5 ms·

There's also systematic censorship and disinformation against prophylaxis and early treatment information, which could prevent millions of hospitalisations and

There's also systematic censorship and disinformation against prophylaxis and early treatment information, which could prevent millions of hospitalisations and deaths. [1] e.g. YouTube recently censored the Ivermectin Global Summit, in which doctors and scientists showed the overwhelming scientific evidence for Ivermectin from around the world. [2] 1. https://covid19criticalcare.com/videos-and-press/flccc-releases/flccc-alliance-statement-on-the-irregular-actions-of-public-health-agencies-and-the-widespread-disinformation-campaign-against-ivermectin/ https://covid19criticalcare.com/videos-and-press/flccc-relea... 2. https://www.reddit.com/r/ivermectin/comments/nj9713/ivermectin_global_summit_20210523/gz8drdq/ https://www.reddit.com/r/ivermectin/comments/nj9713/ivermect... (video with timestamps and my summary of the key points)

briefcomment 5y ago
Insane How can you be so gung-ho with relatively new vaccines, but bury relatively benign and longer standing interventions?
- noofen 5y ago
  I've had COVID, and this is why I will not get vaccinated, despite CDC recommendations. It's very creepy how they've buried treatments and promoted experimental vaccines.
  - katbyte 5y ago
    Why won’t you get a vaccine?
    - ghoward 5y ago
      Not GP, but I am not until a vaccine is approved by the FDA for non-emergency use. And even then, I think I will wait for more data to come out about the long-term effects of the vaccines.
    - briefcomment 5y ago
      I think GPs point is that if you were optimizing for the best health outcomes, you wouldn't demonize promising, or at least benign, non-vaccine treatments. Doing so makes it seem like the vaccine push is optimizing for something else.
- caddemon 5y ago
  I mean if a benign intervention doesn't actually work and it causes people to avoid a real intervention that is problematic. There's definitely plenty of alternative medicine misinformation out there that makes similar arguments about safety and history. That said, it is wrong for YouTube to be removing these videos IMO. First of all, who at YouTube reviewed the material? Do they actually have the expertise necessary to filter out fake claims? There are plenty of natural treatments out there that actually can be helpful, and I doubt YouTube hired a doctor familiar with the relevant literature for its fact checking operation. Second of all, why is YouTube so fixated on removing COVID-related videos? Is this sort of content about possible preventative measures really more harmful than countless videos that exist on YouTube about natural "cures" for cancer? And really these are just implementation concerns, there's also potentially more fundamental problems with silencing information like this. I haven't read enough on what the OP posted to comment on how real it may be, but even supposing it were false information, deleting the videos entirely may not be a net positive.
  - nerdponx 5y ago
    Second of all, why is YouTube so fixated on removing COVID-related videos? My guess is they're afraid of what happens if/when some anti-anti-vax activist group uses it to justify aggressively regulating Youtube.
  - ratsmack 5y ago
    >why is YouTube so fixated on removing COVID-related videos? Could it be to protect their advertising revenue interests from the huge Pharmaceutical Industry?
  - aliasEli 5y ago
    > Second of all, why is YouTube so fixated on removing COVID-related videos? How about lawsuits? People who followed advice on YouTube (or their relatives) could sue YouTube. YouTube already has the technical means to remove video's (e.g. porn), so they will have to defend why they did not do that in this case. There have been a large number of people in the U.S. that died or were infected, so the number of potential litigants is also large.
  - 5y ago
- ndiddy 5y ago
  One of the criteria for FDA Emergency Use Authorization is that there's no adequate, approved, and available alternatives (https://www.fda.gov/emergency-preparedness-and-response/mcm-legal-regulatory-and-policy-framework/emergency-use-authorization https://www.fda.gov/emergency-preparedness-and-response/mcm-...) so if they started looking into alternative treatments it could have jeopardized approval of the vaccines.
  - brippalcharrid 5y ago
    You'd hope that if there had been promising candidates for prophylactic/therapeutic treatment involving off-patent/generic drugs that the regulator and the medical establishment would have considered them on their merits, and not systematically squashed them with bad studies and half-truths in favor of top-shelf Big Pharma products. It would be unconscionable for people in these positions of authority to have shown partiality towards the pharmaceutical industry in a matter like this which would have delayed access to treatment and which gives rise to serious concerns about patient safety, especially considering the difference in the amount of medium and long-term safety data that is available about them (months compared to decades).
- briefcomment 5y ago
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfqxCkJw0Rk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfqxCkJw0Rk
CiceroCiceronis 5y ago
A recently released meta—analysis from the British Medical Journal suggests that the evidence base for ivermectin’s efficacy in treating COVID-19 is low. https://ebm.bmj.com/content/early/2021/05/26/bmjebm-2021-111678 https://ebm.bmj.com/content/early/2021/05/26/bmjebm-2021-111...
- shaicoleman 5y ago
  If you'll look carefully, you'll see that's a non peer-reviewed opinion piece. That's a prime example of disinformation, and indeed the most reputable journals unfortunately play a role in it. Just to rebut the first thing random thing I saw: "An important controversial point to consider in any rationale is the 5 µM required concentration to reach the anti-SARS-CoV-2 action of ivermectin observed in vitro,17 which is much higher than 0.28 µM, the maximum reported plasma concentration achieved in vivo with a dose of approximately 1700 µg/kg (about nine times the FDA-approved dosification)" They are bringing up the in-vitro studies initially done on monkey kidney cells, and then claiming that you'll need such a high dose in a clinical setting. The doses for prophylactic and early treatment are an order of magnitude lower (0.2mg/kg) [1], and in that dose it's safer than paracetamol. "Ivermectin was generally well tolerated, with no indication of associated CNS toxicity for doses up to 10 times the highest FDA-approved dose of 0.2mg/kg." [2] In my second link, there's a talk rebutting the in-vitro safety concerns in detail: [3] There are over 50 studies showing that Ivermectin is effective, and more are coming in every day. [4] 1. https://covid19criticalcare.com/covid-19-protocols/i-mask-plus-protocol/ https://covid19criticalcare.com/covid-19-protocols/i-mask-pl... 2. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12362927/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12362927/ 3. https://player.vimeo.com/video/554350476?autoplay=1#t=4702 https://player.vimeo.com/video/554350476?autoplay=1#t=4702 4. https://c19ivermectin.com/ https://c19ivermectin.com/
  - chimprich 5y ago
    > That's a prime example of disinformation, and indeed the most reputable journals unfortunately play a role in it. I'm going to trust an opinion in the BMJ over: > There are over 50 studies showing that Ivermectin is effective There have been a vast number of junk studies produced during the pandemic and rolling out 50 of them means very little. How many of them are pre-registered RCTs? How many of them are in low-quality journals? The BMJ article actually refers to that https://c19ivermectin.com/ https://c19ivermectin.com/ site: "Different websites (such as https://ivmmeta.com/ https://ivmmeta.com/, https://c19ivermectin.com/ https://c19ivermectin.com/, https://tratamientotemprano.org/estudios-ivermectina/ https://tratamientotemprano.org/estudios-ivermectina/, among others) have conducted meta-analyses with ivermectin studies, showing unpublished colourful forest plots which rapidly gained public acknowledgement and were disseminated via social media, without following any methodological or report guidelines. These websites do not include protocol registration with methods, search strategies, inclusion criteria, quality assessment of the included studies nor the certainty of the evidence of the pooled estimates. Prospective registration of systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis protocols is a key feature for providing transparency in the review process and ensuring protection against reporting biases, by revealing differences between the methods or outcomes reported in the published review and those planned in the registered protocol."

briefcomment 5y ago

Insane How can you be so gung-ho with relatively new vaccines, but bury relatively benign and longer standing interventions?

noofen 5y ago
I've had COVID, and this is why I will not get vaccinated, despite CDC recommendations. It's very creepy how they've buried treatments and promoted experimental vaccines.
- katbyte 5y ago
  Why won’t you get a vaccine?
  - ghoward 5y ago
    Not GP, but I am not until a vaccine is approved by the FDA for non-emergency use. And even then, I think I will wait for more data to come out about the long-term effects of the vaccines.
  - briefcomment 5y ago
    I think GPs point is that if you were optimizing for the best health outcomes, you wouldn't demonize promising, or at least benign, non-vaccine treatments. Doing so makes it seem like the vaccine push is optimizing for something else.
caddemon 5y ago
I mean if a benign intervention doesn't actually work and it causes people to avoid a real intervention that is problematic. There's definitely plenty of alternative medicine misinformation out there that makes similar arguments about safety and history. That said, it is wrong for YouTube to be removing these videos IMO. First of all, who at YouTube reviewed the material? Do they actually have the expertise necessary to filter out fake claims? There are plenty of natural treatments out there that actually can be helpful, and I doubt YouTube hired a doctor familiar with the relevant literature for its fact checking operation. Second of all, why is YouTube so fixated on removing COVID-related videos? Is this sort of content about possible preventative measures really more harmful than countless videos that exist on YouTube about natural "cures" for cancer? And really these are just implementation concerns, there's also potentially more fundamental problems with silencing information like this. I haven't read enough on what the OP posted to comment on how real it may be, but even supposing it were false information, deleting the videos entirely may not be a net positive.
- nerdponx 5y ago
  Second of all, why is YouTube so fixated on removing COVID-related videos? My guess is they're afraid of what happens if/when some anti-anti-vax activist group uses it to justify aggressively regulating Youtube.
- ratsmack 5y ago
  >why is YouTube so fixated on removing COVID-related videos? Could it be to protect their advertising revenue interests from the huge Pharmaceutical Industry?
- aliasEli 5y ago
  > Second of all, why is YouTube so fixated on removing COVID-related videos? How about lawsuits? People who followed advice on YouTube (or their relatives) could sue YouTube. YouTube already has the technical means to remove video's (e.g. porn), so they will have to defend why they did not do that in this case. There have been a large number of people in the U.S. that died or were infected, so the number of potential litigants is also large.
- 5y ago
ndiddy 5y ago
One of the criteria for FDA Emergency Use Authorization is that there's no adequate, approved, and available alternatives (https://www.fda.gov/emergency-preparedness-and-response/mcm-legal-regulatory-and-policy-framework/emergency-use-authorization https://www.fda.gov/emergency-preparedness-and-response/mcm-...) so if they started looking into alternative treatments it could have jeopardized approval of the vaccines.
- brippalcharrid 5y ago
  You'd hope that if there had been promising candidates for prophylactic/therapeutic treatment involving off-patent/generic drugs that the regulator and the medical establishment would have considered them on their merits, and not systematically squashed them with bad studies and half-truths in favor of top-shelf Big Pharma products. It would be unconscionable for people in these positions of authority to have shown partiality towards the pharmaceutical industry in a matter like this which would have delayed access to treatment and which gives rise to serious concerns about patient safety, especially considering the difference in the amount of medium and long-term safety data that is available about them (months compared to decades).
briefcomment 5y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfqxCkJw0Rk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfqxCkJw0Rk

CiceroCiceronis 5y ago

A recently released meta—analysis from the British Medical Journal suggests that the evidence base for ivermectin’s efficacy in treating COVID-19 is low. https://ebm.bmj.com/content/early/2021/05/26/bmjebm-2021-111678 https://ebm.bmj.com/content/early/2021/05/26/bmjebm-2021-111...

shaicoleman 5y ago
If you'll look carefully, you'll see that's a non peer-reviewed opinion piece. That's a prime example of disinformation, and indeed the most reputable journals unfortunately play a role in it. Just to rebut the first thing random thing I saw: "An important controversial point to consider in any rationale is the 5 µM required concentration to reach the anti-SARS-CoV-2 action of ivermectin observed in vitro,17 which is much higher than 0.28 µM, the maximum reported plasma concentration achieved in vivo with a dose of approximately 1700 µg/kg (about nine times the FDA-approved dosification)" They are bringing up the in-vitro studies initially done on monkey kidney cells, and then claiming that you'll need such a high dose in a clinical setting. The doses for prophylactic and early treatment are an order of magnitude lower (0.2mg/kg) [1], and in that dose it's safer than paracetamol. "Ivermectin was generally well tolerated, with no indication of associated CNS toxicity for doses up to 10 times the highest FDA-approved dose of 0.2mg/kg." [2] In my second link, there's a talk rebutting the in-vitro safety concerns in detail: [3] There are over 50 studies showing that Ivermectin is effective, and more are coming in every day. [4] 1. https://covid19criticalcare.com/covid-19-protocols/i-mask-plus-protocol/ https://covid19criticalcare.com/covid-19-protocols/i-mask-pl... 2. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12362927/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12362927/ 3. https://player.vimeo.com/video/554350476?autoplay=1#t=4702 https://player.vimeo.com/video/554350476?autoplay=1#t=4702 4. https://c19ivermectin.com/ https://c19ivermectin.com/
- chimprich 5y ago
  > That's a prime example of disinformation, and indeed the most reputable journals unfortunately play a role in it. I'm going to trust an opinion in the BMJ over: > There are over 50 studies showing that Ivermectin is effective There have been a vast number of junk studies produced during the pandemic and rolling out 50 of them means very little. How many of them are pre-registered RCTs? How many of them are in low-quality journals? The BMJ article actually refers to that https://c19ivermectin.com/ https://c19ivermectin.com/ site: "Different websites (such as https://ivmmeta.com/ https://ivmmeta.com/, https://c19ivermectin.com/ https://c19ivermectin.com/, https://tratamientotemprano.org/estudios-ivermectina/ https://tratamientotemprano.org/estudios-ivermectina/, among others) have conducted meta-analyses with ivermectin studies, showing unpublished colourful forest plots which rapidly gained public acknowledgement and were disseminated via social media, without following any methodological or report guidelines. These websites do not include protocol registration with methods, search strategies, inclusion criteria, quality assessment of the included studies nor the certainty of the evidence of the pooled estimates. Prospective registration of systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis protocols is a key feature for providing transparency in the review process and ensuring protection against reporting biases, by revealing differences between the methods or outcomes reported in the published review and those planned in the registered protocol."