Current Events > Ivermectin Peer Reviewed Meta-Analysis

(+) Yeah! (+)

This topic is like a really drawn out version of that one sea lion comic.

---

Hornezz posted...

This topic is like a really drawn out version of that one sea lion comic.

Im tired of seeing it get bumped in my active posts, and since apparently no one knows to stop responding to this dude, we need to just speed it to 500

---

DezDroppedFreak posted...

1. this is fucking gamefaqs.gamespot.com not a debate
2. That is not what I meant and you know it

Again, weird-ass bets are usually a sign of bad faith tactics. The last time you did this you were literally trying to set up a gotcha

1. You can have debates on
2. I don't know what you mean. You seem to be implying it's wrong or bad faith to truth check claims about reality. Which like, what is the point of any of this discussion if the people arguing against me don't even believe what they are saying to be true?

It's not a "gotcha" to prove somebody wrong who is insulting and insisting they are right. It's literally reality checking.

You don't get to bully, insult, and insist you are right and then be unwilling to truth check that, that is just like the worst kind of person a person could be. In a debate, fucking obviously, the truth actually matters. So there is nothing bad faith about wanting to truth check both sides's claims.

---

DezDroppedFreak posted...

Im tired of seeing it get bumped in my active posts, and since apparently no one knows to stop responding to this dude, we need to just speed it to 500

There's a hide option on the OP of every topic. I'm pretty sure Darkroast already clicked it.

DezDroppedFreak posted...

Im tired of seeing it get bumped in my active posts, and since apparently no one knows to stop responding to this dude, we need to just speed it to 500

You've posted in this topic 11 times.

And why shouldn't people respond to me? I'm saying something that is very likely true and yet not largely reported. That's pretty relevant/important.

---

ButteryMales posted...

There's a hide option on the OP of every topic. I'm pretty sure Darkroast already clicked it.

Apparently not because shes one of the ones bumping it

and joe Im not even going to respond to that, but if you have to resort to bets you are arguing in bad faith, as you are continuing to do now to defend falling back to that

also my last post in this before today was on June 27. You should know that since you literally went back and counted my posts

---

ButteryMales posted...

There's a hide option on the OP of every topic. I'm pretty sure Darkroast already clicked it.

If so that's pretty sad.

DR: "I am 100% sure I'm right and you are dumb" *refuses to truth check claims, runs away and hides*

---

DezDroppedFreak posted...

Apparently not because shes one of the ones bumping it

and joe Im not even going to respond to that, but if you have to resort to bets you are arguing in bad faith, as you are continuing to do now to defend falling back to that

?

How is "we have to both agree, whatever the truth turns out to be, to acknowledge that the other one was right and we were wrong if we are wrong" bad faith?

That's just saying "in this debate, reality matters". There is literally nothing bad faith about that.

I'm starting to think you don't even know what bad faith means. But caring about the truth, and about standing by your original argument is like the definition of good faith.

---

DezDroppedFreak posted...

Apparently not because shes one of the ones bumping it

Her last post was between 2 to 3 days ago.

McgeesAlice808 posted...

Probably because she's aware of the saying "Don't argue with an idiot; he/she will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience."

If I'm not wrong, and DR is, how am I the idiot?

---

"truth check" means to post videos from anti-vax "intellectual dark web" youtubers

---

Ivermectin seems extremely promising. I think its pretty obvious what is going on with the lack of reporting on this when you follow the money. No one is going to get rich prescribing Ivermectin.

---

McgeesAlice808 posted...

lol that's literally something an idiot would say. Get some self-awareness.

???

"Yes you are right and the other person insulting you is wrong, but that makes you the idiot"

???

Seriously wtf.

Are we at the point that people are acknowledging I'm right about ivermectin? Because if so, I'm really not understanding this "you're an idiot" thing.

---

Frolex posted...

"truth check" means to post videos from anti-vax "intellectual dark web" youtubers

Is that all this is? I mean the guy is telling me to care about Thomas Jefferson in another topic like it was important or relevant too

---

RedJackson posted...

Is that all this is? I mean the guy is telling me to care about Thomas Jefferson in another topic like it was important or relevant too

yeah, joe's sexual frustration led him to Jordan Peterson who started him down the IDW rabbit hole. this is where he ended up.

---

Omega Hunter posted...

Ivermectin seems extremely promising. I think its pretty obvious what is going on with the lack of reporting on this when you follow the money. No one is going to get rich prescribing Ivermectin.

I agree.

I don't just think it's the big pharma money though, I also think people aren't reporting because they are concerned that if it is an effective prophylaxis that could endanger the EUA for covid vaccines, which is a reasonable concern, but not one worth suppressing good science over.

---

joe40001 posted...

I guess I'm not shocked that people don't care about peer reviewed meta-analysis, even when the findings and subject matter are hugely important.

I dont get why anyone didnt just say no to begin with >_>

like no, I dont care? I hardly gave a damn about the virus too honestly, I just wore a mask and washed my hands and got vaccinated lol

Why the mass amount of detail? Youre gonna die in like 40 years

---

RedJackson posted...

I dont get why anyone didnt just say no to begin with >_>

like no, I dont care? I hardly gave a damn about the virus too honestly, I just wore a mask and washed my hands and got vaccinated lol

Why the mass amount of detail? Youre gonna die in like 40 years

The virus is a pretty big deal

---

McgeesAlice808 posted...

You aren't right. Replace all your posts with 911 truther theory and stuff like "can't melt steel beams" and reread your posts. That's what you look like. All you've had are straw grasping which is why no one is taking you seriously. But I think I'm going to listen to Mark Twain myself this time.

So if I am not right, why not bet against me?

Like you literally have nothing to lose but free money/reputation to gain if I'm definitely not right.

---

The betting thing isn't a good angle, dude. You sound like one of those Christian debaters offering atheists a million dollars if they can disprove the existence of God.

---

https://twitter.com/wuooods/status/1252051656344317953

Xavier_On_High posted...

The betting thing isn't a good angle, dude. You sound like one of those Christian debaters offering atheists a million dollars if they can disprove the existence of God.

This has real world testable conditions. That means at the end of the year either I will be right or they will be right. This is just a truth check on who is saying they more factually accurate statement.

---

It doesn't have to involve money. I just think those who will insult a person and call them dumb for believing something should go on the record such that if they are proven wrong they have to acknowledge that they were wrong in their claims and behavior.

You simply cannot call someone stupid for believing something true while you argue for something false.

---

Your beliefs are counter to the facts. Deal with it.

---

DarkRoast posted...

Your beliefs are counter to the facts. Deal with it.

I speculate that in the next year the WHO will recognize ivermectin as a valid treatment and/or prophylaxis for COVID19, it will be something phrased to the effect that "growing/new evidence has shown that ivermectin could be a reasonable treatment/prophylaxis for COVID19, due to it's demonstrable safety the WHO no longer advises against it's use" or better.

Am I wrong?

---

Ivermectin has zero evidence for effectiveness as prophylaxis.

Vaccination is it. Period.

---

DarkRoast posted...

Ivermectin has zero evidence for effectiveness as prophylaxis.

Vaccination is it. Period.

So you think my speculative claim is wrong?

---

Also, btw, what you just said is not true, the meta-analysis refers to multiple prophylaxis studies.

And having ivermectin to help people only helps us in our fight against covid, it doesn't somehow hurt vaccines.

---

BTW, here is the accepted manuscript of the new meta-analysis:
https://academic.oup.com/ofid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ofid/ofab358/6316214

---

i see how you have so many active posts now, half the damn posts in this topic are yours bumping its rotting corpse...

---

joe40001 posted...

BTW, here is the accepted manuscript of the new meta-analysis:
https://academic.oup.com/ofid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ofid/ofab358/6316214

You do know that's an Open Access journal, correct

---

DarkRoast posted...

You do know that's an Open Access journal, correct

If you have such low faith in accepted manuscripts in that journal you should probably tell that to this person:

DarkRoast posted...

Heres a link to the actual, published paper:

https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciab591/6310839

Results
Ten RCTs (n=1173) were included. Controls were standard of care [SOC] in five RCTs and placebo in five RCTs. COVID-19 disease severity was mild in 8 RCTs, moderate in one RCT, and mild and moderate in one RCT. IVM did not reduce all-cause mortality vs. controls (RR 0.37, 95%CI 0.12 to 1.13, very low QoE) or LOS vs. controls (MD 0.72 days, 95%CI 0.86 to 2.29, very low QoE). AEs, severe AE and viral clearance were similar between IVM and controls (all outcomes: low QoE). Subgroups by severity of COVID-19 or RoB were mostly consistent with main analyses; all-cause mortality in three RCTs at high RoB was reduced with IVM.
Conclusions
In comparison to SOC or placebo, IVM did not reduce all-cause mortality, length of stay or viral clearance in RCTs in COVID-19 patients with mostly mild disease. IVM did not have an effect on AEs or severe AEs. IVM is not a viable option to treat COVID-19 patients.

Are we done now?

Oh wait, that's you

---

Jesus tapdancing christ, could you please get suspended again?

---

garbage study garbage math

---

In which joe numbers doesn't even realize she linked to a completely different part of that website
---

Bio1590 posted...

In which joe numbers doesn't even realize she linked to a completely different part of that website

Not quite the gotcha he was expecting considering what she linked was not open forum

---

Open access doesn't mean what you guys think it means...

---

COVxy posted...

Open access doesn't mean what you guys think it means...

Hold up

I'll wait for DR to confirm but I'm guessing the implication is that someone or something paid to get the article out there (because there's an OA fee or something, which can be fairly expensive) which also brings into question how rigorously it was reviewed?

E: Also one thing I noticed that's kind of interesting, but maybe not relevant - the article DR linked to was submitted at the end of May, while the other was was submitted at the end of January.
---

Bio1590 posted...

Hold up

I'll wait for DR to confirm but I'm guessing the implication is that someone or something paid to get the article out there (because there's an OA fee or something, which can be fairly expensive) which also brings into question how rigorously it was reviewed?

Even non OA journals charge publication fees. OA journals just shunt the cost of subscription from the consumer to the producer, so their fees are higher.

OA doesn't have implications for the quality of the journal.

---

COVxy posted...

Open access doesn't mean what you guys think it means...

I know what open access means, and I dont know what her point is in pointing that out. Open Forum Infectious Disease is literally the name of the publication. All I was saying was what she linked to in that quote isnt the same publication.

---

Bio1590 posted...

I'll wait for DR to confirm but I'm guessing the implication is that someone or something paid to get the article out there (because there's an OA fee or something, which can be fairly expensive) which also brings into question how rigorously it was reviewed?

Are you saying that the peer review (something that is not paid for and it's generally done on a voluntary basis) would have been worse because there's a publication fee?

---

Bio1590 posted...

In which joe numbers doesn't even realize she linked to a completely different part of that website

DezDroppedFreak posted...

Not quite the gotcha he was expecting considering what she linked was not open forum

Look, I will acknowledge that I was mistaken and thinking they were totally equivalent. I'm still not sure what the implication DR is going for but I will be fair and honest and say I thought they were more equivalent than they apparently are. I was wrong.

Honestly I saw the domain was the same, I saw the Oxford thing in the corner was the same, and I saw it was the same kind of "accepted manuscript" so I, potentially wrongly, inferred that DR was trying to dismiss something with the exact same academic value as something they used as a silver bullet earlier.

I do hope they are more explicit about what their implication is about the academic value of what I posted, because it seems like many people here also are confused by their implication.

But again, fair is fair, and some of my assumptions and understandings about their equivalence were wrong.

---

metallica846 posted...

Imagine arguing with a doctor.

Um, even you are acknowledging that they are quite possibly wrong.

A title does not inoculate a person from falling into uncritical thinking. I am likely not going to know more about hyper nuances about these kinds of things, but DR has shown that they largely aren't even reading the papers and are much more forming their opinion from parroting talking points they hear on Twitter.

It doesn't take a doctor to outsmart that kind of thinking. I'm fairly good at software engineering, but I'm pretty confident anybody could be right over me if I formed my opinions from Twitter and social media and didn't read or engage with the actual reality on the ground.

Titles don't determine who is right, truth does, and it is telling that DR is not willing to put any sort of reputational or financial stakes behind their brutal and unflinching claim about ivermectin being useless (and, for that matter, me being dumb because I believe it very likely isn't).

---

As much as they don't seem to understand what OA is about, you're making it very clear that you don't have the faintest idea of what "academic value" is, joe

---

scar the 1 posted...

As much as they don't seem to understand what OA is about, you're making it very clear that you don't have the faintest idea of what "academic value" is, joe

It's true I don't know about all this gatekeeping, but reading the paper it seems like good science.

---