Nobel Prize Winner Professor Satoshi Omura, whose discovery of ivermectin led to one of history's greatest public health achievements in transforming the health status of large parts of the globe... gets censored for discussing the science supporting ivermectin in COVID-19. Yup.

submitted by Chipit from twitter.com

all 20 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]trident765 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The scientific method does not decide the truth. The feelings of the Facebook admins decide the truth.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

Are there double-blind RCT for ivermectin for treatment of CoID-19 apart from this one?

Among adults with mild COVID-19, a 5-day course of ivermectin, compared with placebo, did not significantly improve the time to resolution of symptoms. The findings do not support the use of ivermectin for treatment of mild COVID-19, although larger trials may be needed to understand the effects of ivermectin on other clinically relevant outcomes.

If a guy with an interest in ivermectin is pushing it against evidence of efficacy, youtube are probably doing a service by censoring it.

[–]Chipit[S] 6 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 3 fun -  (12 children)

Well, we wouldn't know of any other research because they're censoring discussion of it. How are we supposed to come to a conclusion if we can't even talk?

If a guy with an interest in ivermectin

"A guy"? He won a Nobel Prize for it.

The censor isn't even a scientist.

Doesn't it feel dirty making money like this? Shouldn't you write some movie reviews instead? Shouting down science is an evil line of work.

[–]Froglich 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

"A guy"? He won a Nobel Prize for it.

The censor isn't even a scientist.

Doesn't it feel dirty making money like this? Shouldn't you write some movie reviews instead? Shouting down science is an evil line of work.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

We'd be able to find it if it was published.

When he won a nobel prize, it was (as it is now) a deworming. Used a lot these days in livestock.

In vitro effect against a virus doesn't imply it can work in vivo. And the way to get science or is through the peer reviewed literature, not a YouTube channel.

[–]Chipit[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

It's always nice to see a pro-censorship voice in the wilderness. Oh wait this is your job, posting like this.

[–]Node 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

So it's not just me who's a shill, it's everyone you disagree with.

You may not be aware of this, but it looks a lot like you judge everyone by your own actions. How much are you paid to post this stuff on saidit?

[–]Chipit[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Nah, pro-censorship is an easy tell.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

First there was a bullshit story about Hydroxychloroquine.

Now we've got a questionable (but otherwise identical story) about Ivemectin.

The problem is that desperate people will by and use take this stuff, and it's not without side-effects. In doeses sufficient to produce concentrations in the blood at the level at which it was effective against CoVID-19 in vitro, it's probably deadly. Not that anyone would take that much, but if people are going to exaggerate the effectiveness and safety of this drug, then people will do things that reduce their health.

And so, sometimes the lesser of two evils to to reduce the spreading of the misinformation.

[–]Chipit[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

In doeses sufficient to produce concentrations in the blood at the level at which it was effective against CoVID-19 in vitro, it's probably deadly.

Citation needed.

Oh wait, you can't, because it's been censored.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Oh wait, you can't, because it's been censored.

It's not censored, because it's scientific literature, not fucking youtube.

1) It's possible to take an overdose, because people have ended up in ICU by doing it. Two people end up in ICU after Ivermectin overdose in Pietermaritzburg last year.

2) It's probably not possible to get in vivo to the concnetrations that were effective in vitro: "[...] there is no evidence that the 5μM concentration of ivermectin used by Caly and colleagues in their in vitro SARS-CoV-2 experiment, can be achieved in vivo."

In any case, the does would be well above the recommended dose. 8.5 times the FDA approved dose only achieves about 0.28μMol/L, about 1/18th of the dose of 5μMol/L that was effective in vitro. (Same source as the second link above).

[–]Chipit[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Ah, but Youtube is censoring the science. That's the issue here.

We all appreciate you being the censorship whisperer and telling us all that censorship is OK, as long as it's the right people who are doing it.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Youtube can't censor science. They're not a scientific journal. Not even close.

Even Nature Publishing Group can't censor science. There's several other good quality peer reviewed journals in every major field.

[–]Chipit[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I recognize the dishonest arguments you're making. They were in your training session, weren't they?

Why don't you quit this job and write some movie reviews instead? You wouldn't feel so rotten waking up every morning knowing you're a tool of the powerful to hammer the little guy.

[–]Node 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (3 children)

Awhile back, there was a survey of 'many' studies on ivermectin. There were various dosages, and schedules for dosing. All of them showed massive improvement or resistance to the flu after taking ivermectin once, or in a series of doses.

That was posted here on saidit a few months ago.

And btw, everyone who disagrees with chipit is a paid shill, in case you didn't realize.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I can't find it. I wonder if it was published in a scientific journal or made up in some blog.

Apparently I'm a bit and a shill. There's not a lot of rational argument around here.

[–]Node 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

No, it cited actual real life studies by people claiming to be scientists and medical professionals. I'm guessing it was posted around March?

If /u/InvoluntaryHalibut returns after the last outage, she could source it for you.

I actually read through the whole document, because it was so contrary to what the government shills were paid to say. I then bought some ivermectin on amazon in case I did catch the flu again, but haven't needed it yet.

Bizarrely, I just went out again this month, and almost everyone has dropped the mask fetish. Some are saying they've been poisoned and don't need a mask anymore, but after more than a year of not being able to go to any store, it's extremely weird to see people walking around outside with no masks. Just a few months ago, I saw 98% of all people outside literally wearing masks over their mouth and nose.

This past year has been incredibly instructive in what a failure the human species has been.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The Hydroxychloroquine hype was just like this. Then it was refuted in trials.

Without high-quality trials, we've got a couple of systematic reviews. One concluding that it helps. But it has been noticed that the effect it noticeable only in the poorer quality studies. Which usually means that what we're looking at is bias in the experiments rather than a genuine effect.

We need a large well blinded, randomized, placebo controlled trial. Until then we're just fucking guessing.

[–][deleted]  (1 child)

[deleted]

    [–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    The first papers is interesting and deserves follow up. The other two conclude mostly non-significant or clinically meaningless results. (A few more days of anosmia isn't life threatening.)

    The evidence is mixed still.

    The British are doing a large randomized, double blind, placebo controlled trial now. We will know better in a couple of months when those results are in.