Joe Rogan

[Deleted User 863]

what do you mean by “interesting”?

in·ter·est·ing
/ˈint(ə)rəstiNG/
adjective
arousing curiosity or interest; holding or catching the attention

[KUTradition]

what do you mean by “interesting”?

in·ter·est·ing
/ˈint(ə)rəstiNG/
adjective
arousing curiosity or interest; holding or catching the attention

do you want to have an actual discussion, or just be a trolling dick?

[KUTradition]

aka, what is your take-home from that article, or better yet just the bit you quoted?

[KUTradition]

and illy runs away

guess he doesn’t actually understand what that means

[Cascadia]

Not even sure why you try Trad. Leawood was spot on with illy, he’s just not very smart.

And, at this point, he’s an admitted troll.

[Deleted User 863]

and illy runs away

guess he doesn’t actually understand what that means

It means that the people in that study who took ivermectin as a supplemental treatment had better outcomes/quicker recovery than those who didn't.

It also means that people should start differentiating between human ivermectin and livestock ivermectin when speaking about it being dangerous.

[ousdahl]

Aren’t like the vast majority of actual medical professionals still opposed to ivermectin as a covid treatment?

[Deleted User 863]

Like I said, interesting.

I didn't say it SHOULD be used to treat covid. Just that the article was interesting.

Shocker that saying "interesting" triggered you.

[Deleted User 863]

Aren’t like the vast majority of actual medical professionals still opposed to ivermectin as a covid treatment?

Yes, because there is not significant evidence that shows it is effective at treating or preventing covid.

But you're having trouble differentiating between human ivermectin and livestock ivermectin. So i shared an article and said "interesting".

Which of course prompts meltdown mode from Trad/ProudBoy/TBD.

[Deleted User 863]

Here Qusdahl...

The flip side

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-58170809

Either way, ivermectin (for humans) is generally considered a safe drug.

[KUTradition]

and illy runs away

guess he doesn’t actually understand what that means

It means that the people in that study who took ivermectin as a supplemental treatment had better outcomes/quicker recovery than those who didn't.

It also means that people should start differentiating between human ivermectin and livestock ivermectin when speaking about it being dangerous.

you were almost there

now go ask your wife to explain the rest of it to you

[PhDhawk]

Lots of clinical trials were done with Ivermectin. Some of them had positive results, the vast majority didn't.

It was a well intentioned idea given ivermectin's anti-inflammatory properties.

But when the data is taken together, there was little to know affect from the drug on Covid-19 patients.

There are lots of reasons why smaller studies would have good results, but it just wasn't something that was robust or repeatable, and in most cases no difference at all was seen.

That's ok, there were lots of clinical trials for lots of different drugs.

Not sure why the people who were believers in ivermectin couldn't let it go when the preponderance of information came in. But their opinions led to a lot of people trying to self-medicate and taking ivermectin from sources not intended for humans. It also contributed to a lot of vaccine hesitancy/skepticism.

The same thing happened with hydroxychloroquine. I was excited when I saw a couple early studies showing positive results, but it didn't hold up when done in larger numbers. Sometimes you flip a coin 10 times and it comes up heads 9 times. That ratio won't hold if you flip it a thousand times.

[Deleted User 863]

and illy runs away

guess he doesn’t actually understand what that means

It means that the people in that study who took ivermectin as a supplemental treatment had better outcomes/quicker recovery than those who didn't.

It also means that people should start differentiating between human ivermectin and livestock ivermectin when speaking about it being dangerous.

you were almost there

now go ask your wife to explain the rest of it to you

How about i ask yours?

[Deleted User 863]

Lots of clinical trials were done with Ivermectin. Some of them had positive results, the vast majority didn't.

It was a well intentioned idea given ivermectin's anti-inflammatory properties.

But when the data is taken together, there was little to know affect from the drug on Covid-19 patients.

There are lots of reasons why smaller studies would have good results, but it just wasn't something that was robust or repeatable, and in most cases no difference at all was seen.

That's ok, there were lots of clinical trials for lots of different drugs.

Not sure why the people who were believers in ivermectin couldn't let it go when the preponderance of information came in. But their opinions led to a lot of people trying to self-medicate and taking ivermectin from sources not intended for humans. It also contributed to a lot of vaccine hesitancy/skepticism.

The same thing happened with hydroxychloroquine. I was excited when I saw a couple early studies showing positive results, but it didn't hold up when done in larger numbers. Sometimes you flip a coin 10 times and it comes up heads 9 times. That ratio won't hold if you flip it a thousand times.

Thank you for the quality response. Always appreciate your input on covid/vaccine topics.

[KUTradition]

It means that the people in that study who took ivermectin as a supplemental treatment had better outcomes/quicker recovery than those who didn't.

It also means that people should start differentiating between human ivermectin and livestock ivermectin when speaking about it being dangerous.

you were almost there

now go ask your wife to explain the rest of it to you

How about i ask yours?

zing?

go for it, but she’ll even admit that she’s not the smart/intelligent one in our marriage…kinda like you in yours

[Deleted User 863]

you were almost there

now go ask your wife to explain the rest of it to you

How about i ask yours?

zing?

go for it, but she’ll even admit that she’s not the smart/intelligent one in our marriage…kinda like you in yours

Mine can't possibly be that smart if she married me.

Zing?

[KUTradition]

well, she is in social sciences

[Deleted User 863]

well, she is in social sciences

Bleeding heart empath

She definitely didn't choose her career path with $$$ in mind....although she's doing well for herself now that the kids are getting older and she is working more.

[RainbowsandUnicorns]

Ivermectin made for humans is not dangerous. It's the Ivermectin for livestock that is dangerous for humans.

Were they given human grade ivermectin or were they given livestock ivermectin?

Either way, fucked up they weren't told.

How/why would you possibly say "Ivermectin made for humans is not dangerous"? I assume you mean properly prescribed and taking it as directed by a reputable doctor who is aware of your medical history.
Almost every drug CAN be dangerous depending on multiple factors.

[Deleted User 863]

Yes, sorry. Almost any drug (or thing) can be dangerous depending on multiple factors.