What is going on with the story on ivermectin?

[KMFJD]

WSJ News Exclusive | Ivermectin Didn’t Reduce Covid-19 Hospitalizations in Largest Trial to Date

The antiparasitic drug has received attention from celebrities including Joe Rogan.

www.wsj.com

fake news....

 

[dank69]

WSJ News Exclusive | Ivermectin Didn’t Reduce Covid-19 Hospitalizations in Largest Trial to Date

The antiparasitic drug has received attention from celebrities including Joe Rogan.

www.wsj.com

fake news....

So strange how liberals keep predicting the future. I'm sure conservatives' predictions will be right on the next issue though. That's how statistics work, right?

 

[cytg111]

WSJ News Exclusive | Ivermectin Didn’t Reduce Covid-19 Hospitalizations in Largest Trial to Date

The antiparasitic drug has received attention from celebrities including Joe Rogan.

www.wsj.com

fake news....

I think we need another study though...

 

[Moonbeam]

I think we need another study though...

Can you see anything that might be unfortunate about that attitude? What inner feeling do you think saying that might satisfy. I think I know that feeling well.

 

[cytg111]

Can you see anything that might be unfortunate about that attitude? What inner feeling do you think saying that might satisfy. I think I know that feeling well.

Nope.

 

[Pohemi]

Can you see anything that might be unfortunate about that attitude? What inner feeling do you think saying that might satisfy. I think I know that feeling well.

If YOU see something unfortunate with his commentary, why can't you just fucking say so, and explain what/why/how?

Are you pulling a Tucker? "I'm just asking questions!"

His comment was obviously sarcastic/facetious. You've used this same 'tool' of communication (and humor) yourself, plenty. Did someone try to shame you for your feelings and responses when you were sarcastic? Because that's what you are attempting here.

This is the kind of crap from you that makes me laugh and shake my head, because you do not follow what you preach. This is just 'holier-than-thou' nonsense.

 

[Moonbeam]

If YOU see something unfortunate with his commentary, why can't you just fucking say so, and explain what/why/how?

Are you pulling a Tucker? "I'm just asking questions!"

His comment was obviously sarcastic/facetious. You've used this same 'tool' of communication (and humor) yourself, plenty. Did someone try to shame you for your feelings and responses when you were sarcastic? Because that's what you are attempting here.

This is the kind of crap from you that makes me laugh and shake my head, because you do not follow what you preach. This is just 'holier-than-thou' nonsense.

So you didn't believe him either.

Didn't you notice he said 'Nope'. That was the end of it for me. There was nothing more to say. I am not going to tell him what I see after he said there was no need. What would be the point in that? I would have told him if he had he expressed interest enough to question. He had no such interest.

Perhaps you would care to tell me why you felt he needed defending after he clearly said there is no need according to him for any such defense?

As far as doing just what he did, yup, sure do. It's just what I see in myself when I do that that I wanted to share and which I now won't because I have to accept he doesn't think it is needed. People have a right to refuse to examine their motivations or to deny they have any. You don't have to explain to me why you felt a need to defend him from me either. I already have my answer because I am just like you.

 

[dank69]

I think we need another study though...

Can't be sure until another study is done. Too many unanswered questions.

 

[UNCjigga]

I think we need another study though...

They should do their own research.

 

[Moonbeam]

Can't be sure until another study is done. Too many unanswered questions.

With regard to this comment, I think what we saw in this thread was the effect of studies on Ivermectin, the political reaction to those studies based on party leanings, and how conclusions from further studies change or don't change opinions.

Early on some scientists noticed evidence suggesting a correlation between taking Ivermectin and Covid recovery. These studies were small is sample size and otherwise not expository. Meanwhile folk on the right seized on the data as claims that support their general idiocy and folk on the right utterly enraged by this kind of stupidity were quick to claim quackery. Just imagine the loss if their need to shout down anything conservatives believe if such a cheap and available product had actually turned out to be a miracle cure. This is why it is important not to listen to people on the left or the right jacked up and triggerable by their political religion.

The correct approach was to do more studies and verify with the increased data collection failing to show a correlation based on science not political bias. Thus we have now reached a greater confidence bases of further study that Ivermectin does is not a cure for Covid-19. Rational people can now move on. The politically biased may demand further studies not wanting to face evidence that contradicts their political ambitions and some will ridicule them for that out of ego satisfaction they happened to turn out right. Tomorrow, however, some scientist may note that those in the data that took Ivermectin, and specifically people who it is discovered say who were also taking Motrin, actually did not get sick. Then we will need further studies. and the cycle will repeat.

 

[dank69]

... Meanwhile folk on the right seized on the data as claims that support their general idiocy and folk on the left utterly enraged by this kind of stupidity were quick to claim quackery. Just imagine the loss if their need to shout down anything conservatives believe if such a cheap and available product had actually turned out to be a miracle cure. This is why it is important not to listen to people on the left or the right jacked up and triggerable by their political religion.

...

This is some grade-A bullshit right here. If it turned out that Ivermectin was a miracle cure the left would have been happy about it and changed their fucking minds because that is what we do: adjust to new information as it's made available. We don't conflate our identities with our politics no matter how fucking desperate you are to claim otherwise.

 

[Pohemi]

Yeah, that was a rather roundabout way to #bothsides it all while attempting to sound wise about it.

'But everyone is irrational because partisan feels and liberals just got lucky because they happened to be right this time.'

No, it was medical science-based logic from the beginning against this Ivermectin idiocy, the notion that an anti-parasitic medicine would treat a viral infection. It has nothing to do with 'being in denial cuz defending my partisanship, and beating my chest now because I was right'.

Moonbeam is on an idiotic bender this week, but I felt the premise of the thread (started 2 months ago) was stupid to begin with. It struck me as a Tucker "just asking questions" thread, giving life to conspiracy thinking, and dropping FUD onto what was already known and established in the medical community.

GQP'ers opinions about it were already for shit when the thread was started. There have only been more studies that have been completed and reinforced prior data since then. Yet here we are, and he's still pointing a finger at more than just the fucktards who started and stuck to these idiotic claims in the first place.

 

[Moonbeam]

This is some grade-A bullshit right here. If it turned out that Ivermectin was a miracle cure the left would have been happy about it and changed their fucking minds because that is what we do: adjust to new information as it's made available. We don't conflate our identities with our politics no matter how fucking desperate you are to claim otherwise.

When I posted this thread I did so because of the reaction on the left to early studies that some scientists suggested showed Iveremectin to have possible positive effects and the howls went up on the left. All of that was the result of being politically triggered. I have pointed out that the left is better able to handle facts better than conservatives, but that capacity is strained by political bias that has nothing to do with science. The need to support a political point on the spectrum creates bias that is inimical to truth.

We do defend out ego identifications however ridiculous they are because without them we would feel how worthless we really do feel and that is a fact no matter how fucking desperate you are to claim otherwise.

 

[Moonbeam]

Yeah, that was a rather roundabout way to #bothsides it all while attempting to sound wise about it.

'But everyone is irrational because partisan feels and liberals just got lucky because they happened to be right this time.'

No, it was medical science-based logic from the beginning against this Ivermectin idiocy, the notion that an anti-parasitic medicine would treat a viral infection. It has nothing to do with 'being in denial cuz defending my partisanship, and beating my chest now because I was right'.

Moonbeam is on an idiotic bender this week, but I felt the premise of the thread (started 2 months ago) was stupid to begin with. It struck me as a Tucker "just asking questions" thread, giving life to conspiracy thinking, and dropping FUD onto what was already known and established in the medical community.

GQP'ers opinions about it were already for shit when the thread was started. There have only been more studies that have been completed and reinforced prior data since then. Yet here we are, and he's still pointing a finger at more than just the fucktards who started and stuck to these idiotic claims in the first place.

I'll just leave this for the bolded portion and let the value of your judgment on that issue speak for the value of the rest:

Using drugs for different diseases than initially intended for

One drug, one disease. This is how we traditionally think about pharmaceutical drugs, but many of them are actually effective for more than one disease. Take the drug gabapentin, originally developed for treating epilepsia, but today commonly prescribed as a pain killer. Now a research team has...

www.sciencedaily.com

 

[cytg111]

So you didn't believe him either.

Didn't you notice he said 'Nope'. That was the end of it for me. There was nothing more to say. I am not going to tell him what I see after he said there was no need. What would be the point in that? I would have told him if he had he expressed interest enough to question. He had no such interest.

Perhaps you would care to tell me why you felt he needed defending after he clearly said there is no need according to him for any such defense?

As far as doing just what he did, yup, sure do. It's just what I see in myself when I do that that I wanted to share and which I now won't because I have to accept he doesn't think it is needed. People have a right to refuse to examine their motivations or to deny they have any. You don't have to explain to me why you felt a need to defend him from me either. I already have my answer because I am just like you.

For FUCKS sake, EVERYONE knows what you're about to say. Like 99.9% of the time. IT IS NOT A MISTERY. My "Nope." is surgically aimed at your holier than everyone attitude. Who the fuck made you the shepherd? Step the fuck off.

BUT OK.
Problem with that attitude? It doesnt solve anything, no minds will be changed, no good will be done, trenches will be carved out deeper. As all encompassing and understanding beings we should all realize how to reach into the minds of the fucked and do everything we can to heal them. Why? Cause we can. They cant. But we can. So we're obliged to do so.
Or just kick em in the nuts.
One of the two.
Fuck em.

edit

We do defend out ego identifications however ridiculous they are because without them we would feel how worthless we really do feel and that is a fact no matter how fucking desperate you are to claim otherwise.

Make that 99.99

 

[Pohemi]

I'll just leave this for the bolded portion and let the value of your judgment on that issue speak for the value of the rest:

Using drugs for different diseases than initially intended for

One drug, one disease. This is how we traditionally think about pharmaceutical drugs, but many of them are actually effective for more than one disease. Take the drug gabapentin, originally developed for treating epilepsia, but today commonly prescribed as a pain killer. Now a research team has...

www.sciencedaily.com

Okay, dumbass.

Guess what? I take Gabapentin, and I also get a Colon cancer medication injected in one of my eyeballs (Avastin) to reduce the bleeding/retinopathy. I'm well aware of off-label use, despite you believing that only yourself was aware of this.

Anti-virals can be used for viral infections that they weren't originally intended for. Would you use an anti-viral drug to treat a bacterial infection, or vice versa? Unless the drug is intended to treat the symptoms and not the infection itself, NO, YOU WOULDN'T.

Do you understand that anti-viral medications are NOT cross/off-labeled for Parasitic infections, or vice versa? Because you're trying to make a point with more idiocy.

Just fuck off, Moonie. You are the biggest reason that P&N needs the eyeroll post reaction back again, and the "value of your judgement" is not sufficient to question it in others.

 

[Iron Woode]

I'll just leave this for the bolded portion and let the value of your judgment on that issue speak for the value of the rest:

Using drugs for different diseases than initially intended for

One drug, one disease. This is how we traditionally think about pharmaceutical drugs, but many of them are actually effective for more than one disease. Take the drug gabapentin, originally developed for treating epilepsia, but today commonly prescribed as a pain killer. Now a research team has...

www.sciencedaily.com

I will just leave this right here:

are you actually contributing to this discussion or are you just trolling this discussion?

It sure seems like the latter rather than the former. Nothing you have posted for page after page has anything to do with the topic of this thread.

 

[dank69]

When I posted this thread I did so because of the reaction on the left to early studies that some scientists suggested showed Iveremectin to have possible positive effects and the howls went up on the left. All of that was the result of being politically triggered. ...

This is also grade-A bullshit. Howls went up because of the subpar science being proffered. You interpret it as politically triggered because you are a hammer so everything looks like a nail to you.

 

[darkswordsman17]

He hasn't contributed to a discussion in a legitimate manner since I've posted in P&N. Its all vague generalities and nonsense. Its just that for a brief time that appeared to actually make sense when weighed against similar nonsense by far too many others.

 

[Iron Woode]

When I posted this thread I did so because of the reaction on the left to early studies that some scientists suggested showed Iveremectin to have possible positive effects and the howls went up on the left. All of that was the result of being politically triggered.

No, people who knew even the tiniest bit of science could tell something was very wrong with those studies. It only became political when the right decided invermectin was a miracle cure for a virus that many on the right believed was a hoax.

No sane, thinking person ever believed that invermectim could treat covid. Yes, people on the left were upset over those obviously flawed studies as were many who were politically neutral.

 

[hal2kilo]

I'll just leave this for the bolded portion and let the value of your judgment on that issue speak for the value of the rest:

Using drugs for different diseases than initially intended for

One drug, one disease. This is how we traditionally think about pharmaceutical drugs, but many of them are actually effective for more than one disease. Take the drug gabapentin, originally developed for treating epilepsia, but today commonly prescribed as a pain killer. Now a research team has...

www.sciencedaily.com

No kidding.
Anti-Worm drug, Fenbendazole, effective at killing cancer cells | CANCERactive

So what?

 

[Iron Woode]

No kidding.
Anti-Worm drug, Fenbendazole, effective at killing cancer cells | CANCERactive

So what?

wait until he finds out thalidomide is still used to treat diseases.

 

[Moonbeam]

Okay, dumbass.

Guess what? I take Gabapentin, and I also get a Colon cancer medication injected in one of my eyeballs (Avastin) to reduce the bleeding/retinopathy. I'm well aware of off-label use, despite you believing that only yourself was aware of this.

Anti-virals can be used for viral infections that they weren't originally intended for. Would you use an anti-viral drug to treat a bacterial infection, or vice versa? Unless the drug is intended to treat the symptoms and not the infection itself, NO, YOU WOULDN'T.

Do you understand that anti-viral medications are NOT cross/off-labeled for Parasitic infections, or vice versa? Because you're trying to make a point with more idiocy.

Just fuck off, Moonie. You are the biggest reason that P&N needs the eyeroll post reaction back again, and the "value of your judgement" is not sufficient to question it in others.

The piece linking medicines used beyond their original purpose indicates that the logic you used that virus medicines would never be looked at to cure bacterial infections runs counter to what the link says. The way possible double uses are found is via AI scanning of medical literature to reveal and cross purposes that might thereby be revealed. I doubt the AI is stupid enough to say to itself, virus bacteria, not a chance. It goes where the data takes it.

I believe that rational people will go with data acquiring the best data they can to determine what is scientifically factual and what is not, while self haters will glom onto any evidence they can to be able to denigrate anyone who thought differently than them. You ooze with that kind of contempt. I just can't imagine why you don't want to hear it.

 

[Moonbeam]

No kidding.
Anti-Worm drug, Fenbendazole, effective at killing cancer cells | CANCERactive

So what?

So nothing. It was Pohemi that said: No, it was medical science-based logic from the beginning against this Ivermectin idiocy, the notion that an anti-parasitic medicine would treat a viral infection.

 

[Moonbeam]

No, people who knew even the tiniest bit of science could tell something was very wrong with those studies. It only became political when the right decided invermectin was a miracle cure for a virus that many on the right believed was a hoax.

No sane, thinking person ever believed that invermectim could treat covid. Yes, people on the left were upset over those obviously flawed studies as were many who were politically neutral.

I'm sorry. An early study on Ivermectin showed that it could kill the Covid-19 virus which prompted interest in the scientific community and a mass psychosis on the right. That is when a harder look at the data prompted skepticism and a call for more studies. Problems were found in the further studies including the likelihood of fraud. Recent and better controlled studies have shown no evidence the drug is effective. Further studies are likely not needed in my opinion. Sane people did consider that Ivermectin could treat Covid-19 and these same sane people proved it likely doesn't. The only insanity was people who like you, believe from day one without further testing it was all a big joke plus the ones who believed right off the bat it was effective, also without quality evidence.