4 ms·

Ivermectin and HCQ sure got shut down hard even though recent studies are giving them some credit. If they had been a valid option, emergency use authorisation

Ivermectin and HCQ sure got shut down hard even though recent studies are giving them some credit. If they had been a valid option, emergency use authorisation wouldn't have been granted. I honestly don't know what to think about all of this. I've seen a lot of censorship and stifling of speech. Reading Fauci's emails also makes me hesitate. I think trust in the experts will really take a hit going forward. I did get the AZ vaccine a few weeks ago. Yesterday I had a flame heme show up on a retina scan at the eye doc. Was it the vax? Perhaps, the Oxford UK study said these kinds of events are slightly more likely from what they've seen.

ceejayoz 5y ago
> Reading Fauci's emails also makes me hesitate. Which ones, specifically? I keep seeing people say this. There are thousands of pages in the PDF and no one seems to be able to quote anything actually concerning.
- swader999 5y ago
  They are all over the web. But clearly if you take them all in, you come away from it with the impression that he really pushed gain of function research and hid the fact once this took off last spring. Most of what he said in hind sight and with these emails seems to be more about politics and less about science and educating the masses. The messaging on masks should have been that only n95 or better are worth the time. One email to a friend pretty much said that.
  - threeseed 5y ago
    > The messaging on masks should have been that only n95 or better are worth the time Which is simply rubbish. Masks of all kinds will prevent transmission albeit with varying levels of efficacy. And most importantly they impact human behaviour in ways which prevent transmission. Not to mention that N95 masks are more expensive which would have reduced its use by people who are poorer and are far more likely to spread the virus i.e. they are more likely to have multiple jobs, travel further for their job, work longer hours etc.
    - swader999 5y ago
      Ones of all design do help with droplet suppression. They do sweet f all for airborne unless properly fit and of the right rating. Covid for all practical purposes behaves like it is airborne. If you haven't realized this by now, I don't know what to say to convince you. Maybe these will help: https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817 https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817
      - axbytg 5y ago
        " In theory, transmission should be reduced the most if both infected members and other contacts wear masks" Wish you had read the studies you posted
        swader999 5y ago
        I did actually. That line you quoted was what they (and most all of us would expect). The data didn't prove it out though, they report this in their analysis: "We did not find evidence that surgical-type face masks are effective in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza transmission, either when worn by infected persons (source control) or by persons in the general community to reduce their susceptibility"
      - threeseed 5y ago
        I already said that not all masks are the same. But any mask is better than no mask. Which is what happens if you mandate a far more expensive and harder to get N95 variant.
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    See, there’s that dodge. No concerning quote. Not even a page number. Just dark, vague assertions. I know it’s all over the web; I skimmed quite a few pages. You’re claiming concerning stuff lurks within - support the assertion.
    - swader999 5y ago
      They are all images of the emails that have been posted. Sorry, I'm not retyping them.
  - axbytg 5y ago
    > worth the time is completely relative to the observer. a piece of shitty fabric over your face won't stop n95 levels of transmission but it is better than nothing. To some of us, it's "worth the time" to be less likely to spread even if by a very small margin.
    - swader999 5y ago
      Actually no. A cloth mask can harbor dampness and increase flu transmission. It may give a false sense of security. See the two studies I posted.
      - axbytg 5y ago
        " In theory, transmission should be reduced the most if both infected members and other contacts wear masks" from the very study you posted.
        swader999 5y ago
        Don't you realize you are quoting the hypotheses or just the preamble? Read the conclusion, what their study actually found: "We did not find evidence that surgical-type face masks are effective in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza transmission, either when worn by infected persons (source control) or by persons in the general community to reduce their susceptibility"
carbocation 5y ago
Will you share your sources re: "recent studies giving [HCQ and ivermectin] credit"? I haven't seen anything positive about those drugs in COVID-19 in human patients. For example, the RECOVERY trial showed no benefit (and non-significant numerical harm) for HCQ: https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2022926 https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2022926
- swader999 5y ago
  Here's a pre print from today. Credible authors so I do expect it to go the distance: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.28.21258012v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.28.21258012v... This expose on the suppression of ivermectin is telling: https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/The-Drug-that-Cracked-Covid-by-Michael-Capuzzo.pdf https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/T... Lots of studies referenced in it.
  - carbocation 5y ago
    Thank you for sharing the link. I do note that this is an observational study of 255 people. It contradicts a randomized trial with 1,561 people in the HCQ-arm alone vs 3,155 receiving usual care (RECOVERY).
    - swader999 5y ago
      When they are studied as a prophylactic or at early stage, they really prove out. I think that trial you referenced was in late stage severe cases, almost feels like they gamed that design to fail.
      - carbocation 5y ago
        The study you have cited was entirely confined to 255 patients, all of whom required mechanical ventilation, 70% of whom died by day 90. That's severe COVID, not "prophylaxis."
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
drew-y 5y ago
Can you point to a specific email that makes you hesitant?
- swader999 5y ago
  This article pretty much covers them all. It doesn't look good on him. Some of the redaections are due to ongoing investigations as well. https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/fauci-emails-reveal-damage-control-scramble-after-zerohedge-spotlights-man-made-covid-19 https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/fauci-emails-reveal-damag...
  - drew-y 5y ago
    Hmmm. Gotta say I did not find that article convincing. It just seems like he's skeptical of a paper that makes some wild claims. The article also assumes that the paper was withdrawn because of some sort of political pressure. But fails to actually point to any real evidence. I think it's more likely that they made extraordinary claims and failed to produce the extraordinary evidence.
threeseed 5y ago
Ivermectin and HCQ were shut down because people were promoting as an alternative to a vaccine. It's not. It is a supplement to the vaccine for people who are already hospitalised.
- markkanof 5y ago
  None of this is correct. Both of these drugs were part of the conversation long before a vaccine was available, and at least withe Ivermectin the proposed usage is as a prophylactic or as soon as you see any symptoms. Not once you are so sick that you need to go to the hospital. To be clear, I'm not giving any medical advice, just clearing up some incorrect statements.
  - threeseed 5y ago
    People were promoting two things: (a) that the economy should be fully re-opened because Ivermetctin/HCQ would solve the problem of hospitalisations and (b) that vaccine development was as such unnecessary. Both were completely wrong. Ivermetctin/HCQ has being actively used around the world for over a year and it has not "solved" the issue of deaths due to COVID.
passivate 5y ago
>If they had been a valid option, emergency use authorisation wouldn't have been granted. You don't want to treat a disease (especially with drugs that have their own problems), you want to prevent it from happening in the first place. Vaccines help prevent it, and so would still have gotten authorized.
- swader999 5y ago
  Agree but these two options weren't given a fair chance by Fauci. He clearly had conflicts of interest. The emergency use authorisation wouldn't have been granted if he had. These are viable alternatives. Quercetin is another one and much more benign.
  - passivate 5y ago
    If a drug had an obvious benefit as you claim, why would the world care what Fauci thinks? I think you need to reconcile your skepticism with a bit more appreciation for the scientists around the world who are also trying to find the solution without intentionally harming people. Fauci is irrelevant in the larger scheme of things. That being said, absolutely none of those medications you mentioned are targeted drugs. Its not a good idea to take those drugs for years as a prophylactic, especially broad-spectrum drugs. The only reason to use them is if the disease is worse than the side-effects. We know their mechanism of action, and they're well known to interfere with other functions in the body. Our body already has a targeted defense mechanism and vaccines are the primary means to leverage it.

ceejayoz 5y ago

> Reading Fauci's emails also makes me hesitate. Which ones, specifically? I keep seeing people say this. There are thousands of pages in the PDF and no one seems to be able to quote anything actually concerning.

swader999 5y ago
They are all over the web. But clearly if you take them all in, you come away from it with the impression that he really pushed gain of function research and hid the fact once this took off last spring. Most of what he said in hind sight and with these emails seems to be more about politics and less about science and educating the masses. The messaging on masks should have been that only n95 or better are worth the time. One email to a friend pretty much said that.
- threeseed 5y ago
  > The messaging on masks should have been that only n95 or better are worth the time Which is simply rubbish. Masks of all kinds will prevent transmission albeit with varying levels of efficacy. And most importantly they impact human behaviour in ways which prevent transmission. Not to mention that N95 masks are more expensive which would have reduced its use by people who are poorer and are far more likely to spread the virus i.e. they are more likely to have multiple jobs, travel further for their job, work longer hours etc.
  - swader999 5y ago
    Ones of all design do help with droplet suppression. They do sweet f all for airborne unless properly fit and of the right rating. Covid for all practical purposes behaves like it is airborne. If you haven't realized this by now, I don't know what to say to convince you. Maybe these will help: https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817 https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817
    - axbytg 5y ago
      " In theory, transmission should be reduced the most if both infected members and other contacts wear masks" Wish you had read the studies you posted
      - swader999 5y ago
        I did actually. That line you quoted was what they (and most all of us would expect). The data didn't prove it out though, they report this in their analysis: "We did not find evidence that surgical-type face masks are effective in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza transmission, either when worn by infected persons (source control) or by persons in the general community to reduce their susceptibility"
    - threeseed 5y ago
      I already said that not all masks are the same. But any mask is better than no mask. Which is what happens if you mandate a far more expensive and harder to get N95 variant.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  See, there’s that dodge. No concerning quote. Not even a page number. Just dark, vague assertions. I know it’s all over the web; I skimmed quite a few pages. You’re claiming concerning stuff lurks within - support the assertion.
  - swader999 5y ago
    They are all images of the emails that have been posted. Sorry, I'm not retyping them.
- axbytg 5y ago
  > worth the time is completely relative to the observer. a piece of shitty fabric over your face won't stop n95 levels of transmission but it is better than nothing. To some of us, it's "worth the time" to be less likely to spread even if by a very small margin.
  - swader999 5y ago
    Actually no. A cloth mask can harbor dampness and increase flu transmission. It may give a false sense of security. See the two studies I posted.
    - axbytg 5y ago
      " In theory, transmission should be reduced the most if both infected members and other contacts wear masks" from the very study you posted.
      - swader999 5y ago
        Don't you realize you are quoting the hypotheses or just the preamble? Read the conclusion, what their study actually found: "We did not find evidence that surgical-type face masks are effective in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza transmission, either when worn by infected persons (source control) or by persons in the general community to reduce their susceptibility"

carbocation 5y ago

Will you share your sources re: "recent studies giving [HCQ and ivermectin] credit"? I haven't seen anything positive about those drugs in COVID-19 in human patients. For example, the RECOVERY trial showed no benefit (and non-significant numerical harm) for HCQ: https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2022926 https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2022926

swader999 5y ago
Here's a pre print from today. Credible authors so I do expect it to go the distance: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.28.21258012v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.28.21258012v... This expose on the suppression of ivermectin is telling: https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/The-Drug-that-Cracked-Covid-by-Michael-Capuzzo.pdf https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/T... Lots of studies referenced in it.
- carbocation 5y ago
  Thank you for sharing the link. I do note that this is an observational study of 255 people. It contradicts a randomized trial with 1,561 people in the HCQ-arm alone vs 3,155 receiving usual care (RECOVERY).
  - swader999 5y ago
    When they are studied as a prophylactic or at early stage, they really prove out. I think that trial you referenced was in late stage severe cases, almost feels like they gamed that design to fail.
    - carbocation 5y ago
      The study you have cited was entirely confined to 255 patients, all of whom required mechanical ventilation, 70% of whom died by day 90. That's severe COVID, not "prophylaxis."

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

drew-y 5y ago

Can you point to a specific email that makes you hesitant?

swader999 5y ago
This article pretty much covers them all. It doesn't look good on him. Some of the redaections are due to ongoing investigations as well. https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/fauci-emails-reveal-damage-control-scramble-after-zerohedge-spotlights-man-made-covid-19 https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/fauci-emails-reveal-damag...
- drew-y 5y ago
  Hmmm. Gotta say I did not find that article convincing. It just seems like he's skeptical of a paper that makes some wild claims. The article also assumes that the paper was withdrawn because of some sort of political pressure. But fails to actually point to any real evidence. I think it's more likely that they made extraordinary claims and failed to produce the extraordinary evidence.

threeseed 5y ago

Ivermectin and HCQ were shut down because people were promoting as an alternative to a vaccine. It's not. It is a supplement to the vaccine for people who are already hospitalised.

markkanof 5y ago
None of this is correct. Both of these drugs were part of the conversation long before a vaccine was available, and at least withe Ivermectin the proposed usage is as a prophylactic or as soon as you see any symptoms. Not once you are so sick that you need to go to the hospital. To be clear, I'm not giving any medical advice, just clearing up some incorrect statements.
- threeseed 5y ago
  People were promoting two things: (a) that the economy should be fully re-opened because Ivermetctin/HCQ would solve the problem of hospitalisations and (b) that vaccine development was as such unnecessary. Both were completely wrong. Ivermetctin/HCQ has being actively used around the world for over a year and it has not "solved" the issue of deaths due to COVID.

passivate 5y ago

>If they had been a valid option, emergency use authorisation wouldn't have been granted. You don't want to treat a disease (especially with drugs that have their own problems), you want to prevent it from happening in the first place. Vaccines help prevent it, and so would still have gotten authorized.

swader999 5y ago
Agree but these two options weren't given a fair chance by Fauci. He clearly had conflicts of interest. The emergency use authorisation wouldn't have been granted if he had. These are viable alternatives. Quercetin is another one and much more benign.
- passivate 5y ago
  If a drug had an obvious benefit as you claim, why would the world care what Fauci thinks? I think you need to reconcile your skepticism with a bit more appreciation for the scientists around the world who are also trying to find the solution without intentionally harming people. Fauci is irrelevant in the larger scheme of things. That being said, absolutely none of those medications you mentioned are targeted drugs. Its not a good idea to take those drugs for years as a prophylactic, especially broad-spectrum drugs. The only reason to use them is if the disease is worse than the side-effects. We know their mechanism of action, and they're well known to interfere with other functions in the body. Our body already has a targeted defense mechanism and vaccines are the primary means to leverage it.