The Right-Wing Disinformation Machine

[Guy Chamberlin]

That's putting it pretty open ended.  Ivermectin has been around since the 70's and won a nobel prize, has had research out the wazzu and until 2020 was heralded as a wonder drug (yes, the human form).  Now if you Google Ivermectin, you are only really going to see how It's NOT intended for usage against Covid.  Nevermind that off label use of drugs and medecine is not a new practice by any stretch of the imagination, but why would that be?  Spoiler Alert, not because countless morons died from horse pills.  

That doesn't answer the question. Hyrdroxycholoquine was also a wonder drug, a genuine lifesaver for people with Lupus. Ivermectin does a swell job treating infections caused by skin parasites in humans (I used it when I had scabies as a kid).  Reasonable scientists were willing to learn from anything in the fight against COVID, and neither medication proved particularly helpful in any phase of prevention or treatment. That's just a fact. 

So now there's a massive global effort to find a vaccine. Tons of accelerated testing and shared research and they succeed. The success is pretty much right there in the percentage  of COVID hospitalizations and deaths among the unvaccinated.

But for some reason you want to traipse back to Ivermectin, as if it was a preferable options that was undermined by liberals unfairly mocking it as horse pills.

The answer, of course, is that some people had already declared COVID a partisan issue, and Dr. Anthony Fauci an enemy. Therefore, Hydroxy, Ivermectin, bleach, and homeopathics were preferable because they showed resistance to the State and thus did not need to clear the research bar demanded of Covid vaccines. 

 

[JJ Husker]

I'm sorry, where does it say that Ivermectin is harmful?  And nobody from that study showed any signs of improvement?  Sure...

From 2 days ago:

https://www.news5cleveland.com/news/politics/ohio-politics/ohio-doctors-could-soon-be-required-to-promote-ivermectin-to-treat-covid-19?_amp=true

So this discussion is shifting from Ivermectin is useful to treat  Covid to simply it’s not harmful to humans? I don’t think there will be any pushback on that. Not much of an endorsement for it’s use for Covid though.

And that link supports nothing except that some Republican lawmakers in Ohio are pushing for it to be used. That’s how we got here in the first place. People that don’t know jack s#!t about science or medicine getting involved politically. Next thing ya know someone will be claiming we should listen to what Trump has to say about it. I’ve got my bleach ready. :lol:

 

[RedDenver]

I'm sorry, where does it say that Ivermectin is harmful?

The article is about the efficacy of ivermechtin in treating covid, so that's not the intent of the study. But every drug has side effects and risks associated with it. 

  And nobody from that study showed any signs of improvement?  Sure...

And that's missing the forest for the trees. I literally pasted the conclusions from the study. Individuals also showed signs of improvement while taking the placebo. Cherrypicking the results you want out of the data is the opposite of how to do evidence-based reasoning.

From 2 days ago:

https://www.news5cleveland.com/news/politics/ohio-politics/ohio-doctors-could-soon-be-required-to-promote-ivermectin-to-treat-covid-19?_amp=true

Did you read that article? It's actually the reverse of what you're trying to argue. Here's the doctor in the article:

"We do see people that have cardiac problems with hydroxychloroquine; we can see neurologic problems from ivermectin,” Dumford added. “If we're looking at even something that's a minimal risk, it's still not worth that risk.”

 

[Redux]

That doesn't answer the question. Hyrdroxycholoquine was also a wonder drug, a genuine lifesaver for people with Lupus. Ivermectin does a swell job treating infections caused by skin parasites in humans (I used it when I had scabies as a kid).  Reasonable scientists were willing to learn from anything in the fight against COVID, and neither medication proved particularly helpful in any phase of prevention or treatment. That's just a fact. 

So now there's a massive global effort to find a vaccine. Tons of accelerated testing and shared research and they succeed. The success is pretty much right there in the percentage  of COVID hospitalizations and deaths among the unvaccinated.

But for some reason you want to traipse back to Ivermectin, as if it was a preferable options that was undermined by liberals unfairly mocking it as horse pills.

The answer, of course, is that some people had already declared COVID a partisan issue, and Dr. Anthony Fauci an enemy. Therefore, Hydroxy, Ivermectin, bleach, and homeopathics were preferable because they showed resistance to the State and thus did not need to clear the research bar demanded of Covid vaccines. 

Nope.  We should be looking for treatment AND a vaccine.  Ignoring and smearing potential treatment is ridiculous.

 

[Redux]

So this discussion is shifting from Ivermectin is useful to treat  Covid to simply it’s not harmful to humans? I don’t think there will be any pushback on that. Not much of an endorsement for it’s use for Covid though.

And that link supports nothing except that some Republican lawmakers in Ohio are pushing for it to be used. That’s how we got here in the first place. People that don’t know jack s#!t about science or medicine getting involved politically. Next thing ya know someone will be claiming we should listen to what Trump has to say about it. I’ve got my bleach ready. :lol:

So if there is no harm and people have had success in using it as a treatment, what's the problem?  What's the harm?  Why continue to lie about it being veterinarian?

 

[Redux]

The article is about the efficacy of ivermechtin in treating covid, so that's not the intent of the study. But every drug has side effects and risks associated with it. 

And that's missing the forest for the trees. I literally pasted the conclusions from the study. Individuals also showed signs of improvement while taking the placebo. Cherrypicking the results you want out of the data is the opposite of how to do evidence-based reasoning.

Did you read that article? It's actually the reverse of what you're trying to argue. Here's the doctor in the article:

I did

“This is securing that right for an individual to make, with consultation with their health care provider, the best decision for their health care plan,” Ferguson said.

This bill comes after a woman sued a Cincinnati hospital for refusing to give her husband ivermectin to treat COVID-19 in 2021. The judge sided with the hospital, saying there was no evidence ivermectin was proven to work. Now, lawmakers in Ohio want to make that option readily available for everyone.

“More options, better health care,” Ferguson said. “That's what people are always looking for in the healthcare space.”

You're focusing on quotes from pro vaccine only Doctors cited in the article. I coule pull up favorable quotes for Ivermectin and you'd ignore it.  So what's your point?  If it works, it works.  Even if it's on a smaller scale.  Why are you anti treatment?

 

[JJ Husker]

So if there is no harm and people have had success in us it as a treatment, what's the problem?  What's the harm?  Why continue to lie about it being veterinarian?

I think the problem is that there is no documented scientific proof that it actually does work on Covid. I don’t think there is any harm except in the disinformation of pushing it as a viable treatment. I think people call it horse medicine etc. because that is the more well known and proven use. The claims for efficacy on Covid are lacking and unfortunately there are way too many stupid people who hear Ivermectin and won’t differentiate between the human form and the veterinary form. Even if that’s not dangerous it doesn’t mean it’s helpful.

 

[RedDenver]

I did

You're focusing on quotes from pro vaccine only Doctors cited in the article. I coule pull up favorable quotes for Ivermectin and you'd ignore it. 

It's the article YOU cited, so I'm just going off of what's in it. I don't think the article is at all conclusive and wouldn't bother with it except that you brought it up. And it's pretty telling that you're citing the politician while downplaying the doctor in the same article.

So what's your point?  If it works, it works.  Even if it's on a smallwr scale.

Except that it does NOT work. That's why I linked to published research on the matter.

 Why are you anti treatment?

I'm not. I'm anti false treatment. I'm also against drinking bleach as a way to treat covid.

Why do you want to promote something that's not working?

 

[Redux]

Why are you anti treatment?  I'll wait.

 

[Redux]

I think the problem is that there is no documented scientific proof that it actually does work on Covid. I don’t think there is any harm except in the disinformation of pushing it as a viable treatment. I think people call it horse medicine etc. because that is the more well known and proven use. The claims for efficacy on Covid are lacking and unfortunately there are way too many stupid people who hear Ivermectin and won’t differentiate between the human form and the veterinary form. Even if that’s not dangerous it doesn’t mean it’s helpful.

No the problem is that the documentation was canceled mid trial in some instances, and only clinical studies where Ivermectin could not be determined as having any effects were released to where people can find them.  The reason being that if people hear "horse medecine" and "not enough information that it's beneficial" they'll instead seek out a vaccine.  Which, by the way, are also not 100% effective regardless of variant.

Suppressing information, which happened just ask the quacks (lol), is sickening.  I would urge listening to McCullough and Malone about why Ivermectin and Quinine were smeared.  I want a working vaccine and treatment.  I also want political tribalism to go away from anything pandemic related.

 

[commando]

if some people want to ignore medical advice and use ivermectine instead of vaccine....i say let them.  let darwin sort it out.

 

[Archy1221]

neither medication proved particularly helpful in any phase of prevention or treatment. That's just a fact. 

Henry Ford MC disagrees. 

 

[Redux]

if some people want to ignore medical advice and use ivermectine instead of vaccine....i say let them.  let darwin sort it out.

Why shouldn't they do both?  Why would you be against potential treatment, wish death?

 

[Redux]

Due to the well-established, long-term safety profile of ivermectin, with rare adverse effects, the absence of proven therapeutic options to prevent death caused by COVID-19, and lack of effectiveness of vaccines in real-life all-cause mortality analyses to date, we recommend that ivermectin be considered as a preventive strategy, in particular for those at a higher risk of complications from COVID-19 or at higher risk of contracting the illness, not as a substitute for COVID-19 vaccines, but as an additional tool, particularly during periods of high transmission rates.

https://www.cureus.com/articles/82162-ivermectin-prophylaxis-used-for-covid-19-a-citywide-prospective-observational-study-of-223128-subjects-using-propensity-score-matching

Trust the science 

 

[Redux]

https://www.unz.com/proberts/must-read-breaking-news-japanese-clinical-trial-concludes-ivermectin-is-safe-and-effective-treatment-of-covid/

“Ivermectin has the same antiviral effect” on all mutant strains, including Alpha, Delta, and Omicron. Kowa added that ivermectin suppresses invasion of the virus and inhibits its replication.”