Docs and scientists of letsrun, please read this article and tell me if what he is writing about Covid-19 treatment is fake news

DanM wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

Also 414227, people were taking Ivermectin preparations intended for livestock which is why those statements were made...they were toward people who were doing THAT.

It doesn't matter that Ivermectin, even the preparation intended for humans, is considered safe. It has a specific purpose, and that is not to treat viral infections, and its use as a COVID therapeutic is not supported.

0/10

"it’s legal and common for doctors to prescribe drugs for uses other than what is listed on the label, commonly known as off-label. 20% of all prescriptions are off-label."

"The fact that a condition or a dosage or a category of patient is not included on a label doesn’t mean that the drug is not appropriate for that use. It means only that the FDA has not approved that particular use of the drug."

https://www.drugwatch.com/health/off-label-drug-use/

Not 0/10. Ivermectin is not a drug that is commonly prescribed for off-label use, and the messaging on it is clear...it is not an effective therapeutic against COVID.

As a front line medical doctor I’d like to add a couple of points.

It would thrill me and ALL of my colleagues if a simple and widely available therapy would work. If I could give Vit D and prevent Covid or ivermectin and treat it I would be ecstatic and every doctor would be too. We are not rooting against these therapies, we are rooting for them, but sadly there are supporting data for most and lots of data that says they do not work for many. Practicing doctors are no fans of big pharma and we are looking for the easiest to access, safest and most effective therapies. No, we are not at all bound by the FDA or any regulatory agency and can use any approved med for any indication. I regularly review the responsible scientific literature, and the recommendations by expert panels who have reviewed the primary data, and use treatments that are off label, but proven safe and effective. If Ivermectin or any of this other stuff worked, it would be used. We’d be heroes and it would be glorious. What we can’t abide as doctors and scientists, however, are treatments that don’t work, and anecdotal evidence is not evidence. If you think I’m ordering paxlovid for your Covid and not ivermectin because I’m part of a conspiracy or have been duped by Fauci or big pharma, you don’t appreciate how the overwhelming majority of doctors operate. Im sorry if many of you don’t trust your doctors or the profession in general. I think the criticisms are overstated. Find yourself a good doctor, there are plenty.

Typo: no supporting data for most!

Great point, hb. I should have expressed myself a bit better. It would NOT be easy (as in quick and painless), but the path forward should have been easy (as in what other choice is there?) as the effort to essentially force people to adopt the "correct" point of view (especially in our current environment) should have easily been seen as counterproductive (unlikely to work).

But, yeah, you're right that it would be a painstaking and frustrating process for sure to listen to all the different theories and patiently shoot them down with superior reasoning, expertise, and communication (rather than saying "trust us because we know better" or by attempting other foolish techniques). Just as an aside, I can definitely see how the gimmicks such as giving lotto tickets to people getting vaccinated was a complete turn off to many. It looks quite unserious to.. well... anyone, right?

But, back to your salient point, I think this predicament underscores perhaps an even larger issue of deep fundamental distrust that is pervasive in our society. Everyone has heard the sayings, "United we stand and divided we fall," or "a house divided against itself can't stand", and I feel that we are starting to feel the repercussions of the divide (that has developed for some time well before covid).

So, to me, this necessary trust begins to address your spherical earth example... it IS simple to us now, but wasn't always. There was an "establishment" at the time (I believe) that cast aspersions on those who held the crazy idea of the world being round. And, you're right... without trusting "experts" at some point, it would be hard to know for certain or to study/learn for oneself, and that would be easier in comparison to health protocols.

So, yes, it's tremendously sad that there is a large sentiment which believes that people would put power, their position, etc over helping their fellow (anonymous) man know the truth. But, I do think that's where things are. Then, when trying to use shame, gimmicks, coercion, etc to "persuade", I think all of that simply exacerbates the divide / distrust. We can say "How can we reach these people who won't even believe evidence plainly presented!?" (but of course, we know what Tom Sawyer had to say about statistics (lol).), so they are plainly the stupid ones that have to be saved from themselves, but I don't think that is the right approach (obviously). We need to see start viewing other people a lot differently... with a lot more compassion (if not admiration), as worthy people (and not despised foes), and with an aim to give generous amounts of dignity. Then (hopefully), people will begin to feel valued and authentically cared for - respected. Then, I think conditions would be more ripe for much greater consensus (though will never be perfect, and that's ok). From the beginning, I don't think consensus and understanding were held in high esteem (after the first 2 weeks), and in a "real" pandemic, I think they would be.

So, trust-building.. it's important, imo, if we're going to be able to continue as one country.

You're totally right - not "easy" at all. I can understand your frustration with "giving bad ideas" oxygen, but I don't think we have a choice, and the more we get angry and then react poorly, the more we undermine our position and ironically push our goal further out.

Maybe it's a lot like distance running :). We want / NEED results - our sub4 mile - right NOW. But, we're 12 years old and have taken the past year off as we've been trying to manage an injury. It might take some time.

Harambe, regarding opposing viewpoints being shutdown... 1) Do you remember when it was proposed that the virus may have originated from a lab leak? When this was first suggested, anyone who dared say that this is a mere possibility were completely dismissed as quacks / loony tunes! (lol). 2) You say that you have always thought natural infection offered protection, but did you know that for a time that basic longstanding principle was essentially not allowed to be stated in the media or on social networks? 3). Are you refuting that many healthcare professionals have been "banned" or purged from their social media accounts for saying contrarian things? I bet you do know this, and it has all only fostered more distrust. So, yeah, I am going to eyeroll back at you (lol).

414227,

You straddle the line with one foot on solid logical ground and the other knee deep, maybe even hip deep in crap.

1) That people have lost trust in vaccines has nothing to do with the messaging. There has been a groundswell of anti-vaxxers (yes, it is intended to be pejorative) for years...people confident that vaccines cause autism and a whole bunch of other things with no evidence to support that. We have a certain segment of the population who doesn't like to be not only told what to do but told what they SHOULD do. It's all based in bogus freedom crap and machoism.

2) Not everyone gets respect. Respect is based on behavior. I don't respect smokers. I don't respect people who use illegal drugs or drink excessively. I don't respect severely overweight people unless they are doing something about it. I don't respect racists. I don't respect people who say crap about vaccines when they know nothing about them. The videos of people saying the vaccine location made their arm magnetic, and then to prove it they placed a US quarter there (when US quarters are NOT attracted by magnets!).

3) So, you want me to talk to grown adults as if they are children? No thanks. How about if they grow up and stop behaving like children? They have access to all of the same information I do (though they aren't all married to a woman with a graduate degree in Immunology from Stanford who used to work for Tony Fauci). Besides, I reject your premise. I have never once seen Fauci call people morons for not getting vaccinated. He recommends they do. He recommends masking indoors. He recommends social distancing. I call them morons for not getting vaccinated, but if someone decides not to get vaccinated because some dude they don't know called them a moron on the internet, then the label properly fits.

4) Your car salesman analogy doesn't work at all. If I'm buying a car, I have MANY choices and can go elsewhere. Not true with vaccines. Three choices here in the US. Also, you pay money for a car which you may or may not need, and you won't potentially DIE if you don't get one. Vaccines for COVID in the US are free, and they save your life.

5) Sorry, but the rubes ARE the problem. There is no rational reason for any eligible person to not get vaccinated against this virus. Those who don't are either lazy (no excuse), or ignorantly fearful (no excuse), or feel like they are pushing back against The Man (no excuse), or believe it is a political decision (no excuse).

Take the one foot out of the crap, brother. Sometimes there actually is someone to blame. The overwhelming majority of those hospitalized and dying right now, even of the Omicron variant, are UNVACCINATED people. Stupid f*cks.

My bad - You're definitely CORRECT! lol

1) I never said your bold part either exactly or in any form, never thought it and don't think it now.

2) My wife IS brilliant, but typically I define her most appropriately as a genius, which she is.

3) Yes, there are many scientists in my family...wife who went to graduate school at Stanford (Immunology) and got a second graduate degree at U of Michigan in Public Policy before working for Tony Fauci at the NIH and is now a college professor...sister who is a research scientist currently researching this novel coronavirus, brother with a Ph.D. in pharmacology who is also a lawyer and does drug patent law...on some lower levels, a couple of nurses in my family and a paramedic...ALL of them are pro vaccine. While I would still take the word of Tony Fauci (Tony to those who know him), over them, I respect their opinions much more than those of non-science people, and they all align with Fauci anyway.

4) My thought on all of this has not evolved at all. You are going to have to give me concrete examples...show me posts to decide that you are right there. My thought on all of this has always been to follow the guidance of the experts.

5) I disagree wholeheartedly about anti-vaxxers being swayed by poor messaging. Yes, TRUMP didn't do all he could to recommend people get vaccinated while he was President (he does now, but it's too late, and he got booed for saying it). What would you have done differently? No vaccine expert is calling people stupid for not getting the vaccines. They recommended people get it, they made them widely available for free, they kept giving out the stats about people dying. Do we need to use puppets? Maybe get The Wiggles to sing to adults about it? They are just a bunch of f*cking morons who don't know sh!t, and their decision is based on a warped idea of freedom and machoism fueled by ignorance.

6) Once your kids are far enough away from having had COVID that they are eligible to get the vaccine, you are a fool for not getting it for them. I know a young woman...a fit young woman, who caught COVID and had to have part of one of her lungs removed. There is a MUCH greater likelihood of long term bad effects from having COVID than from the vaccine. You are wrong that we don't know about the long-term effects of the vaccines. Vaccines show issues (even these mRNA ones) within 6 months MAX (usually 6 weeks to 2 months). You are foolish to believe there are long-term possible bad effects of the vaccines out there...that shows your ignorance. Get rid of that.

414227 wrote:

Harambe, regarding opposing viewpoints being shutdown... 1) Do you remember when it was proposed that the virus may have originated from a lab leak? When this was first suggested, anyone who dared say that this is a mere possibility were completely dismissed as quacks / loony tunes! (lol). 2) You say that you have always thought natural infection offered protection, but did you know that for a time that basic longstanding principle was essentially not allowed to be stated in the media or on social networks? 3). Are you refuting that many healthcare professionals have been "banned" or purged from their social media accounts for saying contrarian things? I bet you do know this, and it has all only fostered more distrust. So, yeah, I am going to eyeroll back at you (lol).

1) Lab leak was always deemed as a possibility in serious scientific circles. I agree that several scientists were too hasty to strongly deny the possibility early in the pandemic. However, I view the opposite site of the debate just as harmful. There are tons of people screaming online that the virus is obviously a deliberately engineered bioweapon or something. In all, there has been robust discussion of the lab leak hypothesis in scientific circles and the popular press, even if it took a little longer than you deemed appropriate to gain traction. I argue the reason it took more time than you wanted is because there simply wasn't any evidence at the start but, as more evidence emerged, it was talked about more. Seems logical to me.

2) This is just not true. We have been studying immune response using serum from recovered patients since roughly month 2 of the pandemic. There has been open scientific discussion (and uncertainty!) about how well prior infection will/does protect against reinfection/severe disease/etc. Perhaps you are upset because scientists and policy makers were too slow (in your opinion) to acknowledge that 'natural immunity' was protective? Well, uncertainty is the issue! A few reasons: a) initially we just didn't have good data on how well COVID infection stimulated an immune response b) it's harder to gather data on a messy cohort of infected people rather than, say, a clinical trial for vaccines (we probably should have funded more studies of recovered people) c) we discovered that there was a WIDE range of immune responses generated upon COVID infection. Especially for mild infections... some people just didn't generate good immunity after infection.

Thus, I don't fault (and actually commend) top scientists for not saying "if you're infected you're good to go" because we either didn't know or knew that not everyone who was infected was 'good to go.' Anyway, there was robust discussion -- it just didn't say what you wanted it to (because what you wanted it to say was not true).

3) Nobody has been banned from Twitter for anything less than deliberately harmful misinformation. There's not one example of a COVID-related contrarian poaster who wasn't posting obscene lies (the guise of 'just asking questions' doesn't work). I am fine with Twitter banning people who say "the vaccines are killing more than they save" -- that is harmful propaganda.

Compassion and empathy is at the very core of the medical and nursing profession. I have no disdain for heavy smokers, the otherwise addicted, the obese. Personal responsibility plays less of a role in these problems than many other factors, both biological and societal. No lack of compassion for the unvaccinated either. My anger is for those doing the duping. Fauci and Collins and Walensky make mistakes for sure. They do not have all the answers, but they have devoted themselves to public service and trying to do the right thing. Science is messy, but we should have no doubt regarding their intentions. On the other hand, though I can’t prove it, I’m quite sure this Kory guy knows he’s full of sh-t. I went to med school with another Trump and Laura Ingraham med advisor, Ramin Oskui, and I know he’s a snake in the grass. How we are got ourselves to a place where Kory = Fauci or Kory > Fauci, is hard to understand. I guess there is so much anger out there about so many things that people are more than happy to throw the baby out with the bath water. Yes, please hate Zuckerberg or Bezos or SF or whatever, but do yourself a favor and stop hating Fauci and Collins.

^wise post

1) Just to be clear, I wouldn't call what I have for smokers "disdain". That's a bit strong. I do not respect their decision to be smokers. I recognize it is addictive, and I support them if they try to quit but again, I do not respect their decision to continue to smoke. The step father of a friend of mine continues to smoke despite having part of his lung removed due to lung cancer a couple years ago. Pretty remarkable that it hasn't recurred or spread.

2) Just regarding Fauci, I see nothing but an educated yet humble man. He fully admits that some of the guidance has changed. He fully admits we do not know what this virus may end up ultimately doing or how damaging or not it will become. He has given pretty straight forward advice...get vaccinated, wear masks inside, and socially distance. For that, he and his family have received death threats. Insanity.

414227 wrote:

My bad - You're definitely CORRECT!

There you go.

Agree with you 100%.

Seriously, when Fauci speaks it is like a major anxiolytic for me. How you can listen to him and mistrust him, let alone hate him? We should all be so lucky as to have Fauci being responsible for our care. This does not mean he is infallible or that he never changes his stance as the science evolves. Just the opposite, he’s first to do so when called for, as you say, he’s humble. G-d, I hate all the gotcha stuff. “You said this in the past and now you are telling us something different!” Yes, dummies, that is the essence of science!!! Of all of perversions of the science skeptics, the Fauci hate is truly the most amazing to me. Hating Fauci is like hating puppies or hating Kipchoge!

Flagpole wrote:

6) Once your kids are far enough away from having had COVID that they are eligible to get the vaccine, you are a fool for not getting it for them. I know a young woman...a fit young woman, who caught COVID and had to have part of one of her lungs removed. There is a MUCH greater likelihood of long term bad effects from having COVID than from the vaccine. You are wrong that we don't know about the long-term effects of the vaccines. Vaccines show issues (even these mRNA ones) within 6 months MAX (usually 6 weeks to 2 months). You are foolish to believe there are long-term possible bad effects of the vaccines out there...that shows your ignorance. Get rid of that.

Of course we know that vaccines, any kind, come with risks. Those risks can only be heightened when several pharmaceutical companies/governments trip and fall all over themselves to be first to market. To say anything to the contrary is to stick your head in the sand. Which to be fair, you're pretty good at.

"Conclusion

In this study, based on a convenience sample of children born into one of three distinct pediatric medical practices, higher ORs were observed within the vaccinated versus unvaccinated group for developmental delays, asthma and ear infections. No association was found for gastrointestinal disorders in the primary analysis, but a significant relationship was detected in the third and fourth quartiles (where more vaccine doses were administered), at the 6-month cut-off in the temporal analysis, and when time permitted for a diagnosis was extended from children ⩾ 3 years of age to children ⩾ 5 years of age. Similar results have been observed in earlier studies by Mawson et al.3 and Delong.20 The findings in this study must be weighed against the strengths and limitations of the available data and study design, which only allowed for the calculation of unadjusted observational associations. Additional research utilizing a larger sample from a variety of pediatric medical practices will yield greater certainty in results and allow for the investigation of health conditions with lower prevalence, such as autism. A thorough evaluation of vaccinated versus unvaccinated populations is essential to understanding the full spectrum of health effects associated with specific vaccines and the childhood vaccine schedule in totality."

That study is the latest piece of garbage pushed out by bottom-tier antivaxx grifters.

See:

Here you go, frontline doc... or, is it "professor" Are you both? Anyway, here you go...

You can’t be serious? Did you read the author disclosures? What journal is this from?? No chance there was serious peer review. Simpson University??? Formerly known as Simpson Bible University. If you are putting this out there then you have zero idea about the difference between real science and pseudo science.

Yeah, it’s both, thank you!

There’s a lot to unpack in this opinion piece. There is room for debate about some of the public health policies surrounding the pandemic. For all these policies and interventions there is a benefit and a risk and as the science evolves so the policies need to evolve. For example, it’s pretty widely acknowledged that mass closing schools was a miss. Schools were not a focal point for transmission, but there was a lot of damage done to children out of school. At the same time, there’s no serious debate about the benefits v risk of the vaccines. Sorry, but no….

This isn't the first time we've seen a link to swprs.org. They've been a slightly upscale misinformation outlet since the beginning.