The Right-Wing Disinformation Machine

[Lorewarn]

1 hour ago, Redux said:

 

Can you post one that shows it's not?

 

What a ridiculous thing to say 

 

 

 

That's not how science works my man. You can't prove negatives.

[teachercd]

16 minutes ago, Lorewarn said:

 

 

That's not how science works my man. You can't prove negatives.

Pregnancy tests beg to differ!

[JJ Husker]

1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

I believe Scotch and a cigar kills Covid.  I can't find any research saying it doesn't.  So....it must be true.

 

1 hour ago, DevoHusker said:

That'd be a lot more fun

I’m with devo on this. I could learn to like scotch although bourbon would be even better. Either way, lightyears ahead of an animal dewormer.

 

I’m amazed at the people that will run wild based on a few anecdotal stories but will absolutely question actual scientific information to the very end. It’s quite the conundrum.

[Enhance]

The biggest problem with the human Ivermectin discussion (in relation to COVID) is that the majority of the reliable data and research to this point do not support its use for COVID. Most of the case studies and research that has tried to support Ivermectin use have been shown to be heavily flawed, unreliable, or have shown that it didn't impact anything enough to warrant use. And most of the stories of people being successfully treated with it are anecdotal, inconsistent, and/or turn out to be untrue upon any modicum of research.

 

So, this is primarily a thing because it became political, and the overwhelming majority of the scientific community is on the same page about Ivermectin for COVID at this point. And there's no conspiratorial reason behind it. There just isn't enough reliable proof.

 

I'm a totally open-minded person on this, too. If I can see the majority of data and research that proves Ivermectin helps against COVID, and if most doctors are behind the research, then hell yeah. Let's pump that into production and mass distribute it. I want to save lives as much as anybody else but not at the expense of logic and public safety.

[Guy Chamberlin]

My question is why do the people who don't trust the research on COVID vaccines so quickly adopt optional treatments with vastly less research and sketchy endorsements?

 

I mean, I know the answer. It's just bizarre to think about. 

[Redux]

3 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

I believe Scotch and a cigar kills Covid.  I can't find any research saying it doesn't.  So....it must be true.

 

Scotch might

[Redux]

1 hour ago, Lorewarn said:

That's not how science works my man. You can't prove negatives.

 

I can prove that gullible people were dumb enough to believe that mass amounts of people took Horse Dewormer for Covid.  I can prove that they are conducting studies to see how effective Ivermectin is in treatment of Covid.  I can listen to Doctors who promote treatment over fear mongering.

 

"4 out of 5 Dentists approve of this toothpaste!"  Does that mean 5th Dentist is a quack?  Nope.  But that was the narrative, and now people scream Horse medecine and point to favorable articles that proclaim misinformation because it's convenient.  This world sucks lol, whatever happened to objectivity and free thought.

[Redux]

39 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

My question is why do the people who don't trust the research on COVID vaccines so quickly adopt optional treatments with vastly less research and sketchy endorsements?

 

I mean, I know the answer. It's just bizarre to think about. 

 

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

[Redux]

2 hours ago, Scarlet said:

 

Nah, a ridiculous thing to say is that something prevents or cures an illness without any scientific evidence whatsoever for such claim.  It's even more ridiculous when the most recent studies show that it's entirely ineffective.  Then even more ridiculous is to double down when asked to provide any studies you may have been getting your information from and you present..... nothing.   

 

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2115869

 

 

So do you have anything?  

 

https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/therapies/antiviral-therapy/ivermectin/

 

Yes, if you read, there is not enough information (wonder why) to encourage or discourage the usage of Ivermectin as a treatment (not a cure, don't be dense).  

[RedDenver]

6 minutes ago, Redux said:

 

https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/therapies/antiviral-therapy/ivermectin/

 

Yes, if you read, there is not enough information (wonder why) to encourage or discourage the usage of Ivermectin as a treatment (not a cure, don't be dense).  

From that page:

Quote

Last Updated: February 11, 2021

 

 

[Redux]

3 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

From that page:

 

 

 

Yup, now try to pretend for a second you don't already have your mind made up and look for any and I do mean ANY objective article or study about Ivermectin.  Good luck, don't use Google FYI.

 

Because if it's really about science, shouldn't we all want to know if there is a safe treatment with decades of use?  Why supress that?  We already know Ivermectin is a safe medecine.

[RedDenver]

1 minute ago, Redux said:

 

Yup, now try to pretend for a second you don't already have your mind made up and look for any and I do mean ANY objective article or study about Ivermectin.  Good luck, don't use Google FYI.

Took me 3 seconds to find one from the last month: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35353979/#:~:text=Conclusions%3A Treatment with ivermectin did,early diagnosis of Covid-19.

Quote

Conclusions: 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. 

 

[Redux]

10 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

From that page:

Since that was all you read, I'll offer some cliff notes that haven't changed since 2021

 

Quote

Reports from in vitro studies suggest that ivermectin acts by inhibiting the host importin alpha/beta-1 nuclear transport proteins, which are part of a key intracellular transport process that viruses hijack to enhance infection by suppressing the host’s antiviral response.^4,5 In addition, ivermectin docking may interfere with the attachment of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spike protein to the human cell membrane.⁶ Ivermectin is thought to be a host-directed agent, which may be the basis for its broad-spectrum activity in vitro against the viruses that cause dengue, Zika, HIV, and yellow fever.^4,7-9 Despite this in vitro activity, no clinical trials have reported a clinical benefit for ivermectin in patients with these viruses. Some studies of ivermectin have also reported potential anti-inflammatory properties, which have been postulated to be beneficial in people with COVID-19.^10-12

 

Quote

• There is insufficient evidence for the COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel (the Panel) to recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19. Results from adequately powered, well-designed, and well-conducted clinical trials are needed to provide more specific, evidence-based guidance on the role of ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19.

 

Or just click this:

 

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04381884?term=Ivermectin&cond=COVID-19&draw=2&rank=1

 

Quote

Brief Summary:

In the context of COVID-19 pandemic, a report on ivermectin suppression of SARS-CoV-2 viral replication in cell cultures has been published, and the use of this medication seems to be potentially useful for the therapy. IVM safety profile and IVM wide spectrum enables to move forward with the investigation in patients infected by SARS-CoV-2 as a proof-of-concept of its possible use in the management of patients with COVID-19, given the current pandemic situation.

 

[Redux]

8 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Took me 3 seconds to find one from the last month: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35353979/#:~:text=Conclusions%3A Treatment with ivermectin did,early diagnosis of Covid-19.

 

 

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

 

From 2 days ago:

 

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

[Guy Chamberlin]

17 minutes ago, Redux said:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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