Glenn Beck and the Anti-vaxxer approach.

[stereologist]

5 minutes ago, simplybill said:

No, I don’t agree that the anecdotes are meaningless. The anecdotes are interesting to me. I’ve always been willing to test the folklore on myself. I keep what works, and discard what doesn’t. I don’t have anything against pharmaceuticals, but one of my lifetime goals is to never be dependent on pharmaceuticals, so I likely won’t try HCQ. The list of possible side effects is somewhat alarming. But it’ll be interesting to see how Glenn Beck’s experiment turns out.

Possible side effects of HCQ:

https://www.mayoclinic.org/drugs-supplements/hydroxychloroquine-oral-route/side-effects/drg-20064216

Medicine learn decades ago that single person experiments are pretty much worthless. They tell us nothing of value. There are too many variables to control and the results are meaningless. The WHO ran the Solidarity study which involved thousands of people to investigate HCQ.

Anecdotes are worthless stories. You have no idea if the people actually did what they claimed or how the results turned out. You can't tell anything at all from these stories.

Look at the studies done by modern medicine, evidence based medicine. There is randomization. There is blinding. There is a hypothesis that is tested.

What do we know about HCQ? It worked in vitro. In other words in cell cultures, not in organisms. Why? Probably because it made the environment basic. But living organisms employ homeostasis that prevents this change in pH. Proper RCT, randomized controlled trials, testing showed it did not work.

[psyche101]

27 minutes ago, simplybill said:

No, I don’t agree that the anecdotes are meaningless. The anecdotes are interesting to me. I’ve always been willing to test the folklore on myself. I keep what works, and discard what doesn’t. I don’t have anything against pharmaceuticals, but one of my lifetime goals is to never be dependent on pharmaceuticals, so I likely won’t try HCQ. The list of possible side effects is somewhat alarming. But it’ll be interesting to see how Glenn Beck’s experiment turns out.

Possible side effects of HCQ:

https://www.mayoclinic.org/drugs-supplements/hydroxychloroquine-oral-route/side-effects/drg-20064216

Anecdotes need to be taken with a grain of salt the size of the rock of Gibraltar.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.abc.net.au/article/100467622

[simplybill]

14 minutes ago, stereologist said:

Anecdotes are worthless stories. You have no idea if the people actually did what they claimed or how the results turned out. You can't tell anything at all from these stories.

I used to share my anecdotal successes with other people, but then I began to realize that what works for me doesn’t necessarily work for other people. We’re all different physically, mentally, emotionally. And I’m willing to listen to other peoples’ health anecdotes, but I carefully research their claims before testing them on myself. 
That approach has worked well for me. Thanks to Covid, I’ve been especially diligent in the last two years in following a healthy regimen. I’m not one to brag, but the results from both my annual physical exam and my annual eye exam were the best I’ve ever had. Both doctors (M.D. and Ophthalmologist) actually congratulated me on the results. Believe it or not, my vision has improved since my last exam, enough that the doctor changed my prescription. 
When I hear of other people that are willing to experiment on themselves as I’ve always done (I’m 68) then it gets my attention.
 

[stereologist]

11 minutes ago, simplybill said:

I used to share my anecdotal successes with other people, but then I began to realize that what works for me doesn’t necessarily work for other people. We’re all different physically, mentally, emotionally. And I’m willing to listen to other peoples’ health anecdotes, but I carefully research their claims before testing them on myself. 
That approach has worked well for me. Thanks to Covid, I’ve been especially diligent in the last two years in following a healthy regimen. I’m not one to brag, but the results from both my annual physical exam and my annual eye exam were the best I’ve ever had. Both doctors (M.D. and Ophthalmologist) actually congratulated me on the results. Believe it or not, my vision has improved since my last exam, enough that the doctor changed my prescription. 
When I hear of other people that are willing to experiment on themselves as I’ve always done (I’m 68) then it gets my attention.
 

Still anecdotal material is worthless for many of the reasons you point out: "We’re all different physically, mentally, emotionally." The range of differences between people is startling. An example is, peanuts are great to eat unless they kill you.

Anecdotes are pretty worthless. I hear stories all of the time and pay them no heed. Look at all of the wacko diets, supplements, homeopathic nonsense, crystal power, wacko things like ear candling and spitting and all sorts of other rubbish that has no value. These are all supported by nothing more than stories, baseless stories, i.e. anecdotes. The problem is that people associate an  outcome with something they did. That may not be true. That is why RCTs are conducted.

Can anecdotes lead to harm? Of course. We can take two cases right from the current pandemic. One is HCQ. It resulted in quite a few injuries and deaths in the US in 2020. I looked for a link but did not find one. It was something 3000 people. Another is convalescent plasma. People relied on it and yet it does not work. Too bad it seemed like a good idea.

[simplybill]

42 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Anecdotes need to be taken with a grain of salt the size of the rock of Gibraltar.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.abc.net.au/article/100467622

That was sad and funny at the same time. 

“His friend was weeks away from getting married, now the girl called off the wedding.”

[psyche101]

6 minutes ago, simplybill said:

That was sad and funny at the same time. 

“His friend was weeks away from getting married, now the girl called off the wedding.”

Made the news everywhere. Amazing what stories get around

[stereologist]

Here is the South Carolina department of health.

https://scdhec.gov/covid19/dangers-using-hydroxychloroquine-ivermectin-preventing-or-treating-covid-19

Quote

In South Carolina, there has been an increase in people needing care in an emergency department for ivermectin and HCQ exposure in 2021. Reports from the poison control hotline confirm an increase in visits for HCQ exposure. 

Anecdotes are dangerous.

[stereologist]

Knowing the people were going to believe in anecdotes these warnings from poison centers were posted.

https://idph.iowa.gov/Portals/1/userfiles/7/Poison Alert 2020-03-25.pdf

https://indianapoisoncenter.org/hydroxychloroquine-side-effects/

https://missouripoisoncenter.org/chloroquine-hydroxychloroquine/

Here is a good read.

https://newyork.cbslocal.com/2020/04/25/coronavirus-covid-19-fda-hydroxychloroquine/

Quote

President Donald Trump had previously promoted the drugs as possibly effective against COVID, as well as injecting disinfectants into a person’s body.

That presidential recommendation immediately spurred doctors, lawmakers, social media and even disinfectant manufacturers to respond with disbelief, pointing out that such use is dangerous and could even be fatal.

On Friday, the New York City Poison Control Center reported it managed “nine cases specifically about exposure to Lysol, 10 cases specifically about bleach and 11 cases about exposures to other household cleaners.”

None of these exposures resulted in hospitalization or death.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8583514/

Quote

Public Health England (PHE) was alerted to changes in the patterns of poisoning at an international level through the World Health Organization INTOX Network of Poisons Centres. Early reports included cases of people self-medicating to prevent or treat COVID-19 and increased exposures to cleaning products, methanol and hand sanitisers (HSs).

Anecdotes were the reason for the poisonings.  The article lists 7 fatalities due to HCQ.

Quote

On the 19th of March 2020, President Trump promoted hydroxychloroquine, an antimalarial drug, as a ‘game changer’ in the fight against COVID-19 at a press conference [85]. Media reports of people attempting to purchase, being prescribed and self-medicating with the drug started emerging internationally, including some reports of associated overdoses and fatalities [86,87,88,89,90,91].

Quote

Widespread administration of both hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin in Brazil, which were promoted by President Bolsonaro, and colloquially referred to as a ‘COVID kit’ (alongside other pharmaceuticals), were reportedly linked to at least three deaths and five liver transplants [103,104].

 

[simplybill]

6 minutes ago, stereologist said:

Anecdotes are pretty worthless. I hear stories all of the time and pay them no heed. Look at all of the wacko diets, supplements, homeopathic nonsense, crystal power, wacko things like ear candling and spitting and all sorts of other rubbish that has no value. These are all supported by nothing more than stories, baseless stories, i.e. anecdotes. The problem is that people associate an  outcome with something they did. That may not be true. That is why RCTs are conducted.

 

4 minutes ago, stereologist said:

Here is the South Carolina department of health.

https://scdhec.gov/covid19/dangers-using-hydroxychloroquine-ivermectin-preventing-or-treating-covid-19

Anecdotes are dangerous.

We’re really not that far apart in our beliefs about anecdotes. I approach all anecdotal claims with a healthy dose of skepticism, but I also do the same with FDA-approved medications. I investigate the claims and discard the ridiculous ones, for both natural remedies and pharmaceutical remedies. That approach has worked well for me. 
I’ll likely never try HDQ, but I’m willing to try Ivermectin if the opportunity arises. It’s been used for decades all around the world. I know it’s not recommended for treatment of Covid, but Uttar Pradesh, India officials appear to be convinced that it works, in spite of the WHO’s recommendations to avoid using it for Covid. I’m willing to use myself as a guinea pig.

[jmccr8]

8 hours ago, simplybill said:

 

We’re really not that far apart in our beliefs about anecdotes. I approach all anecdotal claims with a healthy dose of skepticism, but I also do the same with FDA-approved medications. I investigate the claims and discard the ridiculous ones, for both natural remedies and pharmaceutical remedies. That approach has worked well for me. 
I’ll likely never try HDQ, but I’m willing to try Ivermectin if the opportunity arises. It’s been used for decades all around the world. I know it’s not recommended for treatment of Covid, but Uttar Pradesh, India officials appear to be convinced that it works, in spite of the WHO’s recommendations to avoid using it for Covid. I’m willing to use myself as a guinea pig.

Hi Bill

That is an interesting position, the Covid vaccine is based on the SARS vaccine that has been used for a couple of decades and works because they are the same virus group. We are still in the early stages of how to control the dynamic of rapid infection through global populations and contain effects and death rates.

I have to wonder why you exclude what has been learnt through decades of research. How may times have I seen photos in the last 2 decades of people wearing masks in China because of similar airborne viruses and data been collected and utilized.

I am sure things are going to work out even if we have to go through some difficult times, I know I have already had tough times in life I lived through and this is no different.

[Grim Reaper 6]

8 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Bill

That is an interesting position, the Covid vaccine is based on the SARS vaccine that has been used for a couple of decades and works because they are the same virus group. We are still in the early stages of how to control the dynamic of rapid infection through global populations and contain effects and death rates.

I have to wonder why you exclude what has been learnt through decades of research. How may times have I seen photos in the last 2 decades of people wearing masks in China because of similar airborne viruses and data been collected and utilized.

I am sure things are going to work out even if we have to go through some difficult times, I know I have already had tough times in life I lived through and this is no different.

Actually in Korea, China and many other countries in East Asia they wear a mask if they have a simple cold, it’s considered polite behavior that is most likely what you have seen!

[jmccr8]

25 minutes ago, Manwon Lender said:

Actually in Korea, China and many other countries in East Asia they wear a mask if they have a simple cold, it’s considered polite behavior that is most likely what you have seen!

Hi Manwon

Swine flu, avian flu are all airborne viruses that had drastic effects on them and it is a highly populated country so see them a being aware and proactive as a social whole.

[simplybill]

59 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

I have to wonder why you exclude what has been learnt through decades of research. 

jmccr8 - I hope I haven’t given the wrong impression. I don’t exclude the Covid vaccines. I’m fully vaccinated myself, and I 100% support anyone’s decision to be vaccinated. 
I realize that decades of research have gone into mRNA technology, but I balance that with my own six decades of personal research and experimentation. I think I was 8-years-old when I made the decision to live my life independent of pharmaceuticals. I’m not against pharmaceuticals, but I always search for a natural alternative to the medications that my doctors prescribe. That attitude has worked well for me. I’ve even been able to successfully avoid two surgeries simply by changing my diet and lifestyle. 
It’s because of my personal lifestyle that I also 100% support other people’s  decisions to decline being Covid-vaccinated. Personal autonomy is important to me.

 

 

[Grim Reaper 6]

5 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Manwon

Swine flu, avian flu are all airborne viruses that had drastic effects on them and it is a highly populated country so see them a being aware and proactive as a social whole.

That they certainly are, like I said they were a mask if they have a cold!

[stereologist]

On 1/16/2022 at 11:21 PM, simplybill said:

 

We’re really not that far apart in our beliefs about anecdotes. I approach all anecdotal claims with a healthy dose of skepticism, but I also do the same with FDA-approved medications. I investigate the claims and discard the ridiculous ones, for both natural remedies and pharmaceutical remedies. That approach has worked well for me. 
I’ll likely never try HDQ, but I’m willing to try Ivermectin if the opportunity arises. It’s been used for decades all around the world. I know it’s not recommended for treatment of Covid, but Uttar Pradesh, India officials appear to be convinced that it works, in spite of the WHO’s recommendations to avoid using it for Covid. I’m willing to use myself as a guinea pig.

Invermectin does not work with COVID. Sure you can find some places that use it but it works on parasites for a reason unrelated to the manner in which viruses work.

Just because there is some place in the world where people use a drug with zero evidence of its efficacy does not mean anyone else should use it. Remember that there are those in India that favor drinking cow urine to treat COVID. There are those recommending bathing in cow manure to treat COVID. So you should consider those methods since they too have officials convinced that it works.

[simplybill]

13 hours ago, stereologist said:

Invermectin does not work with COVID. Sure you can find some places that use it but it works on parasites for a reason unrelated to the manner in which viruses work.

There have been a few studies on the use of Ivermectin that had good results in shortening the duration of the Covid illness. I feel confident enough in those results that I’d be willing to be a participant in the larger trials they mention. 

“Virological clearance was earlier in the 5-day ivermectin treatment arm when compared to the placebo group (9.7 days vs 12.7 days; p = 0.02), but this was not the case for the ivermectin + doxycycline arm (11.5 days; p = 0.27). There were no severe adverse drug events recorded in the study. A 5-day course of ivermectin was found to be safe and effective in treating adult patients with mild COVID-19. Larger trials will be needed to confirm these preliminary findings.”

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33278625/

 

[Autochthon1990]

if Glenn Beck had long covid, would anybody be able to tell? 

[stereologist]

On 1/19/2022 at 1:57 AM, simplybill said:

There have been a few studies on the use of Ivermectin that had good results in shortening the duration of the Covid illness. I feel confident enough in those results that I’d be willing to be a participant in the larger trials they mention. 

“Virological clearance was earlier in the 5-day ivermectin treatment arm when compared to the placebo group (9.7 days vs 12.7 days; p = 0.02), but this was not the case for the ivermectin + doxycycline arm (11.5 days; p = 0.27). There were no severe adverse drug events recorded in the study. A 5-day course of ivermectin was found to be safe and effective in treating adult patients with mild COVID-19. Larger trials will be needed to confirm these preliminary findings.”

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33278625/

 

Are you talking about the Egyptian study or the Iranian study which were both shown to poorly done and included questionable data?

Did you even read the abstract? It clearly states that this test only shows that an actual large test should be done.

Quote

Larger trials will be needed to confirm these preliminary findings.

This is a preliminary study. It was done on mild cases. Why do you think they used mild cases?

It was published in 2020 which by COVID standards is not a recent paper.

Let's try this article

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34796244/

Quote

This meta-analysis investigated ivermectin in 23 randomized clinical trials (3349 patients) identified through systematic searches of PUBMED, EMBASE, MedRxiv, and trial registries. The primary meta-analysis was carried out by excluding studies at a high risk of bias. Ivermectin did not show a statistically significant effect on survival (risk ratio [RR], 0.90; 95% CI, 0.57 to 1.42; P = .66) or hospitalizations (RR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.36 to 1.11; P = .11). Ivermectin displayed a borderline significant effect on duration of hospitalization in comparison with standard of care (mean difference, -1.14 days; 95% CI, -2.27 to -0.00; P = .05). There was no significant effect of ivermectin on time to clinical recovery (mean difference, -0.57 days; 95% CI, -1.31 to 0.17; P = .13) or binary clinical recovery (RR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.50; P = .15).

Looks like ivermectin isn't doing much if anything at all when it comes to COVID-19 cases.

[simplybill]

10 hours ago, stereologist said:

Are you talking about the Egyptian study or the Iranian study which were both shown to poorly done and included questionable data?

Did you even read the abstract? It clearly states that this test only shows that an actual large test should be done.

This is a preliminary study. It was done on mild cases. Why do you think they used mild cases?

It was published in 2020 which by COVID standards is not a recent paper.

Let's try this article

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34796244/

Looks like ivermectin isn't doing much if anything at all when it comes to COVID-19 cases.

Ivermectin has its pros and cons, and its supporters and detractors. Given the choice, I’d be willing to use it as part of my recovery from Covid if I acquired the virus. I don’t see any downside to it.

“Ivermectin is likely to be an equitable, acceptable, and feasible global intervention against COVID-19. Health professionals should strongly consider its use, in both treatment and prophylaxis.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8248252/

 

[+and-then]

1 hour ago, simplybill said:

“Ivermectin is likely to be an equitable, acceptable, and feasible global intervention against COVID-19. Health professionals should strongly consider its use, in both treatment and prophylaxis.”

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166354220302011

The most frequently used statement about Ivermectin is that there is no "proof" or there hasn't been extensive research.  We're two years out from the beginning of this pandemic.  There still aren't any "acceptable" studies.  Seems odd, dunnit?  

[simplybill]

6 hours ago, and then said:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166354220302011

The most frequently used statement about Ivermectin is that there is no "proof" or there hasn't been extensive research.  We're two years out from the beginning of this pandemic.  There still aren't any "acceptable" studies.  Seems odd, dunnit?  

Yes, very odd, especially when considering the common and extensive use of Ivermectin for decades. 
About three years ago I was given a prescription for a commonly used pain reliever to help with the severe inflammation caused by a hiking injury. The ‘informed consent’ paperwork listed the possible side effects of the drug. The first ‘possible side effect’ listed was highlighted in large print and bolded font:

 

MAY CAUSE STROKE OR SUDDEN DEATH

 

So, for what was basically a sprained ankle, the Radiologist prescribed a drug that could permanently disable or kill me. For a sprained ankle!!

Compare that to the way the NIH describes the the possible side effects of Ivermectin use. (Notice the caveat in the second bullet point).

• Ivermectin is generally well tolerated. Adverse effects may include dizziness, pruritis, nausea, or diarrhea. 
• Neurological adverse effects have been reported with the use of ivermectin for the treatment of onchocerciasis and other parasitic diseases, but it is not clear whether these adverse effects were caused by ivermectin or the underlying conditions. 
  
  https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/therapies/antiviral-therapy/ivermectin/

 

Edited January 21, 2022 by simplybill

[stereologist]

8 hours ago, simplybill said:

Ivermectin has its pros and cons, and its supporters and detractors. Given the choice, I’d be willing to use it as part of my recovery from Covid if I acquired the virus. I don’t see any downside to it.

“Ivermectin is likely to be an equitable, acceptable, and feasible global intervention against COVID-19. Health professionals should strongly consider its use, in both treatment and prophylaxis.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8248252/

 

You've referenced a paper that is heavily reliant on the Iranian and Egyptian studies which are both shown to be unreliable. Without those studies the ivermectin results show no benefit. In fact, the paper you reference has been retracted.

That was well established after this paper came to light.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01535-y

Quote

The authors of one recently published meta-analysis of ivermectin for COVID-19³ have publicly stated that they will now reanalyze and republish their now-retracted meta-analysis and will no longer include either of the two papers just mentioned. As these two papers^1,6 were the only studies included in that meta-analysis to demonstrate an independently significant reduction in mortality, the revision will probably show no mortality benefit for ivermectin.

Please keep up

[stereologist]

39 minutes ago, simplybill said:

Yes, very odd, especially when considering the common and extensive use of Ivermectin for decades. 
About three years ago I was given a prescription for a commonly used pain reliever to help with the severe inflammation caused by a hiking injury. The ‘informed consent’ paperwork listed the possible side effects of the drug. The first ‘possible side effect’ listed was highlighted in large print and bolded font:

 

MAY CAUSE STROKE OR SUDDEN DEATH

 

So, for what was basically a sprained ankle, the Radiologist prescribed a drug that could permanently disable or kill me. For a sprained ankle!!

Compare that to the way the NIH describes the the possible side effects of Ivermectin use. (Notice the caveat in the second bullet point).

• Ivermectin is generally well tolerated. Adverse effects may include dizziness, pruritis, nausea, or diarrhea. 
• Neurological adverse effects have been reported with the use of ivermectin for the treatment of onchocerciasis and other parasitic diseases, but it is not clear whether these adverse effects were caused by ivermectin or the underlying conditions. 
  
  https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/therapies/antiviral-therapy/ivermectin/

 

Let me help you with the possible side effects of a drug.

There is a legal requirement to list anything that happens within 1 month of the administration of a drug or therapy without consideration if there is a connection.

That is why the statements say something along the lines of may cause.

And this is really of little interest when the evidence is clear that ivermectin does not work with regards to COVID-19.