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?!

@LemonSwan

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.

Yes. This.

If you genuinely believe policy is being driven by "the science"... Well, actually, I envy you. Must be nice to think that. We see it time and time again, with lockdowns (net harms outweigh the net benefits, and yet...), mask mandates (policy absolutely not following science), vaccine passports (which will make hesitancy worse, and put people off other jabs as well).... This is political. It's not about the (real, but misrepresented) virus.

This view on Ivermectin is from The Lancet (presumably this is "Acceptable Source")

www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(20)30464-8/fulltext

In conclusion:

"This pilot, randomized, placebo-controlled, double blind trial failed to show a reduction in the proportion of PCR-positive patients seven days after ivermectin treatment; yet it shows a reduction in the self-reported anosmia/hyposmia and a (non-statistically significant) tendency to lower viral loads and lower IgG titers which presumably reflect milder disease."

People saying "there is nothing there / Anti-vaxx bla bla" - I just don't get it - aren't you interested in examining these positive reports from all over the world? What is it that is so annoying about it?

Here, they show it reduces symptoms in a pilot RCT, they literally say "it warrants further investigation" - why oh why shut it down?

Here, they show it reduces symptoms in a pilot RCT, they literally say "it warrants further investigation" - why oh why shut it down?

Is anyone really saying trials and investigations shouldn't be done?

I think what most people are saying is stick to what we know works while we figure out if this also might.

I've pointed out trials are going ahead as have several other posters and till we have that data or till you're enrolled on a trial other things like vaccine and other drugs which we have data for working are a much better bet .

The worry and concern is people ignore what we know works and reaching for this maybe drug that can have side effects (like all drugs).

I really don't think people are complaining about properly run trials being conducted.

It is not being shut down. It is being researched further in additionally appropriately designed trials. Which is what that article says - 'warrants further investigation'. And no one is being silenced. In fact people are talking about it freely all over the place. Like here.

But I have to say that "a (non-statistically significant) tendency to lower viral loads and lower IgG titers which presumably reflect milder disease" does not imply that you should go out and source the drug yourself as a preventer nor does it imply that it is a better option than a vaccine. Two things stand out to me there - 'non statistically significant' and 'presumably.'

@hamstersarse

This view on Ivermectin is from The Lancet (presumably this is "Acceptable Source")

www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(20)30464-8/fulltext

In conclusion:

"This pilot, randomized, placebo-controlled, double blind trial failed to show a reduction in the proportion of PCR-positive patients seven days after ivermectin treatment; yet it shows a reduction in the self-reported anosmia/hyposmia and a (non-statistically significant) tendency to lower viral loads and lower IgG titers which presumably reflect milder disease."

People saying "there is nothing there / Anti-vaxx bla bla" - I just don't get it - aren't you interested in examining these positive reports from all over the world? What is it that is so annoying about it?

Here, they show it reduces symptoms in a pilot RCT, they literally say "it warrants further investigation" - why oh why shut it down?

Given that Oxford and others are conducting trials, with all information being in the public domain and the protocol pre-registered, it's hardly being "shut down"

Is anyone really saying trials and investigations shouldn't be done?

YES. Read this thread. Title alone does it.

It is not being shut down

It is banned from talking about it on YouTube, Facebook, Wikipedia and nearly Twitter (still allowed somewhat) I'd say that is shutting it down. The constant accusations of 'conspiracy theory' have got completely out of control, I am sure we can all agree on that.

@IvorBigarse

If you genuinely believe policy is being driven by "the science"... Well, actually, I envy you. Must be nice to think that. We see it time and time again, with lockdowns (net harms outweigh the net benefits, and yet...), mask mandates (policy absolutely not following science), vaccine passports (which will make hesitancy worse, and put people off other jabs as well).... This is political. It's not about the (real, but misrepresented) virus.

Nope

Lockdowns have been shown to be better than the alternative - here's a commentary (of a paper that has been published which you can also access) gidmk.medium.com/lockdowns-are-less-harmful-than-covid-19-c4edb1668033

Masks are effective in reducing the viral load expelled by someone infectious, thus having a protective effect on a population leve.

Predictably, a thread about ivermectin has quickly descending into an anti-vaccine, anti-mask, anti-lockdown hub of misinformation. Classic COVID minimising and claims about any policies which aim to reduce transmission.

@hamstersarse

Is anyone really saying trials and investigations shouldn't be done?

YES. Read this thread. Title alone does it.

It is not being shut down

It is banned from talking about it on YouTube, Facebook, Wikipedia and nearly Twitter (still allowed somewhat) I'd say that is shutting it down. The constant accusations of 'conspiracy theory' have got completely out of control, I am sure we can all agree on that.

Clearly it isn't being censored given that it's still being actively investigated. Lot's of active discussion on twitter, reddit and other platforms.

Claims like "take ivermectin at x dose" and "you don't need to be vaccinated because we have something with a 100% cure rate" are being removed, because they're medical misinformation which cause harm and death.

I know that some experts have been saying the Oxford trial has been set up in a manner which makes it likely to underestimate any effect. It gives people 3 days of Ivermectin within 14 days of a positive test, which, according to some, is likely to be far too late to have maximum impact for many participants. The countries where it looks like it has potentially been saving lots of people give it early and for longer than three days. I hope that a decent proportion of people in the trial get it within a short time of symptom onset, and that at write-up, they present data according to how early patients in the treatment group got the treatment.

FLCCC are also advertising ivermectin for COVID prevention and treatment, very openly, and you can easily contact them for a prescription (for £££)

Hardly smacks of something being censored.

@speckledostrichegg

You do know I could provide you with papers citing the exact opposite about lockdowns, right?

I don't think we have any clue right now about the efficacy of lockdowns, really. Their full impact hasn't even begun to hit yet and so how on earth can you confidently say that "They Are Better"? You just can't

Also, your position about the thread deteriortating into an anti-vaxx, anti-mask hub of misinformation could easily be directed right back at you:

Another thread trying to discuss the merits of a possible treatment for Covid disintegrating into a total shut down of debate, insults and accusations of quackness.

C'est la vie

@IvorBigarse

I know that some experts have been saying the Oxford trial has been set up in a manner which makes it likely to underestimate any effect. It gives people 3 days of Ivermectin within 14 days of a positive test, which, according to some, is likely to be far too late to have maximum impact for many participants. The countries where it looks like it has potentially been saving lots of people give it early and for longer than three days. I hope that a decent proportion of people in the trial get it within a short time of symptom onset, and that at write-up, they present data according to how early patients in the treatment group got the treatment.

As I have said previously, the trial protocol was circulated and pre-registered. This means analytic methods and statistical analysis will not deviate from the plan.

The critiques from FLCCC were given ample time to make any suggestions for changes when this was circulated, before the trial started. They did not.

Predictably, no that early findings have started to emerge showing a null effect, they are claiming issue with the methodology.

They have a history of doing this and did for the other large US RCT.

@speckledostrichegg

You do know I could provide you with papers citing the exact opposite about lockdowns, right?

Yup, there's a huge amount of low-quality narrative reviews which do not use robust methodology often by single authors who do not have expertise in the area and are also clearly anti-vax and biased.

Fortunately this one was carried out by a team of epidemiologists who have a portfolio of research demonstrating relevant expertise and epxerience.

[quote speckledostrichegg]@speckledostrichegg

You do know I could provide you with papers citing the exact opposite about lockdowns, right?

Yup, there's a huge amount of low-quality narrative reviews which do not use robust methodology often by single authors who do not have expertise in the area and are also clearly anti-vax and biased.

Fortunately this one was carried out by a team of epidemiologists who have a portfolio of research demonstrating relevant expertise and epxerience.[/quote]
Dear god

Are you really that blind to your black and white thinking?

Are you really that blind to your black and white thinking?

This makes literally no sense, but as an epidemiologist, I'm pretty confident in my ability to judge the quality of research papers, and know how to judge whether a research groups opinion can be trusted (as a scientist can only be an expert in a tiny area - we rely on others)

Is anyone really saying trials and investigations shouldn't be done?

YES. Read this thread. Title alone does it.

I have and I don't get that - I think the title is referricng people going out and buying an drug it's not clear might work rather than having vaccines which millions have had and which are proven to work.

Though I'm not sure the OP was completely aware of the whole Ivermectin saga.

Trials are currently happening it is being looked into no-one stopping that happening.

I also think it's clearly being talked about - as there have been links to several newpaper articles as well as scientific papers and trial information- this thread is still here as well. People disagreeing is not the same as censorship.

@speckledostrichegg

Are you really that blind to your black and white thinking?

This makes literally no sense, but as an epidemiologist, I'm pretty confident in my ability to judge the quality of research papers, and know how to judge whether a research groups opinion can be trusted (as a scientist can only be an expert in a tiny area - we rely on others)

So you are an expert at discerning whereas others aren't

Sounds like you've definitely conquered your cognitive biases

And with your history of posting @hamstersarse, including your belief that all deaths recorded in yellow card scheme are caused by the vaccine and that they've killed thousands of people in the UK, make me not take your posts particularly seriously

And this is without predictably diverting an ivermectin thread into anti-vax anti-mask ant-lockdown nonsense.

So you are an expert at discerning whereas others aren'tSounds like you've definitely conquered your cognitive biases

I literally said scientists can only be an expert in a tiny area - thus we rely on others for unbiased information regarding specific research questions.

@speckledostrichegg

And with your history of posting *@hamstersarse*, including your belief that all deaths recorded in yellow card scheme are caused by the vaccine and that they've killed thousands of people in the UK, make me not take your posts particularly seriously

And this is without predictably diverting an ivermectin thread into anti-vax anti-mask ant-lockdown nonsense.

You know that isn't true - you know you have exaggerated and distorted there but anyway, guess you read scientific journals with much more rigour

@speckledostrichegg I see you linked Gideon MK again.

I actually had a read and a search around last night and came to the conclusion he's as biased as the BBC.

Well... at the very least he's definitely not coming at this with any sort of objectivity which is the only thing that's going to change opinions (instead of just validating your fan-club for the retweets and likes).

I've been trying to do this thing recently where you only 'consume' the stuff that one side is saying (in an effort to be more objective and understand opposite views) and when I did that I was willing to listen to him. Read his medium articles.

Then I jumped over and... if there is problematic smoke there is probably problematic fire.

He appears to be holding up a trial that even the most hardcore ivm zealots said would be ineffective, before the pre-print was even available, and shares it with the conclusion that "no benefit whatsoever for ivermectin on risk of hospitalization or mortality in a mild outpatient group" like it's some sort of I told you so, idiots gloat fest... when the idiots said all along the trial was highly flawed?

Isn't this the definition of a strawman?

Feels very gaslighty to me.

He seems to have written an article on the importance of correcting hurried science rapidly (fine), when he's posted things like the attached. As the author says: being wrong is fine, but the rest paints a picture.

There is also the inherent distrust that comes from the awareness (as a former medium writer) that you are essentially playing to the masses in order to make money. Popular opinions are read more because they are majority and the majority wants to be validated. The more reads the more you get paid... so you need to take medium with a pinch of salt.

He literally says this too in another one of his tweets:

So yeah. Thanks for the rec but I will stick with Dr Campbell as my internet shill of choice for now

@severelysound

Nice attempt

You're linking tweets he posted (unrelated to ivermectin) that he was wrong about March 2020. To his credit, he has kept the tweets up, and often retweets them as evidence of how and why he got things wrong. Not sure what's wrong with that - and what it has to do with ivermectin.

You don't need to take his opinion, he reviews individual studies, and critiques them with the original paper attached. I have linked to him because so many people read an abstract, make a claim, and this is an easer way of understanding why epidemiologists disagree with the false claims about efficacy of ivermectin.

There are many many others, equally qualified, who have similar statements. He just happens to be a well qualified epidemiologist, who does a lot of public engagement work.

Someone who says something you don't agree with is 'biased'. Someone who says something you agree with is 'worth listening to except the mad bits about vaccines causing depopulation'.

I've read the original research papers for work, and agree with his assessment of them (so not just repeating claims)

I've also looked at the evidence behind why several of the large trials are either fraudulent or conducted, and agree that is is the case.

Finally, the large ivermectin website repeating rubbish - again I have looked through it and agree with his assessment.

This is why I link to his twitter for a concise summary of the issues with claiming ivermectin works based on the current literature.

There is currently no robust evidence ivermectin is effective in treating COVID - it is as simple as that