Posted on 07/19/2021 7:36:51 AM PDT by Red Badger
“More recently, the evidence for ivermectin’s efficacy relied very substantially on a single piece of research,...”
This is lie. It is not merely wrong, or an error, it is a deliberate untruth.
In an age of Narratives, the truth is easy to keep hidden.
Its correct that science fraud can flourish and fly under the radar and the system needs to change. Not sure about the specific case, as I thought there was more than one positive study...but maybe K am mistaken.
My question with this is the same as HCQ.
What is the method of action? Why does it work?
That doesn’t make sense to me.
The good thing about Ivermectin is that it’s alternative medicine. The bad thing about Ivermectin is that like most alternative medicine, it’s complete quackery.
Why does anything work?
Who knows you try it and see
Viagra was supposed to be a new blood pressure drug that quite accidentally turned into a gold mine. there have been other cases this is the most financially rewarding one.
There is a reason it is called “practicing” medicine.
The fact that a scientist will be dishonest in order to serve his own ends is no more remarkable than the fact that an auto mechanic will tell you that your car needs repairs that it doesn’t really need. It’s an aspect of human nature that permeates every area of human activity, particularly where a large body of specialized expertise is involved.
That was always my first question, and since no one had a particular answer I remained suspicious.
Here’s an Ivermectin user.
He posted this Thread on FR.
https://freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3974843/posts?page=200#200
Post # 199 his daughter had to post for him.
So I guess this review is a zero out of 5 Stars.
Even if the article is true, there’s no reason to believe that the drug is harmful in itself, to prohibit people from taking it, or to cancel researchers who are calling for additional scientific study.
“More recently, the evidence for ivermectin’s efficacy relied very substantially on a single piece of research,...”
This is lie. It is not merely wrong, or an error, it is a deliberate untruth.
************************************************************
Which is the lie? This piece or the many success stories of Ivermectin (and Hydroxychloroquine)?
Science + Politics = Political Science......................
Several countries have used Ivermectin to very good effect. Now is it necessary to go back and kill all those patients who used it successfully as they have no right to be alive?
This article really applies to the experimental vaccines not Ivermectin. This is a load of crap.
There are hundreds of actual peer reviewed studies now on both Ivermectin and Hydroxycloroquin that prove both are effective. Along with hundreds of doctors and entire countries like India that have used both drugs successfully. The recent India outbreak was caused by one state suddenly stopping the free distribution of Ivermectin. When they re-enacted the distribution, the outbreak went away.
This site is run by real doctors treating covid patients and has all of this information.
https://covid19criticalcare.com/
A positive study or two and many thousands of “anecdotal” positive cases.
It’s not quackery.
It’s another tool in the pharmacological tool kit.
Billions of people on the planet. They’re all different. Better more treatment choices than fewer.
The claim that the evidence for IVM rested on a single study. That was never the case, and the authors know it.
The evidence that convinced the world consists of three meta-analyses, each conducted independently, and each reaching the same conclusion that IVM is a safe, effective treatment for early stage (viral stage) COVID, and as a prophylaxis.
Andrew Hill, Tess Lawrie, and Paul Merick’s groups all have published independently, and made the same findings. Tess Lawrie has already analyzed the effect of excluding the cited study, and has published her results in pre-print, showing that removing this study has no effect on the findings.
The authors are simply lying. There is no other way to describe this piece.
I have seen analyses of the functioning of both on FR. I don’t have time to go hunt them down, though. I believe the HCQ at least works when the zinc you take with it allows the HCQ into the cells where it destroys the virus protein.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.