5 ms·

Calling them gene therapies too.. wow. I hope the more science-literate proponents of IVM can appreciate how much it harms their case for the vast majority of

Calling them gene therapies too.. wow. I hope the more science-literate proponents of IVM can appreciate how much it harms their case for the vast majority of IVM advocates to be this loud and wrong..

acdha 5y ago
> I hope the more science-literate proponents of IVM If they valued and were capable of reasoning about the science, they would not be “proponents” — they'd recognize the current scientific understanding (no known mechanism or benefits, significant side-effects) and wait for a solid study before recommending anything. The people you do see advocating it are almost always doing so for political or financial purposes and are thus unlikely to say anything critical since that'd be bad for business.
- creddit 5y ago
  Ivermectin doesn’t really have significant side effects at appropriate doses. It’s quite safe. Don’t be fooled by overblown “horse dewormer stories”. I don’t say this to advocate Ivermectin, the only RCT I know of/trust found absolutely no effect. I say this to gently point out the mismatch between your claims and the premise in the first sentence.
  - fullstop 5y ago
    I agree that it is safe at appropriate doses. The issue is that people are self medicating and incorrectly calculating doses, since the product was intended for livestock.
    - gonational 5y ago
      The nationwide report that everybody talked about, pertaining to poison control centers receiving endless calls about this was completely fake. It turned out that rather than 70% of calls it was actually 2% of calls and over half of them were simply people asking questions about dosage. The other nationwide report about the hospitals in Oklahoma being crowded with ivermectin victims to the point where they could not even get gunshot victims in to see a doctor... well, at least one of the hospital systems responded with an open letter stating that this was completely fake and that they had not seen even a single patient. I find it hard to believe that one hospital system would not see a single patient while all the other hospitals in the state would be completely flooded with them. If the TV tells you something, you do not have to believe it. Use your brain.
      - fullstop 5y ago
        I never said a word about any of that. I said that people are self medicating and incorrectly calculating an appropriate dosage, and I am not wrong. [1] 1. https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-should-not-use-ivermectin-treat-or-prevent-covid-19 https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-shoul...
        gonational 5y ago
        What evidence did you have that people were doing this, which presumably affected your opinion on this topic?
        fullstop 5y ago
        1. Facebook groups where people have admitted to taking more than they should have, causing incontinence. Not public groups, but one local to my area. 2. The FDA themselves I have to ask, are you actually advocating for self-medicating with products from Tractor Supply? I've not once said anything about my opinion of Ivermectin, only that of self medication.
        mikeyouse 5y ago
        As one more piece of evidence - two of my family members are internal medicine physicians who are running covid units -- just a shocking number of people are showing up to hospitals with severe Covid after having self-medicated with IVM.
      - hackingforfun 5y ago
        > If the TV tells you something, you do not have to believe it. Where do you think most of the people taking ivermectin heard about it? They probably have no idea how ivermectin would actually work, but heard it from some conservative talk show host that they trust more than scientists backing the actual COVID vaccine. I'm astonished by how totally backwards all of this is.
  - marcosdumay 5y ago
    Still, I don't think anybody talking about using ivermectin for treating COVID-19 ever recommended what is widely tested appropriate doses.
- gonational 5y ago
  Yeah, because nothing says "recognize the current scientific understanding" like dismissing hundreds of studies because of a couple bunk meta-analysis. Also, nothing says "recognize the current scientific understanding" like injecting an untested medicine into your veins to avoid what amounts to the common cold for younger people; while ignoring the fact that it does not help prevent the spread, and according to the latest study on this from Israel (the highest vaccine rate in the world), actually enhances the spread, so if the argument is "what about the old people that you're going to infect", then I guess you've answered that question already. It pays nothing to pretend that you are smarter than other people if you're not willing to follow your own advice.
  - acdha 5y ago
    You're packing enough untrue things into that comment that it's hard to believe you're acting in good faith but: * It's dismissing the studies which show effects due to errors, which leaves the studies not showing beneficial effects. Science is built on evidence and thus far it hasn't been shown that Ivermectin has a benefit for COVID. * Similarly, it's untrue to the point of being a flagrant lie to claim that the vaccines are untested when they went through full clinical trials and the high positive effects and safety rates shown in those trials have been backed up by data from many millions of people * Similarly, it's flat out wrong to claim that COVID is similar to the common cold — even if you compare it to influenza, which is far more serious, that's not true — we've seen more children die in the last couple months than we typically see in an entire flu season. * Vaccination does help reduce the spread, and that's even shown in the Israeli data — it's not 100% but if you look at the data it's very clear that vaccinated people at a significantly lower rate. Israeli comparisons are tricky because they have substantially different vaccination rates across age categories and a vaccinated 80 year old is still more at risk than someone younger, especially when those younger people are not taking precautions, which brings me to: * Israel is nowhere near having the highest vaccine rate — that's a tie between Portugal, Malta, and the U.A.E. currently — and at a paltry 62% they're not even in the top 25. That's only slightly better than the United States at 55%. * The Iraeli data does not show that vaccination increases spread: this is a lie spread by people who are comparing unlike things in the knowledge that many people will reshare those claims without checking them.
- JoshuaDavid 5y ago
  > If they valued and were capable of reasoning about the science, they would not be “proponents” — they'd recognize the current scientific understanding (no known mechanism or benefits, significant side-effects) and wait for a solid study before recommending anything. The the standard of "we should not perform treatments with known side effects if there is no solid study proving the mechanism and benefits of that intervention" is unreasonably strict. Proning (laying the patient on their stomach appears to improve oxygenation and improve outcomes) was suspected to be helpful by May of 2020. However, even by December of 2020 there were not any large randomized controlled trials proving this. Proning has risks (like "unplanned extubation" i.e. the breathing tube coming out when it shouldn't). Should we have foregone that treatment because there was no proof of either efficacy or mechanism, and there were significant risks associated with the treatment? I personally don't think ivermectin is terribly likely to be effective, but the more general statement of "nobody who is capable of reasoning about science would be a proponent of an unproven treatment that has risks" is wrong.
  - acdha 5y ago
    That's exactly the kind of reason why I included “no known method”: proning was not a previously unknown concept, it clearly changes a known problem, and the risks are manageable. Remdesivir and other antivirals were similarly reasonable to try since they had a plausible method of being effective, as did the steroid treatments which have been so useful for controlling inflammation. Now, nobody is saying that we can't _try_ new things but note also that I was referring to “proponents” — not just people who are willing to try something but who are actively advocating it as an effective treatment. The vast, vast majority of those people are not running experiments or even medical professionals who might possibly have some relevant prior experience suggesting it was worth trying. I'm not opposed to research but I think there's a substantial ethical line to cross when you switch from being open to the possibility of something working to running around telling everyone that it works so well they should avoid a safe, cheap, and highly effective vaccine.
gonational 5y ago
The United States CDC literally changed the definition of "vaccine" this year, so that these products could still be identified as vaccines. You're going to tell me that it's "science illiterate" to consider mRNA therapy as gene therapy, because the genes are not actually changed, but instead only expressed to create the therapeutic effect. But it is "scientifically literate" to call such a therapy a "vaccine"? I hope more common sense literate proponents of science can appreciate how much it harms their case for a vast majority of science advocates to be loud and wrong.
- mikeyouse 5y ago
  > You're going to tell me that it's "science illiterate" to consider mRNA therapy as gene therapy, because the genes are not actually changed .. Yes. That's exactly what I'm saying. Read your sentence back to yourself. > But it is "scientifically literate" to call such a therapy a "vaccine"? Yes. Of course it is. Regardless of what the copy on some obscure CDC website says, mRNA vaccines have been in development for decades.
  - gonational 5y ago
    > Regardless of what the copy on some obscure CDC website says Read that, out loud... All you need to do is set your search parameters to filter out items from the past 24 months. https://www.nature.com/gt/journal-information https://www.nature.com/gt/journal-information https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/gene-based-therapeutic-approaches-3881/ https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/gene-based-therape... There are thousands more. SMH... short memory span is the worst part of the human condition.
- jrmg 5y ago
  > The United States CDC literally changed the definition of "vaccine" this year, so that these products could still be identified as vaccines. For anyone else curious: Before the change, the definition for “vaccination” read, “the act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.” Now, the word “immunity” has been switched to “protection.” [1] It seems obvious to me that this was changed because the layperson’s interpretation of the old wording would make it seem like 100% immunity was the result of vaccination. That’s never been the case. The new wording is just clearer in regular English. > You're going to tell me that it's "science illiterate" to consider mRNA therapy as gene therapy, because the genes are not actually changed, but instead only expressed to create the therapeutic effect. It’s not only science illiterate, it’s misleading to a layperson too. It sounds as if it’s changing the patient’s DNA. > I hope more common sense literate proponents of science can appreciate how much it harms their case for a vast majority of science advocates to be loud and wrong I do t understand how you think your interpretations lie closer to “common sense”. They seem to me to be more like;y to mislead. [1]https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article254111268.html#storylink=cpy https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article25411126...
walterbell 5y ago
Non-sterilizing mRNA vaccines are biologics, which have separate regulations and distinct intellectual property protections in national laws and international trade treaties.

acdha 5y ago

> I hope the more science-literate proponents of IVM If they valued and were capable of reasoning about the science, they would not be “proponents” — they'd recognize the current scientific understanding (no known mechanism or benefits, significant side-effects) and wait for a solid study before recommending anything. The people you do see advocating it are almost always doing so for political or financial purposes and are thus unlikely to say anything critical since that'd be bad for business.

creddit 5y ago
Ivermectin doesn’t really have significant side effects at appropriate doses. It’s quite safe. Don’t be fooled by overblown “horse dewormer stories”. I don’t say this to advocate Ivermectin, the only RCT I know of/trust found absolutely no effect. I say this to gently point out the mismatch between your claims and the premise in the first sentence.
- fullstop 5y ago
  I agree that it is safe at appropriate doses. The issue is that people are self medicating and incorrectly calculating doses, since the product was intended for livestock.
  - gonational 5y ago
    The nationwide report that everybody talked about, pertaining to poison control centers receiving endless calls about this was completely fake. It turned out that rather than 70% of calls it was actually 2% of calls and over half of them were simply people asking questions about dosage. The other nationwide report about the hospitals in Oklahoma being crowded with ivermectin victims to the point where they could not even get gunshot victims in to see a doctor... well, at least one of the hospital systems responded with an open letter stating that this was completely fake and that they had not seen even a single patient. I find it hard to believe that one hospital system would not see a single patient while all the other hospitals in the state would be completely flooded with them. If the TV tells you something, you do not have to believe it. Use your brain.
    - fullstop 5y ago
      I never said a word about any of that. I said that people are self medicating and incorrectly calculating an appropriate dosage, and I am not wrong. [1] 1. https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-should-not-use-ivermectin-treat-or-prevent-covid-19 https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-shoul...
      - gonational 5y ago
        What evidence did you have that people were doing this, which presumably affected your opinion on this topic?
        fullstop 5y ago
        1. Facebook groups where people have admitted to taking more than they should have, causing incontinence. Not public groups, but one local to my area. 2. The FDA themselves I have to ask, are you actually advocating for self-medicating with products from Tractor Supply? I've not once said anything about my opinion of Ivermectin, only that of self medication.
        mikeyouse 5y ago
        As one more piece of evidence - two of my family members are internal medicine physicians who are running covid units -- just a shocking number of people are showing up to hospitals with severe Covid after having self-medicated with IVM.
    - hackingforfun 5y ago
      > If the TV tells you something, you do not have to believe it. Where do you think most of the people taking ivermectin heard about it? They probably have no idea how ivermectin would actually work, but heard it from some conservative talk show host that they trust more than scientists backing the actual COVID vaccine. I'm astonished by how totally backwards all of this is.
- marcosdumay 5y ago
  Still, I don't think anybody talking about using ivermectin for treating COVID-19 ever recommended what is widely tested appropriate doses.
gonational 5y ago
Yeah, because nothing says "recognize the current scientific understanding" like dismissing hundreds of studies because of a couple bunk meta-analysis. Also, nothing says "recognize the current scientific understanding" like injecting an untested medicine into your veins to avoid what amounts to the common cold for younger people; while ignoring the fact that it does not help prevent the spread, and according to the latest study on this from Israel (the highest vaccine rate in the world), actually enhances the spread, so if the argument is "what about the old people that you're going to infect", then I guess you've answered that question already. It pays nothing to pretend that you are smarter than other people if you're not willing to follow your own advice.
- acdha 5y ago
  You're packing enough untrue things into that comment that it's hard to believe you're acting in good faith but: * It's dismissing the studies which show effects due to errors, which leaves the studies not showing beneficial effects. Science is built on evidence and thus far it hasn't been shown that Ivermectin has a benefit for COVID. * Similarly, it's untrue to the point of being a flagrant lie to claim that the vaccines are untested when they went through full clinical trials and the high positive effects and safety rates shown in those trials have been backed up by data from many millions of people * Similarly, it's flat out wrong to claim that COVID is similar to the common cold — even if you compare it to influenza, which is far more serious, that's not true — we've seen more children die in the last couple months than we typically see in an entire flu season. * Vaccination does help reduce the spread, and that's even shown in the Israeli data — it's not 100% but if you look at the data it's very clear that vaccinated people at a significantly lower rate. Israeli comparisons are tricky because they have substantially different vaccination rates across age categories and a vaccinated 80 year old is still more at risk than someone younger, especially when those younger people are not taking precautions, which brings me to: * Israel is nowhere near having the highest vaccine rate — that's a tie between Portugal, Malta, and the U.A.E. currently — and at a paltry 62% they're not even in the top 25. That's only slightly better than the United States at 55%. * The Iraeli data does not show that vaccination increases spread: this is a lie spread by people who are comparing unlike things in the knowledge that many people will reshare those claims without checking them.
JoshuaDavid 5y ago
> If they valued and were capable of reasoning about the science, they would not be “proponents” — they'd recognize the current scientific understanding (no known mechanism or benefits, significant side-effects) and wait for a solid study before recommending anything. The the standard of "we should not perform treatments with known side effects if there is no solid study proving the mechanism and benefits of that intervention" is unreasonably strict. Proning (laying the patient on their stomach appears to improve oxygenation and improve outcomes) was suspected to be helpful by May of 2020. However, even by December of 2020 there were not any large randomized controlled trials proving this. Proning has risks (like "unplanned extubation" i.e. the breathing tube coming out when it shouldn't). Should we have foregone that treatment because there was no proof of either efficacy or mechanism, and there were significant risks associated with the treatment? I personally don't think ivermectin is terribly likely to be effective, but the more general statement of "nobody who is capable of reasoning about science would be a proponent of an unproven treatment that has risks" is wrong.
- acdha 5y ago
  That's exactly the kind of reason why I included “no known method”: proning was not a previously unknown concept, it clearly changes a known problem, and the risks are manageable. Remdesivir and other antivirals were similarly reasonable to try since they had a plausible method of being effective, as did the steroid treatments which have been so useful for controlling inflammation. Now, nobody is saying that we can't _try_ new things but note also that I was referring to “proponents” — not just people who are willing to try something but who are actively advocating it as an effective treatment. The vast, vast majority of those people are not running experiments or even medical professionals who might possibly have some relevant prior experience suggesting it was worth trying. I'm not opposed to research but I think there's a substantial ethical line to cross when you switch from being open to the possibility of something working to running around telling everyone that it works so well they should avoid a safe, cheap, and highly effective vaccine.

gonational 5y ago

The United States CDC literally changed the definition of "vaccine" this year, so that these products could still be identified as vaccines. You're going to tell me that it's "science illiterate" to consider mRNA therapy as gene therapy, because the genes are not actually changed, but instead only expressed to create the therapeutic effect. But it is "scientifically literate" to call such a therapy a "vaccine"? I hope more common sense literate proponents of science can appreciate how much it harms their case for a vast majority of science advocates to be loud and wrong.

mikeyouse 5y ago
> You're going to tell me that it's "science illiterate" to consider mRNA therapy as gene therapy, because the genes are not actually changed .. Yes. That's exactly what I'm saying. Read your sentence back to yourself. > But it is "scientifically literate" to call such a therapy a "vaccine"? Yes. Of course it is. Regardless of what the copy on some obscure CDC website says, mRNA vaccines have been in development for decades.
- gonational 5y ago
  > Regardless of what the copy on some obscure CDC website says Read that, out loud... All you need to do is set your search parameters to filter out items from the past 24 months. https://www.nature.com/gt/journal-information https://www.nature.com/gt/journal-information https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/gene-based-therapeutic-approaches-3881/ https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/gene-based-therape... There are thousands more. SMH... short memory span is the worst part of the human condition.
jrmg 5y ago
> The United States CDC literally changed the definition of "vaccine" this year, so that these products could still be identified as vaccines. For anyone else curious: Before the change, the definition for “vaccination” read, “the act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.” Now, the word “immunity” has been switched to “protection.” [1] It seems obvious to me that this was changed because the layperson’s interpretation of the old wording would make it seem like 100% immunity was the result of vaccination. That’s never been the case. The new wording is just clearer in regular English. > You're going to tell me that it's "science illiterate" to consider mRNA therapy as gene therapy, because the genes are not actually changed, but instead only expressed to create the therapeutic effect. It’s not only science illiterate, it’s misleading to a layperson too. It sounds as if it’s changing the patient’s DNA. > I hope more common sense literate proponents of science can appreciate how much it harms their case for a vast majority of science advocates to be loud and wrong I do t understand how you think your interpretations lie closer to “common sense”. They seem to me to be more like;y to mislead. [1]https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article254111268.html#storylink=cpy https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article25411126...

walterbell 5y ago

Non-sterilizing mRNA vaccines are biologics, which have separate regulations and distinct intellectual property protections in national laws and international trade treaties.