COVID-19

[IrishRazor82]

You are correct on this account. I just started listening yesterday and it is very informative...especially Dr. Kory. And while I’m still open to learning more about an additional treatment like ivermectin, it is definitely worrisome why platforms go to such lengths to censor actual experts in their arena on something like this.

I'm really glad you listened, I genuinely appreciate even one person making the time. I'm sure you don't regret it. "Crime of the century" isn't a strong enough phrase once you actually pay attention to the data and true science.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

I'm really glad you listened, I genuinely appreciate even one person making the time. I'm sure you don't regret it. "Crime of the century" isn't a strong enough phrase once you actually pay attention to the data and true science.

Regardless of how Ivermectin plays out. The "crime of the century" still applies to the potential massive coverup, if the lab leak proves true. Listen to Saagar Enjeti break it down on JRE. He calls it "WMD 2.0."

*For the record, I agree with everyone defending Rogan. I've listened to hundred of hours of his podcasts over the years. What you get out of it is entirely up to the guest he has on the show.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

Id just like to clarify that there is a huge difference in not promoting something that has a lack of evidence and healthcare professionals not being willing to sign on to an unproven product versus the conspiracy theory that an unproven product is being actively suppressed. Sometime i t takes professionals time and additional evidence to convince them the product is doing what it says.

This happens to me in my engineering line of work all the time. I am always being given new products that have claims of doing this or that and that I should start incorprating them in my building designs. Or new analysis methods or computer programs to use in design. It takes a hell of a LOT to convince me to use something when I know it can be life or death of people in the building. Id expect nothing less from healthcare professinoals regarding a medicine with an unproven track record.

 

[IrishRazor82]

Id just like to clarify that there is a huge difference in not promoting something that has a lack of evidence and healthcare professionals not being willing to sign on to an unproven product versus the conspiracy theory that an unproven product is being actively suppressed. Sometime i t takes professionals time and additional evidence to convince them the product is doing what it says.

This happens to me in my engineering line of work all the time. I am always being given new products that have claims of doing this or that and that I should start incorprating them in my building designs. Or new analysis methods or computer programs to use in design. It takes a hell of a LOT to convince me to use something when I know it can be life or death of people in the building. Id expect nothing less from healthcare professinoals regarding a medicine with an unproven track record.

With all due respect, you have no idea what's going on in this case and that's clear in your opening paragraph. Both in using the phrase "lack of evidence" and your point on censoring vs advertising.

It is absolutely and undeniably being surpressed. Podcasts have been shut down, senate hearings have been removed from youtube, media won't air any interviews about Ivermectin, the number of doctors banned from social media continues to grow, twitter has it's own world of fuckery on Ivermectin that's too big to get into. It's across the board and it's organized.

One country (forgot which) literally paid for an ad advertising against Ivermectin, lol.

But to try to garner something from your point - apply the same skepticism to a vaccine that's been out for 8 months, has offered the producers immunity from liability, and had no idea on the long term effects... Vs a drug that's been used for 40 years, proven safe, and won a nobel prize.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

my woo woo alarm is going off.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

I was going to post this exact thing. Real news is where you find it. Rogan has more experts on to discuss things in depth on his long-form podcast than any news segment I ever watched growing up. You can't get serious discussion or fully evaluate an idea on "the news". That's why he is the perfect platform for me. Not everyone sees it this way

Yeah but there is also something to be said of the quality of that content no matter wher eyou get it from. If you are getting it from Facebook user groups promoting conspiracies thats a problem. Fox news and MSNBC are essentially propaganda machines. I like Rogans podcast but I really have to parse what his guests are saying and the value I place on their "authority" of the topic being discussed. His interviews with his guests can come off as they are some authoirty on the matter when in reality they may be fringe and it puts pressure on me as a consumer on how to process it.

 

[Irish#1]

I think youll find if you look at age groups, people who arent over 55 get their news from internet based social media, youtube and podcast sources. I cant tell you the last time I watched a CNN, Fox, or NBC evening news cast.

I don't doubt many do. I get most of mine online as well. My wife watches the news and when it's on, I'm only half-way listening if that much. I've been in IT since 1972. I've always embraced technology.

Yeah but there is also something to be said of the quality of that content no matter wher eyou get it from. If you are getting it from Facebook user groups promoting conspiracies thats a problem. Fox news and MSNBC are essentially propaganda machines. I like Rogans podcast but I really have to parse what his guests are saying and the value I place on their "authority" of the topic being discussed. His interviews with his guests can come off as they are some authoirty on the matter when in reality they may be fringe and it puts pressure on me as a consumer on how to process it.

This kind of goes to my point.

 

[NDBoiler]

With all due respect, you have no idea what's going on in this case and that's clear in your opening paragraph. Both in using the phrase "lack of evidence" and your point on censoring vs advertising.

It is absolutely and undeniably being surpressed. Podcasts have been shut down, senate hearings have been removed from youtube, media won't air any interviews about Ivermectin, the number of doctors banned from social media continues to grow, twitter has it's own world of fuckery on Ivermectin that's too big to get into. It's across the board and it's organized.

One country (forgot which) literally paid for an ad advertising against Ivermectin, lol.

But to try to garner something from your point - apply the same skepticism to a vaccine that's been out for 8 months, has offered the producers immunity from liability, and had no idea on the long term effects... Vs a drug that's been used for 40 years, proven safe, and won a nobel prize.

The technology and science behind the available COVID vaccines have not just been out for 8 months, but for decades. The vaccines also have had extensive peer-reviewed, large scale clinical trials completed. Ivermectin might end up being beneficial, but the level of scientific validation is nowhere close at this point.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

I don't doubt many do. I get most of mine online as well. My wife watches the news and when it's on, I'm only half-way listening if that much. I've been in IT since 1972. I've always embraced technology.

I didnt mean to come off like you were some old rube lol. I meant that what is MAINSTREAM media really? Is truth mainstream? It implies that there is some argumentum ad populum is the driving force for truth when it cant because that is a logical fallacy.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

The technology and science behind the available COVID vaccines have not just been out for 8 months, but for decades. The vaccines also have had extensive peer-reviewed, large scale clinical trials completed. Ivermectin might end up being beneficial, but the level of scientific validation is nowhere close at this point.

This is my understanding. Claiming it is valid is just untrue. I find it implausible there is an active campaign to suppress it except in the manner that our society would suppress recommending drinking bleach and standing in the sun as a valid treatment for COVID. There isnt a consensus by professionals or evidence enough to convince said professionals its a valid treatment at this time. If there were someone in the public sphere claiming drinking bleach would help treat COVID I'd expect all professionals to stand up and fight back on that until such time as evidence was presented that drinking bleach did in fact represent a viable tratment option.

 

[Irish#1]

I didnt mean to come off like you were some old rube lol. I meant that what is MAINSTREAM media really? Is truth mainstream? It implies that there is some argumentum ad populum is the driving force for truth when it cant because that is a logical fallacy.

But I am!

 

[Irish#1]

This is my understanding. Claiming it is valid is just untrue. I find it implausible there is an active campaign to suppress it except in the manner that our society would suppress recommending drinking bleach and standing in the sun as a valid treatment for COVID. There isnt a consensus by professionals or evidence enough to convince said professionals its a valid treatment at this time. If there were someone in the public sphere claiming drinking bleach would help treat COVID I'd expect all professionals to stand up and fight back on that until such time as evidence was presented that drinking bleach did in fact represent a viable tratment option.

If you think about this logically, it would be almost impossible to keep this suppressed. You'd have to get thousands of people in health care, research, the government, advertising, pharma and all avenues of media to keep this quiet. How do you do that? Payoffs? That leaves an audit trail. All it takes is a whistleblower or two and it's exposed.

 

[ab2cmiller]

If you think about this logically, it would be almost impossible to keep this suppressed. You'd have to get thousands of people in health care, research, the government, advertising, pharma and all avenues of media to keep this quiet. How do you do that? Payoffs? That leaves an audit trail. All it takes is a whistleblower or two and it's exposed.

Same thing could've been said about the suppression of the lab leak theory, but yet here we are.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

If you think about this logically, it would be almost impossible to keep this suppressed. You'd have to get thousands of people in health care, research, the government, advertising, pharma and all avenues of media to keep this quiet. How do you do that? Payoffs? That leaves an audit trail. All it takes is a whistleblower or two and it's exposed.

Right. To me it seem sthat the conspiracy buffs are taking the proffesional community's actions to not promote a currently unvalidated treatment as an active case of suppression. Again... if someone promoted bleach as a treatment for COVID Id full yexpect the prefessional community to stand up and actively disuade people from using it on a lack of evidence its a valid treatment and possible harm to the public. It would be irresponsible if they didnt. The "both sides" people look at it like its a active suppression campaign. How do you combat that in the realm of social and mainstream media?

 

[Irishize]

Id just like to clarify that there is a huge difference in not promoting something that has a lack of evidence and healthcare professionals not being willing to sign on to an unproven product versus the conspiracy theory that an unproven product is being actively suppressed. Sometime i t takes professionals time and additional evidence to convince them the product is doing what it says.

This happens to me in my engineering line of work all the time. I am always being given new products that have claims of doing this or that and that I should start incorprating them in my building designs. Or new analysis methods or computer programs to use in design. It takes a hell of a LOT to convince me to use something when I know it can be life or death of people in the building. Id expect nothing less from healthcare professinoals regarding a medicine with an unproven track record.

This has already happened months ago w/ remdesivir. While promising, there is scant hard evidence that it works in COVID-19 patients yet most patients who are hospitalized w/ C19, get remdesivir as part of their protocol. The WHO has stated that it is not a proven therapy for C19. It also costs approx $3,120 per patient w/ private insurance according to Catherine Thorbecke of ABC News.

The guys that are promoting ivermectin the most are some of the leading ICU docs in the world. Roughly 20% of the patients that come to them in the ICU don’t survive so they know the importance of the Hippocratic Oath. Their speciality in pulmonary specific issues gives them even more credence to at least listen to what they have to say in regards to the evidence they present.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

This has already happened months ago w/ remdesivir. While promising, there is scant hard evidence that it works in COVID-19 patients yet most patients who are hospitalized w/ C19, get remdesivir as part of their protocol. The WHO has stated that it is not a proven therapy for C19. It also costs approx $3,120 per patient w/ private insurance according to Catherine Thorbecke of ABC News.

The guys that are promoting ivermectin the most are some of the leading ICU docs in the world. Roughly 20% of the patients that come to them in the ICU don’t survive so they know the importance of the Hippocratic Oath. Their speciality in pulmonary specific issues gives them even more credence to at least listen to what they have to say in regards to the evidence they present.

I get it. Im a structural engineer and if my work is subpar or I specify products that are subpar, hard to construct or worng... it can lead to deaths. I am super skeptical of anything that isnt well tested or effective and I am unlikely to approve anything that deviates from design after I have put my stamp on it. I am unmoved by this argument. If its effective then it can be shown but it takes time and it takes evidence to do so. If its effective it will be shown to be so and the professional community will come to accept it. The reason the mRNA vaccines came first was becasue the healthcare community had already shown their means and methods are effective but the mRNA vaccines were not previously approved by the FDA. These were esentially ready to go the moment the pandemic was in full swing minus getting it to work for COVID.

Regarding remdesivir, it was already being used to treat RNA viral laods from the SARS and MERS family. The government agencies have been familiar with its devleopment for a while prior to COVID.

THis is from a journal article:

As the COVID-19 pandemic races across the globe, the scientific community, from academic and government laboratories to small biotechnology companies and multinational pharmaceutical corporations, has mobilized to develop and evaluate potential therapeutics and vaccines.[SUP]101−104[/SUP] Repurposing or repositioning an effective small-molecule therapeutic promises to be the fastest therapeutic means to stem the tide of the pandemic.[SUP]105,106[/SUP] Among the candidate therapies, remdesivir has demonstrated efficacy in both in vitro and in vivo models against coronaviruses. Recently, through a compassionate use indication, remdesivir has supportive evidence for yielding some clinical improvement in COVID-19 patients.[SUP]107[/SUP] In addition, an interim analysis of the Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial (NCT04280705) supports improvement in the primary endpoint for patients receiving remdesivir, compared to control, with a 31% faster time to recovery.[SUP]108[/SUP] Based on these initial findings, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has issued an Emergency Use Authorization for the emergency use of remdesivir for the treatment of hospitalized COVID-19 patients. With no drug having FDA approval for marketing as a treatment for SARS-CoV-2, this is the first FDA authorization of an investigational therapeutic for use in treating SARS-CoV-2.[SUP]109[/SUP] While remdesivir represents one compound whose recent use authorization may, in part, mitigate the morbidity, mortality, and strain on global healthcare systems caused by COVID-19, additional ongoing clinical trials will provide much-needed clarity surrounding the repurposing of approved drugs and experimental agents against SARS-CoV-2.

Essentially the reason it was approved for use was that it did show an ability to help and not harm.

 

[Irish#1]

Same thing could've been said about the suppression of the lab leak theory, but yet here we are.

Not quite. The suppression of that came primarily from China and the leaders of WHO, who were defending China right from the start. They weren't cooperating and allowing investigations from anyone else.

 

[Irish#1]

I get it. Im a structural engineer and if my work is subpar or I specify products that are subpar, hard to construct or worng... it can lead to deaths. I am super skeptical of anything that isnt well tested or effective and I am unlikely to approve anything that deviates from design after I have put my stamp on it. I am unmoved by this argument. If its effective then it can be shown but it takes time and it takes evidence to do so. If its effective it will be shown to be so and the professional community will come to accept it. The reason the mRNA vaccines came first was becasue the healthcare community had already shown their means and methods are effective but the mRNA vaccines were not previously approved by the FDA. These were esentially ready to go the moment the pandemic was in full swing minus getting it to work for COVID.

Regarding remdesivir, it was already being used to treat RNA viral laods from the SARS and MERS family. The government agencies have been familiar with its devleopment for a while prior to COVID.

THis is from a journal article:

Yeah, I wouldn't want peoples deaths haunting me because I took a short cut or didn't properly vet the products and design.

WTH happened in Miami?

 

[IrishRazor82]

If you think about this logically, it would be almost impossible to keep this suppressed. You'd have to get thousands of people in health care, research, the government, advertising, pharma and all avenues of media to keep this quiet. How do you do that? Payoffs? That leaves an audit trail. All it takes is a whistleblower or two and it's exposed.

You've spent more time arguing against a topic and video you don't have full awareness/context about. Just watch the video and welcome to the other side lol.

Every question or point you've brought up would be answered and you'd be able to provide another informed opinion on this all.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

Yeah, I wouldn't want peoples deaths haunting me because I took a short cut or didn't properly vet the products and design.

WTH happened in Miami?

Unsure. It was an old build. Waiting get some more info. Doesn’t look good though

 

[PerthDomer]

For people still on the fence on getting vaccinated the delta variant is 100% more likely to land you in the hospital than alpha which is 25% more likely to lead to severe disease than the strain that hit New York. That would imply a 250% increase in mortality from our initial estimates. That's more than the risk becoming obese and developing poorly controlled diabetes adds to mortality/severe disease.

To add insult to injury a new variant of concern has popped up that is concerning for increased transmissibility, infectiousness, and ability to evade monoclonal antibody treatment.

 

[IrishRazor82]

For people still on the fence on getting vaccinated the delta variant is 100% more likely to land you in the hospital than alpha which is 25% more likely to lead to severe disease than the strain that hit New York. That would imply a 250% increase in mortality from our initial estimates. That's more than the risk becoming obese and developing poorly controlled diabetes adds to mortality/severe disease.

To add insult to injury a new variant of concern has popped up that is concerning for increased transmissibility, infectiousness, and ability to evade monoclonal antibody treatment.

Good news for those of you who watched the video - Ivermectin doesn't give a F about variants. It attacks all COVID we're aware of thus far in every country.

 

[TorontoGold]

Good news for those of you who watched the video - Ivermectin doesn't give a F about variants. It attacks all COVID we're aware of thus far in every country.

The studies conducted appeared to be from August 2020, before the UK/Delta variants were out. Are there more studies done on the effectiveness against the variants?

 

[NorthDakota]

The studies conducted appeared to be from August 2020, before the UK/Delta variants were out. Are there more studies done on the effectiveness against the variants?

The guys on JRE said they believed Ivermectin would be effective against variants I think.

 

[PerthDomer]

You're right, ivermectin would be effective against all the variants at four times the toxic dose for human cells. Fortunately or unfortunately we don't have an effective way to pump levels that high without an IV.

Looking at it another way at current doses 0% efficacy is maintained against all variants.

 

[ab2cmiller]

You're right, ivermectin would be effective against all the variants at four times the toxic dose for human cells. Fortunately or unfortunately we don't have an effective way to pump levels that high without an IV.

Looking at it another way at current doses 0% efficacy is maintained against all variants.

Haven’t really paid attention to dosages, but the podcast with Rohan Weinstein and Kory seemed to be referencing dosages that were not dramatically high

 

[IrishRazor82]

Haven’t really paid attention to dosages, but the podcast with Rohan Weinstein and Kory seemed to be referencing dosages that were not dramatically high

Once a week dose and for the standard body (aka they didn't give fat people more which he admits they should).

 

[PerthDomer]

Haven’t really paid attention to dosages, but the podcast with Rohan Weinstein and Kory seemed to be referencing dosages that were not dramatically high

The reason most didn't think ivermectin to work is that the concentration that inhibits viral replication is a level that kills human cells. The RCT's performed on ivermectin have shown 0 impact. On the other hand YouTube seems to disagree so what do we really know.

 

[PerthDomer]

Once a week dose and for the standard body (aka they didn't give fat people more which he admits they should).

We don't give higher ivermectin doses for parasitic infections to overweight patients. We also dose medications for ideal body weight for most medications. Why is Ivermectin different specifically when used for COVID? This is hydroxychloroquine on a smaller scale. First the trials were invalid because zinc wasn't used. Then we needed to add azithromycin. When a therapy bombs in trials we move on to other therapies. That's how medicine works.

 

[Irishize]

For people still on the fence on getting vaccinated the delta variant is 100% more likely to land you in the hospital than alpha which is 25% more likely to lead to severe disease than the strain that hit New York. That would imply a 250% increase in mortality from our initial estimates. That's more than the risk becoming obese and developing poorly controlled diabetes adds to mortality/severe disease.

To add insult to injury a new variant of concern has popped up that is concerning for increased transmissibility, infectiousness, and ability to evade monoclonal antibody treatment.

This should be repeated daily in all states. Get the damn vax