'No Effect Whatsoever' Found for Ivermectin in Major Study (msn.com) 296
In 1999 Los Angeles Times reporter Michael Hiltzik won a Pulitzer Prize. Now a business columnist for the Times, he writes that Ivermectin, "the latest supposed treatment for COVID-19 being touted by anti-vaccination groups, had 'no effect whatsoever' on the disease, according to a large patient study." (Alternate URL here)
That's the conclusion of the Together Trial, which has subjected several purported nonvaccine treatments for COVID-19 to carefully designed clinical testing.
The trial is supervised by McMaster University in Hamilton, Canada, and conducted in Brazil. One of the trial's principal investigators, Edward Mills of McMaster, presented the results from the Ivermectin arms of the study at an Aug. 6 symposium sponsored by the National Institutes of Health. Among the 1,500 patients in the study, he said, Ivermectin showed "no effect whatsoever" on the trial's outcome goals — whether patients required extended observation in the emergency room or hospitalization. "In our specific trial," he said, "we do not see the treatment benefit that a lot of the advocates believe should have been" seen...
The Ivermectin camp, as I reported earlier, is heavily peopled by anti-vaccination advocates and conspiracy mongers. They maintain that the truth about the drug has been suppressed by agents of the pharmaceutical industry, which ostensibly prefers to collect the more generous profits that will flow from COVID vaccines. The problem, however, is that the scientific trials cited by Ivermectin advocates have been too small or poorly documented to prove their case. One large trial from Egypt that showed the most significant therapeutic effect was withdrawn from its publishers due to accusations of plagiarism and bogus data. Nevertheless, the advocates have continued to press their case — without necessarily observing accepted standards of scientific discourse. During the symposium, Mills complained that serious researchers looking into claims for COVID treatments have faced unprecedented abuse from advocates.
"I've had enough abuse and so have the other clinical trialists doing Ivermectin," he said. "Others working in this area have been threatened, their families have been threatened, they've been defamed," he said...
Asked whether he expected further criticism from Ivermectin advocates, he said it was all but inevitable. "The advocacy groups have set themselves up to be able to critique any clinical trial. They've already determined that any valid, well-designed critical trial was set up to fail."
The trial is supervised by McMaster University in Hamilton, Canada, and conducted in Brazil. One of the trial's principal investigators, Edward Mills of McMaster, presented the results from the Ivermectin arms of the study at an Aug. 6 symposium sponsored by the National Institutes of Health. Among the 1,500 patients in the study, he said, Ivermectin showed "no effect whatsoever" on the trial's outcome goals — whether patients required extended observation in the emergency room or hospitalization. "In our specific trial," he said, "we do not see the treatment benefit that a lot of the advocates believe should have been" seen...
The Ivermectin camp, as I reported earlier, is heavily peopled by anti-vaccination advocates and conspiracy mongers. They maintain that the truth about the drug has been suppressed by agents of the pharmaceutical industry, which ostensibly prefers to collect the more generous profits that will flow from COVID vaccines. The problem, however, is that the scientific trials cited by Ivermectin advocates have been too small or poorly documented to prove their case. One large trial from Egypt that showed the most significant therapeutic effect was withdrawn from its publishers due to accusations of plagiarism and bogus data. Nevertheless, the advocates have continued to press their case — without necessarily observing accepted standards of scientific discourse. During the symposium, Mills complained that serious researchers looking into claims for COVID treatments have faced unprecedented abuse from advocates.
"I've had enough abuse and so have the other clinical trialists doing Ivermectin," he said. "Others working in this area have been threatened, their families have been threatened, they've been defamed," he said...
Asked whether he expected further criticism from Ivermectin advocates, he said it was all but inevitable. "The advocacy groups have set themselves up to be able to critique any clinical trial. They've already determined that any valid, well-designed critical trial was set up to fail."
Wow such a surprise. . . not (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wow such a surprise. . . not (Score:5, Funny)
Not just YouTube and Facebook (Score:5, Interesting)
The Murdoch empire is behind it too. Google News keeps showing me a Wall Street Journal headline something like "Why does the FDA keep attacking a safe, effective drug?".
Re: (Score:2)
I'v been getting that too. What the ignoramuses who wrote that article don't realize is safe for parasitic infections doesn't automatically mean safe for treating COVID. That's because the dose you need to achieve an antiviral effect seen in a Petri disk might be far higher than the dose needed to treat a parasitic infection.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder who I should believe . . .
Didn't you get the memo? Truth is a bitch; she demands everything from you then gives zero concessions in return. People are done with her. What you do is, pick a side and drink the Kool-Aid.
Re: Wow such a surprise. . . not (Score:2)
Well, Dr. John Campbell was in the Ivermectin camp a few months ago, referencing some of the earlier studies and having interview partners advocating it too. I havenâ(TM)t followed up if heâ(TM)s changed his view since.
Re: Wow such a surprise. . . not (Score:3, Insightful)
You know whom you should believe? No one.
You know *what* you should believe? Data. Not just data, but data and associated meta data that spans the problem space as fully and uniformly as possible.
In the absense of such data, which almost always only comes from purpose-designed scientific trials, hunches and correlations aren't a bad thing to entertain.
Regardless of who comes up with them or latches onto them as the new black dress.
Ivermectin never seemed plausible.
HCQ or HCQ/zinc did seem plausible based on
Re: (Score:3)
Well, you can be with stupid, which will at least be emotionally comforting, or you can be with Science. The latter has a tendency to result in uncomfortable insights, but long-term survival as well.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
India the main country using Ivermectin triumphs over the USA on the Covid morality rate, and the reason is mysterious and without rational explanation.
There are less than 100 people using Ivermectin in India. I do not see how 100 people affects the CoVID mortality rate considering 478 people died in India yesterday.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: India triumphs over the moratility rate vs USA (Score:4, Informative)
That statement alone makes me look at him with incredulity. Anyone who loads their message in such incredibly emotionally manipulative terms should by default be treated with extra scrutiny.
The man has had over a year to prove his claims with nothing to show for it but keeping up the grift.
Re: India triumphs over the moratility rate vs US (Score:2)
Again, emotionally loaded and out of context.
Do you have the data? Has the under 12 vaccine trial results even been released yet for you to prove out your conclusions? Do you have anything resembling accepted medical processes?
Equivocating to the Nuremberg trials is manipulative and a cover for a lack of real evidence.
Re: India triumphs over the moratility rate vs US (Score:4)
You are the one bringing up statements of "child sacrifice".
If the safety efficacy of the under 12 trials is the same as the adults then the risk benefit is easily in favor of vaccination, both for the children and the public at large.
You are rapidly running out of excuses and attempts to fearmonger with threats of "criminality" are empty and flailing distractions from a place of absolute nihilism.
Re:India triumphs over the moratility rate vs USA (Score:5, Informative)
Ivermectin Wins in India: https://www.thedesertreview.co... [thedesertreview.com]
Your proof is The Desert Review, a biased Rightwing/Conservative rag?
A paper which runs articles by people such as Dr. Brian Tyson and Dr. George Fareed who are members of America’s Frontline Doctors [wikipedia.org] (founded by Simone Gold [wikipedia.org] who is an anti-vax physician and was arrested for participating in the Jan. 6, 2021 U.S. Capital riot), an organization where members have spread B.S. about the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine and other misinformation about Covid-19... like when Dr. George Fareed went on Fox News' Hannity show a week ago to tell viewers that "mass vaccination is not going to be the solution" [foxnews.com] to Covid-19?
Really?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Mass vaccination is not going to be the solution; that much was obvious to anyone with even a glimmer of understanding as far back as March of 2020, and it should be blindingly obvious now.
If that's the case, why did Trump spend $10 billion on Operation Warp Speed [statnews.com], money that was meant to help hospitals and health care providers affected by Covid-19?
You could never develop and deploy a vaccine fast enough to squash this bug
But we did. Covid-19 vaccines from Prizer/BioNTech and Moderna were developed [nature.com] and deployed [fda.gov] for use in under a year.
and even if you could there are still environmental reservoirs which would simply allow it to mutate and begin the cycle all over again.
That "environmental reservoirs" are people who are unwilling to take the vaccine which has been shown to be over 90% effective. Instead, these anti-vaxers are looking to a drug that's mainly used to treat horses and cows.
The vaccines will constantly be playing catchup with the mutations which, due to the vaccines themselves, will cause the virus to become more vaccine resistant.
There are mut
Re: (Score:3)
The mRNA/adenovirus ones are still handling delta-covid like champs. Its the unvaccinated that are spreading covid-19 and allowing it to mutate.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Chiropractic, Kundalini Yoga Teacher, Holistic Health Researcher, Wellness Coach, Social Entrepreneur
If someone shot this man I would say that he would owe the shooter an apology for making him use a bullet.
Re:Wow such a surprise. . . not (Score:4, Insightful)
It really sets off my bullshit detector all these anonymous, very slick looking sites that bombard you with all this official data. I've seen at least a half dozen of these sites now, all with very similar designs, and mountains of data designed to look very daunting, with no actual analysis from respected third parties. Clearly some propaganda movement.
Sites like: ivmmeta.com, covid19criticalcare.com, c19ivermectin.com, c19early.com .... clearly all part of an aggressive astroturfing campaign.
Re: (Score:3)
https://twitter.com/GidMK/stat... [twitter.com]
You're been taken in by a garbage site. And that's why it's a fantasy that lay people can reliably discuss "facts" about a topic like medical epidemiology. Even more so when the approach is towards confirmation of a narrative, not towards learning what relevant experts think about the "outside mainstream" thinking
Us vs them. (Score:5, Insightful)
Asked whether he expected further criticism from Ivermectin advocates, he said it was all but inevitable. "The advocacy groups have set themselves up to be able to critique any clinical trial. They've already determined that any valid, well-designed critical trial was set up to fail."
Confirmation bias is strong in that group. I'm a victim is too.
Re: (Score:2)
As a matter of fact, nobody could honestly state this experiment as a success
Yes but... (Score:5, Funny)
Did they subject it to Vitamin D + Zinc + garlic + only stir the mixture clockwise + inject it only during a full moon? I mean everyone knows if you don't do all of those the mixture doesn't work. This is another useless study paid for by big pharma to entrench the ruling class and keep us from life saving medication!
Disclaimer: Since this is 2021 on Slashdot I feel the need to point out that this post is in fact sarcastic and aimed directly at the anti-vaxxing morons who unfortunately also exist on this site.
There needs to an html tag (Score:4, Funny)
But I fear that people would use it sarcastically...
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, just append '/s' to your post. I've never seen it used sarcastically... but that would certainly be confusing.
Re: There needs to an html tag (Score:2)
Welcome to a world where people use "literally" figuratively.
Re: (Score:2)
Always chide someone for doing that. It's a habit that they need to break.
Re: Yes but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That's probably not too far from the truth, several of the admittedly small number of antivaxxers I know will happily ingest eye of newt unguent they got from a bum they ran into in the supermarket lavatory, but refuse to be vaccinated because of the unknown risk of the vaccine. My GF is a psychologist and usually has a theory about everything involving human behaviour, but even she's stumped at why people behave like this.
Never discount the stupidity of solipsism and politics in the minds of people with cognitive issues.
Re: Yes but... (Score:5, Informative)
The anti vaxxers are stupid right wing hippies.
Some of them are. Most are right wing MAGA Trump loyalists and many of those don't even doubt the vaccine effectiveness as much as they don't want to hand Joe Biden a "win."
In other words, they would rather the country go down in flames to increase the chance of their candidate winning the next election because the Democratic incumbent is not "effective" at protecting us.
Re: Yes but... (Score:5, Informative)
"I will say that I would not trust Donald Trump and it would have to be a credible source of information that talks about the efficacy and the reliability of whatever he's talking about,"
"Yes. I trust Dr. Fauci," Harris continued. She said she "would trust the word of public health experts and scientists, but not Donald Trump."
So she's refusing to listen to Donald Trump personally, and wants to hear it from a credible source of information going over the efficacy and reliability data, like Dr. Fauci. Are you citing this as a self-own to prove the claim that democrats said not to trust the vaccine is false? Because that's exactly what it does. Saying they don't trust Donald Trump personally (who the fuck does) and would need more credible people to confirm it, is not the same as saying not to trust the vaccine because it was developed under Trump, except for mindless automatons parroting that ridiculous interpretation from Fox News or OAN or whatever other lying shitheads are trying it.
Re: Yes but... (Score:5, Insightful)
From what I recall, there were other random cases too. Finding sources would tricky though.
Yeah, it does get tricky to find sources for something that was made up.
Re: Yes but... (Score:3)
That's just silly (Score:2)
*this is what homeopaths actually believe, and every few years they kill a bunch of babies because they don't dilute out all the literal poison in their "medicine".
Re: (Score:2)
I remember a time when people's sick fetishes involved drinking each other's pee, I don't understand why homeopaths insist on drinking diluted dinosaur pee instead. That's next level shit there. Incidentally that water also probably remembers animals shitting in it too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Yes but... (Score:5, Informative)
You do realize that that precedent was set many decades ago, right? Vaccinations have been mandatory for all kinds of things for your entire lifetime.
It's far less of an intrusion on choice, with a far better justification, than, say, drug prohibition, and yet people are not railing against drug prohibition.
And public health used to be more intrusive than just telling people they had to have a vaccine before going into a crowd. As in "we will lock your ass in your house until you are over this". All over the world.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Yes but... (Score:4, Informative)
Just the history of the polio vaccine alone, with the cases growing exponentially every summer, the first vaccine released to cries of triumph, the manufacturing failure that caused active infections among the vaccinated, the rush to get the second vaccine approved, into production, and into people (children too, with no separate trials for kids before release) - just that one history alone gives the lie to this "untested" baloney.
Re:Yes but... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm anti-vax because it sets a precedent to our rights being taken away from a refusal to put something into our bodies.
What rights are being taken away? There is no mandatory vaccination law; and private business still have the right to decide who may enter their establishment, especially out of concern for the safety of their employees and customers. If anything, states that are making it illegal for a private business to require masks or proof of vacinnation are attacking our rights.
In addition, are we going to see an arms race between Coronavirus and the vaccines? Evolution has fared fairly well for millions of years and it's a sad fact of life that the weakest perish and the strong survive, but it works out okay in the end. Antibiotic overuse is a thing, so could we taking more and more vaccines, more regularly, and potentially forever, and could this help the viruses evolve? That just doesn't feel right from an evolutionary perspective.
Good question. C19 is likely to hang around and mutate, just like the flu, IMHO. But it's not a case where it is relatively benign as it has shown it's ability to be much more lethal than the flu, so developing vaccines against it and using it seems a good public health move. Antibiotics are a bit different than vaccines because of the way they work and that they simply cannot be adjusted for use against a new variant as it is resistance to the actual medication, not a body identification and immune response.
Maybe you can teach me something though: Like other Coronaviruses, can Covid-19 take refuge among the animal population? Even so, then (unlike Polio IIRC), there's practically no chance we can wipe it out, since we'll always be able to be infected from a stray animal again.
Who nows, and ll the more reason to look to vaccines as a preventative measure, like the flu.
Re: (Score:3)
There is no mandatory vaccination law; and private business still have the right to decide who may enter their establishment, especially out of concern for the safety of their employees and customers.
Lol, I just saw this today: San Francisco, New Orleans mandate vaccines for gyms and bars [reuters.com]. Otherwise, what you say sounds reasonable.
But it's not a case where it is relatively benign as it has shown it's ability to be much more lethal than the flu, so developing vaccines against it and using it seems a good public health move.
Unless such vaccines help the virus to evolve to more sinister depths. There's just so much we don't know and so many "unforeseen ramifications" when it comes to time spans greater than a decade or century.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
What rights are being taken away? There is no mandatory vaccination law; and private business still have the right to decide who may enter their establishment, especially out of concern for the safety of their employees and customers. If anything, states that are making it illegal for a private business to require masks or proof of vacinnation are attacking our rights.
Well, arguably in San Francisco and New York, private businesses do not have the right to decide who may enter their establishments now.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you willing to pay for your freedom?
It would be the lesser of the evils I guess.
Do you think it is appropriate for insurance companies to raise rates on people that haven't been vaccinated?
Potentially yes. I don't have medical insurance, so it doesn't affect me.
You haven't mentioned your stance on masks, but I think I can probably guess how those impact your rights.
I was somewhat fairly pro-mask, but if the Covid-19 animal reservoir is a thing, are they going to be a permanent feature? If so, then I am heavily against masks, even if costs millions of lives.
If we had contained it then, it would have fizzled out, as the previous coronavirus did.
Not if evolves and remains present in the animal population.
Re: (Score:2)
I was somewhat fairly pro-mask, but if the Covid-19 animal reservoir is a thing, are they going to be a permanent feature? If so, then I am heavily against masks, even if costs millions of lives.
So you feel you have the freedom to rob other people of their freedom? You feel you have the freedom to poison your family, friends and neighbours when you get infected?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
We will need masking so long as there is a significant number of people who are unvaccinated.
Re: (Score:3)
Are you willing to pay for your freedom? There are real costs to society for not taking the vaccine. Do you think it is appropriate for insurance companies to raise rates on people that haven't been vaccinated?
Bloody hell - I think it's appropriate to kick Anti-vaxxer Covid lovers out of the ICU when people who aren't idiots need the beds.
Re:Yes but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
What about the freedom to only associate with people who have been vaccinated?
Also, what if the disease was an asymptomatic spreading hemorrhagic fever like Ebola (but airborne) .. I'll bet you won't be scared by vaccines then.
Re: (Score:2)
What about the freedom to only associate with people who have been vaccinated?
Also, what if the disease was an asymptomatic spreading hemorrhagic fever like Ebola (but airborne) .. I'll bet you won't be scared by vaccines then.
Remember - we are dealing with a subset of the population that has cognitive problems and a healthy dose of solipsism.
Exhibit 1 - the anti vaxxers who beg for the vaccines on their deathbed, or the Far right aniti-vaxxer who as late as june urged people to not get the vaccine https://www.theguardian.com/us... [theguardian.com]
He ded, before he croaked he changed his mind.
Just read through this guy's post's - he knew that the vaccine was bad, and that his immune system could beat the worst the virus could hand out, an
Re: (Score:3)
Can you? Seems you could illustrate your point perfectly by providing those stories.
Plenty over at: https://www.reddit.com/r/CovidVaccinated [reddit.com].
My mum's best friend had permanent damage in one eye immediately after taking the vaccine, and her doctor told her not to let the story out. I hate cover ups and censorship.
Re: (Score:3)
Can you? Seems you could illustrate your point perfectly by providing those stories.
Plenty over at: https://www.reddit.com/r/CovidVaccinated [reddit.com].
Peer review at it's best on Reddit! I was turned into a newt by my vaccine.
My mum's best friend had permanent damage in one eye immediately after taking the vaccine, and her doctor told her not to let the story out. I hate cover ups and censorship.
So what exactly damaged her eye? The 5G chip gfet stuck in it?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I'll pass on your stupidity about "setting" a precedent that is already almost as old as vaccines, (and generally that is exactly the job of governments), I'll just focus on your stupidity regarding evolution.
Evolution as given us a brain, which we can use to learn, teach and behave accordingly. That is waaaay more efficient than evolution, as we don't have to hope that maybe a handful in the next generation (you know, at least 20 fucking years) have the right mutation, and really a mutation can only do so
Re:Yes but... (Score:5, Informative)
I'm anti-vax because it sets a precedent to our rights being taken away from a refusal to put something into our bodies
You're more than 100 years too late for that. The SCOTUS ruled on this in 1905. That decision has been upheld many times, including last year.
In addition, are we going to see an arms race between Coronavirus and the vaccines?
That may happen with some of the vaccines. It can't happen with the mRNA vaccines.
The mRNA vaccines are targeting the "spike" protein. That protein is used to get the virus into our cells, and that works by the spike protein being able to fit into a receptor on our cells.
Until that receptor changes, the spike protein can't change. Any mutations in the spike protein will produce virus that can't get into our cells. Our mutation rate is low, so that receptor is not going to be changing anytime soon.
"Natural immunity" is far worse for this than the mRNA vaccines. Your immune system will have created an antibody for some random protein on the outside of the virus, and it's unlikely your immune system happened to hit the spike protein. Since it's not the spike protein, it can mutate, rendering your natural immunity ineffective.
Finally, mutations happen during reproduction. The fewer vaccinated people, the more reproduction, and the more mutations. Not getting vaccinated makes the thing you're worried about worse.
Like other Coronaviruses, can Covid-19 take refuge among the animal population?
Yes. It can also "take refuge" among the vaccinated. We can't wipe it out, but that is a really bad reason to not get vaccinated. It's an additional reason you should get vaccinated.
You will catch it, and if you are not vaccinated there's about a 10% chance you will suffer long-term-to-permanent damage from it (3M "long COVID" cases in the US out of 30M infections). That chance goes down to near-zero if you are vaccinated.
Re: (Score:2)
"Natural immunity" is far worse for this than the mRNA vaccines. Your immune system will have created an antibody for some random protein on the outside of the virus, and it's unlikely your immune system happened to hit the spike protein. Since it's not the spike protein, it can mutate, rendering your natural immunity ineffective.
Since you seem to know what you're talking about, maybe you can solve this one for me. Here's the data for both the cases and deaths in the UK for all time: https://i.imgur.com/4ELVzTc.pn... [imgur.com]
Why is the number of deaths so relatively low at "Line B" (1200 daily dea
Re: (Score:2)
I'm anti-vax because it sets a precedent to our rights being taken away from a refusal to put something into our bodies. This time it's fine, another time decades or even centuries down the line, it may not be, since history has shown time and time again that governments can become corrupt.
I don't understand: you can be against mandatory vaccination while being in favor of voluntary vaccination.
In addition, are we going to see an arms race between Coronavirus and the vaccines? Evolution has fared fairly well for millions of years and it's a sad fact of life that the weakest perish and the strong survive, but it works out okay in the end. Antibiotic overuse is a thing, so could we taking more and more vaccines, more regularly, and potentially forever, and could this help the viruses evolve? That just doesn't feel right from an evolutionary perspective.
Unless you like perpetual lockdowns, I think we'll have to accept that most people will get exposed to Covid-19 sooner or later. So everyone who is not vaccinated will eventually create antibodies in response to encountering the actual virus. The end result is that most of the population will have Covid-19 antibodies. So in the selection part of the process, vaccination doesn't make things worse.
The am
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The amount of mutations to the virus are linear in the number of infected people, so without vaccinations the virus has a lot more opportunity to evolve. If you view it as an arms race, wouldn't you prefer to restrict the enemy's budget as much as possible?
Sounds good in theory, but the reality may be more complex: Imperfect Vaccination Can Enhance the Transmission of Highly Virulent Pathogens [plos.org].
Re: (Score:2)
I'm anti-vax because it sets a precedent to our rights being taken away from a refusal to put something into our bodies.
Um, I'm not sure this claim holds up to scrutiny. There is no governmental mandate forcing you to be vaccinated. There were not even any social or job based restrictions when the vaccines were first available. If you were not anti-vax, per se, but just object to being told what to do, you'd be vaccinated by now.
This time it's fine, another time decades or even centuries down the line, it may not be, since history has shown time and time again that governments can become corrupt.
There is historical precedent for the government to mandate vaccination, but I don't see that as the real issue here. If you're worried about government overreach in a decades time I'd think that cre
Re:Yes but... (Score:4, Insightful)
Not for vaccination (Score:2, Informative)
The few instances of vaccines making it to the general public when they were not safe (e.g. Pandemrix) were not because the science didn't know they were unsafe, they were because the gov't was bought off by a big phrama company and literally ignored well known the risks so they could keep selling it.
Your problem isn't with vaccines, it's with unregulated capitalism and weak democratic institutions.
Re:Yes but... (Score:4, Informative)
That freedom from being forced to put stuff in your body sailed away back in about 1775 (assuming you're American) when parts of the population were forced to inoculate against smallpox. Since then Supreme Court has ruled that you don't have the freedom to refuse a vaccine during a pandemic.
And then compares to the draft, which is also Constitutional.
https://constitutioncenter.org... [constitutioncenter.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Congress was specifically granted the power to raise armies.
I'm not arguing against mandatory vaccines, just that that argument does not support.
Re: (Score:2)
But does the power to raise armies include the draft? And between that power, the power to have a navy and the militia thing shows that communities, States and the nation were expected to defend themselves.
The arguments against compulsory vaccinations and prior arguments against the draft were based on the 14th amendment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You mean the activity where we require seat belts, cars with brakes, training, and insurance?
We specifically prohibit people who are too great of a risk from operating a motor vehicle. I think we accept way too many deaths on the roads and should do more, but we definitely restrict 'freedom' right now with cars.
In this story we're talking about a virus that has killed at least TWENTY TIMES as many people as traffic deaths in the US this year. The tradeoffs are very obvious, getting vaccinated is really a
Re: (Score:2)
You can apply that same argument to driving too
And we have an enormous number of regulations on driving to prevent that. You don't get to drive on the wrong side of the road because you feel like it. You don't get to drink and drive. You don't get to drive at any speed you feel like. And so on.
Re: (Score:3)
If you wreck into me I can sue you. If you want those rules to apply to covid then I’m all for it. You infect someone by not wearing a mask? You’re criminally liable then.
What about Bleach? They forgot to add bleach! (Score:4, Funny)
Combine it with bleach you ninnies! Bleach kills the virus!!@!!@!one!12!! And don't forget, Zinc too .. Zinc opens up your cell's pores to let ivermectin, azithromycin, hydroxychloroquine, bleach, and whatever else into your cells. I learned on Fox News University Med School, from a Donald Trump endorsed MD, PhD, GED that eating Zinc is like your cells just elected AOC to open up the borders to allow the bleach and ivermectin to come in and dissolve the virus.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't forget to shine UVB light up your ass!
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget to shine UVB light up your ass!
That's from the same people who've spent several years blowing smoke up it.
Re: (Score:3)
> Zinc or vitamin D deficiencies are not rare, and may contribute to poor immune function. Therefore, even without specific evidence linking supplement use with improvement among people with COVID-19, these supplements may be appropriate for people in whom deficiency is suspected or confirmed.
https://www.health.harvard.edu... [harvard.edu]
Let's not forget the effectiveness of Forsythia (Score:2)
Contagion from 2011 seems to have been pretty accurate in a lot of what it predicted.
Re: (Score:2)
Generally speaking yes; those writers really "did their research". Except who could have foreseen people (well, USians anyway) fighting to the death not to receive the lifesaving, pandemic ending vaccine?!?
Not surprising (Score:5, Interesting)
My wife knows someone whose just-turned 9 year-old grandson has been fighting a losing battle with cancer and at this point has just days or weeks to go (they’re at one of the best pediatric oncology centers in the US, so they’ve been getting great care, but the kid has an extremely aggressive form of cancer). A few months back a family member of ours asked for an update on the kid after my wife had mentioned the situation, so my wife forwarded a link to the blog the kid’s parents have been maintaining.
Apparently our family member then shared the blog link in her circle of friends, so a few days later we were forwarded an email from a busybody antivaxer “friend” of hers who “couldn’t believe” that the parents hadn’t tried $ludicrous_diet that would have fixed the kid’s cancer (the fact that there’s no scientific basis for that claim didn’t put this “friend” off, of course) and was “so sad to see them letting their child die” when there are so many essential oils that could help. To say the least, we did not share that information with the family of the kid.
A few weeks later when the blog mentioned another child from the pediatric oncology ward who had a family member with COVID, this “friend” forwarded another email to us via our family member, suggesting we should pass along info about Ivermectin and how effective it’s been proven to be. Somehow we dropped the ball and forgot to pass that info along too. Oops.
So yeah...this news of its ineffectiveness doesn’t exactly come as a surprise to me.
That won't have any effect either (Score:3, Insightful)
Since when did facts affect the anti-vax crowd?
What I don't understand is (Score:3)
I suppose it's because none of them are miracle cures, and at the end of the day if you get sick enough to be seeking those treatments you're still gonna be on oxygen for a month and have long term damage (if you're lucky) and a ventilator if you're not...
Still, they could talk about the real, actual treatments. Another guess, maybe if people google the real treatments they'll find how marginal they are...
They're doing it wrong (Score:2)
People who are taking this need to double the dose. Remember, this is for horses so it's a small dose. For people, you need to double it.
If that fails, there are a multitude of other treatments being suppressed by Big Pharma one could try. However, whatever you do, do not under any circumstance take anything which is known to inhibit or prevent the catching of covid such as the four different vaccines on the market. You would be crazy to do something like that.
Well there's a shock (Score:2)
Not that antivaxxers will change their minds because a study says different. These idiots still assert vaccines cause autism and invoke all kinds of shadowy big pharma conspiracy to handw
As a side note (Score:2)
With the number of daily covid deaths in this country now twice what they were just a week and a half ago, we need to keep things in perspective [imgur.com].
At least we can say one thing about Florida and its soaring covid deaths. It's not requiring a military medical ship [nola.com] be parked offshore because there are no more beds in hospitals to treat the sick and dying.
Re: (Score:2)
Just Talk to your Doctor (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Talk to your DOCTOR about these questions? Are you crazy? My doctor hasn’t made even one YouTube video! Why should I trust his medical advice?
All you have to do is introduce DOUBT (Score:2)
Trolls, in this case, who are trying to wreck our civilization, trying to wreck our entire species.
Don't believe me? Try this little experiment:
Are you at least six feet tall? Try proving that on the internet.
"Oh, LOL, no, you're lying, you're a MANLET, you're probably about five foot seven"
Then you post a pic next to a tape measure. See? I'm 6'4" tall!
"LOL you're standing on a box or something, manlet!"
Post a full
Re: (Score:2)
Can't help those that don't want to be. Something, something, free will, and all that.
Research on what can be done for those infected. [youtu.be]
Re:Help out (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Is it really so much to ask that when an article says "a new paper was released" that they name the paper and the authors? I also wanted to read it and can't find it.
Re: Help out (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not interested in a handful of power point slides (what you call "data" for some reason) presented over a short 30 minute power point presentation with little details, mainly there to do the other thirty minutes of advertisement for their novel testing platform and their sponsors. That's the infotainment package.
I want the actual study - methodology, actual execution, specific numbers, outcomes.
What's stopping you sailor? I go to all manner of sites to do research. I suppose I have a little more access than many, but you can still find real stuff if you really want to. It'll take a bit of work on your part - so beware it is more difficult than denial.
Re: (Score:3)
The fact that it doesn't seem to be linked anywhere, as I note in my previous post. All you have is links to the stories about a specific story on a specific site. And that site has:
I think your attributions might be a bit off here. I didn't give you any links - just noted that papers can be found.
But I might be able to help - you may or may not have seen these links: Note - it's possible I might have sent another link of the same study for one of these.
But reading through these - with most studies finding no statistical difference, and one badly done study with a suspiciously high effectiveness rate that might not even have been done, since it was retracted, we are kind of left
Re: (Score:2)
If you're reading about it, was it not published?
Re: (Score:2)
If you're reading about it, was it not published?
Tucker Carlson told them about it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
People aren't cheering the failure of a possible treatment, they're cheering snake oil salesmen being exposed as the liars[1] they are.
A drug that shows activity against the virus in a petri dish cell culture is not the slam dunk they represented it to be. The vast majority of drugs that clear that hurdle will fail. Many drugs that clear that hurdle will generate hopeful sounding results in early, low-quality clinical trials. That's good news of a sort, but still not out of the ordinary; most drugs that
Re: (Score:2)
Looking at the comments it is apparent confirmation bias and group think is still a problem here. It's clear people saw headlines in the news article and ran with them without looking into the science.
What study?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, well this place sucks for medicine.
The Together study didn't follow the established protocol and dosed late and inadequately. But that doesn't matter for confirmation bias.
The other 63 studies to date are metaanalyzed in realtime at ivmmeta.com .
For people who are still curious. Avoid it if your mind is made up.
PS your last claim there is about no adverse effects in an *in vitro* study. Think about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Looking at the comments it is apparent confirmation bias
Something we've all been guilty of at times but, yeah, you're partly right here.
Drug studies don't prove or disprove a drugs usefulness in all cases, only the very limited scenario they tested.
Go to nih dot gov website and use drug number 33278625 for Ivermectin. "Ivermectin, a US Food and Drug Administration-approved anti-parasitic agent, was found to inhibit severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) replication in vitro." and "There were no severe adverse drug events recorded in the study."
Speaking of confirmation bias I've bolded the part of your, presumed, proof of efficacy which renders it meaningless when it comes to its effect in vivo, i.e. when taken by a real live person. While in vitro studies can be useful in winnowing down a list of possible drug candidates to those that might show a beneficial effect they cannot be taken as proof the drug is either safe or effective for use in living creatures.