Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "Joe Rogan Ivermectin Controversy | Does Horse Dewormer Treat COVID-19?" video.

@IWearShaqs Look up the current NIH statement on ivermectin. Stay current. Also, listen to the Lex Fridman podcast of Sept 1st, where he interviews a real virologist from Columbia University. I say this, having believed the use of ivermectin in India as prophylaxis was a rumor. Well, after doing the research, I find that it was broadly used in at least one state, that the WHO criticized India strongly for making this decision, AND that at present we still do not have a clear picture of whether it was beneficial. What I want to know is: WHY AREN'T WE informed? It's about time to have a serious conversation, and to share information, not spread contempt.
8
This was a bad call. First, it's false. Ivermectin is a human medicine, and Rogan got a prescription from his doctor. (He's rich, he can.) The NIH stated there is insufficient evidence at present to recommend or prohibit the use of ivermectin, and expressly recommended further clinical studies. Mainstream virologists believe it has sufficient promise to study. Second, it is encouraging contempt for others during a pandemic. And third, it could have the opposite effect than that intended: if you (falsely) tell people Rogan took a horse medicine, other people might get the message that the horse version IS safe! No one should be playing with this, or repeating MSM talking points. Especially not after some of these late-night "comics" recommended letting the unvaccinated die.
6
B0omer96 This is the attitude I appreciate! Much needed!! :) EDIT: I said this in reference to your INITIAL post only! Let's QUIT with the name calling! Even when goaded!
5
@noellerebekah9653 ^1000
2
@BurroGirl You know, when I heard that in parts of India, ivermectin was being given to all the residents of a particular state as prophylaxis, I thought it was just a typical Internet rumor. Later I found out, from a legitimate news magazine, perhaps Forbes (I forget), that the Indian government most certainly did distribute ivermectin as prophylaxis, and that WHO strongly objected to this decision and cautioned against relying on ivermectin in this way. In MY opinion, the SCIENTIFIC approach would be to attempt to determine whether this course worked. There are undoubtedly confounding variables, and some sort of multiple regression would need to be employed, and a causal relationship might not be established, despite our best efforts. Still and all, if a person is not curious, and rejects these QUESTIONS, then they are not employing a scientific approach. They are deploying propaganda. No thanks.
2
@BurroGirl Well-designed studies have their place, as does epidemiology in actual practice. In fact, the latter has to be considered. It should be obvious why. Every fully approved drug has to continually be monitored for its actual effects on actual people, using it in their actual, daily lives. The NIH's official position on ivermectin is that it warrants further study, and that there is not sufficient data to recommend it, or to tell doctors to refrain from prescribing it. Go to the website and see. Or, if you want to hear actual scientists discuss this pandemic, you could listen to Lex Fridman interview Dr. Racaniello, who is a virologist at Columbia University. (Both he and Fridman are, of course, vaccinated.) But maybe I misunderstood you. Do you not want to know whether the use of ivermectin in India made a difference, assuming we can determine that? Surely you can't be saying that you don't want to know. Everyone wants to know.
2
@BurroGirl Poorly designed studies prove nothing either way. Given that the proponent of a medicine has the burden of proof, that means the null hypothesis stands. The drug that was used in a poorly designed study is presumed to have no effect, and that needs to be disproved in order to be able to say with any certainty that the drug is safe and effective (with ivermectin, the general safety for approved uses is firmly established). But a poorly designed study offers no information about what a well designed study might show. Literally zero. You know that part? Right?
2
@noellerebekah9653 We are SO on the same page. I was always taught that it was easier to tell the truth.
2
@rachelles.9657 Thanks for this information. I had the impression few doctors would prescribe it.
2
@Zangreten Right. The richest people in America regularly get poor medical care and advice during a pandemic.
1
@garmtpug Because he developed an illness that can kill 53-year-old men and he is a millionaire. Do you really not know how the 1% live?
1
@garmtpug You speculated that a multimillionaire (Joe Rogan) did not even talk to a doctor. Buddy, get a grip. This is absurd.
1
@garmtpug In case you haven't noticed, even older -- even seriously unhealthy -- rich people are surviving and making full recoveries, all prior to vaccines being available. Trump, Chris Christie, Chris Cuomo, etc. "We don't even know if Rogan saw a doctor" my arse. If I knew I could have the treatment they all had, I would not give COVID another thought. This has been a killer in the poor, institutionalized, and underserved communities. Open your eyes.
1
@BurroGirl He may have had the same outcome had he been vaccinated.
1
@garmtpug Can you be serious? Trump was President. His condition and his treatment were widely reported. Look, there are too many crazy people on the Internet. I give up. Rogan took horsey paste. Have it your way.
1
@BurroGirl Came back to wonder, how does someone get like you? What propaganda has done, and so quickly, is incomprehensible.
1
@patrickburton1401 No, Rogan was not vaccinated. He had an appointment to receive Johnson and Johnson, and it was pulled that morning due to the blood clot issue. He never went back.
1
@user-ro9md9wp3j You must not have looked.
1