Zobel said:

---

If you're worried about pressure from corrupting political influence, look at studies done outside the US. You'll find basically the same conclusions.

There is no conspiracy. Hanlon's razor is the guide here - never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. Or in this case, incompetence, or simply limitations of capabilities.

---

All of the "accidents", bad science, study manipulation and media overreaction all fall to one side of the debate. This is why I said agree to disagree.

The fundamental divide is that you believe and trust the scientific institutions and I do not; not anymore.

I trust science, but not the gatekeepers. And I do think the vax makes sense for older, at risk individuals. I just don't think it is worth the risk for younger, healthy people.

Zobel said:

---

Ok, Michigan governor is an idiot and wrong.

But you're still fouled up on the drug thing. At the start of the pandemic, you assume nothing works. Yes, there is trial and error involved. I'm not even saying that a doctor shouldn't prescribe off label - that's normal. But there's a big difference between doctors doing that and massive distribution campaigns. It's not a black and white thing, there is room for nuance.

---

No, I'm not fouled up on the drug thing. I'm talking about lost credibility. Once you lose it, even if you end up being right months later, nobody will believe it due to them questioning you. The drug/treatment is irrelevant.

As far as assuming nothing works, do you not find it funny that they didn't know what worked but were certain they knew what didn't? This isn't July 2021 we're talking about where we have 18 months worth of data.

Quote:

---

We should be able to say just as much that the knee jerk reaction is stupid, just because President Trump said it - and that the massive prescribing of HCQ cost lives around the globe.

---

Do you not think the censorship around the drug maybe confirms what you're asserting? If you don't allow differing opinions, your claims (valid or not) aren't credible.

Quote:

---

You're saying "they" lost credibility and assigning the "they" carelessly. Sometime to liberal politicians and media pundits, then sometimes to doctors and researchers. I'm being specific here - "they" the politicians never had any credibility with me anyway but "they" the researchers do, in aggregate.

It's an error to conflate them. One being made by more than you in this thread.

I looked aback and noticed you were specifically talking about social media and politicians. Respectfully, who gives a crap about that? That's just noise. We were talking about research. The breathless pearl clutching from politicians and pundits is a big straw man that confuses the issue. End of the day, FDA and others were right about HCQ, and they'll probably be right about ivermectin. Regardless of politics.

---

No, I was talking about doctors as well. The media and politicians were the tools they used.

Quote:

---

Sorry, but simply asking a question isn't a crime nor does it translate into the "Trump told people to chug bleach" narrative the MSM and dems ran with.

---

It is not a crime but we should have much, much higher expectations than that for our elected leaders. I can't believe the bar has been set that incredibly low for a man serving as President of the United States.

Windy City Ag said:

---

Quote:

---

Sorry, but simply asking a question isn't a crime nor does it translate into the "Trump told people to chug bleach" narrative the MSM and dems ran with.

---

It is not a crime but we should have much, much higher expectations than that for our elected leaders. I can't believe the bar has been set that incredibly low for a man serving as President of the United States.

As we learned with the Arizona man who drank fish tank cleaner and died not long after because he listed to Trump's "advice", there are people out there dumb enough to actually follow through on these inane ramblings.

---

Woman Who Blamed Trump after Giving Her Husband Fish-Tank Cleaner Now Under Investigation for Murder

But I do believe we should hold our elected leaders to higher expectations. When will you be blaming Kamala Harris for saying she wouldn't take the vaccine if Trump suggested people should take it? With your claim about people being dumb, it shouldn't take too much mental gymnastics to conclude people won't get the vaccine just because Kamala said she wouldn't.

Or how about Biden claiming you won't get COVID if you're vaccinated, although the CDC reversed it's earlier decision to now require vaccinated people to wear masks not even a week after that claim?

I'm all for holding politicians to a higher standard, but it has to be the same standard for both sides.

Skillet Shot said:

---

Zobel said:

---

If you're worried about pressure from corrupting political influence, look at studies done outside the US. You'll find basically the same conclusions.

There is no conspiracy. Hanlon's razor is the guide here - never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. Or in this case, incompetence, or simply limitations of capabilities.

---

All of the "accidents", bad science, study manipulation and media overreaction all fall to one side of the debate. This is why I said agree to disagree.

The fundamental divide is that you believe and trust the scientific institutions and I do not; not anymore.

I trust science, but not the gatekeepers. And I do think the vax makes sense for older, at risk individuals. I just don't think it is worth the risk for younger, healthy people.

---

Yep, Vaccine hesitancy and people clinging to HCQ and ivermectin is 100% on the CDC, Fauci, WHO, politicians, and the media. Mistakes and misinformation is expected in a crisis. The problem is most of the time the "mistakes" or hyperbolic info appeared to be not an accident but calculated to manipulate.

- No evidence of human to human transmission, oops my bad it's very contagious
- masks aren't effective, wear a mask, no wear two masks
- PCR test over cycling leading to more cases
- Deaths "with" covid vs deaths "from" covid
- Vaccines are very effective for covid and all of the variants, oops not so effective for delta and Lamda, boosters incoming!

Add to this the politicians that we see advocating for masks, social distancing, and lockdowns and doing the opposite.

Add to this the reaction to suggestions that the virus escaped the Wuhan lab vs what is now coming out.

Add to this the hyperbolic completely ridiculous statements from health officials that we all know are bullshyt - my favorite example is the Travis County health director stating that 1200 kids in Travis County would die from covid if they had in-person school in the Fall of 2020. Anyone with half a brain knew that was ridiculous yet the media and other health experts let it stand.

Finally, fact is that the efficacy of masks use by the public is no more proven than the efficacy of ivermectin.

Despite all of the above the sheeple are just supposed to believe? Sorry not sorry. We don't believe and it's not because we are Neanderthals or Trumpists. It's because our bullshyt detectors are triggered almost daily.

Lumping all doctors into a monolithic group, and then judging that group by politicized bad actors, is short sighted. You can replace doctors with researchers and scientists too.

Not to wax too political or philosophical but the entire landscape of our culture has become poisoned by a weird combination of post-modernism and binary thinking. No one has the time for nuance or middle ground, and it shows in every aspect. Specific to COVID, you see it in things like people demanding to know whether masks work or not, vaccines work or not, natural immunity better than vaccination or not, so on and so on. Rarely in life are things simple or binary, and usually the closer you look the more nuance you find.

Allowing the binary thinking of US politics to infiltrate every corner of our lives is not only culturally dangerous and balkanizing, it is also damaging to our ability to think and digest scientific information. We should all push back against this tendency.

Zobel said:

---

Lumping all doctors into a monolithic group, and then judging that group by politicized bad actors, is short sighted. You can replace doctors with researchers and scientists too.

---

It may be short sighted but it doesn't make what I said any less accurate. All it takes is a few bad apples to ruin it for an entire group. That can be applied to pretty much every group out there, not just doctors.

Quote:

---

Not to wax too political or philosophical but the entire landscape of our culture has become poisoned by a weird combination of post-modernism and binary thinking. No one has the time for nuance or middle ground, and it shows in every aspect. Specific to COVID, you see it in things like people demanding to know whether masks work or not, vaccines work or not, natural immunity better than vaccination or not, so on and so on. Rarely in life are things simple or binary, and usually the closer you look the more nuance you find.

Allowing the binary thinking of US politics to infiltrate every corner of our lives is not only culturally dangerous and balkanizing, it is also damaging to our ability to think and digest scientific information. We should all push back against this tendency.

---

100% agree. As I stated several times on this thread, all the government had to do was to be truthful, but they couldn't. People on both sides made it political from the start and has created this divide. The media and big tech using political hack doctors to do their thing along side one of the parties only exacerbated it. Hell, even this board contributed to it in some way, though staff is now allowing conversations that don't align with the once unofficial official narrative.

Zobel said:

---

Lumping all doctors into a monolithic group, and then judging that group by politicized bad actors, is short sighted. You can replace doctors with researchers and scientists too.

Not to wax too political or philosophical but the entire landscape of our culture has become poisoned by a weird combination of post-modernism and binary thinking. No one has the time for nuance or middle ground, and it shows in every aspect. Specific to COVID, you see it in things like people demanding to know whether masks work or not, vaccines work or not, natural immunity better than vaccination or not, so on and so on. Rarely in life are things simple or binary, and usually the closer you look the more nuance you find.

Allowing the binary thinking of US politics to infiltrate every corner of our lives is not only culturally dangerous and balkanizing, it is also damaging to our ability to think and digest scientific information. We should all push back against this tendency.

---

I'd argue that most doctors have lumped themselves into monolithic groups by reciting/implementing only what the CDC or their organizations positions on treatment. Regarding the changing landscape it appears that we are losing the abilities of our medical professionals to have a dissenting professional opinion where anything other than following the CDC verbatim is considered going against the science. It would be one thing if the CDC had done a better job but as it turns out they have been wrong a significant number of times. The inability to question the CDC guidance is a problem.

Right now we need Doctors capable of questioning everything and applying their own professional opinions. As a group they are among our most intelligent and valuable people to society but by only following what someone else has mandated without applying a healthy questioning attitude has neutered their greatest contribution, their ability to think, apply knowledge and solve medical problems.

Zobel said:

---

Lumping all doctors into a monolithic group, and then judging that group by politicized bad actors, is short sighted. You can replace doctors with researchers and scientists too.

Not to wax too political or philosophical but the entire landscape of our culture has become poisoned by a weird combination of post-modernism and binary thinking. No one has the time for nuance or middle ground, and it shows in every aspect. Specific to COVID, you see it in things like people demanding to know whether masks work or not, vaccines work or not, natural immunity better than vaccination or not, so on and so on. Rarely in life are things simple or binary, and usually the closer you look the more nuance you find.

Allowing the binary thinking of US politics to infiltrate every corner of our lives is not only culturally dangerous and balkanizing, it is also damaging to our ability to think and digest scientific information. We should all push back against this tendency.

---

Well said Zobel! Your take on the binary thinking is spot on. Take that and add in all the tribal thinking and it is destroying our society. I really appreciate all you have contributed on this thread and other threads I've read here. Please keep it up.

I can understand somewhat tribal thinking of "this may not work, but it's safe and prescribed daily around the world, it's not a cure all but it's showing some promise..let's give it a try since not much else is working" versus

"We can't give this to you because there aren't any massive double blind studies and the Trumpsters are pushing it"

Always...always..always follow the money. There's no money in an effective cheap treatment.

I gave you the answer, you just didn't agree with it. The answer is that it probably doesn't work, so any side effects are borne needlessly. That article takes much the same information I shared previously and leaves out key details - for example, when it says that ivermectin fights 21 viruses, it fails to note that we have ever been able to translate those in vitro antiviral properties to clinical benefit in humans.

It's almost like it wasn't a genuine question in the OP.

Let me ask you this. Let's say limited studies showed that Snak Paks were effective in treating covid. Just one snak pak on day one and day three. Snak paks come with the inherent risk of obesity and maybe some increased glucose levels after administration. Would you be ok with Snak paks?

Again, I haven't argued for the efficacy. I'm talking about the insane response of banning videos, deleting fb posts, personal attacks, etc. you have to admit that effective or not, the response is pure insanity.

Robin Hood Was A Thief said:

---

I can understand somewhat tribal thinking of "this may not work, but it's safe and prescribed daily around the world, it's not a cure all but it's showing some promise..let's give it a try since not much else is working" versus

"We can't give this to you because there aren't any massive double blind studies and the Trumpsters are pushing it"

Always...always..always follow the money. There's no money in an effective cheap treatment.

---

The tell really is masks vs ivermectin. There is arguably more data that suggest ivermectin is more effective than these random scraps of fabric on our faces. Yet one is pushed as an essential pillar of the war on covid and one is attacked as a Neanderthal thinking by a group of ignorant followers of a dangerous political right-winger.

Personally I don't think either is very effective and I think most would agree about that. It's generally not the average joe that is driving the polarizing narratives its the press, politicians, and bureaucrats that are supposed to be our non-partisan dedicated experts. They sacrificed the public trust for political posturing and potentially even personal enrichment. Our government has failed us and that should concern you regardless of political affiliation.

Sure, but ivermectin is not snak paks. There's a reason we required ivermectin to be prescribed in the US. You could probably harm yourself if you tried with snak paks. You could absolutely harm or kill yourself with ivermectin. This is just an argument against prescriptions and restricting drug access, or the FDA in general.

I don't have an issue with doctors prescribing things off label. That's their prerogative. But you asked why a doctor might not be willing to "just try it." The answer is because it might hurt someone with no possible upside. The conservative approach in the absence of evidence is to not prescribe.

As for banning videos. Google has decided that they're not going to allow information that poses a serious risk of egregious harm on youtube. They specifically give "Content that recommends use of Ivermectin or Hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of COVID-19" and "Categorical claims that Ivermectin is an effective treatment for COVID-19 " as prohibited. You may note they also don't want you to post videos saying that the vaccines make you magnetic. They're not making a judgment themselves, they are deferring to the WHO and local health authorities.

It's their platform, and while you or I may not agree with their choice to censor this information, it is their decision. Likewise facebook. I don't know if it is driven by liability concerns or ideological ones. But they're private, and it is their choice.

For the record I do think it is a mistake, on the whole, because it causes blowback. But I can also understand their position.

Zobel said:

---

Sure, but ivermectin is not snak paks. There's a reason we required ivermectin to be prescribed in the US. You could probably harm yourself if you tried with snak paks. You could absolutely harm or kill yourself with ivermectin. This is just an argument against prescriptions and restricting drug access, or the FDA in general.

I don't have an issue with doctors prescribing things off label. That's their prerogative. But you asked why a doctor might not be willing to "just try it." The answer is because it might hurt someone with no possible upside. The conservative approach in the absence of evidence is to not prescribe.

As for banning videos. Google has decided that they're not going to allow information that poses a serious risk of egregious harm on youtube. They specifically give "Content that recommends use of Ivermectin or Hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of COVID-19" and "Categorical claims that Ivermectin is an effective treatment for COVID-19 " as prohibited. You may note they also don't want you to post videos saying that the vaccines make you magnetic. They're not making a judgment themselves, they are deferring to the WHO and local health authorities.

It's their platform, and while you or I may not agree with their choice to censor this information, it is their decision. Likewise facebook. I don't know if it is driven by liability concerns or ideological ones. But they're private, and it is their choice.

For the record I do think it is a mistake, on the whole, because it causes blowback. But I can also understand their position.

---

They have protections from liability from videos getting posted on their platforms under Section 230. However, when then they start censoring certain views one could argue they should have those protections taken away. Saying they're a private company and they can censor what they want is fine, but if they're going to censor stuff to fit their beliefs then they should become liable for what's on their platforms.

Not always driven by the money. The most effective inpatient therapy is steroids given at the correct time. Cheap, easy and beneficial. Proven to work by a double blind study.

Don't always follow the money, follow the science.

Quote:

---

Don't always follow the money, follow the science.

---

Sounds like something a teacher's union rep would say.

That website is not a real meta analysis and that is one of the most egregious abuses of statistics imaginable. This is an example of bizarre astroturf campaigns for drugs that makes me wonder who benefits.

To expand - this paper deals with this site and others like it.

https://ebm.bmj.com/content/early/2021/05/26/bmjebm-2021-111678

Quote -
Different websites (such as https://ivmmeta.com/, https://c19ivermectin.com/, https://tratamientotemprano.org/estudios-ivermectina/, among others) have conducted meta-analyses with ivermectin studies, showing unpublished colourful forest plots which rapidly gained public acknowledgement and were disseminated via social media, without following any methodological or report guidelines. These websites do not include protocol registration with methods, search strategies, inclusion criteria, quality assessment of the included studies nor the certainty of the evidence of the pooled estimates. Prospective registration of systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis protocols is a key feature for providing transparency in the review process and ensuring protection against reporting biases, by revealing differences between the methods or outcomes reported in the published review and those planned in the registered protocol. These websites show pooled estimates suggesting significant benefits with ivermectin, which has resulted in confusion for clinicians, patients and even decision-makers. This is usually a problem when performing meta-analyses which are not based in rigorous systematic reviews, often leading to spread spurious or fallacious findings.

When you limit the search to randomized controlled trials - that is to say, better evidence by excluding open label and observational studies, the benefit vanishes.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34181716/

Poof! Magic.

PubMed is an awesome tool for separating medical fact from fiction. Much snake oil has been debunked there.

Curious, on the scale of non egregious to most egregious abuses of statistics imaginable where does combining death statistics from people dying with covid and those dying from covid rank on the scale?

Well my family and I will continue to use Ivermectin.

https://covid19criticalcare.com/ivermectin-in-covid-19/

Feel free to use Remdesvir or whoever your employer produces.

Zobel seems to take this very seriously and I would imagine this thread is gonna go poof very soon. Too much truth

My employer repairs turbomachinery. Nice implication of bias. Why don't you ask the people making those websites to disclose their bias?

Zobel said:

---

When you limit the search to randomized controlled trials - that is to say, better evidence by excluding open label and observational studies, the benefit vanishes.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34181716/

Poof! Magic.

---

You want to know why I know you did not even read Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines (nih.gov) ?

"Twenty-four randomized controlled trials involving 3406 participants met review inclusion." vs "we identified 10 RCTs [28- 37] (n=1,173)"

"up to April 25, 2021" vs "until March 22, 2021"

"3 trials in prophylaxis met review inclusion" vs "We excluded studies assessing prophylaxis for COVID-19 infection"

How about I put the entire article up for you instead of the abstract?

ciab591.pdf (silverchair.com)

Forest plots are they way you show the results from multiple studies side by side. Unpublished means they made them and put them on the site, not in any journal. I think colorful is a bit of a snide comment implying that they're for people who are easily impressed or don't know what they're looking at.

Also, I am enjoying this discussion and not taking it seriously at all. I hope the mods don't delete it, the discussion has been very beneficial and respectful I think.

I'm totally open to the idea that ivermectin might work. I just don't believe it does based on the evidence that's out there right now. When a large RCT shows benefit, I'll happily eat crow. Contrast that to the people on here who are displaying what can only be described as unfalsifiable faith in an unproven application of a pharmaceutical product. It's a strange world we live in.

It's not at all crazy that people are choosing ivermectin over the vaccine. The vaccine is new and the mRNA tech behind it is new as well. Ivermectin has been around for almost 50 years and has proven safe in the proper dosage. There is also substantial data as to its efficacy and why it works.