Ivermectin is in the news right now because podcast giant Joe Rogan took it while sick with the Wuhan Flu. Many references to it in the news said it was a horse dewormer. I looked into it a bit more and discovered it won the Nobel Prize for Medicine in 2015.
Here's a good video describing it and why some people might have thought it was useful against the WuFlu.
Does it really work? Beats me. To me, the bigger question is why you would refer to it as a medicine for livestock. All you're doing is damaging your credibility in exchange for ... what?
Seriously, what's the upside here? Joe Rogan's use of it will fade from view in a day or two, but people seeing you as a partisan liar won't fade for quite a while.
33 comments:
When I have seen references to ivermectin as a "horse dewormer", it was because that is how people in the US are obtaining it. The specific product that people in the US are buying is the product that is manufactured for animals like horses. They are buying that because, in humans, it is a prescription drug (and so your doctor needs to cooperate with you in order for you to get it), but you can buy it over the counter for animals. Of course, then the dosing is all wrong, greatly increasing the odds of overdoing it and having bad side effects.
https://health.clevelandclinic.org/why-you-shouldnt-take-animal-ivermectin-for-covid-19/
The study you refer to was done in a petri dish, at concentrations that would be fatal to humans. I'm sure you are well aware of how things performed under sterile conditions don't behave the same when you get to the field.
There have been clinical trials of ivermectin. All but one have failed to show any benefit, and that one outlier had a huge number of problems.
OB, what are you doing here? I'm getting complaints about your comments in off-channel comms. You disagree with absolutely everything and typically don't address the topic of the blog post. This is a perfect example of it. My point is that, in a marketing and sales sense, it does nothing but damage your brand to label Ivermectin as an animal drug.
Your comment is irrelevant and useless. I've been asked to ban you and I can't figure out why I shouldn't.
Tim, this is false.
The media are actively deceiving the public, calling ivermectin "veterinary medicine" or "horse dewormer" in cases that have nothing to do with the veterinary formulation.
https://twitter.com/wcvarones/status/1433784859697184768
KT,
Leave One Brow up. No better way to discredit a moron than to let him keep talking.
K T Cat,
I'm here to see an opposing viewpoint and exchange ideas. Learning about gardening, making a cotton gin, etc., has been a bonus. If I am unwelcome, just ask me to go. I never stay on a site after I am asked to leave. I would agree most of my comments disagree with what you post, but there are the occasional agreements mixed in.
It's odd that people feel the need to complain to you off-channel. Do you feel I have been rude to or dismissive of any of the commentators here? If not, why do you think they are so upset? If so, I would appreciate the chance to apologize to them. Considering I've also seen complaints in the comments against tim eisele, I do wonder if they are complaining about my viewpoint, and would do so regardless of how I phrased things.
I thought the topic of the post included the safety and efficacy of ivermectin. Both the image and the video are addressing its efficacy. Neither of them were relevant to ivermectin being obtained and used from veterinary medicines.
KT: As far as I can tell, the sequence of events went something like this:
1. There were a few suggestive studies that maybe ivermectin could be a prophylactic against Covid-19.
2. People picked up on this, started asking about getting it, and found that they'd need a prescription.
3. The FDA says that while this is an approved drug, it isn't approved for that specifically, and so any use of it for Covid-19 would be "off label" (legal, but they neither recommended nor condemned it).
4. People started finding that their doctors were not convinced enough to give them a prescription, or maybe they just didn't want to bother asking their doctors. So they started buying the over-the-counter stuff formulated for animals and taking that.
5. The FDA immediately says, "No! For the love of all that is holy, please don't take medicines in forms intended for animals! It's the wrong dosage for humans, and could be Very Bad!"
6. The press immediately picks up on the "horse dewormer" thing, and in their peculiar quest for sensation, immediately plays up the idea that Ivermectin is only intended for animals.
While several groups of people are being idiots in this, I don't think the FDA is one of them. I think their position is eminently reasonable - "we don't feel we should recommend this drug for this application, and we strongly caution against humans getting around the need for a prescription by taking pills formulated for animals".
WC Varones,
Veterinary ivermectin has been sold off the shelves. There is no shortage of human ivermectin. To my understanding, Joe Rogan is not taking human prescription ivermectin (very few doctors would prescribe it), he's taking the veterinary stuff. That make the NPR story you linked accurate.
Honestly, I'm curious why people would think that the people saying not to take a useless drug are the people losing credibility.
One Brow,
Do you have a source for your assumption that Rogan is taking the veterinary formulation?
I personally know a doctor who prescribes ivermectin, and I'm not 1/1000 as connected as Joe Rogan is.
"To my understanding, Joe Rogan is not taking human prescription ivermectin"
Perfectly illustrates the effectiveness of the media deception campaign, doesn't it!
WC Varones,
All doctors prescribe ivermectin, so you probably meant "prescribe for covid19". There will always be physicians who prescribe medications their patients can't benefit from, for a variety of reasons.
Anonymous WC Varones,
Perfectly illustrates the effectiveness of the media deception campaign, doesn't it!
Absolutely.
Joe Rogan is not stupid, he's probably well aware that most people taking ivermectin are doing it with veterinary stock, and therefore dangerously. If he is taking doctor-prescribed ivermectin safely, yet trying to blend in with his audience by not clarifying that his medication is substantially different, that is indeed an effective media deception campaign. I'm glad you join me in opposing it.
One Brow,
You're deflecting again, and you're still falling for the false media narrative.
WC Varones,
I'm pointing out that Joe Rogan has his own media narrative, which (AFAICT) is much more false than anything you would find on NPR. I certainly don't object if you decide Joe Rogan is more trustworthy, but don't pretend he doesn't have his own media narrative, and that he's not tapping into a larger media narrative to shape and frame his own. That pretense only insults you.
I can't believe you're not embarrassed by your incoherent and ever-shifting arguments.
First, you said the media wasn't lying because Rogan took a veterinary formulation.
Then, you admitted that you were fooled by the media and Rogan didn't take a veterinary formulation, but Podcast Man Bad because you're sure his listeners will all take veterinary medicine.
Now, you think that somehow Rogan factually reporting on the treatments he used is a "media narrative" which somehow negates the fact that the media lied to you, you believed it, and you have no self-awareness.
You have thoroughly failed to rebut or even address the whole point of the original post, which seems to be a recurring theme with you.
I've made $84,000 so far this year working online and I'm a full time student. I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I've made such great money. It's really user friendly and I'm just so happy that I found out about it. The potential with this is endless. Here’s what I do... Www.NetPay1.Com
WC Varones,
My argument is quite coherent, and has not shifted.
I'm not sure how you read "if" as any sort of admission. My understanding is still that Rogan is taking veterinary ivermectin. Addressing how he would be dishonest if you were correct that it is human-prescribed (notice how I also used "If" above) doesn't change change my opinion. Rational people understand what hypotheticals are.
Many of Rogan's listeners *are* (not "will", *are*) taking veterinary medicine (the "all" comes from you).
Reporting, including self-reporting on what medicines you are taking, *is* creating a narrative. You can feel free to create some self-deception that there is a difference between Rogan creating a narrative and NPR doing so, but I don't see a need to buy into your narrative, any more than Rogan's.
I recognize that you don't see whole the original post has been rebutted. It's pretty clear that between what another poster has said and what I have said, objective observers can see that the notion that the CDC and FDA were losing credibility has been shredded.
K T Cat,
I've been asked to ban you and I can't figure out why I shouldn't.
I've thought a little bit more about this, and it really depends on what sort of space you're creating here. Maybe I don't belong here, maybe I do, but only you can answer that.
I get that many conservatives see their grip on the world slipping awy, and feel the need for safe space to discuss it. I support safe spaces. If you are creating a safe space here (perhaps with a token moderate grandfathered in), I definitely don't belong, and you need only ask me to leave.
If your looking for an exchange of ideas and for people to try and see things from different points of view, then I don't think I've done anything that would be hostile, aggressive, or threatening (if you feel differently, I would appreciate you pointing this out).
A middle ground would be to do this post-by-post, declaring some posts open discussion and others for only conservatives, Catholics, gardeners, whatever you you choose. I will respect any such conditions.
Ultimately, this is your blog, your rules, and I'll follow them.
One Brow:
You’re long on beliefs and prejudices but short on evidence.
WC Varones,
I don't have evidence what type of ivermectin Rogan is taking, true enough. Every other factually-oriented statement I made can be supported with an abundance of evidence.
Still, I tke this sentence as a sign that the conversation is effectively over. Thank you for the dialogue.
One Brow,
No, the conversation isn’t over, if you’re willing to engage honestly. And you replied to KT about conservatives wanting safe spaces. It’s not about that at all. Plenty of progressive are willing to have intellectually honest conversations where they consider evidence that doesn’t conform to their priors.
That does not appear to be you.
BTW, your “red state rubes overdosing on ivermectin” trope is melting down:
https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/rolling-stone-horse-dewormer-hit-piece-debunked-after-hospital-says-no-ivermectin?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+zerohedge%2Ffeed+%28zero+hedge+-+on+a+long+enough+timeline%2C+the+survival+rate+for+everyone+drops+to+zero%29
W.C. Varones,
No, the conversation isn’t over, if you’re willing to engage honestly.
Yawn. your empty insults don't paper over your lack of argumentative substance.
Also, it's very funny trying to quote ZeroHedge and simultaneously lecturing others on intellectual honest. The perpetually intellectually dishonest ZeroHedge piece left out this part of the Rolling Stone update:
The National Poison Data System states there were 459 reported cases of ivermectin overdose in the United States in August.
You can find stories about the rapid increases in overdosing all over the web. For example:
https://www.news4jax.com/health/2021/08/26/poison-control-in-2-states-fielding-influx-of-calls-about-ivermectin-related-to-covid-19-treatment/
The Alabama Poison Information Center at Children’s of Alabama has fielded 24 ivermectin exposure cases so far this year, of which 15 were related to COVID-19 prevention and treatment. It says there have been five other calls seeking information about ivermectin.
By comparison, the center had six total calls involving the de-wormer in 2019 and 12 in 2020.
Feel free to keep saying I'm the one that's intellectually dishonest, but it can't be taken serious if you rely on intellectually dishonest sources for your information.
Yes, several hundred people nationally have overdosed on ivermectin this year, which is a few hundred more than every year. Few, if any, were fatal.
That's a far cry from the absurd bullshit headlines the media have been running with.
Hundreds of people overdose on ivermectin every year, but you most likely never heard about it until it became a way for the elites to pwn the rubes.
You're again willing to hang on to the thinnest of reeds to excuse the completely broken news media.
I agree this discussion is no longer productive. You're simply not interested in examining the central point of the original post, which is media credibility.
WC Varones,
Yes, several hundred people nationally have overdosed on ivermectin this year, which is a few hundred more than every year. Few, if any, were fatal.
I'm glad we agree. I'm sure we agree that it's also good to avoid the non-fatal effects of ivermectin poisoing.
That's a far cry from the absurd bullshit headlines the media have been running with.
The media overreacts to sell stories, consistently.
Hundreds of people overdose on ivermectin every year, but you most likely never heard about it until it became a way for the elites to pwn the rubes.
I only hear about it after people started claiming it was a cure for covid19. Most of the sources I read aren't interested in 'pwning' anyone. Why do you think it's so important if someone gets 'pwned'?
You're again willing to hang on to the thinnest of reeds to excuse the completely broken news media.
Outside of saying one story seems to have been accurate, I haven't defended the media. Sometimes they get it right.
I agree this discussion is no longer productive. You're simply not interested in examining the central point of the original post, which is media credibility.
I said above that all of the media is about crafting a narrative. The difference between us is that I distrust all of the media, while you seem to trust the media that tells you are are smarter than everyone else.
WC V- Please see my latest Comment, which, due to its size, I made as a post on my blog.
Matt Taibbi is an honest progressive who’s not blinded by partisanship and recognizes the huge problem with the media:
https://taibbi.substack.com/p/moral-majority-media-strikes-again-cd2
Ohioan@Heart,
I left a response at your blog. I was not sure how often you visited it.
WC Varones,
Absolutely, there are significant problems with the mass media. I'm not sure we agree on what those problems are, but we agree that these problems make them unreliable.
I see the media as thoroughly corporate. They are owned by rich, run by the rich, and report to the benefit of the rich. Their primary impetus is not accuracy nor truth, but money. If it drives subscriptions/clicks/etc., and it won't hurt long-term responses, they go with it. They certainly aren't going to take the shenanigans of the wealthy nearly as seriously as those of the poor.
We also seem to disagree on the reliability of the second-tier media, where I have even less trust in them than in the top-tier, while you seem to select a group of them as being reliable.
Correct. Partisan hate drives clicks, which is why the corporate media are all about throwing red meat to their partisan readers.
I don't trust second-tier media at all. They're useful for bringing to light stories that the partisan corporate media want smothered with a pillow, but you always have to check the original sources.
Note though that it's not just corporate media.
It was state-sponsored media NPR's whopper that started this whole discussion.
They're all choosing popularity with the base over credibility.
W C Varones,
The corporate media has very few partisans (unless you would create a category for partisan moderates or partisans coporatists). Their entire goal is to get as many people as possible. Sure, you have the far-lefters and the far-righters that complain about it or refuse to use it, but that's part of the business model of appealing to as many as possible.
NPR gets less (percentage-wise and absolute) of their funding from the federal government than Exxon. Would you call Exxon state-sponsored?
I can't believe you are that oblivious to the media business model.
It is far more profitable to throw red meat to the base than to report honest news.
https://www.statista.com/chart/21328/party-affiliation-by-news-source/
Post a Comment