Octopus Garden
22nd July 2021, 02:12
I am a huge fan of Bret Weinstein and follow his videos on occasion. That being said, Bret was snookered, as were many scientists about ivermectin.
I have had this interesting ongoing discussion about ivermectin with a friend. He has been more inclined to accept that ivermectin probably works and I am just as much on the other side of that one. I told him, that for me, it's largely an intuitive hunch and then tried to be more specific. And what I came up with is I just don't trust the data. Calling a dung hill 'data,' doesn't make it so (unless you're a scatologist)
I went on to describe that people who describe traditional science as hide bound, conservative and overly consensus driven are overlooking what's happening in alternative medicine and science. The same kind of consensus driven hairball of belief and social media dogma is revolving around ivermectin.
Turns out, just like a hairball, 'there's no there there,' once you unravel it all. There has been a lot of coughing and wretching around the whole matter by self styled experts though. Do I blame Weinstein. No. I blame the people he hooked up with for not doing the bare minimum examination of 'the data'
Here's the thing. If you are going to get behind something, in a big way, you have to examine it carefully. Meta analysis of ivermectin that rested on several small admittedly inconsequential studies by those who were pushing ivermectin not so problematic. But the holy grail was the study out of Egypt, that existed in pre-print. Anyway...here's the article about it.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/jul/16/huge-study-supporting-ivermectin-as-covid-treatment-withdrawn-over-ethical-concerns?fbclid=IwAR3eD-foTP-yeFoD6x6gDVcNBjRVml1lImrkVcn7Zg8yo0nU0bQ4bTcvXYk
I have had this interesting ongoing discussion about ivermectin with a friend. He has been more inclined to accept that ivermectin probably works and I am just as much on the other side of that one. I told him, that for me, it's largely an intuitive hunch and then tried to be more specific. And what I came up with is I just don't trust the data. Calling a dung hill 'data,' doesn't make it so (unless you're a scatologist)
I went on to describe that people who describe traditional science as hide bound, conservative and overly consensus driven are overlooking what's happening in alternative medicine and science. The same kind of consensus driven hairball of belief and social media dogma is revolving around ivermectin.
Turns out, just like a hairball, 'there's no there there,' once you unravel it all. There has been a lot of coughing and wretching around the whole matter by self styled experts though. Do I blame Weinstein. No. I blame the people he hooked up with for not doing the bare minimum examination of 'the data'
Here's the thing. If you are going to get behind something, in a big way, you have to examine it carefully. Meta analysis of ivermectin that rested on several small admittedly inconsequential studies by those who were pushing ivermectin not so problematic. But the holy grail was the study out of Egypt, that existed in pre-print. Anyway...here's the article about it.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/jul/16/huge-study-supporting-ivermectin-as-covid-treatment-withdrawn-over-ethical-concerns?fbclid=IwAR3eD-foTP-yeFoD6x6gDVcNBjRVml1lImrkVcn7Zg8yo0nU0bQ4bTcvXYk