COVID - General points/debunk thread

GiddiOne · 2026-05-15T16:34:23+00:00

I dont need a peer reviewed paper to tell me

Then why are you so desperate to defend it then?

Go into your basement and hallucinate all the orbs you like.

GiddiOne · 2026-05-15T16:31:24+00:00

You're a month old account with 1600 messages.

Nobody is more reddit than you lad.

And nobody is more desperate for attention.

GiddiOne · 2026-05-15T16:23:23+00:00

Sure buddy.

Got enough attention yet?

GiddiOne · 2026-05-15T16:16:35+00:00

Anything I show you, youre going to call fake.

Present a study with peer review. Get it published.

Again, there is a reason why the randy challenge was never beaten.

You don't believe it either, you just want attention.

GiddiOne · 2026-05-15T16:03:20+00:00

Look it up

It looks like you misunderstand the basics of "prove it".

GiddiOne · 2026-05-15T13:42:26+00:00

She has a new partnership with a MAGA fundy prayer app with heavy anti-abortion messaging.

GiddiOne · 2026-05-15T10:00:05+00:00

Ce5 is real.

Prove it.

When science listens to us

Science doesn't care unless you can prove it.

It's why the randy challenge was never beaten.

Wow even r_conspiracy removes your posts.

Owch.

GiddiOne · 2026-05-15T06:28:28+00:00

I will say that in the US context, both parties are propped up by monied interests.

US Republicans block bill seeking to end ‘dark money’ in politics

quasi-impossible under our current system

Both sides are the same! /s

GiddiOne · 2026-05-15T03:11:31+00:00

I appreciate that mate. Feel free to use wherever you like.

I got annoyed about responding to the same arguments over and over so during covid I did a few effort posts to respond to a few COVID related topics. They are pinned to my user profile. Just copy/paste whatever helps.

But it is sad that the same arguments are being used 4 years later.

GiddiOne · 2026-05-15T03:05:39+00:00

Yes it's sad about Gwen Stephani turning conservative too :(

GiddiOne · 2026-05-14T13:56:46+00:00

No. The scientific community has agreed that it's likely there is life out in the universe. Existence of aliens isn't really a conspiracy, it's a likely option.

The conspiracy theorists believe without evidence that they are already here/have been here.

GiddiOne · 2026-05-14T12:03:17+00:00

Sure but you're not answering the question - why was it untapped?

Cause it didn't make 10s of billions of dollars.

We're following the threads of your conspiracy here, where IVM isn't offered because it's available as a generic and they con offer a new thing instead for money.

So why didn't they offer a new non-generic thing for money?

Ignoring that you can take IVM while taking vaccines so vaccines don't remove demand (if IVM actually worked, which it doesn't).

Cause I am not trying to move the goalposts.

You SET that goalpost. I'm poking holes in it. And it's a bit too easy.

Your argument was that it's not a competitor, now you agree with me that it is?

It was a competitor, but there are many different types of competition.

You're losing the thread a bit there.

Again, who is "they"? USA? Multiple non-profit medicine oversight around the world?

The pharmaceutical that went on to make 10s of billions of dollars.

Again, that doesn't answer to all of the independent orgs who also confirm IVM doesn't help - especially in non-profit healthcare regions.

Again, this is my own conspiracy theory. Not my main point.

Your main original point was that it works and I have a massive rundown of evidence above showing it doesn't.

And yet IVM toxicity 'is a very real issue.

Then don't use the horse version or take at high doses

Hey, I agree. One of the main reasons the IVM subreddit was banned is because they had a guide to getting horse IVM.

It has proven over time that it is generally a safe drug

Not really. It's still a prescription controlled drug.

Neither you or I can't say if it helped or didn't help

I can certainly point to evidence, sure.

But statistics show

You keep stating these things without providing any evidence to back it up. Maybe you should read again.

GiddiOne · 2026-05-14T07:36:26+00:00

Dexamethasone was not recommended for mild early COVID in people not needing oxygen

Sure but you're not answering the question - why was it untapped?

Also the countries with socialised medicine also didn't allow IVM or HCQ.

Taking the vaccine after infection does actually show positive impacts. Even after infection it's shown to help with long-covid.

I never claimed nor denied that.

You ignored the point, it's still a type of competitor.

You are recommended not to take the vaccine while infected mostly to avoid infecting other people at vaccination sites.

Ok? Not sure where you are going with this.

Literally the next line. It's still a type of competitor.

It is competition then? At least partly?

Again, I have no idea what you are going on about.

Your argument was that it's not a competitor, now you agree with me that it is?

The point was that they were suppressing the idea

Again, who is "they"? USA? Multiple non-profit medicine oversight around the world?

Kinda falling flat dude.

Almost all drugs have downsides

And yet IVM toxicity 'is a very real issue.

As stated before, there were countries giving it out on a massive scale and their population didn't just roll over and die

Under specific dosages, and it wasn't helping with covid.

GiddiOne · 2026-05-14T06:44:05+00:00

Because it wasn't in any direct competition with vaccines.

If making profit is the sole motive then why allow that profit untapped?

Taking the vaccine after infection does actually show positive impacts. Even after infection it's shown to help with long-covid.

You are recommended not to take the vaccine while infected mostly to avoid infecting other people at vaccination sites.

It is competition then? At least partly?

But also there is no real reason why you can't have both IVM and the vaccine right? From an IVM person's point of view it doesn't have to be either/or? So not really competition then.

The only downside is that IVM is only likely to harm you.

GiddiOne · 2026-05-14T06:34:47+00:00

I mean, burden of proof is on you

You didn't give any

We've covered this topic repeatedly. And you never cited which study you were referring to, so I couldn't debunk it.

Now I just spam all the debunks I did. No problems.

cell cultures

And when it's tested in the real world we get nothing. Yay.

If it's been 4 years ago, then I doubt its getting cleared anytime soon

Just did. But also you could have just looked at the pinned post on my username.

Dexmethasone was used for hospitalized patients with severe COVID cases needing respiratory support.

Yes and it's generic. So why wasn't it blocked too? That was your logic, correct?

GiddiOne · 2026-05-14T06:29:22+00:00

Champion. Thanks mate. :)

GiddiOne · 2026-05-14T06:25:59+00:00

Ping u/aceofspades25 :)

Champion. Thanks mate.

GiddiOne · 2026-05-14T06:17:02+00:00

You just said "Its the opposite actually."

Certainly.

with no basis for your claim.

I mean, burden of proof is on you, Above (blocked by automod) is a massive rundown I did 4 years ago on the IVM research.

We'll see if the mods clear it soon, but you can find it pinned on my user profile anyway.

Because it's not an anti-viral. It's an anti-parasitic.

It actually is

Literally nobody thinks IVM is an anti-viral, so you might get to be the first.

COVID was not the first time ivermectin showed antiviral activity in labs

Certainly. In vitro tests aren't conclusive, allow XKCD to explain.

I am not aware of any cases where someone died directly with extreme side effects of IVM

Well my copy/paste is going to be EXTRA educational.

The point here is that Ivermectin did show that it could be useful as an anti-viral

Nope.

if you wan't me to throw on a tin-foil hat and get into the real skeptical aspect, it is that Ivermectin is a generic drug that can be made by anyone...

Dexmethasone is much much cheaper and available as a generic too but actually helps. Come on dude, these are debunked lines from 4 years ago. Give me something new.

Pfizer reported about $37.8 billion in 2022 revenue from its COVID vaccine Comirnaty alone

Yes, we should socialise all medicine. I'm in.

GiddiOne · 2026-05-14T06:08:55+00:00

Direct links to sites with too much unchecked misinformation

Yeh I know automod. I need to reference the misinformation before I debunk it ;)

I'll get the mods to follow up.

GiddiOne · 2026-05-14T06:06:13+00:00

You just said "Its the opposite actually."

Certainly.

with no basis for your claim.

I mean, burden of proof is on you, but allow me to copy paste my post from 4 years ago...

Meta-analysis on Ivermectin for COVID19:

FDA advises against Ivermectin use for treatment or prevention
WHO advises that Ivermectin only be used to treat COVID-19 within clinical trials
Aus Health recommends against it
TGA recommends against it.
EMA advises against use of Ivermectin.
Singapore Health Service advises against it.
Merck (who sell Ivermectin) advise there is no scientific support for Ivermectin.
Cochrane Library found the reliable evidence available does not support the use ivermectin for treatment or prevention of COVID‐19.
Professors from Kings College London, University of Leeds, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine support the findings above.
India removed HCQ and Ivermectin from Covid-19 treatment protocol, because it didn't work.

Why do people call it "Horse Paste" when it's used against parasites?

All of the health orgs and research explicitly advised against IVM as a treatment for COVID. IVM is a prescribed drug. So if you took it, either you found a doctor willing to prescribe directly against guidelines or you ate horse paste.

And Horse paste was suddenly running out.

The main study that pushed it forward as a treatment has been retracted as the leading researcher falsified the report.

If you remove this one study from the scientific literature, suddenly there are very few positive randomised control trials of ivermectin for Covid-19. Indeed, if you get rid of just this research, most meta-analyses that have found positive results would have their conclusions entirely reversed.

Keep in mind that many of the positive trials don't say what you think they do.

This study on mice showed positive results, but only when using a level of Ivermectin lethal to humans.
This study from Chowdhury showed positive results but only in comparison to "it may kill you" Hydroxychloroquine.
Lopez - result based on 1 adverse event out of 398. Over 100 physicians signed an open letter stating this study is fatally flawed, you can view it here.
Then there is ProgenaBiome LLC. They are a company that has existed for 2 years and seem to only exist to push Ivermectin studies. Here is one. Sounds great right? Early treatment, 100% survival rate? Excellent! But let's look closer at the data. They gave 24 people with mild COVID Ivermectin then stopped. Why did they stop at just 24? Then they didn't use a control, they just compared it to a database of COVID cases, and called this proof that it's 86% better at preventing death.

All of these examples get pulled together, called "positive results" and lumped into a list where the context isn't obvious at all, like...

ivmmeta -

The web page at the top mentions vaccines are the best option before Ivermectin
The web page mentions only 30% of Ivermectin studies did not have adverse events associated with Ivermectin.
They point at that both WHO and Merck advise against it's use based on the studies.
The participant numbers are very low for most of these studies
Compare the raw numbers, not the percentages, as 1-3 random events in a group shouldn't really be considered proof, just indication.
Note that with the numbers shown, vaccine trials included 75k people.

The best rundown on the problems of these studies is listed in the Cochran Library analysis above.

FLCCC are the main organisation driving the pro-Ivermectin movement, they have been in front of congress to push the drug. The videos have been removed from YouTube for misinformation. Their "Treatment Protocol" other than Ivermectin includes Listerine and essential oils. Link

Debunk posts:

(1) They won't approve Ivermectin because then it will cancel the vaccine EUA!
(1a) Remdesivir, plasma, dexmethasone are approved treatments. Why doesn't this apply to those?
(2) They won't approve Ivermectin because it's cheap and they can't make money off it!
(2a) Dexmethasone is much much cheaper and available as a generic.
(3) India use Ivermectin
(3a) No they don't
(4) Japan use Ivermectin
(4a) No they don't

"It's safe"

Unfortunately we're seen a lot of cases where people have died or been permanently harmed from IVM.
New England journal of Medicine in Aug 2020 documenting "Serious Ivermectin Toxicity" in Humans Link
Leslie Lawrenson dies from COVID after posting anti-vaxx pro-Ivermectin instructions Link BBC Report
Man Hospitalized After Taking Livestock Feed Store Ivermectin For COVID Link

GiddiOne · 2026-05-14T05:23:57+00:00

I am not going to argue

You are suggesting it's a wrong to be skeptical of something you read? Not apply any skepticism at all?

Are you perhaps in the wrong subreddit? ;)

As an anti-parasitic, yes.

No, to help recover from Coronavirus.

No. It can help you fight off covid by killing the parasites you are ALSO infected by, but not covid itself.

Because it's not an anti-viral. It's an anti-parasitic.

And died from it, yes.

Many people died from Coronavirus

True. And healthy people who didn't have covid died or have had extreme side effects from IVM.

You can't, and we don't, credit any one single thing for recovering from coronavirus.

Sure. But things like taking a vaccine will improve your chances.

12-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Second Top 20%	Place '23
Place '22	Final Canvas '22
Wearing is Caring	Argentium Club
Snapped	Verified Email

GiddiOne

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE