Ivermectin Didn't Protect People from COVID-19, Finds Largest Trial Yet (marketwatch.com) 289
"Researchers testing repurposed drugs against Covid-19 found that ivermectin didn't reduce hospital admissions, in the largest trial yet of the effect of the antiparasitic on the disease driving the pandemic," reports the Wall Street Journal:
Public-health authorities and researchers have for months said the drug hasn't shown any benefit in treating the disease.... The latest trial, of nearly 1,400 Covid-19 patients at risk of severe disease, is the largest to show that those who received ivermectin as a treatment didn't fare better than those who received a placebo. "There was no indication that ivermectin is clinically useful," said Edward Mills, one of the study's lead researchers and a professor of health sciences at Canada's McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario.
"That finding is consistent with long-standing FDA claims that ivermectin showed no benefits in clinical testing and could be dangerous in large doses," reports the New York Daily News.
These new findings "have been accepted for publication in a major peer-reviewed medical journal," notes Seeking Alpha.
"That finding is consistent with long-standing FDA claims that ivermectin showed no benefits in clinical testing and could be dangerous in large doses," reports the New York Daily News.
These new findings "have been accepted for publication in a major peer-reviewed medical journal," notes Seeking Alpha.
Tucker and Rogan (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Tucker and Rogan (Score:4, Insightful)
Even if they have never said the exact sentence "Ivermectin cures Covid" they have absolutely perpetuated the idea that it has some amount of efficacy either curative or preventative and have absolutely time after time alluded to the idea that it's effectiveness was being suppressed by the CDC, or Big Pharma or the illuminati or some other shadowy conspiracy at foot.
It's not about them making the positive claim, its about them using it to push their anti-institutional narrative in order to further sow distrust in their audience. Rogan has hiw own reasons, I am not fully convinced he is malicious but Tucker absolutely uses it to create an information bubble where his viewers distrust all "mainstream" media and can push them into a conservative/conspiracy rabbit hole. It's just a different "mainstream" not a better or more truthful one.
Re: (Score:3)
The hilariously ironic thing being that Tucker spouts his vitriol on mainstream media.
Anyone who thinks Fox isn't "MSM" with their huge viewership and income due to it, is delusional.
Re: (Score:2)
There is nothing wrong with pushing anti-institutional themes when institutions are corrupt.
Pushing ignorance in the name of overcoming Big Brother is straight out of a novel, and I think you know which one. Ignorance is strength!
They just didn't use enough. (Score:2)
If they'd used as much ivermectin as worked in the petri dish it would have eliminated the COVID. (Of course, it would also have eliminated the taker.. ..)
Re: (Score:2)
I would advise them to inject disinfectant instead, but they may not be capable to do that. Drink disinfectant maybe?
"Oh no no NO it's all a LIBERAL CONSPIRACY!" /s (Score:4, Interesting)
You know, the same sorts of people who are convinced the Earth is flat, the Moon landings were faked, that the Earth is only 6000 years old, dinosaurs and cavemen co-existed, ghosts and spirits and magic are real, someone with different coloration than yours must not be a real human being, that the 2020 election was 'stolen', and that the January 6th attack on Congress was justified?
Let's face the facts, kids: The Human Species is still mostly atavistic cave-dwellers, we just have nicer caves and better toys. Inside our skulls we're still superstitious and driven by obsolete hardwired instincts that some are leveraging for their own purposes.
If we manage to survive as a species for another 1000 years that might change but as things currently stand the odds are not in our favor.
Re: (Score:2)
If we manage to survive as a species for another 1000 years that might change but as things currently stand the odds are not in our favor.
Great comment! I unfortunately have serious doubts humans survive another 100 years. Too many of them have an IQ lower than the average hamster. And they're PROUD of it.
Re: (Score:2)
I unfortunately have serious doubts humans survive another 100 years. Too many of them have an IQ lower than the average hamster. And they're PROUD of it.
Indeed. Dunning & Kruger are optimists. It really is "Incompetent and proud of it".
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, that nicely sums it up: A rather large part of the human race are idiots that understand nothing and it is not a question of education and information being available. Far too many people are just defective and do not have a working intellect.
The thing I am wondering these past few years is how I ended up getting reincarnated here. Object lesson in living in a stupid society? Horrible mistake? Simply drawn in by an instance of the human race that breeds like crazy against all reason and sanity? Only
Predictably Disappointing (Score:2)
Would this study even have happened if it weren't for all of the people who decided it was some kind of miracle cure? Is this bit of evidence going to convince any of them?
Perhaps this study was necessary and useful as an additional bit of evidence to help counter the conspiracy theorists, but all I can think of is the resources that could have instead been spent studying an intervention that might have helped people.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not going to bother digging into the details of the site.
Never do that... you might actually learn something.
I try not to waste my time.
The site is blatantly pro-Ivermectin and is presenting a summary of the evidence that makes it look like Ivermectin's adoption and proven effectiveness is inevitable.
Frankly, all I see is red flags, and if the evidence were a fraction as compelling as they implied the pushback from researchers wouldn't be nearly as strong.
I could dig into and figure out exactly where the distortions and misrepresentations are but I've done it dozens of times before and they're always present.
When was the last time the press ran a story front running a study that showed positive results from an Ivermectin study before it was ever even published? When was the last time the press ran any story about any positive study for Ivermectin not related to scandal (Elgazaar et el)? There have been several.
It's
What a waste... (Score:2)
Ivermectin scientific sources inside: (Score:2)
Not true. It does. (Score:2)
If it is dosed high enough it will kill the patient, thus preventing COVID with 100% effectiveness! If dosed lower, it will have no effect, true. The dosage were it becomes effective directly against COVID is way higher than the lethal dose though.
Whatever (Score:2)
Paper? (Score:2)
Does anyone have a link to the pre-print of the paper?
Which means ... (Score:2)
Ivermectin Didn't Protect People from COVID-19, Finds Largest Trial Yet
Proponents will double-down on their belief -- and take twice as much. :-)
Re: Well no shit. (Score:4, Insightful)
The "entertainment channels" that peddled this are just functional arms of the republican disinformation apparatus. It isn't really about money, it's about undermining institutional expertise, which is an important pillar of republican policy.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
They are not correct, or even if they are a little bit correct they are for the wrong reasons. The issues with pharma companies are not really in the efficacy of their products, we in fact have the FDA and other nations regulatory bodies for that. While there are examples of a few bad drugs making it past the guardrails for the most part if something meeting FDA approval it is generally safe in the correct usage and has to show itself more effective than placebo.
The issues most people have with them are o
Re: Well no shit. (Score:2)
The issues with pharma companies are not really in the efficacy of their products
How many "breakthrough" Covid cases have you heard about from people with both vaccine shots and a booster?
We're hearing about more 'booster shots' in the near future, and I'm seeing reports about millions of vaccine doses expiring on the shelf.
Those Vaccines are now being touted as a means to reduce the risk of hospitalization, lessen the severity of your (inevitable) infection...
Re: (Score:2)
We're hearing about more 'booster shots' in the near future, ...
So...kinda like people getting a Flu shot every year, except COVID appears to be mutating faster than that.
Re: Well no shit. (Score:5, Insightful)
And you need to maybe trust your institutions more and not think everything "government = bad" it's just as braindead a take, maybe even moreso.
Is immunosupproesants the new line now for covid exaggeration? I appreciate the ever shifting narrative. Even if that was the case that in and of itself proves immunosuppresants actually work as their goal is to lower immune reponse for a host of necessary reasons. The fact that many people take them for years or deaces safely also proves the FDA process usually works. You are more subsceptible ti any disease in that case, not just covid, whats your point here? I doubt you even know.
And even bringing up OxyContin makes my point even stronger. The issue is not if OxyContin is safe when taken properly (it is) it's the perverse incentive created by the for profit and otherwise lightly regulated medical system of America that created it. Ever wonder why other nations did not have nearly the same problem with opioid that america did? You are making a perfect case for why we need more regulation. Thank you!
Re: Well no shit. (Score:2)
Well naturally you'll walk the walk then. You'll abstain from pain medications, anti bacterials, meds of any kind (blood pressure, diabetes, etc.), laxatives, antacids, cleaners of any kind except rendered fat, deodorants... well, you get the point.
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention shunning Viagra. If God meant for him to be impotent...
Re: Well no shit. (Score:4, Funny)
And the gold for mental gymnastics goes to ...
Re: Well no shit. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Hahaha. Literally nothing you said there reflect reality? I mean most major corporations donate to Leftist? That's the most absurd thing I've heard in ages. The American Right is the ideology of deregulation, why would most major corporations favor the Left who tells them things like "don't pollute" thus making it more expensive to do business
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Authoritarianism is whatever politics I don't like"
Re: Well no shit. (Score:2)
Re: Well no shit. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
7 for whooping cough.
Re: Well no shit. (Score:2)
Ivermectin worked but not in the way you are think (Score:2)
I believe a lot more people wore masks is public and more diligently because it signaled to the world you were not an intestinal lining shitting Republican. And that extra mask diligence help by allowing people to avoid the toxic republicans without masks. So ivermectin helped enormously .
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oxycodone is a useful medicine; it was intended as an alternative to morphine, which is also a useful drug for things like cancer pain.
The Oxycontin problem came from Perdue promoting its use for things that could be treated with Ibuprofen. The original label warned of its dependency potential, but Perdue aggressively misrepresented it has having *low* addiction risk.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You put too much faith in your pillars of big Pharma
No, you put too much faith in ideology driven "news".
Go ahead and keep your delusion feed going though. The rest of us will base our opinions on scientific studies and general consensus from the medical community (as in, not big pharma)
Re: (Score:2)
> Of course you will never see a study that correlates covid deaths with the use of immunosuppressants.
What do you mean. Lots of studies show that US immunosuppresed patients die of covid at higher rates.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Well no shit. (Score:2)
The US deaths are relatively high because you have too many toxic individualists who somehow find virtue in willful stupidity.
Re: Well no shit. (Score:2)
The number one comorbidity that worsens Covid is obesity, the best way to lower the US Covid death rate is to reduce obesity.
Re: (Score:2)
Dems and Reps one coin with two faces, which sort of identifies any person who makes politics a career.
One coin sure, in that they all respond to it. But two faces indeed, in that one giveth and the other taketh away. There's lots of stuff that money doesn't give a shit about and that stuff is where the difference lies between the parties. They all do what the money says, but where the money is quiet you will find that they are not the same at all.
Pretending they are different where they are not is idiotic. But pretending they are not different at all is willfully delusional.
Re:Well no shit. (Score:4, Insightful)
Covid-19 is not a parasite. Ivermectin is for parasites. So clearly it couldn't do anything regarding Covid-19, which is a virus.
That argument doesn't hold up. Not that I think it was useful, the studies all say it wasn't so I believe it wasn't. But there are plenty of cases of drugs designed for one purpose being useful for some other, apparently completely unrelated purpose. In some cases they are actually even better at whatever the other thing is than what they are meant for.
Re:Well no shit. (Score:5, Insightful)
Dink is correct on this one. Viagra. Was to be used as a heart medication, turns out one of its side effects was more profitable. I also believe I read a few weeks ago that Viagra was proving to have some kind of benefits on Parkinson's or Alzheimer.
So yes, there are plenty of drugs out there the are intended for one use but turn out to have different uses too. Ivermectin just isn't the case for this one.
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is that the overall goal of Viagra was to treat blood flow issues. Originally blood flow issues in the heart. Then it turns out, it helped with a lower area's blood flow issues. Now it seems it may even be beneficial to the brain in certain cases.
Ivermectin is meant to treat parasites like lice and livestock worms. It's not shocking to find a drug meant to treat blood flow issues actually helps with blood flow issues in places we didn't expect. It would be shocking to find that a medica
Re: (Score:2)
It would be shocking to find that a medication meant to treat blood flow issues suddenly also is an anti-biotic.
That is unusual, but not shocking. For example, aspirin was originally for headaches, and now we use it for heart disease. Hydroxychloroquine was originally used for malaria, but many people use it for Rheumatoid Arthritis. Prazosin was originally used for blood pressure, and many people use it for nightmares. The point is that in order to find a drug useful, it must be studied. If it works for a particular condition, it must have some burden of proof. This is regardless of previous indications, and t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is correct.
There are other drugs that were intended for one thing, but were found to be good for ot
Re: (Score:2)
Covid-19 is not a parasite. Ivermectin is for parasites. So clearly it couldn't do anything regarding Covid-19, which is a virus.
That argument doesn't hold up. Not that I think it was useful, the studies all say it wasn't so I believe it wasn't. But there are plenty of cases of drugs designed for one purpose being useful for some other, apparently completely unrelated purpose. In some cases they are actually even better at whatever the other thing is than what they are meant for.
Yes, it does because there is no relation between a parasite, a living creature, and a virus, a non-living entity. Your argument about finding uses for a drug not designed for that use is disengenuous since there is some tangential relation between the intended use and secondary use. Viagara for instance.
Initially, Viagara (or what we know it as) was intended for cardiovascular problems [qz.com], i.e. blood flow. However, a side effect was the dilation of blood vessels was happening in the penis, and not other blo
Re: (Score:2)
there is no relation between a parasite, a living creature, and a virus, a non-living entity.
And yet olive leaf extract is both anti-parasitic and anti-viral (and has been known at least since Pliny) and is also being tested for treating anemia [confex.com] (with some good evidence beforehand that it will have some positive effect). So the argument you're using now doesn't work, either. Also, it's a ridiculous argument right on its face, since viruses are made out of some of the same stuff in bacteria. Saying there's no relation between them is nonsense. They're very different, so there's no reason to assume th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They apparently learned how to hide. I was in a hurry to write another comment at that time, or I'd have found a better list. :)
Re: (Score:3)
there is no relation between a parasite, a living creature, and a virus, a non-living entity.
And yet olive leaf extract is both anti-parasitic and anti-viral (and has been known at least since Pliny) and is also being tested for treating anemia [confex.com] (with some good evidence beforehand that it will have some positive effect).
Olive leaf extract is not a single chemical like drugs are. According to this article [karger.com], it contains:
Comparing that to Ivermectin is like comparing an entire shelf in the pharmacy section with a single Tylenol.
So the argument you're using now doesn't work, either. Also, it's a ridiculous argument right on its face, since viruses are made out of some of the same stuff in bacteria. Saying there's no relation between them is nonsense. They're very different, so there's no reason to assume that something that affects one will affect the other, but they do literally have things in common.
Sure, at a chemical level, viruses are made out of some of the same materials as bacteria. Un
Re:Well no shit. (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesn't matter how much proof is there. We have plenty of proof the major Covid vaccines we use here in the US are safe and effective, yet simple facts like these are outright denied by those who have fallen for that particularly insidious internet-spawned hoax. They'll just claim it's more lies and cover-ups (for what reason, I can't fathom, but they'll invent one).
The nice thing about conspiracy theories is that any refuting evidence can be easily dismissed by incorporating it into the conspiracy. These things are a matter of faith, not of facts, and thus, no facts can dissuade those not inclined to really listen.
At what's hilarious is that these people are convinced that they're the smart ones for having "seen the truth" while the rest of us "sheeple" are blindly just swallowing the lies of the establishment. It's self-delusion on a truly epic scale.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Too Soon?
Re: (Score:2)
Or not fast enough?
They're sharpening their knives to take control of the nation after the next election. It's historically common and a pretty much foregone conclusion that the President's party loses seats in the mid-term.
Re:Well no shit. (Score:5, Informative)
Patent attorney can explain why. It's a 19 base long subsequence of a 3387 base long gene. Moderna didn't invent or patent the 19 base long subsequence.
Absolutely. Which is why genetic sequencing proves that this 19 base subsequence was already found in nature [healthfeedback.org] long before Moderna's patent and long before COVID.
DNS-and-BIND, meet a brick wall of reasonable doubt. Have a nice day.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Seems in some channels they are still flinging this shit at the wall to see if it sticks.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I think the original belief it did something was supposedly because it had been trialed in places where parasitic infections were common, so while it didn't do anything directly against COVID, it might have helped the immune system by attacking other things that were attacking the same body.
I've linked it elsewhere, but here's a pretty convincing breakdown of why so many studies show that Ivermectin is efficacious on exactly those grounds. https://astralcodexten.substac... [substack.com]
Re: (Score:2)
This was always just as dumb as hydroxychloroquine. I am just glad that now they probably won't waste any more money studying this, as grant funding is hard to come by, and shouldn't be wasted. Of course this won't change minds among the faithful, so ivermectin will still be expensive and hard to find. I use it on the fox and raccoons around here, to keep mange under control.
Re: (Score:2)
Neither of them was necessarily *a priori* dumb. What was dumb (or perhaps more accurately *wishful thinking*) was stubbornly believing after the evidence turned against them.
I think most people only have experienced science as it is presented in lower school textbooks; they have no idea how that scientific sausage gets made. The process is much slower and messier than they imagine. It seems reasonable to them that a scientist would be able to discover a miracle cure in a test tube and then run out and us
Re: (Score:3)
Ivermectin was seized upon *after* we discovered that dexamethasone works.
It just took a moronic doctor, Ron Johnson and Joe Rogan to make their unbelievably gullible followers believe what science had already largely disproven.
https://www.theguardian.com/wo... [theguardian.com]
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Ivermectin has been shown to be quite toxic to parasitic worms including Trumpers. It seems to be working as designed.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Well no shit[, Sherlock]. (Score:2)
Just missed being the joke "you are looking for"? Or maybe it should have been Watson, since he was the doctor.
Hmm... A funny comedian should have been able to work Doctor Who into it?
And someone should be billed for the cost of this research. And sued for the extra deaths caused by the wild goose chase. I think they are mostly the same people.
Re: (Score:2)
It did reduced the lethality of the covid in third world countries by doing it's actual job and killing parasites, so the people weren't being attacked by covid and the parasites at the same time.
But this created several papers etc where if you just read the title, it gives the impression the medicine is attacking the virus itself that was used and abused by politics.
Re: (Score:2)
Antiparasitic drugs are perennial candidates for anti-viral drugs because they often show antiviral activity *in vitro*. It makes perfect sense to test them for potential usefulness against a novel virus, as long as you don't expect too much from a drug just because it works in a monkey kidney cell culture.
People, including some doctors, just don't understand what a low bar a vero cell culture test is. If anti-viral effects in a vero cell culture were like getting your high school diplomat, a successful Ph
Re:Where is the paper? (Score:5, Informative)
This is again a warren of "we say so" articles but no actual paper with actual results for anyone but those-who-say-so to peruse.
So. Paper please. Link. C'mon, go git useful, editor.
“There was no indication that ivermectin is clinically useful,” said Edward Mills, one of the study’s lead researchers and a professor of health sciences at Canada’s McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario. Dr. Mills on Friday plans to present the findings, which have been accepted for publication in a major peer-reviewed medical journal, at a public forum sponsored by the National Institutes of Health.
A bit difficult to present a link to the study when the study hasn't been officially released. But here is more detail [seekingalpha.com] on how the trial was carried out. And since you won't bother to read the article, here are the important parts:
The latest trial conducted in Brazil involved 1,358 adults with COVID-19 symptoms. All study participants were at risk of developing the severe form of the disease with a history of pre-existing conditions such as diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, or lung disease. Half of them received Ivermectin pills for three days, and the other half received a placebo.
Dr. Mills and the team looked at their hospitalizations rates within 28 days. In addition, they gathered data on how fast the patients cleared the virus, how soon their symptoms improved, whether they were in hospital or were relying on ventilators for less time, and the differences in death rates.
For accuracy, they analyzed data in three different ways, and in each scenario, ivermectin was found to have no impact on the improvement of patient outcomes.
However, even when the final study results are released, experts such as yourself will find some way to whine about the findings so whatever else you have to say on the subject can be ignored. As we've all done from the beginning.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
This is the Brazilian study that was criticized for not controlling for Ivermectin use in the placebo group. Ivermectin is available as an over-the-counter drug in this area, and people regularly take it as an anti-parasitic.
Not controlling for this is such a major failure that the people responsible are either unbelievably incompetent, or someone had ulterior motives when setting up the study.
I you choose to believe this study, you must believe that all the laboratory results showing remark
Re: Fake News, does work (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"when used correctly"
I know, we're not holding it right!
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah when used correctly. Like if you take a bunch of horse pill strength dose and inject bleach at the same time, you are pretty much guaranteed to kill covid by removing the mechanism it needs to replicate. On the off chance that doesn't work, aspirating a strong UV source will finish the job.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a huge difference between an observational study and clinical research trial. Your example is not a larger trial because it's not a trial. It's slightly more controlled anecdata.
I don't know why so many people seem hell-bent on causing more deaths by denying people a possible treatment that has been shown to work
It certainly seems to work better in countries where parasitic infections are more common. Like Brazil! Fighting other things that are competing for immune system defense is a good strategy. But it doesn't mean what you think it does and actual clinical trials show that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Fake News, ivermectin does [NOT] work (Score:5, Informative)
Ha! That so-called "study" was actually created by a pro-Ivermectin advocacy group [factcheck.org]...
And needless to say, it turns out most of the people in the study didn't actually take the Ivermectin like the experimenters hoped. (So you can call it "150 thousand subjects" all you want -- but only 8,312 actually took the fourth and fifth dose...) But it gets even worse. An infectious disease reporter for The Guardian posted on Twitter that "There may have been a large proportion of people in the control group taking ivermectin, and a similar proportion in the intervention group NOT taking ivermectin [twitter.com]."
Look, I get it: it's really a rush to think you're right while everyone else is wrong, wrong, wrong! Everyone wants to march into the comments and shout "Shut up! I know more than you do! Everyone needs to bow down before my superior knowledge!" But you can't actually pull that off if your source are just YouTube videos and links that you saw other people sharing on the internets.
So in the end, we all need to give up that sense of superiority -- and do a better job of vetting the information we're spreading around online....
Re: (Score:2)
Look, I get it: it's really a rush to think you're right while everyone else is wrong, wrong, wrong!
That is the core problem: Semi-competents and incompetents that think they know and understand much more than experts. Of course it comes with tons of "evidence" that they are right. The actual experts will continue to state facts (while they refine their data) that contradict what these idiots believe after all.
Re: Fake News, does work (Score:2)
Ah Kendall, time a time and time again you out yourself as a person so stupid that they're incapable of thinking anything other than they're smart. It's kind of adorable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry but other studies have show Ivermectin does work
I can't believe I live in a world where the movie Idiocracy came true.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry but other studies have show Ivermectin does work (when used correctly)
Nope. There are no such studies. There is reason to believe that this singular one actually measured the effect of parasitic infection being treated, not fighting COVID. Ivermectin does that. In 1st World countries, basically nobody has a parasitic infection. In Brazil, that is likely different. Parasitic infections have all kinds of negative effects, including reducing the effectiveness of the human immune system. And that is why there is no study that shows any positive effect in the 1st World. Also, this
Re: (Score:2)
Really stupid fucking idiots seem to think a couple stories told by a friend of a friend of a guy that they met at a bar may point that way, but they don't... it's bullshit. And for causing deaths... if you give an idiot something that doesn't work, like this useless shit, not only is it not helping the problem, but it's also possibly causing more problems...
Think of it as a feature, not a bug. Darwinism working as intended.
Re:Neither did... (Score:5, Insightful)
Lockdowns or masks as proven by multiple studies.
You are correct. In fact, studies showing mask use didn't help [missouriindependent.com] in preventing the spread of covid infections had to be buried from the public eye. Even when studies were released they showed no effect [nny360.com] whatsoever in reducing the spread of covid. It didn't matter what country you were in, masks didn't do anything [theguardian.com] to prevent the spread of covid. No study found masks had any effect on transmission of covid [azdhs.gov].
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah! And let's not forget that the lockdowns were equally worthless [reuters.com]. And we would never have known it if not for the noble efforts of heroic news organizations like the New York Post [healthfeedback.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In practice, in the real world masks do nothing to stop the spread of covid.
The studies say that in practice, the masks made a significant difference in rates. in some places the rates were still overwhelming. without mask mandates, they would have been overwhelming in more places. where the health systems were overwhelmed, more people died.
When there's not a surge going on, the masks aren't saving as many lives, because the health systems are functioning (to the degree that they normally function, in any case.) But they are still reducing rates, and therefore reducing the risk of
Re: (Score:2)
Love to see the crowd that runs around in MAGA hats waving Trump flags and chanting "Let's Go Brandon" complaining about virtue signaling. It kinda get me, *sniff*, right here, *thumps breast*.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fauci is a public servant and is not in the medical industry since the 80s. HIV people are alive today because of his work. He could have made more $ out in the industry.
People care if somebody takes BS or in this case people are literally drinking urine ... because first off, it kills people. Secondly, it's wasting resources including rising costs for everybody subsidizing the stupidity. You might not care if people die of stupid; I for one do not, but when too many stupid die at once it creates a problem
Re: (Score:2)
From the Wikipedia bio:
"After completing his medical residency in 1968, Fauci joined the National Institutes of Health (NIH) as a clinical associate in the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases's (NIAID) Laboratory of Clinical Investigation (LCI).[16] He became head of the LCI's Clinical Physiology Section in 1974, and in 1980 was appointed chief of the NIAID's Laboratory of Immunoregulation. He became director of the NIAID in 1984, a position he still holds.[17] Fauci has been offered the p
Re: Neither did... (Score:2)
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.10... [pnas.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Lockdowns or masks as proven by multiple studies
Citation needed
Why do people care if someone takes ivermectin?
You may not care that a loved one is taking the wrong drug; other people in this world would rather not lose a loved on to false medical claims.
Re: People'd rather be wrong than admit theyre wro (Score:2)
Kookoo for cocao puffs