3 ms·

> Not op, but "We don't know" != "False" That's not what the fat checker states. At all. The fact checker states, and I quote: > however, it has yet to be pr

by nuerow 5y ago

> Not op, but "We don't know" != "False" That's not what the fat checker states. At all. The fact checker states, and I quote: > however, it has yet to be proven that it can treat COVID-19." "It is yet to be proven" means, quite literally, anyone who looked into it never saw it work, ever. At all.

vmception 5y ago
> "It is yet to be proven" means, quite literally, anyone who looked into it never saw it work, ever. At all. [yet]. There are studies ongoing. Not in the anti-vaxxer "I'm still doing research" sense, but in the sense that there are actual non-Facebook studies ongoing. Even that AP fact checker article mentions that. When the context says there are studies ongoing and yet to be proven is mentioned, it means that the conclusion has not been drawn. In isolation, when yet to be proven is written with no other context, it means what you interpreted: that nobody has ever seen it work, and we need a nice way to say that. The fact checker and this conversation both accurately conveyed how different ivermectin is from what Pfizer is developing: the compounds are different, the molecules are different, everything is different. They don't say the result is different. Ivermectin - a completely different compound and molecule - has a hypothesis and limited result showing it functions as a protease inhibitor. It does omit where there are similarities being studied and what those hypothesis are. This is actually new information to me and I found that looking for a response to you. This isn't about Ivermectin or laughing at Republicans turn their whole states blue from a lack of oxygen as well as the remaining population, its just about what is omitted from the fact checking article.
naasking 5y ago
> "It is yet to be proven" means, quite literally, anyone who looked into it never saw it work, ever. At all. This claim is quite literally false. If no one saw an effect, then we wouldn't still be talking about it. Most of the studies listed here [1] all claim to have seen it work. You can of course claim these are poor or unconvincing studies for various reasons, but they still falsify your claim that no one who looked into it ever saw it work. [1] https://ivmmeta.com/ https://ivmmeta.com/
- raphlinus 5y ago
  Your link is an oft-debunked misinformation campaign[1]. In my opinion, the best current review is the Cochrane review[2]. And indeed, I think "anyone who looked into it never saw it work, ever. At all" is overstating the case. There is weak evidence that it works. That could easily go one of two ways: a highly powered RCT (like ACTIV-6) could show that it doesn't work at all, or we could find that it shows some improvement but is definitely not a silver bullet. [1]: https://ebm.bmj.com/content/early/2021/05/26/bmjebm-2021-111678 https://ebm.bmj.com/content/early/2021/05/26/bmjebm-2021-111... [2]: https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD015017.pub2/full https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD...
  - naasking 5y ago
    Sure, don't take ivmmeta.com analysis at face value, but I was pointing out that they link to numerous legitimate studies which did find positive results, thus refuting the OP's claim that nobody who looked into this ever found anything.
    - raphlinus 5y ago
      That's fair. The Cochrane review links to many of the same studies, for what it's worth.

by nuerow 5y ago

vmception 5y ago

> "It is yet to be proven" means, quite literally, anyone who looked into it never saw it work, ever. At all. [yet]. There are studies ongoing. Not in the anti-vaxxer "I'm still doing research" sense, but in the sense that there are actual non-Facebook studies ongoing. Even that AP fact checker article mentions that. When the context says there are studies ongoing and yet to be proven is mentioned, it means that the conclusion has not been drawn. In isolation, when yet to be proven is written with no other context, it means what you interpreted: that nobody has ever seen it work, and we need a nice way to say that. The fact checker and this conversation both accurately conveyed how different ivermectin is from what Pfizer is developing: the compounds are different, the molecules are different, everything is different. They don't say the result is different. Ivermectin - a completely different compound and molecule - has a hypothesis and limited result showing it functions as a protease inhibitor. It does omit where there are similarities being studied and what those hypothesis are. This is actually new information to me and I found that looking for a response to you. This isn't about Ivermectin or laughing at Republicans turn their whole states blue from a lack of oxygen as well as the remaining population, its just about what is omitted from the fact checking article.

naasking 5y ago

> "It is yet to be proven" means, quite literally, anyone who looked into it never saw it work, ever. At all. This claim is quite literally false. If no one saw an effect, then we wouldn't still be talking about it. Most of the studies listed here [1] all claim to have seen it work. You can of course claim these are poor or unconvincing studies for various reasons, but they still falsify your claim that no one who looked into it ever saw it work. [1] https://ivmmeta.com/ https://ivmmeta.com/

raphlinus 5y ago
Your link is an oft-debunked misinformation campaign[1]. In my opinion, the best current review is the Cochrane review[2]. And indeed, I think "anyone who looked into it never saw it work, ever. At all" is overstating the case. There is weak evidence that it works. That could easily go one of two ways: a highly powered RCT (like ACTIV-6) could show that it doesn't work at all, or we could find that it shows some improvement but is definitely not a silver bullet. [1]: https://ebm.bmj.com/content/early/2021/05/26/bmjebm-2021-111678 https://ebm.bmj.com/content/early/2021/05/26/bmjebm-2021-111... [2]: https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD015017.pub2/full https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD...
- naasking 5y ago
  Sure, don't take ivmmeta.com analysis at face value, but I was pointing out that they link to numerous legitimate studies which did find positive results, thus refuting the OP's claim that nobody who looked into this ever found anything.
  - raphlinus 5y ago
    That's fair. The Cochrane review links to many of the same studies, for what it's worth.