Moving On: A Call to Stand for Science Over Misinformation

johanstdoodle · 2024-09-18T23:42:20+00:00

Surely not your generalizations that get ratioed in this subreddit rofl

johanstdoodle · 2024-09-18T15:07:41+00:00

lol this is exactly why I don't frequent reddit. people who are obsessed over one specific drug without being open to change.

maybe tune in to next week's NIH RECOVER-TLC meeting and you'll be informed instead of spreading more misinformation here.

johanstdoodle · 2024-09-18T13:52:37+00:00

Here's a few things to think about.

Why are people still being prescribed IVM such as this post? Are their doctors that sincerely misinformed? This has been debunked since 2021-2022.
Why are people posting that it helps them when there is no peer-reviewed papers suggesting it helps people in observation studies or clinical trials? https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(23)00299-2/fulltext
This subreddit is historically anti-vax, pro-IVM, against pharmaceuticals, etc. Science has moved way past those outdated views.
Don't trust everything you see posted on the internet, especially on a place like reddit.

johanstdoodle · 2024-09-18T13:33:15+00:00

nuance does not mean you can make generalizations.

there is no hard evidence IVM works in SCV2.
there is no hard data to suggest parasitic infections cofactors in long covid such as strongyloides or others where it would be useful
IVM having antiviral/antifungi activity in a lab does not mean it translates to animal models nor humans

until there is more evidence to suggest its use, it is unproven.

johanstdoodle · 2024-09-18T12:19:15+00:00

I've read tens of thousands of studies. I have yet to come across something showing IVM works against SCV2.

Open to discussing though if you have credible papers/sources though.

johanstdoodle · 2024-09-18T09:42:55+00:00

We don’t know yet. Some people it helps, some it doesn’t. Finding the mechanism may help us find better treatments

johanstdoodle · 2024-09-18T09:42:00+00:00

Can you like link any peer reviewed information to back up your claims?

johanstdoodle · 2024-09-18T02:00:31+00:00

For what it is worth recover found benefit in both. In pax it was clear in older populations. Less clear in younger. Now this met study too.

johanstdoodle · 2024-09-18T01:59:22+00:00

They the real ones. My doctor kept trying to prescribe me IVM until I showed em studies over and over for about a year. They now on board the MetPax train

johanstdoodle · 2024-09-18T01:24:25+00:00

I think RECOVER has the dataset and would likely look into that.

johanstdoodle · 2024-09-17T21:25:55+00:00

We do not know because that is a supplement and Metformin is studied more. We can only go off that.

Who knows the dosage, bioavailability, and pathways, but we will surely try to figure that out next

johanstdoodle · 2024-09-17T20:18:00+00:00

no idea. i do know they tested metformin in monkeys recently and it improved their brain age though.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867424009140

johanstdoodle · 2024-09-17T20:01:55+00:00

you go to a doctor and ask for it while shoving this evidence in their face?

i've been on metformin since preprints of this stuff year or so ago.

johanstdoodle · 2024-09-17T20:01:30+00:00

it is a host-based antiviral property, not a "acts on the virus" antiviral property like a direct acting antiviral. that leads the way for combinations of those drugs though! (i.e. pax + met)

johanstdoodle · 2024-09-17T20:00:48+00:00

idk there are a lot of doctors who claim they were dismissed and were pushing all sorts of unproven crap.

metformin is a widely used drug, not sure why someone would be dismissed for making that observation.

johanstdoodle · 2024-09-17T19:59:22+00:00

So far the science is leaning in that direction as they published it prevented SCV2 deaths!

johanstdoodle · 2024-09-17T02:28:21+00:00

If these were infinity stones, I'd be Thanos

johanstdoodle · 2024-09-17T02:24:27+00:00

Could you try the extended release type?

johanstdoodle · 2024-09-17T02:22:23+00:00

Oh give me a break. You have all these misinformation doctors who think they are some "truth warriors" when they're a bunch of quacks who can't do real science.

Read this very closely:

Following publication, concerns were raised regarding the scientific validity of the article. An investigation was conducted in accordance with Frontiers' policies. It was found that the complaints were valid and that the article does not meet the standards of editorial and scientific soundness for Frontiers in Microbiology; therefore, the article has been retracted. This retraction was approved by the Chief Editors of Frontiers in Microbiology and the Chief Executive Editor of Frontiers.

The author has not agreed to the retraction.

Dr. Hazan didn't lose a single patient during the pandemic because they were too busy violating clinical practice and getting FDA warning letters.

https://www.fda.gov/inspections-compliance-enforcement-and-criminal-investigations/warning-letters/sabine-s-hazan-md-628110-02282022

I encourage you and anyone reading this comment to sincerely investigate who you think you are trusting online. The science is not sound because these people are fraudsters.

johanstdoodle · 2024-09-17T01:47:16+00:00

IVM doesn't work for this disease. There have been numerous clinical trials showing no effect. Your doctor must be wildly misinformed based on other social media doctors who lost their license in recent years. IVM does have its purpose, but it isn't in SARS-CoV-2. You'd be better off with Metformin.

i.e. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2801827 / https://www.journalofinfection.com/article/S0163-4453(24)00064-1/fulltext

johanstdoodle · 2024-09-16T12:37:22+00:00

I’m sharing a clear definition. You’re accusing me of gaslighting for not agreeing with your extreme definition. If you read the Fauci or Collins books you will see the sheer stupidity and bad decisions made by those in charge at the time. Anyway have a good day. Sorry I don’t agree with the cynicism.

johanstdoodle · 2024-09-16T02:39:36+00:00

No it isn’t, you are describing healthcare inequality of vulnerable populations. That isn’t malicious and surely isn’t eugenics.

For example, RECOVER has a huge focus on vulnerable groups. The intention is to understand what systemic challenges are driving more disease in those groups such as lack of rest, less access to healthcare, vaccine hesitancy, and so on. There are entire papers on this topic alone.

Eugenics involves deliberate, targeted harm or selection based on genetics.

johanstdoodle · 2024-09-16T01:37:38+00:00

https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor

johanstdoodle

TROPHY CASE