Misinformation madness

The degrees of certainty/Wikimedia Commons


Enough with the ranting about “misinformation.”

The country is getting close to “Red Scare” territory, and worse than that, the ranting does not work.


Ranting about misinformation is like telling people they’re stupid and thinking that will somehow make them smarter.

People have a bad habit of rebelling at what they are ordered to believe. Remember Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan?

Democracy is the greatest form of government in the world, but just because you tell people that doesn’t mean, they will buy it. The “misinformed” are as likely as not going to choose some other form of government.

Those ranting about “misinformation” in the U.S. today are the George W. Bushes of 2003. You remember President Bush the junior, right?

The one who believed that once the dictator Saddam Hussein was removed from power the Iraqis would embrace Americans and American democracy with open arms.

The one who declared “Mission Accomplished” in 2003 just before Iraq exploded into another Vietnam.

Winning the peace

Cutting off the head of the enemy – ie. killing the enemy’s leaders – works well in warfare. But then warfare is simple. All it requires is the skill to kill the enemy.


Peace is difficult. You have to sell others on your ideas and principles, and calling them names or, worse, threatening their jobs, their families or even their pets is not a good sales tactic.

It might have been funny when National Lampoon magazine joked about it in 1973, but such tactics didn’t keep the magazine alive. It was dead before the internet exploded to life in the new millennium.

Readers no longer clamored for the Lampoon’s information or misinformation or whatever between the two it was selling.

This is the nature of democracy. Ideas come and go. Some are good. A lot are bad. Right or wrong, people get chose what they want to believe.

It has been this nation’s greatest strength and its greatest weakness. Misinformation, most especially government-driven misinformation, has been a problem almost since forever in the U.S.

But to cite two big examples in modern times, there is the Gulf of Tonkin misinformation concocted by the administration of Democrat President Lydon Johnson that led the country deep into the quagmire destined to be eventually known as The War in Vietnam.

And there is the weapons of mass destruction misinformation pushed by the administration of Republican President George W. Bush that paved the way for the invasion of Iraq and the chaos that followed.

Anyone who truly wants to worry about the danger of misinformation ought to be worrying about every word coming out of the mouth of a U.S. government official, but somehow the pandemic has led many to anoint government officials as fountains of truth

Alaska doctors made national news this week for demanding the State Medical Board, an entity of the Alaska state government, investigate and sanction doctors who question the efficacy of vaccines or suggest off-label use of drugs to treat Covid-19, the disease caused by the now well-known SARS-CoV-2 virus.


One almost has to ask if they’d sanction Dr. Anders Tegnell, the epidemiologist in charge of Sweden’s pandemic response, for spreading misinformation.  He early on observed that face coverings might be less than helpful in preventing Covid-19 infections.

“One such denier, Sweden’s top epidemiologist, has gone ahead to claim that it’s ‘very dangerous,’ indeed” is how the International Business Times reported this. 

“…Tegnell, has claimed that it is very dangerous to believe that face masks would ‘change the game’ in terms of novel coronavirus.

“Tegnell told Financial Times that the face masks can be a complement to other things ‘when other things are safely in place. But to start with having face masks and then think you can crowd your buses or your shopping malls – that’s definitely a mistake.'”

That was in August of 2020, more than a year ago.

Since then masks have become de rigueur in many places either by government mandate or social pressure, and tens of thousands have died of Covid-19.

A University of Vermont study concluded that Tegnell might be right. It found that masks encouraged close contact between people. And as the number of close contacts went up, the risks of the uninfected engaging in close contact with the infected went up.

The inevitable result was more infections, not fewer.

Despite this, some Anchorage doctors have been at the forefront of those demanding mandatory masking in Alaska’s largest city. Should they be sanctioned instead of Tegnell, or is wokeness an adequate shield?

Sweden today?

For the record, Sweden is still struggling with the disease as are most countries in Europe at this moment, but the Nordic nation is not doing so bad now.

Early in the pandemic, Swedish author Johan Anderberg wrote at the start of the month, it was not unreasonable to assume Sweden’s seemingly laidback approach to the pandemic was a mistake as then-President Donald Trump loudly pointed out in 2020.

“But the experiment continued,” Anderberg added. “During the year that followed, the virus ravaged the world and several of the shutdown countries now passed Sweden’s death toll – one by one.

“Great Britain, USA, France, Poland, Portugal, Czech Republic, Hungary, Spain, Argentina, Belgium – countries that blocked playgrounds, forced their children to wear mouth guards, closed schools, fined citizens for hanging on the beach, guarded parks with drones – all have they been hit worse than Sweden.

“At the time of writing, over 50 countries have a higher proportion of deaths in covid.

“If you measure excess mortality for the whole of 2020, Sweden, according to Eurostat, will end up in 21st place out of 31 European countries.

“This fact must be one of the world’s most underreported news. Considering all the articles and TV features that were made about Sweden’s foolishly liberal attitude to the pandemic a year ago, considering how certain data sources were referenced daily in the world media, it is strange that the same sources today seem completely uninteresting.”


Tegnell, it is here worth noting, is also the scientist who observed at the very start of the pandemic that it was going to be a marathon not a sprint.

He was wholly right about that, and the finish line still isn’t in sight. The pendulum could in the weeks and months ahead swing against Sweden.

The country’s infection and death rates could again soar as they are soaring in much of the rest of Europe at this time. Scientists aren’t much better at predicting the future than the rest of us.

The fundamental reason why is that neither nature nor science is static; they are fluid. The world we live in changes daily, and what we actually know changes almost as fast.

Case in point: ivermectin.

A drug originally developed to treat parasitic infections, ivermectin was only months ago being hailed as a cheap and effective treatment for Covid-19.

A two-dose treatment of ivermectin “with a gap of 72 hours was associated with a 73 percent reduction of SARS-CoV-2 infection among healthcare workers for the following month” in India, a PLOS One study reported in February. 

The drug quickly became a rage in that country. When the World Health Organization first questioned its effectiveness, the Indian Bar Association accused the WHO of running a “disinformation campaign.”

A June meta-analysis of all the research done on the drug as it relates to Covid-19 up to that time lent some support to the Indian bar.

The peer-reviewed study published in the American Journal of Therapeutics concluded that “moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.”

Then some of the studies utilized in the meta-analysis were questioned. An article in Nature pointed out flaws in many, and the authors of the paper in question decided to re-examine and re-analyze the data.

“The (original) overall meta-analysis found a 51 percent increase in survival with ivermectin, but excluding the potentially fraudulent trial, ivermectin’s benefit fell to 38 percent and was of borderline significance,” Medpage Today reported in its summary of all this in October.

“Taking out the studies with a high risk of bias led to a further drop – down to a nonsignificant 10 percent increase in survival…Further removing studies with a moderate risk of bias took the benefit down to four percent.”

As all of this was going on, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warned people not to take ivermectin intended for animals – for which it is a common dewormer – to protect themselves from the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

“There are approved uses for ivermectin in people and animals but it is not approved for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19,” the FDA said. “You should not take any medicine to treat or prevent COVID-19 unless it has been prescribed to you by your health care provider and acquired from a legitimate source.”

This quickly went political with CNN headlining that “Right-wing media pushed a deworming drug to treat Covid-19 that the FDA says is unsafe for humans,” which is not exactly what the FDA said.

Totally gray

As the situation stands today, ivermectin’s value as a COVID-19 treatment remains undetermined. Several clinical trials are still underway.

“Some stud(ies) did not find significant difference between the patient group receiving ivermectin and control group,” says the prospectus for one of those posted at Clinical “Until now, the controlled trials evaluating ivermectin in COVID-19 are lacking. Ivermectin is safe, with reported side effect of less than 1 percent. Hence it is essential to conduct a clinical trial with ivermectin in patients with COVID-19. The objective of this study is to establish the efficacy of ivermectin for COVID-19 patients with mild to moderate disease.”

That study being conducted in Thailand isn’t expected to be completed until the end of the year. Another trial is underway at the University of Minnesota and is likely to take even longer.

“The multi-site clinical trial led by the University of Minnesota Medical School received an important green light from the Data Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) to continue enrolling,” the university reported last week. “Safety data from the study is analyzed every two weeks, and now, the DSMB’s first early futility and efficacy report said none of the study arms were futile and enrollment should continue.

“‘This is important because, if the data showed that one or more of the medications wasn’t protecting volunteers at all, the DSMB would halt that arm of the study,’ Carolyn Bramante, MD, principal investigator of the study and an assistant professor of internal medicine and pediatrics at the U of M Medical School. ‘We’re actively recruiting additional participants to complete this study and give answers about whether or not these medications, along with COVID-19 vaccination, can be an important tool in preventing hospitalization, reducing viral load or lowering risk for long COVID.'”

Ivermectin might still prove to be useful in treating Covid-19 as fluvoxamine, a drug long used to treat depression, appears to be. Another common and cheap drug, it is currently being hailed the way ivermectin was at first in India.

But the fluvoxamine excitement comes from the results of one study. A greater pool of studies could well lead to other conclusions as to the effectiveness of the drug.

Drug studies are difficult in that not all drugs work the same for all people, and it is common to find differences in how some drugs work for men or women.

Science is complicated. It lacks the clean and clear authority of religion. What science is sure of today can change tomorrow.

And, yes, there are people who take advantage of this to engage in quackery. They are thankfully few, and the current campaign against “misinformation” isn’t really about them.

The campaign casts a broader net aimed to ensnare anyone who questions the dogma of the day. That’s dangerous behavior in a democracy and, worse, it is a threat to science itself.














50 replies »

    • Bryan,
      Kinda seems like the article itself covers it…
      “Scientists emphasize that obtaining accurate COVID-19 data, particularly in African countries with patchy surveillance, is extremely difficult”
      “Some researchers say the continent’s younger population — the average age is 20 versus about 43 in Western Europe — in addition to their lower rates of urbanization and tendency to spend time outdoors, may have spared it the more lethal effects of the virus so far. Several studies are probing whether there might be other explanations, including genetic reasons or past infection with parasitic diseases.”
      “researchers working in Uganda said they found COVID-19 patients with high rates of exposure to malaria were less likely to suffer severe disease or death than people with little history of the disease…researchers working in Uganda said they found COVID-19 patients with high rates of exposure to malaria were less likely to suffer severe disease or death than people with little history of the disease.”
      “authorities are used to curbing outbreaks even without vaccines and credited the extensive networks of community health workers.”

      Largely third world countries with poor or no testing, monitoring, or reporting structures. Demographics, known comorbidities aren’t as prevalent, much younger population, much more rural vs urban population. Previous exposure to malaria might somehow help prevent covid and knowledge of how to deal with contagious disease outbreaks. I might add that in our civilized first world countries we’ve spent a large amount of money sealing ourselves in hermetically sealed boxes (from homes to vehicles to businesses) in an effort to save money, which has been proven to trap the virus and further the spread.

      • I was thinking in Africa the rampant use of Ivermectin and hydrochloroquine may have had something to do with it.

  1. Fact Check False: UK News Publication Claims Kyle Rittenhouse Shot ‘Three Black Men’

    The legacy British news outlet, which no longer publishes a print edition but retains an online audience and influence in the UK media and political sphere, led with ‘Full story: Teenager who shot three black men with rifle found not guilty on all charges” as the top subheadline of its front-page coverage of the verdict.

    • A simple error of editing is somehow more important to some people than a President Of The United States advising its citizens to use a turkey baster for a bleach enema to cure Covid. This country may be lost already.

      • A “simple error”? You mean like the lie “hands-up dont shoot”, the Kavanaugh lies, the Russian and Ukranian collusion lies, BLM/ANTIFA who claim to be anti-fascist but are anything but.. etc. etc…etc… all delivered from the usual lying smear merchant’s?

  2. Well now we can celebrate Kyle Rittenhouse acquittal ! The evidence pointed in the direction of his innocence but now it’s finally official. Self defense.
    Never should have even been forced into a court room.
    The Da for that state is despicable.
    Now i must say kyles father and freinds should have never let him get into such a dangerous situation. He was extremely lucky not to have been killed by the criminals attacking him.
    Teenagers should be protected more thoughtfully .
    The misinformation spread by the msm and politicians about Kyle was just horrendous libel and slander. Such despicable desperate unethical entities and people.

  3. There’s a difference between misinformation and being misinformed. Most people are misinformed, no doubt including myself. Some people simply spread misinformation. The difference is knowledge and ignorance, if you are knowledgeable that the information you are disseminating is false then it’s misinformation whereas if you are ignorant then you are simply misinformed. Take the conversation from yesterday on this article for example. I don’t think that DPR and Bryan are deliberately trying to spread misinformation, I just think they are misinformed. I asked that they share the information they have and I shared the information that I have. After further review I hope we can all agree that the studies regarding Ivermectin are, at best, inconclusive. While one obviously fraudulent study swayed early beliefs that Ivermectin might be effective at treating covid, so far no other study has been able to show anything close to that obviously fraudulent study. While that might change with further reliable studies, the outlook for Ivermectin effectiveness in the treatment of covid isn’t very promising.

    • Steve o ,
      I believe You mis used the technical definition of misinformation. No where can i find a reputable source saying that its necessary for people to know that the information is false when they spread it to be defined as misinformation.
      Steve o , said “if you are knowledgeable that the information you are disseminating is false then its misinformation whereas if you are ignorant you are simply misinformed”

      Per cambridge online dictionary . Misinformation is :wrong information or the fact people are misinformed.
      Websters equates it with to give incorrect, untrue or misleading information. ( it doesn’t say knowledge of being untrue is required)
      Wikipedia says misinformation is : false, inaccurate or misleading information.
      All these sources indicate it’s regardless of knowledge.
      Apparently it’s either misinformation or its not , based on factual accuracy. Its not based on knowledge or intent as far as i can find.
      Steves usage of the word is very likely factual misinformation itself.
      Hopefully someone more informed than myself can clear that up.
      : if i pass on news or information thats rumor or not factually correct its misinformation regardless of my intent or my knowledge of its correctness’s. An unsuspecting person can pass on misinformation.

      Steve o , statement that Dpr and Bryan are misinformed regarding ivermectin is misinformation. ( its not factually correct)
      We have read many of the same studies he has and have just come to different conclusions. ( thats factually correct)
      Now as to whose conclusion or opinion is correct? Thats up to further ongoing studies to clarify.

      A study I permit to see as important is cataloged under Nih . National library of medicine. Pro
      When I type in the number sequence 34325042 an interesting study of 73 ? People comes up that clearly shows ivermectin significantly helps . ( its a small study but consequential) if you click on sll the associated links it clearly shows ivermectins anti viral action. Especially among rats .
      there are multiple other studies published through similar channels that haven’t been retracted that show positive outcomes.
      Just because a study is small doesn’t mean it isn’t valid. A positive outcome suggests larger studies are needed as confirmation.
      As I would like to present from mr medreds article that larger studies are on going and the people in charge of the studies specifically said outcomes are currently positive enough to proceed with the study.
      So in short it’s misinformation to say dpr or Bryan are misinformed until the ongoing studies are complete.
      At this current point we are not misinformed as there are positive anecdotal ivermectin results and positive small studies results.
      At conclusion of the larger on going studies he and i will be better informed. ( many people will)
      At that point conclusions may change. I may say ivermectin is not a functional treatment whatsoever.
      Steve o , I would appreciate it if you quit saying inaccurate things about people. It takes a lot of effort to clean up your in accuracy

      • DPR,
        Thanks for the correction and definitions, much appreciated. I will have to look up that study on the 73 people you referenced, the only one I remember having stood out was the one where data was falsifed to make it look as if Ivermectin was effective but then later withdrawn because of all the aforementioned falsification. I remember a few other smaller studies that showed a very minimal if not completely marginal amount of effectiveness, maybe this was one of those?

        Oh, and my apologies about all the hard work I make you do correcting all the inaccurate information I put out there.

      • Steve O….if you can read his replies to me, especially the one where he claims the “Democrat Party” is, among other things anti/women, anti black, anti voter……you can ascertain the type of person you are dealing with. You can’t ever win. Give him his space. This country might be lost.

      • Steve o,
        yes that is one of the studies. If you follow all the links attached to it there is added information. Especially important to note was a double dose of ivermectin made excellent difference in animal tests . Also notable was ivermectin has a 20 hour half life and treatments of only one or two days was not effective at all . I think in the study you just linked to – one arm of test was aprx 30% improvement over placebo and the other arm was aprx 10% . There are other notable studies . Obviously larger studies needed for definitive determination.
        Btw you did me a great honor with you polite last post . Thanks.

      • Jim inak ,
        Who are you referring to ? I have had little to no interaction via posts to you.
        In fact I haven’t heard anybody on this forum recently say anything about democrats being anti women.
        There are no method to my knowledge to have hidden or direct private replies.
        Did you get confused? Be careful you are not spreading misinformation.

      • DPR,

        From that study “The mean duration of hospitalization after treatment was 9.7 days (95% confidence interval (CI) 8.1–11.0 days) in the placebo group, 10.1 days (95% CI 8.5–11.8 days) in the ivermectin + doxycycline group, and 9.6 days (95% CI 7.7–11.7 days) in the ivermectin alone group (p = 0.93).” So hospitalization between the placebo and ivermectin was basically the same, with the ivermectin and doxycycline being a little worse.

        When dealing with symptoms like fever, cough, and sore throat the study found “Of note, these changes were not statistically significant for fever (p = 0.35 and p = 0.09), cough (p = 0.18 and p = 0.23), or sore throat (p = 0.35 and p = 0.09) in the ivermectin + doxycycline and the 5-day ivermectin groups when compared with placebo.” So symptoms between the placebo and ivermectin, and with ivermectin and doxycycline were basically the same.

        Viral load did appear to benefit from ivermectin “The mean duration to viral clearance was 9.7 days (95% CI 7.8–11.8 days) for the 5-day ivermectin arm (p = 0.02), 11.5 days (95% CI 9.8–13.2 days) for the ivermectin + doxycycline (p = 0.27) arm, and 12.7 days (95% CI 11.3–14.2 days) for the placebo group.” That seems like it might could be helpful in keeping the sick from spreading the covid for a couple days at the end of their illness.

        The authors of the study admits “the study sample was too small (n = 72) to draw any solid conclusions” then say conclude that “A larger randomized controlled clinical trial of ivermectin treatment appears to be warranted to validate these important findings.” I guess I’m missing the part that shows ivermectin is an effective treatment for covid.

        There are a couple larger reliable studies currently on going. The Together Trial which was the study that looked into hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir / ritonavir, ivermectin, fluvoxamine maleate, and metformin, doxazosin, and Peginterferon Lambda concluded investigations on the first five of those drugs and are still looking into the last two. The trials on hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin were “stopped early for futility” you can read more about the studies here

      • Steve o ,
        Regards “ i guess im missing where ivermectin is an effective treatment”
        Per your quoted study. Ivermectin eliminated viral load in 9 days versus 12 days placebo. 30% faster is very significant. ( nothing to sneeze at🤧)
        What is the goal of an anti viral? Reduce viral replication or reduce viral load . 5 days of Ivermectin clearly did that . = success = effective treatment. Did we have any other equal options at similar time? No .
        What did vaccines do that’s helpful? Reduce viral load . = effective. ( not as effective as expected but helpful)
        Why do you want to reduce viral load ?
        It reduces involvement of immune system and potential organ damage and deaths. Reduce chance of ventilation reduce chance of cycotene storm. Reduce chance of passing on disease.
        Any thing that accomplished that was effective treatment. ( study authors stated this expected benefit after analysis)
        Considering viruses are hard to combat and we had no other known effective treatment- ivermectins success was nothing short of miraculous and a potential life saver.
        Which is what it did for many people.
        Regards little change in symptoms- well symptoms are somewhat subjective wheras viral clearance is not . So that’s nearly statistically meaningless unless you had extreme symptoms that required supporting care – oxygen or desth . No oxygen was needed for ivermectin patients. Ivermectin is an anti viral not a cure all.
        Regards ivermectin and doxcycine – it was only one day of ivermectin and 5 days of antibiotics/ doxycycline. Antibiotics don’t fight viruses. So no surprise.
        Its also notable that study authors mention faster viral clearance and measurements equates with severity of disease. Ivermectin clearances were faster and kept lower which equates less severe disease which equates effective treatment if you have nothing better to offer.
        Apparently when its combined with monoclonal antibodys and a significant regimen of antioxidants and vitamins ect the success rates increase. Therefore ivermectin is part of an effective treatment.
        You take vaccines in the hopes your cov2 disease would be not as severe.
        If you got similar results from ivermectin- why wouldn’t you also take that ? They are both proven to assist some people.
        = effective treatment
        Double the dose or extend the regimen might increase success. Per animal studies snd in vitro.
        I’m told that this studies success is a shocker because for greater success with ivermectin its recommended to start treatment before you have symptoms or as soon as symptoms start so you can inhibit the virus even before it gets rolling in your system.
        Earlier treatment Gives your immune system time to recognize the intruder before its over whelmed . If you start ivermectin earlier the doctors in the know claim greater success rates .
        Your qoated study averaged 3.4 aprx days of symptoms before treatment began. That’s technically to late per doctors and rat studies. The disease had already reached near peak viral load . = to late They prefer immediate application. Yet it still worked . Now a larger more in depth study is needed for confirmation. Per authors .
        Faster viral load clearance = effective treatment.

      • Lower viral load is great but in the study you referenced having a quicker viral clearance time did nothing for symptoms or hospitalization rate. Is there a study to support your belief that taking ivermectin at an earlier point in time helps with symptoms and hospitalization rate? I still have yet to see a reliable study that supports ivermectin as an effective treatment for covid, why is that? The fluvoxamine study shows it’s effectiveness, the vaccine studies show their effectiveness, the monoclonal studies show their effectiveness. Why are we still waiting for a single study to show ivermectin is effective when there have been so many studies done on ivermectin…could it be that ivermectin isn’t effective?

        Lowering viral load is great, clearing it is better but if it doesn’t result in less symptoms, less hospitalization, and ultimately less death what good is it?

      • Steve o ,
        According to your qoated study ivermectin did reduce hospitalization by 30% .
        Please look up viral loads associated with severe cov2 disease . Severe disease and high viral liads are 100% correlated. Its in many NIH studies and if you educate yourself you will understand how reducing viral load reduces risk of death and ventilation. Thats what ivermectin accomplished due to its anti viral action.
        I think you don’t understand The 100% connection between viral load reduction and greater chance of survival and vis versa .
        You are either in need of further knowledge on the subject or having a mental disconnect moment. Please carefully study the subject.
        Thank you.

      • DPR,
        Please inform me what it means from the study you directed me to, when it says “The mean duration of hospitalization after treatment was 9.7 days (95% confidence interval (CI) 8.1–11.0 days) in the placebo group, 10.1 days (95% CI 8.5–11.8 days) in the ivermectin + doxycycline group, and 9.6 days (95% CI 7.7–11.7 days) in the ivermectin alone group (p = 0.93).”

        I am but an ignorant fool, so when it says hospitalization between the placebo and ivermectin were basically the same with one being 9.7 days for the placebo and the other being 9.6 days for ivermectin…how does that equal at 30% reduction in hospitalization?

        Thanks in advance for sharing your wise, knowledgeable, and mentally connected information!

      • Steve o ,
        Thanks for catching that ! ( two heads better than one 😉) I had already recognized what you said before. In that study hospitalization stayed basically the same . Apologies.
        To many times writing and looking at different studies. Without taking notes. ( late nights early mornings) While doing other responsibilities.
        I had read multiple studies elsewhere when re-researching viral load effects on hospital stays . Got it crossed in my mind with your qoated study.
        Now -Stated correctly- your study reduced and eliminated viral loads 30% faster than placebo.
        Other NiH studies correlated lower viral loads with reduced hospital stays . ( the basic important facts remain) ivermectin reduces viral loads , reduced viral loads reduce hospital stays per studies. That was your latest statement issue regarding how you didn’t see how viral loads mattered beyond infecting others. Many apologies on mix up . Its still important to study the correlation between viral loads and death intubation ect . Thank you very much .

      • DPR,
        No worries, it was an honest mistake I’m sure. I don’t recall any other ivermectin studies regarding treatment of covid claiming a 30% reduction in hospitalization, it wasn’t the one you suggested I look up…any chance you could provide a link to that study or a name of the study that claims that? I know there are a large number of studies out there, you sure wouldn’t think it would be so hard to find one showing just how effective ivermectin is at treating covid…unless, of course, it isn’t.

        Is it at all possible that ivermectin isn’t effective in treating covid?

      • Steve o ,
        We will know more in a couple months. Better information then. Granted by then probably other better meds.
        So we will see what is determined. Not much sense in claiming one way or t other at this point with big studies coming. Granted so far evidence points towards a positive.

      • Anecdotal evidence might be pointing to a positive, the studies that are out there are mixed, at best. The one study that seems to have swayed everyone’s opinion turned out to be fraudulent, and is still being cited as proof that ivermectin works. I would like to see ivermectin be the wonder drug so many think it is, however it appears that fluvoxamine might be what ivermectin was promised by so many to be. Sadly many will cling to the hope that ivermectin will still somehow miraculously save them while there are other options with proven results.

        As I said earlier, after further review I hope we can all agree that the studies regarding Ivermectin are, at best, inconclusive.

      • Steve o ,
        Your last statement is filled with misinformation.
        Its not just anecdotal information that points towards a positive. Lowering viral loads is a known positive. 30% . Read more NIH cataloged studies. Reduced hospitalization stays is a positive. 12% or greater per NIH studies and I haven’t looked for the best ones.
        Those are at fractional doses of whats working anecdotally under doctor recommended dosages in America.
        Its a prooven laboratory fact that ivermectin has antiviral action. Saying anything less is misinformation.
        Or more harshly- a lie . From some people ( not you I assume) it’s actually disinformation.
        Alluding to anything less than acknowledging it has anti viral action is misinformation.
        This is science at work.
        Is it an appropriate treatment? Im not a doctor and won’t hazard a guess. Is it effective treatment when paired with other health protocols? Yes . Its shown in studies to make a difference on viral load and hospital stays.
        Those are apparently facts at this moment . these people who study ivermectin claim larger studies needed.
        Then we will know better information. Not before.
        As to you stating that retracted study appeared to make everyone believe one way – that’s misinformation.
        It didn’t make me or most people I know believe anything. It did make some people believe certain things. It didn’t make or break the thought on ivermectin.
        Also – where is the proof the study meets the term of fraudulent? Fraud usually indicates intentional taking advantage unethically. Was there prooven intent to profit or take advantage or spread disinformation?
        This is an article concerning misinformation and I believe you have shown us great examples of misinformation in use . ( no doubt honorable misinformation as you want people to use only prooven medicine or medical advice which shows your honorable intent- which i massively respect you for)

      • Steve o , the mean/ average length of stay in the NIH catalogue study for ivermectin versus control was aprx 22% less time in hospital for intervention group/ ivermectin group. I had said aprx 12% but that was for median. Not as applicable or as important in this case .
        A small study so yes needs larger studies for more thorough knowledge. Per authors. What’s shocking is it showed ivermectin helping even at a low dose taken after disease already manifested itself. Yet still had positive results except for one very dangerously ill lady with co morbitys who died within 24 hours of admission.

      • DPR,

        It might be worth your time to go read the first few paragraphs of this article one more time…

        You keep referring to an NIH study, which study are you referring to? I’ve asked numerous times and for some reason you refuse to cite which of the numerous studies you are speaking of, am I to assume that there is no study and you are simply making up stats to suit your belief in ivermectin? You’ve displayed numerous slips in citing numbers here now, so which ones am I to believe? Help me out here, I want to believe that there is a low cost medication that will help…so far ivermectin is not it, whereas fluvoxamine has an actual study showing true promise.

        Lab tests are great but when the concentrations used would be impossible to consume or would kill a subject long before meeting the concentration required to stop the virus it’s not much use. Just like the clearing of viral load, if it doesn’t affect symptoms or hospitalizations…where’s the benefit?

        Seriously though, go take a look at the first few paragraphs of this article one more time…

      • Steve o, pmid : 34052007 hope that helps . Not the cleanest study but thats why researchers calling for larger. Ive seen a bunch of other positive studies but dont have time to compile them for you.
        Yep maybe that other medicine you speak of is great! Have you heard me malighn it? It could be better than ivermectin . It was a very small study also and needs more in depth review. This thread was discussion of ivermectin and wether studies indicate positive effects of application. Not about other drugs.
        Alluding to me making it up was neither factual nor polite and falls under misinformation about my “character”
        Im sure you didn’t intend that as for some reason you are struggling to pull up studies that are easily found by me .
        I just figure since your computer skills are far more advanced than mine you can easily search the Internet for information. I struggle with the whole internet and how to do links and related items. Im very old school. Paper and books .
        In a few more years If I keep on living i plan to become more skilled with computers and related uses.
        Btw the latest numbers i gave you were close to accurate as they were not just from distant memory.
        More recently looked.

      • DPR,
        That does help, thanks. The problem is there are so many small studies out there and so many currently on going trying to talk about one without citing it isn’t very useful. Add to that all the studies of studies or meta-analysis and anyone can claim anything, especially if fraudulent studies are included.

        As far as the Together Trial that included the fluvoxamine study, it was larger than all of the other early ivermectin studies put together and it’s ivermectin study alone was larger than each individual ivermectin study at the time it started, and as far as I know still the largest concluded ivermectin trial to date…of course the Ivermectin study “stopped early for futility”.

      • Steve o ,
        There is significant problem with “together trial”. They randomly assigned groups . Random assignment doesn’t work. It must be symptom or disease based. So each group gets evenly as ill people as possible . It controls variables. That trial should be mostly dismissed. Really the people who did the trial should be questioned to determine if that oversight was purposefully done . Its a clear mistake.

        I understand everything else you said .

        I have no idea if floximine is good or bad and have no fact based opinion. I hope its functional against covid .
        As to the ivermectin trial that was halted . Details are needed. What was dose ? When ? Disease onset ? Ect
        As with everything- its how the tool was used.
        Was the stopped study using correct treatment protocol?
        Many studies have been stopped for incorrect treatment application.
        Doing treatment right is what makes the difference.
        One person can mis use a tool and a different person can bring skill and accomplish the goal .
        Fair enough though.

    • Steve-O, fair enough.. I do not have all the answers and what I do have may not be right. I merely pointing out pissible alternatives to a vaccines nobody knows what the long term effects are. We do know that Fauci and the Pfizer CEO are liars. We do know that the CDC and FDA are run by incompetent liars. We do know that social media and the media in general are censoring any and all dissent that goes against their lying commands. We do know the average age of Covid related.death is 80yo. Higher than our own life expectancy. We do know if you are under age 65 you have a 99% chance of surviving. Now, I may be off on some of my # because I am generally past caring at this point. Is there a Covid concern, sure, but generally what we are witnessing is a money generating scam with people’s lives in the balance. A lot of people will un-necessarally die.
      We do know India ised Ivermectin liberally to substantially lower their death rates. They were
      Forced to stop because it was bad optics and they wouldnt receive any vaccines if they didnt play the money “game”. Yes, you will find articles stating this or that but we know the truth dont we or is that consideted “misinformation”?

      • I believe the most relevant comment in your post that is full of made up numbers is that you, “really don’t care.” Fauci or Trump? Who would you trust with your health? With your daughter?

      • Jim, clearly Trump. At least he hasnt murdered millions and tried at the Hague. Fauci, what a proven liar.

      • Trump murdered John Prine and 600 thousand other US citizens, didn’t he? Do you remember his conversations with Bob Woodward about how bad this virus is and that it was going to kill a lot of citizens right before he went on TV and told everyone, “It will be over by Easter.” “It’s like the flu” “Take a turkey baster and give yourself an enema with bleach.” Those were the days, weren’t they?

      • Jim, the fact you voted for Biden/Harris says all I need to know. Both the worst Pres/VP in the history of our country.

      • Fixing bridges that are collapsing and killing people. Repairing roads that are causing multiple deaths due to deterioration. Feeding kids. Protecting people from one of the deadliest viruses in human history. Yep. In the the Trump Cult world this is all bad stuff. I feel sorry for you. But ya wanna know something. Brandon won. And YOU KNOW WHY.

      • Come on Jim, an old man with Dementia who doesnt even know where he is at. Who is laughed at.on the world stage. Who currently has an approval rating in tje 30’s and falling. A VP who furthered her career on her back with an approval rating worse than Lunch-Bucket Joe’s. In other words America hates them both. Just look at the Rittenhouse to see which side tue Dems are on.. Little hint – the pedophile and felons. No need to feel sorry for me my friend..I wouldnt associate myself with the racist (past and present) Democrat Party. You know, slavery, KKK, segregation, lynchings,.anti-black/women voting, anti-Civil Rights, etc.. Oh, I know “todays GOP is yesterdays Dems”… um, ok…

    • Steve o ,
      Im guessing you don’t understand how viral load correlates with severity of disease.
      Type in -“Is Cov2 viral load associated with severity of disease” this will bring you to many reputable studies showing reducing viral load reduces severity of disease and reduces risk of intubation. Or rather it shows that patients with high viral loads are at risk of severe disease.
      Age – co morbidity- obese increases risk of viral loads . Many studies on the subject- Look them up before stating incorrect information.
      Reducing viral loads is imperative to effective treatment. This is a prooven self evident fact . Its the basis of anti viral medicine. Your qoated study shows ivermectin reducing viral loads . Therefore its part of an effective treatment regimen. Your study showed 30% reduction in days of hospitalization. Days of hospitalization indicate the true severity of disease. When you are discharged it’s because you improved your condition. Which means you had effective treatment. When you reduce viral load it means you had effective treatment.

      If you don’t understand how reduction of viral load = effective treatment and a less severe disease then you need to read all the studies that show viral load correlates with severe disease and death.
      Please look it up and educate yourself on subject.

  4. majority of countries, have not published their “true/exact” Covid positive and/or death numbers. US & UK are the only two, that are somewhat credible in this regard.

  5. exactly, that is my point….comparing Sweden to other countries is silly at best and mis-information perhaps?

  6. I find interesting the subject of “misinformation”. It is a powerful force affecting almost everyone. In conversation with folks I always ask where they get their information which is the foundation of their belief system. Today with multiple forms of instant electronic information we are bombarded with a lot of messages intended to influence our opinion. Not just sources like Fox or CNN but advertisements and program editing. All in all, a subtle trickle of water on the forehead that effectively washes your brain.
    How will humankind overcome this insidious “programming”: Or are we destined to destruct as a civilization?

  7. George W. Bush DID NOT invade Iraq so that Iraq would embrace the US democratic way of life nor did he do it because he believed Hussein had WMD’s. In 1998 a group of people, many of whom ended up serving in the Bush administration like Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, etc., wrote a letter through the Institute For The New American Century that strongly advised President Clinton that he MUST invade Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power in order to stabilize the Middle East and protect “US economic interests” in the region. That letter was available on the institutes website for several years but, after the Iraq War went bad, it was edited to remove the “economic interests” references and many of the original signatories names were removed.

    • Jim, not to mention a huge number of Democrats who advocated for the invasion of Iraq due to their WMD program.

    • Jim,
      Blast from the past, that many in power circles would want to forget, especially Collin Powell (dec).
      And the answer is Richard Perle.
      Haven’t heard his name or reference to New American Century in some time.IF I wasn’t a recovering republican, id be embarrassed.
      The infrastructure bill and even the BBB social agenda will be cheap compared to the Mid East wars.The goal of our enemy’s isn’t direct war, just the opposite.Bleed us dry, by proxy wars,feints, internal division and cyber warfare.
      All much cheaper than 19th century vision of national defense.

  8. Sweden deaths per million from Covid-19: 1480
    Norway death per million from Covid-19: 182
    Finland deaths per million from Covid-19: 224

    just saying….lets compare countries Sweden to countries it shares a border with similar socio-economic models with if we want to talk silly information.

    rest of the “Scandinavian countries”
    Iceland deaths per million from Covid-19: 99
    Denmark deaths per million from Covid-19: 479

    which does not take away from the premise: Do we really want our local doctors prescribing drugs that have not been tested and approved yet for preventive Covid-19 care? Cause if we do perhaps we would be interested in some snake oil….

    • Jeff ,
      Apples to apples can be a tough one . It would need determined if other variables were at play amongst the scandanavian neighbors.
      Just a couple pop to mind . Iceland is very isolated. Compared to Sweden. Then ask questions like – obesity ratios. Demographics- age , heritage, vaccination status, curve of pandemic ect . Sweeden has welcomed many people from foreign countries. It has high exposure to travel.
      What are sizes of cities? Population density ect . All that and way more must be completely compared to get an accurate picture.
      Just saying “Scandinavian countries” in an effort to pretend accuracy is disfunctional.
      All variables need looked at to determine comparable analysis. Imo

    • Very few countries use the same criteria to count which deaths are Covid deaths.
      The total excess deaths per capita over total deaths per capita in years prior to Covid is a much better comparison. I would like to find a site that lists these numbers by country. I think that would be a much better starting point when attempting to compare the different approaches that were used to combat the pandemic.

Leave a Reply