Page 8 of 15 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 145

Thread: What does “ the science” say about Coronavirus 19 at the moment?

  1. #71
    Senior Member herbgeek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    2,522
    What I've read is that ivermectin binds to the ACE2 receptor, which is where covid would bind, giving the virus no way to enter the cell and reproduce.

  2. #72
    Senior Member JaneV2.0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    13,475
    Quote Originally Posted by jp1 View Post
    That article also reminds me of the very old joke in the LGBT world that is based off of the supposed evolutionary influences of men wanting to spread their seed far and wide and women wanting someone to help raise a kid.

    A: What does a lesbian bring to a second date?

    A: A uhaul.

    A: What does a gay man bring on a second date?

    A: What’s a second date?’
    And yet, there you are.
    Stereotypes are seductive, but crude. And not much use in the real world.

  3. #73
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    6,853
    Quote Originally Posted by JaneV2.0 View Post
    And yet, there you are.
    Stereotypes are seductive, but crude. And not much use in the real world.
    I’ve often thought that when people talk about “privilege” or “fragility” in connection with a particular race. Or the stereotype of the homicidal cop.

  4. #74
    Senior Member iris lilies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Always logged in
    Posts
    19,914
    Quote Originally Posted by LDAHL View Post
    I’ve often thought that when people talk about “privilege” or “fragility” in connection with a particular race. Or the stereotype of the homicidal cop.
    Some stereotypes are more equal than others.

  5. #75
    Senior Member iris lilies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Always logged in
    Posts
    19,914
    Quote Originally Posted by befree View Post
    iris lilies, the article from "buzzfeed" (not at all what I would consider a reliable source, unlike Harvard, CDC, and other actual SCIENTIFIC sources) references b.s. papers submitted from people in the humanities field - gender studies would fall under psychology or sociology fields, not hard science. And even then, most of the reputable journals in the humanities field rejected these nonsense papers. That's why I say look at reputable sources - buzzfeed and most laypeople don't even begin to understand the concepts of validity, reliability, reproducibility, and other components of scientific method. Giving equal credence to science and not-science is comparing apples to oranges. If people think an article quoted on reddit is "scientific proof" no wonder they're confused. This leads to another, larger issue. Americans are not being taught critical thinking skills in order to evaluate what they read/hear. And they, like the rest of the world, need to develop special computer evaluation skills, in this age of Internet disinformation, deep fakes, and out and out lies.
    Yes, I’m aware that BuzzFeed is a popular website. The same summary appeared in the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, Forbes, the Atlantic, etc. — popular press with more established credentials.

    My fault for referring to this hoax as “the Science “ a phrase I use sarcastically although academics in (what I call) soft sciences would likely take offense at your term “not-science.”

    To better summarize:
    The Center for Disease Control would not, of course, have reviewed the hoax perpetrated by Peter Boghossian et al because the CDC has nothing to do with “the Science “ of the hoax.

    Boghossian’s team hoaxed academic journals that represent themselves as engaging in objective research in important fields of race, gender, ethnicity. The team’s premise was “critical” studies scholars will validate anything in line with their bias, their worldview.

    They wrote ridiculous articles within that worldview after studying the literature of these disciplines to see what would fly.

    I disagree with your characterization of their success. They wrote 20 articles. 7 were published. 7 were rejected. The others were in some phase of acceptance when the hoax was revealed. But really, the fact that they got 2 faux articles with ridiculous content accepted is concerning for academic freedom and scholarly standards, I dont need more examples.The team characterized one publication that accepted their article about canine rape culture in dog parks as being a leading journal in the field of feminist and gender studies.Is it a “leading journal?” I dont know, do you? Seems like it takes itself pretty seriously. It is Gender, Place and Culture.

    You may think the hoax team didnt prove their case. Maybe they didn’t (and I link a good evaluation of their hoax below with that point of view.)

    What they DID do was point out to me and to the general public who enjoyed the whole episode:

    1) there is apparently a lack of verification of supposed factual research by scientific method coming into the publication stream of at least this esteemed journal, if not others

    2) this is representative, not a one-off example

    2) nonsense, obvious ridiculous material, is treated seriously, carefully, and even at times held up as good scholarship

    To myself and many in the general populace who were amused and possibly appalled by the hoax, this is representative of a lack of true scholarship and critical thinking. They make dumb ideas acceptable. Academia is SUPPOSED to be engaging in critical thinking, but if they aren’t who is? The Twitterverse?

    https://slate.com/technology/2018/10...c-scandal.html

    this is a good counter of the hoax team although I can’t help but laugh at the author finding that the team has underlying sexist (or genderist?) intent.

  6. #76
    Senior Member iris lilies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Always logged in
    Posts
    19,914
    Quote Originally Posted by jp1 View Post
    The ivermectin fans fascinate me. I’ve come across a few online and they all were dead set against the vaccines because they don’t feel that they have been adequately tested. Yet they have been far more tested than …

    q8
    https://www.wsj.com/articles/fda-ive...ce-11627482393


    Why Is the FDA Attacking a Safe, Effective Drug? July 28, 2021

    Ivermectin is a promising Covid treatment and prophylaxis, but the agency is denigrating it.….


    ..,The Food and Drug Administration claims to follow the science. So why is it attacking ivermectin, a medication it certified in 1996?Earlier this year the agency put out a special warning that “you should not use ivermectin to treat or prevent COVID-19.” The FDA’s statement included words and phrases such as “serious harm,” “hospitalized,” “dangerous,” “very dangerous,” “seizures,” “coma and even death” and “highly toxic.” Any reader would think the FDA was warning against poison pills. In fact, the drug is FDA-approved as a safe and effective antiparasitic.

    Ivermectin was developed and marketed by Merck & Co. while one of us (Mr. Hooper) worked there years ago. William C. Campbell and Satoshi Omura won the 2015 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine for discovering and developing avermectin, which Mr. Campbell and associates modified to create ivermectin.…

    Excerpts:

    Moreover, the drug can help prevent Covid-19. One 2020 article in Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications looked at what happened after the drug was given to family members of confirmed Covid-19 patients. Less than 8% became infected, versus 58.4% of those untreated.
    Despite the FDA’s claims, ivermectin is safe at approved doses. Out of four billion doses administered since 1998, there have been only 28 cases of serious neurological adverse events, according to an article published this year in the American Journal of Therapeutics. The same study found that ivermectin has been used safely in pregnant women, children and infants.
    If the FDA were driven by science and evidence, it would give an emergency-use authorization for ivermectin for Covid-19. Instead, the FDA asserts without evidence that ivermectin is dangerous.
    At the bottom of the FDA’s warning against ivermectin is this statement: “Meanwhile, effective ways to limit the spread of COVID-19 continue to be to wear your mask, stay at least 6 feet from others who don’t live with you, wash hands frequently, and avoid crowds.” Is this based on the kinds of double-blind studies that the FDA requires for drug approvals? No.




  7. #77
    Senior Member jp1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    7,226
    How does the FDA comment about other off label uses of drugs? Was their warning out of character for them? It sounds like the fans of ivermectin probably aren’t going to harm themselves after they get it from their vet but all the ‘why are we being forced by the jack booted government to take an unapproved vaccine’ people, if they wanted to be logically consistent, would also not be taking a drug that hasn’t had any sort of large scale tests for effectiveness against covid.

  8. #78
    Senior Member iris lilies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Always logged in
    Posts
    19,914
    Quote Originally Posted by jp1 View Post
    How does the FDA comment about other off label uses of drugs? Was their warning out of character for them? It sounds like the fans of ivermectin probably aren’t going to harm themselves after they get it from their vet but all the ‘why are we being forced by the jack booted government to take an unapproved vaccine’ people, if they wanted to be logically consistent, would also not be taking a drug that hasn’t had any sort of large scale tests for effectiveness against covid.
    I don’t know when the FDA decides to have a warning label on a drug that is not good for… Something other than what it’s prescribed for. Whatever prompts them to do that? I dunno, my tax dollars at work. You have to admit that as a consumer that seems fairly stupid, and it’s not at all common. The prescription drugs I have do not come with long list of “do not use for…”

    But if you want to make this political and trace when this warning went up, it’s possible it even went up during the Trump administration that is if you want to blame Donald for it. Daddy Joe has only been in office a few months at this point.

    I agree that taking an off-use drug seems silly when ignoring a more thoroughly tested one, but there is ALWAYS a contingent of those who resent the FDA for failing to approve whatever. I think of all the cancer play patients who flew to Mexico for treatments, but there are many others who await FDA approval and rail.

    To me the bottom line is: WTF FDA in printing this warning on Ivermectin.

    This morning I asked DH if he was going to steal our dog’s heartworm medicine, but he said no.
    Last edited by iris lilies; 7-31-21 at 1:30pm.

  9. #79
    Senior Member iris lilies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Always logged in
    Posts
    19,914
    The CDC has a giant job in these Covid times, granted.

    but—this short opinion piece from The Week is a nice summary of why “the science” is different from the prophets of “the science.” When, why, and especially HOW “the science” is communicated is as important as “the science” itself.

    It is reasonable to not always trust the purveyors of what is represented to be scientific fact.

    I included the entire article here which is really not kosher, but I was unable to get a link to work.


    from The Week


    JOEL MATHIS
    JULY 30, 2021
    The CDC's abysmal messaging


    Illustrated | Getty Images, iStock



    Even at this stage of the pandemic, it can't be easy to be the CDC. The situation remains fluid — there are variants and vaccine hesitancy to deal with, meaning the road to something that looks like normalcy has been anything but straight. Americans want this whole thing to be over, and the agency makes a convenient target for the folks who are frustrated that we can't just move on, already.
    Sometimes, though, the CDC makes life harder on itself — and undermines public confidence as a result.
    That's what has happened this week. On Tuesday, the agency revised its guidance on mask-wearing, encouraging everybody — vaxxed and unvaxxed — to wear facial coverings when indoors. That made sense to me: With COVID-19 hospitalizations skyrocketing in much of the country, masking up could be a quick-acting measure to slow the spread while vaccination efforts continue. Not everybody was convinced, though. Some experts and commentators noted the CDC had issued its recommendations without providing the public with the evidence it used to make its decision.
    "They're making a claim that people with Delta who are vaccinated and unvaccinated have similar levels of viral load, but nobody knows what that means," one researcher told The Washington Post. "It's meaningless unless we see the data."
    That's an entirely reasonable expectation. Instead of providing that data right away, an anonymous official told the newspaper it would be "published imminently." On Thursday night — after two days of angry debates about masking — somebody leaked an agency presentation showing that vaccinated people who contract the Delta variant have viral loads similar to unvaxxed persons. This is good to know. It would have been better to know on Tuesday.
    Communications are a critical part of any public health effort. It's important to tell people not just what they should do to be safe, but why, and to show your work. By releasing its guidance before the data used to justify it, the CDC didn't so much put the cart before the horse as uncouple them entirely. Even with the data in place, we'd still see raucous debates over whether the agency's guidance is sound, and pushback from folks who won't do what the government says no matter what the facts might be. Without the data, though, it's easier for those opponents to portray the CDC's guidance as arbitrary and capricious. And that makes the fight to control the pandemic that much more difficult.
    Last edited by iris lilies; 7-31-21 at 5:37pm.

  10. #80
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    8,913
    So the insurance companies should all pay for Invermectin prescriptions for covid now?

    "The Science" is whatever you assume it is I guess. I mean a lot of people distrust the CDC to a degree, but since when is that "The Science"?

    People will argue "oh the CDC didn't believe vaccinated people could transmit when they removed the mask requirements". But removing the mask requirements MADE NO SENSE ON IT'S OWN GROUNDS. They literally removed them before it was possible for people to be 6 weeks out from the first Moderna shot and 2 weeks out from the second.

    The basic math: vaccines were approved for all except children here April 15th, CDC drops mask mandates May 13th. That's not 6 weeks, and that assumes one got the shot at the earliest time it was available for many, but there was a huge demand at that time, so that often wasn't possible. And the rest of us were all: don't drop the mask mandate. Give people A CHANCE to get the vaccine, not forever and ever, but a real good faith chance ...

    Whether or not vaccinated people could transmit was still being worked out, but this basic math was just basic. The CDC was obviously wrong, come on they can add up weeks as well as I can. And throwing their weight behind trying to use removing masks as an incentive for vax hesitant people rather than making sure those who desperately want the vax are protected by masking until they can be fully vaxxed. Just why?
    If you want something to get done, ask a busy person. If you want them to have a nervous breakdown that is.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •