Influential Ivermectin Study Accused of 'Totally Faked' Data (theguardian.com) 217
"The efficacy of a drug being promoted by rightwing figures worldwide for treating Covid-19 is in serious doubt," reports the Guardian, "after a major study suggesting the treatment is effective against the virus was withdrawn due to 'ethical concerns'."
The preprint study on the efficacy and safety of ivermectin — a drug used against parasites such as worms and headlice — in treating Covid-19, led by Dr Ahmed Elgazzar from Benha University in Egypt, was published on the Research Square website in November. It claimed to be a randomised control trial, a type of study crucial in medicine because it is considered to provide the most reliable evidence on the effectiveness of interventions due to the minimal risk of confounding factors influencing the results...
A medical student in London, Jack Lawrence, was among the first to identify serious concerns about the paper, leading to the retraction... He found the introduction section of the paper appeared to have been almost entirely plagiarised. It appeared that the authors had run entire paragraphs from press releases and websites about ivermectin and Covid-19 through a thesaurus to change key words. "Humorously, this led to them changing 'severe acute respiratory syndrome' to 'extreme intense respiratory syndrome' on one occasion," Lawrence said.
The data also looked suspicious to Lawrence... "In their paper, the authors claim that four out of 100 patients died in their standard treatment group for mild and moderate Covid-19," Lawrence said. "According to the original data, the number was 0, the same as the ivermectin treatment group. In their ivermectin treatment group for severe Covid-19, the authors claim two patients died, but the number in their raw data is four..." Lawrence contacted an Australian chronic disease epidemiologist from the University of Wollongong, Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz, and a data analyst affiliated with Linnaeus University in Sweden who reviews scientific papers for errors, Nick Brown, for help analysing the data and study results more thoroughly... "The main error is that at least 79 of the patient records are obvious clones of other records," Brown told the Guardian. "It's certainly the hardest to explain away as innocent error, especially since the clones aren't even pure copies. There are signs that they have tried to change one or two fields to make them look more natural..."
Meyerowitz-Katz told the Guardian that "this is one of the biggest ivermectin studies out there", and it appeared to him the data was "just totally faked".
Meta-analyses incorporating the "just totally faked" data were then published in Oxford Academic's Open Forum Infectious Diseases and in the American Journal of Therapeutics.
Meanwhile, the Guardian also notes a new (and peer-reviewed) paper that was just published last month in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases. Its finding? Iermectin is "not a viable option to treat COVID-19 patients".
A medical student in London, Jack Lawrence, was among the first to identify serious concerns about the paper, leading to the retraction... He found the introduction section of the paper appeared to have been almost entirely plagiarised. It appeared that the authors had run entire paragraphs from press releases and websites about ivermectin and Covid-19 through a thesaurus to change key words. "Humorously, this led to them changing 'severe acute respiratory syndrome' to 'extreme intense respiratory syndrome' on one occasion," Lawrence said.
The data also looked suspicious to Lawrence... "In their paper, the authors claim that four out of 100 patients died in their standard treatment group for mild and moderate Covid-19," Lawrence said. "According to the original data, the number was 0, the same as the ivermectin treatment group. In their ivermectin treatment group for severe Covid-19, the authors claim two patients died, but the number in their raw data is four..." Lawrence contacted an Australian chronic disease epidemiologist from the University of Wollongong, Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz, and a data analyst affiliated with Linnaeus University in Sweden who reviews scientific papers for errors, Nick Brown, for help analysing the data and study results more thoroughly... "The main error is that at least 79 of the patient records are obvious clones of other records," Brown told the Guardian. "It's certainly the hardest to explain away as innocent error, especially since the clones aren't even pure copies. There are signs that they have tried to change one or two fields to make them look more natural..."
Meyerowitz-Katz told the Guardian that "this is one of the biggest ivermectin studies out there", and it appeared to him the data was "just totally faked".
Meta-analyses incorporating the "just totally faked" data were then published in Oxford Academic's Open Forum Infectious Diseases and in the American Journal of Therapeutics.
Meanwhile, the Guardian also notes a new (and peer-reviewed) paper that was just published last month in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases. Its finding? Iermectin is "not a viable option to treat COVID-19 patients".
Bleach (Score:3, Funny)
I still feel like injecting bleach, like Dr. Trump encouraged people to do, might succeed in killing the virus.
Re:Bleach (Score:4, Insightful)
It seems like the modern Trump Party is all about being anti-mainstream. So if the mainstream says something they reflexively insist on refuting it. Thus, goofball medicine gets accepted as fact by these people, causing them to ignore whatever the mainstream says even if it's safe and effective. There's no use of brainpower here except to lash out. Fauci is their enemy for daring to not agree with the president. Remdesivir is ok though because Trump took it for his covid case, which is no worse than the common flu and which children are immune to and grandmothers are willing to die of if it will help the economy even though the virus is a fake and also engineered by the Chinese to infect us with socialism. It all makes sense once you stop thinking about it. Thinking is a libral plot anyway.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
My God, you're absolutely right! PFIZER IS FAKING THE RESULTS! ALL THOSE PEOPLE NOT GETTING COVID-19 ARE FAKES!
Meanwhile in God's own country of the righteous, all those unvaccinated folks in the South are catching COVID-19 from their vaccinated neighbors who are faking their immunity.
It all makes sense. The depths of this conspiracy cannot be understated!
Alternatively, you could be a complete fucking moron who can't do math. I wish you luck in your minimum-wage job which allows you to survive by cou
Re:“Bribing doctors and suppressing adverse (Score:5, Insightful)
I hate to disappoint you.
Pfizer effectiveness against Delta and other new strains is under 64%. Source - official Israel government data [ft.com]. They have the basis for that data set for that too - the whole country is vaccinated exclusively with Pfizer.
Even your article says that there are different kinds of effectiveness. 64% against infection. 93% against serious illness. Almost 100% against death. This is the difference between hospitals being completely fine and total disaster. The normal minimum level for a vaccine to be considered good is 50% because then you can use it for herd immunity, so this really still isn't bad.
Wait for the phi variant (or whatever comes in future). That may be more of a problem. Then you'll be able to gloat.
Re: (Score:3)
The normal minimum level for a vaccine to be considered good is 50% because then you can use it for herd immunity
It depends on overall transmissibility. 50% anti-infection effectiveness may be enough against some viruses, not against others.
Re: (Score:3)
The viruses most transmissible are the viruses least dangerous to life and health. The 50% figure is not some number people pulled out of their arse. It's a generally accepted number by infectious disease experts who weigh up how different viruses react. In general viruses which are transmissible enough to still cause a pandemic when a 50% efficacy vaccine is given to 75% of the population are not normally viruses which kill the host. If they were, they would die out quickly.
Re: (Score:2)
The viruses most transmissible are the viruses least dangerous to life and health.
Yet Delta is 100% more transmissible than the original COVID variant and 2 to 2.7 times as fatal (based on studies - I could dig out citations if I could be bothered but as you will blather ignorance in response I can't be bothered). So... your opinion means nothing, even with respect to COVID.
Re:“Bribing doctors and suppressing adverse (Score:5, Informative)
Indeed. It depends on R0. And R0 for Delta is now estimated to be in the 6-7 range. 50% doesn't cut it for a population that had no preexisting immunity. You need 80-85% to establish herd immunity. And even that can be misleading as it assumes a roughly even distribution, no giant geographic or social / age gaps.
Flu shots usually only have 40-60% efficacy, largely due to having to play a guessing game as to which flu strains will be widespread by the time winter rolls around... but the population already has a lot of preexisting immunity, and only 5-15% of people get infected per year, usually around 8% or so. Influenza has vastly more genetic diversity than COVID, which seems to have emerged from a point source in late 2019.
It also should be noted that when vaccine manufacturers talk about efficacy, unless stated otherwise, they're talking about efficacy against symptomatic infection. But that's not the same as efficacy against being infected (symptomatic or asymptomatic) and infecting others. Asymptomatic protection is lower than symptomatic protection - although the patient may have reduced viral load thanks to being vaccinated and have some additional resistance to infecting others.
On the upside, even if you don't reach herd immunity, the closer you get to it, the better. The easier it gets to control the disease with less intrusive measures (such as case tracking / quarantine for only those exposed), the slower it grows (less likely to overwhelm hospital systems), and the fewer people it will infect before it burns itself out. It's vastly better to get as close as you can to herd immunity through vaccination than through infection.
"Herd immunity" vs "burning itself out" (Score:2)
"Herd immunity" is a phrase that's been discussed many times.
But a virus "burning itself out" when herd immunity has not been reached is a new one to me. Is that actually a thing?
Re:“Bribing doctors and suppressing adverse (Score:5, Interesting)
Delta's main advantage isn't immune evasion (like Beta, which practically invalidates AZ); it's just that it's really good at "virusing". It binds extremely well and specifically with ACE2, making people get a far higher viral load, faster, with a smaller minimum infectious dose. Antibody neutralization is somewhat reduced, particularly with the mRNA vaccines, but it's main advantage is just that it's incredibly "fit" and requires a better antibody response for a given level of protection.
Vaccination does not give uniform responses; it can vary by orders of magnitude, with the top quartile of Pfizer recipients who've already had a previous infection being ~40k U/ml, and the bottom quartile of Pfizer recipients who've never had a previous infection being ~900 U/ml (past infection leads to a much more dramatic antibody response after vaccination, as your body already has diversified B cells ready to have a go). A small number of people, mainly the immunocompromised, have no detectable response at all (less than 0,4 U/ml). It just really varies.
Immune responses can be upped by boosters. Companies are working on Delta-specific boosters right now, but probably won't be ready until late this year. But again, current vaccines work, you just need a stronger immune response for a given level of protection. Pfizer is currently seeking approval for a new shot to be used as a booster that doesn't target Delta specifically, but does hit a number of the mutations found in Gamma and Beta that can help COVID evade immunity, to basically preemptively close those escape routes off.
The FDA thusfar is being hesitant about approving boosters, afraid that this will discourage people from getting vaccinated and interfere with their "this is a disease of the unvaccinated, vaccination makes you near-bulletproof, you can live your old life without any changes after vaccination" messaging. I think this is a dangerous game. Medical professionals need to be open and honest with the public. That messaging was pretty true vs. old strains, but is not true vs. Delta. The public needs to be told the truth: vaccination still provides superb protection against death, protection from hospitalization is still quite good but lower, but protection against infection and particularly asymptomatic infection is now concerningly reduced. You can still infect your unvaccinated friends, colleagues and strangers, and even sometimes your vaccinated ones. And we don't know how much it reduces your risk of Long COVID, if at all, once you do get infected.
You're still wearing your bulletproof vest, but the virus has started firing higher caliber rounds, and they're no longer just plinging off like BBs. And you might want to consider upgrading your vest.
Nobody should consider letting the disease spread unhindered a viable alternative option when immunity through boosters rather than infection are an option instead. Even if we can entirely remove hospitalization, death, Long COVID, missed work, and general misery out of the picture, every infection is a new mutation breeding ground and a new chance to spread to vulnerable people.
Re: (Score:2)
+1 is about the most useful thing I can say to that; let me just be 100% clear. I think my own government's "let it rip" policy is completely crazy and likely to lead to some awful new ultra-infectious vaccine resistant variant. Yes, I think the FDA is wrong to be so careless.
Re: (Score:2)
Like counting the billions of profits from a vaccine that KILLS. Pretty simple arithmetic that one. Name all the others vaccine with death as a proven side affect.
Pretty much all vaccines potentially have death as a side effect. It's very rare with those and with the COVID vaccines.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually it is not that rare with the COVID vaccines. Not as compared to other vaccines.
No, it is very, very rare.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty simple arithmetic and yet it somehow manages to escape you.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
God, please, both sides, can you PLEASE stop making this about politics and an excuse to bash the other side? Neither side is helping when you do this. Just stop. Whatever your compulsion to insult people with different political opinions than you in relation to the virus, just stop. All you do is drive them off when you do that.
Re:Bleach (Score:5, Insightful)
God, please, both sides, can you PLEASE stop making this about politics and an excuse to bash the other side? Neither side is helping when you do this. Just stop. Whatever your compulsion to insult people with different political opinions than you in relation to the virus, just stop. All you do is drive them off when you do that.
I agree that the personal attacks need to stop, but it's simply not true that both sides have equally valid scientific arguments. In fact, it's a very potent form of misinformation to stipulate that both sides have equally valid scientific arguments. That way, the one side that does actually have valid arguments is silenced, which is exactly what the other side desires.
Re: (Score:2)
Another TWOT heard from. Must be Sunday. MSM is infected by an instinct to attack anything the CCP masters support. Happened back when Hillary "didn't get her turn", and instead America resorted to its Constitution and elected a president -- unlike what BeijingBiden state supporters did in 2020.
BINGO!
I never thought I'd actually see some of the "words" printed on my card, but here they are!
It doesn't matter that it's a paragraph that reads like one of Trump's fever dreams - I still win, right?
Broad spectrum treatment! (Score:2)
Technically yes,
the bleach will certainly succeed in killing the virus.
The trouble is that the virus will not be the only thing killed.
But, hey! Don't let a new marketing opportunity go to waste:
You can now rebrand your bleach shorts as a
"Broad-spectrum killing solution".
Re: (Score:2)
Worst part, you're not wrong...
It'll also kill the host, but hey, collateral damage, amiright?
Re: (Score:2)
I still feel like injecting bleach, like Dr. Trump encouraged people to do, might succeed in killing the virus.
It is 100% effective at killing the virus but with the minor side effect of it killing the host -- you'll have to judge whether that's acceptable to you or not.
Re:Bleach (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, compared to a moron that allowed the pandemic. Who knows what Trump would allow himself to be taken for a ride by if he returns in 2024? Tell me that. Plus I don't need to be caught in the crossfire between Trump and his enemies, they are clearly way smarter than he is.
Re: (Score:2)
You're not paying attention to the alternative news. Trump will be "reinstated" as president this August. I mean the predictions and prophecies have all been wrong so far, but eventually one of them will be right!
Re:Bleach (Score:4, Funny)
You're not paying attention to the alternative news. Trump will be "reinstated" as president this August. I mean the predictions and prophecies have all been wrong so far, but eventually one of them will be right!
Yes, yes he will [imgur.com]. Absolutely. No doubt.
Re: Bleach (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He denied there was a pandemic until it got a really good hold on the U.S. He actively promoted that there was nothing to fear, masks weren't necessary, that it would all be gone by last summer. Thus, he encouraged Americans not to take the virus seriously. He blamed Democrats for "promoting" the virus to make it political, thus politicizing it. His deluded followers continue to believe the same "alternative facts", thus contributing to their acquiring the virus and many dying from it. His image was everyth
Re:Bleach (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, compared to a moron that allowed the pandemic.
In Trump's defense, hundreds of other world leaders were unable to avoid the pandemic as well, even the ones that tried really hard and had citizens that were more cooperative and receptive to scientific principles and informed medical advice.
The loss of human life could have been reduced if we came at this more consistently. And the economic cost could have been a fraction if we started sooner.
Re: Bleach (Score:5, Informative)
Daly new cases yesterday was about 30k. The peak in January 2021 was 250k.
https://ourworldindata.org/cor... [ourworldindata.org]
https://ourworldindata.org/cov... [ourworldindata.org]
Hospitalizations are down, deaths are down. Are we going into a 3rd wave? Yes, but the scale of this wave is greatly reduced from the first two.
Re: (Score:2)
It's early yet. Don't forget that there is a pretty good correlation between the anti-masker crowd and the anti-vaxxer crowd. Without mandated social distancing, cancelled super-spreader events, etc. good luck not having this thing go like wildfire through regions and and regular viewers of certain cable news networks.
Re: (Score:2)
covid cases increase logistically.
I dunna think it means what you think it means..
I think they actually do.
Re: Bleach (Score:4, Informative)
Re: Bleach (Score:5, Insightful)
Go kill yourself, you double standard hypocrite.
Re: Bleach (Score:5, Insightful)
Obama had 5 months.
Kennedy got sick and republicans gained control of the senate.
And after that they rejected everything.
I remember it. I left the republican party in 2007 when republican leader ship said they would vote "no" to everything to make Obama a one term president. Even if it was an idea they had presented.
I realized then, the republican party was no longer fit to be a party in a democratic republic. I haven't voted for a single republican candidate since then.
Re: (Score:2)
Obama had 5 months.
It was even less than that. Between Kennedy falling ill and the Coleman-Franken MN Senate race not settling until 6 months after the election, there was a grand total of 60 working days where the Democrats had complete control.
1. 1/07 – 12/08 – 51-49 – Ordinary Majority.
2. 1/09 – 7/14/09 – 59-41 – Ordinary Majority. (Coleman/Franken Recount.)
3. 7/09 – 8/09 – 60-40 – Technical Super Majority, but since Kennedy is unable to vote, the Democrats c
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Bleach (Score:2)
You prefer him instead? That's a big TEN-FOUR good buddy!
Re: (Score:2)
As opposed to the previous imbecile who can't pronounce words, use the toilet, hold a glass or walk down a ramp without assistance? The one who lies compulsively about everything, can't understand reality and used a sharpie to do his own hurricane projection? The guy heavily supported by Russia because Putin thought he was a mentally ill psycho who would undermine America?
Biden could be a drooling idiot and he'd still be a better President than the moron that was 45.
Re: Bleach (Score:2)
Yes
Re: (Score:2)
The quotes there are the same babbling of a demented person as it was when I saw the briefing live
Re: (Score:2)
Arguing about whether he recommended bleach injection is useless because nobody can tell what he really meant, it's pure insanity talking
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't matter whether you listen to audio or read a transcript, if you actually pay attention to the words that come out of Trump he is a rambling doddard with only the most tenuous grasp on where he is or what he is doing. When the teleprompter fails (which by the way is 1952 technology, yet the Trump administration couldn't manage to keep them working in a disturbingly hilarious/hilariously disturbing number of cases) Trump falls back on manipulation of idiots: Watch the crowd, mumble banalities, noti
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm absolutely sure that I am not confusing them. For every example of Biden rambling and going off-topic there are ten examples of Trump doing the same [huffpost.com]. And even being released from the presidency and having that load taken off his shoulders hasn't stopped him from continuing to make incoherent rants [vanityfair.com], proving that it has nothing to do with the pressure of the office. Simply reading Trump's words aloud [rollingstone.com] proves how confused and disoriented he is on a day to day basis. The final takeaway is that Trump's words [vox.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for really ramming home the quality of thought engaged in by Trump supporters. Should I support democracy? Nah.
Re: Bleach (Score:5, Informative)
Where are you dolts getting your news? The Trump bleach thing is an utter fabrication: https://www.oliviapierson.org/... [oliviapierson.org]
You can watch the video over at C-SPAN [c-span.org] where William Bryan, Acting Homeland Security Under Secretary for Science & Technology, said:
"We're also testing disinfectants readily available. We've tested bleach, we've tested isopropyl alcohol on the virus, specifically in saliva or in respiratory fluids. And I can tell you that bleach will kill the virus in five minutes; isopropyl alcohol will kill the virus in 30 seconds, and that's with no manipulation, no rubbing - just spraying it on and letting it go. You rub it and it goes away even faster. We're also looking at other disinfectants, specifically looking at the COVID-19 virus in saliva."
.
After William Bryan finishes speaking, Trump goes over to the microphone where at some point he says:
"And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning. Because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs. So it would be interesting to check that. So, that, you're going to have to use medical doctors with. But it sounds - it sounds interesting to me."
The disinfectant that Trump was referring to in his statement was the bleach and isopropyl alcohol that William Bryan talked about earlier. So yeah, Trump did talk about injecting bleach.
Re: (Score:2)
He was asking a question out loud. Sure, it was a stupid question, but he wasn't actually telling anyone to go forth and inject bleach.
I wish people would stop jumping all over the idiocy his side doesn't actually take seriously, and put a bit more effort into focusing on the idiocy that they do take seriously. Its just less comedic that way.
Re: Bleach (Score:5, Informative)
Sure. But this isn't one of those situations, because a disturbingly large number of his supporters DID take it series ending with a spate of doctors having to treat patients in serious trouble after ingesting cleaning products trying to ward off covid.
I mean, it only takes a quick google search to verify that.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volum... [cdc.gov]
"Some 4% of respondents reported drinking or gargling diluted bleach, while the same numbers said they used soapy water or disinfectants."
"[Respondants reported] misting the body with a cleaning or disinfectant spray (10%); inhalation of vapors from household cleaners or disinfectants (6%); and drinking or gargling diluted bleach solutions, soapy water, and other cleaning and disinfectant solutions (4% each)."
Re: (Score:2)
It was a question so stupid that a kindergartner could have shot it down.
Re: (Score:2)
More importantly the leader of a country doesn't spitball questions during a press conference. He lets himself be informed beforehand so as to not accidentally misinform people during a press conference.
In every way people spin this it all leads to the same conclusion: Trump was an incredibly incompetent president whose actions caused harm among the people he governed.
If he had simply not showed up to work that day, people would have been safer.
Re: Bleach (Score:4, Funny)
He was asking a question out loud.
Is that like the way Tucker Carlson only ever asks questions? Here's one for you: "Why aren't we asking the question if Octorian is stupid or if he's actually deranged to the point of being a danger to others?"
I was just asking a question so you should be perfectly fine with my comment. I look forward to getting modded up by you.
Re: (Score:2)
I think lemon zest because it rhymes with best.
Re: (Score:2)
You can pick apart his speech - and I, as countless others, heard it firsthand - to assert that he never ACTUALLY told people to start injecting bleach. Directly. But that is how hundreds, if not thousands, of people HEARD it. I heard it that way - and thought right then that "OMG - we're going to have thousands of people inject themselves with beach".
Fortunately, I was not correct - it was scores, maybe hundreds, but not the thousands I'd feared.
I was also looking on in amazement that NOT ONE of the sup
Perfect! (Score:2)
"a drug used against parasites such as worms and headlice"
IOW the exact illnesses that upstairs people think that downstairs people have, so it can't hurt to sell it to them.
Re: (Score:2)
In a previous life, we used to give cattle Ivermectin on a regular cycle, to supplant the negative effects of parasites and promote weight gain in the herd... in much the same manner as folks inject farmed creatures bound for the butcher with antibiotics. We'd run the cattle through chutes to restrict their movement in order to inject the Ivermectin.
Cows don't like to be forced through chutes (narrow fenced corridors), so it was necessary to work above the corral to incentivize their movement toward the hea [tractorsupply.com]
Re: (Score:2)
"It can cause eye damage, blindness, nerve damage, anorexia, liver damage, changes to the heart resulting in hypotension (excessively low blood pressure).
All of these are low incidence but normally folks take 2 weeks and then they are done. "
Done with taking the meds but the blindness and liver failure stays?
Re: (Score:2)
> "Cows don't like to be forced through chutes (narrow fenced corridors)..."
Temple Grandin showed that they aren't as traumatised by chutes if you add curves.
Fascinating.
Re: (Score:2)
Cattle are given antibiotics, often on a regular cycle.
So, by your "logic" humans should never take antibiotics.
Well. Ivermectin is primarily a de-wormer, rather than an antibiotic, if that distinction matters at all... but if you've ever truly needed antibiotics, you're acutely aware they're a necessary life extension tool that cannot be replaced by magical thinking and the implementation of pseudoscientific cures.
Follow the leader. (Score:4, Insightful)
Meta-analyses relying on the "just totally faked" data were then published in Oxford Academic's Open Forum Infectious Diseases and in the American Journal of Therapeutics.
This is the real story right here. It's like a car accident, with everyone else behind it stepping on the gas.
Only Covid-19 Cures (Score:3, Funny)
The only real and effective cures for Covid-19 is either a specially formulated Silver Solution [newsweek.com] or the Superblue Fluoride-Free Toothpaste [newsweek.com].
Everything else is fake.
rightwing grift again (Score:2)
"a drug used against parasites such as worms and h (Score:4, Funny)
"a drug used against parasites such as worms and headlice"
Ah, well then Trumpists probably already have Ivermectin in their medicine cabinet.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would they have something in their medicine cabinets that is designed to kill them?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Why would they have something in their medicine cabinets that is designed to kill them?
You should check their gun safes and under their pillows...
Scardey cats
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, because the right-wing MAH FREEDUMS set absolutely don't have firearms in their home.
Oh, that's not what you meant by having something in their home designed to kill?
Re: "a drug used against parasites such as worms a (Score:2)
Generically, it's known as... (Score:2)
cryptomycin
Did they take it with Zinc? (Score:2)
They're supposed to take it with Zinc, right SuperKendall?
Re: Did they take it with Zinc? (Score:2)
Re: Did they take it with Zinc? (Score:5, Insightful)
If Trump did such an awesome job creating this vaccine so fast then why don't they take it?
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly, nobody ever does the piss drinking part. The weird plants, carefully shaken water, even the strange rituals. But even though it's been done for "thousands of years" when it comes to the actual piss drinking, they chicken out.
Many more studies (Score:3)
So 1 study is pulled and thats all the evidence anyone needs. So if someone found a study that was pulled about something else its off the table as well right?
Was 1 of 18 other studies in this meta analyses:
https://journals.lww.com/ameri... [lww.com]
Re: (Score:3)
That particular study isn't the one I see most-often cited by proponents of ivermectin. Usually it's the Argentina study:
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2... [clinicaltrials.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
What's your point? Instead of running a story about "Argentina study proves ivermectin useful as prophylaxis for general population", they want to go on about something else. Typical bias in reporting. Even if you want people to get the vaccine, you have to admit that ivermectin might be a useful alternative, especially in countries where vaccines are not widely available. Put your population on a one-month course of ivermectin (properly dosed) and bam, no more Covid in your country, at least until someo
Re: (Score:2)
So 1 study is pulled and thats all the evidence anyone needs.
If you read to the end of TFS you'd realise one study was pulled and another study disproved the claim of the first. So we're already at 2 in a summary just 3 paragraphs and 3 statements long. If you can't make it to the end of a single summary, how can anyone take you seriously?
Re: (Score:2)
Many more studies, hand wave all of them away 'these are not the studies you are looking for':
https://ivmmeta.com/ [ivmmeta.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't handwaved anything. I haven't actually discredited anything either. I simply called you stupid for your inability to read. I'm calling you stupid again now for... well... given your reply, still the inability to read.
In defense of science and free speech (Score:3)
I am not doctor or researcher, but I am scientifically minded (at least as much as the average Slashdot readership) and the following disturbs me:
Right vs left wing battles entering science. This issue should be about facts, and I've seen anti scientific attitudes on both sides. If you tell me Trump is an idiot and injecting bleach is a bad idea, you're correct, but you're beating a dead horse. Trump Derangement Syndrome and speech suppression is clearly at play here by well-meaning people who know nothing about how science work. The best counter example to the Guardian's claim of right wingers supporting Ivremectin is Dr Brett Weinstein and Dr Heather Heying continuing search for the truth including on Ivremectin, and they can definitely not be characterized as right wingers. I invite you to see for yourself and listen to their DarkHorse podcast on odysee.com
Fauci. I had a lot of sympathy for the guy when he had to stand by Trump and listen to the bleach and UV crap talk. However. Fauci LIED to the american people on masks, at a time when he knew they would be effective. Fauci dismissed the lab leak hypothesis without proper consideration. Also, Fauci can't give a straight answer on funding for gain-of-function research and always seems to weasel his way out of enquiries on the topic. Fauci colluded with Zuckerberg (more on that later) to suppress public scientific discussion. He might be a well meaning guy, but I just don't trust him. At all.
Google/Youtube/Facebook suppressing speech by removing posts / videos / searches on non officially approved topics. In science, the more discussion the better. The only way to figure out the truth is through speech. Sure, some (regardless of how well intentionned) will make mistakes. But the other option is an appointed few deciding what is wrong-think outside of all accountability.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's all an elaborate retirement plan (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It appears that "rightwing figures" are dead set on killing their base.
No, that would be the democrats. Covid-19 cases if you look at where they are show up red hot the more democrat they vote. Yet another good example are the dimwit lawmakers from Texas that flew to Washington DC. No masks, miller beer and all. Turns out 3 of them are now infected at least. It also turns out they didn't get the vaccine. WHY? I just don't fricking get it.
Guys drowning - throw him a life preserver. Oh, I don't want that life preserver. I read where someone drown using one of those. What about t
yeah, right wing figures (Score:2)
Like the bar association of India..
Peer-review is suspect (Score:2)
This study was published and supposedly peer-reviewed. Should that call into question the process of peer-review and publishing in general?
Science can no longer be trusted (Score:2)
I cannot even keep up with all the many politically motivated lies told about Covid. This while the US government, and social media, conspire to censor the truth.
We can never trust medical science again.
Re: (Score:2)
ivmmeta.com STILL not mentioned (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Wait, why can't they make money off ivermectin? They could easily buy up the Ivermectin manufacturing plants and make that their thing.
Re: Oooh I see now (Score:2, Informative)
The vaccine is 15 to 20 dollars per dose. How much is an ivermectin treatment regimen? Let me Google that. Itâ(TM)s 35 dollars for 8 tablets, which isnâ(TM)t even enough for the covid regimen btw.
get it from Bangladesh for half a dollar (Score:2)
https://medex.com.bd/generics/... [medex.com.bd]
Or from another country where pharmaceutical companies don't carry the government in their pockets.
Re: (Score:2)
Haha, please see my references below on the toxic Bangladesh drugs. Besides, even if they could reduce the toxic chemicals they put in their drugs and production could be scaled up, do you think if the US pharmaceutical companies are capable of the vaccine conspiracy they can't purchase some factory in Bangladesh and control the supply?
Danger of Bangladesh (which is consistently ranked as one the most corrupt countries in the world) pharmaceuticals reference:
https://www.straitstimes.com/a... [straitstimes.com]
https://medicalx [medicalxpress.com]
Re:The Guardian? Please. (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, these people are so clever as to synchronize the behaviors and motives of all the world's governments, and yet Anthony Fauci spills the beans so people as intelligent and insightful as you can figure it out!
Re:The Guardian? Please. (Score:5, Interesting)
They tried to dismiss it, because it almost certainly didn't come from a lab. We already know its not an engineered genome.
That daft paper that the NY Times based their article on was written by a prolific wellness-crank and a talk circuit climate denier (why are we listening to astronomers about virology? Isn't that like asking a plumber to do your electrics), based on a the bizare claim that the GCC-GCC codon site doesn't occur in nature. This is horseshit, its a very common sequence that codes for arginines and exists in *all* coronavirus species, and pretty much everywhere else too. Its a bizare claim and its *weird* claim. I'm not surprised a climate change denier would claim that, its not their wheelhouse and combined with the innate gullibility of the climate change denier crowd I can understand where the error comes from. But Dr Quay has no such excuse, this is a medical physician that would know full well what sort of research is required to make such a claim.
There ARE however markers, particularly around satelite sequences that are common to *all* bio engineering techniques and none of these exist on the genome. Coupled with the fact we actually have no idea how to design a molecule like the covid spike due to the intractible computational complexity of protein folding, a pretty clear picture emerges that the *only* author of this virus is evolution itself.
I'm not saying that the laboratory didn't make this virus. I'm specifically saying the laboratory [i]could not have[/i] made th damn thing.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't know why so many people feel compelled to mislead "not engineered" by directly splicing in a different sequence, to mean not a result of lab work *at all*. Since you seem to possess some basic knowledge of biology, can I conclude you *do* know this are are lying? Or are you repeating the misleading statement of someone mo
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh god this argument again. "Serial passage gain of function" is a phrase that almost entirely exists on a handful of dubious papers on preprint servers from people who appear to have no publication history (Seriously, when was the last time you read a paper in a legitimate journal that starts of refering to itself as a "father and son team" and then procedes to accuse a superpower of malicious biotech.
Look, Serial passage is indeed a legitimate gain of function technique but its quite useless at generating
Re: The Guardian? Please. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah yes, the op-ed section of the Manila Times talking about the Chinese vaccine is a valid rebuttal.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
And I hate to even mention it, but all this reminds me of HCQ. Numerous studies "proved" that it didn't work by (1) administering it in severe disease, well beyond the viral load expansion stage and (2) administering it without zinc or without enough zinc
Holy shit man. It's 2021. The Zinc + HCQ + Vitamin D + Only taking it when facing North West at 2pm on a saturday bullshit is so incredibly dated.
Come up with a new made up goalpost moving claim will you.
Re: (Score:2)
do your part: take an actual iq test, then be consequent and swallow a gallon of bleach or ivermectin (your pick). we will applaud.