Main Stream Media Dying....Independent Media is the Future

[ecco]

They were discussing their podcast that had been removed by Youtube because of "medical misinformation". This is doctor discussing scientific studies. He supports using a non-patented drug that is basically free (costs about $1 per dose) to treat Covid,

If there is a doctor, or anyone, who is touting a $1 drug to treat COVID, he should have his YouTube canceled for spouting medical misinformation. He should also have his medical license revoked. He should also be tried and convicted of fraud.

If you believe that there is a $1 drug to treat COVID, I hope you have not wasted your time getting vaccinated. When you get COVID, please let us know how well the $1 treatment is working out for you.


ETA: Does your Joe Rogan often tout people like that on his show? If so, then he should be banned.

 

[Moonjuice]

If there is a doctor, or anyone, who is touting a $1 drug to treat COVID, he should have his YouTube canceled for spouting medical misinformation. He should also have his medical license revoked. He should also be tried and convicted of fraud. If you believe that there is a $1 drug to treat COVID, I hope you have not wasted your time getting vaccinated. When you get COVID, please let us know how well the $1 treatment is working out for you. ETA: Does your Joe Rogan often tout people like that on his show? If so, then he should be banned.

Close your mind Ecco. Do not, under any circumstances allow yourself any new information in order to make decisions. Whatever you do, do not actually listen to the material, then make an informed decision...dismiss it before you know what it is!

The doctor is Pierre Kory, an ICU and lung specialist who is an expert on the use of this particular drug. There are 14 studies they discussed in the 3 hour podcast, you can dismiss all of those too without knowing the results. Any idea what they said? Any idea if the drug is being used in other countries, what the results are? I like to actually look at the info, then decide if I agree. I find it to be a more honest approach to learning.

 

[Kooky]

@Moonjuice @ecco

This is what Wikipedia has to say on the doctor in question:

Pierre Kory is an American critical care physician who gained attention during the COVID-19 pandemic for advocating widespread off-label use of certain drugs as treatments for COVID-19. Kory testified in front of the U.S. Senate twice regarding COVID-19. During his testimony in December 2020, Kory erroneously claimed that the antiparasitic medication ivermectin was a "wonder drug" with "miraculous effectiveness" against COVID-19.

As for the drug he promotes, well...

Ivermectin is a medication used to treat many types of parasite infestations.[3] In humans, this includes head lice, scabies, river blindness (onchocerciasis), strongyloidiasis, trichuriasis, ascariasis, and lymphatic filariasis.[3][4][5][6] In veterinary medicine, it is used to prevent and treat heartworm and acariasis, among other indications.[5] It can be taken by mouth or applied to the skin for external infestations.

Ivermectin - Wikipedia

Most studies EMA reviewed were small and had additional limitations, including different dosing regimens and use of concomitant medications. EMA therefore concluded that the currently available evidence is not sufficient to support the use of ivermectin in COVID-19 outside clinical trials.

Although ivermectin is generally well tolerated at doses authorised for other indications, side effects could increase with the much higher doses that would be needed to obtain concentrations of ivermectin in the lungs that are effective against the virus. Toxicity when ivermectin is used at higher than approved doses therefore cannot be excluded.

EMA therefore concluded that use of ivermectin for prevention or treatment of COVID-19 cannot currently be recommended outside controlled clinical trials. Further well-designed, randomised studies are needed to draw conclusions as to whether the product is effective and safe in the prevention and treatment of COVID-19.

EMA advises against use of ivermectin for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 outside randomised clinical trials | European Medicines Agency

 

[Mister Emu]

According to who? RW grifters lying to you?

Is Krystal Ball a right wing grifter?

ACA. Just ask any of the 20 million people using it.

The ACA made my healthcare coverage at the time, hourly wage worker, significantly more costly to get the same coverage. Like most Dem policies, it was actually aimed at the lowest denominator and hurt workers.

There is no working class party in America, no party platform advocates for what would improve workers' lives or paychecks. As anything between the poles of poverty and wealth you get to decide which of the poles get preference, which scraps you prefer getting thrown to you, and which set of social and cultural ideas you want to promote.

 

[ecco]

Close your mind Ecco. Do not, under any circumstances allow yourself any new information in order to make decisions. Whatever you do, do not actually listen to the material, then make an informed decision...dismiss it before you know what it is!

That's a really old religious tactic. When people fail to see the glories of their god, they say "Your mind is closed. Open your mind and you will see..."
That's a really old woo tactic. When people fail to see the wondrousness of their latest woostuff, they say "Your mind is closed. Open your mind and you will see..."

What the hucksters choose to ignore is that it isn't necessary to explore each and every new claim of whatever to recognize bull****. Bull**** smells like bull**** - every time.

The doctor is Pierre Kory, an ICU and lung specialist who is an expert on the use of this particular drug. There are 14 studies they discussed in the 3 hour podcast, you can dismiss all of those too without knowing the results. Any idea what they said? Any idea if the drug is being used in other countries, what the results are? I like to actually look at the info, then decide if I agree. I find it to be a more honest approach to learning.

My red emphases in all the following...
Is this your ...

Pierre Kory - Wikipedia

Pierre Kory is an American critical care physician who gained attention during the COVID-19 pandemic for advocating widespread off-label use of certain drugs as treatments for COVID-19. Kory testified in front of the U.S. Senate twice regarding COVID-19. During his testimony in December 2020, Kory erroneously claimed that the antiparasitic medication ivermectin was a "wonder drug" with "miraculous effectiveness" against COVID-19.[1]

References

1. ^ Jump up to:a b c Beatrice Dupuy (11 December 2020). "No evidence ivermectin is a miracle drug against COVID-19" (Fact check). AP News.

No evidence ivermectin is a miracle drug against COVID-19

CLAIM: The antiparasitic drug ivermectin “has a miraculous effectiveness that obliterates” the transmission of COVID-19 and will prevent people from getting sick.

AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. There’s no evidence ivermectin has been proven a safe or effective treatment against COVID-19.

THE FACTS: During a Senate hearing Tuesday, a group of doctors touted alternative COVID-19 treatments, including ivermectin and the anti-malaria medication hydroxychloroquine. Medical experts have cautioned against using either of those drugs to treat COVID-19. Studies have shown that hydroxychloroquine has no benefit against the coronavirus and can have serious side effects. No evidence has been shown to prove that ivermectin works against COVID-19.

Dr. Pierre Kory, a pulmonary and critical care specialist at Aurora St Luke’s Medical Center in Milwaukee, described ivermectin as a “wonder drug” with immensely powerful antiviral and anti-inflammatory agents at the hearing before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

Clips of Kory’s comments on ivermectin during the hearing were shared widely on social media with one clip receiving more than 1 million views on YouTube.

Ivermectin is approved in the U.S. in tablet form to treat parasitic worms as well as a topical solution to treat external parasites. The drug is also available for animals. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the National Institutes of Health have said that the drug is not approved for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19. According to the FDA, side effects for the drug include skin rash, nausea and vomiting.

Dr. Amesh Adalja, an infectious disease expert at Johns Hopkins University, said most of the research around ivermectin at the moment is made up of anecdotes and studies that are not the gold standard in terms of how to use ivermectin.

​

Is this another drug that My Pillow Mike touted to Trump?


As you can see, I can do my research. Now it's your turn...

• Direct me to one of the 14 studies.
• Give the qualifications of the people who did the studies.
• Specify where and when the studies were done.
• Detail how many people were in the studies.
• Detail the results of the studies.

I'll save you some time. This one...

Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19... : American Journal of Therapeutics​

...has already been debunked here...

PolitiFact - What to know about a pro-ivermectin group’s study touting the drug versus COVID-19

Some of the studies analyzed in the ivermectin meta-analysis were not peer reviewed, said Dr. David Gorski, a professor of surgery and oncology at Wayne State University and chief of breast surgery at the Karmanos Cancer Institute, who has criticized the June study.

"Pooling data from a large number of small, low-quality clinical trials does not magically create one large, high-quality clinical trial," wrote Gorski, who is also managing editor of Science-Based Medicine, a website that evaluates medical claims.

He added: "The few existing higher quality clinical trials testing ivermectin against the disease uniformly have failed to find a positive result. It’s only the smaller, lower-quality trials that have been positive. This is a good indication that the drug probably doesn’t work."​

Sniff, sniff. What is that smell?

 

[ecco]

ACA. Just ask any of the 20 million people using it.

The ACA made my healthcare coverage at the time, hourly wage worker, significantly more costly to get the same coverage. Like most Dem policies, it was actually aimed at the lowest denominator and hurt workers.

Why did you sign up for the more costly ACA option if you already had the same coverage for less money from another place?

 

[Mister Emu]

Why did you sign up for the more costly ACA option if you already had the same coverage for less money from another place?

Why would you think I would have to move to have my costs go up? My employer provided plan's premiums went up, they introduced a copay for office visits, and my prescription costs increased.

 

[Moonjuice]

That's a really old religious tactic. When people fail to see the glories of their god, they say "Your mind is closed. Open your mind and you will see..."
That's a really old woo tactic. When people fail to see the wondrousness of their latest woostuff, they say "Your mind is closed. Open your mind and you will see..."

In addition to old religious tactics, there is also a way of discussion that is close minded that has nothing to do with religion. A person brings up a movie for example and says it’s a good movie. You never watch the movie, but proceed to explain all the reasons why you don't like the movie. This is close mindedness, and just a dishonest way to have a conversation if you ask me.

Anyway, the purpose of Rogan bringing them on the podcast was because they think the government and big pharma have purposely trashed this guy, and are refusing to do research on the drug because they want to make sure they make as much money as possible. If you go and find examples showing people discrediting studies, or the drug, or that doctor (who has nothing to gain by promoting a drug he thinks is working well) you are simply pointing out exactly what he said you would find. You wouldn’t know this, because you decided to disagree with the content, without hearing the content.

According to Dr. Kory, a drug that is not patented is of little interest, because anyone can manufacture it. This is why Ivermectin can be manufactured for $1 now, the patent expired. Large scale clinical studies are funded by pharmaceutical companies. They have ZERO financial benefit in recommending drugs they cannot patent. Guess what has to happen before the medical community will adopt it? A large scale study! All the small scale studies have been positive. He says it’s about 87% effective. Again, according to him and the studies he is referencing in the 3 hour discussion you dismissed without listening to it. He also discussed the error he made by calling it a miracle drug.

You should listen to him tell his side of the story, before you dismiss, since you have no clue what he is taking about. He spends two hours explaining why he thinks Ivermectin is being marginalized, but you’ll never get that info. This is why I meant by close minded.

 

[ecco]

Why did you sign up for the more costly ACA option if you already had the same coverage for less money from another place?

Why would you think I would have to move to have my costs go up?

I said nothing about moving.

My employer provided plan's premiums went up, they introduced a copay for office visits, and my prescription costs increased.

So, your employer's insurance company raised rates and cut benefits and he passed these costs and reduced benefits on to you.

You opted to use ACA instead of sticking with your employer's plan. Your costs went up less with ACA than they would have if you stayed with your employer. Yet you are upset with ACA. That makes no sense. If ACA had not been approved, you would have been stuck with your employer's plan.

 

[ecco]

In addition to old religious tactics, there is also a way of discussion that is close minded that has nothing to do with religion. A person brings up a movie for example and says it’s a good movie. You never watch the movie, but proceed to explain all the reasons why you don't like the movie. This is close mindedness, and just a dishonest way to have a conversation if you ask me.

If I know who is in the movie and who directed it and what the subject matter is and what the rating is, I can make a pretty good judgment. I have Netflix. I can choose from hundreds of movies. I scan them to see if I'm interested. I don't need to see a movie about zombies to know that I'm not interested. I have seen a few zombie movies or TV episodes. Dumb and boring.

When I see a listing for Army of the Dead, I just move on. That is not dishonest.

Anyway, the purpose of Rogan bringing them on the podcast was because<snip>
You wouldn’t know this, because you decided to disagree with the content, without hearing the content.

I went further. Rather than just take your word for things, I did my own research. That research showed my initial gut instinct was correct. As I said, the smell of bull**** always comes through. However, since you are still touting this snake-oil, you either didn't do any independent research or you were so enamored with the podcasters that you ignored the science.

You should listen to him tell his side of the story, before you dismiss, since you have no clue what he is taking about. He spends two hours explaining why he thinks Ivermectin is being marginalized, but you’ll never get that info. This is why I meant by close minded.

See above.

Also, you really should try to understand the criticism regarding the accuracy of the meta-data studies.

Furthermore, do you really not understand the difference between a parasite and a virus?

 

[Mister Emu]

I said nothing about moving.

Moving plans.

So, your employer's insurance company raised rates and cut benefits and he passed these costs and reduced benefits on to you.

You opted to use ACA instead of sticking with your employer's plan.

I did no such thing.

Your costs went up less with ACA than they would have if you stayed with your employer. Yet you are upset with ACA. That makes no sense. If ACA had not been approved, you would have been stuck with your employer's plan.

No, my costs went up because ACA was enacted; an exchange plan was still 8 or 9 times more expensive.

 

[ecco]

Moving plans.


I did no such thing.


No, my costs went up because ACA was enacted; an exchange plan was still 8 or 9 times more expensive.

Your postings are contradictory and make no sense. You still haven't explained why you blame ACA for your problems.

If you want to have an intelligent conversation, clearly lay out what happened.

 

[Mister Emu]

Your postings are contradictory and make no sense.

You made assumptions based on your preconceived notions. You cannot show anything contradictory in what I've said.

Here's what happened:
ACA was implemented.
My costs for my employer provided plan increased substantially because of that.

It's not so hard to understand.

 

[Friend of Mara]

You made assumptions based on your preconceived notions. You cannot show anything contradictory in what I've said.

Here's what happened:
ACA was implemented.
My costs for my employer provided plan increased substantially because of that.

It's not so hard to understand.

It is more expensive for individual plans for sure. But the cheaper insurance of pre ACA wasn't as reliable. The increase was because there were several shady things insurance companies did to drop the bill on the patient rather than paying. Many of those tactics were removed in the ACA guidelines.

 

[ecco]

Here's what happened:
ACA was implemented.
My costs for my employer provided plan increased substantially because of that.

It's not so hard to understand.

Perhaps you could try to explain why you think the costs for your employer's plan increased because of ACA. What did the implementation of ACA have to do with your employer's costs for the company insurance plan?


If you cannot show a direct cause and effect then your argument fails. Just because A happened and B happened does not mean that A caused B.

 

[Kooky]

You made assumptions based on your preconceived notions. You cannot show anything contradictory in what I've said.

Here's what happened:
ACA was implemented.
My costs for my employer provided plan increased substantially because of that.

It's not so hard to understand.

Do you believe that somebody forced your employer to raise their premiums, or could that possibly be their own decision?