The Right-Wing Disinformation Machine

[knapplc]

6 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Funny how the manufacturer doesn’t jump all over that to sell more. They must not like making money.  

 

If there's one thing we know about Big Pharma, it's that they hate making money.

[ZRod]

1 hour ago, Redux said:

 

Welcome to most clinical trials.  Also, those conflicts of interest are coming from the side that doesn't want to find a successful treatment.  Again we're talking about a non harmful people medecine, so if it doesn't work for everyone as a treatment it's not a big deal.  So why would there be so much "conflict? 

 

No, it's not proven yet to treat Covid.  Probably never will be because, vaccines.  Again it's non harmu, and off label use is not a new concept.

 

Vaccines are preventative, medecine is treatment.  Why wouldn't we want both to help fight a pandemic?  You hear how ridiculous that sentiment you make is right?  And that effectiveness you're touting has as much time being tested as Ivermectin does as a treatment.

 

It wasn't lazy, it was intentional misinformation to deter people from seeking out Ivermectin.  Last time, a non harmful people drug that has been tested and used successfully as a treatment medecine.  The only reason you or anyone else is so against a non harmful people medecine as a treatment is because you've been indoctrinated to so so.

And who reviews clinical trials and gives their approval for the public? The FDA isn't perfect and has made mistakes in the past (see oxy), but they generally do a good job keeping the public interest protected. If they didn't exist it would be back to the days of snake oil salesmen.

 

People can ask their doctor for it all they want, and they can choose to prescribe it or not. I really don't care. But there is no definitive proof of it's efficacy fighting COVID.

 

The vaccines have been tested and proven on hundreds of millions around the world. The concept of mRNA vaccines is decades old and proven. The trials were rushed due to the urgent need, but they were conducted and showed promising results. Similar trials for Iver have not shown promising results. 

 

Your gish gallup is tiring. Now you're switching to saying that iver is for "treating", ok fine. It's not proven. You know what is? Remdsevir for kids and adults. Paxlovid. Monoclonal antibodies. Those are all approved or authorized by the FDA and have some really really good results. Better than 3% which could be the error of the test method itself 

[Redux]

11 minutes ago, knapplc said:

This information is incomplete and outdated. Note the hedging:

 

 

---

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. 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

 

---

 

Why did they say "suggest" and "may" here? Because they weren't conducting actual factual studies, but getting reports from doctors trying 1,000 things to help with Covid. When they conducted actual studies, those studies showed Ivermectin is ineffective in treating Covid.

 

Here's the study

 

 

Note the dates on your misinformation and the NEJM study.

 

 

And you conveniently, and laughably and (sadly) predictably left off the last portion OF THE VERY PARAGRAPH YOU QUOTED:

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Super, super weird that you wouldn't include that part.

 

 

Oh, wait. No it isn't.

 

 

 

 

 

 

https://ivmmeta.com/

 

https://c19ivermectin.com/

[knapplc]

2 minutes ago, Redux said:

 

https://ivmmeta.com/

 

https://c19ivermectin.com/

 

Try a link from Merck, the manufacturer, not these purveyors of misinformation.

[Redux]

5 minutes ago, ZRod said:

And who reviews clinical trials and gives their approval for the public? The FDA isn't perfect and has made mistakes in the past (see oxy), but they generally do a good job keeping the public interest protected. If they didn't exist it would be back to the days of snake oil salesmen.

 

People can ask their doctor for it all they want, and they can choose to prescribe it or not. I really don't care. But there is no definitive proof of it's efficacy fighting COVID.

 

The vaccines have been tested and proven on hundreds of millions around the world. The concept of mRNA vaccines is decades old and proven. The trials were rushed due to the urgent need, but they were conducted and showed promising results. Similar trials for Iver have not shown promising results. 

 

Your gish gallup is tiring. Now you're switching to saying that iver is for "treating", ok fine. It's not proven. You know what is? Remdsevir for kids and adults. Paxlovid. Monoclonal antibodies. Those are all approved or authorized by the FDA and have some really really good results. Better than 3% which could be the error of the test method itself 

 

Yeah, the FDA wouldn't be selective in choosing what gets touted and what gets villainized..........

 

No, that's ridiculous.  People should be able to ask for and receive a harmless people medecine as a treatment option.  Hence why it's being adopted as an option like I showed yesterday.

 

Wait, if the trials were rushed.....that would mean any Ivermectin trials would have been rushed too and...oh wait I think I'm seeing an obvious pattern here.

 

Enough with the Horse stigma, I already debunked that lunacy.

[knapplc]

1 minute ago, Redux said:

Enough with the Horse stigma, I already debunked that lunacy.

 

"Gish gallop" isn't an ivermectin/horse reference.

 

And for the record, @ZRod I don't think he's engaging in gish gallop. That takes a level of rhetorical skill we're not working with.

[Redux]

1 minute ago, knapplc said:

Try a link from Merck, the manufacturer, not these purveyors of misinformation.

 

I find it really sad and concerning you're so against a harmless treatment option.  But then again you were calling it horse medicine so I guess I shouldn't be surprised, but actual science is misinformation because it doesn't fit your narrative.

 

 

1 minute ago, knapplc said:

 

"Gish gallop" isn't an ivermectin/horse reference.

 

And for the record, @ZRod I don't think he's engaging in gish gallop. That takes a level of rhetorical skill we're not working with.

 

It was a joke you curmudgeon 

[ZRod]

1 minute ago, Redux said:

 

Yeah, the FDA wouldn't be selective in choosing what gets touted and what gets villainized..........

 

No, that's ridiculous.  People should be able to ask for and receive a harmless people medecine as a treatment option.  Hence why it's being adopted as an option like I showed yesterday.

 

Wait, if the trials were rushed.....that would mean any Ivermectin trials would have been rushed too and...oh wait I think I'm seeing an obvious pattern here.

 

Enough with the Horse stigma, I already debunked that lunacy.

Why aren't the companies who manufacture the drug touting for it's use and screaming about the FDA being bias against them?

[Archy1221]

19 minutes ago, knapplc said:

Why did they say "suggest" and "may" here?

I’m not in this ivermectin fight, but that is common study language even for approved drugs with approved indications.   

[Redux]

3 minutes ago, ZRod said:

Why aren't the companies who manufacture the drug touting for it's use and screaming about the FDA being bias against them?

 

Why would they unless there is enough collective data to back up a claim?  And there won't be enough data, not any time soon.

[knapplc]

1 minute ago, Redux said:

I find it really sad and concerning you're so against a harmless treatment option.  But then again you were calling it horse medicine so I guess I shouldn't be surprised, but actual science is misinformation because it doesn't fit your narrative.

 

I'm pretty sure I called it horse medicine once before I realized right-wing hero Joe Rogan used the human version. So that was what? Several months ago? I haven't since then, but sure, keep pushing that narrative.

 

I'm against misinformation, like all rational people should be. If people stopped pushing misinformation, folks like me, @ZRod , @BigRedBuster and @Dr. Strangelove would stop correcting it. Funny how that works.

 

You are not basing your position on "actual science," and it seems pretty clear you wouldn't know what "actual science" is, which is why you consistently use janky sources in these conversations. If you were to use "actual science," you'd start from the manufacturer's own recommendation, and continue through recent studies by peer-reviewed sources.

5 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

I’m not in this ivermectin fight, but that is common study language even for approved drugs with approved indications.   

 

This wasn't a study.

[Archy1221]

3 minutes ago, knapplc said:

This wasn't a study

It doesn’t matter if it was a designed study for any staging of approval or an IIT, it doesn’t matter.   It’s common language when an exact MOA isn’t known.  

[Archy1221]

5 minutes ago, knapplc said:

I'm against misinformation, like all rational people should be. If people stopped pushing misinformation, folks like me, @ZRod , @BigRedBuster and @Dr. Strangelove would stop correcting it. Funny how that works.

I’m very intrigued by this statement as you were the biggest pusher of false Trump/Russia information on this board and had to be corrected many times.  

[knapplc]

Just now, Archy1221 said:

It doesn’t matter if it was a designed study for any staging of approval or an IIT, it doesn’t matter.   It’s common language when an exact MOA isn’t known.  

 

Yes, that's what I was pointing out.

 

And then I pointed out that when they conducted actual peer-reviewed studies, ivermectin was proven to be ineffective in treating Covid. So they no longer have to use "may" or "suggests."

 

That was a good recap. Thanks.

[Redux]

Just now, knapplc said:

 

Yes, that's what I was pointing out.

 

And then I pointed out that when they conducted actual peer-reviewed studies, ivermectin was proven to be ineffective in treating Covid. So they no longer have to use "may" or "suggests."

 

That was a good recap. Thanks.

 

Why don't you want a safe treatment option?