all 35 comments

[–]Yin 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Rolling Stone is one of the thousands of globalist disinformation propaganda outlets designed to appear "cool" and "hip" to the middle generation of rock-n-rolling retards.

Imagine if you will...

Imagine your entire mainstream western media totally owned and hijacked by globalists who use it as a tool to exploit and subvert your families and nations.

[–]PatsyStone 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

She couldn't call the hospital to check?

[–]StillLessons 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This is why the "power to shape the debate" is a tool that must be taken away from the legacy media.

The debate as they have defined it: Should people be allowed to take a veterinary medicine untested in humans for Covid?

The absolute ignorance of that construction cannot be overstated.

My wife is a doctor. She personally prescribes Ivermectin regularly for her human patients. The "on-label" use of Ivermectin is as an anti-parasitic. Within her specialty, it is a very common prescription; it has been used for years. As such, there is extensive safety data for Ivermectin. This drug is way way far away from being an "experimental" drug. FDA approval is far back in the rear-view mirror. It is common, with a completely well-known and documented safety record, in humans. To claim otherwise is absolute ignorance, easily cured by the most cursory glance at the history of Ivermectin. Hell, you can even find this on Wikipedia.

What's the debate? Using Ivermectin to treat Covid is "off-label". In other words, the FDA has not given its seal of approval to use this drug for this application.

A note now on the culture of medicine. Fortunately (or not), because during Covid times conferences have moved online rather than in person, I have witnessed many conferences that my wife has "attended" this past year. What is clear from listening to doctors describe their research, the state of the art, and progress in their field - the purpose of medical conferences - is that using medicines off-label is a key privilege which comes with the degree of "M.D." or "D.O." and certification within their specialty by the associated boards. Occasionally using medicines off-label is standard practice, because this is a critical way that they advance the field. Practicing physicians need to be able to try new ideas out, based on their clinical experience and knowledge of the research, so that the field can advance. Off-label use of drugs - carefully documented with motives and reasoning explained - is central to the forward progress of medicine.

The medical consensus on Ivermectin in the treatment of Covid at this time is "inconclusive". Again, you can look this up. That does not mean it doesn't work. It also doesn't mean it does work. It means, more research will be required to determine if it works or not. In the meantime, it is absolutely consistent with standard medical practice that doctors in good standing in their clinical practice be able to prescribe this drug if - in their clinical judgment backed up by their well-documented reasoning from the literature - they believe it will help their patient. In situations without so much political overtone, this is absolutely standard medical practice. Again, I've been listening to this over and over again in conferences within my wife's specialty over the past year.

The fact that Ivermectin is also used in veterinary applications is entirely irrelevant to everything I have written above. 100%. There are many drugs that are useful in more than one species.

The legacy media is absolutely lying in the way they are framing this debate. It is an obscene caricature of what medicine is, its traditions, and what it means.

Does Ivermectin work? I don't know. No one does.

It is a relatively safe drug - based on years of use in humans - and doctors are absolutely within standard medical practice (going back decades) to use it if they see clinical benefit with their patients, knowing the literature about the drug, and knowing the particulars of their patients' care.

Calling Ivermectin "Horse Paste" and suggesting it is untested in human application is an egregious lie. There isn't a gray area here. This isn't a "mistake". It's a lie.

[–]turtlew0rk 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Doesn't matter. It's true now, this is irrelevant. The hospitals are full of people loaded up on horse paste leaving the gun shot wound victims out in he cold waiting for a bed to open up. A disproportional amount of whom are people of color which further adds to the racial aspect of this Horse Paste Movement we are seeing spread like wildfire thru this likely Russian campaign of insurrectionist misinformation.

[–]jet199 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

I love that the picture used in the article implies that there's a whole long queue of gun shot victims trying to get in the hospital every day but that's not the issue which needs solving. Just nature taking its course.

[–]turtlew0rk 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes a very long queue of mortally wounded fun shut victims who are for some reason wearing heavy winter coats in Oklahoma in late August. And of course we are also to accept the premise that gun shot victims are common or even a remotely regular patient they see there. The first thing I did when I heard they were turning down GSW patients was google an gun violence in the area and of course found nothing. No mention of any gun violence or GSW victims bleeding out in ambulances waiting for a bed to open up and thus causing people needing ambulances having to apparently wait at the scenes of their injuries for an ambulance to free up that is waiting on a bed to free up in a hospital full of horse paste over dose victims apparently even some loosing their vision from it. Possible these guys were putting the paste directly into their eyeballs or possibly injecting it thru their eyeballs who knows?

I cant wait to hear about the next victims in this chain reaction these horse paste ODers caused, the many many horses suffering from worms and there is no treatment available now that everyone ate all the local stock of horse paste. Experts in Equine Experiment Studies will paint a grim picture of the unfortunate situation of a horse suffering from itchy worms with absolutely no way to scratch its own ass.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (36 children)

I think no one really knows what Joe Rogan has taken for COVID. He'd say anything for his supporters and the ratings. I think he's potentially getting people to harm themselves, by promoting untested alternative chemicals like ivermectin. It's a lucrative business for him and others.

This might be the RS article ZeroHedge mentions: https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/joe-rogan-covid19-misinformation-ivermectin-spotify-podcast-1219976

Perhaps it's already updated, but I see that's a well-written article.

[–]thefirststone 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (22 children)

When the industry denies and shames science, amateurs practice medicine and get dosing errors. Who could have imagined?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (21 children)

Thanks - it's a very intresting website by someone who wants to show - in a manner that looks scientific (but excludes significant testing) - all of the alternatives to the COVID19 vaccine, including studies of vitamin C, vitamin D, melatonin &c.

First: this is obviously a well-funded project that aims to look as though it has reliable data, presented in a manner that looks scientific, but:

Second: it does not appropriately reference the studies, the doctors, the locations of the research, the specific tests, the scientific data (other than some initial numbers &c), and:

Third:

Who is @CovidAnalysis? We are PhD researchers, scientists, people who hope to make a contribution, even if it is only very minor. You can find our research in journals like Science and Nature. We have little interest in adding to our publication lists, being in the news, or being on TV (we have done all of these things before but feel there are more important things in life now).

So these people want to remain anonymous? We should merely trust what they write, though they will not reveal the sources for their information or who they are? Moreover, scientists who are serious about their research do not write in generalities like this (we hope to make a contribution; we published in journals, we have done this before but feel there are more important things in life now).

Even if I hated the vaccine, I would not be able to trust any of this. None of their material is appropriately corrobrated, with other data, with tests, with other scientists, with previous research, with logic, with critical thinking, &c.

What's really interesting is that this website exists, that it's obviously well-funded, and that it's going to be used by anti-vaxxers to claim that they have irrefutable scientific proof - because these nice charts look scientific. If I were an anti-vaxxer I would not be convinced, but perhaps that's one mission of the website: only influence anti-vaxxers who will believe disinformation and misinformation. Those who fund the website know that they will not influence well educated people who have backgrounds in science.

One logical problem no one seems to be considering is this:

If the millions of live tests this past year of the vaccine are still not convincing to the anti-vaxxers, why would they turn to untested chemicals for a treatment? (Moreover, isn't COVID19 a hoax to them?) Why not have a consistent argument about so-called dangerous treatments and about COVID19?

Thank you for the link. It's very interesting. I would not have known of it.

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

The studies are cited six ways to Sunday.

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

Yes - thanks - but my point is that clinical tests on large groups are not appropriately referenced. What you see in many of those references are studies of the chemicals - some of which are for anti-viral properties of the chemicals - but not clinical texts on large groups of people. Anti-viral research is easy to locate, but not all of it's useful for COVID19. Some of the articles using COVID19 in their titles are also merely studies, reviews and evaluations. Most of what you see in the references are 'reviews' (of research) rather than significant tests on large groups. Some of the references are extracting minimal results from studies in other countries. Some of the references are obviously much more political than they are scientific, such as: "Crying wolf in time of Corona: the strange case of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquin." Many of the references are re-used as references for other chemicals. Many of the references are 'evaluations' rather than clinical tests. The many references look scientifically rigorous, but there isn't anything significant on clinical testing. Anyone can pick these articles in PubMed database, while not scientifically comparing the data. What you see in the website is a research paper on all of the PubMed and website data, and some of it's from Twitter. What you don't see are significant clinical tests that would offer reliable evidence of the efficacy of those chemicals.

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

u/socks is a rare one here. not a bot, but ALMOST getting shit while ultimately completely failing in getting there.

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

Please follow the Saidit guidelines

[–]mahavishnunj 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

Even if I hated the vaccine, I would not be able to trust any of this.

you keep saying 'vaccine'. this shows you are completely ignorant of the entire situation.

If I were an anti-vaxxer I would not be convinced

the vast majority of us are not 'anti-vaxxers', we are 'anti-this bullshit nobody knows anything about'. it takes a true genius to be completely incapable of drawing that distinction.

Moreover, isn't COVID19 a hoax to them?

nope, your complete and utter failure to understand something simple as fuck is impressive yet again.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

So you found this 2-day-old post in order to post insults about me? Moreover, none of this is factual or written in standard English. Hopefully you have better things to do.

[–][deleted]  (14 children)

[deleted]

    [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

    Why would you say that? Is there an alternate place where people are arguing that COVID19 vaccines are not vaccines?

    A vaccine is literally:

    A preparation that is used to stimulate the body's immune response against diseases.

    The way this works is that the vaccine has a harmless amount of a similar strain of the virus that helps stimulate the production of antibodies. The antibodies - while they last - help with immunity.

    [–][deleted]  (3 children)

    [deleted]

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

      What's going on here? I study medical history. In the history of virology, all vaccines have worked in the same way, to inject something that the body will build antibodies for, in order to develop some level of immunity to a virus. I didn't make that up. Where are you getting your definition?

      [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

      If you study the history of vaccinations, you would know there are several different methods in which they're given. Your description is too vague, and it requires more nuance than just saying they all work the same way.

      [–][deleted]  (8 children)

      [deleted]

        [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

        Why are you insisting on this false information? What is your source?

        [–][deleted]  (6 children)

        [deleted]

          [–][deleted]  (5 children)

          [deleted]

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

            what business is it of yours

            What business is it of yours?

            This makes no sense. Rogan is in the attention whore business and his base LOVE his anti-vax disinformation. It's that simple. He's making bank by lying to idiots.

            [–][deleted]  (3 children)

            [deleted]

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

              Go outside, light something on fire and burn it down. That tends to relax your kind.

              This comment is at the very bottom of the POD. No one here deserves this.

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

              You do similar things towards anti-vaxxers often enough.

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

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

              He'd say anything for his supporters and the ratings

              Exactly like Biden, Trump, and both political parties.

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

              Yes - all politicians are the same - bla bla bla. (...Unless one bothers to look.)

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

              I have looked, plenty of times. I used to be involved with both parties, on a local level. Have you? If you have been involved with these cretins, and you still think they aren't mostly the same, then you probably have the same issues they have. Such as a lack of any moral integrity.

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

              Such as a lack of any moral integrity.

              ...among those who oversimplify everything political into "both parties are the same". Follow the money.

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

              And, I guess you don't see the irony in your statement "follow the money." when you are a Biden supporter, right? You just don't see the irony, do you?

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

              So Biden and Democrats are trying to pass a jobs bill and so much more for the 99% because they'll get rich when they do it? (No.) If you have a complaint about helping out the 99%, state it. Otherwise your're supporting the Trump & Republican fraud we witnessed in the past 4 years. And if the latter, what makes you think this way? I could guess that there are number of problems here, but it wouldn't be polite.

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

              I think he's potentially getting people to harm themselves, by promoting untested alternative chemicals like ivermectin. It's a lucrative business for him and others.

              yeah, the 'vaccines' are certainly NOTHING like that!

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

              I have never read Rolling Stone. I have never even held a copy in my hands.