Originally published at: New large study shows Ivermectin makes things worse | Boing Boing
…
8 Likes
The dupes who took this shit have already forgotten. They remember being very, very aNgRy!!! about… something.
15 Likes
Next thing you know, injecting disinfectants and drinking ones own urine will be proven ineffective.
13 Likes
Well, actually you have to take it conjunction with hydroxychloroquine and a daily regimen of drinking your own urine, injecting bleach, and shoving an ultra violent lamp up your butt for it to be effective, so clearly this study is a biased fake news propaganda false flag operation.
6 Likes
13 Likes
Running the study was a complete waste of money, time, and effort. Everyone who understands medical studies and evidence is already vaccinated and wouldn’t even consider horse wormer as a potential cure. And precisely zero unvaxxed morons are going to listen to yet another study that proves their stupidity.
They should have spent those resources on an advertising campaign maligning the anti-vax propagandists. At least it would have had more of a chance of being effective.
2 Likes
The studies are the things that say this, not the fact that it’s a dewormer.
You wouldn’t use blood pressure medication for hair growth, would you?
8 Likes
Science? In medicine!?
9 Likes
Yup, it really cleans you out.
You know it’s working when you start shitting blood, because that’s where the virus is.
6 Likes
9 Likes
I have to disagree. There are bigger reasons to conduct such studies than to convince antivaxer that ivermectin doesn’t work, and that they should be vaxed.
It provides scientific data to guide public policy, guide treatment protocols, convince insurance companies to cover (or not cover) treatments. Even if we already intuited the results, having peer reviewed data confirms this as opposed to making it a matter of dueling opinions.
There are some people who will never be convinced by rigorous scientific studies (pre-pandemic, Steve Jobs was the a high profile example of this), but this study isn’t for them. It’s for the people make health decisions, whether policy experts, doctors, or the average citizen who wants fact based treatment
13 Likes
Dr. Gregory Rice needs to STFU - his first hot take on this drug was wrong and dangerous, THEN he later says he rechecked his data and changed his findings. Damage done, MAGA doesn’t care about corrections or retractions.
1 Like
There have already been dozens of studies on ivermectin + covid despite a complete lack of evidence or proposed mechanism for it to do anything. While it is true that each one adds a tiny amount of scientific knowledge, that doesn’t mean it is worth it. Proponents of crank cures like ivermectin just abuse a misunderstanding of scientific knowledge, as if we haven’t tried one specific thing they we have no idea if it is true or not. They think that any untested hypothesis is just as good as any other but that is completely wrong.
One or two of the initial studies following up on the wildly unrealistic in-vitro results might have been warranted. The majority of them are just a waste of time, and are being used by antivaxxers and con artists to pretend that ivermectin is a serious contender to treat COVID and that we are just waiting for slightly better data. We all would have been better off if they had instead done trials on “does getting kicked in the nuts cure COVID.”
4 Likes
These projects take a long time and someone having published a negative result doesnt preclude others from doing the same when their data is ready. Even though it may not seem important on the surface this is a key part of how science works. Lots of groups failing to replicate something adds a collection of evidence that is less and less refutable. Health decisions are rarely based on a single paper.
Also ivermectin is a commonly used drug and knowing that it can cause poor outcomes in people with COVID is useful evidence when deciding on a individuals treatment. It is quite possible to get COVID while on ivermectin for an actually valid reason. Should you stop their ivermectin? Now there is evidence you might want to.
I also wanted to note that many drugs work well for treating specific ailments despite minimal understanding of their mechanisms. Understanding everything a drug is doing is not always critical to it being useful for a specific application.
4 Likes
I get that, but many of these studies are conducted in parallel to each other, and publication often occurs a significant time after the study concludes. For example, a relative of mine conducted their residency research on Ivermectin’s efficacy on COVID. The research analysis concluded around May 2021, the results were published around October 2021, and the findings presented in February 2022.
At the beginning of the pandemic, and even well into 2021 there was still uncertainty regarding treatment, vaccination was not a sure thing, and the medical science was looking for potential treatments.
If there continues to be a stream of new studies initiate on Ivermectin, that would be a waste, but many of the studies being published were initiated back when we needed good data on ivermectin’s efficacy or lack there of.
(Note: my relative didn’t participate in this study, and the conclusions were pretty much the same: Ivermectin had no impact on duration of COVID treatment, and the side effects don’t justify using it as a treatment.)
Edit: looks like @BradC beat me to it!
2 Likes
Let’s call it a tie 
1 Like
Shhhh…
Let them keep taking the stuff from the feed store meant for livestock (and having severe side effects/facing the consequences of their refusal to believe science).
If anything, this study will have them gulping down even more ivermectin.
2 Likes
You really think that would be a good thing? We’ve suffered through two years of a pandemic, and you still don’t understand that we’re in this together?
6 Likes
