What is going on with the story on ivermectin?

[Moonbeam]

I will just leave this right here:

are you actually contributing to this discussion or are you just trolling this discussion?

It sure seems like the latter rather than the former. Nothing you have posted for page after page has anything to do with the topic of this thread.

Original Post: I have been lead to believe ivermectin is a horse deworming medicine that whack job charlatans push as a cure for Covid. This link suggests a different story:


https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/fulltext/2021/08000/ivermectin_for_prevention_and_treatment_of.7.aspx

Any thoughts?
===============================
Seems to me the topic would be any thoughts sparked by the notion that a person who believed one thing about Ivermectin as whack job charlatans pushing a cure for Covid to discovering there was early studies showing effectiveness and precipitating at for factual answers. So what then do you see me saying that has nothing to do with the subject? I would think the Original Poster would be the best judge of that. And that, by Golly, would be me.

What I see in this thread is me discovering I was too quick to judge and thinking the better of it while most seem to want to say I was right all along. Seems like I was mostly right but before I should have thought so originally.

 

[Moonbeam]

He hasn't contributed to a discussion in a legitimate manner since I've posted in P&N. Its all vague generalities and nonsense. Its just that for a brief time that appeared to actually make sense when weighed against similar nonsense by far too many others.

 

[allisolm]

Original Post: I have been lead to believe ivermectin is a horse deworming medicine that whack job charlatans push as a cure for Covid. This link suggests a different story:


https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/fulltext/2021/08000/ivermectin_for_prevention_and_treatment_of.7.aspx

Any thoughts?
===============================
Seems to me the topic would be any thoughts sparked by the notion that a person who believed one thing about Ivermectin as whack job charlatans pushing a cure for Covid to discovering there was early studies showing effectiveness and precipitating at for factual answers. So what then do you see me saying that has nothing to do with the subject? I would think the Original Poster would be the best judge of that. And that, by Golly, would be me.

What I see in this thread is me discovering I was too quick to judge and thinking the better of it while most seem to want to say I was right all along. Seems like I was mostly right but before I should have thought so originally.

My thoughts are that you failed to read the erratum at your link or this or this or any of a number of other articles about it. For goodness sake the 2nd name on the study you linked heads the British Ivermectin Recommendation Development Group!

 

[Fenixgoon]

Looking at the date of the OP, I have to believe this is some sort of exercise or experiment for moonbeam to examine people's responses. We're so far beyond someone genuinely asking questions about its effectiveness.

 

[Pohemi]

Looking at the date of the OP, I have to believe this is some sort of exercise or experiment for moonbeam to examine people's responses. We're so far beyond someone genuinely asking questions about its effectiveness.

Welp, that's what I figured initially when he posted it as well. I thought he was doing it...whuddya know...facetiously. Then the thread progressed and instead of it being simply a convo starter, he did nothing but post FUD about Ivermectin.

When pushed back, he doubled down on stupidity and #bothsides'd it, trying to sound philosophical or some shite, as usual.

He's an idiot.

 

[Brainonska511]

Obligatory: https://m.xkcd.com/1217/

Early preclinical studies suggested something on the surface, but when you looked at the details, like concentrations needed to neutralize COVID in cell cultures, it became obvious that ivermectin would not work in vivo.

The amount of money and time spent on investigating this bogus treatment is obscene, and the JAQing off propagated by the OP is absurd, especially given that ivermectin has long ago proven to not be am effective treatment.

 

[Moonbeam]

My thoughts are that you failed to read the erratum at your link or this or this or any of a number of other articles about it. For goodness sake the 2nd name on the study you linked heads the British Ivermectin Recommendation Development Group!

Everything that I have said I have always tied to a timeline. I entered this timeline at a point where the conclusions about Ivermectin were that any data to its effectiveness were tied to worldwide madness and conservative grasping at anything that could combat the dreaded monsters hidden in the Covid vaccines.

A deeper dive into the subject revealed that earlier on there was a study or two that suggested it might be effective that, on the right. triggered a stampede while among some in the scientific and medical community triggered a desire to treat that data as potentially positive and investigate.

My point has always been that this is the proper attitude to take., that all of the other reactions we see are based on irrational emotional needs, the desire to stamp out political heresy. All of the reactions to what I posted have mostly been from people who are angry about the damage the belief on the right that Ivermectin is effective after data came in that the earlier studies proved defective. Now, retroactively, they impugn the motives of any who, before better data arrived, felt it was worth further study. They inhabit a world where they see the past in terms of what is known today because they are full of a need to blame and to rage.

I see that as arrogance, the desire to punish and ridicule any that try to leave the mental prison that liberal or conservative thinking creates. In my opinion that for too many on the left the notion that anybody could have ever considered the proposition that Ivermectin might be effective before info was definitive, is diagnostic of an emotional state characterized by PTSD. The rage generated by the insanity on the right gets reflected back as rage on the left against them.

In making that point, in my opinion, I have generated that same rage against me. From where I stand it just proves my point.

As to your point about what I failed to read, I have read quite a number of pieces on how the Ivermectin thingi got started and in many of them the point is made that early on the effectiveness of Ivermectin could not be definitively determined. Now we have 20-20 hindsight as the topic of discussion. Erratum are emendations to past information, exactly what I am talking about as irrelevant since they did not exist at prior points in the time line.

 

[Moonbeam]

Looking at the date of the OP, I have to believe this is some sort of exercise or experiment for moonbeam to examine people's responses. We're so far beyond someone genuinely asking questions about its effectiveness.

This would make sense if the question of its effectiveness had anything to do with anything.

 

[Moonbeam]

Welp, that's what I figured initially when he posted it as well. I thought he was doing it...whuddya know...facetiously. Then the thread progressed and instead of it being simply a convo starter, he did nothing but post FUD about Ivermectin.

When pushed back, he doubled down on stupidity and #bothsides'd it, trying to sound philosophical or some shite, as usual.

He's an idiot.

When you don't comprehend something make up a story as to why. Be sure to project while doing so. In the end you can always fall back on the arrogance of liberals who see others as stupid idiots. You will always be welcome in the long nosed intellectual herd.

 

[Captante]

When you don't comprehend something make up a story as to why. Be sure to project while doing so. In the end you can always fall back on the arrogance of liberals who see others as stupid idiots. You will always be welcome in the long nosed intellectual herd.

Have you suffered a recent severe head-injury or something?

I'm not "comprehending" your intentions here. (beyond being a dick lol)

Everything that I have said I have always tied to a timeline. I entered this timeline at a point where the conclusions about Ivermectin were that any data to its effectiveness were tied to worldwide madness and conservative grasping at anything that could combat the dreaded monsters hidden in the Covid vaccines.

A deeper dive into the subject revealed that earlier on there was a study or two that suggested it might be effective that, on the right. triggered a stampede while among some in the scientific and medical community triggered a desire to treat that data as potentially positive and investigate.

My point has always been that this is the proper attitude to take., that all of the other reactions we see are based on irrational emotional needs, the desire to stamp out political heresy. All of the reactions to what I posted have mostly been from people who are angry about the damage the belief on the right that Ivermectin is effective after data came in that the earlier studies proved defective. Now, retroactively, they impugn the motives of any who, before better data arrived, felt it was worth further study. They inhabit a world where they see the past in terms of what is known today because they are full of a need to blame and to rage.

I see that as arrogance, the desire to punish and ridicule any that try to leave the mental prison that liberal or conservative thinking creates. In my opinion that for too many on the left the notion that anybody could have ever considered the proposition that Ivermectin might be effective before info was definitive, is diagnostic of an emotional state characterized by PTSD. The rage generated by the insanity on the right gets reflected back as rage on the left against them.

In making that point, in my opinion, I have generated that same rage against me. From where I stand it just proves my point.

As to your point about what I failed to read, I have read quite a number of pieces on how the Ivermectin thingi got started and in many of them the point is made that early on the effectiveness of Ivermectin could not be definitively determined. Now we have 20-20 hindsight as the topic of discussion. Erratum are emendations to past information, exactly what I am talking about as irrelevant since they did not exist at prior points in the time line.

I want my 2 minutes spent reading the above back.

Your posts in this thread at least don't make much sense coming from someone I had assumed previously was at least rational.

I'm REALLY hoping this is just a case of my missing the "/s" again.

 

[Moonbeam]

Have you suffered a recent severe head-injury or something?

I'm not "comprehending" your intentions here. (beyond being a dick)





I want my 2 minutes spent reading the above back.

Your posts in this thread at least don't make much sense coming from someone I had assumed previously was at least rational.

I'm REALLY hoping this is just a case of my missing the "/s" again.

Sadly, what I reflexively call rational I have found to be that which agrees with me emotionally. However, even if you question my rationality on that basis it won't necessarily mean you are wrong. I happen to see my post as highly rational. That doesn't guarantee that it was. My point was that if you are going to assess whether the people who considered the possibility that Ivermectin was worth investigating further based on some data that suggested it was, you have to situate yourself in the time line with what was known at the time they made that evaluation. I believe that there was good faith among many that looked deeper but found no positive correlation. It's a given that some were not. Science is based on skepticism, that data has to be controlled for variables and repeatable, not that everybody making a divergent scientific claim is doing so out of political or personal motivation. That does not seem irrational to me.

 

[Captante]

Sadly, what I reflexively call rational I have found to be that which agrees with me emotionally. However, even if you question my rationality on that basis it won't necessarily mean you are wrong. I happen to see my post as highly rational. That doesn't guarantee that it was. My point was that if you are going to assess whether the people who considered the possibility that Ivermectin was worth investigating further based on some data that suggested it was, you have to situate yourself in the time line with what was known at the time they made that evaluation. I believe that there was good faith among many that looked deeper but found no positive correlation. It's a given that some were not. Science is based on skepticism, that data has to be controlled for variables and repeatable, not that everybody making a divergent scientific claim is doing so out of political or personal motivation. That does not seem irrational to me.

I'm pretty sure David Berkowitz felt like the straight-talk he got from his neighbors dog was perfectly "rational" too!

 

[Moonbeam]

I'm pretty sure David Berkowitz felt like the straight-talk he got from his neighbors dog was perfectly "rational" too!

It's perfectly normal to outwardly reflect the inner feel like your life is in danger when presented with information that conflicts with your sacred beliefs. Forgive me if I don't take that fear seriously. You are not a dog and I am not David Berkowitz. I am confident of that.

 

[Captante]

It's perfectly normal to outwardly reflect the inner feel like your life is in danger when presented with information that conflicts with your sacred beliefs. Forgive me if I don't take that fear seriously. You are not a dog and I am not David Berkowitz. I am confident of that.

Well we DO agree on at least a few points!

 

[Moonbeam]

Well we DO agree on at least a few points!

I thing that if I told you in any other context than in this with its history, that you should look at the validity of judgments made in the past in the context of the time they were made and not in the context of what what was subsequently revealed, you would call that rational. I would also think that if you were to find people doing just the latter that you would also want to speak out against that kind of behavior. But now we have a history to overcome with claims having been staked.

 

[Captante]

I thing that if I told you in any other context than in this with its history, that you should look at the validity of judgments made in the past in the context of the time they were made and not in the context of what what was subsequently revealed, you would call that rational. I would also think that if you were to find people doing just the latter that you would also want to speak out against that kind of behavior. But how we have a history to overcome with claims having been staked.

All kidding aside these replies really are all over the place.... you okay?

*(I'm genuinely concerned.... feel free to PM if you want)

 

[Moonbeam]

All kidding aside these replies really are all over the place.... you okay?

*(I'm genuinely concerned.... feel free to PM if you want)

The only thing all over the place are the reactions to what I have said consistently, as far as I am concerned. I am OK about dealing with those diverse and particular objections I have had thrown at me as best that I can. I have long been aware that the difficulties of validating unconscious bias would make for an up hill slog. I have had the same sig for God knows how many years. I thank you for caring. I am trying to stay neutral on if I am OK. I think so but it's never a good idea to be too sure of anything.

 

[Pohemi]

The timeline doesn't matter (here). You didn't start this thread last year, it was two months back, when the info on Ivermectin already showed it as bullshit. There isn't any retroactive 20/20 hindsight egoism here, just you being a dumbass. Suit yourself, dumbass.

 

[Iron Woode]

Now we have 20-20 hindsight as the topic of discussion. Erratum are emendations to past information, exactly what I am talking about as irrelevant since they did not exist at prior points in the time line.

Even a blind wombat could have seen what the end results would be.

As soon as I read about ivermectin when the right said it was a miracle cure for covid, I knew it could never be. Some things are just obvious from the start.

Much like that study 10 or so years ago about GMO fed rats developing tumours.

 

[Captante]

The only thing all over the place are the reactions to what I have said consistently, as far as I am concerned. I am OK about dealing with those diverse and particular objections I have had thrown at me as best that I can. I have long been aware that the difficulties of validating unconscious bias would make for an up hill slog. I have had the same sig for God knows how many years. I thank you for caring. I am trying to stay neutral on if I am OK. I think so but it's never a good idea to be too sure of anything.

I appreciate the sincere reply however I'm still concerned.... while I'm hardly a bastion of sanity and stability myself I understand what being depressed/stressed out can do to a person.

Keep your head up.

 

[Moonbeam]

Even a blind wombat could have seen what the end results would be.

As soon as I read about ivermectin when the right said it was a miracle cure for covid, I knew it could never be. Some things are just obvious from the start.

Much like that study 10 or so years ago about GMO fed rats developing tumours.

Thank you for admitting to the problem I saw and hoped to advise against. Poof, you just knew for reasons just like the finest conservative with his tinglingly fearful gut feelings. Everybody who sees it differently than you is a blind wombat. I appreciate your honesty.

 

[Moonbeam]

The timeline doesn't matter (here). You didn't start this thread last year, it was two months back, when the info on Ivermectin already showed it as bullshit. There isn't any retroactive 20/20 hindsight egoism here, just you being a dumbass. Suit yourself, dumbass.

I didn’t start this thread to show Ivermectin effective, and this is the place where I suppose I should add DUMBASS, I posted it two months ago because that was when I discovered that my assumptions that Ivermectin was a conservative lunatic fraud campaign from the start actually got started differently than what I thought, that originally there were good scientific reasons to get better data because a theory based on studies had implied possible effectiveness and that needed investigation. I did not have all the facts but that didn’t stop me from being judgmental. I saw that I had been and asked for comments because judgmental is, in my opinion, a bad thing. It’s a kind of arrogance. Seems to me that what I saw about me you simple dismiss as anything similar to yourself despite all of the subsequent evidence showing just that.

 

[Pohemi]

Sure thing, dumbass.

 

[Moonbeam]

Sure thing, dumbass.

You were the one who made the irrational assertion that fell on its face like so many times before. Perhaps you have let your ego get involved. Liberals don't like looking stupid because its their biggest insult.

 

[dank69]

You were the one who made the irrational assertion that fell on its face like so many times before. Perhaps you have let your ego get involved. Liberals don't like looking stupid because its their biggest insult.

How do you tell the difference between someone reflexively reacting because ego vs. reflexively reacting because they recognize junk science?

How do you know these further studies were warranted because smart people thought they were warranted and not just done to appease political fucktards?