There's only one thing that will clarify anything with ivermectin at this point and that's a very large, well powered RCT. Fortunately a couple are ongoing. Unfortunately it probably won't matter as many who believe in ivermectin have unfalsifiable belief in it, just like people still believe HCQ works against the evidence.

For the first time ever the 2021 Nobel prize winner will be a reaction video from a nurse that watched Joe Rogan.

Another Doug said:

---

For the first time ever the 2021 Nobel prize winner will be a reaction video from a nurse that watched Joe Rogan.

---

Why don't you respond to all the data that she showed? Or how about the experience that she has had working with Covid patients?

There were a lot of good talking points in her video. You may disagree with many or all of them, but your Rogan comment is just a shallow attempt at discrediting her.

According to her, the "first lie" we are hearing is that there are "no treatments for Covid". I have never actually heard that said anywhere. Loses all credibility with that statement as we know that there are multiple treatments for Covid and they are known far and wide. You can't try to share your viewpoint by starting your own speech claiming that "you are being lied to". Just link the Joe Rogan podcast and be done with it. Her anecdotes are just that, not science. I am sure she is a good nurse, passionate, and only wants to help, but her speech does little to help. Ivermectin may be useful, but the hard science on it is still developing. I have no problem trying it along with other treatments, but the whole conspiracy theory shtick gets old.

Gizzards said:

---

According to her, the "first lie" we are hearing is that there are "no treatments for Covid". I have never actually heard that said anywhere. Loses all credibility with that statement as we know that there are multiple treatments for Covid and they are known far and wide. You can't try to share your viewpoint by starting your own speech claiming that "you are being lied to". Just link the Joe Rogan podcast and be done with it. Her anecdotes are just that, not science. I am sure she is a good nurse, passionate, and only wants to help, but her speech does little to help. Ivermectin may be useful, but the hard science on it is still developing. I have no problem trying it along with other treatments, but the whole conspiracy theory shtick gets old.

---

What are the treatments?

I didn't watch past the first minute or so, after the second time the nurse on Instagram mentioned Joe Rogan I ejected.

I am not a medical expert, I have no idea if ivermectin helps or not. All I hear is anecdotes and a lot of doctors not really buying the science of it. Hell, if I was at risk, I would probably be the first one in line at Tractor supply. But for the love of god, if ivermectin is the cure, can it please get a PR lady. Because each link yall post get sketchier and sketchier. At least the demon sperm lady wore a lab coat.

Why does Rogan trigger some of you so much?

Gizzards said:

---

According to her, the "first lie" we are hearing is that there are "no treatments for Covid". I have never actually heard that said anywhere. Loses all credibility with that statement as we know that there are multiple treatments for Covid and they are known far and wide. You can't try to share your viewpoint by starting your own speech claiming that "you are being lied to". Just link the Joe Rogan podcast and be done with it. Her anecdotes are just that, not science. I am sure she is a good nurse, passionate, and only wants to help, but her speech does little to help. Ivermectin may be useful, but the hard science on it is still developing. I have no problem trying it along with other treatments, but the whole conspiracy theory shtick gets old.

---

Exactly, anyone who reads marcus aurelius's post know they are doing everything they can. Also just look at the death rate from when NY/NJ got hit last year versus what it is now. There are treatments, its getting better, but there is no silver bullet yet.

https://www.health.harvard.edu/diseases-and-conditions/treatments-for-covid-19

aggierogue said:

---

Gizzards said:

---

According to her, the "first lie" we are hearing is that there are "no treatments for Covid". I have never actually heard that said anywhere. Loses all credibility with that statement as we know that there are multiple treatments for Covid and they are known far and wide. You can't try to share your viewpoint by starting your own speech claiming that "you are being lied to". Just link the Joe Rogan podcast and be done with it. Her anecdotes are just that, not science. I am sure she is a good nurse, passionate, and only wants to help, but her speech does little to help. Ivermectin may be useful, but the hard science on it is still developing. I have no problem trying it along with other treatments, but the whole conspiracy theory shtick gets old.

---

What are the treatments?

---

Steroids (usually dexamethasone) were probably the first mainstream agreed upon treatment, and they also check the box of being cheap and readily available (doesn't fit the conspiracy narrative). Remdesivir is standard of care for appropriate patients as are monocolonal antibody treatments (at least four different ones I can think of).

aggierogue said:

---

Why does Rogan trigger some of you so much?

---

Why does making fun of him cause you so much pearl clutching? Is it that much to ask, that science, comes from you know, scientists.

If I was out hear handing out tax advice based on what I saw at a Carrottop show, I wish to god someone would make fun of me.

Gizzards said:

---

aggierogue said:

---

Gizzards said:

---

According to her, the "first lie" we are hearing is that there are "no treatments for Covid". I have never actually heard that said anywhere. Loses all credibility with that statement as we know that there are multiple treatments for Covid and they are known far and wide. You can't try to share your viewpoint by starting your own speech claiming that "you are being lied to". Just link the Joe Rogan podcast and be done with it. Her anecdotes are just that, not science. I am sure she is a good nurse, passionate, and only wants to help, but her speech does little to help. Ivermectin may be useful, but the hard science on it is still developing. I have no problem trying it along with other treatments, but the whole conspiracy theory shtick gets old.

---

What are the treatments?

---

Steroids (usually dexamethasone) were probably the first mainstream agreed upon treatment, and they also check the box of being cheap and readily available (doesn't fit the conspiracy narrative). Remdesivir is standard of care for appropriate patients as are monocolonal antibody treatments (at least four different ones I can think of).

---

I've read Remdesivir has been proven to not be an effective treatment.

Another Doug said:

---

Gizzards said:

---

According to her, the "first lie" we are hearing is that there are "no treatments for Covid". I have never actually heard that said anywhere. Loses all credibility with that statement as we know that there are multiple treatments for Covid and they are known far and wide. You can't try to share your viewpoint by starting your own speech claiming that "you are being lied to". Just link the Joe Rogan podcast and be done with it. Her anecdotes are just that, not science. I am sure she is a good nurse, passionate, and only wants to help, but her speech does little to help. Ivermectin may be useful, but the hard science on it is still developing. I have no problem trying it along with other treatments, but the whole conspiracy theory shtick gets old.

---

Exactly, anyone who reads marcus aurelius's post know they are doing everything they can. Also just look at the death rate from when NY/NJ got hit last year versus what it is now. There are treatments, its getting better, but there is no silver bullet yet.

---

Sure doctors are doing what they can, but you hear very little about effective treatment of Covid from MSM and the vaccine proponents.

She's arguing, amongst others, that Ivermectin is a safe and effective treatment and the FDA is basically claiming it's not, even though they claim they don't really have any evidence that it isn't.

The burden of proof is on drugs to show safety and efficacy. Ivermectin is known to be a very safe drug, but until efficacy is shown, it's presumed not to work. This is how it works for all drugs.

The evidence we have today for ivermectin is not very strong at all.

Any adversarial relationship between "vaccine proponents" and therapies exists solely in the mind of conspiracy theorists and antivaxxers.

Zobel said:

---

The burden of proof is on drugs to show safety and efficacy. Ivermectin is known to be a very safe drug, but until efficacy is shown, it's presumed not to work. This is how it works for all drugs.

The evidence we have today for ivermectin is not very strong at all.

---

Except under EUA protocols, the standard is safe and maybe effective. Hence why so many of these drugs got approval with very little indication that they work.

Another Doug said:

---

aggierogue said:

---

Why does Rogan trigger some of you so much?

---

Why does making fun of him cause you so much pearl clutching? Is it that much to ask, that science, comes from you know, scientists.

If I was out hear handing out tax advice based on what I saw at a Carrottop show, I wish to god someone would make fun of me.

---

There are scientists and doctors on both sides of the Ivermectin debate. Just b/c Rogan happens to bring some of them on his show (which reaches millions) who you disagree with doesn't mean you have to cry foul and accuse them of being frauds.

Zobel said:

---

The burden of proof is on drugs to show safety and efficacy. Ivermectin is known to be a very safe drug, but until efficacy is shown, it's presumed not to work. This is how it works for all drugs.

The evidence we have today for ivermectin is not very strong at all.

Any adversarial relationship between "vaccine proponents" and therapies exists solely in the mind of conspiracy theorists and antivaxxers.

---

There are doctors who are sending Covid positive patients home with no treatment at all. If there were universal treatments like some are arguing on this thread, you'd see all docs using them. They aren't.

We have a family member at Spohn hospital in CC who has been given Ivermectin and Budesonide. We see other people on this forum who've been given nothing.

Some things to remember.

All drugs that end up in human trials do so because there is some plausible reason they'll work. Some in vitro evidence, some mechanism, something. The vast majority of drugs in this position don't wind up panning out. Something like 95% don't end up being successful. Ivermectin is no different here. It's shown antiviral properties against 20 something viruses. None of this has translated to clinical effect.

We don't have treatments for most viruses.

Based on those two things, why would we expect any particular treatment to work? We should not. We should expect them, just by the odds, to not work.

There is not much to do for someone with a mild viral infection. And, in a situation like covid when 99.6%+ of people will recover absent any treatment whatsoever, it's really hard to show efficacy with small trials. Most of the ivermectin observational studies are only 40 or 50 people!

I'm totally open that it has benefit. I don't think the evidence suggests that. The bizarre social media / astroturf campgain makes me more skeptical, not less.

Yet doctors are prescribing it to their patients.

aggierogue said:

---

Another Doug said:

---

aggierogue said:

---

Why does Rogan trigger some of you so much?

---

Why does making fun of him cause you so much pearl clutching? Is it that much to ask, that science, comes from you know, scientists.

If I was out hear handing out tax advice based on what I saw at a Carrottop show, I wish to god someone would make fun of me.

---

There are scientists and doctors on both sides of the Ivermectin debate. Just b/c Rogan happens to bring some of them on his show (which reaches millions) who you disagree with doesn't mean you have to cry foul and accuse them of being frauds.

---

Just to be clear,
I am not saying its proven ivermectin is useless,
I am not saying ivermectin is harmful,
I am not saying I wouldn't take it if I was desperate, unvaxxed and at risk
I am not saying those the Rogan show doctors or the instagram nurse are conmen
I am saying your link is stupid

aggierogue said:

---

Why does Rogan trigger some of you so much?

---

I don't know who he is, but when I hear his name I want Indian food.

Another Doug said:

---

aggierogue said:

---

Another Doug said:

---

aggierogue said:

---

Why does Rogan trigger some of you so much?

---

Why does making fun of him cause you so much pearl clutching? Is it that much to ask, that science, comes from you know, scientists.

If I was out hear handing out tax advice based on what I saw at a Carrottop show, I wish to god someone would make fun of me.

---

There are scientists and doctors on both sides of the Ivermectin debate. Just b/c Rogan happens to bring some of them on his show (which reaches millions) who you disagree with doesn't mean you have to cry foul and accuse them of being frauds.

---

Just to be clear,
I am not saying its proven ivermectin is useless,
I am not saying ivermectin is harmful,
I am not saying I wouldn't take it if I was desperate, unvaxxed and at risk
I am not saying those the Rogan show doctors or the instagram nurse are conmen
I am saying your link is stupid

---

And let me clarify, your OP is stupid.

She made one statement about Weinstein and the doctor on Rogan's podcast on a 40 minute video, and that's all you comment on. You admittedly watched one minute of her video. She discussed many topics with evidence to support her arguments. No one gives a s*** if you think her comment about Rogan is stupid.

At least Zobel is responding to the real subject of her video even though he seems to be clearly rejecting any evidence that isn't a large controlled study.

94chem said:

---

aggierogue said:

---

Why does Rogan trigger some of you so much?

---

I don't know who he is, but when I hear his name I want Indian food.

---

He's the number one podcaster in United States.

Quote:

---

With an estimated 11 million listeners per episode, Rogan reaches nearly four times as many people as prime-time cable hosts such as Sean Hannity of Fox News Channel and Rachel Maddow of MSNBC.

---

aggierogue said:

---

94chem said:

---

aggierogue said:

---

Why does Rogan trigger some of you so much?

---

I don't know who he is, but when I hear his name I want Indian food.

---

He's the number one podcaster in United States.

Quote:

---

With an estimated 11 million listeners per episode, Rogan reaches nearly four times as many people as prime-time cable hosts such as Sean Hannity of Fox News Channel and Rachel Maddow of MSNBC.

---

---

Where all the great science happens, from a guy who is 4 times better than Sean Hannity and Rachel Maddow at telling people what they want to hear.

aggierogue said:

---

At least Zobel is responding to the real subject of her video even though he seems to be clearly rejecting any evidence that isn't a large controlled study.

---

Do you not see that a study of treatment of 50 people with a disease where 99,6% of them will be fine cannot be considered evidence? 99,6% of 50 people is 50 people. Statistically they will all improve regardless of treatment.

So? Doctors prescribed hydroxychloroquine too. I'm sure some still are. But it doesn't work, and now we know it never did, and what's more in some trials it showed harm.

You either care about evidence or you don't. Drug efficacy isn't based on whether or not some doctors prescribe something.

If you don't care about evidence, why do you need to justify it to others? Go to tractor supply and stock up on as much as you like.

And of course I'm rejecting evidence that's not large enough to show effect. You need sufficient study power to observe effects with any kind of statistical relevance. With ivermectin, the larger and more reliable the study the less benefit it shows. When you restrict it to only RCTs the benefit vanishes.

Read this
https://ebm.bmj.com/content/early/2021/05/26/bmjebm-2021-111678#main-content

And this
https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciab591/6310839

And make sure any study you read thst says it works doesn't reference the now-retracted for fraud Elgazzar study out of Egypt.
https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/93658

Another Doug said:

---

aggierogue said:

---

94chem said:

---

aggierogue said:

---

Why does Rogan trigger some of you so much?

---

I don't know who he is, but when I hear his name I want Indian food.

---

He's the number one podcaster in United States.

Quote:

---

With an estimated 11 million listeners per episode, Rogan reaches nearly four times as many people as prime-time cable hosts such as Sean Hannity of Fox News Channel and Rachel Maddow of MSNBC.

---

---

Where all the great science happens, from a guy who is 4 times better than Sean Hannity and Rachel Maddow at telling people what they want to hear.

---

Oh, I thought you weren't calling the doctors and scientists on his podcasts conmen.

Again, showing you have zero knowledge of the subject you're criticizing. Perhaps listen to the actual arguments made by these people if you're going to judge them.

Zobel said:

---

So? Doctors prescribed hydroxychloroquine too. I'm sure some still are. But it doesn't work, and now we know it never did, and what's more in some trials it showed harm.

You either care about evidence or you don't. Drug efficacy isn't based on whether or not some doctors prescribe something.

If you don't care about evidence, why do you need to justify it to others? Go to tractor supply and stock up on as much as you like.

And of course I'm rejecting evidence that's not large enough to show effect. You need sufficient study power to observe effects with any kind of statistical relevance. With ivermectin, the larger and more reliable the study the less benefit it shows. When you restrict it to only RCTs the benefit vanishes.

Read this
https://ebm.bmj.com/content/early/2021/05/26/bmjebm-2021-111678#main-content

---

What makes your knowledge of the issue greater than these doctors and scientists who disagree with you? You're on the Covid board 24/7 playing expert. Are you a doctor? Or do you just pretend to be on the internet?

Nothing at all. You shouldn't listen to anyone, you should look at data. This is the problem with appealing to expert opinion. There are literally experts on both sides of every issue.

I'm not saying you should believe me. I'm saying you should be skeptical, and actually go read the studies. If you can't do that, talk to someone you trust who can. The worst thing to do is get medical advice from social media, because you'll only find confirmation bias there.

I'm not a doctor but I have a research background and I like to read about medicine and scientific research. If you're interested in some of the fun you can get into read this (it is off topic but it shows the pitfalls of expert opinion AND scientific studies).
https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/04/28/the-control-group-is-out-of-control/

People often show a good deal of skepticism towards vaccine and mask studies - that's good. A lot of research is crap. But they should use that same standard toward ivermectin. No one who rejects the vaccines on the basis of the available research would take ivermectin if held to the same standard. Not a single one.

Why the ad hom? The drug either works or it doesn't, and my opinion and yours don't change that. The only way out is a large study. Oxford is doing one. We'll have a clear answer eventually.

Zobel said:

---

Nothing at all. You shouldn't listen to anyone, you should look at data. This is the problem with appealing to expert opinion. There are literally experts on both sides of every issue.

I'm not saying you should believe me. I'm saying you should be skeptical, and actually go read the studies. If you can't do that, talk to someone you trust who can. The worst thing to do is get medical advice from social media, because you'll only find confirmation bias there.

I'm not a doctor but I have a research background and I like to read about medicine and scientific research. If you're interested in some of the fun you can get into read this (it is off topic but it shows the pitfalls of expert opinion AND scientific studies).
https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/04/28/the-control-group-is-out-of-control/

People often show a good deal of skepticism towards vaccine and mask studies - that's good. A lot of research is crap. But they should use that same standard toward ivermectin. No one who rejects the vaccines on the basis of the available research would take ivermectin if held to the same standard. Not a single one.

---

Agree on the expert opinion. I also don't trust all the studies. I generally don't trust the government or much of "research" that is dependent on government funding. So there lies the problem. You can literally find studies on both sides of many issues just as there are "experts."

I don't know if Ivermectin works. But there seems to be enough evidence that doctors are willing to use it as a treatment, and larger studies are in the works.

Like I said, you either accept evidence or you don't. As soon as you start casting aspersions on research you don't like because of your judgment of the bias of the author, you may as well just pick your belief and be done with it.

This is the whole reason we do blinded studies and meta analysis in the first place.

Regarding doctors prescribing - the placebo effect for researchers is real too. People generally tend to find the effect they're looking for.