NWR new zero tolerance covid thread

It's not a Twitter thread, it's a Twitter post referring to a very, very long article on substack about Ivermectin research fraud.
My mistake, Leon mentioned a thread and below was a Twitter link.

I've now seen the article and indeed it does appear to be very long. I'll take a look at it later but what is Astral Codex Ten? Also, at firrst glance there appears to be no publishing date nor an author identified with the report.
 
It's yet another good subject which everyone (not only in the scientific or media field) could learn something from.

We had a huge claim, spreading on social media first and then certain media outlet. This big claim carries hints that has nothing to do with the science itself: the government is cheating you, the pharmacuetical companies are cheating you, the big journals are cheating you, the "elite" scientists are cheating you... Promoted by some politicians/political journalists with ill (or just evil) intentions, and then misinformation spreads like virus among vulnerable public members.

We all know ivermectin is not the first drug being falsely promoted, and covid related misinformation is not just about drugs.

The problem is, more and more false/fake information pretends to be good science data, and it pretends better and better. Reasonable and passionate scientists would really need to spend some time and effort to dig out all the little devils in the details, prove they are wrong, and try to explain to others in a languange understandable, but in the end they are often not listened to. People believe what they want to believe, they'd rather believe what they saw on trashy paper columns or YouTube channels (I should say "non-MSM"), or just a crazy leader. Whatelse we scientific community can do then?
 
The Ivermectin trope has been shown thoroughly and completely to be false. Let's move on.
I wouldn't be too sure of that. In the United States, the National Institute of Health (NIH), an official website of the US Government, it says that:

"Reports from in vitro studies suggest that ivermectin acts by inhibiting the host importin alpha/beta-1 nuclear transport proteins, which are part of a key intracellular transport process that viruses hijack to enhance infection by suppressing the host’s antiviral response. In addition, ivermectin docking may interfere with the attachment of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spike protein to the human cell membrane. Ivermectin is thought to be a host-directed agent, which may be the basis for its broad-spectrum activity in vitro against the viruses that cause dengue, Zika, HIV, and yellow fever. Despite this in vitro activity, no clinical trials have reported a clinical benefit for ivermectin in patients with these viruses. Some studies of ivermectin have also reported potential anti-inflammatory properties, which have been postulated to be beneficial in people with COVID-19."

It goes on to recommend:

There is insufficient evidence for the COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel (the Panel) to recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19.
Results from adequately powered, well-designed, and well-conducted clinical trials are needed to provide more specific, evidence-based guidance on the role of ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19.

At the bottom of the page, under the heading Clinical Trials, it says:

"Several clinical trials that are evaluating the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 are currently underway or in development. Please see ClinicalTrials.gov for the latest information."


I looked it up and there, under the heading ACTIV-6 Outpatient Repurposed Drugs is Ivermectin, listed as being in Phase 3 trials.

"The ACTIV-6 master protocol is designed to test the effectiveness of repurposed drugs (drugs that are FDA-approved for non-COVID-19 indications and have known safety profiles) in reducing the duration and severity of symptoms associated with mild-to-moderate COVID-19. The large, randomized, placebo‑controlled Phase 3 trial will enroll participants who are at least 30 years old, have tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection and show two or more mild-to-moderate symptoms of COVID-19 for no more than seven days. Drugs that demonstrate efficacy in reducing symptoms of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 will be further evaluated for effects on clinical outcomes (hospitalization, mortality) and long-term COVID-19 symptoms."


I'll save everybody the trouble, here is the link to the clinical trial record: ACTIV-6: COVID-19 Study of Repurposed Medications - Full Text View - ClinicalTrials.gov


Beware when mainstream media, almost in unison, takes up a narrative with a ferocity that brooks no opposition and demonizes those who push back with reporting that is deliberately misleading. I saw all that in US media reporting on Joe Rogan.

Mahmoud.
 
I wouldn't be too sure of that. In the United States, the National Institute of Health (NIH), an official website of the US Government, it says that:
Meanwhile the FDA gives very, very clear guidance on why NOT to use Ivermectin. The FDA website is also an official government site.

Even the NIH site says clearly that;
Despite this in vitro activity, no clinical trials have reported a clinical benefit for ivermectin in patients with these viruses.
 
Essentially, what you're saying is that a person is most informed when they take an excerpt from a website and not the entirety of the discussion. Recall that the same NIH goes on to say that the "Panel" neither recommends for or against its use. Rather an equivocal comment wouldn't you say? As you can see they go on to recommend an "adequately powered, well-designed, and well-conducted clinical trials". This is hardly a recommendation you would expect if Ivermectin was, as you put it, thoroughly and completely debunked.

As for the FDA link you provided I note that within the article it says: "If your health care provider writes you an ivermectin prescription, fill it through a legitimate source such as a pharmacy, and take it exactly as prescribed." Not quite the clear guidance is it? They also go on to make the very real distinction between the human and animal drug and not to overdose. They also state that trial are ongoing.

Whatever one's position on the issue, whether for, against, or indifferent, there seems to be a lot more going on than the simplistic messaging that is taking place.
 
The NIH does not approve drugs for use, the FDA does, so the latter carries far more weight in the issue of determining whether the drug should be taken at all. I am not saying that there should not be more clinical trials on Ivermectin, just that there is no proper scientific evidence currently to say that it has any worthwhile affect on Covid-19 patients as opposed to horses. I note that on social media, many anti-vaxxers are pro-Ivermectin which is surprising in the sense that they argue that the vaccines are unsafe, while use of Ivermectin, especially at unapproved dosage levels, is definitely unsafe according to the FDA and in practice in the US there have been several deaths from the use of Ivermectin. And anyway, why do people fixate on Ivermectin as a drug? I can't see a logical reason to be pro its use over the vaccines and other trusted and substantiated treatments of which there are many. You don't see the same people arguing for the use of the Pfizer antiviral drug which is safe and effective (89% efficacy in Covid infected people) and has now been approved for use in the UK. At the very least, the focus on Ivermectin is willfully selective and not explicable rationally.
 
Last edited:
Why would you take something which has proven risk and no proven benefit?

Perhaps when it forms part of your identity as a Trump voter if Trump recommended it.
To be precise Jeremy, Trump was not a promoter of Ivermectin (at least as far as I am aware), but many Trump acolyte politicians have got on the horse de-wormer bandwagon. The arch-libertarian Rand Paul has been one of the most ardent advocates of taking a trip to the vet. Trump was tele-evangelizing hydroxychloroquine, which is of equally unproven efficacy and potentially dangerous.
 
To be precise Jeremy, Trump was not a promoter of Ivermectin (at least as far as I am aware), but many Trump acolyte politicians have got on the horse de-wormer bandwagon. The arch-libertarian Rand Paul has been one of the most ardent advocates of taking a trip to the vet. Trump was tele-evangelizing hydroxychloroquine, which is of equally unproven efficacy and potentially dangerous.
Thank you for the clarification, Richard. Perhaps my lumping together of Ivermectin and hydroxycloroquine is evidence of counter-identification. I gather Rand Paul claims anti-Trump feeling accounts for opposition to Ivermectin.
 
The NIH does not approve drugs for use, the FDA does, so the latter carries far more weight in the issue of determining whether the drug should be taken at all.
What is your point? The FDA, in the link you provided, literally advised people to take Ivermectin as prescribed by their doctor.

I am not saying that there should not be more clinical trials on Ivermectin, just that there is no proper scientific evidence currently to say that it has any worthwhile affect on Covid-19 patients as opposed to horses.
Lets be fair, you were saying that Ivermectin was thoroughly and completely false, and the NIH and FDA stating that clinical trials are being conducted came up later. Are you saying that Ivermectin has a worthwhile affect on horses?

I note that on social media, many anti-vaxxers are pro-Ivermectin which is surprising in the sense that they argue that the vaccines are unsafe, while use of Ivermectin, especially at unapproved dosage levels, is definitely unsafe according to the FDA and in practice in the US there have been several deaths from the use of Ivermectin. And anyway, why do people fixate on Ivermectin as a drug? I can't see a logical reason to be pro its use over the vaccines and other trusted and substantiated treatments of which there are many. You don't see the same people arguing for the use of the Pfizer antiviral drug which is safe and effective (89% efficacy in Covid infected people) and has now been approved for use in the UK. At the very least, the focus on Ivermectin is willfully

Perhaps when it forms part of your identity as a Trump voter if Trump recommended it.
Who cares what people say on social media or what their political stripes are, we're talking about an effective, safe, drug (whose developers were awarded a Nobel Prize in 2015) that may or may not be repurposed for use against SARS Covid-2. Why should we fall into the trap of politicizing a drug? It seems to afflict Trumpers, anti-vaxxers, and then the so-called "woke" Trump delusional folk who pore over the various positions of those they disagree with on some position or the other. "The anti-vxxers drink Beaujolais you say!? I've always felt there was something not quite right about that Gamay!"

I don't use social media, neither Twitter nor Facebook, and I don't really care what silly or stupid stuff goes on there on either side of the divide. I prefer to focus on the relevant facts. What I can say is that much of the mainstream media in the United States, and in other countries that follow their narrative, are playing games. In one instance a report was circulating about a hospital in Oklahoma that was so overwhelmed with Ivermectin overdoses that they were turning away people with gunshot wounds. As this story was repeated across the media landscape nobody bothered to check with the hospital. When finally someone did, the hospital administrator said the hospital was operating normally, that there wasn't anybody being treated for Ivermectin overdoses, and that they hadn't had a gunshot patient for months. So why the fake story I ask

Then there is the FDA. Even they got into the culture wars. In one of their tweets they stated “You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y’all. Stop it.” Now, it is fair to dissuade people from taking the veterinary medicine but take a look at the messaging. They, a government agency, used "y'all", a cultural, class stereotype referring to people from the south, most likely from red states. This is an example of the FDA using slang as a form of cultural derision. In addition, the tweet, seemingly the current fashion for communicating information and ideas, implied that Ivermectin is only used for animals. Invariably most media reports refer to Ivermectin as primarily a drug used for animals, whereas the World Health Organisation lists Ivermectin as an essential medicine. Why the misleading messaging I ask. By the way, just so you know, FDA funding used to be fully taxpayer funded but now gets 45% of its funding from the companies it regulates.

The National Poison Data System (NPDS) in the US reports; The NPDS says 1,143 ivermectin exposure cases were reported between Jan. 1 and Aug. 31 2021. Exposure cases = poisoning. Social media certainly helps sell a pup to the uneducated and irresponsible sectors of society
Once again, let me reiterate, the issue being discussed is whether Ivermectin may or may not be effective as a treatment. What we do know is that a combination of demand and pharmacy refusal to fill prescription, not to social media posts and media portrayal of the drug are driving people to use veterinary supplies and to self medicate. This is a recipe for disaster. It is no wonder that using the wrong drug, in an inappropriate form like paste, self administering, and being unable to properly dose, it is no wonder that people will end up overdosing.

The latest figures from the NPDS show that up to mid-November there have been 1,924 cases this year. Meanwhile the pre- and post-pandemic years of 2019 and 2020 reported only 529 and 549 respectively. Whereas December 2020 had 25 reported cases, in the following month, January 2021, it jumped to 112, only to drop below 100 for the next five months before shooting up in July. According to their figures the medical outcomes were:

Death - 0%
Major Effect - 2%
Moderate Effect - 11%
Minor Effect - 16%
No Effect - 17%
Not followed, judged as nontoxic exposure - 3%
Not followed, minimal clinical effects possible - 38%
Unable to follow, judged as a potentially toxic exposure - 17%

Certainly not a pretty picture but not quite as dramatic when broken down. For the pretty pie chart, tables and graph: https://piper.filecamp.com/uniq/4r22HIv3moDWIWRH.pdf

Did anybody watch Dr John Campbell's video?

Mahmoud.
 
Last edited:
Just because a drug has not gone through the relevant clinical trials to prove it is effective, does not mean that it is not effective. It simply means that it’s not scientifically proven to be effective. Two very different things.
 
Just because a drug has not gone through the relevant clinical trials to prove it is effective, does not mean that it is not effective. It simply means that it’s not scientifically proven to be effective. Two very different things.
I heard vintage champagne corks up the rectum were definitely 110% effective. No research yet but one to try!

But seriously Dominic if you want to be a guinea pig for any number of hocus ideas shared by people lacking the requisite experience and qualifications do go ahead. But I hope everyone else does the sensible prudent thing and wait for a good weight of scientific consensus to arrive.
 
I heard vintage champagne corks up the rectum were definitely 110% effective. No research yet but one to try!

But seriously Dominic if you want to be a guinea pig for any number of hocus ideas shared by people lacking the requisite experience and qualifications do go ahead. But I hope everyone else does the sensible prudent thing and wait for a good weight of scientific consensus to arrive.

I'm not suggesting that anybody takes anything! Merely making a point. But the champagne corks might be helpful now diarrhoea is a common symptom.
 
Yes but the point you are making is dangerous as it encourages people to experiment with drugs that have not been tested and are potentially harmful to themselves. That’s pretty irresponsible.

I don’t think that statement is encouraging anybody to experiment with anything, it’s just a simple fact. Holland & Barrett have a presence on almost every high street & most of what they stock has not undergone sufficient scientific studies to prove the products effective (or safe in many instances). Perhaps they are irresponsible too.

Either way I’m sure everybody here is more than able to make their own decisions on what they put inside their bodies.
 
I don’t think that statement is encouraging anybody to experiment with anything, it’s just a simple fact. Holland & Barrett have a presence on almost every high street & most of what they stock has not undergone sufficient scientific studies to prove the products effective (or safe in many instances). Perhaps they are irresponsible too.

Either way I’m sure everybody here is more than able to make their own decisions on what they put inside their bodies.
You’re comparison to Holland & Barret is idiotic. So I guess we will just have to disagree. But I’m glad the majority of people aren’t daft enough to try such a remedy and for those stupid enough to I hope it doesn’t cause them harm.
 
Top