When I use the term "Youtube doctor" I implicitly mean, "Quack" apologies if it wasn't clear
COVID-19 (Coronavirus) discussion
- Thread starter ThundyCat
- Start date
When I use the term "Youtube doctor" I implicitly mean, "Quack" apologies if it wasn't clear
mk1_salami
mk1_salami
I never said it was. I said it was initially demonised but is now ok to talk about. I've done little research in that area so wouldn't like to comment.
In New York, they ended up stacking bodies on Hart Island because they'd run out of space to process the dead, because the entire health system became overwhelmed by a brand new deadly virus we knew nothing about.
Medical science had to act, and it had to act fast - they didn't have 10 years to spare for medical trials, vaccination was the only way and the best way, and it has worked very well.
You might want to cut some slack to the people who worked around the clock to make those vaccines, in the final analysis - god knows how many lives were ultimately saved by vaccination.
mk1_salami
mk1_salami
mk1_salami
mk1_salami
As far as I can tell, Hart Island has always been used to bury people in mass graves (around 1,500 a year) unclaimed bodies or people who can't afford a funeral.
Don't let that ruin a good photo op / scare mongering headline though.
Last edited by a moderator:
I thought they were super hot on taking down misinformation and dubious sources
Presume he must be legit then
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 May 2006
- Posts
- 7,941
its a tough job youtube has, setting aside the crackpots from those who, whilst may not agree with the majority at least give some thought to their claims................... I dont want nut job disinformation but at the same time equally i do not want to be in a society where views not exactly the party line are hidden either.
I do not generally agree with John Campbell, I think he over sells his credentials (but importantly without lying about them).......... but i do not think he is a crackpot either***. Despite not agreeing with him i do not think he should be silencedr (that would just give even more weight to the actual full on crackpots imo. I do not want us to become like China or Russia where if you speak out against the status quo you are muted one way or another.
***that said for the record I stopped following him a number of years ago where i felt he crossed the line for my tastes from critical thinking to too close scaremongering FUD for clickbait which could cause damage.. so my opinions could be out of date!. (if that sounds contradictory, i dont think it is but it is why i put specifically for my tastes...... He isnt any worse than some of our so called professional journalism imo)
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 12,169
- Location
- London, UK
People were touting it as a treatment with no evidence it was. It like most medicines carries risks, IIRC it can cause heart arrythmias along with other issues. So telling people to take a drug that there is no scientific evidence that it can help, yet to some it might be dangerous should be demonised as a bad idea. In this country you require a prescription, yet many controlled drugs can be bought on the internet without one and in the US their whole health industry is about $, so you can always find a doctor who will give you a prescription for $.
side effects with approved dose. Hardly harmless.
More common
- Difficulty in moving
- muscle pain or stiffness
- pain in the joints
- swollen, painful, or tender lymph glands in the armpit
Less common
- Black, tarry stools
- bloating or swelling of the face, arms, hands, lower legs, or feet
- chest pain
- chills
- cold sweats
- cough
- dizziness or lightheadedness
- dizziness, faintness, or lightheadedness when getting up from lying or sitting position
- eye or eyelid irritation, pain, redness, or swelling
- fast, pounding, or irregular heartbeat or pulse
- feeling of constant movement of self or surroundings
- fever
- painful or difficult urination
- rapid weight gain
- sensation of spinning
- shakiness in the legs, arms, hands, or feet
- sore throat
- sores, ulcers, or white spots on the lips or in the mouth
- swollen glands
- tingling of the hands or feet
- trembling or shaking of the hands or feet
- trouble breathing
- unusual bleeding or bruising
- unusual sleepiness
- unusual tiredness or weakness
- unusual weight gain or loss
Rare
- Agitation
- back pain
- bloody eye
- blurred vision
- change in consciousness
- confusion
- decreased awareness or responsiveness
- difficulty in standing or walking
- hallucinations
- headache
- irritability
- loss of bladder control
- loss of bowel control
- loss of consciousness
- mood or mental changes
- redness of the eye
- seizures
- stiff neck
- unusual dullness or feeling of sluggishness
- vomiting
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 12,169
- Location
- London, UK
Did you bother to read that or just google looking for it? That is not a blind study, its an observation of data supplied across a city by the Brazilian health service. There is zero control, there is no proof that those who said they didn't take ivermectin for covid didn't take it for parasite infection which is a major issue in that area. Also people with parasite infection don't do as well when they have covid as those that aren't infected. As for the peer review, where is it? I think you need to look again for a true controlled blind study that is properly peer reviewed. Looking through the comments it seems one of the doctors admits to being paid by the manufacture of ivermectin.
One of the things that ivermectin can do, especially at higher doses is iirc basically screw your intestinal wall up.
One of the reasons people were saying those taking the veterinary supplies version were being a bit silly is that IIRC almost any medicine intended for human use tends to come in a preparation that is dosed for humans and if it's something where you might need to select a dose yourself the syrup/paste/powder etc it is prepared in is of a low enough concentration that it doesn't matter if you accidentally take 5.5ml rather than 5ml.
Veterinary preparations for large animals tend to be in much higher concentrations as it's far easier to get a spoonful of a medicine into a horse or a cow than it is to get half a bucket (which is the sort of amount you might need if you were dealing with "human" concentrations), and that ignores the fact that a human might need kilo for kilo far less of a dose of something (dosages for many medications vary massively depending on the species you give it to).
I saw idiots boasting of taking the ivermectin horse preparation and giving advice to take a spoonful or whatever, basically a dose for a small horse, not a dose for a human weighing a fraction as much and proudly stating that it obviously worked because their waste had "a huge worm skin in it".
It's also funny that the "jab is bad, look at side effects" lot never considered the side effects of ivermectin etc, let alone the side effects of taking a massively higher dose of it than is prescribed for humans who have a parasite that it can deal with.
One of the reasons people were saying those taking the veterinary supplies version were being a bit silly is that IIRC almost any medicine intended for human use tends to come in a preparation that is dosed for humans and if it's something where you might need to select a dose yourself the syrup/paste/powder etc it is prepared in is of a low enough concentration that it doesn't matter if you accidentally take 5.5ml rather than 5ml.
Veterinary preparations for large animals tend to be in much higher concentrations as it's far easier to get a spoonful of a medicine into a horse or a cow than it is to get half a bucket (which is the sort of amount you might need if you were dealing with "human" concentrations), and that ignores the fact that a human might need kilo for kilo far less of a dose of something (dosages for many medications vary massively depending on the species you give it to).
I saw idiots boasting of taking the ivermectin horse preparation and giving advice to take a spoonful or whatever, basically a dose for a small horse, not a dose for a human weighing a fraction as much and proudly stating that it obviously worked because their waste had "a huge worm skin in it".
It's also funny that the "jab is bad, look at side effects" lot never considered the side effects of ivermectin etc, let alone the side effects of taking a massively higher dose of it than is prescribed for humans who have a parasite that it can deal with.
mk1_salami
mk1_salami
You asked for a peer-reviewed study, so I looked and posted it for you.
It says it's peer-reviewed, right at the top, but as I alluded to in a previous post, I haven't looked into Ivermectin in depth so couldn't tell you much about it. I also didn't read it word for word, because I have a business to run, but the conclusion was:
Excuse my ignorance, but what difference would it make if it was a blind study? Surely you either die, or you don't? I'd imagine a blind study would be useful if you were asking the patient's subjective feelings about something (level of pain for example), but this seems pretty clear cut; you're either seriously ill / dying or you're not?
By the way, I didn't make any claims about the efficacy of Ivermectin; only that it was massively demonised by press outlets after Joe Rogan talked about using it in 2020. Now it seems open to discussion, which is surely a positive thing. Do you want people to have more tools to get better or not?
Last edited by a moderator:
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 12,169
- Location
- London, UK
A proper study should have patients taking the medicine and others given a placebo, all other drugs being controlled so as not to interfere with the results. None of what happened in Brazil was in anyway controlled. The fact that parasitic infections are very common there means people would be taking ivermectin outside of covid or the patient could have a parasitic infection and not be aware of it when they caught covid so making them more vulnerable to it.
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Nov 2014
- Posts
- 7,966
- Location
- The Cronx
edit - can no longer be bothered.
Last edited:
This is very interesting. I'd like to see the evidence of a deliberate cover up. I suspect the doctors were ignorant in their attitude to long covid with this child, as its a position many doctors seem to take rather than be open minded and say they don't know what is happening.
www.ireland-live.ie
Information about Covid-linked condition deliberately suppressed, inquiry told
The mother of a schoolgirl who is too ill to leave the house after developing a Covid-linked condition has accused officials of deliberately withholding information about the illness. Helen Goss, whose daughter was seven when she caught Covid-19 at the start of the pandemic, told the Scottish...
She was in the local papers up here years ago and what this article glosses over is that the apparent onset of long covid in the kid was only after she went back to school following lockdown months later with symptoms that looked more like social anxiety type stuff which then bloomed into a mirade of long-covid stuff later (she alludes to this in her statement to the covid enquiry). I suspect that if the local hospital are withholding emails, it won't be because of a general cover up of long covid, but because of suspicions of other things.This is very interesting. I'd like to see the evidence of a deliberate cover up. I suspect the doctors were ignorant in their attitude to long covid with this child, as its a position many doctors seem to take rather than be open minded and say they don't know what is happening.
Information about Covid-linked condition deliberately suppressed, inquiry told
The mother of a schoolgirl who is too ill to leave the house after developing a Covid-linked condition has accused officials of deliberately withholding information about the illness. Helen Goss, whose daughter was seven when she caught Covid-19 at the start of the pandemic, told the Scottish...
Respected research place says Ivermectin isn't effective against Covid https://www.phc.ox.ac.uk/news/new-s...cks-meaningful-benefits-in-covid-19-treatment
On top of a 2 day reduction in average time to recovery, hidden away in the detail is:
Hospitalisation/death at 28 days Ivermectin - 34/2157 (1.6%) Other treatments - 144/3256 (4.4%)
Now, they explain this away that their trial randomness, probably wasn't actually random. Oops
Also, figure 3 shows that they reckon that ivermectin would have been effective in un-vaccinated people, similar to Paxlovid (and hence why they say Ivermectin isn't effective in vaccinated populations). Shame it's taken this long to get to that point, given that its dirt cheap and readily available.
These companies are using bad PR against Ivermectin because it cuts into the profits of companies selling their new products.
The world as seen how profit over lives governments are with the contaminated blood scandal.
The world as seen how profit over lives governments are with the contaminated blood scandal.
Last edited: