He should write a country song.
31 Likes
Ok. Please provide references to the studies that provide the “much evidence in support of its use”?
14 Likes
3 Likes
Especially since that “preprint” article was retracted @oderb
Flawed ivermectin preprint highlights challenges of COVID drug studies
Even the WSJ had to issue a retraction because they missed it. (Paywall, but you can read the first paragraph about them having egg on their face)
18 Likes
WSJ lies.
Again.
The Sun will also rise tomorrow.
Again.
5 Likes
Interesting news headline:
Cited within the article:
“ Dr. Thomas Patterson, the principal investigator locally for the [ACTIV-6 study says while previous studies have shown some promise for treating COVID-19 with ivermectin, there still isn’t enough data to recommend it yet.”
“It is an important drug to study as a repurposed agent, because in lower doses, it is a safe drug to take,” he said.
““I think it’s just really important to recognize the import – the utility of a carefully done study to show is it safe and is it effective? Because that’s an important question.””
“In the meantime, he says patients outside of a clinical trial should not try to self-medicate with it, and no one should be trying to use the veterinary version.
Clinical study info
PS First time I’ve been scolded by disco bot. Is there a badge for this?
4 Likes
Most warped example of cutting off your nose to spite your face I can think of.
Motivation has to be questioned on this. For those that advocate for snake oil cures but also know better, they have to look at people including portions of their own as less than human. It is the only way they could go the distance. They have created that rational as so many who performed atrocities in the past did before them.
11 Likes
Mmmm hmmmm.
- They will self-report any new or worsening symptoms or medical events.
- This study is intended to be all remote with no in person visits.
That’s "Q"uality right there, honey!
8 Likes
Let 'em kill themselves. Joe Rogan included.
Just don’t give it to your kids. They’re innocent.
10 Likes
Not quite. From clinical study website:
All study visits are designed to be remote. However, screening and enrollment may occur in-person at sites and unplanned study visits may occur in-person or remotely, as deemed appropriate by the site investigator for safety purposes. Participants will be asked to complete questionnaires and report safety events during the study. Participants will be prompted by the online system to report safety events and these will be reviewed and confirmed via medical records and site staff, as necessary.
My mind jumped to a different prophylaxis, one which might not be called out like that among strangers.
Okay hunny, whatever you say.
5 Likes
Sucker. The only reason that fools are taking the horse version is that they are following fools like you. Risking side effects to get rid of an organism which is blinding you makes sense. Risking side effects such as shedding the lining of your intestines for no benefit what so ever is senseless.
You have made a lot of claims but provided no links or evidence what so ever.
15 Likes
So does he cite any evidence that it is more effective against Covid than aspirin which is also safe at low doses?
6 Likes
Richest, most powerful nation on Earth whose population has access to a vaccine that costs them nothing, yet are rushing to take anything but said free medication.
Pathetic. I’m just going to give up and watch the body count from the sidelines.
20 Likes
I love my governor.
Can’t tell you how much I despise the R super majorities in the state house and senate in Frankfort.
I canvassed in 90+ degree weather for weeks for Andy Beshear and I’ll do it again.
24 Likes
Read the clinical study to answer your question.
Geeze, let’s not get all tribal here. The universities involved are among the best. It wouldn’t have been approved if it was flawed.
@inversion comment referenced clinical trials. I’ve given a link to one such trial.
3 Likes
Gov. Beshsear is not in a position to say that. If you are not a Kentuckian, STFU you don’t know the lay of the land here. He is a mature individual and a great Gov.
7 Likes
Any baker can tell you that! 
5 Likes
Scientists can study just about anything. But replicability? Aye there’s the problem.
“What we see in the published literature is a highly curated version of what’s actually happened,” he says.
"The trouble is that gives you a rose-tinted view of the evidence because the results that get published tend to be the most interesting, the most exciting, novel, eye-catching, unexpected results.
“What I think of as high-risk, high-return results.”
The reproducibility difficulties are not about fraud, according to Dame Ottoline Leyser, director of the Sainsbury Laboratory at the University of Cambridge.
That would be relatively easy to stamp out. Instead, she says: “It’s about a culture that promotes impact over substance, flashy findings over the dull, confirmatory work that most of science is about.”
Or, diagrammatically,
16 Likes