Calling on Fish. thoughts on WR's post Huge on Ivermectin

roswelllion

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 18, 2003
8,817
7,130
1
What are your thoughts. Weirdly showing how political this issue has become I value your opinion above others.
 

BoulderFish

Well-Known Member
Oct 31, 2016
10,083
6,766
1
What are your thoughts. Weirdly showing how political this issue has become I value your opinion above others.

Sorry roswelllion, as you know, I'm more than willing to discuss that which I've heavily researched and understand, but IVM is not one of those things.

I firmly believe that, for some reason (and I have my hypothesis on the reason), there has been a widespread campaign to make sure we don't actually/accurately clinically determine the effectiveness of IVM against Covid -- And that really bothers me for many reasons. But because of the nature of the info out there on IVM -- You have to dig through a lot of crap to find solid info on it -- I haven't invested the time to formulate an informed opinion regarding whether or not it has any efficacy.

Just taking a quick scan of WR's post, what they are seeing there very well could have much to do with IVM, or completely attributed to other factors too. Correlation != causation.

What bothers me isn't that it might be valuable and we're not using it -- It's that it might be valuable and our public health isn't even interested in finding out.
 

roswelllion

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 18, 2003
8,817
7,130
1
Sorry roswelllion, as you know, I'm more than willing to discuss that which I've heavily researched and understand, but IVM is not one of those things.

I firmly believe that, for some reason (and I have my hypothesis on the reason), there has been a widespread campaign to make sure we don't actually/accurately clinically determine the effectiveness of IVM against Covid -- And that really bothers me for many reasons. But because of the nature of the info out there on IVM -- You have to dig through a lot of crap to find solid info on it -- I haven't invested the time to formulate an informed opinion regarding whether or not it has any efficacy.

Just taking a quick scan of WR's post, what they are seeing there very well could have much to do with IVM, or completely attributed to other factors too. Correlation != causation.

What bothers me isn't that it might be valuable and we're not using it -- It's that it might be valuable and our public health isn't even interested in finding out.
Got it thx
 

Jason1743

Well-Known Member
Jan 23, 2006
19,335
13,292
1
What are your thoughts. Weirdly showing how political this issue has become I value your opinion above others.
Don’t you find it unsettling that people who won’t take a proven safe and effective vaccine are willing to take a veterinary drug used to deworm horses?
 
  • Like
Reactions: RoyalT12

PSUEngineer89

Well-Known Member
Aug 14, 2021
1,449
1,940
1
Don’t you find it unsettling that people who won’t take a proven safe and effective vaccine are willing to take a veterinary drug used to deworm horses?
HCQ and Ivermectin are definitely proven to be safer than a vaccine.

That's without dispute by all intelligent people.

Anyone thinking that the vaccine has already been demonstrated as safer than HCQ and Ivermectin is an idiot.

This is not to say that the vaccine is UNSAFE, it appears to be quite safe. But if you think a vaccine that's less than a year old is safer than drugs that have been used safely on people for decades....you're just an idiot.
 
Last edited:

Hotshoe

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Feb 15, 2012
20,672
33,235
1
Don’t you find it unsettling that people who won’t take a proven safe and effective vaccine are willing to take a veterinary drug used to deworm horses?
There we go again, another bs political comment. Ivermectin is also a human drug which has been given over a billion times. But hey, let's call it a horse dewormer.
 

PSUEngineer89

Well-Known Member
Aug 14, 2021
1,449
1,940
1
There we go again, another bs political comment. Ivermectin is also a human drug which has been given over a billion times. But hey, let's call it a horse dewormer.
Labeling things has been shown to be very effective against emotionally based, mathematically challenged people.

The connotation a word or phrase carries really works against stupid people.

Smart people immediately ask, "Hey, if your argument is sound, do you need to flood it with negative connotations?"
 

Hotshoe

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Feb 15, 2012
20,672
33,235
1
Labeling things has been shown to be very effective against emotionally based, mathematically challenged people.

The connotation a word or phrase carries really works against stupid people.

Smart people immediately ask, "Hey, if your argument is sound, do you need to flood it with negative connotations?"
You're right. What I don't get, is when did people start caring about politics over saving lives? Why would anyone care what was being used if it was successful? If it isn't, move on? Why are they so ignorant to believe a single man? A man who has been wrong and given ill advice, numerous times.
 

roswelllion

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 18, 2003
8,817
7,130
1
Don’t you find it unsettling that people who won’t take a proven safe and effective vaccine are willing to take a veterinary drug used to deworm horses?
Well as said below "there you go again" Let me ask, why do you insist on the dismissive response to a drug that has been used for humans at least a billion times. As I have said I am ambivalent toward Ivm. I have been vaccinated. Can we walk and chew gum. Answer these simple questions please

. Strictly speaking safety.- Is a vaccine safer than the Ivm if given under Dr's orders? IMO while the vaccines CERTAINLY DO meet any safety criteria I thjink the answer is no. IVM under Dr's supervision is safer.

. Efficacy - It certainly sounds like the vaccines have a very short term positive impact against catching/spreading the virus [maybe 3-4 months] and an even longer 6-8 months benefit against serious illness. They have been extremely helpful BUT NOT what we w ere initially told.
However my question isn't to be pro or anti vaccine it is to get a logical scientific explanation for the results in India. If a province of almost 240 million people is almost or is completely Covid free shouldn't scientists everywhere try to find out why.? If not Ivm than why.

One of my biggest problems with this whole mess is the apparent lack of transparency. It seems if you are of one group you believe in just 2 things masks and vaccines. i simply don't understand why our medical community can't explore all alternatives instead of downplaying everything except masks and vaccines.

As I said - I am vaccinated
I also take Zinc and vitamin D daily
I go outside to swim or golf at least 5 days a week
I will wear a mask out of respect but am very dubious. [however what harm does it do]
That is what I can control. -[walking and chewing gum]

Why has our CDC or NIH not studied Ivm or god forbid hydroxy.
Why have they not looked at this data in India and and rather than just say well it isn't a double blind study so forget it and instead understand why they are winning the battle.
Why do we have to have Biden rationing mono clonal antibodies? Don't we all agree they work.Why don't we have lot's and lot's of this stuff?

Regarding politics. If you believe our politicians should have the answer for everything [I don't] Trump had 10 months Jan -Oct, Biden is coming up on his 10 months. Cases are way up deaths are equal his FDA is thumbing their nose at him so let's at least suggest neither has handled this well.
 

BoulderFish

Well-Known Member
Oct 31, 2016
10,083
6,766
1
HCQ and Ivermectin are definitely proven to be safer than a vaccine.

That's without dispute by all intelligent people.

Anyone thinking that the vaccine has already been demonstrated as safer than HCQ and Ivermectin is an idiot.

This is not to say that the vaccine is UNSAFE, it appears to be quite safe. But if you think a vaccine that's less than a year old is safer than drugs that have been used safely on people for decades....you're just an idiot.

Exactly. Well said.

Based on a full FDA approval + decades of data, assuming within reasonable range of recommended human dosage, the worst thing that is going to result from taking IVM or HCQ is... well... nothing.

These Covid vaccines very well may prove to be very safe in the long run, and I have no reason to believe that they won't. In fact, if I were forced to bet either way, I would bet that they will be shown to be safe. But the fact is, we do not know for sure. So, while it's reasonable to consider this risk of unknown as small, it's not reasonable to consider it zero.

The small risk of that unknown is easily and logically acceptable for those with a known elevated risk to covid.

But as risk to the individual from Covid gets smaller - and ultimately approaches zero as in kids - this "small risk of the unknown" becomes quite considerable.

I really don't understand why this is so difficult for some to comprehend.
 

PSUEngineer89

Well-Known Member
Aug 14, 2021
1,449
1,940
1
Exactly. Well said.

Based on a full FDA approval + decades of data, assuming within reasonable range of recommended human dosage, the worst thing that is going to result from taking IVM or HCQ is... well... nothing.

These Covid vaccines very well may prove to be very safe in the long run, and I have no reason to believe that they won't. In fact, if I were forced to bet either way, I would bet that they will be shown to be safe. But the fact is, we do not know for sure. So, while it's reasonable to consider this risk of unknown as small, it's not reasonable to consider it zero.

The small risk of that unknown is easily and logically acceptable for those with a known elevated risk to covid.

But as risk to the individual from Covid gets smaller - and ultimately approaches zero as in kids - this "small risk of the unknown" becomes quite considerable.

I really don't understand why this is so difficult for some to comprehend.
"It is hard to make a man understand something when his livelihood (or belief system) depends upon NOT understanding it."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ski

BoulderFish

Well-Known Member
Oct 31, 2016
10,083
6,766
1
Well as said below "there you go again" Let me ask, why do you insist on the dismissive response to a drug that has been used for humans at least a billion times. As I have said I am ambivalent toward Ivm. I have been vaccinated. Can we walk and chew gum. Answer these simple questions please

. Strictly speaking safety.- Is a vaccine safer than the Ivm if given under Dr's orders? IMO while the vaccines CERTAINLY DO meet any safety criteria I thjink the answer is no. IVM under Dr's supervision is safer.

. Efficacy - It certainly sounds like the vaccines have a very short term positive impact against catching/spreading the virus [maybe 3-4 months] and an even longer 6-8 months benefit against serious illness. They have been extremely helpful BUT NOT what we w ere initially told.
However my question isn't to be pro or anti vaccine it is to get a logical scientific explanation for the results in India. If a province of almost 240 million people is almost or is completely Covid free shouldn't scientists everywhere try to find out why.? If not Ivm than why.

One of my biggest problems with this whole mess is the apparent lack of transparency. It seems if you are of one group you believe in just 2 things masks and vaccines. i simply don't understand why our medical community can't explore all alternatives instead of downplaying everything except masks and vaccines.

As I said - I am vaccinated
I also take Zinc and vitamin D daily
I go outside to swim or golf at least 5 days a week
I will wear a mask out of respect but am very dubious. [however what harm does it do]
That is what I can control. -[walking and chewing gum]

Why has our CDC or NIH not studied Ivm or god forbid hydroxy.
Why have they not looked at this data in India and and rather than just say well it isn't a double blind study so forget it and instead understand why they are winning the battle.
Why do we have to have Biden rationing mono clonal antibodies? Don't we all agree they work.Why don't we have lot's and lot's of this stuff?

Regarding politics. If you believe our politicians should have the answer for everything [I don't] Trump had 10 months Jan -Oct, Biden is coming up on his 10 months. Cases are way up deaths are equal his FDA is thumbing their nose at him so let's at least suggest neither has handled this well.

Boom. I hope you dropped the mic after you hit "post reply" on this one, roswell. Very well said.

Only (very) minor "correction" is this line (and only because I'm OCD about this kind of information being precisely correct): "It certainly sounds like the vaccines have a very short term positive impact against catching/spreading the virus [maybe 3-4 months] and an even longer 6-8 months benefit against serious illness." -- The correction: Protection against serious illness should last at least through this current variant (delta).

Protection against catching/spreading is a function of time (and I would give it 4-6 months) - the time it takes for your antibodies to wane - but the long-term protection against serious illness is not a function of time at all. Looked at in a vacuum, it will last for your lifetime. It's more a function of how much the virus has evolved since your vaccination (or most recent exposure that updated your immune system) -- Which often does correlate with time, but it's not actually time. Hopefully that makes sense.

And this again underscores the seriousness of our Public Health's continued deadly messaging that spread should still be minimized/slowed/stopped at almost any cost, even in areas of high vaccination rates.
 

Hotshoe

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Feb 15, 2012
20,672
33,235
1
Exactly. Well said.

Based on a full FDA approval + decades of data, assuming within reasonable range of recommended human dosage, the worst thing that is going to result from taking IVM or HCQ is... well... nothing.

These Covid vaccines very well may prove to be very safe in the long run, and I have no reason to believe that they won't. In fact, if I were forced to bet either way, I would bet that they will be shown to be safe. But the fact is, we do not know for sure. So, while it's reasonable to consider this risk of unknown as small, it's not reasonable to consider it zero.

The small risk of that unknown is easily and logically acceptable for those with a known elevated risk to covid.

But as risk to the individual from Covid gets smaller - and ultimately approaches zero as in kids - this "small risk of the unknown" becomes quite considerable.

I really don't understand why this is so difficult for some to comprehend.
It isn't. They care about narrative and politics far more than honesty. At this point, it's all about honesty. It's not like quack doctors are doing this. These are folks from Stanford to Harvard. But hey, Ivermectin is a pig and horse dewormer.
 

m.knox

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 20, 2003
97,050
48,811
1
Sorry roswelllion, as you know, I'm more than willing to discuss that which I've heavily researched and understand, but IVM is not one of those things.

I firmly believe that, for some reason (and I have my hypothesis on the reason), there has been a widespread campaign to make sure we don't actually/accurately clinically determine the effectiveness of IVM against Covid -- And that really bothers me for many reasons. But because of the nature of the info out there on IVM -- You have to dig through a lot of crap to find solid info on it -- I haven't invested the time to formulate an informed opinion regarding whether or not it has any efficacy.

Just taking a quick scan of WR's post, what they are seeing there very well could have much to do with IVM, or completely attributed to other factors too. Correlation != causation.

What bothers me isn't that it might be valuable and we're not using it -- It's that it might be valuable and our public health isn't even interested in finding out.

Fair and impartial article here. Written by a doctor.

https://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2021/09/08/lessons_from_the_ivermectin_debacle_793483.html
 

m.knox

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 20, 2003
97,050
48,811
1
There we go again, another bs political comment. Ivermectin is also a human drug which has been given over a billion times. But hey, let's call it a horse dewormer.

Jason is a tool.
 

BoulderFish

Well-Known Member
Oct 31, 2016
10,083
6,766
1
"It is hard to make a man understand something when his livelihood (or belief system) depends upon NOT understanding it."

Sadly, true.

And I'll admit to being somewhat like that myself when it comes to politics, but when it comes to science, and complete accuracy with regard to data and information related to this pandemic, I put any/all bias aside.

Science should always remain above political fray IMO. We can play politics with the correct course of action based on an accurate representation of science and data, but we should never play politics WITH the science and the data, IMO.

And with that said, this pandemic was (is) way too serious, and directly affects too many lives, even debating the correct course of action should have remained above the political fray in this case.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PSUEngineer89

BoulderFish

Well-Known Member
Oct 31, 2016
10,083
6,766
1
It isn't. They care about narrative and politics far more than honesty. At this point, it's all about honesty. It's not like quack doctors are doing this. These are folks from Stanford to Harvard. But hey, Ivermectin is a pig and horse dewormer.

I completely agree with regard to those driving the narrative. I agree it isn't difficult for them to understand, and they are driven by their politics and amplifying a narrative.

But I do think there is a sizeable contingent who are listening to these people, regardless of how much data/facts/reason you put in front of their noses, still are stuck literally unable to comprehend what I wrote in that post.

I feel sorry for those people, but at the same time I'm frustrated and pissed off at them because they continue to provide the political cover for the illogical continuation of this mess today.
 

RoyalT12

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Dec 3, 2020
3,705
3,277
1
HCQ and Ivermectin are definitely proven to be safer than a vaccine.

That's without dispute by all intelligent people.

Anyone thinking that the vaccine has already been demonstrated as safer than HCQ and Ivermectin is an idiot.

This is not to say that the vaccine is UNSAFE, it appears to be quite safe. But if you think a vaccine that's less than a year old is safer than drugs that have been used safely on people for decades....you're just an idiot.
“HCQ and Ivermectin are definitely proven to be safer than a vaccine.”
This is without a doubt the most ridiculous post on this topic/ hands down. It borders on insane . I only hope to God you don’t do any of your “engineering “ like you “research “ COVID treatment/ people will surely die. Insanity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jason1743

Jason1743

Well-Known Member
Jan 23, 2006
19,335
13,292
1
HCQ and Ivermectin are definitely proven to be safer than a vaccine.

That's without dispute by all intelligent people.

Anyone thinking that the vaccine has already been demonstrated as safer than HCQ and Ivermectin is an idiot.

This is not to say that the vaccine is UNSAFE, it appears to be quite safe. But if you think a vaccine that's less than a year old is safer than drugs that have been used safely on people for decades....you're just an idiot.
Excuse me. People are buying up veterinary ivermectin and medicating themselves. They are morons, and you're calling me an idiot?
 
  • Like
Reactions: RoyalT12

Hotshoe

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Feb 15, 2012
20,672
33,235
1
I completely agree with regard to those driving the narrative. I agree it isn't difficult for them to understand, and they are driven by their politics and amplifying a narrative.

But I do think there is a sizeable contingent who are listening to these people, regardless of how much data/facts/reason you put in front of their noses, still are stuck literally unable to comprehend what I wrote in that post.

I feel sorry for those people, but at the same time I'm frustrated and pissed off at them because they continue to provide the political cover for the illogical continuation of this mess today.
And so you know, I don't support or disregard anything when it comes to medical treatment, it's not my world. I work for and with, vets and doctors, every day of my life. Never have I given medical advice.
 

RoyalT12

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Dec 3, 2020
3,705
3,277
1
Sadly, true.

And I'll admit to being somewhat like that myself when it comes to politics, but when it comes to science, and complete accuracy with regard to data and information related to this pandemic, I put any/all bias aside.

Science should always remain above political fray IMO. We can play politics with the correct course of action based on an accurate representation of science and data, but we should never play politics WITH the science and the data, IMO.

And with that said, this pandemic was (is) way too serious, and directly affects too many lives, even debating the correct course of action should have remained above the political fray in this case.
Exactly / politicizing a proven, safe and effective vaccine was the doing of the radical right (one can speculate they felt a raging pandemic would hurt the President politically) and has severely harmed this nation. To discuss using a horse medication, and saying it is safer than the hundreds of millions of doses providing endless data of safe administration is not political, it is insane .
 

Hotshoe

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Feb 15, 2012
20,672
33,235
1
Excuse me. People are buying up veterinary ivermectin and medicating themselves. They are morons, and you're calling me an idiot?
Yeah, how many? Just like the lie regarding the Oklahoma hospital and gunshot victims weren't receiving treatment. You have zero clue how many or why people are buying Ivermectin. It's bought by the thousands everyday in America. All you know is from the dopes on TV. I have Ivermectin and Quest in my vehicle every damn day. You didn't even know what either were until Covid. Show all the thousands that are dying from Ivermectin. Good grief.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WeR0206

Jason1743

Well-Known Member
Jan 23, 2006
19,335
13,292
1
There we go again, another bs political comment. Ivermectin is also a human drug which has been given over a billion times. But hey, let's call it a horse dewormer.
I'll repeat myself. Not only has Ivermectin not shown any efficacy, morons are buying veterinary ivermectin and overdosing on it. Morons who refuse to take a safe and effective vaccine, but are quick to take a veterinary drug because unqualified bozos are promoting it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RoyalT12

m.knox

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 20, 2003
97,050
48,811
1
Excuse me. People are buying up veterinary ivermectin and medicating themselves. They are morons, and you're calling me an idiot?

Yes, they are buying veterinary ivermectin because it is difficult to get human ivermectin even if a real doctor prescribes it. Therein lies the problem. Educate yourself.
 

m.knox

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 20, 2003
97,050
48,811
1
Exactly / politicizing a proven, safe and effective vaccine was the doing of the radical right (one can speculate they felt a raging pandemic would hurt the President politically) and has severely harmed this nation. To discuss using a horse medication, and saying it is safer than the hundreds of millions of doses providing endless data of safe administration is not political, it is insane .

It is about time you recognize the efficacy of Operation Warp Speed.
 

PSUEngineer89

Well-Known Member
Aug 14, 2021
1,449
1,940
1
Excuse me. People are buying up veterinary ivermectin and medicating themselves. They are morons, and you're calling me an idiot?
Those people are idiots, but you are absolutely deflecting.

The issue is NOT whether people should buy from a vet (they shouldn't), its whether the drug is safe.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fayette_LION

BoulderFish

Well-Known Member
Oct 31, 2016
10,083
6,766
1
I'll repeat myself. Not only has Ivermectin not shown any efficacy, morons are buying veterinary ivermectin and overdosing on it. Morons who refuse to take a safe and effective vaccine, but are quick to take a veterinary drug because unqualified bozos are promoting it.

You should read the very accurate (and "balanced") article knox posted above on this. Here it is again:
https://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2021/09/08/lessons_from_the_ivermectin_debacle_793483.html

As this article points out, you would be correct if you said, "there are no high-quality, high-powered randomized controlled trials (RCTs) showing statistically significant efficacy."

That is absolutely true. But that's also ignoring (or not understanding) the rest of the equation.

1. There appears to be at least anecdotal EVIDENCE of potential efficacy - reason to believe it might have a positive effect. Not enough evidence to rationally go all-in on IVM, but enough anecdotal evidence to support curiosity (assuming your thoughts aren't outsource to your politics, and you would prefer less poeple die of Covid).
2. There also are no high-quality, high-powered (or even low-powered), randomized controlled trials (RCTs) NOT showing statistically significant efficacy.

There is a lot of muddy water regarding IVM's efficacy, and instead of trying to clear the mud with a quality, powerful RTC, to date... Those in our public health that fund these studies have just pointed to the mud in the water and put their head in the sand regarding finding out the truth.

Doesn't that disturb you? And just to be clear, I am not WeR here. I don't have any reason myself to believe IVM is effective against Covid. But I do recognize there is at least enough anecdotal evidence out there that it should be worth finding out for sure whether or not this drug could be used to save lives, and if not, it would also be valuable for doctors to know that it's a waste of time/effort too.

All the money that was pumped into studies related to this virus, the money to get to a good, conclusive, answer regarding IVM is a drop in the bucket (and you know there is no shortage of doctors/scientists willing to conduct the study). Why?
 

m.knox

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 20, 2003
97,050
48,811
1
You should read the very accurate (and "balanced") article knox posted above on this. Here it is again:
https://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2021/09/08/lessons_from_the_ivermectin_debacle_793483.html

As this article points out, you would be correct if you said, "there are no high-quality, high-powered randomized controlled trials (RCTs) showing statistically significant efficacy."

That is absolutely true. But that's also ignoring (or not understanding) the rest of the equation.

1. There appears to be at least anecdotal EVIDENCE of potential efficacy - reason to believe it might have a positive effect. Not enough evidence to rationally go all-in on IVM, but enough anecdotal evidence to support curiosity (assuming your thoughts aren't outsource to your politics, and you would prefer less poeple die of Covid).
2. There also are no high-quality, high-powered (or even low-powered), randomized controlled trials (RCTs) NOT showing statistically significant efficacy.

There is a lot of muddy water regarding IVM's efficacy, and instead of trying to clear the mud with a quality, powerful RTC, to date... Those in our public health that fund these studies have just pointed to the mud in the water and put their head in the sand regarding finding out the truth.

Doesn't that disturb you? And just to be clear, I am not WeR here. I don't have any reason myself to believe IVM is effective against Covid. But I do recognize there is at least enough anecdotal evidence out there that it should be worth finding out for sure whether or not this drug could be used to save lives, and if not, it would also be valuable for doctors to know that it's a waste of time/effort too.

All the money that was pumped into studies related to this virus, the money to get to a good, conclusive, answer regarding IVM is a drop in the bucket (and you know there is no shortage of doctors/scientists willing to conduct the study). Why?

Your fatal mistake was citing that "knox" posted it. There is no knox allowed in Jason's bubble.....
 

Hotshoe

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Feb 15, 2012
20,672
33,235
1
I'll repeat myself. Not only has Ivermectin not shown any efficacy, morons are buying veterinary ivermectin and overdosing on it. Morons who refuse to take a safe and effective vaccine, but are quick to take a veterinary drug because unqualified bozos are promoting it.
No, you called it a horse wormer, strictly for politics. It isn't just that. Why don't you show all the numbers you've gotten off of CNN? Why don't you ever come back and refute the lies your party, YOU, and the media push. From Russia, to Charlottesville, to DC, to the hoax, to a hospital in Oklahoma. Not a word. And you damn studied some medicine. Calling Ivermectin a horse wormer is beyond, disingenuous. It's far more and has changed the world for humans.
 

BoulderFish

Well-Known Member
Oct 31, 2016
10,083
6,766
1
Exactly / politicizing a proven, safe and effective vaccine was the doing of the radical right (one can speculate they felt a raging pandemic would hurt the President politically) and has severely harmed this nation. To discuss using a horse medication, and saying it is safer than the hundreds of millions of doses providing endless data of safe administration is not political, it is insane .

I'm sure you know this, but with regards to facts/accuracy and elimination of politics, your post here is about as bad as it can get.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hotshoe and m.knox

PSUEngineer89

Well-Known Member
Aug 14, 2021
1,449
1,940
1
You should read the very accurate (and "balanced") article knox posted above on this. Here it is again:
https://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2021/09/08/lessons_from_the_ivermectin_debacle_793483.html

As this article points out, you would be correct if you said, "there are no high-quality, high-powered randomized controlled trials (RCTs) showing statistically significant efficacy."

That is absolutely true. But that's also ignoring (or not understanding) the rest of the equation.

1. There appears to be at least anecdotal EVIDENCE of potential efficacy - reason to believe it might have a positive effect. Not enough evidence to rationally go all-in on IVM, but enough anecdotal evidence to support curiosity (assuming your thoughts aren't outsource to your politics, and you would prefer less poeple die of Covid).
2. There also are no high-quality, high-powered (or even low-powered), randomized controlled trials (RCTs) NOT showing statistically significant efficacy.

There is a lot of muddy water regarding IVM's efficacy, and instead of trying to clear the mud with a quality, powerful RTC, to date... Those in our public health that fund these studies have just pointed to the mud in the water and put their head in the sand regarding finding out the truth.

Doesn't that disturb you? And just to be clear, I am not WeR here. I don't have any reason myself to believe IVM is effective against Covid. But I do recognize there is at least enough anecdotal evidence out there that it should be worth finding out for sure whether or not this drug could be used to save lives, and if not, it would also be valuable for doctors to know that it's a waste of time/effort too.

All the money that was pumped into studies related to this virus, the money to get to a good, conclusive, answer regarding IVM is a drop in the bucket (and you know there is no shortage of doctors/scientists willing to conduct the study). Why?

No, you're crazy.

Only RCTs replicated, and peer reviewed are to be used as evidence in this pandemic.

Well, not for masks. Then, anything will do.

Just for masks.

I promise.
 

Hotshoe

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Feb 15, 2012
20,672
33,235
1
Only a fool or a disingenuous fool for politics, disregards any possible treatment for the betterment of the world.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PSUEngineer89

BoulderFish

Well-Known Member
Oct 31, 2016
10,083
6,766
1
No, you're crazy.

Only RCTs replicated, and peer reviewed are to be used as evidence in this pandemic.

Well, not for masks. Then, anything will do.

Just for masks.

I promise.

Lol - it's even worse than that.

Even after a large RCT hit (the "Bangladesh study") showing that the masks we mandate have no statistical effect on population-level spread, they just claimed that it showed they do and dug in deeper.

The three most odd narratives to pop up and infect (pun intended) our understanding and response to this virus:
1. Natural immunity upon infection/recovery not a thing.
2. All therapeutics must be bunk - no data or studies needed.
3. Population-level masking must slow the spread of this virus - no data or studies needed.

Oh! And post viral syndrome (PVS) is unique to this virus and so we should just rename it "DREADED LONG COVID!!!1!!"
 

Jason1743

Well-Known Member
Jan 23, 2006
19,335
13,292
1
Those people are idiots, but you are absolutely deflecting.

The issue is NOT whether people should buy from a vet (they shouldn't), its whether the drug is safe.
The drug is safe when used appropriately. According to the CDC and FDA is is NOT effective in treating COVID. Morons are treating themselves and are over dosing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RoyalT12

SLUPSU

Well-Known Member
Aug 5, 2018
3,810
2,210
1
You should read the very accurate (and "balanced") article knox posted above on this. Here it is again:
https://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2021/09/08/lessons_from_the_ivermectin_debacle_793483.html

As this article points out, you would be correct if you said, "there are no high-quality, high-powered randomized controlled trials (RCTs) showing statistically significant efficacy."

That is absolutely true. But that's also ignoring (or not understanding) the rest of the equation.

1. There appears to be at least anecdotal EVIDENCE of potential efficacy - reason to believe it might have a positive effect. Not enough evidence to rationally go all-in on IVM, but enough anecdotal evidence to support curiosity (assuming your thoughts aren't outsource to your politics, and you would prefer less poeple die of Covid).
2. There also are no high-quality, high-powered (or even low-powered), randomized controlled trials (RCTs) NOT showing statistically significant efficacy.

There is a lot of muddy water regarding IVM's efficacy, and instead of trying to clear the mud with a quality, powerful RTC, to date... Those in our public health that fund these studies have just pointed to the mud in the water and put their head in the sand regarding finding out the truth.

Doesn't that disturb you? And just to be clear, I am not WeR here. I don't have any reason myself to believe IVM is effective against Covid. But I do recognize there is at least enough anecdotal evidence out there that it should be worth finding out for sure whether or not this drug could be used to save lives, and if not, it would also be valuable for doctors to know that it's a waste of time/effort too.

All the money that was pumped into studies related to this virus, the money to get to a good, conclusive, answer regarding IVM is a drop in the bucket (and you know there is no shortage of doctors/scientists willing to conduct the study). Why?

It looks like there are some "high power?" RCT's on the way.

Authors' conclusions: Based on the current very low- to low-certainty evidence, we are uncertain about the efficacy and safety of ivermectin used to treat or prevent COVID-19. The completed studies are small and few are considered high quality. Several studies are underway that may produce clearer answers in review updates. Overall, the reliable evidence available does not support the use ivermectin for treatment or prevention of COVID-19 outside of well-designed randomized trials.

 
  • Like
Reactions: RoyalT12

Jason1743

Well-Known Member
Jan 23, 2006
19,335
13,292
1
You should read the very accurate (and "balanced") article knox posted above on this. Here it is again:
https://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2021/09/08/lessons_from_the_ivermectin_debacle_793483.html

As this article points out, you would be correct if you said, "there are no high-quality, high-powered randomized controlled trials (RCTs) showing statistically significant efficacy."

That is absolutely true. But that's also ignoring (or not understanding) the rest of the equation.

1. There appears to be at least anecdotal EVIDENCE of potential efficacy - reason to believe it might have a positive effect. Not enough evidence to rationally go all-in on IVM, but enough anecdotal evidence to support curiosity (assuming your thoughts aren't outsource to your politics, and you would prefer less poeple die of Covid).
2. There also are no high-quality, high-powered (or even low-powered), randomized controlled trials (RCTs) NOT showing statistically significant efficacy.

There is a lot of muddy water regarding IVM's efficacy, and instead of trying to clear the mud with a quality, powerful RTC, to date... Those in our public health that fund these studies have just pointed to the mud in the water and put their head in the sand regarding finding out the truth.

Doesn't that disturb you? And just to be clear, I am not WeR here. I don't have any reason myself to believe IVM is effective against Covid. But I do recognize there is at least enough anecdotal evidence out there that it should be worth finding out for sure whether or not this drug could be used to save lives, and if not, it would also be valuable for doctors to know that it's a waste of time/effort too.

All the money that was pumped into studies related to this virus, the money to get to a good, conclusive, answer regarding IVM is a drop in the bucket (and you know there is no shortage of doctors/scientists willing to conduct the study). Why?
I have nothing against any type of legitimate scientific inquiry. Anecdotal evidence has no scientific value. I have a major problem with untrained people sitting at their computers, reading a bunch of crap and becoming infectious disease experts after a google search. IMO that is what is going on here. Infectious disease experts do not recommend, in fact they recommend against the use of Ivermectin for COVID.
 

BoulderFish

Well-Known Member
Oct 31, 2016
10,083
6,766
1
The drug is safe when used appropriately. According to the CDC and FDA is is NOT effective in treating COVID. Morons are treating themselves and are over dosing.

People are treating themselves because doctors are being irrationally led by politics and refusing to even allow people access to the known-safe human version. FWIW, here is what the NIH says:

(if you're too lazy to read, the spoiler is that it says this: "There is insufficient evidence for the COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel (the Panel) to recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19. Results from adequately powered, well-designed, and well-conducted clinical trials are needed to provide more specific, evidence-based guidance on the role of ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19."

So NIH won't say it is "NOT effective" in treating Covid.]

Ivermectin​



Last Updated: February 11, 2021

Ivermectin is a Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved antiparasitic drug that is used to treat several neglected tropical diseases, including onchocerciasis, helminthiases, and scabies.1 It is also being evaluated for its potential to reduce the rate of malaria transmission by killing mosquitoes that feed on treated humans and livestock.2 For these indications, ivermectin has been widely used and is generally well tolerated.1,3 Ivermectin is not approved by the FDA for the treatment of any viral infection.


Proposed Mechanism of Action and Rationale for Use in Patients With COVID-19​


Reports from in vitro studies suggest that ivermectin acts by inhibiting the host importin alpha/beta-1 nuclear transport proteins, which are part of a key intracellular transport process that viruses hijack to enhance infection by suppressing the host’s antiviral response.4,5 In addition, ivermectin docking may interfere with the attachment of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spike protein to the human cell membrane.6 Ivermectin is thought to be a host-directed agent, which may be the basis for its broad-spectrum activity in vitro against the viruses that cause dengue, Zika, HIV, and yellow fever.4,7-9 Despite this in vitro activity, no clinical trials have reported a clinical benefit for ivermectin in patients with these viruses. Some studies of ivermectin have also reported potential anti-inflammatory properties, which have been postulated to be beneficial in people with COVID-19.10-12


Some observational cohorts and clinical trials have evaluated the use of ivermectin for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19. Data from some of these studies can be found in Table 2c.


Recommendation​


  • There is insufficient evidence for the COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel (the Panel) to recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19. Results from adequately powered, well-designed, and well-conducted clinical trials are needed to provide more specific, evidence-based guidance on the role of ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19.

Rationale​


Ivermectin has been shown to inhibit the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in cell cultures.13 However, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies suggest that achieving the plasma concentrations necessary for the antiviral efficacy detected in vitro would require administration of doses up to 100-fold higher than those approved for use in humans.14,15 Even though ivermectin appears to accumulate in the lung tissue...

[Link to continue reading]
 

BoulderFish

Well-Known Member
Oct 31, 2016
10,083
6,766
1
It looks like there are some "high power?" RCT's on the way.

Authors' conclusions: Based on the current very low- to low-certainty evidence, we are uncertain about the efficacy and safety of ivermectin used to treat or prevent COVID-19. The completed studies are small and few are considered high quality. Several studies are underway that may produce clearer answers in review updates. Overall, the reliable evidence available does not support the use ivermectin for treatment or prevention of COVID-19 outside of well-designed randomized trials.


Yep. Hopefully they actually will be of high quality, and we can put this debate to bed for good (one way or another).
 

m.knox

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 20, 2003
97,050
48,811
1
I have nothing against any type of legitimate scientific inquiry. Anecdotal evidence has no scientific value. I have a major problem with untrained people sitting at their computers, reading a bunch of crap and becoming infectious disease experts after a google search. IMO that is what is going on here. Infectious disease experts do not recommend, in fact they recommend against the use of Ivermectin for COVID.

LOL.. Why do you think topics are scientifically investigated?? Because a hypothesis is formed.

Here, I will help you.

hy·poth·e·sis
/hīˈpäTHəsəs/
Learn to pronounce

noun

  1. a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

Christ are you dumb.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PSUEngineer89