“these people” are just contrarians. Whatever everyone else is doing they will do the opposite. If Ivermectin became mainstream treatment, they would just drop it and find some new fringe treatment by fringe scientists. Whatever you ask them to do, masks, vaccines or whatever, they won’t. They will give you are reason for it, but mainly they are just contrarians
His last podcast about covid…I felt was just him trying to undercut vaccination . But at least he listened to the doctor and didn’t interrupt her much .
Going on about the four comorbidities over and over (now I know where that sound bite is coming from ).
You see his video from Instagram he looked like shit I think he should have taken the vaccine.
Let’s not assume where people get or don’t get information and stick to Invermectin here more or less, thanks.
An investigative journalist? How can I discredit everything this person has done in order to not have to face the fact I smugly dismissed IVM based on click-baity headlines?
It’s all click-bait, whether for or against whatever. Anything divisive can generate revenue, so revenue-oriented media seem to create divisiveness out of anything and everything. It’s like one of my other favorite Star Trek episodes, Day of the Dove, where an entity gains strength by fueling conflict.
Anyway, here is another article following up on the original interview.
That’s not true. Medical research is not click-bait. It’s only click-bait if you’re too self important to dig for answers and base your wisdom off “likes” that a social media post gets.
I was referring to revenue-oriented media, especially the stuff that gets pushed through social media platforms.
A new video by Potholer54 on the (lack of) effectiveness of HCQ and ivermectin, looking at the actual studies and scientific evidence rather than the say-so of politicians and talk show pundits.
Nothing wrong with the video as far as it goes, but you could level similar charges against those who claim that the only way out of all this is to vaccinate everybody over and over again: the evidence simply doesn’t stack up, and that’s in a scenario where a great deal of evidence actually exists.
The elephant in the room is this: why has it taken 18 months for anyone to even pick up the ball and do a “proper” study of Ivermectin, while in the meantime there has been such a concerted (and presumably expensive) campaign to discredit its efficacy that doctors are afraid to even mention the word for fear of being labelled a crank? In that environment, who is going to stick their neck out and propose testing it to see what it does?
Edited: I would not attribute this to some plot against ivermectin–what would be the motivation? Rather, it’s respect for usual.processes followed in drug development and expansion of indications. It takes time and money to identify and explore even repurposed drugs. Clinical trials cost a firtune. And some clinical trials have been been initiated in the US to look at ivermectin, with many more globally. CTG Labs - NCBI
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?cond=covid-19&term=ivermectin&cntry=&state=&city=&dist=
It stacks up.
Oh, not that one again. “There isn’t a conspiracy, therefore the bad thing didn’t happen”.
There was a concerted effort to silence any serious conversation about ivermectin. You might argue about the possible motives - an extremely obvious one, as many pundits have mentioned, is that vaccine EUAs were predicated upon no other viable treatments being available. But simply denying that the Ivermectin lockdown even happened isn’t realistic. Doctors were explicitly forbidden to use it for COVID treatment, which is … odd, at the very least. Even talking about it would get you funny looks. The word was outlawed from YouTube. The inevitable outcome is that research on it was done only by mavericks. And a lot of that research was dismissed as ‘unreliable’ because the researchers weren’t Americans working in American universities. Why not just come out and say it? Foreigners can’t be real scientists.
Lest we’ve forgotten, we’re supposedly in the middle of deadly pandemic. And only now (is it a coincidence that vaccines are getting FDA approvals?) we’ve got the equivalent of a stretch and a yawn from “reputable” US research institutions? “Oh, go on then. Might as well throw a bit of spare change in the pot and see if there’s any validity in this Ivermectin nonsense”.
The problem they face now is this: they have to find a null result. If they find a clinically-important effect, then the people who enforced the shutdown of scientific debate could face charges of professional misconduct, or worse. And that’s why you never shut down scientific debate: it poisons the well for a long time to come.
Not really, it would take a long time to get an additional approved indication for an existing approved drug.
Depends on the country. Dunno about the US, but in many countries doctors can prescribe any drug for anything they like, as long as they have some clinical justification.
Even in the US, why would it take longer to get an EUA for a very old drug with a known safety profile than it would for a completely novel vaccine? That makes no sense at all. Ivermectin was simply dismissed out-of-hand. There are some interviews with Pierre Kory in which he describes conversations with regulators about Ivermectin back in the early days of 2020, and they didn’t even want to contemplate the possibility. There was quite clearly a deliberate policy of not repurposing existing drugs.
Yes, doctors in the US generally have that flexibility as well. I don’t think t would take as long as a new drug, but it would also not happen overnight and would take motivation. There is at least one large clinical trial of repurposed drugs in the US right now.
I just learned today that EUA - emergency use authorization validity for 6 months.
How about Faviparavir ? this is also antiviral med.
Media has long stopped reporting on the ‘hell on Earth’ that was India where they claimed along with the Covid Hezbollah that people would be dropping like flies everywhere until given shots: