Zobel said:
Forgive me, but what you're describing is exactly the kind of thing that placebo will do. The placebo effect will help with almost everything that is about perception... pain, nausea, insomnia, fatigue, and so on. That is not to say that what you're experiencing is not real at all.
Zobel said:
Sorry, was there anything factually incorrect about what I've written here? Or do you just not agree?
Zobel said:
Sorry, was there anything factually incorrect about what I've written here? Or do you just not agree?
gunan01 said:Zobel said:
Yes, we are. Because each vaccine was tested in multiple randomized, placebo controlled clinical trials where they showed huge benefit with very little downside. The phase 3 trials for Pfizer and Moderna each had over 30,000 participants. No ivermectin study can come close to something like that in terms of replicated, large sample size, gold standard evidence.
Even further since then we've distributed hundreds of millions of doses with very little in terms of safety signals. And those safety signals - like myocarditis or blood clots - have been picked up by the monitoring systems. And the cost:benefit including those is off the charts.
You should be skeptical before you put anything in your body. If the people who are skeptical of the vaccines with the evidence they have held ivermectin to the same standard not a single one would use it.
This is a great point. The level of hypocrisy is off the charts.
Zobel said:
I mean, there's two possibilities here. Either ivermectin has a clinical effect on COVID19, or it doesn't. If it does, then the alleviation of symptoms is from ivermectin. If it doesn't, it's from placebo effect. If it is from placebo effect, the explanation is that they expected it to help, so it did.
That shouldn't be surprising, because the placebo effect is real. Interestingly, the placebo effect has gotten stronger over time...but only in the US, maybe because we have a strong expectation that the medicine we take will work.
Not dismissed, but noted as anecdotal. Anecdotal evidence has never been used to determine whether any drug is effective. No drug ever approved by the FDA was done without clinical trials showing safety and efficacy (aducanumab may be the only exception and that's part of the reason there's such an uproar about it).Quote:
The results are dismissed as anecdotal without double blind big pharma sponsored studies.
Irrelevant, unless we're also going to dock ivermectin for originally being an anti-parasitic. It either works for the application or it doesn't.Quote:
The mRNA gene therapy novel vaccine is a brand new technology that was originally intended to be a cancer treatment.
Incorrect. There is emergency use authorization by the FDA and the FDA says the various mRNA vaccines are safe and effective. There are two things precluding full FDA approval - one is six months of safety data, which is finished and submitted. The other is chemical manufacturing and controls which is a process for the FDA to determine that every batch of product is consistent and traceable, and works the same as what they tested in the trials. That can take upwards of a year on a normal timeline. This is likely the only thing holding up full approval.Quote:
It has not been cleared by the FDA.
All drugs have side effects. Including ivermectin - which can have neurological side effects!Quote:
There have numerous side effects ranging from cardiac to autoimmune to physical to neurological.
Completely false! Adverse reactions have been detected and communicated to the public, like rare cases of myocarditis. These are on the FDA fact sheets, like this one for Pfizer. Those were picked up by monitoring, including VAERS. VAERS is open to the public, how can you say it is suppressed?? You can download it right here. I encourage you to look at the reports.Quote:
The VAERS reporting has been suppressed and no adverse reactions are ever talked about in the public.
This is not correct. Distribution and dosing studies were done prior to approval in animals. Here's a dosing study from 2015. Here's a similar paper from 2017, and another from 2017. And another. And another.Quote:
The spike protein in the vax is not contained to the injection spot as originally thought. It immediately travels through the blood to all parts of the body including passing the blood brain barrier. studies have shown that the spike protein in itself is a radical and can cause inflammation throughout the body that have varying side effects that can be severe.
This is completely false.Quote:
If ivermectin is cleared to use as a prophylactic and/or treatment, then the mRNA vaccine loses its reason for emergency usage approval, which is how it gets around no FDA approval.
Because getting covid is worse than getting the vaccine. The vaccine uses your immune system, that's the whole reason it works. And that's why ivermectin likely doesn't help ... your immune system is already really, really good at fighting off infections. Like incredibly good, as your 99.8% figure suggests. The vaccine takes that, and simply primes it. Ivermectin does... what, exactly? No one is sure. Probably nothing.Quote:
On top of all of that, covid has a 99.8% survival rate if you are under 40 and healthy. Why risk a novel vaccine injection that can have long term effects? I'll trust my own immune system plus ivermectin to ward off what will likely be flu like symptoms.
Right. Which is why ivermectin probably shouldn't be taken by anyone for covid19 - because there's no reliable data suggesting it has any benefit. And it's also why everyone eligible should take the vaccine - because there's a metric butt ton of data showing that it has a huge benefit.Quote:
I don't see the hypocrisy in looking at the data, assessing your risk and choosing to trust your own immune system plus a proven safe drug versus an inoculation with unintended reactions and unstudied long term effects.
01agtx said:Zobel said:
Sorry, was there anything factually incorrect about what I've written here? Or do you just not agree?
You are the second person to tell ea he/she wasn't feeling what they thought they were feeling. Then you finish it off with a well maybe. It's ridiculous.
As to the "why do most doctors not prescribe it for COVID" I will have to disagree or at least say that is a subjective statement that possibly varies by region, country, etc. Easily a majority of the docs in the outpatient setting in the cities I work in rx it in the outpatient setting. I will agree that by the times patients get admitted to us we do not use Ivermectin in the inpatient setting.Dr. Not Yet Dr. Ag said:
Why do most doctors not prescribe it for COVID?
Because COVID is not a helminthic infection. It makes absolutely no sense why it would work biochemically, and to put it more plainly, it doesn't work for COVID, period.
Why don't I personally prescribe ivermectin? Well the same reason I don't give out antibiotics for the common cold (or COVID), or diabetes meds to acutely treat a heart attack or stroke, or chemotherapy for a broken arm, because it makes absolutely no sense. It would be unethical for me to knowingly prescribe someone a medication I know to be ineffective.
The better question you should be asking yourself is why a certain segment of the population with no medical knowledge has become so obsessed with two separate medications that don't work against COVID, when the large majority of physicians won't prescribe them due to said lack of efficacy? Many in this segment of the population have even gone to the point of buying ivermectin paste from feed stores or getting physicians to lie about the indications so pharmacies will fill these prescriptions.
Zobel said:
Why did they lose credibility for saying this is unproven and please don't take it because it might do more harm than good, and being exactly right about that? I'd say that makes them credible. You have to ignore the media, they're no better at reporting on medical science than they are at anything else. Ever read a news article about something you're an expert in? The only guarantee is that they'll butcher it.
Dr. Not Yet Dr. Ag said:
Why do most doctors not prescribe it for COVID?
Because COVID is not a helminthic infection. It makes absolutely no sense why it would work biochemically, and to put it more plainly, it doesn't work for COVID, period.
Why don't I personally prescribe ivermectin? Well the same reason I don't give out antibiotics for the common cold (or COVID), or diabetes meds to acutely treat a heart attack or stroke, or chemotherapy for a broken arm, because it makes absolutely no sense. It would be unethical for me to knowingly prescribe someone a medication I know to be ineffective.
The better question you should be asking yourself is why a certain segment of the population with no medical knowledge has become so obsessed with two separate medications that don't work against COVID, when the large majority of physicians won't prescribe them due to said lack of efficacy? Many in this segment of the population have even gone to the point of buying ivermectin paste from feed stores or getting physicians to lie about the indications so pharmacies will fill these prescriptions.
Zobel said:
I honestly have never heard of a doctor being threatened with losing their job or their license for prescribing or talking about hydroxychloroquine.
Quote:
And you say they silenced it "with no time to know." Yes. That's the point. With no time to know, the answer is no. Drugs start with the presumption of not working. The burden of proof is on the drug. So in the absence of evidence, the correct thing to do is not prescribe.
Quote:
The fact that they were right, that their experience told them correctly that most promising treatments don't work, that they warned people against using it, that they ended up being right, and that thousands of people likely had side effects up to and including death, seems to indicate that despite the politicization, the experts in this case were correct. And not lying. And acting in the public interest, which is the whole point of the FDA anyway.
Quote:
Yes, some of the knee-jerk reaction on the left was idiotic. But it is just as idiotic to take the opposite approach because you're red team.
The rest of the world didn't give a **** what Trump said, but scientist around the world did the same thing when it comes to HCQ. Certain people just love to paint the picture of him being a victim in all this. Are you mad that his injecting bleach idea didn't get a fair shake too?aTm2004 said:
IMO, the issue with HCQ is the moment it left Trump's mouth, every political hack, the media, and social media companies began dismissing and censoring it, and saying how a drug prescribed for 50+ years is dangerous. IIRC, doctors were threatened with their jobs and some state's medical boards also threatened licenses if they prescribed it. They destroyed any and all remaining credibility. Once that's lost, nothing you can do will get it back.
Zobel said:
Media runs with everything. Media has run with HCQ positive and negative stories, same with ivermectin. Ignore the media. Read the papers.
The paper was retracted, right? Good, that's how it should work. But it wasn't the only one.
There has been a tendency to jump the gun in this pandemic because of the pressure. People read preprints and run with them. Peer review isn't perfect by any means but it's better than not. No one paper tells the tale. That's why replication and meta analyses are important.
Sometimes that means we can't know the answer right now, which is frustrating. And it leads to questions like the OP, which brings it back to - we as society have decided that it's better if don't prescribe drugs without knowing for sure they'll actually help.
Here’s the truth America:
— Dan Crenshaw (@DanCrenshawTX) July 28, 2021
The “game changer” data the CDC used for the mask mandate is from a single study from India.
The study was rejected in peer review.
But CDC used it anyway. pic.twitter.com/uqirPTCZUE
Another Doug said:The rest of the world didn't give a **** what Trump said, but scientist around the world did the same thing when it comes to HCQ. Certain people just love to paint the picture of him being a victim in all this. Are you mad that his injecting bleach idea didn't get a fair shake too?aTm2004 said:
IMO, the issue with HCQ is the moment it left Trump's mouth, every political hack, the media, and social media companies began dismissing and censoring it, and saying how a drug prescribed for 50+ years is dangerous. IIRC, doctors were threatened with their jobs and some state's medical boards also threatened licenses if they prescribed it. They destroyed any and all remaining credibility. Once that's lost, nothing you can do will get it back.
Also, just a reminder....
In late July 2020, once we knew it was worthless, Trump tweeted a video about HCQ that said "we don't have to die" and "there is a cure". Dude was a constant source of horse**** the entire pandemic.
Another Doug said:The rest of the world didn't give a **** what Trump said, but scientist around the world did the same thing when it comes to HCQ. Certain people just love to paint the picture of him being a victim in all this. Are you mad that his injecting bleach idea didn't get a fair shake too?aTm2004 said:
IMO, the issue with HCQ is the moment it left Trump's mouth, every political hack, the media, and social media companies began dismissing and censoring it, and saying how a drug prescribed for 50+ years is dangerous. IIRC, doctors were threatened with their jobs and some state's medical boards also threatened licenses if they prescribed it. They destroyed any and all remaining credibility. Once that's lost, nothing you can do will get it back.
Also, just a reminder....
In late July 2020, once we knew it was worthless, Trump tweeted a video about HCQ that said "we don't have to die" and "there is a cure". Dude was a constant source of horse**** the entire pandemic.
