Comments by "N Marbletoe" (@nmarbletoe8210) on "The Lincoln Project" channel.

"Say the evidence is weak when it is strong, and strong when it is weak.” ― Sun Tzu, The Art of Warp "
27
Iver is designed for humans, and safe, but effective? That is under study.
2
@Stacy- maybe not, who knows. if there were 88,000 prescriptions in the US in just one week, could be mostly prescribed
2
@Stacy- sure, it's happening. i was just wondering if most uses are from that or off-label doctor prescriptions
2
Iver is also safer than the vaccines. Vaccines are great and so is medicine
2
I don't think there is a conspiracy, but I do think there's a ton of evidence for it...
2
@andrewactingwayne It's a vaccine, because it relies on activiting the body's immune system against a particular antigen. The definition of vaccine is not "a perfect prevention" lol That said, It should be ONLY voluntary. And iver probably works too!
2
@amerpdx Chaudhry et al. 2021. Role of ivermectin in patients hospitalized with COVID-19: a systematic review of literature. Adv Respir Med. 2021;89(4):413-418. Let me know if you can't find the study. If you read it, let me know what you think!
2
@Pronto The student status of the author is irrelevant. It was published in Advances in Respiratory Medicine; peer reviewed. Indeed, it was a review of the literature. It cited it's sources. Did you check any one of them? In the future, try to cite evidence FOR your point of view. Random pot shots against legitimate research really don't further the discussion and create an anti-science aura around your argument.
2
@Pronto Credit where credit is due, you are good at the 'no true Scotsman' game! That's ok, I am a genuine Celtic myself. Next up, J Am Ther and Rev Med Vir. How do they fare on the impact scale? And may I ask, is there an article in NEJM that you like to cite? Or was that impact factor just for general reference...
2
@Pronto All I did was use your logic. I know it was faulty. Every point you used to "discredit" Chowdery's paper can be used to discredit Merck. The goal was not to discredit Merck but to show that the logic was faulty. Now then, do we want to get back to the actual science...? What do you think of Chowdery's RESULTS? (Not his status as a student, or the impact of the journal, or other random facts)...
2
I am pro vaccine and I search the scientific lit. It's not stupid to think it might work, given the dozens of RCTs now being reported.
1
@barbarajolley6578 A few dozen RCTs vs covid have now been reported. Evidence is strong, but not universal. About half report no effect, about half report benefits.
1
@danielgregory3295 The vaccine and the ivermedicine seem to both be affective
1
@FortunaFortesJuvat Curiously, it may have evolved to fight viruses, not parasites. It was found in Japanese dirt-living bacteria. The natural enemy of bacteria is the virus, not the nematode! This could explain why it inhibits a long list of single strand RNA viruses.
1
@FortunaFortesJuvat I wasn't advocating it. I got the vaccines. But its antiviral activity is well known. There is a long list of viruses it acts against. Many studies point to interference with the formation of importin dimers. Does it work on covid in humans? Not sure. That is under study around the world...
1
@Jeff C You didn't get my last comment? It has disappeared. I suggested searching google scholar, there are many studies evaluating it as an antiviral.
1
@Jeff C PS for example Heidary and Gharebaghi 2020, J Antibiot
1
Long time democrat here, (and green sometimes). Let's not get our science from humorous videos. Try search the scientific literature. The results are not one-sided.
1
As a liberal-voting mask-loving vaccine-taking former researcher in the biological sciences, let me just add... ... google scholar has many papers showing major benefits. Also, many studies are inconclusive. I see none that find net harm.
1
Then Nancy might be wrong, just as she was wrong about pot. Nancy's real motto: "Don't think" That said, her husband did some great things...
1
Those who talk big rarely search scientific literature. -Dr. Omura Einstein
1
@rikk319 Have you checked the scientific literature on its antiviral activity? Or wikipedia?
1
@NoCultsPlease The evidence is not conclusive, but many meta analyses are now reporting large benefits from it vs covid.
1
So I looked it up, and there is a lot of research saying iver has major benefits for covid. It is not conclusive, but promising. When you think about it... it makes more sense that it works against viruses than parasites. Bacteria, who invented iver, do not get parasites... they get viruses.
1
@ultracapitalistutopia3550 Curiously, ivermectin probably evolved to fight viruses, not parasites. Evidence: 1) It was first made by bacteria. 2) The natural predator of the bacteria is the virus. 3) Parasites don't parasitize bacteria.
1
@amerpdx The kits in Goa are specifically for covid. They include iver. (ref: Dr. John Campbell's recent video)
1
@amerpdx There are too many false statements in your reply. I am not so interested in arguing. But, if you want to cite a study, I might be interested in discussing the science.
1
@Pronto Thanks, but that is questionable. Merck's website post is not peer reviewed. The author of that post was in first grade, once. The Merck blurb is not a primary source, and not even a secondary source. Not a tertiary, or quaternary source. It's not even a sesquicentennial source... Merck mentions research on Onchocerciasis. But, the number of patients was less than the number compiled by Chaudhry et al. about iverm3cth1n. In conclusion, the impact factor of Merck's website is zero, since it is not a scientific journal. Sorry if this post is long, but I am a true Celtics fan :) Is Larry Bird going to play this year or what?
1
@IRISHSALTMINER61 I can try. I went to the doctor and told him I am manic depressive. He told me to cheer up, calm down, cheer up, calm down, cheer up...
1