy - we don't want to give equal platforms to professors of microbiology and people who've watched something on Bitshute. But the number of qualified people disagreeing with the so-called "consensus" In this case is ridiculous. And MN is possibly where I have seen the most closed minded discussions of all.

(by "in this case", I mean Ivermectin. But could also mean the jabs, or the science of lockdowns, or many many other aspects of the last 18 months)

But the number of qualified people disagreeing with the so-called "consensus" In this case is ridiculous

The number of qualified people disagreeing with a huge number of what you would expect to be pretty settled science is ridiculous. This isn't unusual. Look at climate change, or creation science (huge numbers of qualified scientists willing to argue that the Earth is 6000 years old and evolution is a lie). Look at 'alternative medicine'.

Do I think we're witnessing genocide? No. Do I think the vaccines are bad? No.

Then why would you listen to people who claim these things in case they also make a good point, which is then discredited by the terrible points they've made, when there are plenty of people who don't claim these things and make good points?

@Cindy974

speckledostrichegg

It has more long term data than the vaccinations though so dosed correctly we know its safe.
I think more research needs to be conducted for the effectiveness against covid it would certainly be a lot safer.

On this basis just take a laxative suppository then. It's cheap and safe.

Not shown to be effective for COVID but apparently that's a non-issue to you.

@speckledostrichegg thank you for those links, he explains things in a way which is easy to understand.

The principle study is being offered to some people in the UK with an acute Covid diagnosis. It's an RCT with a control and two study arms. One of which is for ivormectin.

So while it's an odd direction for people who are anti Vax to take, it would appear that the pharmaceutical world are keen to obtain some trial data.

What does any of this have to do with ivermectin?

Because its all connected. I am an average middle person, I am not a praise be to the 'church of covid' or from the fringe church of 'its the illuminati.' So for me this seems very obvious why we are having these issues.

At the start the lab theory was shouted down in a similar way, its turning out that its likely that was true. It has been covered up.

Same with the Astra blood clots and vaccine risks.

People feel they have been lied to and the powers that be cannot be trusted.

When that happens some people can stop at 'well they are lying about some things, probably not others'; but others cant.

When someone in authority blurs the lines between (either purposefully or accidentally) truth/lie/reality and fiction/ trust/ dishonesty it gets very difficult for people.

And horse dewormer is the result.

Surely there is a difference between lying and changing one's point of view as new information becomes available? It's not lying if you say something you believe to be true at the time; you're just wrong.

@LemonSwan

Your points makes no sense in reference to ivermectin (as has been pointed out before)

No information is being covered up or hidden - all studies and various interpretations of them can be found online.

The scientific consensus is that there is not robust evidence for it's use to treat COVID, hence why claims like "you don't need to get vaccinated because we have something with a 100% cure rate", as are people encouraging it's use removed because it causes harm and death.

The "horsewormer" campaign was specifically designed because people are buying veterinary ivermectin, not approved for human consumption, and often experiencing side effects and toxicity due to accidental overdose.

This is not unique to coronavirus, in general, most platforms won't allow promotion of medical misinformation.

Well powered, well designed RCTs have now been set up and are ongoing, these will give a reliable estimate of the causal effect of ivermectin on COVID outcomes, allowing it's use to be recommended for or against. Again, all of this is public and you can see their pre-registered protocols online.

It's so interesting to me that it's nothing to do with the drugs or their safety profile at all - it's all to do with whether you trust authority/expertise or not. To me, as a pretty trusting sort of person who believes most mistakes are cock ups not conspiracies, it's so obvious that there is no mass conspiracy because... Well, the reasons are legion. If we knew now that ivermectin worked, it would be being prescribed. Obviously.