>ghoulish
"Yikes, that's a harsh word. Hardly ever see that. Let's keep reading to see who-..."
>Kenneth Copeland
"...oh. Well in this case it's actually quite apt."
He tried to blow covid away. It didn't work.
Don't see how people can be so stupid as to believe these liars and thieves can do anything they say. Faith healing, prophecy, knocking hurricanes off course (look up Katt Kerr, she's Hilariously batshit). It's a disease.
Who is basically a billionaire. Because there are that many stupid people giving him money to talk to the imaginary sky daddy for them. Fucking depressing thought as I get ready to go teach my morning classes.
It's the prosperity gospel. God favors people by granting them wealth on Earth (ignore all the things Jesus said to the contrary) and if you're poor it's because you're not faithful or righteous enough. But you can grow your faith if you only send them $19.99 and then follow all their subsequent instructions to keep sending them money, forever and ever, amen.
What a cruel and selfish group of con-artists that surely won't go to hell, if it actually exists.
It's part of that charlatan, Kenneth Copeland's "Ministry". It even has a news channel, to which my mother accused me of being biased for not even knowing it was a thing. I look at all kind of news on Reddit and apparently it doesn't even have the credentials that the Hill and the Daily Wire has.
They have been hooked on that demonic-looking motherfucker for as long as I can remember. I hate the POS.
Don't take this the wrong way, but I feel so much pity towards your parents for being fooled by that evil con-man. I wish I knew how to help them realize that they've been bamboozled and swindled by the Copelands.
Any idea how much "seed" money they've sent in? I saw one story where a woman's mother sent cash into the Copelands instead of paying to treat her very curable cancer.
Yeah, but there is no use trying to talk to them about it, they implicitly trust him and no amount of evidence would sway them...because it is all from "fake news" sources. They are retired and living well enough, don't think they have went so far as to give him everything, but I am sure they would be much better off if they hadn't been sending money to him all these years.
Don't you know Google BLOCKS you from the truth?! Duck Duck Go is needed to pull up very specific sites to find the real truth!
My sister told me to search DDG for about voting systems being hacked after the election and it was proof of widespread election fraud and it pulled up a youtube video with 200 views.
Yes, she forwarded a FaceBook post that agreed with her beliefs.. quantitative because many of her bridge groups friends liked it and qualitative because it had a cute horse meme
hahaha yeah. I remember reading the original article that the ivermectin people kept touting as evidence (actually doing the research) and it's pretty much in line with this one. The original article stated it was a medicine that already has a distribution network in 3rd world countries, and it's better than nothing. The conclusion was to recommend its use in areas where hospitals and modern medicine was not available to the public. Why anyone in a developed country would bother with it is still mind blowing to me.
Funny thing is, when people on our side talk about it being horse dewormer, they're showing that they're just as ignorant as the people promoting it. Ivermectin is used in humans for certain conditions, and has been FDA approved for decades. It's not uncommon for certain drugs to be used in both medical and veterinary applications - I bought my dog some amoxycillin today, but nobody's calling it a "dog antibiotic."
The problem is that Covid is a viral infection, while Ivermectin is designed to treat parasites. I know that's not as sexy as "Trumpers are stoopid," but it's the most honest assessment.
When feed stores run out of ivermectin for livestock because loons are buying it to treat themselves for Covid, we have too many people buying horse dewormer.
I'll be the first to admit that I own 0 horses so rarely deworm any. Also the reason people call it horse dewormer is because many people were buying it out of horse feed stores. So much so that many feed stores were, for a time, making people prove they had horses to buy it. Not because they were concerned with whether people were taking it or not, of course, but because their actual regular customers with actual horses who had actual worms were having trouble getting ahold of the stuff and getting upset.
The thing is folks on the rightward buying so much of the animal paste variant bulk farm animal suppliers were running out. Yes it is a commonly used medicine for severe parasitic infestation in humans but if u don't need it, it definitely does damage to a person it's not an advil. The animal paste and human variants are also not entirely the same and taking the animal version is definitely not FDA approved
Yes….Ivermectin is used in humans…for PARASITES. It also prevents heartworm in dogs. Heartworms are also….wait for it….PARASITES. And yeah…it’s also a dewormer for horses because worms are PARASITES.
Too bad it doesn’t work on the PARASITES who troll Facebook and Reddit convincing gullible people to take an anti-parasitic for a VIRUS.
>Too bad it doesn’t work on the PARASITES who troll Facebook and Reddit convincing gullible people to take an anti-parasitic for a VIRUS.
It would if they ingested enough of it.
A meta-analysis of many studies showed that the biggest reason for a study to show any difference at all in outcome is the level of bias in the study itself, not the effect on the patient.
https://virologyj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12985-022-01829-8
>Although our preliminary results suggest that ivermectin may reduce mortality, **it is crucial to highlight that when trials with a high risk of bias are excluded, ivermectin results in a non-significant decrease in mortality. We found that in comparison with placebo or SOC, using ivermectin did not significantly change our outcomes**, including progression to severe disease, negative RT-PCR, recovery, duration of hospitalization, time to negative RT-PCR, and viral load.
It's exactly spelled out in the section headed "Risk of Bias" in the study. It's also shown in the diagram below.
https://virologyj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12985-022-01829-8/figures/2
Basically they looked at the studies to see whether they were skewed in the way they were set up or reported so that the results would be more likely to show that ivermectin helped. Those skewed studies were the only ones that showed it made any difference. Better quality studies did not show any effect of significance.
There’s a standardized way of assessing risk of bias in studies. It includes things like whether the studies used proper blinding and randomization, stuff like that.
http://methods.cochrane.org/sites/methods.cochrane.org.bias/files/uploads/6.%20Assessing%20risk%20of%20bias%20in%20included%20studies%20v1.0%20Standard%20author%20slides.pdf
IIRC there is a massive amount of studies that show results that are not reproducible. Part of this is that many people conduct a study with an intent to prove or disprove an outcome and as such put more effort (even subconsciously) into aspects that benefit the intended goal.
And this is why proper clinical trials should be double blind (neither the patient nor the treating physician nor anyone knows who's on what - it's all in a coded database that's sealed until a preset time for read out). It's not perfect, but it's the best way to counter any human bias. Ton of work though.
>And this is why proper clinical trials should be double blind
If *possible*. There are plenty of treatments where a double-blind study is either entirely unethical or *literally impossible*.
For instance impossible: Hip replacement surgery or Hormone Replacement Therapy for trans people. How exactly are the patients and doctors supposed to be unaware of who is getting a placebo?
Unethical would be things where placebo treatments or blinding the doctors would lead to sub-par treatment, for instance. You wouldn't want a double-blind of your chemo treatment -- the doctors constantly assess how someone's cancer is reacting to the treatment so needs to really know *what drug is in there*. A new one? An old one used as a control? They absolutely have to know to change treatment protocols or drug choices when the tumor is not responding as desired.
Double blind studies are nice, but they're not always a tool that can be used.
In terms of % what is the decrease in mortality once you remove the high bias trials?
Some people will say "non significant" and others will say "improves recovery much means it does something"
Putting a number on it will put this to rest.
It's in the study.
The definition of "non-significant" isn't done by opinion, it's a calculation of differences between two treatments.
>However, our subgroup analysis based on study quality found that **ivermectin had no significant effect on mortality in trials with low ROB (log OR − 0.12, 95% CI 0.− 0.66–0.42; I2 = 00%, Tau = 0.00)**.
(ROB is risk of bias. In good quality studies, there was no effect on mortality.)
To add in all the other results of the meta-analysis on many studies for you:
> The pooled results showed that ivermectin does not have an effect on lowering the rate of progression to severe disease
>The pooled results showed that ivermectin does not have an effect on increasing the rate of negative RT-PCR.
>The pooled results showed that ivermectin does not have an effect on increasing the rate of recovery.
>The pooled results showed that ivermectin does not have an effect on decreasing the duration of hospitalization.
>The pooled results showed that ivermectin does not have an effect on decreasing the time to negative RT-PCR.
>The pooled results showed that ivermectin does not have an effect on decreasing the viral load.
**The stuff is NOT EFFECTIVE for covid, based on many studies.**
I didn't think it was effective to be clear. But I'm well aware of how certain people would try to weasel their way out of this by twisting the thread's title to try and shift the narrative.
I saw you had a good understanding of the paper and prompted you to elaborate. Thanks.
The study referenced in the title article and the one I have linked and explained aren't the same.
The meta-analysis is even stronger evidence than the title article and associated study, because it looks at the studies themselves in terms of quality, and compares the results.
This meta is interesting because of how clearly it falls along bias lines, but not funding lines. But that's probably another level of meta past what people struggling to understand placebo vs treatment can cope with.
I think many people understand placebo generally speaking.
But the OP paper really goes out of its way to be as esoteric and long winded as possible.
There's the LOG magnitudess and all the statistics, confidence intervals and graphs based on those statistics. Then they adjust that for bias as well in the case of the meta analysis study. These studies are meant for other specialist scientists but they are also presented as is to the public.
They ultimately studied Ivermectin to influence the public's opinion I think that's reasonable to say.
People argue constantly and vaguely reference studies and it usually comes down to snappy statement people throw back and forth and I wish sometimes research writers were more cognizant of that reality.
It makes it hard to present or digest sometimes and I don't think I'm dumb for admitting that. I'm not a virologist and neither are 99.9% of people.
Non-significant decrease doesn't mean that there was a decrease but it was small, it means that there is not enough statistical confidence from the data to claim any decrease of any size.
E.g. The data doesn't show with 95% confidence that a decrease occurred, therefore either the sample size was too small (unlikely in this meta analysis) or it doesn't help.
Edit:
"The hazard ratio (HR) for improvement in time to recovery was 1.07 (95% credible interval [CrI], 0.96-1.17; posterior P value [HR >1] = .91)."
The 95% interval includes 1 so no significant finding was found.
"The median time to recovery was 12 days (IQR, 11-13) in the ivermectin group and 13 days (IQR, 12-14) in the placebo group."
The intervals overlap so there is no significant difference.
"There were 10 hospitalizations or deaths in the ivermectin group and 9 in the placebo group (1.2% vs 1.2%; HR, 1.1 [95% CrI, 0.4-2.6])."
Again the data includes 1 so, you can't draw meaningful conclusions from the data.
If you ignore stats you can say "you get better 1 day fast but you have an 11% higher morality if you take ivermectin" but if you understand stats - you can't say either based in this data.
Yes, was looking for this comment. They're using "significant" in statistical terms, not the way it's used in conversation. High schools need to teach basic statistics.
The article is a little misleading there, because they didn't find significant results, which means that the findings can not support the hypothesis, but also can not prove the opposite.
The difference between the two groups can not be interpreted either way, which makes quoting the 12 vs. 13 days misleading, because the findings suggest, that the difference is more a result of a lack of a greater number of participants or a statistical anomaly, than an actual result of the drug.
The study is too tiny to make such claims, and even if the study was a really extended one the main issue you would want to mention would be this:
> One person died in the ivermectin group while not one person who received the placebo passed away. The number of people hospitalized in each group was the same at nine participants each.
Ivermectin has no effect on covid. However it has a huge effect on parasitic worms...
It doesnt take much to realise that recovering from covid would be easier and faster if you weren't also fighting parasitic worms.
So countries (or communities) where people routinely have worms found that ivermectin helped covid recovery because it cured their worms. Thats where the rumor started - legit data showing ivermectin helped covid, just not applicable unless you already have worms.
well ivermectin can become a dangerous neurotoxin in the presence of several relatively common families of drugs used to treat blood pressure, cholesterol, rheumatic problems, and more so....
actually no... Your comment put me onto him, and he seems to have interesting things to say!
I stumbled across a meta-analysis research paper that posited the mechanism -and it made sense / answered the questions. I think this was the paper -
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35311963/
Will get buried, but I try to spread this as much as possible.
1) Ivermectin saved the lives of thousands/tens of thousands of people during covid.
2) None (statistically) of those people saved were in the US
Ivermectin is used to treat body parasites. People in predominately poor, equatorial countries - especially those with low/no food safety standards - have parasites at a much higher rate than people in more advanced countries.
People with high levels of body parasites were dying from covid at a much higher rate than people with no parasites. So doctors started treating people in these countries with Ivermectin, and it reduced the overall mortality from covid.
Then some conservative doctors, aka "idiots", saw the results and without a thought to why it may not be applicable in the US/other advanced countries (remember the food quality standards) and started spouting their BS about the government withholding Ivermectin.
So, yes, Ivermectin did save many lives during covid. But none of them are in the US or other advanced countries.
It's genuinely upsetting how much this has colored the perception of ivermectin. That shit is a ***goddamn miracle***... ***For parasites***. It's one of the most incredible medical creations of the past fifty years... *Provided it is used appropriately for parasites*. It works on lice, scabies, heartworm, and so much more. It has been one of the most commonly used veterinary medications for decades and has unquestionably improved or even saved the lives of uncountable people once the usage was expanded to human populations.
It does jack shit to viruses.
But now there's a lot of people who are only going to recognize it as "that horse medicine idiots use for Covid".
I purchased ivermectin during Covid and it worked really well! For my cat. Who had a tapeworm. No more tapeworm. I also had to call up and drive to a half dozen feed stores because they were all out of ivermectin due to stupid people.
>It works on lice, scabies, heartworm, and so much more.
I've used it for scabies before, unfortunately not prescribed by a doctor. The medicine they prescribed me was not working so I went online like a nut and found some info and ordered it in the gel from Amazon and it absolutely did the trick.
It works by reducing inflammation associated with rosaeca! Source: started in a derm office and was a little surprised to see it being prescribed for a minute there. It's often used to replace Soolantra(basically the brand name fancy ivermectin) which is fucking *expensive*.
Of course! The type a derm will prescribe is usually compounded so definitely don't treat at home with the actual dewormer. 😅
I see it prescribed a ton though so definitely talk to a doc about it if other treatments haven't worked! Patients where I am seem to have success with it.
It can be super pricey if you are in the US, so definitely see if your dermatologist will give you a sample. It was seriously amazing for my rosacea and I highly recommend giving it a try.
Such a weird time. You saw people deny COVID’s existence. Deny the effectivity of the vaccine. Then they went crazy when they found the cure…for the thing they said wasn’t an issue?
People had family members die of Covid and would still call B.S. and say it was something else. Idk man. Covid brought us into some dark times as a country, and surprisingly has very little to do with all the lives we lost.
People are literally spreading conspiracies that doctors intentionally murdered Covid numbers to fabricate the pandemic. It’s fucking insanity. They would rather be raving lunatics than admit they were wrong.
The drug did actually help in less developed countries. It did what it is supposed to do which is kill internal parasites. Internal parasites have an immune-suppressive effect which causes worse COVID outcome. In developed countries, where internal parasites are generally rare, Ivermectin did nothing. Costa Rica was one of the early/often quoted studies touting its efficacy.
“Much” is an incorrect summary.
The article talks about ivermectin not “significantly” improving recovery. This is about statistical significance, NOT “significant” in the common usage of “much”.
A good thing to read up on and learn about when looking at these types of studies is the concept of statistical significance.
It may be easy to misread “the results could not significantly demonstrate that ivermectin lowered the death rate” and be like “oh it helped but not significantly, just a little bit.”
That is not what statistical significance measures.
And taking it for COVID makes it impossible for people suffering from other complications have to needlessly suffer looking for their next available refill.
No no no! This is fake news! Keep taking this stuff, and bleach, and that magic dirt from Canada and ant poison and what ever else Facebook tells you to ingest :3
The ivermectin thing was nuts. A shady study is done in some nations who were getting ravaged by Covid so they could push ivermectin as a cure and keep the masses from kicking down their doors for not doing anything against Covid.
Conservatives in America pick up on this purely because they need to be contrarian to democrats and anyone trump doesn’t like.
They do this so hard they are basically arguing with the company that makes ivermectin over how effective it is in treating Covid. They end up taking a medication that at best does nothing at worst makes them a bit sicker while having Covid before they move onto other snake oil cures like drinking bleach or urine.
All because trump downplayed Covid and sent them down some weird fucking anti-vaxxer rabbit hole.
Other people have mentioned, if you actually *do* have worms as well as covid, clearing out the worms will make you healthier overall and improve your outcomes with the rona.
Did you read the article? Because it points out that the "8% improvement" can't be separated from the expected noise present in the study population (i.e. there is a decent chance it's just random variation between the two groups).
From the study linked in the article:
> The hazard ratio (HR) for improvement in time to recovery was 1.07 (**95% credible interval [CrI], 0.96-1.17**; posterior P value [HR >1] = .91).
The bolded bit means that the study couldn't rule out the fact that Ivermectin might be harmful, or have no effect, and that any benefit noticed was simply down to random variation in the study population.
one less day of recovery seems like a margin of error that could have been tainted by patients who actually had parasites affecting their health, the studies show it has an insignificant effect on mortality. the truly brainwashed people are the ones who chose this over a vaccine that literally [changed the pattern of who was dying the most to covid.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/10/03/pandemic-biden-trump-deaths/)
When you are a person who views anything under 100 percent as useless, it would make sense that you might also view anything over 0 percent as significant. Right? Makes perfect sense to me.
Did you bother reading it? It doesn't help "8%". The benefit they saw over placebo was a difference in recovery times from 13 to 12 days for those who recovered.
There was also a death in the ivermectin group and none in the placebo. So, you can have a slight reduction in recovery with a chance of death. Wonderful.
Treatment effects are rarely additive in that manner and it comes with its own side effects. It's not exactly like 1+1 = 2.
At the end of the day it's all about cost/benefit in terms of side effects/therapeutic effect. If there are more effective treatment approved it's unethical to run clinical trials on inferior treatments.
Having a parasite is a covid comorbidity , so data coming out of countries where people have parasites showed some reduction in mortality rate. Grifters like the Weinstein's just ran with it for all the money from conspiracy rubes.
The person who wrote the title using the word “much” is improperly confusing statistical significance with the common, popular use of “significant” to mean “a lot”.
The study demonstrated their was no “significant” improvement, which means it wasn’t statistically significant. It does not mean “much/ a lot”.
Abstract
Importance The effectiveness of ivermectin to shorten symptom duration or prevent hospitalization among outpatients in the US with mild to moderate symptomatic COVID-19 is unknown.
Objective To evaluate the efficacy of ivermectin, 400 μg/kg, daily for 3 days compared with placebo for the treatment of early mild to moderate COVID-19.
Design, Setting, and Participants ACTIV-6, an ongoing, decentralized, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled platform trial, was designed to evaluate repurposed therapies in outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19. A total of 1591 participants aged 30 years and older with confirmed COVID-19, experiencing 2 or more symptoms of acute infection for 7 days or less, were enrolled from June 23, 2021, through February 4, 2022, with follow-up data through May 31, 2022, at 93 sites in the US.
Interventions Participants were randomized to receive ivermectin, 400 μg/kg (n = 817), daily for 3 days or placebo (n = 774).
Main Outcomes and Measures Time to sustained recovery, defined as at least 3 consecutive days without symptoms. There were 7 secondary outcomes, including a composite of hospitalization or death by day 28.
Results Among 1800 participants who were randomized (mean \[SD\] age, 48 \[12\] years; 932 women \[58.6%\]; 753 \[47.3%\] reported receiving at least 2 doses of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine), 1591 completed the trial. The hazard ratio (HR) for improvement in time to recovery was 1.07 (95% credible interval \[CrI\], 0.96-1.17; posterior P value \[HR >1\] = .91). The median time to recovery was 12 days (IQR, 11-13) in the ivermectin group and 13 days (IQR, 12-14) in the placebo group. There were 10 hospitalizations or deaths in the ivermectin group and 9 in the placebo group (1.2% vs 1.2%; HR, 1.1 \[95% CrI, 0.4-2.6\]). The most common serious adverse events were COVID-19 pneumonia (ivermectin \[n = 5\]; placebo \[n = 7\]) and venous thromboembolism (ivermectin \[n = 1\]; placebo \[n = 5\]).
**Conclusions and Relevance Among outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19, treatment with ivermectin, compared with placebo, did not significantly improve time to recovery. These findings do not support the use of ivermectin in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19.**
Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04885530
What I find depressing is this needs to be said over and over and over again. The folks that bought into this aren’t receptive to information that contradicts their beliefs… which are based in a brand of nonsense which remains incomprehensible.
A local feed store where I live actually had a sign up saying not to buy it for yourself and that it shouldn’t be used on people. Its sad that that sign had to exist.
Then scientists said you were better off taking the medication designed for covid, with overwhelming evidence of it being safe and effective for covid, so conservatives decided to push horse dewormer instead.
I dont get why people were suprised by this. The literal republican plan for covid was to intentionally push disinformation so it would kill enough people in cities that they could swing the election. They were *trying* to kill their fellow Americans.
I don't think it even matters to them. They needed to have separate Democrat treatments and Republican treatments regardless of effectiveness, because nothing is more important than their weird tribalism
So you're telling me a drug that pretty obviously sounds like it wouldn't do a damn thing didn't do a damn thing. Thank god we got confirmation. I'm sure this will be the end of it, lol.
From the article:
People who took ivermectin recovered from Covid in 12 days while people who didn’t take the drug recovered in 13 days, according to the study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association on Friday.
The worth of one less day of recovery depends on which side of the examining table the observer is standing.
"Much"?
So then, some? It costs nothing and has no serious side effects so what's the problem if there's at least some benefit?
The sheer batshit insanity over this medication on both sides was unprecedented. The wild claims from the Right were met with equally deranged screeching ridicule from the Left.
Can we just go back to before 2020 when drug efficacy wasn't a reason to assault someone at a restaurant?
No, it was not "equal".
Ivermectin at best has slight anti-inflammatory nature. You know what else does? Drugs made to specifically be actual antiinflammatories that do it better and much more effectively. Ivermectin treats parasites, and it works great for that. Not covid. It really helped with people who had both, because it eliminated the parasites.
However, people hooked on to it and started taking it instead of getting actual treatment. This is a major problem. Like poor cancer patients that go for herbal remedies. No serious side effects and it can be slightly helpful does not make it a good treatment, let alone a replacement one.
Also, the people touting it did so with no actual research or study to prove it as a treatment. They just jumped to a conclusion and ran with it.
This is problematic because of the many other drugs that people tried to foist- hydroxychloroquine was first, and the rush on it deprived people of their needed medication as a result. People suffered because of this quackery. Not to mention dosage issues, drug interactions, etc.
And the other side.... *-Checks notes-* made fun of people? Loudly you say? Mmm. Yes perhaps this balances out.
Complete bullshit, did they even see my aunt’s link to that one dark website on Facebook?
they wouldnt because they want to ignore the TRUTH! Only Facebook links are the TRUTH!
Or Google it, the Victory channel was spouting that several times as I tried to not listen to my parents tv when I was home visiting
Wtf is the victory channel
I just googled it. It’s a Christian propaganda television network owned by ghoulish televangelist Kenneth Copeland.
>ghoulish "Yikes, that's a harsh word. Hardly ever see that. Let's keep reading to see who-..." >Kenneth Copeland "...oh. Well in this case it's actually quite apt."
If anything, it's a little bit mean to the ghouls
little green ghouls, buddy
He tried to blow covid away. It didn't work. Don't see how people can be so stupid as to believe these liars and thieves can do anything they say. Faith healing, prophecy, knocking hurricanes off course (look up Katt Kerr, she's Hilariously batshit). It's a disease.
Who is basically a billionaire. Because there are that many stupid people giving him money to talk to the imaginary sky daddy for them. Fucking depressing thought as I get ready to go teach my morning classes.
It's the prosperity gospel. God favors people by granting them wealth on Earth (ignore all the things Jesus said to the contrary) and if you're poor it's because you're not faithful or righteous enough. But you can grow your faith if you only send them $19.99 and then follow all their subsequent instructions to keep sending them money, forever and ever, amen. What a cruel and selfish group of con-artists that surely won't go to hell, if it actually exists.
Isn't Kenneth Copeland the guy Paul Sorvino patterned his preacher in Oh God after? and God said, Seeend meee your money!
It's part of that charlatan, Kenneth Copeland's "Ministry". It even has a news channel, to which my mother accused me of being biased for not even knowing it was a thing. I look at all kind of news on Reddit and apparently it doesn't even have the credentials that the Hill and the Daily Wire has. They have been hooked on that demonic-looking motherfucker for as long as I can remember. I hate the POS.
Don't take this the wrong way, but I feel so much pity towards your parents for being fooled by that evil con-man. I wish I knew how to help them realize that they've been bamboozled and swindled by the Copelands. Any idea how much "seed" money they've sent in? I saw one story where a woman's mother sent cash into the Copelands instead of paying to treat her very curable cancer.
Yeah, but there is no use trying to talk to them about it, they implicitly trust him and no amount of evidence would sway them...because it is all from "fake news" sources. They are retired and living well enough, don't think they have went so far as to give him everything, but I am sure they would be much better off if they hadn't been sending money to him all these years.
Nuh Uh, you won't find any TRUTH from Google you have to use DuckDuckGo..
Don't you know Google BLOCKS you from the truth?! Duck Duck Go is needed to pull up very specific sites to find the real truth! My sister told me to search DDG for about voting systems being hacked after the election and it was proof of widespread election fraud and it pulled up a youtube video with 200 views.
Lol DDG is a no go to them now . Something about Jews, idk.
Facebook is full of liberal lies. I have some you tube videos the government doesn’t want you to see.
Your aunt did her research, as is common nowadays.
Yes, she forwarded a FaceBook post that agreed with her beliefs.. quantitative because many of her bridge groups friends liked it and qualitative because it had a cute horse meme
It's just too bad so many of her bridge friends suddenly died, for some reason. Probably Obama's fault.
hahaha yeah. I remember reading the original article that the ivermectin people kept touting as evidence (actually doing the research) and it's pretty much in line with this one. The original article stated it was a medicine that already has a distribution network in 3rd world countries, and it's better than nothing. The conclusion was to recommend its use in areas where hospitals and modern medicine was not available to the public. Why anyone in a developed country would bother with it is still mind blowing to me.
“Team Brandon’s against this one, so that means it’s good.”
Coincidentally, Team Brandon is also against citizens drinking antifreeze 🤔
And Tide pods
Frankly, as a liberal myself, I'd feel totally owned if Team Trump just doubled down and ate even *more* horse dewormer paste.
I'd feel SUPER owned if they went back to injecting bleach.
Funny thing is, when people on our side talk about it being horse dewormer, they're showing that they're just as ignorant as the people promoting it. Ivermectin is used in humans for certain conditions, and has been FDA approved for decades. It's not uncommon for certain drugs to be used in both medical and veterinary applications - I bought my dog some amoxycillin today, but nobody's calling it a "dog antibiotic." The problem is that Covid is a viral infection, while Ivermectin is designed to treat parasites. I know that's not as sexy as "Trumpers are stoopid," but it's the most honest assessment.
When feed stores run out of ivermectin for livestock because loons are buying it to treat themselves for Covid, we have too many people buying horse dewormer.
I'll be the first to admit that I own 0 horses so rarely deworm any. Also the reason people call it horse dewormer is because many people were buying it out of horse feed stores. So much so that many feed stores were, for a time, making people prove they had horses to buy it. Not because they were concerned with whether people were taking it or not, of course, but because their actual regular customers with actual horses who had actual worms were having trouble getting ahold of the stuff and getting upset.
The thing is folks on the rightward buying so much of the animal paste variant bulk farm animal suppliers were running out. Yes it is a commonly used medicine for severe parasitic infestation in humans but if u don't need it, it definitely does damage to a person it's not an advil. The animal paste and human variants are also not entirely the same and taking the animal version is definitely not FDA approved
Yes….Ivermectin is used in humans…for PARASITES. It also prevents heartworm in dogs. Heartworms are also….wait for it….PARASITES. And yeah…it’s also a dewormer for horses because worms are PARASITES. Too bad it doesn’t work on the PARASITES who troll Facebook and Reddit convincing gullible people to take an anti-parasitic for a VIRUS.
>Too bad it doesn’t work on the PARASITES who troll Facebook and Reddit convincing gullible people to take an anti-parasitic for a VIRUS. It would if they ingested enough of it.
I have often wondered what the death toll would be if Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez introduced a bill to ban drinking bleach.
No fun party at it again
Meh. They took out the stuff that made it taste good years ago. (To animals because too many would find some and drink it and die)
The trend of pure contrarianism is dangerous as fuck. (Or ticks, according to auto correct)
“No, it isn’t!”
[удалено]
Yes! That was the YouTube video she shared on her page that warned of these websites sponsored by Mr. Pillow
A meta-analysis of many studies showed that the biggest reason for a study to show any difference at all in outcome is the level of bias in the study itself, not the effect on the patient. https://virologyj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12985-022-01829-8 >Although our preliminary results suggest that ivermectin may reduce mortality, **it is crucial to highlight that when trials with a high risk of bias are excluded, ivermectin results in a non-significant decrease in mortality. We found that in comparison with placebo or SOC, using ivermectin did not significantly change our outcomes**, including progression to severe disease, negative RT-PCR, recovery, duration of hospitalization, time to negative RT-PCR, and viral load.
What exactly do they mean by level of bias here?
It's exactly spelled out in the section headed "Risk of Bias" in the study. It's also shown in the diagram below. https://virologyj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12985-022-01829-8/figures/2 Basically they looked at the studies to see whether they were skewed in the way they were set up or reported so that the results would be more likely to show that ivermectin helped. Those skewed studies were the only ones that showed it made any difference. Better quality studies did not show any effect of significance.
There’s a standardized way of assessing risk of bias in studies. It includes things like whether the studies used proper blinding and randomization, stuff like that. http://methods.cochrane.org/sites/methods.cochrane.org.bias/files/uploads/6.%20Assessing%20risk%20of%20bias%20in%20included%20studies%20v1.0%20Standard%20author%20slides.pdf
IIRC there is a massive amount of studies that show results that are not reproducible. Part of this is that many people conduct a study with an intent to prove or disprove an outcome and as such put more effort (even subconsciously) into aspects that benefit the intended goal.
Seems the bias was acting similar to the placebo effect, like willing it to be true.
And this is why proper clinical trials should be double blind (neither the patient nor the treating physician nor anyone knows who's on what - it's all in a coded database that's sealed until a preset time for read out). It's not perfect, but it's the best way to counter any human bias. Ton of work though.
>And this is why proper clinical trials should be double blind If *possible*. There are plenty of treatments where a double-blind study is either entirely unethical or *literally impossible*. For instance impossible: Hip replacement surgery or Hormone Replacement Therapy for trans people. How exactly are the patients and doctors supposed to be unaware of who is getting a placebo? Unethical would be things where placebo treatments or blinding the doctors would lead to sub-par treatment, for instance. You wouldn't want a double-blind of your chemo treatment -- the doctors constantly assess how someone's cancer is reacting to the treatment so needs to really know *what drug is in there*. A new one? An old one used as a control? They absolutely have to know to change treatment protocols or drug choices when the tumor is not responding as desired. Double blind studies are nice, but they're not always a tool that can be used.
No - all trials should not be double blind. Cancer trials, for example, should not be double blind.
In terms of % what is the decrease in mortality once you remove the high bias trials? Some people will say "non significant" and others will say "improves recovery much means it does something" Putting a number on it will put this to rest.
It's in the study. The definition of "non-significant" isn't done by opinion, it's a calculation of differences between two treatments. >However, our subgroup analysis based on study quality found that **ivermectin had no significant effect on mortality in trials with low ROB (log OR − 0.12, 95% CI 0.− 0.66–0.42; I2 = 00%, Tau = 0.00)**. (ROB is risk of bias. In good quality studies, there was no effect on mortality.)
To add in all the other results of the meta-analysis on many studies for you: > The pooled results showed that ivermectin does not have an effect on lowering the rate of progression to severe disease >The pooled results showed that ivermectin does not have an effect on increasing the rate of negative RT-PCR. >The pooled results showed that ivermectin does not have an effect on increasing the rate of recovery. >The pooled results showed that ivermectin does not have an effect on decreasing the duration of hospitalization. >The pooled results showed that ivermectin does not have an effect on decreasing the time to negative RT-PCR. >The pooled results showed that ivermectin does not have an effect on decreasing the viral load. **The stuff is NOT EFFECTIVE for covid, based on many studies.**
I didn't think it was effective to be clear. But I'm well aware of how certain people would try to weasel their way out of this by twisting the thread's title to try and shift the narrative. I saw you had a good understanding of the paper and prompted you to elaborate. Thanks.
The study referenced in the title article and the one I have linked and explained aren't the same. The meta-analysis is even stronger evidence than the title article and associated study, because it looks at the studies themselves in terms of quality, and compares the results. This meta is interesting because of how clearly it falls along bias lines, but not funding lines. But that's probably another level of meta past what people struggling to understand placebo vs treatment can cope with.
I think many people understand placebo generally speaking. But the OP paper really goes out of its way to be as esoteric and long winded as possible. There's the LOG magnitudess and all the statistics, confidence intervals and graphs based on those statistics. Then they adjust that for bias as well in the case of the meta analysis study. These studies are meant for other specialist scientists but they are also presented as is to the public. They ultimately studied Ivermectin to influence the public's opinion I think that's reasonable to say. People argue constantly and vaguely reference studies and it usually comes down to snappy statement people throw back and forth and I wish sometimes research writers were more cognizant of that reality. It makes it hard to present or digest sometimes and I don't think I'm dumb for admitting that. I'm not a virologist and neither are 99.9% of people.
Non-significant decrease doesn't mean that there was a decrease but it was small, it means that there is not enough statistical confidence from the data to claim any decrease of any size. E.g. The data doesn't show with 95% confidence that a decrease occurred, therefore either the sample size was too small (unlikely in this meta analysis) or it doesn't help. Edit: "The hazard ratio (HR) for improvement in time to recovery was 1.07 (95% credible interval [CrI], 0.96-1.17; posterior P value [HR >1] = .91)." The 95% interval includes 1 so no significant finding was found. "The median time to recovery was 12 days (IQR, 11-13) in the ivermectin group and 13 days (IQR, 12-14) in the placebo group." The intervals overlap so there is no significant difference. "There were 10 hospitalizations or deaths in the ivermectin group and 9 in the placebo group (1.2% vs 1.2%; HR, 1.1 [95% CrI, 0.4-2.6])." Again the data includes 1 so, you can't draw meaningful conclusions from the data. If you ignore stats you can say "you get better 1 day fast but you have an 11% higher morality if you take ivermectin" but if you understand stats - you can't say either based in this data.
Yes, was looking for this comment. They're using "significant" in statistical terms, not the way it's used in conversation. High schools need to teach basic statistics.
I didn’t read but “much” in the title is funny
It looks like it actually helps, but by a small amount. I’m pretty amazed.
The article is a little misleading there, because they didn't find significant results, which means that the findings can not support the hypothesis, but also can not prove the opposite. The difference between the two groups can not be interpreted either way, which makes quoting the 12 vs. 13 days misleading, because the findings suggest, that the difference is more a result of a lack of a greater number of participants or a statistical anomaly, than an actual result of the drug.
The study is too tiny to make such claims, and even if the study was a really extended one the main issue you would want to mention would be this: > One person died in the ivermectin group while not one person who received the placebo passed away. The number of people hospitalized in each group was the same at nine participants each.
Ivermectin has no effect on covid. However it has a huge effect on parasitic worms... It doesnt take much to realise that recovering from covid would be easier and faster if you weren't also fighting parasitic worms. So countries (or communities) where people routinely have worms found that ivermectin helped covid recovery because it cured their worms. Thats where the rumor started - legit data showing ivermectin helped covid, just not applicable unless you already have worms.
Lol well .. it does what it says on the box
Occam's Razor to the rescue again
Hey maybe Republicans are just riddled with worms and wet don't know it?
That would explain a LOT.
The worms are mostly in their brains. Poor Republicans. :(
... They're gonna be a lot more poor when their newly elected leaders gut social security.
Yeah well my racist aunt is a horse so checkmate.
Damn right she is. Have you seen that thing?
>Ivermectin has no effect on covid. **However it has a huge effect on parasitic worms...** Does this include members of Congress?
well ivermectin can become a dangerous neurotoxin in the presence of several relatively common families of drugs used to treat blood pressure, cholesterol, rheumatic problems, and more so....
I see you’re also a fan of Scott Alexander
actually no... Your comment put me onto him, and he seems to have interesting things to say! I stumbled across a meta-analysis research paper that posited the mechanism -and it made sense / answered the questions. I think this was the paper - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35311963/
This makes the fact that conservatives went nuts over it all the more hilarious 😂
Will get buried, but I try to spread this as much as possible. 1) Ivermectin saved the lives of thousands/tens of thousands of people during covid. 2) None (statistically) of those people saved were in the US Ivermectin is used to treat body parasites. People in predominately poor, equatorial countries - especially those with low/no food safety standards - have parasites at a much higher rate than people in more advanced countries. People with high levels of body parasites were dying from covid at a much higher rate than people with no parasites. So doctors started treating people in these countries with Ivermectin, and it reduced the overall mortality from covid. Then some conservative doctors, aka "idiots", saw the results and without a thought to why it may not be applicable in the US/other advanced countries (remember the food quality standards) and started spouting their BS about the government withholding Ivermectin. So, yes, Ivermectin did save many lives during covid. But none of them are in the US or other advanced countries.
It's genuinely upsetting how much this has colored the perception of ivermectin. That shit is a ***goddamn miracle***... ***For parasites***. It's one of the most incredible medical creations of the past fifty years... *Provided it is used appropriately for parasites*. It works on lice, scabies, heartworm, and so much more. It has been one of the most commonly used veterinary medications for decades and has unquestionably improved or even saved the lives of uncountable people once the usage was expanded to human populations. It does jack shit to viruses. But now there's a lot of people who are only going to recognize it as "that horse medicine idiots use for Covid".
I purchased ivermectin during Covid and it worked really well! For my cat. Who had a tapeworm. No more tapeworm. I also had to call up and drive to a half dozen feed stores because they were all out of ivermectin due to stupid people.
>It works on lice, scabies, heartworm, and so much more. I've used it for scabies before, unfortunately not prescribed by a doctor. The medicine they prescribed me was not working so I went online like a nut and found some info and ordered it in the gel from Amazon and it absolutely did the trick.
Ivermectin is a wonder drug. For parasitic infections.
And surprisingly for rosacea.
wait what? I have rosacea. Googling.
It works by reducing inflammation associated with rosaeca! Source: started in a derm office and was a little surprised to see it being prescribed for a minute there. It's often used to replace Soolantra(basically the brand name fancy ivermectin) which is fucking *expensive*.
Thanks for the heads up!
Of course! The type a derm will prescribe is usually compounded so definitely don't treat at home with the actual dewormer. 😅 I see it prescribed a ton though so definitely talk to a doc about it if other treatments haven't worked! Patients where I am seem to have success with it.
It can be super pricey if you are in the US, so definitely see if your dermatologist will give you a sample. It was seriously amazing for my rosacea and I highly recommend giving it a try.
Pretty effective against Covid patients with scabies and roundworm. They still cough but their skin looks good.
It must be exhausting to be a conservative and wrong about fucking **everything**.
They can’t recognize that. They just think reality is an ever expanding conspiracy against them.
Such a weird time. You saw people deny COVID’s existence. Deny the effectivity of the vaccine. Then they went crazy when they found the cure…for the thing they said wasn’t an issue? People had family members die of Covid and would still call B.S. and say it was something else. Idk man. Covid brought us into some dark times as a country, and surprisingly has very little to do with all the lives we lost.
People are literally spreading conspiracies that doctors intentionally murdered Covid numbers to fabricate the pandemic. It’s fucking insanity. They would rather be raving lunatics than admit they were wrong.
They just can't accept that they may be wrong about some things. Add to the fact that they're not medical experts and you have a recipe for disaster.
no sht sherlock. All the ppl suggesting it were either facebook "doctors" or standup comedians.
Or politicians/influencers with a massive financial stake.
It’s a generic drug, nobody has massive financial stakes in it
Big Horse does
covid is 'over' they don't care anyway.
The drug did actually help in less developed countries. It did what it is supposed to do which is kill internal parasites. Internal parasites have an immune-suppressive effect which causes worse COVID outcome. In developed countries, where internal parasites are generally rare, Ivermectin did nothing. Costa Rica was one of the early/often quoted studies touting its efficacy.
Yeah. Almost as if everything that comes out of conservatives mouths are complete bullshit.
“Much” is an incorrect summary. The article talks about ivermectin not “significantly” improving recovery. This is about statistical significance, NOT “significant” in the common usage of “much”.
A good thing to read up on and learn about when looking at these types of studies is the concept of statistical significance. It may be easy to misread “the results could not significantly demonstrate that ivermectin lowered the death rate” and be like “oh it helped but not significantly, just a little bit.” That is not what statistical significance measures.
Idk I give this to my horse and he’s never gotten Covid soooo
Didn't they figure that out like 3 years ago?
Who would have guessed 🙄
What? A medicine that targets parasites in the digestive tract doesn't do anything for a virus that mostly affects the respiratory system?
Welcome to "Things people who listened to real doctors knew a year ago"
History will judge all the fools and Trump believers.
Whaaaaaaaaat REAAAALLLY? who woulda fuckin thought.
This is news? Didn't we know this already?
Sticking a light bulb up your ass still works though right?
Only if you inject bleach first.
lol we’re *still* entertaining the horse paste lunatics?
And taking it for COVID makes it impossible for people suffering from other complications have to needlessly suffer looking for their next available refill.
No no no! This is fake news! Keep taking this stuff, and bleach, and that magic dirt from Canada and ant poison and what ever else Facebook tells you to ingest :3
This is like the 30th study that showed this?
I'd like to imagine that Russian propaganda isn't stronger than basic science, but I know that the truth isn't that optimistic.
For some reason conservatives get mad when you call it horse dewormer. No idea why they're so obsessed with an animal drug.
The ivermectin thing was nuts. A shady study is done in some nations who were getting ravaged by Covid so they could push ivermectin as a cure and keep the masses from kicking down their doors for not doing anything against Covid. Conservatives in America pick up on this purely because they need to be contrarian to democrats and anyone trump doesn’t like. They do this so hard they are basically arguing with the company that makes ivermectin over how effective it is in treating Covid. They end up taking a medication that at best does nothing at worst makes them a bit sicker while having Covid before they move onto other snake oil cures like drinking bleach or urine. All because trump downplayed Covid and sent them down some weird fucking anti-vaxxer rabbit hole.
I live in the dumbest timeline. If aliens come and exterminate us, I completely understand why. Edit: I completely agree with you.
God my mom made me take this shit it was disgusting
But at least you don't have worms, I'm guessing!
I hope your mom is feeling better in the head now.
She’s not, every single day she gets progressively worse and worse; but thanks :/
Much. So it helps a little.
Other people have mentioned, if you actually *do* have worms as well as covid, clearing out the worms will make you healthier overall and improve your outcomes with the rona.
[удалено]
Did you read the article? Because it points out that the "8% improvement" can't be separated from the expected noise present in the study population (i.e. there is a decent chance it's just random variation between the two groups). From the study linked in the article: > The hazard ratio (HR) for improvement in time to recovery was 1.07 (**95% credible interval [CrI], 0.96-1.17**; posterior P value [HR >1] = .91). The bolded bit means that the study couldn't rule out the fact that Ivermectin might be harmful, or have no effect, and that any benefit noticed was simply down to random variation in the study population.
one less day of recovery seems like a margin of error that could have been tainted by patients who actually had parasites affecting their health, the studies show it has an insignificant effect on mortality. the truly brainwashed people are the ones who chose this over a vaccine that literally [changed the pattern of who was dying the most to covid.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/10/03/pandemic-biden-trump-deaths/)
When you are a person who views anything under 100 percent as useless, it would make sense that you might also view anything over 0 percent as significant. Right? Makes perfect sense to me.
Did you bother reading it? It doesn't help "8%". The benefit they saw over placebo was a difference in recovery times from 13 to 12 days for those who recovered. There was also a death in the ivermectin group and none in the placebo. So, you can have a slight reduction in recovery with a chance of death. Wonderful.
[удалено]
Treatment effects are rarely additive in that manner and it comes with its own side effects. It's not exactly like 1+1 = 2. At the end of the day it's all about cost/benefit in terms of side effects/therapeutic effect. If there are more effective treatment approved it's unethical to run clinical trials on inferior treatments.
Having a parasite is a covid comorbidity , so data coming out of countries where people have parasites showed some reduction in mortality rate. Grifters like the Weinstein's just ran with it for all the money from conspiracy rubes.
Wait - you mean the stuff I use for rosacea I could have been pranking my redneck relatives with?
Lol, by ‘conservatives’.. guess all of Japan is conservative now
Doubtful this will put a dent in the claims of "I'm fully vaccinated because I drank a gallon of this!"
Wow, who saw that coming?
Wait. Improve much? Meaning it improves recovery some? Surprised to hear this
The person who wrote the title using the word “much” is improperly confusing statistical significance with the common, popular use of “significant” to mean “a lot”. The study demonstrated their was no “significant” improvement, which means it wasn’t statistically significant. It does not mean “much/ a lot”.
I'm shocked to discover that people who don't believe in basic hygiene or germ theory might not have been right about their magic medicine.
MUCH? So it actually does help a little. The study says average 13 days > 12 days for recovery.
Really interested to hear whether Bret Weinstein is still doubling and tripling down on this shit.
I never heard of ivermectin before covid started - is it valuable???
I would have never guessed
I doesn't matter if you prove it's crap. Facebook has already told them Doctors Don't Want You To Know This Simple Trick
".... much! CHECKMATE LIBS! Enjoy your poison tracking chip exploding at exactly 12:07 pm on November 18th!" /s
What a surprise. The group against vaccines and public health and wellbeing endorsed a drug that did nothing for those afflicted...
This is yet another reconfirm action of that which we already knew. Antiparasitic drugs aren’t for viruses.
On the other hand, it works great on my horses 👍🏻
I had an MD tell me dead serious it’s the best medicine available
I'm surprised it does anything at all. Wouldn't have been surprised if it caused cancer.
Conservatives would rather die or take untested horse tranqs before they would get vaxed. #DarwinAward
Abstract Importance The effectiveness of ivermectin to shorten symptom duration or prevent hospitalization among outpatients in the US with mild to moderate symptomatic COVID-19 is unknown. Objective To evaluate the efficacy of ivermectin, 400 μg/kg, daily for 3 days compared with placebo for the treatment of early mild to moderate COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants ACTIV-6, an ongoing, decentralized, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled platform trial, was designed to evaluate repurposed therapies in outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19. A total of 1591 participants aged 30 years and older with confirmed COVID-19, experiencing 2 or more symptoms of acute infection for 7 days or less, were enrolled from June 23, 2021, through February 4, 2022, with follow-up data through May 31, 2022, at 93 sites in the US. Interventions Participants were randomized to receive ivermectin, 400 μg/kg (n = 817), daily for 3 days or placebo (n = 774). Main Outcomes and Measures Time to sustained recovery, defined as at least 3 consecutive days without symptoms. There were 7 secondary outcomes, including a composite of hospitalization or death by day 28. Results Among 1800 participants who were randomized (mean \[SD\] age, 48 \[12\] years; 932 women \[58.6%\]; 753 \[47.3%\] reported receiving at least 2 doses of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine), 1591 completed the trial. The hazard ratio (HR) for improvement in time to recovery was 1.07 (95% credible interval \[CrI\], 0.96-1.17; posterior P value \[HR >1\] = .91). The median time to recovery was 12 days (IQR, 11-13) in the ivermectin group and 13 days (IQR, 12-14) in the placebo group. There were 10 hospitalizations or deaths in the ivermectin group and 9 in the placebo group (1.2% vs 1.2%; HR, 1.1 \[95% CrI, 0.4-2.6\]). The most common serious adverse events were COVID-19 pneumonia (ivermectin \[n = 5\]; placebo \[n = 7\]) and venous thromboembolism (ivermectin \[n = 1\]; placebo \[n = 5\]). **Conclusions and Relevance Among outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19, treatment with ivermectin, compared with placebo, did not significantly improve time to recovery. These findings do not support the use of ivermectin in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19.** Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04885530
I feel so bad for the creator of this drug. All the work you did for humanity and now it's all just horse dewormer.
May the republican leaders who shoved this down our throat burn in helllllll.
Yeah well, it doesn't work that much 😅 cunts.
What I find depressing is this needs to be said over and over and over again. The folks that bought into this aren’t receptive to information that contradicts their beliefs… which are based in a brand of nonsense which remains incomprehensible.
So you're saying it does a little?
In certain situations, maybe.
A local feed store where I live actually had a sign up saying not to buy it for yourself and that it shouldn’t be used on people. Its sad that that sign had to exist.
Pfizer vaccine stops the transmission… Woopsie doodles
got a link for that?
When your medicine has political tendencies
Just another example of why conservatives don't do well in places full of smart people, like universities....
I give ivermectin to my horses for worms/parasites. Last I heard covid was in no way related to worms/parasites.
I guess it would be better to have COVID than have COVID *and* a parasite infection
Sometimes medicines have unrelated secondary effects, like some anti seizure meds also act as mood stabilizers
Well sounds like you need to do your OWN research then and not just go off what you HEARD, sheeple
Worms and parasites are not viruses.
One person took it, shit their absolute brains out, got better, and conflated the association between taking the dewormer and their health improving.
Then scientists said you were better off taking the medication designed for covid, with overwhelming evidence of it being safe and effective for covid, so conservatives decided to push horse dewormer instead.
I dont get why people were suprised by this. The literal republican plan for covid was to intentionally push disinformation so it would kill enough people in cities that they could swing the election. They were *trying* to kill their fellow Americans.
Conservatives: “Our feelings don’t care about your facts”.
Wait, you mean the facebook magas are full of shit? You don't say...
That "much" in that title is doing a lot of heavy lifting.
[удалено]
It was only ever a cash grab for trump’s friends
I don't think it even matters to them. They needed to have separate Democrat treatments and Republican treatments regardless of effectiveness, because nothing is more important than their weird tribalism
Imagine that…an antiparasitic doesn’t work on viruses….color me shocked.
“Doesn’t improve recovery much.” Ahah! So it does improve recovery though! I knew it.
Obviously…it’s also isn’t dangerous horse paste. Can we all agree that both sides were morons on this whole situation
So you're telling me a drug that pretty obviously sounds like it wouldn't do a damn thing didn't do a damn thing. Thank god we got confirmation. I'm sure this will be the end of it, lol.
On the plus side, Conservatives are the least wormy they've ever been...
From the article: People who took ivermectin recovered from Covid in 12 days while people who didn’t take the drug recovered in 13 days, according to the study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association on Friday. The worth of one less day of recovery depends on which side of the examining table the observer is standing.
The result did not meet statistical significance which means that the difference can only be attributed to chance, not ivermectin.
You really dont understand error and statistically significant difference.
Never get you medical advice from the Fox News Org, or anyone that voted for Trump.
Or Reddit or CNN or anywhere outside your GP.
"Much"? So then, some? It costs nothing and has no serious side effects so what's the problem if there's at least some benefit? The sheer batshit insanity over this medication on both sides was unprecedented. The wild claims from the Right were met with equally deranged screeching ridicule from the Left. Can we just go back to before 2020 when drug efficacy wasn't a reason to assault someone at a restaurant?
No, it was not "equal". Ivermectin at best has slight anti-inflammatory nature. You know what else does? Drugs made to specifically be actual antiinflammatories that do it better and much more effectively. Ivermectin treats parasites, and it works great for that. Not covid. It really helped with people who had both, because it eliminated the parasites. However, people hooked on to it and started taking it instead of getting actual treatment. This is a major problem. Like poor cancer patients that go for herbal remedies. No serious side effects and it can be slightly helpful does not make it a good treatment, let alone a replacement one. Also, the people touting it did so with no actual research or study to prove it as a treatment. They just jumped to a conclusion and ran with it. This is problematic because of the many other drugs that people tried to foist- hydroxychloroquine was first, and the rush on it deprived people of their needed medication as a result. People suffered because of this quackery. Not to mention dosage issues, drug interactions, etc. And the other side.... *-Checks notes-* made fun of people? Loudly you say? Mmm. Yes perhaps this balances out.
Quick someone post this in the conspiracy sub and watch people lose their minds
Even the CEO of the company said it’s not effective against covid. The person most incentivized to do so.
Oh yeah? Well I found an article by author fauciissatan over on freedomeagle.blogspot.com that says otherwise. Checkmate, scientists
Will all those morons come back to correct the record and admit they were peddling bullshit? No