# Ivermectin proves ineffective against covid 19



## Nothereed (Apr 1, 2022)

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2115869
Well I wish I could color myself surprised. But I am not. This is a study involving 3515 people, so sample size is a non issue. Done as a double blind experiment, and randomized, which all prevents possible coloring of outcomes from patients knowing if it's one or the other. 
End result of the experiment is that Ivermectin does not help period. It might as well be the equivalent of a placebo at best, and at worst, sligtly increases the odds of death while having covid.

So... People that recommended Ivermectin in the past, got told it was ineffective, and didn't listen. Are you still going to use Ivermectin?


----------



## appleburger (Apr 1, 2022)

I wouldn't go as far to say the sample size is a "non-issue", given the scale, but this does line up with what we've been seeing so far.

The interpretation of the results with most studies has been sound in the scientific community - it's some of the public that did a _very_ poor job at that, far as I can tell.

We've seen ivermectin help with *symptoms* for folks that had parasites in addition to COVID, so it made sense to record that it was specifically helping with symptoms people were experiencing.

We then saw that get interpreted into a lot of nonsense by people who lack the ability to infer reality from information & jumping to a lot of conclusions.  Classic correlation vs. causation - something most of us should have learned in middle school.  That's very lazy thinking, and given the situation at hand - is flat out irresponsible, imo.

Education is important, folks.  The lack of reading comprehension and understanding why we use Science to learn in the first place is clearly leading to a lot of lag when it comes to people actually knowing what they're talking about.

Science hasn't changed.  It's always been iterative.  It's not supposed to immediately give us answers.  It's not a special group of people.  It's a process, and a tool _because_ we are *not* good at learning what's real without actually breaking reality down and slowly reaching a conclusion with logic rather than our assumptions.

Unfortunately, ignorance and pride are still clearly holding us back as a whole when it comes to understanding how we actually learn about how everything works.  Science doesn't always lead us to an ideal answer, but it's track record is a hell of a lot better than "intuition" and pride has produced.

So yeah, Ivermectin is not what some have tried to claim it is, and they've been fighting the research the whole way without even realizing it.


----------



## linuxares (Apr 1, 2022)

and everyone say "NO SHIT!"


----------



## appleburger (Apr 1, 2022)

This study also calls out the previous studies - looks like one was removed due to suspected malfeasance.  Good to know.

I do wish they mentioned limitations of the study; that's something I'm used to seeing in these.  I would think the geographic location of these trials would impact results, since depending on any other health issues the population happens to be dealing with could mess with findings, depending on how the results are measured and how well we control for those other potential health issues - but that's just my assumption.  I don't really know any better.

Good stuff, though.  Always happy to see more research helping clear the air.


----------



## djpannda (Apr 1, 2022)

but... but unsourced Facebook post  and Russian trolls says it works...


----------



## Glyptofane (Apr 1, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> So... People that recommended Ivermectin in the past, got told it was ineffective, and didn't listen. Are you still going to use Ivermectin?


It's effective as a prophylactic according to this study so still no, I would not take Ivermectin regularly to prevent a common cold. 

https://www.cureus.com/articles/821...3128-subjects-using-propensity-score-matching


----------



## Nothereed (Apr 1, 2022)

Glyptofane said:


> It's effective as a prophylactic according to this study so still no, I would not take Ivermectin regularly to prevent a common cold.


to be clear on the specifics to my statement on "recommending", it's strictly applying to using Ivermectin while you have covid19, since right wing individuals here in the states (I really don't think I'll have to name them. If not I'll describe if asked) were recommending it while having covid, not before infection.


----------



## smf (Apr 1, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> to be clear on the specifics to my statement on "recommending", it's strictly applying to using Ivermectin while you have covid19, since right wing individuals here in the states (I really don't think I'll have to name them. If not I'll describe if asked) were recommending it while having covid, not before infection.


If you're riddled with parasites then taking ivermectin to kill them off so you're healthier to fight off covid19 is probably a good idea. Anyone saying they are taking it is a little revealing of course.


----------



## Nothereed (Apr 1, 2022)

Glyptofane said:


> I would not take Ivermectin regularly to prevent a common cold


Is that implying covid19 is the equivalent of the common cold/ contrasting covid to the common cold? 
If so it is not the equivalent to the common cold, common cold. Covid and all previous varients have killed over 5 million people worldwide.
If it's not what your saying, I apologize for jumping the gun a little, but so many have died. (my friends mother died of it. My mom lost their best friend to it. And one of my coworkers nearly died from it/hospitalized. common cold does not do that shit)


----------



## impeeza (Apr 1, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2115869
> Well I wish I could color myself surprised. But I am not. This is a study involving 3515 people, so sample size is a non issue. Done as a double blind experiment, and randomized, which all prevents possible coloring of outcomes from patients knowing if it's one or the other.
> End result of the experiment is that Ivermectin does not help period. It might as well be the equivalent of a placebo at best, and at worst, sligtly increases the odds of death while having covid.
> 
> So... People that recommended Ivermectin in the past, got told it was ineffective, and didn't listen. Are you still going to use Ivermectin?


that "medicine" is for treat animals parasites (yes you and me we are animals) for the human spice is used on lices for some canines for fleas for others canines is venom. so what in the hell have the parasites is related to a virus?

is like the toilet paper again.


----------



## subcon959 (Apr 1, 2022)

I have some issues with that study's methodology. It seems they basically administered 3 doses over 3 days per patient. Why did they choose that protocol? The whole point was to see if there was any significant effect on Covid, not to treat a standard simple parasitic infection. The protocol should've been changed to suit the application. Also. they were doing multiple interventions at once which is a big no if you're looking to establish a sound conclusion on just one of them.


----------



## RocaBOT (Apr 1, 2022)

I'm pretty sure they chose their protocol according to the posology that was advocated by those who were adamant it works.
And oh, what a surprise, it does not. Who could have thunk!


----------



## zfreeman (Apr 1, 2022)

Why did they wait for 7 days of symptoms? This study from January says that it's better used as a prophylactic.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35070575/


----------



## subcon959 (Apr 2, 2022)

zfreeman said:


> Why did they wait for 7 days of symptoms? This study from January says that it's better used as a prophylactic.
> 
> https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35070575/


It's important to also see if there is post-infection therapeutic value as that would be more useful. They already missed the boat for prophylactic use.


----------



## Nothereed (Apr 2, 2022)

zfreeman said:


> Why did they wait for 7 days of symptoms? This study from January says that it's better used as a prophylactic.
> 
> https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35070575/





subcon959 said:


> It's important to also see if there is post-infection therapeutic value as that would be more useful. They already missed the boat for prophylactic use.





RocaBOT said:


> I'm pretty sure they chose their protocol according to the posology that was advocated by those who were adamant it works.
> And oh, what a surprise, it does not. Who could have thunk!


Last post is the reason why it was not used as a prophylactic. The likes of Jo Rogan, and others, recommended it while having covid, not before or after


----------



## sith (Apr 2, 2022)

pretty obvious it is a dosage issue, as a prophylactic the dosage is much too high, thats why pfizer's "paxlovid" protease inhibitor is basically ivermecton (actually PF-07321332, also a 3-C Protease inhibitor but not identical), mixed with ritonavir to extent its metabolic half-life and increase serum concentrations, this is indicated for acute symptomatic treatment not preventative application and if ivermection were to work well i would guess it would be at frequent and high dosages.


----------



## AlexMCS (Apr 2, 2022)

Have you all even read the article?

1. The actual sample size was 1358, 679 ivermectin x 679 placebo.

2. Check the tables.
The study, like many others, is dismissing the results based on "statistical significance" instead of net results, which clearly shows ivermectin is better than placebo (10% effectiveness).

(BTW, the people in this particular study, and in particular, the lead scientist Gilmar Reis, had a secret goal: to push fluvoxamine as the actual treatment, which was the crux of a previous study of his funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which is why that was the group with most individuals - 784 - which isn't even mentioned in the article other than a table entry, as seen by his own admission in here - .)

What I've seen in person over here is that the best usage for ivermectin is using it at the onset of symptoms. It has a definitive positive impact, even if small, as shown by a plethora of studies already.
If using it as a prophylactic, you get exposed to higher risk of adverse effects, so I'd advise against it.

As a final note, these kinds of studies should be conducted by actual statisticians, not physicians dabbling with statistics, since the end result is based on statistics not medicine. The medical doctors should be the support to evaluate the data.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Apr 2, 2022)

Quo bono.

The fact that this nobel-price winning substance has been ridiculed to the highest degree, shows you that media is in bed with pharma.

"You have the flu? Stay in bed and drink a lot of water"
"Hahaha! You mean the thing that lazy people do? and the stuff you wash your car with? Hahaha!"

This was the media coverage in a nutshell.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 2, 2022)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> The fact that this nobel-price winning substance has been ridiculed to the highest degree, shows you that media is in bed with pharma.


Only the people claiming that an anti-parasitic drug is effective at treating a virus are being ridiculed, and rightly so.  COVID really opened our eyes to how many people failed middle school biology.


----------



## The Catboy (Apr 2, 2022)

This isn't a shock for anyone who actually listened to professionals last year. It was stupid and didn't work back then and it's stupid and doesn't work now.


----------



## AlexMCS (Apr 2, 2022)

The ones being ridiculed, by themselves, are actually the people who can't even read articles or interpret results, which sadly is the majority here.


----------



## RocaBOT (Apr 2, 2022)

AlexMCS said:


> Have you all even read the article?
> 
> 1. The actual sample size was 1358, 679 ivermectin x 679 placebo.
> 
> ...



You know, there is actual math behind such conclusions, net results show nothing if they are below the threshold for error margin, which is the case here. There's more than what you would like to see, believe it or not.


----------



## AlexMCS (Apr 3, 2022)

I have an ongoing master's in mathematical modeling. I know the math behind it.
It's called statistical inference.

And it's great to infer results from unknown parameters.

When one study says it's irrelevant due to statistical conclusions, it's one thing.

When dozens of studies show positive net results, the inference is clearly wrong to be taken in a vacuum.

Which is why I said such studies should be done not by physicians, but statisticians.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 3, 2022)

AlexMCS said:


> The ones being ridiculed, by themselves, are actually the people who can't even read articles or interpret results, which sadly is the majority here.


It's not hard to interpret, 100 people who were given Ivermectin to treat COVID-19 still had to be hospitalized, compared to 111 people who were given a placebo.  In a sample size of 3515 people, a difference of 11 is negligible, therefore Ivermectin isn't any better at treating COVID than a sugar pill.


----------



## RocaBOT (Apr 3, 2022)

AlexMCS said:


> I have an ongoing master's in mathematical modeling. I know the math behind it.
> It's called statistical inference.
> 
> And it's great to infer results from unknown parameters.
> ...


Oh boy, big ego much, yeah? Cite the dozen studies in question properly if you want to be credible, that's the least you should do.


----------



## lolcatzuru (Apr 3, 2022)

i mean they could also just be, you know, lying. Especially since they approved a vaccine that is harming people when there is a better alternative and this result would make them look bad. I know its impossible for the goverment to lie, but they have been wrong on quite a few things.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 3, 2022)

lolcatzuru said:


> i mean they could also just be, you know, lying. Especially since they approved a vaccine that is harming people when there is a better alternative and this result would make them look bad. I know its impossible for the goverment to lie, but they have been wrong on quite a few things.


Today I learned that the New England Journal of Medicine is our government.


----------



## lolcatzuru (Apr 3, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Today I learned that the New England Journal of Medicine is our government.



its a finding that was made by the cdc?


----------



## Xzi (Apr 3, 2022)

lolcatzuru said:


> its a finding that was made by the cdc?


It's a peer-reviewed, published study that doesn't stray at all from the scientific method.  Everybody involved is listed right under the title.  But sure, everything you're incapable of or unwilling to understand must be a conspiracy.  The whole world is against you specifically.


----------



## lolcatzuru (Apr 3, 2022)

Xzi said:


> It's a peer-reviewed, published study that doesn't stray at all from the scientific method.  Everybody involved is listed right under the title.  But sure, everything you're incapable of or unwilling to understand must be a conspiracy.  The whole world is against you specifically.



i didnt say that it strayed from the scientific method at all, its publicly available, so naturally they have to make it look legit. can you specify which part i didnt understand? i thought i had a pretty clear understand that it was initially cited from the cdc, now if thats wrong, thats problem number 1, my point, was that those people and their jobs/ livelihoods would be in jeopardy if they said that the once horse dewormer ( more on that later) was infinitely more effective than the vaccine, don't believe me?  Dr. Peter mccolloughs medicine license is/was apparently in jeopardy ( source: jre episode, idk if theres a transcript or not, individual citing doctor robert malone, co creator of the mrna archetype.) because of his thoughts on this subject.  so its interesting that they had to make sure they had official documents that said it doesnt work after the media tried to label actual medicine, horse dewormer, which is only one of its application to avoid people using it. Now if thats not a hit job, then those people should be fired for spreading misinformation, dont you agree?


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Apr 3, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Only the people claiming that an anti-parasitic drug is effective at treating a virus are being ridiculed, and rightly so.  COVID really opened our eyes to how many people failed middle school biology.


A virus is parasitic.
BTW:
"Ivermectin proposes many potentials effects to treat a range of diseases, with its antimicrobial, antiviral, and anti-cancer properties as a wonder drug."
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32533071/


----------



## Xzi (Apr 3, 2022)

lolcatzuru said:


> Dr. Peter mccolloughs medicine license is/was apparently in jeopardy ( source: jre episode, idk if theres a transcript or not, individual citing doctor robert malone, co creator of the mrna archetype.) because of his thoughts on this subject.


As it should be.  Anybody who doesn't know the difference between an anti-parasitic drug and an anti-viral drug should not be allowed to practice medicine.  That's a good way of putting patients in harm's way unnecessarily.

Not to mention Joe Rogan went off the deep end a while ago.  Bad enough he used to just smile and nod at every guest, no matter how batshit insane they were or weren't, but now he's chosen the "aggressively stupid" route to try to push his own moronic opinions as fact.  At the end of the day he's just another shock jockey who will say or do anything to retain listeners.  Rush Limbaugh 2.0.



lolcatzuru said:


> so its interesting that they had to make sure they had official documents that said it doesnt work after the media tried to label actual medicine, horse dewormer, which is only one of its application to avoid people using it.


Again, it's an anti-parasitic drug.  That's its use case for both humans and horses, but it is more commonly used on horses because they are more commonly infected with worms.  People being mocked for taking it in any form to treat COVID-19 was inevitable.



lolcatzuru said:


> Now if thats not a hit job, then those people should be fired for spreading misinformation, dont you agree?


Nobody deserves to be fired over certain individuals' inability to seperate reality from conspiracy theory from joke, no.  Those causing real harm by spewing a constant stream of vaccine misinformation should certainly be de-platformed, however.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 3, 2022)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> A virus is parasitic.
> BTW:
> "Ivermectin proposes many potentials effects to treat a range of diseases, with its antimicrobial, antiviral, and anti-cancer properties as a wonder drug."
> https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32533071/


Not sure what I'm looking at here, a paragraph about the drug and a picture of its molecular makeup does not a conclusive study make.  Its effectiveness in treating other types of viruses might still be TBD, but we have enough information now to rule it out as an effective treatment for COVID-19 specifically.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Apr 3, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Not sure what I'm looking at here, a paragraph about the drug and a picture of its molecular makeup does not a conclusive study make.  Its effectiveness in treating other types of viruses might still be TBD, but we have enough information now to rule it out as an effective treatment for COVID-19 specifically.


Backpedaling much? You claimed ivermectine cannot work against a virus, which is false.

The study does show a possible effectiveness. From this study we cannot tell how effective it is if it had been given early on. What I said remains true: a noble-price winning substance has been ridiculed in the media. Quo Bono.
Are you taking drinking that stuff that is used to clean pigs? You animal! [media logic]


----------



## KingVamp (Apr 3, 2022)

lolcatzuru said:


> i mean they could also just be, you know, lying. Especially since they approved a vaccine that is harming people when there is a better alternative and this result would make them look bad. I know its impossible for the goverment to lie, but they have been wrong on quite a few things.


I guess anyone that's pushing ivermectin can't lie either.


----------



## lolcatzuru (Apr 3, 2022)

Xzi said:


> As it should be.  Anybody who doesn't know the difference between an anti-parasitic drug and an anti-viral drug should not be allowed to practice medicine.  That's a good way of putting patients in harm's way unnecessarily.
> 
> Not to mention Joe Rogan went off the deep end a while ago.  Bad enough he used to just smile and nod at every guest, no matter how batshit insane they were or weren't, but now he's chosen the "aggressively stupid" route to try to push his own moronic opinions as fact.  At the end of the day he's just another shock jockey who will say or do anything to retain listeners.  Rush Limbaugh 2.0.
> 
> ...



so first off, there are a few points here that are COMPLETELY factually untrue but ill go in order to be fair.

First, you mention that if someone doesnt know the difference, but i have a feeling you don't actually know ( unless you can prove you have a phd) that ivermectin, is among MANY other drugs, multiuse, meaning that it can be administered not just for one common purpose, there are scores of medicines like this and the fact you dont know that tells me that you shouldnt have a say.

Regardless as to how you feel about joe rogan, it was an expert that talked about this. Joe rogan can have an IQ of 12, that doesnt make what his guests say any less valuable, unless you dont like elon musk or perhaps maybe gary johnson, andrew yang and many many other people that are very influential in their field.

onto the main point, yes you are correct that it is a horse dewormer as we discussed but you are COMPLETELY leaving out the part that it cured an entire nation of horrible illness years ago and since, has been moved to use in animals, which itself is interesting its safe CROSS FUCKING SPECIES, but i digress, it actually helped cure river blindness, in fact the last person ever cured from river blindness has a statue in the HQ of i think its merc? i may be wrong on that ,but in the facility of whoever came up with it AND the creators are up for a nobel peace prize for their work.  

So this is the problem, the fact you either didnt know or chose not to mention this tells me that you are NOT qualifed to make this determination, much like im not, you know who is? the licensing board who gave mccollough his license. now if they are wrong, they should absolutely be locked up without question as apparently he's a conspiracy theorist ( bummer about the laptop and origins of the virus thing, sorry to hear that) and should not be a doctor OR that means we need a seperate panel to determine which doctor is the more superior doctor.


----------



## lolcatzuru (Apr 3, 2022)

KingVamp said:


> I guess anyone that's pushing ivermectin can't lie either.



well i mean they can, but why would they? ivermection is out of patent and basically worth nothing, where mrna is in patent, must be licensed and can cost hundreds of dollars to produce, so i mean yea they can lie, good luck with that 60 cent on the dollar, i wonder how many gallons of gas thatll get them. especially since its banned basically everywhere.


----------



## AlexMCS (Apr 3, 2022)

Xzi said:


> It's not hard to interpret, 100 people who were given Ivermectin to treat COVID-19 still had to be hospitalized, compared to 111 people who were given a placebo.  In a sample size of 3515 people, a difference of 11 is negligible, therefore Ivermectin isn't any better at treating COVID than a sugar pill.



Try reading the article.

Sample size is 1358, for starters.
The "primary outcome" stated is hospitalization, for which no criteria was given, by the way.

The net difference is clear:
111 - 100 = 11. (10%)

Statistically few? Yes.
It is the only study where there is a small net positive gain? No.

Almost every study showed a net positive gain, which demonstrates there is something positive going on with this drug.

It needs dosage adjustments or associations (guess what paxlovid is based on) to see if that small gain is just that, or if it can be something more.

There is also evidence in the next table for positive effects on the "secondary outcomes".

It's worth noting that I didn't even need to criticize the procedure, since someone else in this thread already addressed that.

And I've even pointed out the possible source bias from the researchers.



RocaBOT said:


> Oh boy, big ego much, yeah? Cite the dozen studies in question properly if you want to be credible, that's the least you should do.



Why do people always think "not being ignorant" = "big ego"?

It's one thing being called out without knowing a thing. It's another when I know exactly what is wrong with most of these  studies since that's my area of research.

Knock yourself out on the papers.
https://c19ivermectin.com/

As a side note, on the left sidebar there are links to studies for many other drugs.

Edits: typos. Hate typing on a cellphone...


----------



## AlexMCS (Apr 3, 2022)

As a kicker, that very site describes all errors from this particular article itself here:

https://c19ivermectin.com/togetherivm.html

Additionally, even if this article heavily favored ivermectin, I'd be skeptical, since most articles show minor gains, and this was done here in my country, on "public health clinics".

You guys really do NOT want to know how chaotically things work over here in such clinics...


----------



## Xzi (Apr 3, 2022)

AlexMCS said:


> Sample size is 1358, for starters.


Jesus, you must've taken more than a few seminars on how to be confidently wrong.  You can't just throw away the second control group, that would significantly change the results of the study.



			
				New England Journal of Medicine said:
			
		

> *A total of* *3515 patients* were randomly assigned to receive ivermectin (679 patients), placebo (679), or another intervention (2157). Overall, 100 patients (14.7%) in the ivermectin group had a primary-outcome event, as compared with 111 (16.3%) in the placebo group (relative risk, 0.90; 95% Bayesian credible interval, 0.70 to 1.16). Of the 211 primary-outcome events, 171 (81.0%) were hospital admissions. Findings were similar to the primary analysis in a modified intention-to-treat analysis that included only patients who received at least one dose of ivermectin or placebo (relative risk, 0.89; 95% Bayesian credible interval, 0.69 to 1.15) and in a per-protocol analysis that included only patients who reported 100% adherence to the assigned regimen (relative risk, 0.94; 95% Bayesian credible interval, 0.67 to 1.35). There were no significant effects of ivermectin use on secondary outcomes or adverse events.





AlexMCS said:


> The net difference is clear:
> 111 - 100 = 11. (10%)


Again, statistically insignificant against the total number of test subjects.  There's no way to predict ahead of time who is going to have severe symptoms that require hospitalization, and who isn't.  What was proved here is that Ivermectin does nothing more than a placebo to prevent severe symptoms of COVID-19 from appearing.



AlexMCS said:


> Statistically few? Yes.
> It is the only study where there is a small net positive gain? No.
> 
> Almost every study showed a net positive gain, which demonstrates there is something positive going on with this drug.


"Something positive" about this drug is that we can now move past it and on to studying more effective options.  Not a single physician in their right mind would ever prescribe Ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19 unprompted.  We've got vaccines and monoclonal antibodies available, for fuck's sake.  Anybody who ends up dying of COVID-19 at this point has nobody to blame but themselves, assuming they aren't immuno-compromised.


----------



## AlexMCS (Apr 3, 2022)

This study is wholly based on placebo (679) vs Ivermectin (679). 

The other individuals are *completely irrelevant *to the results of this article. They aren't even mentioned anymore, nor in text or calculations, only in other unrelated studies. Like I said the lead doctor is pushing for fluvoxamine.

If you consider a 10% improvement irrelevant, that's on you. I, and many people, do not.

I'm also not advocating in favor of ivermectin over better options, provided they are accessible, which is not the case over here yet. Vaccines are not treatment, and the current highly effective treatments are also highly expensive. Ivermectin is cheap as hell, and does work better than placebo.

What I don't like is people saying something is useless when it does have a positive effect. 

It might not mean much for you people north of the equator, but it does make a difference for us here, which is why we even have such ongoing researches still.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 3, 2022)

AlexMCS said:


> If you consider a 10% improvement irrelevant, that's on you. I, and many people, do not.


Even taking out the second control group and going by your own numbers, 11 / 1358 is an improvement of 0.8%, not 10%.  With good reason, doctors do not prescribe treatments that are only 0.8% more effective than placebo.



AlexMCS said:


> Vaccines are not treatment, and the current highly effective treatments are also highly expensive. Ivermectin is cheap as hell, and does work better than placebo.


Vaccines are preventative care, and it doesn't matter how cheap Ivermectin is if you still end up on a ventilator at the hospital after using it.  That bill's gonna run you in the tens of thousands.



AlexMCS said:


> What I don't like is people saying something is useless when it does have a positive effect.


Of course it has a use, just not specifically treatment of this virus.  Flintstones vitamins have a use, but they don't cure cancer.


----------



## KingVamp (Apr 3, 2022)

lolcatzuru said:


> well i mean they can, but why would they? ivermection is out of patent and basically worth nothing, where mrna is in patent, must be licensed and can cost hundreds of dollars to produce, so i mean yea they can lie, good luck with that 60 cent on the dollar, i wonder how many gallons of gas thatll get them. especially since its banned basically everywhere.


Why bother making something that cost hundreds of dollars to produce, if it is all a lie anyway? 

The same reason all scammers and grifters does things, profit. You think this uptick for ivermectin would have happened, if people didn't think it would actually help? The lowest I've seen for ivermectin is around $20, even with coupons.


----------



## lolcatzuru (Apr 3, 2022)

KingVamp said:


> Why bother making something that cost hundreds of dollars to produce, if it is all a lie anyway?
> 
> The same reason all scammers and grifters does things, profit. You think this uptick for ivermectin would have happened, if people didn't think it would actually help? The lowest I've seen for ivermectin is around $20, even with coupons.



"Why bother making something that cost hundreds of dollars to produce, if it is all a lie anyway?" 

is this a real question? because if you convince someone it works, then they will buy it, like we have being on dose number 4.


"The same reason all scammers and grifters does things, profit. You think this uptick for ivermectin would have happened, if people didn't think it would actually help? The lowest I've seen for ivermectin is around $20, even with coupons."

i would not, as its been basically banned in the us and other places interestingly enough. As far as the price, thats the markup, not cost of production, i know money is tough.


----------



## tabzer (Apr 3, 2022)

People are still afraid of Covid?  I thought everyone caught it already.  Also, my understanding about ivermectin is that it needed to be supplemented with zinc.  But then again, maybe it was the zinc that's helpful and not the ivermectin.  I don't eat pills or paste, so I can only speculate.

If you don't want to die "from Covid" just don't go to the hospital.  The statistics are clear.


----------



## Deleted member 587857 (Apr 3, 2022)

-


----------



## Xzi (Apr 3, 2022)

tabzer said:


> People are still afraid of Covid?


Fear has nothing to do with the facts or science behind modern medical treatments and vaccines.



tabzer said:


> Also, my understanding about ivermectin is that it needed to be supplemented with zinc. But then again, maybe it was the zinc that's helpful and not the ivermectin.


Bingo.  And even then high Zinc levels aren't as helpful in fighting off COVID as high vitamin D levels are.  That's still not gonna necessarily save you a hospital trip if you have any other risk factors though, as many Americans do (obesity).



tabzer said:


> If you don't want to die "from Covid" just don't go to the hospital. The statistics are clear.


Oh right, you're still ridiculous enough to be treating this like it's make believe that a million are dead in the US alone, and a lot of countries were hit even worse relative to their population.  Childhood trauma is a bitch, but I'll be interested to hear your opinions on this whole thing once you've matured a bit and are willing to accept reality.


----------



## stanna (Apr 3, 2022)

Well covid is doing the rounds again at our house for the second time, it's still as underwhelming as it was the first time around, plus this time there's chickenpox as well, guess it's a new variant covidpox.


----------



## subcon959 (Apr 3, 2022)

Oh look, the geopolitical experts are now back to being medical experts again..


----------



## tabzer (Apr 3, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Fear has nothing to do with the facts or science behind modern medical treatments and vaccines.
> 
> 
> Bingo.  And even then high Zinc levels aren't as helpful in fighting off COVID as high vitamin D levels are.  That's still not gonna necessarily save you a hospital trip if you have any other risk factors though, as many Americans do (obesity).
> ...


I just see pearl clutching.  When you are done playing D&D can we play outside?


----------



## Xzi (Apr 3, 2022)

tabzer said:


> I just see pearl clutching.  When you are done playing D&D can we play outside?


Misuse of the phrase.  That would imply I'm worried about something that hasn't happened yet, rather than presenting you with concrete statistics on what's already happened.  And again you prove yourself unable or unwilling to accept that reality, your childish political tribalism is certainly putting up a lot of mental and emotional roadblocks for you lately.


----------



## tabzer (Apr 3, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Misuse of the phrase.  That would imply I'm worried about something that hasn't happened yet


Lol.  No.  That's wrong.  That's not even close.  Google something before you pretend to know what something means.

Personally, my reality differs from whatever you've got jotted down on your fact sheet.  I'm not taking it seriously.


----------



## subcon959 (Apr 3, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Misuse of the phrase.  That would imply I'm worried about something that hasn't happened yet, rather than presenting you with concrete statistics on what's already happened.


You might be thinking of a different phrase. Pearl-clutching is usually something old women are accused of when they dramatically overreact.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 3, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Personally, my reality differs from whatever you've got jotted down on your fact sheet. I'm not taking it seriously.


Lmao yeah, we all noticed.  You don't take anything seriously except the conspiracy theories you pick up from Facebook and/or 4chan.  Which in turn makes you impossible to take seriously.



subcon959 said:


> You might be thinking of a different phrase. Pearl-clutching is usually something old women are accused of when they dramatically overreact.


Indeed I was mistaken, but the usage of the phrase is also still incorrect.  There was nothing dramatic about what tabzer quoted.


----------



## tabzer (Apr 3, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Indeed I was mistaken, but the usage of the phrase is also still incorrect.  There was nothing dramatic about what tabzer quoted.


I think you are overly dramatic.  And edgy.  Definitely an edgelord.



Xzi said:


> Lmao yeah, we all noticed. You don't take anything seriously except the conspiracy theories you pick up from Facebook and/or 4chan. Which in turn makes you impossible to take seriously.


Oh, yeah?  My reality is based on 4chan?  I guess someone would have to take you seriously to believe that.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 3, 2022)

tabzer said:


> I think you are overly dramatic. And edgy. Definitely an edgelord.


I gave a general tip on improving outcomes if/when you catch COVID-19, and I cited a statistic.  What about those things screams "dramatic and edgy" to you?  If anything your response was a half-assed attempt at edginess.



tabzer said:


> Oh, yeah? My reality is based on 4chan? I guess someone would have to take you seriously to believe that.


Or they could just review your post history and confirm it for themselves.


----------



## AlexMCS (Apr 3, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Even taking out the second control group and going by your own numbers, 11 / 1358 is an improvement of 0.8%, not 10%. With good reason, doctors do not prescribe treatments that are only 0.8% more effective than placebo.



I won't reply anymore but this calculation is wrong.

You need to compare primary outcome using placebo vs primary outcome using the drug, not the difference/population, that ratio does not mean anything for the study.

Try some test values. Would it be 111/1358 if no one who took the drug  got into the hospital? No. It would be 100%:

Effectiveness = (placebo - drug)/placebo

Anyways, I rest my case. I've said enough on the matter.


----------



## tabzer (Apr 3, 2022)

Xzi said:


> I gave a general tip on improving outcomes if/when you catch COVID-19, and I cited a statistic. What about those things screams "dramatic and edgy" to you? If anything your response was a half-assed attempt at edginess.


Half-assed, yes.  You think you deserve more than that?  That's proud.  Your reaction with "a million people died, you should take this seriously" response has me wondering why you are on the internet when you could be volunteering to take care of all the dying people around you.


Xzi said:


> Or they could just review your post history and confirm it for themselves.


People don't exist inside the internet.  When I said that I don't see the picture you are painting in my reality, I am talking about my professional and daily life.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 3, 2022)

AlexMCS said:


> I won't reply anymore but this calculation is wrong.
> 
> You need to compare primary outcome using placebo vs primary outcome using the drug, not the difference/population, that ratio does not mean anything for the study.
> 
> ...


There's not even a need to do our own math here, it's written plainly in the results section:



			
				New England Journal of Medicine said:
			
		

> Overall, 100 patients (14.7%) in the ivermectin group had a primary-outcome event, as compared with 111 (16.3%) in the placebo group


Only 1.6% more of the placebo group ended up hospitalized, as opposed to the group treated with Ivermectin.  No matter how you slice it, it's not enough to be considered even moderately effective for this purpose.


----------



## tabzer (Apr 3, 2022)

Sounds like 11% more people ended up in the hospital of the placebo group.  Was it because they experienced hives or low blood-sugar?  We will never know.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 3, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Half-assed, yes. You think you deserve more than that?


No, but I do appreciate you confirming that the "drama and edginess" stuff was all projection on your part.  If you're ever confused about which voice you should read my posts in, just go with Ben Stein.



tabzer said:


> Your reaction with "a million people died, you should take this seriously" response has me wondering why you are on the internet when you could be volunteering to take care of all the dying people around you.


Pretty sure I'm allowed to bring up statistics on COVID deaths in a COVID-related thread, dad.  Whether you choose to take it seriously or not, reality will always come around to kick you in the ass eventually.


----------



## tabzer (Apr 3, 2022)

Xzi said:


> I do appreciate you confirming that the "drama and edginess" stuff was all projection on your part.


Oh, how?


Xzi said:


> Pretty sure I'm allowed to bring up statistics on COVID deaths in a COVID-related thread, dad.


Lol.  You can say whatever you want.  But stfu.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 3, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Oh, how?


Me: "If anything your response was a half-assed attempt at edginess."
You: "Half-assed, yes."



tabzer said:


> Lol. You can say whatever you want. But stfu.


Ah, good ol' Schrodinger's speech permissions.


----------



## AlexMCS (Apr 3, 2022)

Xzi said:


> There's not even a need to do our own math here, it's written plainly in the results section:
> 
> 
> Only 1.6% more of the placebo group ended up hospitalized, as opposed to the group treated with Ivermectin.  No matter how you slice it, it's not enough to be considered even moderately effective for this purpose.



That's not how it works, Xzi.
Once again: 16.3% - 14.7%/16.3% ~= 10% improvement.
Like I said, the study is comparing primary outcomes (hospitalization or admission to UPAs).
If everyone who took ivermectin weren't admitted into the hospital, ivermectin would be a 100% improvement over placebo.
Can't you see that?

The article outright lies about the results:


> Treatment with ivermectin did not result in a lower incidence of medical admission to a hospital due to progression of Covid-19 or of prolonged emergency department observation among outpatients with an early diagnosis of Covid-19.



When their own data proves otherwise. Their dismissal is based on bayesian inference to top it all off, it's not even the classic p-value > 0.05 dismissal, which would also be wrong, but in line with similar studies.

But yeah, here I am posting again =/
If I got bored enough, I could do a full breakdown of the data for you all, including calculation and statistical experiments.
But let's get back to FFXV.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 3, 2022)

AlexMCS said:


> That's not how it works, Xzi.


It doesn't give you the results you're wanting to see, clearly, but subtracting one percentage from another works just fine when comparing outcomes for two test groups of the exact same size.



AlexMCS said:


> If everyone who took ivermectin weren't admitted into the hospital, ivermectin would be a 100% improvement over placebo.
> Can't you see that?


That's assuming that everybody who took the placebo would end up in the hospital, and that's never gonna be the case.  The fine print in pharmaceutical ads rarely lists a drug to be more than 60 or 70% more effective than placebo.


----------



## tabzer (Apr 3, 2022)

Xzi said:


> It doesn't give you the results you're wanting to see, clearly, but subtracting one percentage from another works just fine when comparing outcomes for two test groups of the exact same size.
> 
> 
> That's assuming that everybody who took the placebo would end up in the hospital, and that's never gonna be the case.


"I'm right because I keep talking"

-Ben Stein


----------



## Xzi (Apr 3, 2022)

tabzer said:


> "I'm right because I keep talking"
> 
> -Ben Stein


I'm right because the study's conclusions back my assertion that Ivermectin is ineffective at treating COVID-19.  When there's a reputable study that concludes the opposite, feel free to let me know.  And no tabzer, your anti-vaxx Facebook group populated almost entirely with boomers doesn't count.

Statistics you can make say anything, that's why I chose the simplest route in determining that 1.6% fewer people treated with Ivermectin were admitted to the hospital.  That number is an absolute joke compared to the results of studies conducted on vaccines.  And that's really all the more that needs to be said on the subject.  If you're still "on the fence" with so much data available, you're a fucking idiot.

Edit: in fairness to AlexMCS, you're correct about the formula for determining effectiveness.  I accidentally moved the goalposts by switching the focus to a different statistic.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Apr 3, 2022)

Waiting for you to admit masks never worked either.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 3, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> Waiting for you to admit masks never worked either.


The data has never stopped showing the opposite rofl.  You acknowledge that gas masks work to filter out gas, yes?  Same concept, except some masks (N95) are obviously more effective than others at filtering out viruses because of how tiny they are.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Apr 3, 2022)

Xzi said:


> The data has never stopped showing the opposite rofl.  You acknowledge that gas masks work to filter out gas, yes?  Same concept, except some masks (N95) are obviously more effective than others at filtering out viruses because of how tiny they are.


N95 mask work. But those arent the ones that hundreds of millions of people have ben using for 2 years. Cloth mask NEVER worked.

Hundreds of millions people wearing mask that didnt do shit every single day for 2 years versus a few thousand people taking Ivermectin.

Which do you think has been the most misleading?


----------



## lolcatzuru (Apr 3, 2022)

tabzer said:


> People are still afraid of Covid?  I thought everyone caught it already.  Also, my understanding about ivermectin is that it needed to be supplemented with zinc.  But then again, maybe it was the zinc that's helpful and not the ivermectin.  I don't eat pills or paste, so I can only speculate.
> 
> If you don't want to die "from Covid" just don't go to the hospital.  The statistics are clear.



it needs to be suplimented with zinc and a variety of other  ( referring to the other witch doctor who doesn't know how medicine works )  MUTLI FUCKING USE DRUGS. My guess is that by conducting this trial without those things, the cult liberals will say " theres your proof" and push 18 more shots.


----------



## lolcatzuru (Apr 3, 2022)

Xzi said:


> The data has never stopped showing the opposite rofl.  You acknowledge that gas masks work to filter out gas, yes?  Same concept, except some masks (N95) are obviously more effective than others at filtering out viruses because of how tiny they are.



actually it has for a while. As of right now according to the " experts" only 95 mask do anything to MAYBE lower possible infection, cloth masks a basically worthless.


----------



## lolcatzuru (Apr 3, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> Waiting for you to admit masks never worked either.



they didnt, why do you think the virus is still around?


----------



## lolcatzuru (Apr 3, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> N95 mask work. But those arent the ones that hundreds of millions of people have ben using for 2 years. Cloth mask NEVER worked.
> 
> Hundreds of millions people wearing mask that didnt do shit every single day for 2 years versus a few thousand people taking Ivermectin.
> 
> Which do you think has been the most misleading?



well thats racist bigoted homophobia, we all know that if the magic liberal box says something is the truth, it is, even if well.... its not.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 4, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> N95 mask work. But those arent the ones that hundreds of millions of people have ben using for 2 years. Cloth mask NEVER worked.


Depends on what kind of material you're talking about.  Those polyester gaiters that a lot of people were wearing at the beginning of the pandemic were all but useless, and that was confirmed early on by the medical/scientific community.  The non-N95 surgical type masks are still a helluva lot better than nothing at all, though, which is why Asian cultures were wearing them to filter polluted air and prevent themselves from spreading sickness decades before this pandemic started.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Apr 4, 2022)

Even a condom with a hole is better than no condem.
(unless you want to procreate: the opposite applies)


----------



## tabzer (Apr 4, 2022)

@AlexMCS, Just shy of admitting that the "peer-reviewed source" was lying disinformation, @Xzi found the ability to take the "high road" that so many modern media performers do--by tucking a 1-lined "retraction", somewhere-anywhere, to account for the pages worth of misinformation that still take up the periphery.  Can you find it?  It was in a message that tagged me.



Xzi said:


> Edit: in fairness to AlexMCS, you're correct about the formula for determining effectiveness. I accidentally moved the goalposts by switching the focus to a different statistic.



In fairness to @Xzi, it wasn't you who shifted that goalpost.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 4, 2022)

tabzer said:


> In fairness to @Xzi, it wasn't you who shifted that goalpost.


It wasn't?  I went from referencing effectiveness to referencing the reduction in hospitalizations.  That was my bad.  1.6% fewer patients hospitalized = 10% more effective than placebo.  So we were both right.  I maintain, however, that these numbers are not strong enough to prescribe Ivermectin for the purpose of treating COVID-19.  I'm not exactly sure on what the baseline is in the medical/pharmaceutical community, but I'd wager it's a lot closer to 50% than 10%.  Vaccines are roughly 90% more effective than placebo at preventing hospitalizations, so there's absolutely no point in insisting on a poor substitute.


----------



## FAKEdemicBioPYSCHONANOWAR (Apr 4, 2022)

How can something not work for something that has never proven to exist? Please people...


----------



## Xzi (Apr 4, 2022)

FAKEdemicBioPYSCHONANOWAR said:


> How can something not work for something that has never proven to exist? Please people...


"How can mirrors be real if our eyes aren't real?"  Thanks for your invaluable contribution to the discussion, Jayden.


----------



## tabzer (Apr 4, 2022)

Xzi said:


> It wasn't?  I went from referencing effectiveness to referencing the reduction in hospitalizations.  That was my bad.  1.6% fewer patients hospitalized = 10% more effective than placebo.  So we were both right.  I maintain, however, that these numbers are not strong enough to prescribe Ivermectin for the purpose of treating COVID-19.  I'm not exactly sure on what the baseline is in the medical/pharmaceutical community, but I'd wager it's a lot closer to 50% than 10%.  Vaccines are roughly 90% more effective than placebo at preventing hospitalizations, so there's absolutely no point in insisting on a poor substitute.


I believe the initial confusion was delivered straight from the source.  You are wrong because you insist on carrying whatever "truths" it's saying despite that it is fraudulent.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 4, 2022)

tabzer said:


> I believe the initial confusion was delivered straight from the source.  You are wrong because you insist on carrying whatever "truths" it's saying despite that it is fraudulent.


Uh-huh.  Back to pretending that Joe Rogan and Alex Jones are more reliable sources than peer-reviewed published studies, eh?

It's in no way fraudulent.  10% more effective than placebo falls very much within the classification of ineffective, especially when accounting for variables that could not be controlled.  We could re-run the test with one placebo group and the other given play-doh to eat, and probably end up with relatively the same results.


----------



## tabzer (Apr 4, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Back to pretending that Joe Rogan and Alex Jones are more reliable sources than peer-reviewed published studies, eh?


Nice, toss some red herrings and lie some more.  I'm not pretending that anyone is reliable.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 4, 2022)

tabzer said:


> I'm not pretending that anyone is reliable.


Well unless you've personally got the means to conduct a months-long study of thousands of patients, that philosophy isn't gonna take you very far in this discussion.  Time to grow up and realize that you don't and can't know everything.  Knowingly or not, you've been deferring to the knowledge of experts in various fields your whole life, and there's nothing wrong with that.


----------



## tabzer (Apr 4, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Well unless you've personally got the means to conduct a months-long study of thousands of patients, that philosophy isn't gonna take you very far in this discussion.  Time to grow up and realize that you don't and can't know everything.  Knowingly or not, you've been deferring to the knowledge of experts in various fields your whole life, and there's nothing wrong with that.


Lol.  I'm not pretending that everyone is unreliable either.  For fuck's sake.


----------



## lolcatzuru (Apr 4, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Depends on what kind of material you're talking about.  Those polyester gaiters that a lot of people were wearing at the beginning of the pandemic were all but useless, and that was confirmed early on by the medical/scientific community.  The non-N95 surgical type masks are still a helluva lot better than nothing at all, though, which is why Asian cultures were wearing them to filter polluted air and prevent themselves from spreading sickness decades before this pandemic started.



except particulates like thare are INFINITELY larger than you know, viruses. IIRC the debree in the air is like 3 microns, and viruses are 1. and for the record it doesnt completely protect them just might help a little bit ish.


----------



## lolcatzuru (Apr 4, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Uh-huh.  Back to pretending that Joe Rogan and Alex Jones are more reliable sources than peer-reviewed published studies, eh?
> 
> It's in no way fraudulent.  10% more effective than placebo falls very much within the classification of ineffective, especially when accounting for variables that could not be controlled.  We could re-run the test with one placebo group and the other given play-doh to eat, and probably end up with relatively the same results.



what did joe rogan say specifically? because all i remember are decorated doctors like dr. robert malone who is one of the doctors who worked on MRNA tech, which led to the magic needle, so if this information isnt reliable, maybe we should stop using the vaccine hmmm


----------



## Xzi (Apr 4, 2022)

lolcatzuru said:


> except particulates like thare are INFINITELY larger than you know, viruses. IIRC the debree in the air is like 3 microns, and viruses are 1. and for the record it doesnt completely protect them just might help a little bit ish.


I'm aware, that's why mask requirements were typically paired with social distancing.  Masks don't completely stop sneezes or coughs from getting out, but they do reduce the overall distance that the particulates move by quite a bit.



lolcatzuru said:


> what did joe rogan say specifically? because all i remember are decorated doctors like dr. robert malone who is one of the doctors who worked on MRNA tech, which led to the magic needle, so if this information isnt reliable, maybe we should stop using the vaccine hmmm


Malone is a grifter, so he's pretty typical guest material for Rogan in that sense.  Says he had a hand in creating the MRNA vaccines, but the rest of the medical community denies this, and he certainly doesn't have any receipts to prove it.


----------



## subcon959 (Apr 4, 2022)

It seems to me that the evidence for Ivermectin is more clear (not great just more clear) than the evidence for most masks that aren't N95, yet look at the entirely different stances that have been taken for the last couple years. On the one hand, something is better than nothing and on the other lol horse dewormer. Wouldn't you rather vulnerable people have that extra 10% chance than not?


----------



## AlexMCS (Apr 4, 2022)

@Xzi I'd totally agree with you if this study was done in a vacuum.
10% effectiveness on a single study is indeed pretty insignificant.

However almost every study has shown some gains.
In fact, 70 out of 81 showed positive effect¹:

Treatment timeNumber of studies reporting positive effectsTotal number of studiesPercentage of studies reporting positive effectsProbability of an equal or greater percentage of positive results from an ineffective treatmentRandom effects meta-analysis resultsEarly treatment273284.4%   1 in 18 thousand   63% improvement
RR 0.37 [0.28‑0.47]
 p < 0.0001  Late treatment273381.8%   1 in 6 thousand   42% improvement
RR 0.58 [0.45‑0.75]
 p < 0.0001  Prophylaxis1616100%   1 in 66 thousand   83% improvement
RR 0.17 [0.11‑0.26]
 p < 0.0001  All studies708186.4%   1 in 169 billion   65% improvement
RR 0.35 [0.29‑0.44]
 p < 0.0001  


Considering ivermectin (IVM from now on) is very cheap and the side effects are pretty mild when they even happen, which is rarely, I'd say that yes, it's *definitely* better than placebo.

In the very study we're discussing, it's also seen that IVM, compared to placebo is:

-*35.3%* more effective in virus clearance at day 3 (*And that is the real benefit of IVM*, as shown by other studies - It somehow greatly delays the virus spread in the body/helps the initial phase of immunity system's containment, and which is why I personally recommend taking it on the onset of symptoms, or as prophylaxis, only in case of direct contact with a suspect case*)*
-14.2% more effective in virus clearance at day 7.

The physician who treated me when I got sick in March/2021 is an infectologist, and he is actually a former secretary of health for my state. He has treated over 10k cases of CoViD-19, some using IVM, some not (in association with zinc + vitamin D - 50k UI, when used), and his anecdotal experience is that IVM does make a significant difference.

I favor IVM because it's cheap, with little to no side effects and a proven positive net gain compared to nothing.

And finally, here is an excerpt of one of this study's *authors*²:



> I don’t understand the psychology of the ivermectin advocates. They fail to see the positive in this study and just focus on it not being overwhelmingly positive. I actually think it is quite positive.
> 
> I presented this a couple weeks ago at the NIH Collaboratory Rounds and, if they listened, I advocate that actually, there is a clear signal that IVM works in COVID patients, just that our study didn’t achieve significance.



References:
1 - https://ivmmeta.com/
2 - https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/did-the-together-study-show-that


----------



## Dr_Faustus (Apr 4, 2022)

Oh I don't know, I heard this professional called Dr. Dewormer tell me otherwise and that I should if anything double my treatment!

For those who know what I am referencing, good on you.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Apr 4, 2022)

Isn't this study completely flawed from the outset as it's only looking for reductions in hospitalisations?

Is that even why people took Ivermectin?
I thought you took it to feel less shit.

Like, if you have the flu you'll have some chicken soup to feel less shit. You'll have some aspirin and drink water to feel less shit.

If you're in bed with COVID and feel like shit then take some ivermectin. And you'll feel less shit.

It seems like a study that's only looking for reductions in hospitalisations is purposely misleading.


----------



## tabzer (Apr 4, 2022)

Guy, you are going against the narrative.  Everyone knows that Pfizer is the most trusted of household names since 2020.  It has the full backing of the US $.


----------



## lolcatzuru (Apr 4, 2022)

Xzi said:


> I'm aware, that's why mask requirements were typically paired with social distancing.  Masks don't completely stop sneezes or coughs from getting out, but they do reduce the overall distance that the particulates move by quite a bit.
> 
> 
> Malone is a grifter, so he's pretty typical guest material for Rogan in that sense.  Says he had a hand in creating the MRNA vaccines, but the rest of the medical community denies this, and he certainly doesn't have any receipts to prove it.



well his name is on the patents, but hey thats totally fine with me, lets lock up everyone who pushed the vaccine if some renegade helped make them, similarly, lets lock up anyone whos ever worked with/for him and anyone whos used data he's published. I dont know ifi would use the rest of the medical community as  accurate tbh given the current state of the country.


----------



## lolcatzuru (Apr 4, 2022)

subcon959 said:


> It seems to me that the evidence for Ivermectin is more clear (not great just more clear) than the evidence for most masks that aren't N95, yet look at the entirely different stances that have been taken for the last couple years. On the one hand, something is better than nothing and on the other lol horse dewormer. Wouldn't you rather vulnerable people have that extra 10% chance than not?



well thats the data THEY WERE GIVEN, which doesnt have to represent the actual data.


----------



## lolcatzuru (Apr 4, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> Isn't this study completely flawed from the outset as it's only looking for reductions in hospitalisations?
> 
> Is that even why people took Ivermectin?
> I thought you took it to feel less shit.
> ...



yes this is true to quote mcollough, who i have a feeling the other guy will call another " grifter"  ( who is the most published person in his field)  " ivermectin  ( and the appropriate supplements" have to be taken BEFORE they get to the hospital and BEFORE they need to be on a vent, because if and when that happens it is too late". An example is rogan himself, he tookl it when prescribed by a doctor before he really had any major symptoms and it magically went away, idk how that happened considering it doesnt work but thats how it happened.


----------



## subcon959 (Apr 4, 2022)

lolcatzuru said:


> yes this is true to quote mcollough, who i have a feeling the other guy will call another " grifter"  ( who is the most published person in his field)  " ivermectin  ( and the appropriate supplements" have to be taken BEFORE they get to the hospital and BEFORE they need to be on a vent, because if and when that happens it is too late". An example is rogan himself, he tookl it when prescribed by a doctor before he really had any major symptoms and it magically went away, idk how that happened considering it doesnt work but thats how it happened.


To be fair, even Joe Rogan said that he thinks it was the monoclonal antibodies that did most of the benefit and he's not sure if Ivermectin really did anything. But it still worked as a combination and there's no harm as long as it's prescribed by a doctor.


----------



## lolcatzuru (Apr 4, 2022)

subcon959 said:


> To be fair, even Joe Rogan said that he thinks it was the monoclonal antibodies that did most of the benefit and he's not sure if Ivermectin really did anything. But it still worked as a combination and there's no harm as long as it's prescribed by a doctor.



well this of course leads us to the crux of the issue,  they are lying and saying it doesnt work so the can market  the vaccine and soon the anti covid pills.


----------



## subcon959 (Apr 4, 2022)

lolcatzuru said:


> well this of course leads us to the crux of the issue,  they are lying and saying it doesnt work so the can market  the vaccine and soon the anti covid pills.


It's a strange position though, because there's no reason for people to not be allowed to do both for maximum benefit. If I was rich I would've taken the kitchen sink approach instead of just hoping the vaccine was enough.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 4, 2022)

AlexMCS said:


> Considering ivermectin (IVM from now on) is very cheap and the side effects are pretty mild when they even happen, which is rarely, I'd say that yes, it's *definitely* better than placebo.


Vaccines are free and come with even fewer possible side effects attached.  Again, I don't understand the insistence on continuing to dig for poor substitutes.  Even in terms of post-infection treatments we've now got multiple options which are far better available.  Ivermectin existed long before COVID-19, so naturally it wasn't designed with this virus in mind.  Other treatments like the soon to be released COVID-19 pill were specifically designed to fight it off.



tabzer said:


> Guy, you are going against the narrative.  Everyone knows that Pfizer is the most trusted of household names since 2020.  It has the full backing of the US $.


Are you under the false impression that Ivermectin was created by a local co-op using a profit-sharing model?  Your paranoid delusions would make at least a little more sense if they applied to the entirety of big pharma, and not one specific brand.  A lot of people on TV and podcasts made a whole lot of money from the rush on Ivermectin.  A lot of those same people were selling "bone broth" and "masculinity pills" before the pandemic started.


----------



## tabzer (Apr 5, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Are you under the false impression that Ivermectin was created by a local co-op using a profit-sharing model? Your paranoid delusions would make at least a little more sense if they applied to the entirety of big pharma, and not one specific brand. A lot of people on TV and podcasts made a whole lot of money from the rush on Ivermectin. A lot of those same people were selling "bone broth" and "masculinity pills" before the pandemic started.


Nice story.  You imagine a lot, although seemingly via projection.  What part of _what I said_ is the paranoid delusion?


----------



## Xzi (Apr 5, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Nice story. You imagine a lot, although seemingly via projection.


Appreciate the sentiment, but nobody's given me my own TV show or podcast yet.



tabzer said:


> What part of _what I said_ is the paranoid delusion?


Well unless you've changed your opinions since the last time we had this conversation, you believe the C19 vaccines are part of some vast conspiracy, but the snake oil salesmen pushing "miracle cures" for some reason aren't.


----------



## tabzer (Apr 5, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Appreciate the sentiment, but nobody's given me my own TV show or podcast yet.



Don't let your dreams be dreams.  You can start your own podcast without someone giving you one.  Also, someone with your "qualities" has a higher chance of walking onto a tv set if you just go outside.



Xzi said:


> Well unless you've changed your opinions since the last time we had this conversation, you believe the C19 vaccines are part of some vast conspiracy, but the snake oil salesmen pushing "miracle cures" for some reason aren't.



"Remembering" conversations that never happened is a symptom of something.  Wondering if you need something like ivermectin to clear the parasites or if it is purely psychosomatic.  FYI, I'm totally against ivermectin mandates.


----------



## AlexMCS (Apr 5, 2022)

Ok then, let's agree to disagree.
You take your vaccines, I'll take my meds.
Either way, stay healthy.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 5, 2022)

tabzer said:


> You can start your own podcast without someone giving you one.


True.  I wouldn't know what to make it about though, and it's an awful lot of effort for very little return if you're just trying to establish one now.



tabzer said:


> "Remembering" conversations that never happened is a symptom of something.


I might be getting you mixed up with another of the right-wing nutjobs here, you all start to sound alike after a while.



tabzer said:


> FYI, I'm totally against ivermectin mandates.


But not against promoting it as a stand-in for vaccines, which it 100% is not.  Stop acting like you're getting paid to spread disinformation, and I'll stop calling you out for it.


----------



## tabzer (Apr 5, 2022)

Xzi said:


> I wouldn't know what to make it about though, and it's an awful lot of effort for very little return if you're just trying to establish one now.



Sounds like you are overthinking it.  You already put in the effort on a forum that guarantees you won't have a return.



Xzi said:


> I might be getting you mixed up with another of the right-wing nutjobs here, you all start to sound alike after a while.



Show me evidence of being right-wing.  Lol.  



Xzi said:


> But not against promoting it as a stand-in for vaccines, which it 100% is not. Stop acting like you're getting paid to spread disinformation, and I'll stop calling you out for it.



Again.  That's your imagination.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 5, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Sounds like you are overthinking it. You already put in the effort on a forum that guarantees you won't have a return.


Eh I'm a pretty fast typist.  Not so good with the "host personality" or story boarding for that format.



tabzer said:


> Show me evidence of being right-wing. Lol.


Are you fucking serious?  You were one of Trump's staunchest defenders, and as far as I'm aware, you have yet to renounce that position.  Your signature shows roundabout support for Putin and Russian propaganda.  Authoritarianism in just about any form seems to give you a hard on.


----------



## tabzer (Apr 5, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Eh I'm a pretty fast typist. Not so good with the "host personality" or story boarding for that format.



You don't need any of that.  How fast you can type is even more irrelevant.  Just talk to a strawman.



Xzi said:


> You were one of Trump's staunchest defenders, and as far as I'm aware, you have yet to renounce that position.



Again.  That's your imagination.  I don't think Trump needs my defense nor what I've said was defending him.



Xzi said:


> Your signature shows roundabout support for Putin and Russian propaganda.



Lol, just stop.  Propaganda is propaganda, and Google has made a definite stance on what propaganda it favors.


----------



## fischermasamune (Apr 5, 2022)

People paid to spread disinformation? Like being paid by the US government or Big Pharma to promote vaccines in detriment of generic, cheap medicines? Or is it the big Ivermectin lobby?

Maybe we can look at how much each entity spends on marketing.

The US government spent at least 1 billion dollars on their messaging, and we know what it is. Pfizer has made 37 billion dollars with its pseudovaccine, and it's known pharmaceutical companies spend more with advertising and promotion of their products (I presume bribing doctors, something Pfizer often does, would be here too) than on research.

Also, Paul Elias Alexander reported being offered 1 million dollars plus 50 thousand monthly by Pfizer to shut up about their injectable products.

How big and powerful is the Ivermectin lobby? How many congressmen receive money from them? Is there any ad on TV, have they sponsored any Oscars or something, does the CEO do interviews promoting the use a fourth dose of their product?

On the paper and the numbers themselves, AlexMCS (along with many others) is correct in his evaluation: there were methodological flaws which would diminish the drug's reported effect, and the reported effect is still slightly positive.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 5, 2022)

tabzer said:


> I don't think Trump needs my defense nor what I've said was defending him.


I'm not gonna dig back two years through your post history, but we both know that's bullshit.



tabzer said:


> Lol, just stop. Propaganda is propaganda, and Google has made a definite stance on what propaganda it favors.


Google has made a definite stance on demonetizing and de-platforming those who spread propaganda in this scenario, yes.  You're gullible as they come if you believe those videos were being produced by anyone other than the Kremlin.  Also your position on this matches Tucker Carlson's practically word for word:






But I'm sure that's just a coincidence, right?


----------



## tabzer (Apr 5, 2022)

Xzi said:


> I'm not gonna dig back two years through your post history, but we both know that's bullshit.



You should have something to back your claim.  Your memory hasn't been doing any good lately.



Xzi said:


> Google has made a definite stance on demonetizing and de-platforming those who spread propaganda in this scenario, yes. You're gullible as they come if you believe those videos were being produced by anyone other than the Kremlin.



My signature isn't about videos or Russian propaganda.  It's about Google's policy clearly outing itself as a participant in information warfare.  If you support the idea, maybe sometime in the future, that people should be able to believe anything that Google returns in its search results, then more power to you.  I don't like a centralized internet, but I am annoyed because I like Google.  



Xzi said:


> Also your position on this matches Tucker Carlson's practically word for word



Word for word.  Okay Xzi, you absolute moron.



Xzi said:


> But I'm sure that's just a coincidence, right?



Two people having a similar idea about something is not wholly remarkable.  For example, we both agree that when Russia censors and curates its own media, it's ridiculous.  But for some reason, you seem to stop caring when it's not about Russia.  That's weird to me.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 5, 2022)

tabzer said:


> You should have something to back your claim.


Fucking pathetic.  At least have the balls to stand by statements you've made in the past if you aren't going to retract them.  Until then, you'll always be a die-hard MAGAt as far as I'm concerned.



tabzer said:


> My signature isn't about videos or Russian propaganda. It's about Google's policy clearly outing itself as a participant in information warfare.


Google is not obligated to play host to (blatantly) fake news.  Demonetization also doesn't mean getting removed from the internet altogether.



tabzer said:


> Word for word. Okay Xzi, you absolute moron.


_Practically_ word for word.  It's impossible not to notice how your style of gish-galloping around the point to avoid admitting direct support for fascism aligns perfectly with so much far-right media.



tabzer said:


> Two people having a similar idea about something is not wholly remarkable.


True, but if you concur with nine out of ten statements made on Fox News, it's kind of ridiculous to be trying to convince the rest of us that you're some sort of independent centrist, is it not?



tabzer said:


> For example, we both agree that when Russia censors and curates its own media, it's ridiculous. But for some reason, you seem to stop caring when it's not about Russia. That's weird to me.


It's not that I don't care, it's that that's a wholly separate topic.  Of course, this discussion has also gone far enough off-topic already.  Suffice it to say I only brought up the subject because of your signature.


----------



## the_randomizer (Apr 5, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Fucking pathetic.  At least have the balls to stand by statements you've made in the past if you aren't going to retract them.  Until then, you'll always be a die-hard MAGAt as far as I'm concerned.
> 
> 
> Google is not obligated to play host to fake news.  Demonetization also doesn't mean getting removed from the internet altogether.
> ...



He loves to gaslight people it seems, sad, I expected better from a Putin love like him.


----------



## tabzer (Apr 5, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Fucking pathetic. At least have the balls to stand by statements you've made in the past if you aren't going to retract them.



What statements?



Xzi said:


> Google is not obligated to play host to (blatantly) fake news. Demonetization also doesn't mean getting removed from the internet altogether.



Ignoring the role it plays in centralization and curation is not my obligation.  Google's policy clearly states that the validity or merits of the claims are not as important.



Xzi said:


> direct support for fascism aligns perfectly with so much far-right media.



Graduated from "roundabout" to "direct".  What prompted that?  Losing it?



Xzi said:


> True, but if you concur with nine out of ten statements made on Fox News, it's kind of ridiculous to be trying to convince the rest of us that you're some sort of independent centrist, is it not?



I don't qualify the example you provided as one.  Good luck.



Xzi said:


> It's not that I don't care, it's that that's a wholly separate topic.



I don't think so.


----------



## tabzer (Apr 5, 2022)

the_randomizer said:


> He loves to gaslight people it seems, sad, I expected better from a Putin love like him.


I didn't start the fire.  I'm just staying warm.  If you are following me cross-thread, I have to assume you are a tabzer fan.  That's cringe.


----------



## Pachee (Apr 5, 2022)

Another Gates study to reassure the low anxiety types that pravda is always right.


----------



## lolcatzuru (Apr 5, 2022)

subcon959 said:


> It's a strange position though, because there's no reason for people to not be allowed to do both for maximum benefit. If I was rich I would've taken the kitchen sink approach instead of just hoping the vaccine was enough.



well thats true, but it doesnt matter if it makes sense or not thats where we are. I agree with you, we absolutely should be allowed to make decisions about what we medicines we take, and yet many states wouldnt let you use it, i remember there was a case in ohio where the ohio supreme court ruled against the government and told doctors they could prescribe it.  and the worst part is, you dont need to be rich to take the kitchen sink approach, as mentioned the MOST you are gonna see ivermectin cost is 20 bucks, plus lets say the kitchen sink is a few hundred more, thats maybe, MAYBE a grand total, where the anti covid pills are estimated to be a few hundred dollars PER PILL.


----------



## lolcatzuru (Apr 5, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Appreciate the sentiment, but nobody's given me my own TV show or podcast yet.
> 
> 
> Well unless you've changed your opinions since the last time we had this conversation, you believe the C19 vaccines are part of some vast conspiracy, but the snake oil salesmen pushing "miracle cures" for some reason aren't.



you really.... REALLY dont wanna do this man, please dont embarrass yourself.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 5, 2022)

lolcatzuru said:


> you really.... REALLY dont wanna do this man, please dont embarrass yourself.


It's already done, I've fired off all the shots I thought were necessary.  The conservative conspiracy sphere is an absolute joke that somehow manages to be wrong more often than random guessing.  That makes right-wingers extremely easy to con, so much so that I'm contemplating getting in on the grift myself.  If the guy who started a gofundme for Trump's wall can walk away with millions of dollars gifted to him by these rubes, I'm betting I can manage at least a few thousand before anyone wises up.


----------



## lolcatzuru (Apr 5, 2022)

Xzi said:


> It's already done, I've fired off all the shots I thought were necessary.  The conservative conspiracy sphere is an absolute joke that somehow manages to be wrong more often than random guessing.  That makes right-wingers extremely easy to con, so much so that I'm contemplating getting in on the grift myself.  If the guy who started a gofundme for Trump's wall can walk away with millions of dollars gifted to him by these rubes, I'm betting I can manage at least a few thousand before anyone wises up.



just like it was wrong about the election fraud? or the hunter biden laptop, or the jan 6th calls or the origin of the virus or the fact that you cant get infected if you have been vaccinated.  lemme ask you a genuine question, human to terminator, what would it take, genuinely,  sincerely, what would it take for you to say" ok hang on a second, this shit just does not make sense, what is going on?" 

its odd you'd pick the vaccine as your hill too when pfizer has been caught lying before about their meds and yet its hailed as a panacea


----------



## tabzer (Apr 5, 2022)

"human to terminator"


----------



## Xzi (Apr 5, 2022)

lolcatzuru said:


> just like it was wrong about the election fraud? or the hunter biden laptop, or the jan 6th calls or the origin of the virus or the fact that you cant get infected if you have been vaccinated.


Correct, they were wrong about all of that.  Recounts have turned up no election fraud, it takes massive logical leaps to assume that laptop is Hunter's, I'm not sure what you mean by "Jan 6th calls," and the vaccine stuff was just ignorance of how vaccines work in general.



lolcatzuru said:


> its odd you'd pick the vaccine as your hill too when pfizer has been caught lying before about their meds and yet its hailed as a panacea


It's a good thing Pfizer isn't the only option for vaccination then.  I'm skeptical of big pharma in general (including Merck), but if there's one thing you can count on them for, it's chasing the profit motive.  If the vaccines were ineffective, all the governments of the world would be demanding their money back.


----------



## KingVamp (Apr 5, 2022)

lolcatzuru said:


> as mentioned the MOST you are gonna see ivermectin cost is 20 bucks


The least btw. 



lolcatzuru said:


> what would it take, genuinely,  sincerely, what would it take for you to say" ok hang on a second, this shit just does not make sense, what is going on?"


Irony.


----------



## lolcatzuru (Apr 5, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Correct, they were wrong about all of that.  Recounts have turned up no election fraud, it takes massive logical leaps to assume that laptop is Hunter's, I'm not sure what you mean by "Jan 6th calls," and the vaccine stuff was just ignorance of how vaccines work in general.
> 
> 
> It's a good thing Pfizer isn't the only option for vaccination then.  I'm skeptical of big pharma in general (including Merck), but if there's one thing you can count on them for, it's chasing the profit motive.  If the vaccines were ineffective, all the governments of the world would be demanding their money back.





KingVamp said:


> The least btw.
> 
> 
> Irony.



i dont understand


----------



## lolcatzuru (Apr 5, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Correct, they were wrong about all of that.  Recounts have turned up no election fraud, it takes massive logical leaps to assume that laptop is Hunter's, I'm not sure what you mean by "Jan 6th calls," and the vaccine stuff was just ignorance of how vaccines work in general.
> 
> 
> It's a good thing Pfizer isn't the only option for vaccination then.  I'm skeptical of big pharma in general (including Merck), but if there's one thing you can count on them for, it's chasing the profit motive.  If the vaccines were ineffective, all the governments of the world would be demanding their money back.



literally everything you just said is factually inaccurate.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 5, 2022)

lolcatzuru said:


> literally everything you just said is factually inaccurate.


Like I said, believe anything and you'll fall for anything.  The perfect mark for conmen.  You probably still believe there's a basement under Comet Ping Pong where child sex trafficking occurs, too.


----------



## lolcatzuru (Apr 5, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Like I said, believe anything and you'll fall for anything.  The perfect mark for conmen.  You probably still believe there's a basement under Comet Ping Pong where child sex trafficking occurs, too.



if i can offer you one piece of advice, dont go around assuming you know anything about me, thanks. Secondly, i dont know enough about that story to have an opinion. your little quip applies to you to you know.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 5, 2022)

lolcatzuru said:


> your little quip applies to you to you know.


Appreciate the warning, but I'm not particularly conspiracy-minded.  They were fun thought exercises back when the focus was on stuff like bigfoot and aliens, now it's all "Democrats are the root of all evil in the world."  The truth of the matter is that most gripes conservatives have with the political sphere and society in general boil down to gripes with capitalism, and they just haven't reached that level of self-awareness yet.


----------



## cracker (Apr 5, 2022)

smf said:


> If you're riddled with parasites then taking ivermectin to kill them off so you're healthier to fight off covid19 is probably a good idea. Anyone saying they are taking it is a little revealing of course.


That's debatable. It is believed by many scientists that the people in areas that have high amounts of parasitic infections may do better because of immunosuppression preventing cytokine storms. It will take a while to figure out all the nuances to tell what really helped or hindered recovery because of all of the variables.


----------



## lolcatzuru (Apr 5, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Appreciate the warning, but I'm not particularly conspiracy-minded.  They were fun thought exercises back when the focus was on stuff like bigfoot and aliens, now it's all "Democrats are the root of all evil in the world."  The truth of the matter is that most gripes conservatives have with the political sphere and society in general boil down to gripes with capitalism, and they just haven't reached that level of self-awareness yet.



its interesting you brought up capitalism as a problem because alot of uneducated people tend do that, must be a coincidence.  I didnt ask if you were conspiracy minded but i am curious, how do you quantify a conspiracy? and what does it take in your mind for a conspiracy to become more than that?


----------



## Xzi (Apr 5, 2022)

lolcatzuru said:


> its interesting you brought up capitalism as a problem because alot of uneducated people tend do that, must be a coincidence.


Only someone completely blinded by nationalism would be foolish enough to claim that capitalism is a flawless system.  Nothing created by humans is perfect.



lolcatzuru said:


> I didnt ask if you were conspiracy minded but i am curious, how do you quantify a conspiracy?  and what does it take in your mind for a conspiracy to become more than that?


Conspiracy has a very concise legal definition.  "_An agreement between two or more persons to engage jointly in an unlawful or criminal act, or an act that is innocent in itself but becomes unlawful when done by the combination of actors._"

A conspiracy theory is nothing more than that, a theory that a conspiracy has occurred or is occurring, but with none of the facts or evidence to support it.  If the only people you're capable of convincing exist in an echo chamber like Facebook or 4Chan, it's never gonna gain any ground with the mainstream, let alone anyone with two skeptical brain cells to rub together.


----------



## KingVamp (Apr 5, 2022)

lolcatzuru said:


> i dont understand


Just funny to see someone dead set on believing these conspiracy theories, despite all the evidence saying otherwise, asking others what is it going to take to change their mind.

Unless you are talking about the price of ivermectin, it can cost far more than $20.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Apr 5, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Eh I'm a pretty fast typist.  Not so good with the "host personality" or story boarding for that format.
> 
> 
> Are you fucking serious?  You were one of Trump's staunchest defenders, and as far as I'm aware, you have yet to renounce that position.  Your signature shows roundabout support for Putin and Russian propaganda.  Authoritarianism in just about any form seems to give you a hard on.



This is coming from the guy that pushed Trump Russia collusion for 4 years.

When it's literally all came out that it was manufactured by the democratic party.

This is the guy calling other people conspiracy theorists.


----------



## tabzer (Apr 5, 2022)

Xzi said:


> it takes massive logical leaps to assume that laptop is Hunter's


Yeah, that thing has Putin's fingerprints all over it.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 5, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> This is coming from the guy that pushed Trump Russia collusion for 4 years.


And has Trump ever stopped acting like Putin's lapdog for a single day since?  No.  He's still sucking his dick in the midst of a war crime spree.  Should tell you all you need to know.



tabzer said:


> Yeah, that thing has Putin's fingerprints all over it.


Nah it's just some random guy's laptop.  Following conservative logic, Hunter Biden would've needed to fly two states over to give his laptop to some tiny electronics repair shop in the middle of nowhere.  As if a family as rich as his wouldn't just call a repairman to come to them instead, lol.


----------



## tabzer (Apr 5, 2022)

Xzi said:


> And has Trump ever stopped acting like Putin's lapdog for a single day since?  No.  He's still sucking his dick in the midst of a war crime spree.  Should tell you all you need to know.
> 
> 
> Nah it's just some random guy's laptop.  Following conservative logic, Hunter Biden would've needed to fly two states over to give his laptop to some tiny electronics repair shop in the middle of nowhere.  As if a family as rich as his wouldn't just call a repairman to come to them instead, lol.


Ah.  When blaming Putin looks bad, you pretend to be conservative.  Got it.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 5, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Ah.  When blaming Putin looks bad, you pretend to be conservative.  Got it.


Uhh no...I said "following conservative logic."  I didn't claim to be a conservative.  Your reading comprehension seems to be going down the shitter fast.


----------



## tabzer (Apr 5, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Uhh no...I said "following conservative logic."  I didn't claim to be a conservative.  Your reading comprehension seems to be going down the shitter fast.


I didn't claim that you were claiming to be a conservative.  I said you were pretending, which is what you were doing.  You put on a show for me and now you are realizing how dumb you looked.  Then, deflection.  Classic Xzi.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 5, 2022)

tabzer said:


> I didn't claim that you were claiming to be a conservative.  I said you were pretending, which is what you were doing.  You put on a show for me and now you are realizing how dumb you looked.  Then, deflection.  Classic Xzi.


Nope, wasn't even pretending to be.  That is literally the claim made by conspiracy theorists: that Hunter Biden flew two states over to give his laptop to an electronics repair shop nowhere close to where he lives or works.  Not my fault if you weren't up to speed on the latest batshit insane theories circulating among your kin.


----------



## tabzer (Apr 5, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Nope, wasn't even pretending to be.  That is literally the claim made by conspiracy theorists: that Hunter Biden flew two states over to give his laptop to an electronics repair shop nowhere close to where he lives or works.  Not my fault if you weren't up to speed on the latest batshit insane theories circulating among your kin.


Yeah you were.  Instead of confronting the "Russian disinformation" hoax you brought in this alternative line of thinking, as if it were more ridiculous.  I don't care if you think I am conservative, but you are the one entertaining the line and mocking it.  It literally is your pretense.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 5, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Instead of confronting the "Russian disinformation" hoax you brought in this alternative line of thinking, as if it were more ridiculous.


No, claiming Putin had anything to do with the Hunter Biden laptop conspiracy theory is definitely more ridiculous.  You made that claim, however, not me.  And yes, I know you were being facetious.  I simply set the record straight.



tabzer said:


> I don't care if you think I am conservative, but you are the one entertaining the line and mocking it. It literally is your pretense.


I'm literally just repeating what I've read from various alt-right sources around the web.  It's literally not my pretense.  Literally.


----------



## tabzer (Apr 5, 2022)

Xzi said:


> I simply set the record straight.


Beating around the bush is accurate.  Are you saying that you never believed that that the laptop was "Russian disinformation"?



Xzi said:


> I'm literally just repeating what I've read from various alt-right sources.


Conservatives are alt-right.  Interesting.  You are the one introducing this.  I don't care about your sources, and they don't address my point.

I know that you know where this is headed.  When your intelligence agencies and media lie to you, and your alternative is to parrot media that you clearly don't agree with, you really have nothing to say.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 5, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Beating around the bush is accurate. Are you saying that you never believed that that the laptop was "Russian disinformation"?


I don't, no.  I think it was just general disinformation made up by morons, and morons are the only ones who still believe it's of any consequence.  I've said it before and I'll apparently have to say it again: there are plenty of valid criticisms to levy at Joe Biden without having to make shit up or try to get at him through his one surviving son.  It'd be a different matter if Hunter was leeching tens of millions of dollars from the federal government via nepotism, IE Jared and Ivanka.  I'd be his loudest critic.



tabzer said:


> Conservatives are alt-right. Interesting.


I can't speak to how things work elsewhere in the world, but in America they have essentially merged into one, yes.  The party of Trump isn't shy about sharing their extremist viewpoints.



tabzer said:


> You are the one introducing this. I don't care about your sources, and they don't address my point.


I could also copy and paste the entire text of the Lord of the Rings trilogy of books here, would that make me their author?  Of course the source matters, and is often the case, whatever point it was you were trying to make is unclear at best, totally nonsensical at worst.


----------



## tabzer (Apr 5, 2022)

Xzi said:


> I don't, no



That's not proper English, Xzi.  I'm asking if you did, not if you do now.  Be direct.  I don't see the point in bringing up Trump.



Xzi said:


> extremist viewpoints



Conservatives are extremists now.  This just keeps escalating.  Also, again, bringing up Trump.



Xzi said:


> would that make me their author?



That would just be you pretending something else mattered when it doesn't.  You can call yourself a potato and it still doesn't change the pretense of your deflection, whether it's by popular conservative lines of thought or other fictional stories.  Interesting you didn't bring up Trump.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 5, 2022)

tabzer said:


> That's not proper English, Xzi. I'm asking if you did, not if you do now. Be direct.


No, I never thought the Russians had anything to do with that non-story.  Not that it really matters who made it up, disinformation is disinformation all the same.  Especially when there's an obvious partisan agenda attached.



tabzer said:


> Conservatives are extremists now. This just keeps escalating.


I said they hold extremist viewpoints.  Thankfully not all of them choose to act on them all the time, but when they do, well...we've got another mass shooting just about every week in this country.



tabzer said:


> That would just be you pretending something else mattered when it doesn't. You can call yourself a potato and it still doesn't change the pretense of your deflection, whether it's by popular conservative lines of thoughts or other fictional stories.


Still completely lost on where I supposedly "deflected" away from anything.  I've answered every one of your questions as succinctly as I possibly can.


----------



## tabzer (Apr 5, 2022)

Xzi said:


> No, I never thought the Russians had anything to do with that non-story. Not that it really matters who made it up, disinformation is disinformation all the same. Especially when there's an obvious partisan agenda attached.



So when you heard "Russian disinformation" you processed it as "disinformation", but blaming Russia is what?  The default?  Inconsequential?  



Xzi said:


> I said they hold extremist viewpoints. Thankfully not all of them choose to act on them all the time, but when they do, well...we've got another mass shooting just about every week in this country.



So conservatives are the ones doing mass shootings?  I thought they didn't like the government.  I didn't know they wanted to kill everyone.



Xzi said:


> Still completely lost on where I supposedly "deflected" away from anything. I've answered every one of your questions as succinctly as I possibly can.



It's about a page back.  You wouldn't remember.


----------



## Beware (Apr 5, 2022)

tabzer said:


> So conservatives are the ones doing mass shootings?  I thought they didn't like the government.  I didn't know they wanted to kill everyone.



Literally yes, gtfoh with that disingenuous nonsense. Most of these guys have left lengthy manifestos parroting extremist right-wing rhetoric. Talking about dodging and deflecting while you make shit up.


----------



## tabzer (Apr 5, 2022)

Beware said:


> Literally yes, gtfoh with that disingenuous nonsense. Most of these guys have left lengthy manifestos parroting extremist right-wing rhetoric. Talking about dodging and deflecting while you make shit up.



So what makes someone who wants less government kill everyone they see?  It doesn't make sense to me.  Doesn't that inspire more government?  To me it sounds like you are just calling them conservative after the fact.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 5, 2022)

tabzer said:


> So when you heard "Russian disinformation" you processed it as "disinformation", but blaming Russia is what? The default? Inconsequential?


I dunno, you'd have to ask the people who blamed them for it.  Recent events have shown that Russia isn't the good guy in any context, but even Putin's influence and reach has its limits.



tabzer said:


> So conservatives are the ones doing mass shootings? I thought they didn't like the government.


They also don't like gays, immigrants, Jews, teachers, liberals...probably just easier if I let this poignant comic from 1968's Mad magazine explain:


Spoiler











Those types used to be a very small minority even within the Republican (formerly Democratic) party.  Now they're in charge of it.



tabzer said:


> It's about a page back. You wouldn't remember.


If it happened at all it's because you were being needlessly obtuse with your phrasing and I didn't understand what you were getting at.


----------



## subcon959 (Apr 5, 2022)

If we're done with the Ivermectin debate then this thread has served it's purpose.

Any chance we can avoid the usual deterioration into irrelevant bickering?


----------



## Xzi (Apr 5, 2022)

subcon959 said:


> Any chance we can avoid the usual deterioration into irrelevant bickering?


Bit late for that.  I wouldn't mind if the last few pages were merged with the Ukraine thread, though.  Would definitely fit better (albeit still not perfectly) there.


----------



## tabzer (Apr 5, 2022)

Xzi said:


> I dunno, you'd have to ask the people who blamed them for it. Recent events have shown that Russia isn't the good guy in any context, but even Putin's influence and reach has its limits.



I'm generally confused how you decide what news is factual and what isn't.  Do you flip a coin?



Xzi said:


> They also don't like gays, immigrants, Jews, teachers, liberals...probably just easier if I let this poignant comic from 1968's Mad magazine explain



So you are accusing me of all of that when you call me a conservative?  I didn't know that's what it means to be conservative.  



Xzi said:


> If it happened at all it's because you were being needlessly obtuse with your phrasing and I didn't understand what you were getting at.



It wasn't obtuse.  I was very directly mocking the narrative of "Russian disinformation".  If you think that didn't apply to you, you could have said so without pretending something else.



subcon959 said:


> If we're done with the Ivermectin debate then this thread has served it's purpose.



This thread was dead before it started.  We decided to do a storyboard for a podcast.  Feel free to close it.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Apr 5, 2022)

Xzi said:


> And has Trump ever stopped acting like Putin's lapdog for a single day since?  No.  He's still sucking his dick in the midst of a war crime spree.  Should tell you all you need to know.
> 
> 
> Nah it's just some random guy's laptop.  Following conservative logic, Hunter Biden would've needed to fly two states over to give his laptop to some tiny electronics repair shop in the middle of nowhere.  As if a family as rich as his wouldn't just call a repairman to come to them instead, lol.


Take the tin foil hat off bro lmao

There was no collusion. It was manufactured. When you going to apologize for peddling that misinformation for half a decade?


----------



## Xzi (Apr 5, 2022)

tabzer said:


> I'm generally confused how you decide what news is factual and what isn't. Do you flip a coin?


Reading the news rather than watching it helps, usually more obvious when a writer is trying to be deceitful.  I also assign news sources to different categories based on their historical factual accuracy.



tabzer said:


> So you are accusing me of all of that when you call me a conservative? I didn't know that's what it means to be conservative.


Yep, comes with a lot of stigma attached these days.  Probably be easier to just denounce that shit now and be done with it.  Nobody's stopping you.



tabzer said:


> It wasn't obtuse. I was very directly mocking the narrative of "Russian disinformation". If you think that didn't apply to you, you could have said so without pretending something else.


But...I did?  In my first reply to that statement I called it general disinformation rather than Russian disinformation.  Seems you needed me to elaborate even further after that, but regardless, I did not deflect away from the subject.



Purple_Shyguy said:


> There was no collusion. It was manufactured.


"We have all the funding we need out of Russia." - Eric Trump, 2014



Purple_Shyguy said:


> When you going to apologize for peddling that misinformation for half a decade?


Maybe when you or anyone else can point to anything concrete proving that it's misinformation, _and_ Trump finally decides to denounce Putin as a ruthless dictator and a war criminal. I have a feeling both of them will be six feet under before that ever happens.


----------



## subcon959 (Apr 5, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Feel free to close it.


I agree, I think I would make an excellent mod since I already exude that quality.

Seriously though, I'd rather this thread didn't get closed in case I find more medical info to post about. Perhaps you could voluntarily move the discussion to the Trump or Ukraine thread if it fits better there?


----------



## lokomelo (Apr 5, 2022)

subcon959 said:


> I agree, I think I would make an excellent mod since I already exude that quality.
> 
> Seriously though, I'd rather this thread didn't get closed in case I find more medical info to post about. Perhaps you could voluntarily move the discussion to the Trump or Ukraine thread if it fits better there?


I entered to talk about how much hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin were used here, and how many Brazilians died despite the heavy usages of those drugs, but that do not matter anymore, as this post were automatically merged with "Situation in Ukraine" and "Will Trump be president again".


----------



## RocaBOT (Apr 5, 2022)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> A virus is parasitic.
> BTW:
> "Ivermectin proposes many potentials effects to treat a range of diseases, with its antimicrobial, antiviral, and anti-cancer properties as a wonder drug."
> https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32533071/


And, I quote: "Of course, confirmation of this statement requires human studies and clinical trials."
Unsurprisingly, said human clinical trials showed little to no effect in the actual conditions of a human treatment.



AlexMCS said:


> Knock yourself out on the papers.
> https://c19ivermectin.com/
> 
> As a side note, on the left sidebar there are links to studies for many other drugs.


Ah yes, the joy of informing oneself on a biased website constructed the exact same as the Raoult-hosted website that censed every HCQ-related covid study that had a positive conclusion. You do realise that this kind of website is exacty the cherry-picking you pretend to try and avoid? Actual meta-analyses and systematic reviews show that overall, including everything that is obviously not on this website, and analysing the flaws of every paper to ponderate on them, there is no profitable gain of ivermectin on any of those, and in patricular not in covid, for the treatment of actual non-testtube infections. 
But you'd need to look at those meta-analyses and systematic reviews in medical journals instead of looking at cherry-picking biased websites to acknowledge that, obviously.


----------



## AlexMCS (Apr 5, 2022)

RocaBOT said:


> And, I quote: "Of course, confirmation of this statement requires human studies and clinical trials."
> Unsurprisingly, said human clinical trials showed little to no effect in the actual conditions of a human treatment.
> 
> 
> ...



I use it as a collection of the studies, you can use its word as gospel or not. It even has he study mentioned in the OP.
And this site is one of many which checks all treatments, there is not observable bias IMO.


----------



## tabzer (Apr 5, 2022)

subcon959 said:


> I agree, I think I would make an excellent mod since I already exude that quality.
> 
> Seriously though, I'd rather this thread didn't get closed in case I find more medical info to post about. Perhaps you could voluntarily move the discussion to the Trump or Ukraine thread if it fits better there?



But isn't this thread categorically disinformation?  Or is it misinformation because the intent cannot be proven?

Now we have to deal with the emerging reality of alt-right peer-reviewed studies.  We need greater controls over what kind of studies are permitted.


----------



## lolcatzuru (Apr 5, 2022)

KingVamp said:


> Just funny to see someone dead set on believing these conspiracy theories, despite all the evidence saying otherwise, asking others what is it going to take to change their mind.
> 
> Unless you are talking about the price of ivermectin, it can cost far more than $20.



I'm gonna help you like I did the other guy, you don't wanna go down this road and embarress yourself


----------



## lolcatzuru (Apr 5, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Only someone completely blinded by nationalism would be foolish enough to claim that capitalism is a flawless system.  Nothing created by humans is perfect.
> 
> 
> Conspiracy has a very concise legal definition.  "_An agreement between two or more persons to engage jointly in an unlawful or criminal act, or an act that is innocent in itself but becomes unlawful when done by the combination of actors._"
> ...



Well doesn't that apply to the liberal echo chamber too?


----------



## lolcatzuru (Apr 5, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Nope, wasn't even pretending to be.  That is literally the claim made by conspiracy theorists: that Hunter Biden flew two states over to give his laptop to an electronics repair shop nowhere close to where he lives or works.  Not my fault if you weren't up to speed on the latest batshit insane theories circulating among your kin.



Except, like or not, he did do that, a liberal news source which is the only credible news sources naturally, confirmed it was his. This s a really key problem because now the burden of proof to say " no no no they nyt is alt righters, here why" falls onto you, and the clincher, you are trapped between truth and fantasy xur world


----------



## lolcatzuru (Apr 5, 2022)

KingVamp said:


> Just funny to see someone dead set on believing these conspiracy theories, despite all the evidence saying otherwise, asking others what is it going to take to change their mind.
> 
> Unless you are talking about the price of ivermectin, it can cost far more than $20.



Does it cost 700 dollars per pill?  If so link?


----------



## smf (Apr 5, 2022)

cracker said:


> That's debatable. It is believed by many scientists that the people in areas that have high amounts of parasitic infections may do better because of immunosuppression preventing cytokine storms. It will take a while to figure out all the nuances to tell what really helped or hindered recovery because of all of the variables.


How many scientists?

It's an interesting thought, but isn't cytokine storms a common symptom in places that don't have high amounts of parasitic infections?


----------



## smf (Apr 5, 2022)

lolcatzuru said:


> Except, like or not, he did do that, a liberal news source which is the only credible news sources naturally, confirmed it was his. This s a really key problem because now the burden of proof to say " no no no they nyt is alt righters, here why" falls onto you, and the clincher, you are trapped between truth and fantasy xur world


Did he? The person who received the laptops is legally blind and cannot identify the person who dropped them off.


----------



## NoobletCheese (Apr 5, 2022)

This article claims "the percentage of vaccinated participants in each group was not specified".

But honestly I'm not bothered if people think it works or not.   People swear by all kinds of odd things and I'm not bothered by that.  

But I am bothered if people interfere in other people's private business.  Like pharmacists not filling scripts because they think they know better than the treating doctor.   Or government regulators banning drugs because they might cause people to not take other drugs (the two aren't mutually exclusive).

And then there's Remdesivir: 1 study of 1063 patients showing 31% improvement for Covid.  Status:  FDA approved ✓


----------



## lolcatzuru (Apr 5, 2022)

smf said:


> Did he? The person who received the laptops is legally blind and cannot identify the person who dropped them off.



Well a liberal news source said it and we know they don't lie! Plus I assume those leaked photos are shoops. And the laptop Giuliani had also fake, please stop backing yourself into a corner


----------



## lolcatzuru (Apr 5, 2022)

NoobletCheese said:


> This article claims "the percentage of vaccinated participants in each group was not specified".
> 
> But honestly I'm not bothered if people think it works or not.   People swear by all kinds of odd things and I'm not bothered by that.
> 
> ...



Whoa careful we don't like logic around these parts


----------



## smf (Apr 5, 2022)

lolcatzuru said:


> Well a liberal news source said it and we know they don't lie! Plus I assume those leaked photos are shoops. And the laptop Giuliani had also fake, please stop backing yourself into a corner


What corner?

I am not talking about whether the laptop is his, I'm asking what evidence you have that it was him that took it there and left it.


----------



## smf (Apr 5, 2022)

NoobletCheese said:


> Or government regulators banning drugs because they might cause people to not take other drugs (the two aren't mutually exclusive).
> 
> And then there's Remdesivir: 1 study of 1063 patients showing 31% improvement for Covid.  Status:  FDA approved ✓


Ivermectin was never approved for treating covid 19 and in controlled tests it showed it didn't work, doctors can be crackpots too. So what do you do? Let them prescribe whatever quack snake oil they want, which at best does nothing and at worst will harm you. Or tell them not to prescribe it?

Mistakes were made over Remdesivir


----------



## lolcatzuru (Apr 5, 2022)

smf said:


> What corner?
> 
> I am not talking about whether the laptop is his, I'm asking what evidence you have that it was him that took it there and left it.



I never ever said that,ever. Iirc I think it was an aide or secret service member, or a dealer he traded it too, idk why the fake presidents son would go himself, and it doesn't matter, it can still be one he used.


----------



## lolcatzuru (Apr 5, 2022)

smf said:


> Ivermectin was never approved for treating covid 19 and in controlled tests it showed it didn't work, doctors can be crackpots too. So what do you do? Let them prescribe whatever quack snake oil they want, which at best does nothing and at worst will harm you. Or tell them not to prescribe it?
> 
> Mistakes were made over Remdesivir



Yes. You THE FUCKING PEOPKE DECIDE WHAT THEY WANT, my body my choice right? Esd


----------



## smf (Apr 5, 2022)

lolcatzuru said:


> I never ever said that,ever. Iirc I think it was an aide or secret service member, or a dealer he traded it too, idk why the fake presidents son would go himself, and it doesn't matter, it can still be one he used.


Xzi said "that Hunter Biden flew two states over to give his laptop to an electronics repair shop nowhere close to where he lives or works. "

You replied: "Except, like or not, he did do that,"

So I'm kinda figuring that your denial "I never ever said that,ever." is a little odd.

Whomever took the laptop there clearly was expecting that the information on it would be released to the public, so I'm not sure why an aid or secret service member would have taken it there.

Fake president? Biden IS president.

Hunter Biden may have used it, he may not. Even if it was his, then it would mean that someone other than Hunter Biden had access to it. Meaning that files may have been changed, removed or added after it left his possession.

I'm not entirely sure what is on it that is such a big deal.

It could easily be a laptop that Hunter Biden had never touched, that was filled with files stolen from him and mixed with the files that they wanted to be found and attributed to him.


----------



## lolcatzuru (Apr 5, 2022)

smf said:


> Xzi said "that Hunter Biden flew two states over to give his laptop to an electronics repair shop nowhere close to where he lives or works. "
> 
> You replied: "Except, like or not, he did do that,"
> 
> ...



you can admonish me for missing what the terminator said earlier, far be it for me to miss something a liberal robot says, but sure, he couldve done that, maybe he was buy crack too.

"Whomever took the laptop there clearly was expecting that the information on it would be released to the public, so I'm not sure why an aid or secret service member would have taken it there."  listen to me, seriously genuinely, get help, ill pay for it, if you think for one second that they thought that a random repair man would come forward with this is obvious, you have a and i have to be pc here " neurodivergence" and should get that looked at.  If this were true and that obvious, wouldnt we be hearing dirt on tons of big shots all the time? i dont see any dirt on koala harris,  or jenn pataki or anyone like that, but i am open to maybe missing something.

 Right of course he is, the ballot fairy helped him win, in the most free and fair election ever.

heres the thing i really wanna focus on though, and i know you wont because you are petrified so you are gonna pick everything else apart 

the point is he MIGHT has used it, so the information in it MIGHT be related to him, which may me he DID make overseas business deals while his dad was VP, we dont know,  thats literally, and again, please ill pay for it so get help THE WHOLE FUCKING POINT, just because you dont like it, doesnt make it russian propaganda or untrue, but im under the assumption you are a flat earther am i right?


----------



## The Catboy (Apr 5, 2022)

lolcatzuru said:


> Well a liberal news source said it and we know they don't lie! Plus I assume those leaked photos are shoops. And the laptop Giuliani had also fake, please stop backing yourself into a corner


What Liberal news source said it?


----------



## Xzi (Apr 5, 2022)

lolcatzuru said:


> Well doesn't that apply to the liberal echo chamber too?


Yes, Facebook can also be that, but you don't see a whole lot of baseless conspiracy theories coming from those.  Mostly they just mock Republicans for being seventy years out of touch with the mainstream and/or deride them for authoritarian behavior.



lolcatzuru said:


> Except, like or not, he did do that, a liberal news source which is the only credible news sources naturally, confirmed it was his.


If anything about the laptop story was "confirmed," Hunter Biden would be facing criminal charges right now.  I wouldn't hold my breath over it.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Apr 5, 2022)

RocaBOT said:


> And, I quote: "Of course, confirmation of this statement requires human studies and clinical trials."
> Unsurprisingly, said human clinical trials showed little to no effect in the actual conditions of a human treatment.


He ridiculed people who thought Ivermectin could have antiviral properties. It does have them.
Whether it helps against COVID is not conclusive. Another study shows a high effectiveness, though the sample size was also rather low. The problem of this study has been mentioned by others. The biggest one (in my view): how late it was given (and that the patients were treated differently and could figure out whether they were given a placebo).


----------



## cracker (Apr 6, 2022)

smf said:


> How many scientists?
> 
> It's an interesting thought, but isn't cytokine storms a common symptom in places that don't have high amounts of parasitic infections?



I can't enumerate how many believe it, but here is a research paper on it. I'm not sure if scientists have really gone in depth before about the effects of a co-infection with a parasite. It will interesting to see if it holds true.


----------



## smf (Apr 6, 2022)

cracker said:


> I can't enumerate how many believe it, but here is a research paper on it. I'm not sure if scientists have really gone in depth before about the effects of a co-infection with a parasite. It will interesting to see if it holds true.


This is what I was getting at, if people most at risk from covid 19 have pre-existing conditions then treating them for that condition would be a good thing. Ivermectin is a treatment for parasitic infections.

Treating everyone for random undiagnosed conditions, when there is a risk for every treatment, would seem to be unwise.



UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> He ridiculed people who thought Ivermectin could have antiviral properties. It does have them.
> Whether it helps against COVID is not conclusive. Another study shows a high effectiveness, though the sample size was also rather low. The problem of this study has been mentioned by others. The biggest one (in my view): how late it was given (and that the patients were treated differently and could figure out whether they were given a placebo).



What do you mean by "antiviral properties"? What testing was done, were there any flaws in the testing?



lolcatzuru said:


> listen to me, seriously genuinely, get help, ill pay for it, if you think for one second that they thought that a random repair man would come forward with this is obvious, you have a and i have to be pc here " neurodivergence" and should get that looked at.  If this were true and that obvious, wouldnt we be hearing dirt on tons of big shots all the time? i dont see any dirt on koala harris,  or jenn pataki or anyone like that, but i am open to maybe missing something.


listen to me, seriously genuinely, get help, I won't pay for it, if you think for one second that whomever took the laptop to this guy didn't expect him to come forward.

We don't hear dirt on tons of big shots, because they aren't stupid enough to take laptops to random repair men.
Other people aren't so intelligent https://abc7chicago.com/robert-watson-des-moines-iowa-child-porn/5284651

You are missing something.

I wonder why a repair man bothered to look through the data, take a copy, alert the FBI and when they seize the laptop, give the copy to Rudy Giuliani. It kinda sounds planned. It's also rather convenient it was a legally blind repair man who can't say that it was Hunter Biden, only that the person said their name was Hunter Biden and wrote that down.

Whether any individual email is real or not is irrelevant as it's tainted, however the FBI are using it to investigate and may find corroborating evidence.



lolcatzuru said:


> Right of course he is, the ballot fairy helped him win, in the most free and fair election ever.
> 
> heres the thing i really wanna focus on though, and i know you wont because you are petrified so you are gonna pick everything else apart
> 
> the point is he MIGHT has used it, so the information in it MIGHT be related to him, which may me he DID make overseas business deals while his dad was VP, we dont know,  thats literally, and again, please ill pay for it so get help THE WHOLE FUCKING POINT, just because you dont like it, doesnt make it russian propaganda or untrue, but im under the assumption you are a flat earther am i right?



It appears that it was the most free and fair election ever, small numbers of fraud and mistakes didn't make any difference to the result. The evidence that you and your crackpots were throwing around was fake and based on misidentifying people.

You come across as pretty unstable, but also pretty rude. I'm not sure if you think this makes you effective in discussions, but I can assure you it does not.


It doesn't matter if he "MIGHT" have used it, that is not evidence. It is pure propaganda to try to keep the deluded engaged.

We know that Russia hacked Hilary Clinton, why not Hunter Biden? You know, they "MIGHT" have. Is that not good enough for you? It seems it is when it's something you believe, just not when it's something you don't. As if you have different standards for evidence for things based on your own belief. You might not realize how disastrous that is for your ability to identify what is actually true or not.

No, I'm not a flat earther, you are more likely to be one out of the two of us. Your thought process would be "Hey, it "MIGHT" be flat, the elite "MIGHT" be trying to fake the evidence".

Anyway, you seem to have gone from "It was definitely Hunter that took it to the shop" to "I never said that, it was likely an aide or secret service" to "We don't know if it's his laptop, but it might be".

You seem to be agreeing with me now anyway, I have no idea whose laptop it is or if Hunter Biden ever used it. For all I know, it "MIGHT" be yours. The contents might lead the FBI to some criminal activity or not, but it's not going to convict him of anything on it's own. You could scribble "I done it, signed Hunter Biden" and post it to the FBI and it would be as useful as evidence.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Apr 6, 2022)

smf said:


> What do you mean by "antiviral properties"? What testing was done, were there any flaws in the testing?


That it fights a virus within the body of mammals. I was just quoting pubmed.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32533071/


----------



## Dr_Faustus (Apr 6, 2022)

I have a general question that must be asked.

What does being sick and getting medicine have to do at all with politics?

Have we partitioned the mindset of people so much to the point where conspiracy driven crap is now factored in with politics? I noticed this so much with covid that its just silly to assume the push for masks, the development and rollout of the vaccine and trying to assure people do not poison themselves with false cures has to do ANYTHING with what political side you are on. It just seems so unnecessary to need to combine the two. Its like saying that if I like Coke that means I am a republican or a communist because the colour of the can is Red. That is the kind of grasping of straws I am seeing here with needing to infuse politics in something like this. 


Finally, throwing this out there, The vaccine development started during the Trump administration, and rolled out during the Biden administration, if somehow Trump was still president when the vaccine rollout happened would the opposition still be the same? I highly doubt it aside from some super anti-vax folk who existed long before politics had anything to do with it.

This shit is silly, get some goddamn facts and stop clinging onto bullshit that probably originated from some facebook group.


----------



## subcon959 (Apr 6, 2022)

Dr_Faustus said:


> Finally, throwing this out there, The vaccine development started during the Trump administration, and rolled out during the Biden administration, if somehow Trump was still president when the vaccine rollout happened would the opposition still be the same?


It would be flipped, even your vice president said in an interview back then she wouldn't take a vaccine endorsed by Trump


----------



## NoobletCheese (Apr 7, 2022)

smf said:


> Ivermectin was never approved for treating covid 19 ... doctors can be crackpots too. So what do you do? Let them prescribe whatever quack snake oil they want, which at best does nothing and at worst will harm you. Or tell them not to prescribe it?



"Off-label use is very common. Generic drugs generally have no sponsor as their indications and use expands, and incentives are limited to initiate new clinical trials to generate additional data for approval agencies to expand indications of proprietary drugs.  Up to one-fifth of all drugs are prescribed off-label and amongst psychiatric drugs, off-label use rises to 31%."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Off-label_use#Frequency_of_off-label_use


----------



## smf (Apr 9, 2022)

NoobletCheese said:


> "Off-label use is very common. Generic drugs generally have no sponsor as their indications and use expands, and incentives are limited to initiate new clinical trials to generate additional data for approval agencies to expand indications of proprietary drugs.  Up to one-fifth of all drugs are prescribed off-label and amongst psychiatric drugs, off-label use rises to 31%."
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Off-label_use#Frequency_of_off-label_use


As this is australia that is being discussed, then this is relevant.

https://www.nps.org.au/australian-prescriber/articles/off-label-prescribing 

_There is no legal impediment to prescribing off label, however the onus is on the prescriber to defend their prescription for an indication that is not listed in the product information. If, in the opinion of the prescriber, the off-label prescription can be supported by reasonable quality evidence, for example the indication is identified in the Australian Medicines Handbook, the prescriber should proceed if this is in the patient’s best interests._

Off label use is often because drug companies didn't pay to test on children or pregnant women, not because the doctor wanted to try some crazy plan.


----------



## smf (Apr 9, 2022)

subcon959 said:


> It would be flipped, even your vice president said in an interview back then she wouldn't take a vaccine endorsed by Trump



No, she said she would take it if Fauci said to take it. But If Faucci didn't say to take it, but Trump did then then she would not take it.

Which I think is pretty fair really. You shouldn't take health advice from Trump

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-52399464

But her statement doesn't require her to do the opposite of what Trump says, when he agreed with Fauci.

That would be at best a disingenuous argument.

If someone says "Jump off a bridge" and you say "I don't have to do what you say", then you can't just reply "Ok, if you aren't going to do what I say then don't jump off a bridge" & think you've outsmarted them.




Dr_Faustus said:


> I noticed this so much with covid that its just silly to assume the push for masks, the development and rollout of the vaccine and trying to assure people do not poison themselves with false cures has to do ANYTHING with what political side you are on. It just seems so unnecessary to need to combine the two. Its like saying that if I like Coke that means I am a republican or a communist because the colour of the can is Red. That is the kind of grasping of straws I am seeing here with needing to infuse politics in something like this.


Some people want to believe that there are secret plots to kill them or steal all their money.

Trump gave them a voice (partly because he is also dumb, but also because he wanted their vote).

I can't figure out why Trump is obsessed with windmills though.


----------



## trimesh (Apr 9, 2022)

The biggest problem is that COVID seems to have triggered off a tsunami of extremely dubious "science" supported mostly by preprint papers that are disseminated via social media rather than conventional scientific review channels.  We saw a lot of this with Hydroxychloroquine, and another spate of it with Ivermectin.

This is all exacerbated by the fact there is a principle in the scientific community to assume good faith - I.E. even if the data is bad you tend to assume it was generated with honest intent.  So when you get things like the (widely quoted) Egyptian Ivermectin study that appeared to show very high levels of efficacity that's published as a preprint it can end up incorporated into various meta analyses, sometimes to the extent of dramatically skewing the overall results.

 In that specific case, several people thought the results were sufficiently anomalous that they requested the raw data for the study, and what they (eventually) got back was a complete mess that was in serious conflict with the narrative section of the paper, didn't in any case seem to support the stated conclusions and also had some alarming features like sections of data that appeared to have been repeatedly copied and pasted.

The "assume good faith" principle means that people aren't generally saying the data was fabricated, but there are certainly a lot of people that have strong suspicions this might be the case.  The original paper has now been retracted, but it's original purported conclusions are still being passed around on social media and although some of the metanalyses that had this apparently bogus data baked into them have been amended to note that doubts have been thrown on the source data others have not.

Of course, in the greater scheme of things this ultimately doesn't matter - if a study says {x} and nobody can reproduce it then eventually people conclude that {x} is actually not true and at that point the most fruitful target of investigation is why those results were obtained originally - but since there is a finite capacity for research this has the effect of potentially diverting resources from more useful avenues of investigation. 

So does Ivermectin have any useful effect against COVID?  I don't know - it's not my area of expertise, but the paper described in this thread appears to describe a well-constructed study that makes a serious attempt to answer this question and has concluded that it does not.


----------



## AlanGreen (Apr 21, 2022)

trimesh said:


> The biggest problem is that COVID seems to have triggered off a tsunami of extremely dubious "science" supported mostly by preprint papers that are disseminated via social media rather than conventional scientific review channels.  We saw a lot of this with Hydroxychloroquine, and another spate of it with Ivermectin.
> 
> This is all exacerbated by the fact there is a principle in the scientific community to assume good faith - I.E. even if the data is bad you tend to assume it was generated with honest intent.  So when you get things like the (widely quoted) Egyptian Ivermectin study that appeared to show very high levels of efficacity that's published as a preprint it can end up incorporated into various meta analyses, sometimes to the extent of dramatically skewing the overall results.
> 
> ...


I absolutely agree with you.


----------



## tabzer (Apr 22, 2022)

trimesh said:


> So does Ivermectin have any useful effect against COVID? I don't know - it's not my area of expertise, but the paper described in this thread appears to describe a well-constructed study that makes a serious attempt to answer this question and has concluded that it does not.



If you ignore the points made in this thread and what the study actually shows, sure.  

1. You are ignoring the limitations imposed by the study and applying it wide-spectrum to cover claims that the study doesn't even target.  For it to be purported as proof/evidence that ivermectin is ineffective in any use is disingenuous to boot.

2. Even the study kind of bogus by suggesting that %10 effectiveness, in this specific application, is insignificant.  But you'll forgo the data and run with the contradictory conclusion?  Seems like you were just saying that was a problem.

It seems to me that %10 is effective enough to establish a positive relationship, opening up the possibility for further study and finding out the exact cause for such change (ie. dosages, composites, timing, methods of application).  But instead, the conclusion tries to shut it down.  I wouldn't call that pro-science.  It's a hit piece to funnel attention away from it.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 23, 2022)

Instaroleplay said:


> Honest question, does someone in the world still unironically believe the laptop from hell is a hoax?


"Hoax" would imply the laptop isn't real at all.  It very well may be a real laptop, but with nothing at all that ties it to Hunter Biden.  It's just another one of those things alt-right conspiracy theorists cream their panties over imagining is true, but it isn't.  Like Comet Ping Pong having a basement.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 23, 2022)

Instaroleplay said:


> Really, so the evidence of hunter biden trafficking influences with daddy vp, taking executive board seats in exvhange for lots money in ukrainian burisma and chinese companies, which directly benefited and involved the current us president, etc are all altright conspiracies? Btw, people do conspire between closed doors. The term "conspiracy theory" was invented by the CIA to discredit those that questioned the Warren investigation.


I'm sorry, are you ranting about a person making money from the private sector thanks to their daddy's connections?  If so, keep raging against that machine brother, because that would mean you agree Trump is a piece of shit too.

I'm far more concerned with people stealing my tax dollars from the government via nepotism, as Jared and Ivanka did when they walked away from their white house positions $50+ million richer.


----------



## trimesh (Apr 25, 2022)

tabzer said:


> If you ignore the points made in this thread and what the study actually shows, sure.



The study says they were unable to establish any statistically significant correlation, and that is supported by the data.  The study protocol appears to be sound and sufficiently documented.  As I said earlier, this is not a field I can pretend to have any expertise in, but I am quite familiar with the general process of peer review and this paper seems at least well constructed.

I can also say that the same does NOT seem to be true some of the papers asserting a significant positive effect from Ivermectin - especially that now retracted Mexican study that created a lot of the initial interest because it presented results that appeared to show extremely drastic effects.

Of course, none of this "proves it doesn't work" - because that's really not the way science operates - all you do is present your data and the conclusions you drew from it and if enough people do that and get coherent results then (hopefully) eventually a scientific consensus will be reached.   Conflicting results from different studies are a perfectly normal part of scientific research - and the vast majority of the time the reason is eventually found to be some variable that was not controlled for.


----------



## tabzer (Apr 25, 2022)

trimesh said:


> The study says they were unable to establish any statistically significant correlation, and that is supported by the data.  The study protocol appears to be sound and sufficiently documented.  As I said earlier, this is not a field I can pretend to have any expertise in, but I am quite familiar with the general process of peer review and this paper seems at least well constructed.
> 
> I can also say that the same does NOT seem to be true some of the papers asserting a significant positive effect from Ivermectin - especially that now retracted Mexican study that created a lot of the initial interest because it presented results that appeared to show extremely drastic effects.
> 
> Of course, none of this "proves it doesn't work" - because that's really not the way science operates - all you do is present your data and the conclusions you drew from it and if enough people do that and get coherent results then (hopefully) eventually a scientific consensus will be reached.   Conflicting results from different studies are a perfectly normal part of scientific research - and the vast majority of the time the reason is eventually found to be some variable that was not controlled for.



An outcome of a %10 difference is statistically significant, as it has already been mentioned.


----------



## trimesh (Apr 26, 2022)

tabzer said:


> An outcome of a %10 difference is statistically significant, as it has already been mentioned.



No, it isn't.  Try reading the actual study:
RESULTS​A total of 3515 patients were randomly assigned to receive ivermectin (679 patients), placebo (679), or another intervention (2157). Overall, 100 patients (14.7%) in the ivermectin group had a primary-outcome event, as compared with 111 (16.3%) in the placebo group (relative risk, 0.90; 95% Bayesian credible interval, 0.70 to 1.16). Of the 211 primary-outcome events, 171 (81.0%) were hospital admissions. Findings were similar to the primary analysis in a modified intention-to-treat analysis that included only patients who received at least one dose of ivermectin or placebo (relative risk, 0.89; 95% Bayesian credible interval, 0.69 to 1.15) and in a per-protocol analysis that included only patients who reported 100% adherence to the assigned regimen (relative risk, 0.94; 95% Bayesian credible interval, 0.67 to 1.35). There were no significant effects of ivermectin use on secondary outcomes or adverse events.

Especially this bit: " (relative risk, 0.90; 95% Bayesian credible interval, 0.70 to 1.16)"

So, that's saying the raw data is implying a 10% reduced risk, but that at a 95% confidence interval this could represent an actual risk anywhere between 30% better or 16% worse, and - hence includes "no effect" inside the confidence interval.

So this result is not significant at a 95% confidence level.


----------



## tabzer (Apr 26, 2022)

trimesh said:


> No, it isn't.  Try reading the actual study:
> RESULTS​A total of 3515 patients were randomly assigned to receive ivermectin (679 patients), placebo (679), or another intervention (2157). Overall, 100 patients (14.7%) in the ivermectin group had a primary-outcome event, as compared with 111 (16.3%) in the placebo group (relative risk, 0.90; 95% Bayesian credible interval, 0.70 to 1.16). Of the 211 primary-outcome events, 171 (81.0%) were hospital admissions. Findings were similar to the primary analysis in a modified intention-to-treat analysis that included only patients who received at least one dose of ivermectin or placebo (relative risk, 0.89; 95% Bayesian credible interval, 0.69 to 1.15) and in a per-protocol analysis that included only patients who reported 100% adherence to the assigned regimen (relative risk, 0.94; 95% Bayesian credible interval, 0.67 to 1.35). There were no significant effects of ivermectin use on secondary outcomes or adverse events.
> 
> Especially this bit: " (relative risk, 0.90; 95% Bayesian credible interval, 0.70 to 1.16)"
> ...


Lol.  The results are significant.  The reliability of the study is not.  Not the other way around.


----------



## trimesh (Apr 26, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Lol.  The results are significant.  The reliability of the study is not.  Not the other way around.



No, they are not.  All you are repeatedly proving is that you have no idea what "statistically significant" means.   It's a somewhat fancier way of saying "this is a result that could not have been reached by chance even in the absence of any actual effect within the stated confidence interval".

A "not statistically significant" result (like this one) is one that COULD have arrived at by chance within that confidence interval.


----------



## tabzer (Apr 26, 2022)

trimesh said:


> No, they are not.  All you are repeatedly proving is that you have no idea what "statistically significant" means.   It's a somewhat fancier way of saying "this is a result that could not have been reached by chance even in the absence of any actual effect within the stated confidence interval".
> 
> A "not statistically significant" result (like this one) is one that COULD have arrived at by chance within that confidence interval.


Statistically, it is relative to the reliability of the study, which harbors the pretense of rejecting any results that you don't like within, as you calculated, a whopping %46 range--weighted against a positive result by 2x even.  The results are significant.  Statistically, the study would only be able to determine if ivermectin can cure Covid at a specific regiment, but unable to determine a significant impact.

The study doesn't have enough control and that speaks about the study more than anything else.


----------



## trimesh (Apr 27, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Statistically, it is relative to the reliability of the study, which harbors the pretense of rejecting any results that you don't like within, as you calculated, a whopping %46 range--weighted against a positive result by 2x even.  The results are significant.  Statistically, the study would only be able to determine if ivermectin can cure Covid at a specific regiment, but unable to determine a significant impact.
> 
> The study doesn't have enough control and that speaks about the study more than anything else.



You are being rather disingenuous here - the initial claims were that Ivermectin was extremely effective against COVID, so the study was designed to look for those sort of highly significant effects.   Had they existed at anything like the claimed levels it would have done so, and at a level that established statistical significance.

We was actually obtained was a much weaker effect at the raw data level that pushed the error bands into "no effect" territory - hence rendering the overall results "not significant" on a statistical level - and when you are dealing with papers "significant results" ALWAYS means "significant on a statistical level".

These results might be "interesting" - but they are not "significant" in the sense that any researcher would use the term.


----------



## tabzer (Apr 28, 2022)

trimesh said:


> the initial claims were that Ivermectin was extremely effective against COVID


That has nothing to do with me or my opinion.


trimesh said:


> the raw data level that pushed the error bands into "no effect" territory


That is factually wrong.  It pushes it in the "inability to account for" territory.  As I suggested, not only is the governing control of the study something that cannot assert yes or no, but it is weighted _against_ a positive result (bias). Despite this, you are taking the lack of ability of the study to ascertain effectiveness as an implication that ivermectin is ineffective. That's a logical failure.

The result is a significant difference between two groups, but it is deemed insignificant because of the failure of the study's ability to be confident in its own results.  The lack of significance is the study itself.  Bunk.


----------



## trimesh (Apr 28, 2022)

tabzer said:


> That has nothing to do with me or my opinion.
> 
> That is factually wrong.  It pushes it in the "inability to account for" territory.  As I suggested, not only is the governing control of the study something that cannot assert yes or no, but it is weighted _against_ a positive result (bias). Despite this, you are taking the lack of ability of the study to ascertain effectiveness as an implication that ivermectin is ineffective. That's a logical failure.
> 
> The result is a significant difference between two groups, but it is deemed insignificant because of the failure of the study's ability to be confident in its own results.  The lack of significance is the study itself.  Bunk.



But there is no "positive result" here - there is just some data, and given the observed results and the sample size it's a result that at the stated confidence level (95%) could have been arrived by random chance even in the absence of any actual effect at all.

The thing is that "significance" is not some random concept but an attempt to answer the question "does this sample contain enough data to really mean anything"?  And in this case, the answer is "no" - there is simply not enough data there to know if it actually means anything in the real world or is just a sampling artefact.

And, as I said before, I have no actual position on if Ivermectin has any useful effect - all I'm saying is that you can't infer one from this study.  Incidentally, I DO disagree with the title of this thread - because you can't take a failure to demonstrate an effect as being proof there isn't one - all it shows is that in this specific case it could not be demonstrated.


----------



## tabzer (Apr 30, 2022)

%10 people saved a trip from a hospital is significant and it is positive.  If you are %45 blind, and that's enough for you to not see that, then it's too bad.


----------



## Yulian_guardsman (May 2, 2022)

I really wish they would be done with this rebranded flu shit. Medical Tyranny is still Tyranny.


----------

