Originally published at: 2011 study claimed Ivermectin reduced sperm counts of men receiving drug for river blindness, but hasn't been replicated | Boing Boing
…
3 Likes
I had to look up “river blindness” because it was not something I was familiar with. I now wish I was still not familiar with it.
9 Likes
You know we have to mock them for this right? Because if there’s one thing MAGAs love it’s scientific studies that haven’t been replicated, much like the men taking Ivermectin.
3 Likes
We are truly truly fortunate we don’t have to deal with parasites on a regular bases in the US. Crabs or lice are the two most likely pests and even they aren’t that bad.
Like don’t google sand flea removal, were they have to dig out sand flea eggs out of people’s feet 
3 Likes
Yeah I’m really trying hard not to share this one, misleading science and all… But I’m sure others will so it’ll get coverage lol
2 Likes
The effect is temporary, not worth a lot of research.
1 Like
This reminds me of a “study” claiming to have found “female hormones” in vaccines in third world countries. Equally good quality research.
3 Likes
So we now should have a reasonable sample size of men taking ivermectin to study. Lousy controls and dosage but still should be able to get some data.
That makes sense, it’s notoriously difficult to replicate once you’re infertile.
Oh wait, the study? Okay, sure, but if none of the participants ever manage to replicate, then does the study really need to be?
Even the bastardized data types they’ve added to Access in recent years wouldn’t help with that sort of anecdata. (Or maybe they would, and MS has been vectoring the puck correctly this whole time?)
1 Like
The selamectin I apply to my dog lasts a month so if ivermectin has similar decay then one should be able to grab samples and see if there is a correlation. It would be better if one got samples over time since the dose vs the growth of sperm would need to be accounted for….
So new booth in front of Trump rallies to give samples?
It’s not a bug, it’s a feature.
2 Likes
I would tend to agree. I believe the sperm count of dead people is pretty low.
1 Like
Depends. Posthumous sperm retrieval (PSR) is a thing, and sperm is viable for a time frame of typically 24 hours to 36 hours after death.
1 Like
The “study” no good? Welp, one less means of fearmongering for entertainment, I guess.
That whole debacle was a good demonstration of why religion and health delivery need to be kept separate: theocrats always want more. The Bishop-Doctors from the local franchise of Catholicism wanted to dip their beaks in the vaccination campaign, and set out to sabotage it when they didn’t get the funding / influence they wanted.
3 Likes
The study in question was not published in a credible journal
It’s a garbage journal from a predatory publisher. Most likely the authors needed a publication for CV reasons so they made up some numbers and paid $25 to have it “published”.
2 Likes
I may get that tattoed next to ‘DNR’.
1 Like
Better to have Turkey Basters & jugs of Clorox on hand for the treatment that was suggested by their Lord & Saviour. Flashlights, too.
It’s on this list.
https://predatoryjournals.com/publishers/
When I clicked the link, I got this.
Not a great sign.
2 Likes
It’s a feature, sure 'nuff. The stuff is available without Rx out here in Marjorie Taylor Greene’s district. If they are wormy, it’s a sure cure. If not, they will at least be doing the world a favor by failing to reproduce the Idiocracy for awhile.
Unfortunately, in the meantime they will be clogging emergency rooms here and in the next county with overdoses, fentantyl, and opiate ODs.
