A Group of 270 Scientists, Doctors, etc. Submit Open Letter to Spotify Regarding Joe Rogan (JRE)

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
8,598
5,962
118
And why do you consider a link far-fetched?
Without reading the literature...

We know that people with diabetes (and other related conditions) are more susceptible to worse covid symptoms. So what was the possibility that people hospitalised with covid were more predisposed to diabetes, pre-diabetic, or with undiagnosed diabetes? Covid thus does not cause diabetes, it selected for people at higher risk of diabetes, and so follow-up would duly reveal higher incidence of diabetes.

Tying in with this is that people with covid might have been more likely to seek or receive medical attention, thus increasing the likelihood diabetes would be discovered. Many people are bad at getting medical care even as aspects of their health decline, assuming pains or problems are transient and will just go away if they wait long enough. Covid in this case created a trigger for people with undiagnosed diabetes to have a health check-up.

Although there is a good logic for why covid might cause diabetes. Covid attacks the ACE2 protein, which is present in the lungs... and also the pancreas. The pancreas is where insulin is produced. If there is an inflammatory response in the pancreas due to covid infection, there is a possibility it will damage or kill pancreatic beta cells that produce insulin. (Inflammation is designed to kill and clear up pathogens and unhealthy cells, but causes collateral damage to healthy cells in the process.)
 

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Jun 21, 2012
8,684
2,879
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
Without reading the literature...

We know that people with diabetes (and other related conditions) are more susceptible to worse covid symptoms. So what was the possibility that people hospitalised with covid were more predisposed to diabetes, pre-diabetic, or with undiagnosed diabetes? Covid thus does not cause diabetes, it selected for people at higher risk of diabetes, and so follow-up would duly reveal higher incidence of diabetes.

Tying in with this is that people with covid might have been more likely to seek or receive medical attention, thus increasing the likelihood diabetes would be discovered. Many people are bad at getting medical care even as aspects of their health decline, assuming pains or problems are transient and will just go away if they wait long enough. Covid in this case created a trigger for people with undiagnosed diabetes to have a health check-up.

Although there is a good logic for why covid might cause diabetes. Covid attacks the ACE2 protein, which is present in the lungs... and also the pancreas. The pancreas is where insulin is produced. If there is an inflammatory response in the pancreas due to covid infection, there is a possibility it will damage or kill pancreatic beta cells that produce insulin. (Inflammation is designed to kill and clear up pathogens and unhealthy cells, but causes collateral damage to healthy cells in the process.)
Just a reminder that there is a almost Diabetes phase where people can change their lifestyle to make sure they dont get it.

As a person with a minor condition that gradually gets worse over the years, it's sometimes easier to assume that your just getting old, rather than it being the condition.
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
8,915
782
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
Why would you compare covid deaths with prior immunity to influenza deaths without prior immunity? Make a like-for-like comparison, or don't make a comparison at all.
Who doesn't have some sort of prior immunity to the flu? What kid growing up didn't catch the flu at some point? The flu has been endemic for thousands of years. Comparing a novel virus to a virus that we don't even know when it started because it's so old isn't close to a like-for-like comparison. The question, especially now, is how deadly is covid post-immunity not how deadly it was to people in 2020. And if anyone doesn't want immunity when it's freely available (in rich western nations), then it's your own fault for not getting said immunity and you face the consequences. The question is whether covid is within society's normal risk tolerance post-immunity and that's what I'm asking. I'm willing to bet it's pretty close to the flu in risk.

I'm saying if you're going to use technical terms, use them properly. Otherwise you're just telling everyone who knows their stuff you don't understand the subject.
I did, I was referring to the IFR for someone without immunity, which is what everyone wanted to know when this started since nobody had immunity. Now, not many people care about whatever the IFR is now because it's far within probably at least 99% of the population's risk tolerance.

He's asking people to waste their money on something that has a reasonable chance of decreasing their quality of life in return for most likely nothing. At least if they bought lottery tickets they might win something, and with no risk of headaches, diarrhoea and skin rashes.
Really, waste their money on Ivermectin? You mean, just give up like an ounce of Starbucks coffee that is probably more expensive than Ivermectin. Remdesivir is wasting tons more money. The benefit of placebo is real though. Oh no, not a headache!!! that you'll probably get from covid anyway.

1) If it causes shorter hospital stays, then it doesn't do nothing.
2) The evidence base is not remotely clear that ivermectin reduces hospitalisation time.
And that's remdesivir that you argued is good that it reduced hospital stays and why it was good to use. I agree shorter hospital stays mean it doesn't do anything, but if remdesivir is still greatly used for that purpose, then why not ivermectin? I just remember 1 or 2 of the ivermectin studies that showed no mortality improvement showed hospital stay decrease. I honestly don't care if the evidence is clear or not on that because like I said, I agree hospital stay reduction doesn't mean much. And the hospital stay reduction could just be placebo effects.

And what that doesn't tell you is how much they're using it.
If they have a full shelving unit for remdesivir, they are using it. Unless it was right after the time they stopped using it, and it was just sitting there. Even then that means it was used for well over a year when it was known it didn't do anything.

It's very nice that you've read some words that you can type to pretend you know what you're talking about, but see above re. terminology. Actually, you don't know what you're talking about: you have an armchair expert's illusion of knowledge and understanding.
That's literally what people that perform studies and peer review studies have said numerous times. Pretty much everything I say I listened to an expert talking about. You're not arguing with me on most of these topics but people that know more than either of us.

No, what happened is that you emotionally invested too much in the claim that masks did nothing. When data increasingly rolled in saying that they were in fact useful, this merely reinforced your commitment to your existing belief that they were not. This is a well-recognised psychological phenomenon. One might note in relation to this your overconfidence that you understand what's going on (despite repeatedly having to be corrected), and repeated claims that you have been right about everything.
Nope, I was for masks early on when a lot people here said they didn't work (as no evidence of them working beforehand). Here's a post of mine from April 2020. There's been no convincing evidence that masks work, which is why I've changed my stance. The Bangladesh study is far from convincing (some of the groups got more covid in the masked group) along with any long-term data you look at comparing infection rates between masked places and non-masked places shows basically no difference. You're the one that is emotionally invested into masks working because the data we do have is not close to convincing. If mask data was the same as some hypothetical drug, you'd say it doesn't work or there's not good enough evidence. You might as say that some drug works because it works in vitro if you're gonna conclude masks work because some rather pointless study with dummies recorded with a cell phone camera.


No they didn't.





And why do you consider a link far-fetched?

OMG, covid doesn't cause diabetes. The reason there's more diabetes in people hospitalized with covid is because obesity is one of the highest risk conditions for severe covid and most people are obese because of too much sugar obviously, which causes diabetes over time. They were probably borderline diabetic beforehand.
 

Kwak

Elite Member
Sep 11, 2014
2,203
1,705
118
Country
4
OMG, covid doesn't cause diabetes.
And THEY DIDN'T CLAIM THAT.
They are exploring the reports of high blood glucose in some covid patients and exploring what the connection is. THERE HAS BEEN NO DEFINITIVE CONCLUSION FFS.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrCalavera

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Jun 21, 2012
8,684
2,879
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
And THEY DIDN'T CLAIM THAT.
They are exploring the reports of high blood glucose in some covid patients and exploring what the connection is. THERE HAS BEEN NO DEFINITIVE CONCLUSION FFS.
Yep, its the 'correlation isn't causation' thing. It could even be multiple answers, including that COVID does cause some diabetes

If you want to see errors in doing correlation is causation thing, see the start of the pandemic. Due to the urgency, many things were said that weren't accurate. You couldnt get enough data or check links at that time due to the longevity we need to do proper and multiple studies
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,025
5,794
118
Country
United Kingdom
Who doesn't have some sort of prior immunity to the flu? What kid growing up didn't catch the flu at some point? The flu has been endemic for thousands of years. Comparing a novel virus to a virus that we don't even know when it started because it's so old isn't close to a like-for-like comparison. The question, especially now, is how deadly is covid post-immunity not how deadly it was to people in 2020. And if anyone doesn't want immunity when it's freely available (in rich western nations), then it's your own fault for not getting said immunity and you face the consequences. The question is whether covid is within society's normal risk tolerance post-immunity and that's what I'm asking. I'm willing to bet it's pretty close to the flu in risk.
We know that immunity to influenza doesn't last. The virus mutates and varies year-on-year, and the immunity doesn't carry over, hence why we need yearly shots. So it's entirely possible and reasonable to expect that plenty of people don't have the requisite immunity to whatever the current variant may be, even if they had immunity to last year's variants.

And with the coronavirus, we know it also mutates very quickly, and we know that immunity to one variant does not convey the same level of immunity to the next. So we may never reach that "post immunity" state.
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
8,598
5,962
118
And that's remdesivir that you argued is good that it reduced hospital stays and why it was good to use.
No, I didn't. Stop lying and creating straw men.

I said there was a weak scientific justification to use remdesivir due to supportive evidence from some high quality studies. This is more than has ever been provided for HCQ or ivermectin. Yet you yourself keep arguing that doctors should feel free to let doctors prescribe what they think is best as a defence for HCQ and ivermectin: and yet you suddenly throw a hissy fit against a drug which had a better (then; less so now) evidence base.

I agree shorter hospital stays mean it doesn't do anything, but if remdesivir is still greatly used for that purpose, then why not ivermectin?
Because there isn't even convincing evidence ivermectin reduces hospital stays. Remdesivir did at least have a handful of high quality studies suggesting it did.

That's literally what people that perform studies and peer review studies have said numerous times. Pretty much everything I say I listened to an expert talking about. You're not arguing with me on most of these topics but people that know more than either of us.
You're only listening to the "experts" that you suit you, and even then only on the bits they say that suit you. That's why you're a fraud. You're like a guy who claims climate change isn't a thing because he only listens to climate change deniers and claims he's just following the experts.

Nope, I was for masks early on when a lot people here said they didn't work (as no evidence of them working beforehand).
Oh my god. You finally want to admit you changed your mind on something, and you changed it from something right to something wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Buyetyen and CM156

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
8,915
782
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
And THEY DIDN'T CLAIM THAT.
They are exploring the reports of high blood glucose in some covid patients and exploring what the connection is. THERE HAS BEEN NO DEFINITIVE CONCLUSION FFS.

"SARS-CoV-2 infection might also induce newly diagnosed diabetes."

It's funny how the CDC releases bad and pointless data yet won't release data that people might actually care about like booster data or natural immunity data. Don't you wonder why a lot of the data we have to go off is coming out of Israel and not the US?



We know that immunity to influenza doesn't last. The virus mutates and varies year-on-year, and the immunity doesn't carry over, hence why we need yearly shots. So it's entirely possible and reasonable to expect that plenty of people don't have the requisite immunity to whatever the current variant may be, even if they had immunity to last year's variants.

And with the coronavirus, we know it also mutates very quickly, and we know that immunity to one variant does not convey the same level of immunity to the next. So we may never reach that "post immunity" state.
You do have lasting immunity to the flu. Just because you get the flu next year or whatever doesn't mean you lost immunity. Immunity isn't just not getting it ever again, it's getting it but it not being as bad as it could be if you've never been exposed. Your body doesn't have to start from scratch in learning how to fight the flu if you have got the flu before. I almost certainly got covid last month (either Omikron or Delta, probably the former) and it was weaker than a cold and noticeably weaker than when I got it in 2020. That IS the "post immunity" state. People who got covid have done better against the new variants than people who only got vaccination immunity. You have good protection against bad outcomes and that's what matters.


No, I didn't. Stop lying and creating straw men.

I said there was a weak scientific justification to use remdesivir due to supportive evidence from some high quality studies. This is more than has ever been provided for HCQ or ivermectin. Yet you yourself keep arguing that doctors should feel free to let doctors prescribe what they think is best as a defence for HCQ and ivermectin: and yet you suddenly throw a hissy fit against a drug which had a better (then; less so now) evidence base.
I thought you had said remdesivir was ok to give because of shorter hospital stays. There's been a lot of back and forth. Sorry.

I'm not saying that remdesivir should be banned and ivermectin allowed. I'm pointing out the double standards as ivermectin gets smeared as horse medicine and has this massive controversy while you have another drug with very similar evidence (the big major RCT said remdesivir didn't work over a year ago now IIRC) that has been just given out willy nilly basically the whole pandemic and nobody really cares. You either allow both equally or disallow both equally.

Because there isn't even convincing evidence ivermectin reduces hospital stays. Remdesivir did at least have a handful of high quality studies suggesting it did.
Because a big study hasn't been done on ivermectin. No placebos were given during the big major trial so reduced hospital stay could just be a placebo effect. That's weakass evidence to be giving out a drug willy nilly.

You're only listening to the "experts" that you suit you, and even then only on the bits they say that suit you. That's why you're a fraud. You're like a guy who claims climate change isn't a thing because he only listens to climate change deniers and claims he's just following the experts.
Many experts said to do randomized cluster trials. The most cited scientist said to do it.

All queued up:

Oh my god. You finally want to admit you changed your mind on something, and you changed it from something right to something wrong.
Where's the proof masks work? There is no proof masks work either pre-covid or post-covid for airborne respiratory viruses.

If mask data was instead the data for a hypothetical drug, said drug would not be approved.
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
8,598
5,962
118
All queued up:
Ooh, bless.

This is the standard tactic of trying to do a takedown of a specific paper to discredit a wider argument. It's aimed at the peanut gallery, but as a scientist I think this is very troubling. The criticisms of the paper are superficially reasonable, but contextually very poor. Trying to compare two independent groups always has some gaps. If you want to ram a intellectual crowbar into those gaps and heave with all your might, you can indeed make that gap appear very big to a listener. But what bothers me is the selectivity of picking out a particular paper to subject to exacting scrutiny, when the same author will be accepting dozens or hundreds of studes with similar standards and not assaulting them, or that they will be contextualising them in a wider picture to assess validity. The other thing is that his criticisms of the paper are superficially plausible, but at the same time waffly, hypothetical and vague: they are not actually backed up by any solid dat and analysis themselves, and that cheapens his criticisms.

The bigger giveaways are the bits where he's not really addressing the paper.

1) Where he says something like "Masks catch virus particles or so they tell me" with a tone of contempt and dismissal. And at that point, his bias is glaring: because the substantial number of studies that shows masks reduce the distance of aerosol spread and prevent them reaching peoples respiratory tract is really important. Because that is establishing clear physical evidence that masks reduce the distribution or inhalation of virus particles.

2) In the same way, he deliberately and casually misrepresents the Bangladesh study to downplay it. He says 11% reduction for surgical masks and 0% for cloth masks. But this is not true. The reduction for cloth masks was in fact 6%, it's just that the reduction was non-significant. For a man who wants to pass himself off as an expert in data analysis, this inaccuracy is really sloppy. And, I fear, it's deliberately sloppy... because he's got an axe to grind.


Edit:
I also note the video advert that went with that YouTube. Some tattooed white rapper spouting a far right, god-bothering, anti-government spiel. This tells us a lot about his audience.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: CM156

Kwak

Elite Member
Sep 11, 2014
2,203
1,705
118
Country
4
It's funny how the CDC releases bad and pointless data yet won't release data that people might actually care about like booster data or natural immunity data. Don't you wonder why a lot of the data we have to go off is coming out of Israel and not the US?
Yeah, must be some kind of conspiracy.
OH MY GOD! THEY'RE DELIBERATELY TRYING TO KILL US!
 
  • Like
Reactions: CM156 and BrawlMan

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
8,915
782
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
Ooh, bless.

This is the standard tactic of trying to do a takedown of a specific paper to discredit a wider argument. It's aimed at the peanut gallery, but as a scientist I think this is very troubling. The criticisms of the paper are superficially reasonable, but contextually very poor. Trying to compare two independent groups always has some gaps. If you want to ram a intellectual crowbar into those gaps and heave with all your might, you can indeed make that gap appear very big to a listener. But what bothers me is the selectivity of picking out a particular paper to subject to exacting scrutiny, when the same author will be accepting dozens or hundreds of studes with similar standards and not assaulting them, or that they will be contextualising them in a wider picture to assess validity. The other thing is that his criticisms of the paper are superficially plausible, but at the same time waffly, hypothetical and vague: they are not actually backed up by any solid dat and analysis themselves, and that cheapens his criticisms.

The bigger giveaways are the bits where he's not really addressing the paper.

1) Where he says something like "Masks catch virus particles or so they tell me" with a tone of contempt and dismissal. And at that point, his bias is glaring: because the substantial number of studies that shows masks reduce the distance of aerosol spread and prevent them reaching peoples respiratory tract is really important. Because that is establishing clear physical evidence that masks reduce the distribution or inhalation of virus particles.

2) In the same way, he deliberately and casually misrepresents the Bangladesh study to downplay it. He says 11% reduction for surgical masks and 0% for cloth masks. But this is not true. The reduction for cloth masks was in fact 6%, it's just that the reduction was non-significant. For a man who wants to pass himself off as an expert in data analysis, this inaccuracy is really sloppy. And, I fear, it's deliberately sloppy... because he's got an axe to grind.


Edit:
I also note the video advert that went with that YouTube. Some tattooed white rapper spouting a far right, god-bothering, anti-government spiel. This tells us a lot about his audience.
The study he was talking about was plain bad. All these mask studies that say masks work only look at very specific time frames. And they "try" to compare similar places looking at metrics that you would think make sense but miss some glaringly obvious flaws. I don't even think he mentions this in the video but if you're trying to compare similar places in a place in time that had similar population density, similar covid spread, and stuff like that. I bet these studies aren't taking into consideration geographical differences like how southern states/counties were the ones without mask mandates and the south gets a covid wave during the summer (both years) so of course, the non-masked places in that time frame (which is always during the time when the south gets its covid wave while the north is on the down slide) end up showing infection increases. When you look at these small time periods, you can make endless studies showing masks work and masks don't work, which he mentioned towards the end. When you look at a much bigger time frame, all the data goes to shit in favor of masks working.

1) Because some mechanism of why it should work doesn't mean it does work, that's why he's dismissive. Are we going to approve all drugs that have mechanistic reasons to work? And if the mask is reducing the distance of the aerosol spread, why don't we just talk to each other slightly angled to the spread isn't going directly to the person you're talking to? Does the actual distance spread even matter in the long run? Because most of the places you get sick are places you spend long periods of time with others and the virus just builds up in the air regardless if you have a mask on or not.

2) He does do the videos in one-take, I'm sure it was an honest mistake. He also didn't go into how there was like no effect in people under 50 IIRC. He was with Monica Gandhi early on with masking but there's hasn't been any actual proof that masks work so he merely requires proof. So we are just taking "no statistically significant effect" as proof now just because that's the answer you want? If we are just going off of mechanistic and no statistically significant effect for proof, then it looks like it's [insert controversial drug's] time to shine!!!

3) You do realize you have to prove something works first. We still have yet to conclude before or after covid that masks work. Medical professionals couldn't even prove surgical masks worked (against airborne respiratory viruses) over decades of studies before covid even happened. We could've done the randomized cluster trials that the world's top scientist said to do, but we didn't. Now, what's the point of masking anyway? With basically everyone exposed to the virus or vaccinated, what actual effect is masking going to have? Maybe it has like a 5% effect in a basically completely un-immune population but that number is much lower now. And what does it matter if the mask rolls that 20 on a D20 and stops you from getting covid when you're just going to get exposed again in the future (next week, next month). The mask isn't rolling a 20 every time. You're going to get covid and you have immunity so why mask at all? There was a reason to delay your date with covid before vaccines (in hope of getting immunity before 1st infection), but now there isn't.

You watch Youtube with ads?

Yeah, must be some kind of conspiracy.
OH MY GOD! THEY'RE DELIBERATELY TRYING TO KILL US!
The 2 top directors of the FDA quit over pressure from the White House. Remember when everyone was scared Trump was going to pressure health agencies, and it ended up being Biden doing that. Some colleges are forcing students to get boosted to return to class when the foremost US vaccine expert, Paul Offit told his son not to get the booster. They literally have killed people by not recognizing natural immunity from the start because in the vaccine deployment, we could've skipped people with prior infection (which was A LOT) and focused on rolling out vaccines to the people that needed them faster. Also, you can have better staffed hospitals and better care by not firing unvaxxed nurses and doctors that were already infected. The CDC just finally released data showing natural immunity provides better protection than the vaccine even though literally every published and peer reviewed study from the entire world doing the entirety of the pandemic has shown natural immunity is better. By not being transparent, they are killing people by causing mistrust in public health information. Even the left memed the shit out of the CDC. Do you not remember the "CDC says..." memes from a couple months back?

What is releasing piss poor data trying to scare people that covid causes diabetes doing but creating mistrust?
 
Last edited:

hanselthecaretaker

My flask is half full
Legacy
Nov 18, 2010
8,738
5,905
118
Random observations from recent experience -

My sis in-law got COVID for the first time last week, which was also the same week her gym lifted mask protocol. Someone came into work sick and she got it two days later. OTOH, she and her GF were boosted and still got it pretty bad. I myself just got it first time beginning of Feb. Had to get tested for work because our toddler tested positive with mild sore throat, reduced appetite being the worst symptoms for a few days. The thing is I had just gotten boosted two days before the kid got tested. We’d have never brought him if we didn’t think he had an ear infection that weekend.

Mine never turned into more than a sniffle. Wife had two PCR tests done a few days after me and both were negative, and she was asymptomatic. She ended up getting boosted a couple weeks later and got body aches and chills. I just felt like I had a hangover the next morning from mine. Kid goes to grandma/grandpas during the week so they both had to get tested too. Both were negative, and both also got boosted a few weeks earlier.



Regarding masks in general it would seem to follow the simple age-old wisdom of covering one’s mouth when coughing or sneezing. Of course, it’s foolish to rely on people to do that at all let alone correctly for a large scale, easily transmissible virus. Masks were always the next logical step towards mitigation, regardless of how people feel about it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
8,598
5,962
118
The study he was talking about was plain bad.
Says who?

All these mask studies that say masks work only look at very specific time frames.
That seems to me a reasonable decision. Comparisons of this sort should be as similar as possible, but because all sorts of factors can change over time in a real world environment, the longer the time frame the greater the risk of confounding variables.

And they "try" to compare similar places looking at metrics that you would think make sense but miss some glaringly obvious flaws.
As previously stated, no comparison can be perfect, and contextually I see no particular reason to dismiss this study as unusually flawed compared to thousands of others which have an acceptable place as reasonable studies.

1) Because some mechanism of why it should work doesn't mean it does work, that's why he's dismissive.
2) He does do the videos in one-take
Although these are at least plausible arguments, I don't find them compelling. Not least because I also remember his video claiming mask mandates to be the death of democracy: that sort of shit gives away a lot.

3) You do realize you have to prove something works first.
Unless it's ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine?

We still have yet to conclude before or after covid that masks work.
We can conclude, because we have sufficient data across the mass of literature to do so. Your idea that we can't is based on a bogus notion that X specific study hasn't been done to Y specific standard with Z specific results, but this is really just refusing to see the wood for a tree.

It is a similar claim as that we can't conclude that anthropogenic climate change is occurring. Where's our super, knock-out study proving it conclusively? To which the answer is... do we need that one, super, knock-out study? No, we don't. You can block up an opening with a lot of small stones instead of one big stone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kyrian007 and CM156

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Jun 21, 2012
8,684
2,879
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
Unless it's ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine?
I think I remember reading a couple of weeks ago a study that was looking at the effectiveness of Ivermectin. They found it did not work on Covid at all. But it DID work only secondary infections. Since your body is weaker during a covid infection, a few other viruses and parasite, who are normally in your body at a safe level, overtook the body during. One was treatable by Ivermectin. No, I can't remember the name, it not something I've heard of before. So, and this has not be proven yet, they are currently thinking that those doctor treating people with Ivermectin were actually accidentally curing other ailments.

So, giving Ivermectin to all patients is stupid and dangerous. But you can test for these other ailments that might show up and give Ivermectin as necessary
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
8,598
5,962
118
I think I remember reading a couple of weeks ago a study that was looking at the effectiveness of Ivermectin. They found it did not work on Covid at all. But it DID work only secondary infections. Since your body is weaker during a covid infection, a few other viruses and parasite, who are normally in your body at a safe level, overtook the body during. One was treatable by Ivermectin. No, I can't remember the name, it not something I've heard of before. So, and this has not be proven yet, they are currently thinking that those doctor treating people with Ivermectin were actually accidentally curing other ailments.

So, giving Ivermectin to all patients is stupid and dangerous. But you can test for these other ailments that might show up and give Ivermectin as necessary
Yes, I definitely recall seeing a study which showed ivermectin had a positive impact on covid mortality... only in places prone to parasitic infections.

Draw your own conclusions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kyrian007

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
8,915
782
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
"I bet these professional researchers haven't done their job right but I, an Internet rando, understand scientific procedure better".
Read the methods of the study... Anyone can do that.

Also, the guy that professionally peer reviews papers said as much, but you, an internet rando, know better than him.

That seems to me a reasonable decision. Comparisons of this sort should be as similar as possible, but because all sorts of factors can change over time in a real world environment, the longer the time frame the greater the risk of confounding variables.



As previously stated, no comparison can be perfect, and contextually I see no particular reason to dismiss this study as unusually flawed compared to thousands of others which have an acceptable place as reasonable studies.
The study says what they looked at to find "similar" places but they miss a bunch of things that don't make them similar. For every study that says masks work, you can do a study with the same or better methods to say masks don't work as there's tons of confounding variables that you can't take into account. That's why you need to do random studies. Are we just going to base drug approvals on looking back on observational data?

Although these are at least plausible arguments, I don't find them compelling. Not least because I also remember his video claiming mask mandates to be the death of democracy: that sort of shit gives away a lot.
Not a video he did...

Unless it's ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine?
Or remdesivir that's still being given...

We can conclude, because we have sufficient data across the mass of literature to do so. Your idea that we can't is based on a bogus notion that X specific study hasn't been done to Y specific standard with Z specific results, but this is really just refusing to see the wood for a tree.

It is a similar claim as that we can't conclude that anthropogenic climate change is occurring. Where's our super, knock-out study proving it conclusively? To which the answer is... do we need that one, super, knock-out study? No, we don't. You can block up an opening with a lot of small stones instead of one big stone.
Again, are we just going to base drug approvals on looking back on observational data? Asking to do something normal that we do to prove things work is asking too much? When the best study we have done on masking says cloth masks don't work, that means we should look at all the other more flawed studies and conclude that they work? You are literally giving the same argument of proponents for controversial drugs for masking just because you like masking. Do weigh not weigh large clinical randomized trials to a much much much heavier weight than much smaller trials? Would you throw out the best well done trial on a drug over 50 smaller ones that say something different? Why are we throwing out the Bangladesh study when it's the best one just based on the methods and it's by a long shot? Just cuz you didn't like the results?

You fail to acknowledge why masking is still needed in a covid immune community. What does it matter that a mask might stop you from getting covid today when it won't tomorrow? You have a date with covid, what does it really matter when you get it? That argument made sense when it was to delay X amount of infections to after someone was vaccinated but what's the point of any masking policy now?