What is going on with the story on ivermectin?

[Moonbeam]

My favorite ivermectin conspiracy theory is that it’s being tanked so that big pharma can sell their drugs and make money.

No one appeared to notice Ivermectin is produced by Merck, market cap ~$200 billion. Lol.

When I was young and reading Nietche, I remember thinking to myself that geniuses that want to fool themselves into believing lies invent theoretical models of reality so complicated and far out there they reach the limit of capacity for even their neuron network is able to reach beyond. In short, the greater the intelligence the more subtle the rationalizations but all in the service of ego protection. Back then I had no idea why. Now I am more interested in how to crack that need.

When you point out the inability to see the point out the absurdity of Merck as the source of ivermectin, it just points out to me at least how intractable the defect is.

 

[MrSquished]

What the left did stupidly was call Ivermectin a horse dewormer when it is a good anti-parasitic drug for humans, and there are clear differences between the human version vs the one for animals - though idiots did take the horse dewormer version.

The thing is, there is literally no evidence it helps Covid. Just like with hydrochloroquine. It's just another right wing concoction. But it has to be acknowledged some on the left misrepresented the other uses of Ivermectin.

 

[Moonbeam]

But why would there be bias? Is the idea that the $200 billion mega corporation that would be sitting on a gold mine if ivermectin were effective decided it wasn’t because it was wedded to conventional wisdom or hated Trump or something?

It’s always important to ask yourself these questions.

You put that question in too complicated a sentence for me to decipher.

 

[Moonbeam]

What the left did stupidly was call Ivermectin a horse dewormer when it is a good anti-parasitic drug for humans, and there are clear differences between the human version vs the one for animals - though idiots did take the horse dewormer version.

The thing is, there is literally no evidence it helps Covid. Just like with hydrochloroquine. It's just another right wing concoction. But it has to be acknowledged some on the left misrepresented the other uses of Ivermectin.

As I read the situation, there is evidence it helps but the evidence isn’t very good while more rigorous evidence does not replicate that data. It seems to me that is where the rationalization fixates on the less rather than the more scientifically acceptable data, that the same information is being filtered through some sort of colored lense.

 

[cytg111]

For a very long time experimental observations of the orbit of Mercury validated Newtonian mechanics. Then for a while they couldn’t be explained. Re-evaluation had to take place. In situations of questioning and flux, there are those who come up with absurd ideas and people whose reputations or ideological suppositions are wedded to the old way of thinking. Truth will most likely appeared to those not attached emotionally to any one thing but seek factual data to back up even ideas that at first may seem ridiculous. Personally I think the number of folk who are essentially emotionally open to going toward or away from accepted wisdom is far less than those who imagine they are like that. I am a believer that bias can easily infect high places.

Emotionally? There is no room for ego in science.
I remember when ivermectin came up here first and we had a couple of the usual suspects do their thing… back and forth, so on and so forth, one dude says you all look like morons when it turns out this shit really works to which the collective answer was something like fuck that shit then ill take it too.
The closed trapped minds you are looking for moonie, you seem hell be to “set free”… Is not here. Well I am not in a tree I cant come down from, no matter how wrong i turn out to be; in that scenario I got wiser and someone else did not. Still winning.

 

[Jaskalas]

Stop acting like everything is unknowable.

Are, so you are pretending. A classic.

What "we" know is what we are told. It is faith the drives the common person. A belief in something.
A belief in those who adhere to scientific principles is rapidly declining. A passing fad that fades before our eyes.

The people would rather believe and put their faith into whatever makes them feel better. It is downright pavlovian of humans to do this.

So then tell me again, what is known, and why the !@#$ do you expect others to know the same as you?
If you expect there to only be one truth, then you are sorely misguided. For in conflict, to the victor go the spoils and the writing of history. Truth is what we make of it.

Someone can study and prove Ivermectin does not work. Others can claim they studied and came to the opposite result. Anyone else will simply believe what they want. And you know it.

 

[dank69]

Are, so you are pretending. A classic.

What "we" know is what we are told. It is faith the drives the common person. A belief in something.
A belief in those who adhere to scientific principles is rapidly declining. A passing fad that fades before our eyes.

The people would rather believe and put their faith into whatever makes them feel better. It is downright pavlovian of humans to do this.

So then tell me again, what is known, and why the !@#$ do you expect others to know the same as you?
If you expect there to only be one truth, then you are sorely misguided. For in conflict, to the victor go the spoils and the writing of history. Truth is what we make of it.

Someone can study and prove Ivermectin does not work. Others can claim they studied and came to the opposite result. Anyone else will simply believe what they want. And you know it.

No, only one side will have predictable and repeatable results. Sad that you still don't know this. Classic, as they say.

 

[Moonbeam]

But why would there be bias? Is the idea that the $200 billion mega corporation that would be sitting on a gold mine if ivermectin were effective decided it wasn’t because it was wedded to conventional wisdom or hated Trump or something?

It’s always important to ask yourself these questions.

Having reread this a number of times I think I may get what you mean. The answer I would give is the one that applies to me. Any deviation from the orthodoxy of vaccine and masks, quack cures etc, are dangerous when they affect human behavior. Idiots taking horse dewormer are dangerous to themselves and also to me. It tempts me to recommend a more certain cure for Covid…..a magical compound found in all natural organic apple seeds.

 

[Moonbeam]

No, only one side will have predictable and repeatable results. Sad that you still don't know this. Classic, as they say.

Are you scientifically inclined. We’re I to make the point you seem to want me to echo would would not be put as you have. In the search for novel cures to untreatable diseases or any new question starts with a search of known theories. Are there tests that can be done with the known that would narrow a search of the data we have historically collected. This will mean the search of many porentials generally limited by small test samples. Inherit process of discovering data reliable and predictable will result in many dead ends. You are pretending your 20-20 hind sight should have been obvious and consentially agreed upon before any sharpening of the consensus had taken place.

What I am interested in are the psychological factors that mitigate against universal consensus as well as the psychological factors that occur in some when faced with non-conformist disagreement. How do we distinguish between pioneering paradigm breaking and ego driven attachment to orthodoxy. You strike me as just more threatened by heterodoxy than I am. I think maybe I am just more resigned than you are to the fact humanity seems set on self destruction.

 

[Pohemi]

My favorite ivermectin conspiracy theory is that it’s being tanked so that big pharma can sell their drugs and make money.

No one appeared to notice Ivermectin is produced by Merck, market cap ~$200 billion. Lol.

And that conclusion doesn't even require 'critical thinking' to arrive at. It's no more than common sense and a sliver of logic.

Are, so you are pretending. A classic.

What "we" know is what we are told. It is faith the drives the common person. A belief in something.
A belief in those who adhere to scientific principles is rapidly declining. A passing fad that fades before our eyes.

The people would rather believe and put their faith into whatever makes them feel better. It is downright pavlovian of humans to do this.

So then tell me again, what is known, and why the !@#$ do you expect others to know the same as you?
If you expect there to only be one truth, then you are sorely misguided. For in conflict, to the victor go the spoils and the writing of history. Truth is what we make of it.

Someone can study and prove Ivermectin does not work. Others can claim they studied and came to the opposite result. Anyone else will simply believe what they want. And you know it.

The scientific method does not require "faith". While scientists can be biased, the method is not. Science is not a religion, no matter how you try to muddy the definition.

It tempts me to recommend a more certain cure for Covid…..a magical compound found in all natural organic apple seeds.

I love the smell of cyanide in the morning.

 

[VRAMdemon]

Merck's current statement on Ivermectin for use as a covid19 treatment:

Merck Statement on Ivermectin use During the COVID-19 Pandemic - Merck.com

KENILWORTH, N.J., Feb. 4, 2021 – Merck (NYSE: MRK), known as MSD outside the United States and Canada, today affirmed its position regarding use of ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic. Company scientists continue to carefully examine the findings of all available and emerging studies of...

www.merck.com

KENILWORTH, N.J., Feb. 4, 2021 – Merck (NYSE: MRK), known as MSD outside the United States and Canada, today affirmed its position regarding use of ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic. Company scientists continue to carefully examine the findings of all available and emerging studies of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 for evidence of efficacy and safety. It is important to note that, to-date, our analysis has identified:

• No scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against COVID-19 from pre-clinical studies;
• No meaningful evidence for clinical activity or clinical efficacy in patients with COVID-19 disease, and;
• A concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies.

We do not believe that the data available support the safety and efficacy of ivermectin beyond the doses and populations indicated in the regulatory agency-approved prescribing information.


Until Merck updates the approved prescribing information to include Ivermectin as a treatment for Covid19, it's all dangerous grifting. People have been ignoring the data, warnings from experts and doctors,... and buying the horse version of the drug and poisoning themselves

 

[PowerEngineer]

It seems to me that this isn't the first thread you started with this underlying question in mind, and I haven't gotten all that much smarter since the last one.

Sadly IMHO, the social pendulum has swung toward individuals valuing their own uniformed opinions over those of people who are experts in a particular field. Today, it seems as if the right to have an opinion is being taken as meaning that any person's opinion is just as good (or as likely to be correct) as anyone else's which is just foolish. And what is worse, this sinks lower into encouraging people to choose beliefs that they want to be true and can crudely justify to themselves with materials on wacky internet sites.

This is especially bad for democracies. Decades ago, we moved forward following the expert opinions of our best and brightest; now we trample around as a drunken mob. I hope the pendulum starts swinging back soon.

 

[Greenman]

It will be Interesting what the results of the research from Duke University turn out to be.

Coronavirus (COVID-19) Overview

COVID-19 is a new type of coronavirus that causes mild to severe cases. Here’s a quick guide on how to spot symptoms, risk factors, prevent spread of the disease, and find out what to do if you think you have it.

www.webmd.com

I'll be interested in seeing the results of that study. I know several people who have treated themselves with it and claim it works, but when I ask them how they know it works the answer is "I got better".

 

[dank69]

...

What I am interested in are the psychological factors that mitigate against universal consensus as well as the psychological factors that occur in some when faced with non-conformist disagreement. How do we distinguish between pioneering paradigm breaking and ego driven attachment to orthodoxy. You strike me as just more threatened by heterodoxy than I am. I think maybe I am just more resigned than you are to the fact humanity seems set on self destruction.

What you're really saying here is you want to know why people are stubbornly ignorant. I suspect we will never find out in this lifetime.

 

[sportage]

Don't cherry pick sources

Cherry picking is all they have.
They hear of one person or maybe two that had a stroke days or weeks after a covid vaccination, and then they give that as their reason not to vaccinate. But worse, then they go on social media hyping it up as if a majority of vaccinated are having strokes. And the idiocy lost in all of this is the original story of the vaccine causing strokes was total faked and nonsense. The link totally made up.
But like a wildfire in a high wind, the fake story hits social media and spreads out of control. And before you know it, everyone believes that if you get vaccinated you will have a stroke.

This is highly imaginary false information targeted at the most simple minded, those who live their life off social media. Right out of the playbook of the master con artist himself or better known as Donald Trump. Is it any wonder that a person who falls for the Trump con would also believe this vaccines causing strokes nonsense? Not THERE is your link.

 

[Moonbeam]

Cherry picking is all they have.
They hear of one person or maybe two that had a stroke days or weeks after a covid vaccination, and then they give that as their reason not to vaccinate. But worse, then they go on social media hyping it up as if a majority of vaccinated are having strokes. And the idiocy lost in all of this is the original story of the vaccine causing strokes was total faked and nonsense. The link totally made up.
But like a wildfire in a high wind, the fake story hits social media and spreads out of control. And before you know it, everyone believes that if you get vaccinated you will have a stroke.

This is highly imaginary false information targeted at the most simple minded, those who live their life off social media. Right out of the playbook of the master con artist himself or better known as Donald Trump. Is it any wonder that a person who falls for the Trump con would also believe this vaccines causing strokes nonsense? Not THERE is your link.

The thing I think you are missing as well as others here is that the people I have been linking to highly educated scientists, people who I believe they are honestly correct. I am sure there are plenty of people who would do anything for 30 pieces of silver but I don’t buy the ones I’ve linked to are examples. I hear only bad people, shut them up and I do not agree. In my opinion doing that is itself evil. It reminds me of ‘conservative concern’.

I suspect there are mechanisms by which certain existential fears latch onto or form connections to other things that are actually not related not unlike reading tea leaves. Out of fear and uncertainty we create a comforting alternate reality. I see nothing to prevent liberals becoming triggered by anything they see as irrational.

Personally I see no way to avoid this without some better understanding of how this happens. Why are we so willing to believe?

 

[Pipeline 1010]

Is ivermectin dangerous? I believe ivermectin instead of vaccination or approved treatments is dangerous. But in addition to those treatments? I have no problem.

The frustrating thing is that it is entirely predictable what the right is going to think when the left condescendingly calls a medicine that is used in humans a horse de-wormer. Did it start out that way? Yes. Did someone win a Nobel Prize for finding ways to use it to treat humans? Also yes. Calling it a horse medication is like calling carrots a horse food. While technically true, that's not ALL it is. Add in some lefty condescension and you're going to predictably cause more people to take it than if you had just factually and respectfully explained yourself.

 

[cytg111]

Is ivermectin dangerous? I believe ivermectin instead of vaccination or approved treatments is dangerous. But in addition to those treatments? I have no problem.

The frustrating thing is that it is entirely predictable what the right is going to think when the left condescendingly calls a medicine that is used in humans a horse de-wormer. Did it start out that way? Yes. Did someone win a Nobel Prize for finding ways to use it to treat humans? Also yes. Calling it a horse medication is like calling carrots a horse food. While technically true, that's not ALL it is. Add in some lefty condescension and you're going to predictably cause more people to take it than if you had just factually and respectfully explained yourself.

Thats probably true

 

[Jaskalas]

No, only one side will have predictable and repeatable results. Sad that you still don't know this. Classic, as they say.

And who is to make that claim? That their results are predictable and repeatable?
The "other" side. Meaning the liars, the enemy, the traitorous scum who would see us all dead. /s

Knowledge is delivered via messenger. So attack the messenger.

That you think your singular truth is almighty and all known across the world, or maybe just the nation, is pretty !@#$ing bizarre given an entire political party is operating under the opposite belief. Do you deny the existence of the Republican Party?

Oh, but you have the "truth". Again, it is whatever the !@#$ we make of it. And plenty of people are not listening. Not to you, and not to whoever claims to have results. In partisanship of the human mind you will find only madness. But I simply repeat what you are so eloquently demonstrating for us. Your zealous crusade to proclaim your truth as everyone's truth. It would be adorable if it were not also so tragic. You actually think people would choose to believe you. Over whatever makes them feel better.

What is it like, to live in a delusional world, where humans are not inherently delusional?

 

[cytg111]

And who is to make that claim? That their results are predictable and repeatable?
The "other" side. Meaning the liars, the enemy, the traitorous scum who would see us all dead. /s

Knowledge is delivered via messenger. So attack the messenger.

That you think your singular truth is almighty and all known across the world, or maybe just the nation, is pretty !@#$ing bizarre given an entire political party is operating under the opposite belief. Do you deny the existence of the Republican Party?

Oh, but you have the "truth". Again, it is whatever the !@#$ we make of it. And plenty of people are not listening. Not to you, and not to whoever claims to have results. In partisanship of the human mind you will find only madness. But I simply repeat what you are so eloquently demonstrating for us. Your zealous crusade to proclaim your truth as everyone's truth. It would be adorable if it were not also so tragic. You actually think people would choose to believe you. Over whatever makes them feel better.

What is it like, to live in a delusional world, where humans are not inherently delusional?

Historically natural selection has culled the most inept delusional like the MGT’s of the world. So maybe the deniers of science should be withheld from the fruits of said science and be given their dream existence to that of late stone age. I understand Afghanistan Taliban may be to more of their likings… return to the roots and all that.
If you dont believe in jet fuel you shouldnt be allowed on a plane.

edit: oooooh is that why they’re called American Taliban???

 

[dank69]

And who is to make that claim? That their results are predictable and repeatable?
...

Peers reviewing and replicating the results?

 

[brycejones]

And who is to make that claim? That their results are predictable and repeatable?
The "other" side. Meaning the liars, the enemy, the traitorous scum who would see us all dead. /s

Knowledge is delivered via messenger. So attack the messenger.

That you think your singular truth is almighty and all known across the world, or maybe just the nation, is pretty !@#$ing bizarre given an entire political party is operating under the opposite belief. Do you deny the existence of the Republican Party?

Oh, but you have the "truth". Again, it is whatever the !@#$ we make of it. And plenty of people are not listening. Not to you, and not to whoever claims to have results. In partisanship of the human mind you will find only madness. But I simply repeat what you are so eloquently demonstrating for us. Your zealous crusade to proclaim your truth as everyone's truth. It would be adorable if it were not also so tragic. You actually think people would choose to believe you. Over whatever makes them feel better.

What is it like, to live in a delusional world, where humans are not inherently delusional?

Ok Jordan Peterson

 

[uallas5]

My favorite ivermectin conspiracy theory is that it’s being tanked so that big pharma can sell their drugs and make money.

No one appeared to notice Ivermectin is produced by Merck, market cap ~$200 billion. Lol.

Beau did last August:

That's at the point he talks about the fact that Ivermectin is made by Merk but if you have a chance listen to the whole video. It starts with a bit about his latest trip to the local feed store.

 

[sandorski]

2+2=[your Opinion here]

 

[Moonbeam]

Yes, there is a concerted effort to discredit scientific consensus. That isn't conspiratorial, that has happened and continues to happen despite the perpetrators being caught red-handed many many times over the past few decades. It happened with lead. It happened with cigarettes, It happened with global warming and it is happening again with the pandemic. The fact that you would say "Like economists, scientists are looking more and more to be speaking with two hands. There is no such thing as a straight answer" just shows that their efforts are working on you.

As in, I’ve noticed a rise in overt racism within Republican politics because I’m a racist. Perhaps you react more to fear than curiosity. I think the more I have these kinds of discussions here and elsewhere the more apparent it is to me that people turn dogmatic when they feel threatened. This is for me fresh data to support the notion we create what we fear.

Additionally, I think the reason we are reacting differently to similar data is because I do not believe in blame. I see horrible childhoods where you react with contempt of the symptoms. This not black and white, but to differing degrees. All of the insights into human behavior that are of the most value to me is that we project our self hate. If you believe that, you know that blaming others implies. I am not free oh the impulse to blame but where I catch myself doing it I get a chance to stop feeding it.