Why is the media still lying about Ivermectin?

I tried to Google search but I couldn't find anything. Maybe my Google search criteria is off do you know what keywords I should use to search this or should I use a different search engine?

 

Please cite that study and how it is qualitatively superior to studies already done in other countries.

 

It's a social critique. I made no reference to any particular person. Why would you assume that it applied to you unless you think that it does?

 

I've never claimed to have expertise in study design. I do have a little experience that causes me to give pointers.

You can find clinical trials from around the world at this NIH site:
https://clinicaltrials.gov

Figuring out which ones the FDA supports as being good enough to be a basis for decision making requires more research.

Part of the problem with that is that FDA sponsorship doesn't come through some obvious name such as "FDA". They have a specific organization in the FDA that is involved in clinical trials.

Clinicaltrials.gov gives too little information to make my (or your) own quality comparison. One can look for terms like "prospective" and numbers of patients that aren't like 20 or something.

I once went to a bunch of the web sites for the tests and was able to figure out the name of the FDA organization that watches clinical tests. But, I didn't write it down. If you do this you may then be able to make selections that isolate the ones the FDA sees as significant or is contributing to.


There are probably easier ways to do this. If you find one, let me know.

 

I didn't think you were attacking me.

I thought you were attacking our medical system.

 

you accused me of an ad hominem. And ad hominem is an argument directed at the person rather than the position which is just a fancy way nothing saying personal attack.

If you don't think I'm attacking you then don't accuse me of attacking you.

That wouldn't be an ad hominem because the medical system isn't a person. It is a something that I am free to criticize.

It's not personal because the medical system isn't a person I can't believe I have to explain this to you.

The whole point of this thread is to attack the medical system especially when it's broken.

I don't view these things as a deity that is beyond reproach it's okay if you do it's just I don't share your values with regard to that

 

When did I claim doctors were performing clinical trials? Quote me. I’m weary of you misquoting me. It looks to be intentional.

Did I claim “empirical” was a measurement? No. I’ve claimed my posts are based on empirical evidence. They are. Most of which is peer reviewed trials and meta analysis of multiple reviewed trials. Everything I post is verifiably correct. What I’ve been responding to here is not correct because it isn’t based on empirical evidence.

Of course it is. Empirical evidence is of much more value in medical science than theoretical evidence or unsubstantiated opinions. Most of what I respond to on PF is unsubstantiated opinions. I offer empirical evidence in the form of quantitative (and to a lesser degree qualitative) evidence. As I said, in most cases that evidence is from peer reviewed studies or meta analysis of studies (which are empirical evidence). Sometimes the empirical evidence I offer is just observational. For example, early in the pandemic people would tell me tests were unavailable for Covid. So I would call my local health department and see if I could get a test if I wanted. When they answer in the affirmative I would post that information along with the contact information for the health department so my evidence could be verified. But that empirical evidence was of much greater value than someone else’s unsubstantiated opinion (not empirical evidence).

Yep. As long as that report included qualitative or quantitative data or observation it certainly would be. And as such has more value than anyone’s unsubstantiated opinion (or theoretical evidence).

Yes. That’s why it’s odd you exclude clinical trials from empirical evidence.

 

This is a VERY standard issue that is going on in medicine ALL THE TIME!

There are people dying or otherwise being seriously compromised by all sorts of conditions where there are various corporations that have possible solutions.

The way this works is that corporations or others qualify for executing a clinical trial.

Then, the doctors of the appropriate patients can find these tests like I showed above (or within their own community of medical resources) and help their patient decide if participating in one of those trials is a good idea.

That's not so hard with ivermectin, as it has already been certified as being safe for humans, at least within certain formulations and dosages. For some brand new drugs the safety portion can be a challenge, as it usually means animal testing, etc., and can be a longer procedure.


How come people don't know how the FDA works??

I'm not calling you on this, as I think a major portion of our population knows next to nothing about how US medicine works.

 

I thought your ad hom was directed at the FDA.

Ad Hominem isn't exclusively for individuals. It can be directed at organizations.

The root problem with ad hominem is that it is a disparagement without any stated justification - like name calling.

 

In other words, you've got nothing. Given that, you really shouldn't be posting over and over about these supposed trials.

The one trial I've found is being conducted through Duke University. It is supposed to be part of the government's ACTIV-6 program. The thing is, this program was announced in April and Duke is still seeking participants here in October. If you read about how this "trial" is to be conducted, it hardly meets any high standard of excellence.

Here are some details about this trial.

People interested are required to be over 30 years old, have a positive COVID-19 test in the past 10 days, and have experienced COVID-19 symptoms within the past 7 days.

If you meet those requirements you can sign up and be randomly assigned to one of the three treatments or a placebo.

Once you’re accepted into the trial, the central pharmacies mail the study drug and a pulse oximeter to your home.

Then, participants will take the study medication as directed, fill out daily surveys online and respond to phone call questionnaires from Szwast on days 14 and 28.

After 90 days, the participants each receive a $100 Amazon gift card as a thank-you gesture for their time and participation in the clinical trial.

Researchers are aiming to enroll around 300 participants.

Now, you tell me. How much confidence would you have in this trial?

 

I don't really care what you have to say about this your opinion means nothing because I have deemed you to be grossly uninformed.

yammering mindlessly about clinical trials is the dumbest waste of time you could possibly do.

I do not care in the slightest.

Medical practitioners need to be able to practice medicine.

You desiring the sciences to work like a religion where there is a supreme deity and no practitioners does not reflect reality in the least.

If you want to live in that dystopia I suggest to move to North Korea

The trial would be harmless because for the 9 millionth time the FDA has deemed ivermectin to be safe in the proper dosage for humans.

Now you did refer to some sort of synergistic effect that would prevent them from doing some other treatment that wouldn't be approved because there's not any approved treatments for covid. But when I asked you to present these synergistic effects that you're so afraid of that your entire argument desperately depends on you ran away.

how come you think this is about the FDA?

The FDA are not scientists medical practitioners are. The FDA is a certification bureaucracy. When a doctor is practicing medicine do you have to use the skills they learned in medical school not an FDA fact sheet.

You keep yammering about the FDA cuz you have no idea what the topic is about.

But you're not really calling me on this you're affirming what I already know that you know next to nothing about the science of medicine that's what you want to deny it so that you can appeal to an authority you're trying to sound more knowledgeable than you are.

 

I'll try to be more ginger with your feelings.
And, I'll continue to expect nothing like that from you.

"Empirical" is a measure in terms of what kind of credence is warranted...

... and you totally agree with me on that!!

No, reread my post.

I said being "empirical" does NOT mean it has the characteristics that justify basing a particular decision on that evidence.

Evidence can be "empirical" AND be total crap.

The outcome of ONE case would be "empirical". But, it would be insane to base a decision on dosage and formulation for use across the world based on that one data point.

 

I wasn't actually attacking anything. So I don't feel the need to defend myself.

Agreed that's why I didn't do it.

If this is the hell you want to die on feel free to explain to me that my statements were an attack on the character of an organization. But until you do that your call-out is dismissed.

 

Hey! You answered your own question!!

Yes, the FDA is a certification bureaucracy.

I view it as a major victory to be on the same side as you in this important way.

Oh oh, back in the weeds!

The topic has been about why ivermectin isn't approved for use in preventing or treating COVID.

That IS what the FDA does, as you noted above!

?? Was that ad hom?

 

You said: "There's also a bit of tribalism at play here. Anybody that disagrees with these people is a fascist a conspiracy theorist and idiot or a Nazi."

That's ad hom against someone. You can try to position the statement all you want. But, given the topic I have to consider that the root of your hate here is the FDA.

 

It wasn't a question. I was aware of that before you posted anything.

I suggest we leave the science to the scientists and not the bureaucrats.

I'm sorry you wasted your time trying to convince me in the dumbest way possible if something I already knew.

No it isn't.

So?

I match the level of civility I'm treated with.

 

I agree with you.

As I've said, there are a good number of tests.

So far, the FDA doesn't have a clinical trial of the quality that would cause them to make the kind of decision they make - backed by efficacy stats, dosages, formulations, age ranges, etc.

I think there is one that does have the required quality. But, I can't cite it. Maybe I'll spend more time looking for it.

But, I'm not an expert in test design.

My posts here have more to do with how our medical overlords do their job.

My own view is that I'm glad they are there and I would STRONGLY oppose making the significant changes that those who hate the FDA are calling for.

 

That's why I was pointing it out.

You misunderstood.

 

Unfortunately, there is a policy dimension to medicine.

But, regardless of that there would still have to be an organization selected to make the calls that the FDA is making.

Or, I guess you could decide like that 2000 libertarian candidate proposed and just allow people to create stuff that then gets used on the population.

Is that what you are hoping for?

I've been stating what is going on today, and you consistently pour your hate on that process.

But, I haven't heard from you how you want to change the FDA process.

Maybe it would help to hear how you would redesign the FDA - or abolish it?

 

I have attacked some standards? Where? The CDC are science deniers and basically a garbage organization at this point. Same with the WHO and NIH etc.

But I’m not aware of a problem with testing standards. For (one of many) example, all empirical evidence shows masks of N95 quality are superior for reducing transmission of Covid than cloth masks. But for almost two years the CDC etc. recommend AGAINST their use. They used various excuses as to why and a year after they ran out of excuses they finally stopped recommending AGAINST high quality masks but still won’t honestly address their use or value. This action surely killed tens of thousands maybe hundreds of thousands. Yet you still worship the ground they walk on. Even though they outright denied science and empirical evidence. You and others appeal to authority not evidence. You let them get away with manslaughter/murder.

Was their a flaw in testing procedures or standards? Not that I can see. Have I ever criticized their testing standards? Not that I can recall.

 

that's not being challenged here.

strawman fallacies from this point will be identified and dismissed and nothing more.

Be better.

Poor little victim.

I'm not sure how better to communicate to you that it isn't relevant.

Strawman fallacies well be identified and dismissed.

Be better.

 

Well, I've never claimed to know precisely what their decision making process is on specific questions.

However, I would point out that we were losing healthcare professionals to COVID in significant number at the outset and one of the serious issues was that those workers were required to wear the same mask for MANY DAYS.

The reason was that quality masks were in short supply.

At the same time, Trump had refused to sign contracts for those who had mask making machines that needed to be refurbished in order to run. So, the view was that sufficient quality masks were going to be in short supply for long periods.

Exacerbating that problem, FEMA was surreptitiously interdicting masks deliveries to hospitals.

Just guessing, but it might be that keeping doctors and nurses alive during long daily major exposure to dying COVID patients got some priority!

Was that an issue worth caring about?

 

Asking you what you would see as a fix to our system is NOT A STRAWMAN.

I'm asking you to PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

 

I'm not a victim - you're vituperation has been almost exclusively directed at FDA policy, not me.

If you want to whine about the FDA, you should at least contribute what it is that would be good enough for you to stop whining.

 

Misrepresenting my argument as though it had anything to do with the FDA is a strawman.

The only thing I said about the FDA that's relevant to my argument is they approved ivermectin in 1981.

Put up what? Some nonsense you want to harp on? I don't care. It isn't the point.

You are attempting to make a red herring.