31–40 of 805 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I changed my mind. I was making pro-Ivermectin comments just yesterday. This is the first serious anti-Ivermectin argument I've seen.
"Most scientists/doctors believe it to not work against Covid-19" wasn't a serious argument for you? It is a strange phenomenon that people are so ready to disagree with people who spent decades achieving exactly that kind of knowledge.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Most scientists/doctors believe it to not work against Covid-19" wasn't a serious argument for you? It is a strange phenomenon that people are so ready to disagree with people who spent decades achieving exactly that kind of knowledge.
Most scientists/doctors believed at one point that ulcers were caused by "stress". My father lost half his stomach to an ulcer surgery. Nowadays ulcers are cured with antibiotics in the span of a week. Don't put much stock in what crowds "believe" to be true, _especially_ when _not_ believing it means they can't work in their field.
Fortunately during the polio years we didn't have the internet, the carnage would have been incredible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I changed my mind. I was making pro-Ivermectin comments just yesterday. This is the first serious anti-Ivermectin argument I've seen.
"Most scientists/doctors believe it to not work against Covid-19" wasn't a serious argument for you? It is a strange phenomenon that people are so ready to disagree with people who spent decades achieving exactly that kind of knowledge.
Between hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectine you are (worldwide) probably looking at a few hundred thousand extra people dead because they (or in some cases their leaders) chose to believe that bullshit rather than to get vaccinated.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is the first anti-Ivermectin argument that you want to believe... I discounted a highly biased echo chamber in social media and more traditional media and went with 30-odd studies that appear to have been assembled in good faith even now. I changed my mind immediately on seeing "Parasitic worms are a significant confounder in some ivermectin studies, such that they made them get a positive result even when hon…
I have a pretty good memory for comment histories and you've been pushing this for far more than it is worth. That this single article would change your mind is fortunate, but I do not suspect that to hold true for the bulk of the conspiracy peddlers that remain.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Most scientists/doctors believe it to not work against Covid-19" wasn't a serious argument for you? It is a strange phenomenon that people are so ready to disagree with people who spent decades achieving exactly that kind of knowledge.
That literally isn't an argument. It is a statement. And if anyone who said "many scientists/doctors believe it to work against Covid-19" is getting banned, then that statement has 0 signal. As Scott points out in this article, without knowing about the parasitic worm situation https://ivmmeta.com/ is both reasonable and moderately convincing.
Also, even the "moderately convincing" evidence is in my opinion not nearly enough. It might be if Covid-19 were a modestly important disease with only a few labs and clinics running working on it. But it's not. Throw enough shit against the wall, eventually something will stick by chance. This is a globally distributed experiment, and it is impossible to control for publication bias and all quality issues...
The only reason to think why Ivermectin should work against Sars-Cov-2 is because it has shown some action in cell cultures at ridiculously high doses, and maybe there have been other anti-viral interactions in the literature. For widespread use, there needs to be more and better evidence, especially given the currently available vaccines and treatments.
It took the pharmacy a couple of days to source, because signficant controls had to be put in place around prescribing it due to well, I'm just going to say what I think - the amazing capacity for the Internet to deliver dumbassery to people who are open to it, thanks to the algorithms implemented by Google and Facebook.
The current dominance of algorithmic social media is going to make a fascinating history book one day. Right now it feels somewhat dystopian how easily misinformation is spread online because it yields a high engagement metric.
This is exactly the sort of thing that YouTube, Twitter, et al are suppressing. Someone thoughtfully listening seriously to what the proponents of Ivermectin are saying, weighing it up and saying "looks good but you forgot...". You can't get this sort of excellent rebuttal without allowing a site like https://ivmmeta.com/ into the debate.
There is little evidence of such analysis being suppressed. I think it is just relatively rare, because it is a lot of work and takes particular skill. Most people who care about this research are indeed crackpots, unfortunately. Those who aren't have mostly moved on from Ivermectin because they have better things to do. Ivermectin is being tested in large RCTs, as it should. If it works, it will be used. If it doesn…
His alien thought experiment in the “Political Takeaway” section at the bottom is a masterpiece. If you’ve struggled to explain where science lost democracy, this must be as crisp as it’ll ever be described.
It got political, but he still doesn't capture the gist and whole of the argument. You cannot argue against an imaginary position which he still espouses. There are just democrats and conservatives for him. That is a deep socialization which depending on age might be a permanent affliction. But that isn't reflective of every position against a vaccination (or additional measures), it is more the explanation of a naiv…