Open (More or Less) Post on Covid 5

[ecosophia]

The semi-open posts  I've hosted here on the Covid-19 narrative, the inadequately tested experimental drugs for it, and the whole cascading mess surrounding them have continued to field a huge number of comments, so I'm opening another space for discussion. The rules are the same as before: 

1. If you plan on parroting the party line of the medical industry and its paid shills, please go away. This is a place for people to talk openly, honestly, and freely about their concerns that the party line in question is dangerously flawed and that actions being pushed by the medical industry et al. are causing injury and death. It is not a place for you to dismiss those concerns. Anyone who wants to hear the official story and the arguments in favor of it can find those on hundreds of thousands of websites.

2. If you plan on insisting that the current situation is the result of a deliberate plot by some villainous group of people or other, please go away. There are tens of thousands of websites currently rehashing various conspiracy theories about the Covid-19 outbreak and the vaccines. This is not one of them. What we're exploring is the likelihood that what's going on is the product of the same arrogance, incompetence, and corruption that the medical industry and its tame politicians have displayed so abundantly in recent decades. That possibility deserves a space of its own for discussion, and that's what we're doing here. 

3. If you don't believe in treating people with common courtesy, please go away. I have, and enforce, a strict courtesy policy on my blogs and online forums, and this is no exception. The sort of schoolyard bullying that takes place on so many other internet forums will get you deleted and banned here. No, I don't care if you disagree with that: my journal, my rules. 

With that said, the floor is open for discussion. 

Comments

Ivermectin Vs Remdesivir

[(Anonymous)]

I can take that there is some debate around Ivermectin. Many of the studies are small and some are flawed. Few are large-scale double-blind RCTs. I can also appreciate some cynicism here around the large-scale RCTs because we know there are interests that try to discredit generic drugs: I wasn't entirely convinced on HCQ (but am still open to it having some effect if given early enough), but it's worth noting that the Surgisphere debacle was an attempt by somebody to discredit that drug with two fake studies. And that the editor of The Lancet, Richard Horton, is on the record as blaming that very debacle on Big Pharma.

However, despite all of that and my lack of certainty on both drugs, the part of this story that does get me is Remdesivir. The studies for it are weak. They don't show anything much in the way of reduced mortality. Even the shorter hospital stays--the basis on which it was approved--is now in doubt. Even the WHO says it doesn't work. And a Cochrane Review says it doesn't work. It also has a worse safety profile than IVM.

Yet, it was approved after a single study in the US that failed to show reduced mortality and had its goalposts moved halfway through the study to shorter hospital stays. Then other western nations quickly followed suit. Of course, it's a patented drug with a high price.

And nobody blinks. The legacy media never mentions it or questions it. They never bring it up in comparison to Ivermectin. The Chief Medical Officer of my country (Australia) said in The Guardian that not a SINGLE study had shown Ivermectin to be effective in humans against Covid--again, this is blatantly incorrect whatever the efficacy of this drug turns out to be. And still nobody blinks or corrects him. Nobody mentions that overseas governments HAVE approved this drug and thought the evidence was compelling enough to give it a shot.

I could perhaps accept there is a debate around Ivermectin given the extreme techinicalities of how studies are interpreted and meta-analyses are conducted, but not the double standard with Remdesivir. Nobody is saying this drug does much. Even some of the same experts criticising Ivermectin ALSO criticise Remdemsivir as being just as bad.

Yet it remains approved and in widespread use.

Re: Ivermectin Vs Remdesivir

[drhooves]

"Even some of the same experts criticising Ivermectin ALSO criticise Remdemsivir as being just as bad."

One is promoted and backed by Big Pharma, the other has been out long enough that it's essentially in the public domain, with little profit potential. Follow the $$$.

I found it surprising when the recent crackdown on Ivermectin sales and prescriptions ramped up so fast - apparently we deplorables are not allowed access to a product which isn't "approved". But the reach and wrath of the crackdown convinced me that Ivermectin works, so I am now ready to emulate a 1260 pound horse should I get the crud.

Re: Ivermectin Vs Remdesivir

[(Anonymous)]

Well, the real kicker is that based on all the studies done on healthy people Remdesivir seems like it has far worse side effects than Ivermectin....