An antibiotic and an antiparasitic. Fucking moron. If the antibodies he’s taking help him the other 2 will get all of the anecdotal praise with these child’s.
I actually listened the other day because real doctor (but not really) Rhonda Patrick was on. He got all high and mighty about not getting sick in the last 11 years and Dr Patrick was like “cool story” but she also failed to adequately convince him he needs vaccinated.
Saw that one, too. A lot of the YouTube comments were predictable, like “Joe knows more than the supposed ‘real’ doctor.” This was based on Rhonda Patrick basically choosing her words carefully, so that she wouldn’t alienate some of her followers who listen to Rogan’s podcast. It caused her to pause more and the mouth-breathers took that as ‘proof’ that she didn’t know what she was talking about. No, you idiots, she was trying to steer your captain-less boats in the right direction, without losing you to the current of stupidity/ignorance.
One of my best buddies told me he listens to Rogan this weekend. Same asinine "wull he has good guests too" shit. May have laid the shame on him a little thick. Eh, nah I didn't. Especially when he later said Greta Van Fleet is "an incredible rock band the likes of which we haven't seen since Zeppelin." The perceived quality of JRE and GVF are sorta different flavors of the same unifying concept-- that millennial men are grotesquely confused.
Being a Greta Van Fleet fan is unforgivable. It’s a rock band of kids in their early 20s who cater to the sensibilities/comfort zone of boomers and early GenX? Eww it’s literally 20 year old kids who’s dads told them rock starts and ends with Led Zeppelin so now they do Led Zeppelin impressions for other kids dads / confused kids
I love how people are incapable of understanding that multiple things can exist at the same time: 1. there is a veterinary version of Ivermectin that is an anti-parasitic horse dewormer 2. there is a human version of Ivermectin that has been used for 50 years and up until 3 weeks ago was considered very safe 3. there are fucking morons taking the veterinary version of Ivermectin My dog has been prescribed Prednisone before. That doesn't mean Prednisone is now and forever exclusively a canine anti-inflammatory. Ketamine is a horse tranquillizer. And is also proving to be very good at helping people with depression, bipolar disorder, and suicidal behavior. It is in fact possible that drugs are used on both humans and animals. ***Not the same exact version, mind you, but the same exact active ingredients. If Rogan took the veterinary version, he's a fucking moron. If he took the human version, he took a really safe drug that may or may not have had any effect on his recovery. But it's blatantly disingenuous to say "he took horse dewormer!!!" Here is a fun article published before the drug became so politicized https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3043740/ "There are few drugs that can seriously lay claim to the title of ‘Wonder drug’, penicillin and aspirin being two that have perhaps had greatest beneficial impact on the health and wellbeing of Mankind. But ivermectin can also be considered alongside those worthy contenders, based on its versatility, safety and the beneficial impact that it has had, and continues to have, worldwide—especially on hundreds of millions of the world’s poorest people."
Ivermectin is an anti parasitic that isn't going to do anything for covid. It's why the FDA and Merck chemical company advise strongly against using it for covid.
I'm not a doctor or virologist, and I don't think you are either, so we are probably not the best 2 people to discuss this, but ivermectin has been shown to inhibit the replication of viruses in vitro. It's theorized that this functionality may be why it's effective at treating covid, if taken early. There's conflicting evidence on how effective it actually is, and much of that evidence (both ways) is anecdotal. There was a big clinical trial that was supposed to have been released, but I thought there were some issues and they never finished the trial.
I like Wolfmother and Greta Van Fleet for what they are: music that shows up on Spotify exercise playlists. I’m also thinking about sticking horse paste up my ass to help with my back pain so there’s that too. Let’s get wild and go far off label.
pperc please confirm, but essentially the in-vitro function cannot be scaled up to effectively combat COVID-19 This is less a rebuttal of riner and more for people that need to rebut the riners of their day to day lives
PS: it’s foolish to think that medical professionals aren’t cross referencing fda approved drugs against covid looking for a golden bullet, they did, and we haven’t found anything PPS: a 93% effective vaccine was ridiculous effective for a vaccine
I’m sorry, I need full context. 1. I don’t come in this abomination of a thread. And 2. Riner has been on ignore for over a year now.
This is why we need better studies, right? To be clear, I'm not taking ivermectin. But people who do (the human grade version) are taking a relatively safe drug that *may* help. This is a wild time we are living in, where medical leaders are saying - fuck it, let's try this! - because we don't have great answers. Over time, ideally, we get those answers and w can say YES take this and NO don't take this because it does not work. But we are not totally there yet, and we are still finding a lot o those answers. Here is the "official" position on ivermectin as of right now https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34318930/ "Based on the current very low- to low-certainty evidence, we are uncertain about the efficacy and safety of ivermectin used to treat or prevent COVID-19"
You don't have to be a doctor or virologist to read the FDA or Merck's website where they say to not use it for covid
Right, that's the anecdotal part. There are plenty of galaxy brains sucking down ivermectin horse paste that recover from covid. But I don't think that's substantial evidence that we should all go take that shit. There are clinical examples of ivermectin being effective. There are other examples of it not seeming to have any effect. There are very few well controlled trials, and they do not involve enough people.
why would you even fool with this when you can get the vaccine, it’s a waste of time and resources? On top of that you already have a viable therapeutic in monoclonal antibodies this is just silly
I think it’s easier to find evidence that the public health brass and the media were quick to denounce therapeutics early on in favor of a “vaccine is the only answer” approach I don’t understand why, “take the vaccine but also let’s put these therapeutics under serious review” wasn’t seen as a serious viewpoint until the vaxxs proved to be leaky and undurable
Me personally? I wouldn't, I'm vaccinated. But I don't know that it's a waste of time or resources to look into treatments that may be effective. We are seeing more beakthrough cases and even hospitalizations among vaccinated people. If this is at all effective in helping those people, it would be a good thing to know, and use. But we can't find our way around the politicization of literally everything, can we? We judge our opponents by their worst examples and our allies by their best intentions. So now anyone who even mentions ivermetcin is eating horse dewormer.
I think the "real" experts did and are taking that approach. There are TONS of clinical trials underway, testing the effectiveness of many drugs as therapeutics. It just takes time, and unfortunately time isn't something we have in this situation.
Reasons people that take ivermectin are mocked for eating horse paste - A short history of the paste eaters 1. Ivermectin shown to POSSIBLY be effective in cells 2. clinical trails did not show this to be the case in live animals/humans 3. Some shady research org said it did, only to retract that statement after being challenged on their data collection 4. You have chud doctors who commenting on that disproven study, and on areas outside their expertise in front of congress 5. Idiots and grifters like Rogan pick it up and now you have that group of the population seeking it out in any form they can including actual fucking horse paste. Often citing prophylactics as an excuse or reason not to get vaccinated. So yeah - Idk if we're treating these grifters and their victims as this being a bad example or best intention. But holy shit if this is a just a well intended suggestion that almost always pairs w anti vaxxing
It's very joe rogan. Speak as an authority and moralize a topic, then when pressed - "Hey, Im just a dumb ape who isnt an expert! Why listen to me?!??"
I'm 100% with anyone who thinks eating horse paste is moronic and dangerous. But again, that doesn't mean the human version, in human dosages, and not apple flavored, is dangerous. And it also doesn't mean Joe Rogan ate horse paste (though he may have, I dunno) It's not just one shady study. There have been multiple studies that showed it was somewhat effective. And others that showed it was not. We don't yet have a great body of evidence pointing one way or the other. hopefully we will soon, and if it proves to not be effect, ok, cool, on to the next option. If it shows to be effective, at all, then we have a relatively safe option.
All it took was the first study to kick off the gifiters. There have been others that followed that also have been disproven. Rogan is rich af, can afford the expensive prophylactics that actually have FDA emergency approval. It's wildly irresponsible to host idiots like Weinstein and that other guy who pushed the horse paste or for joe to endorse using it. It's just a really shitty thing to do to his audience that contributes to the anti vaxxing and peoples false hope of being protected by an unproven drug that produces zero results. The best thing you say about it is it wont hurt you, if you take the human for in low dosages
Alright, here's what 7 years of med school and residency teaches you that makes you feel just terminally frustrated anytime someone brings up in vitro studies. You can find some really compelling in vitro results that become the basis for clinical trials (meaning actually give the shit to people and see if it helps). Like, "holy shit, look at how drug X inhibits viral entry!" Cool news, let's check it out in vivo. But what people who don't do this every day for the last couple decades don't understand is that he hit rate on bench science finding-->clinical practice change is exceptionally low. Like, interesting theoretical/bench science almost never bears clinical fruit. It's a really big deal when it does. So now everyone and their dog is out there scouring papers for any and every study that shows drug X shows some promise at the cellular/molecular level, but have zero contextual framework for interpreting the significance of those findings. So they think anything that has any inkling of theoretical promise MUST BE GIVEN NOW, unaware that the clinical significance is very, very unlikely to exist. You make clinical decisions using clinical science. Period.
I have to admit, I'm not surprised by much, especially in this echo chamber, but it's slightly odd to be against the position that we should explore options that might be helpful in treatment or prevention of a global pandemic for political/message board brownie points. Hey guys, I called it horse paste! look how trendy I am!
No one is against exploring options. We're against using one of those options that has shown zero promise to be used in general, and in tandem w the anti vaxxing argument
You keep saying it's shown zero promise, but that's not true. It's shown *some* promise. That's not to say it 100% works, of course. But saying it's shown zero promise is not accurate. The studies that have been done have been too small and low quality. Some of those studies showed positive effects, some did not. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34318930/
From your link... Authors' conclusions: Based on the current very low- to low-certainty evidence, we are uncertain about the efficacy and safety of ivermectin used to treat or prevent COVID-19. The completed studies are small and few are considered high quality. Several studies are underway that may produce clearer answers in review updates. Overall, the reliable evidence available does not support the use ivermectin for treatment or prevention of COVID-19 outside of well-designed randomized trials.
Right, I literally quoted that above too. Without certainty, they do not recommend using it. It's shown some promise, and more studies are needed to establish certainty, one way or the other.
Instead of quibbling over semantics, do you care to address my overall point about grifters irresponsibly using this as part of the anti vax rhetoric?
I mean you’ve quadrupled down on a terrible stance, and you ignore stuff that makes your stance look dumb
I'm not sure what I can add to that. I think those anti-vax grifters also promote things like vitamin C, which is great and not a problem. There is some overlap between what grifters promote and what's actually good or effective. But also some areas where morons promote total horse shit (or paste). We'd be wise not to lump it all together solely based on who is promoting it. So personally, I don't care what the political motivation or vax motivation or whatever the motivation for their position is. I care about the legitimacy of the position and how effective what they are promoting really is.
My position is that calling any and all ivermectin "horse dewormer" is intentionally disingenuous. hey, you idiot blind African kids, why don't you go take some fucking horse dewormer, give me a fucking break, idiots ha ha!
This really doesn’t have any relevance to the argument at hand. If I ended up with a parasite that was best treated by ivermectin, and it was prescribed by a doctor, I would take it.
Are you just trying to save face? Just admit you were wrong and will go educate people on why ivermectin in both the livestock form and human form are not an effective treatment for Covid-19 and we can all move on. It’s ok to be wrong when we learn from it.