Is Ivermectin an existential threat?

[EternalVigilance]

@wonderingrover

Umm - yeah - my sister tried Ivermectin when she had Covid. Within 2 hours she was in the hospital.

When will people learn these idiotic “home remedies” don’t work.

Might as well inject yourself with disinfectant as one illustrious former president suggested.

Hopefully, she’s ok now?

[WuWei]

@wonderingrover

Umm - yeah - my sister tried Ivermectin when she had Covid. Within 2 hours she was in the hospital.

When will people learn these idiotic “home remedies” don’t work.

Might as well inject yourself with disinfectant as one illustrious former president suggested.

Double blind study.

[SottoVoce]

@WuWei

They are horse hockey. Entirely dependent on the quality of the individual studies.

Systematic reviews and meta analyses are done to remove poor quality studies and increase statistical power. I guess that’s not a well known concept.

[WuWei]

@SottoVoce

@WuWei

They are horse hockey. Entirely dependent on the quality of the individual studies.

Systematic reviews and meta analyses are done to remove poor quality studies and increase statistical power. I guess that’s not a well known concept.

Sure they are.

[rp5x5]

“De-wormer,” I like the sound of that word.

[JayJay]

@WuWei

@JayJay

I like his attitude. His attitude is keep people off vents…because even now…if you end up on a vent, your prognosis is not good.

My how the tone has changed…

That’s always been the tone.

[SottoVoce]

@WuWei

@SottoVoce

@WuWei

They are horse hockey. Entirely dependent on the quality of the individual studies.

Systematic reviews and meta analyses are done to remove poor quality studies and increase statistical power. I guess that’s not a well known concept.

Sure they are.

Glad there is agreement. Plenty of information is available from plenty of sources explaining how a systemic review and data analysis is performed, how to evaluate their findings and how to evaluate their methods.

But in the end studies (and meta analyses) are all horse hockey unless they say what people want them to say. I know. It’s probably the single biggest takeaway from this board for me. There’s a significant percentage of the population that could not care less about science and statistics. They take pride in dismissing them. It makes them feel vindicated. They feel as if they share a secret underlying truth with like minded individuals. If it’s not what they want to believe or what someone they like has told them to believe, it’s horse hockey.

I use evidence to inform people in their medical decision making literally every day. I give outcomes and alternatives. I used to get upset when people decided to abandon science and rationality when making a choice. Now I almost welcome it. I can tell them I have nothing to offer and I don’t have to feel badly about their outcome.

I still find it fascinating to watch people abandon objective data for faith and hope. The cognitive dissonance never ceases to amaze. That’s probably why I still argue about it here.

[rp5x5]

@SottoVoce

I still find it fascinating to watch people abandon objective data for faith and hope.

I find it disgusting “people” abandon faith and hope for Big Brother fake data.

[WuWei]

@JayJay

@WuWei

@JayJay

I like his attitude. His attitude is keep people off vents…because even now…if you end up on a vent, your prognosis is not good.

My how the tone has changed…

That’s always been the tone.

Oh no it hasn’t. You were Vent Guy last year.

[WuWei]

@SottoVoce

I give outcomes and alternatives

No you don’t.

[SottoVoce]

@WuWei

@SottoVoce

I give outcomes and alternatives

No you don’t.

You’ve seen me consent patients? You seem confident. Post a video. Audio works too. Thanks in advance.

[Kelby]

@SottoVoce

@WuWei

@SottoVoce

@WuWei

They are horse hockey. Entirely dependent on the quality of the individual studies.

Systematic reviews and meta analyses are done to remove poor quality studies and increase statistical power. I guess that’s not a well known concept.

Sure they are.

Glad there is agreement. Plenty of information is available from plenty of sources explaining how a systemic review and data analysis is performed, how to evaluate their findings and how to evaluate their methods.

But in the end studies (and meta analyses) are all horse hockey unless they say what people want them to say. I know. It’s probably the single biggest takeaway from this board for me. There’s a significant percentage of the population that could not care less about science and statistics. They take pride in dismissing them. It makes them feel vindicated. They feel as if they share a secret underlying truth with like minded individuals. If it’s not what they want to believe or what someone they like has told them to believe, it’s horse hockey.

I use evidence to inform people in their medical decision making literally every day. I give outcomes and alternatives. I used to get upset when people decided to abandon science and rationality when making a choice. Now I almost welcome it. I can tell them I have nothing to offer and I don’t have to feel badly about their outcome.

I still find it fascinating to watch people abandon objective data for faith and hope. The cognitive dissonance never ceases to amaze. That’s probably why I still argue about it here.

Most excellent post.

I for one, rely on your voice of reason in medical matters.

Keep it up.

[Borgia_dude]

@rp5x5

@SottoVoce

I still find it fascinating to watch people abandon objective data for faith and hope.

I find it disgusting “people” abandon faith and hope for Big Brother fake data.

Faith is the excuse people use when they don’t have evidence.

[WuWei]

@Borgia_dude

Faith is the excuse people use when they don’t have evidence.

Your© confidence in “science” is based on faith.

Do you deny it?

[Borgia_dude]

@Kelby

@SottoVoce

@WuWei

@SottoVoce

@WuWei

They are horse hockey. Entirely dependent on the quality of the individual studies.

Systematic reviews and meta analyses are done to remove poor quality studies and increase statistical power. I guess that’s not a well known concept.

Sure they are.

Glad there is agreement. Plenty of information is available from plenty of sources explaining how a systemic review and data analysis is performed, how to evaluate their findings and how to evaluate their methods.

But in the end studies (and meta analyses) are all horse hockey unless they say what people want them to say. I know. It’s probably the single biggest takeaway from this board for me. There’s a significant percentage of the population that could not care less about science and statistics. They take pride in dismissing them. It makes them feel vindicated. They feel as if they share a secret underlying truth with like minded individuals. If it’s not what they want to believe or what someone they like has told them to believe, it’s horse hockey.

I use evidence to inform people in their medical decision making literally every day. I give outcomes and alternatives. I used to get upset when people decided to abandon science and rationality when making a choice. Now I almost welcome it. I can tell them I have nothing to offer and I don’t have to feel badly about their outcome.

I still find it fascinating to watch people abandon objective data for faith and hope. The cognitive dissonance never ceases to amaze. That’s probably why I still argue about it here.

Most excellent post.

I for one, rely on your voice of reason in medical matters.

Keep it up.

Mega dittos. It is clear who on this board speaks from a position of knowledge in the medical arena (Sotto) and who does not. You can tell by the quality of posts (quality refers to demonstrated knowledge, not agreeing with any specific position).

[Borgia_dude]

@WuWei

@Borgia_dude

Faith is the excuse people use when they don’t have evidence.

Your© confidence in “science” is based on faith.

Do you deny it?

There are a couple of basal assumptions science makes that cannot be proven;

1. that the universe is real
2. that you can learn something about it

If you want to say I take those on faith that is fine.

[WuWei]

@Borgia_dude

@WuWei

@Borgia_dude

Faith is the excuse people use when they don’t have evidence.

Your© confidence in “science” is based on faith.

Do you deny it?

There are a couple of basal assumptions science makes that cannot be proven;

1. that the universe is real
2. that you can learn something about it

If you want to say I take those on faith that is fine.

I was referring more to the belief, the faith, that “science” can break down, explain and solve any problem, it’s just a question of time.

The basic premise of this faith is that man is ultimately in control.

[WuWei]

@Borgia_dude

There are a couple of basal assumptions science makes that cannot be proven;

1. that the universe is real
2. that you can learn something about it

If you want to say I take those on faith that is fine.

Number 1 is interesting. Can’t prove it’s real. Believes man can change it.

[Borgia_dude]

@WuWei

I was referring more to the belief, the faith, that “science” can break down, explain and solve any problem, it’s just a question of time.

The basic premise of this faith is that man is ultimately in control.

Science is not suitable for answering all questions. Many, perhaps most, but not all.

[WuWei]

@Borgia_dude

@WuWei

I was referring more to the belief, the faith, that “science” can break down, explain and solve any problem, it’s just a question of time.

The basic premise of this faith is that man is ultimately in control.

Science is not suitable for answering all questions. Many, perhaps most, but not all.

WHAT!?

How do we know which questions and where do we turn?