re: Ivermectin is the corona killer- Joe Rogan and Doctors discuss

Been doing all of this since the beginning except for the Ivermectin.

quote:

---

Fauci fanboys or stage 4 TDS sufferers who simply cannot stand for anyone to speak the truth. People may start listening and believing that yes, we've been conned. Bigly.

These downvoters are cowards, and never back up their opinion with anything beyond the red arrow.

---

The way the left has politicized ivermectin and Hydroxy is nothing short of criminal. People should go down hard over this

When i was growing up we used Ivermec to de-worm cattle. Would put spot liquid between shoulders on their back.

From the prior thread about this:

Follow the money

A big part of the argument against certain treatments (that get people banned from platforms for discussing...) appears to be that “the evidence is low quality” (mind you compared to big dollar pharma trials hyping new biotech for $$$$ vs. an option that is cheap with little profit margin)

Read this recently and immediately thought of the irony it presents (level of evidence argument)

https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/second-opinions/93430?xid=nl_secondopinion_2021-07-06&eun=g1803593d0r

quote:

---

Is Confirmation Bias Guiding COVID Vaccine Recommendations? — Policy must be based on indisputable evidence
by Robert M. Kaplan, PhD, and Rose McDermott, PhD July 6, 2021

---

quote:

---

Let's examine how the confirmation bias tendency has played out in the evaluation of studies in support of vaccines. For example, within days of a suggestion of increased myocarditis following vaccination among young Israeli men, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, MPH, ignored evidence in the CDC's own surveillance systems and leaped to the conclusion that vaccines posed no threat. But now, FDA has added a warning about the risk for myocarditis after vaccination with the mRNA shots, and CDC agreed to update their fact sheet.

NIH Director Francis Collins, MD, PhD, who by anyone's standards is a model of personal and scientific integrity, published a blog with the title, "Studies Confirm COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines Safe, Effective for Pregnant Women." The evidence was based on two studies. One of the studies included only 30 pregnant women and did not measure outcomes in terms of maternal or child health. The small sample size is an issue. Imagine concluding that maternal age is unrelated to trisomy 21 based on 30 women ages 35 to 40. Down syndrome, which occurs in about eight per 1,000 live births for 40-year-old moms, would most likely be overlooked. The second study included just 84 vaccinated women who had given birth. Examinations showed the placentas from these births were comparable to those from a group of women who had not been vaccinated. These two studies, comprising a total of 114 pregnancies, were then generalized to all women and to birth outcomes rather than surrogate measures of immunity or placental pathology.

Evidence used to reassure men may be even weaker. In June, JAMA published a study that was designed to determine whether mRNA vaccines diminish fertility. The investigation included a grand total of 45 young (median age 28) volunteers. Semen was collected pre- and post-vaccination. There was a modest increase in sperm concentration, motility, and semen volume following the vaccine. No data on pregnancies, live births, or neonatal complications were available. MedPage Today reported the results under the heading, "Hopeful Dads Can Relax About COVID Vax: No Link to Infertility." A quote from the senior author diminished the methodological limitations: "...even though the 45 number is small, we're confident that we can generalize this to the rest of the population." He went further to express confidence that the Johnson & Johnson and Novavax vaccines, which were not evaluated in the study, would similarly not affect sperm counts. Urology Times reported, "Study shows COVID-19 vaccines do not affect male fertility" without raising a single question about methodological limitations. CNN, under the headline "Sperm count not harmed by Covid-19 vaccine, study says," quoted several experts who reassured men that the study removes any concern about vaccine effects on fertility. Yet, these small studies exert outsize influence because JAMA publications often get extensive media attention.

---

quote:

---

Now, let's do a thought experiment. Suppose the study showed a decrease in sperm concentration or motility after the vaccine. Would JAMA have accepted the paper? Or would reviewers have said: 1) there were only 45 subjects, 2) it used a convenience sample that is unrepresentative of the U.S. population of men, 3) there was no control group, 4) the outcomes were surrogate markers, not actual measures of reproductive success, and 5) follow-up was limited to 70 days after the second dose. The list goes on. The concern, of course, is that confirmation bias is at work.

JAMA upholds very high methodological standards for papers that challenge the dominant narrative. But for studies that reinforce the prevailing wisdom ... not so much. To be fair, we are not aware of any evidence that vaccines adversely affect fertility. But we need more time and evidence to affirm the vaccines have no effect on birth outcomes. That is why Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, and CDC have remained cautious -- CDC says pregnant women can get vaccinated and should discuss any questions with a healthcare provider; NIH also just launched a study to learn more about the vaccine in pregnant women.

---

This theme shows up in the Ivermectin discussion
Cynics claim the data is not good enough (low volume/low quality)

For those paying attention
Unknown unknowns, black swans, and turkeys bruh...

NY Times article about the blind worship of the randomized controlled trial:

https://www.tampabay.com/news/perspective/column-flossing-and-the-art-of-scientific-investigation/2304888/

quote:

---

Flossing and the art of scientific investigation

---

quote:

---

In the case of flossing's benefits, the supposedly weak evidence cited by the Associated Press was the absence of support in the form of definitive randomized controlled trials, the so-called gold standard for scientific research. Why was there so little of this support? Because the kind of long-term randomized controlled trial needed to properly evaluate flossing is hardly — if ever — conducted, because such studies are hard to implement. For one thing, it's unlikely that an Institutional Review Board would approve as ethical a trial in which, for example, people don't floss for three years. It's considered unethical to run randomized controlled trials without genuine uncertainty among experts regarding what works.

---

Y’all think they did RCTs testing parachutes???

quote:

---

And dentists know from a range of evidence, including clinical experience, that interdental cleaning is critical to oral health and that flossing, properly done, works. Yet the notion has taken hold that such expertise is fatally subjective and that only randomized controlled trials provide real knowledge.

---

Back when clinical experience and common sense mattered...

quote:

---

The opposition between randomized controlled trials and expert opinion was fueled by the rise in the 1990s of the evidence-based medicine movement, which placed such trials atop a hierarchy of scientific methods, with expert opinion situated at the bottom. Dr. David Sackett, a father of the movement, once wrote that "progress towards the truth is impaired in the presence of an expert."

---

Corruptible by central planners and $$$$ (Baal Gates)

quote:

---

But while all doctors agree about the importance of gauging the quality of evidence, many feel that a hierarchy of methods is simplistic. As Dr. Mark Tonelli has argued, distinct forms of knowledge can't be judged by the same standards: what a patient prefers on the basis of personal experience; what a doctor thinks on the basis of clinical experience; and what clinical research has discovered — each of these is valuable in its own way. While scientists concur that randomized trials are ideal for evaluating the average effects of treatments, such precision isn't necessary when the benefits are obvious or clear from other data. Clinical expertise and rigorous evaluation also differ in their utility at different stages of scientific inquiry. For discovery and explanation, as clinical epidemiologist Jan Vandenbroucke has argued, practitioners' instincts, observations and case studies are most useful, whereas randomized controlled trials are least useful. Expertise and systematic evaluation are partners, not rivals.

---

quote:

---

The cult of randomized controlled trials also neglects a rich body of potential hypotheses. In the field of talk therapy, for example, many psychologists believe that dismissing a century of clinical observation and knowledge as anecdotal, as research-driven schools like cognitive behavioral therapy have sometimes done, has weakened the bonds between clinical discovery and scholarly evaluation. Psychiatrist Drew Westen says the field is too often testing "uninformed hunches," rather than ideas that therapists have developed over years of actual practice.

Experiments, of course, are invaluable and have, in the past, shown the consensus opinion of experts to be wrong. But those who fetishize this methodology, as the flossing example shows, can also impair progress toward the truth. A strong demand for evidence is a good thing. But nurturing a more nuanced view of expertise should be part of that demand.

---

Now do covid...

quote:

---

I haven’t had a test, but why bother?

---

Just a thought but someday, if the CDC/our government decides to be honest about Covid, having natural immunity might save you some grief and a positive test could be the documentation that you have it.

quote:

---

If you remove this one study from the scientific literature, suddenly there are very few positive randomised control trials of ivermectin for Covid-19.

---

This isn’t true.

From my personal experience....My wife, who is fully vaccinated, tested positive last Tuesday and has been in bed ever since but is showing improvements today. I tested positive on Friday after noticing my sense of smell and taste were gone. I myself isn't vaccinated and were experiencing very mild symptoms but I have a history of high blood pressure. My doctor started me on Ivermectin immediately and today I'm feeling fine. Maybe just a coincidence but id thought I'd share.

quote:

---

Yep - Ivermectin KILLS all Corona viruses

---

Idk about that. I took it when I had covid and was still sick as hell for 6 days.