[mikeyouse]

Yes - a bunch of discredited quacks (with multiple papers now retracted for the terrible quality of their science) causing enormous headaches for every practicing doctor and nurse having to treat the unvaccinated "Facebook Researchers" who end up in the hospital trying to get their useless cocktail of meds.

[swader999]

What specifically in the linked protocol do you disagree with?

[mikeyouse]

I don't need to do a line-by-line rebuttal of a Covid protocol my HVAC technician wrote -- though he likely did more to help the pandemic by changing out HEPA air filters than the Front Link covid quacks did with their awful advice and martyr complex.

If someone is catastrophically and unapologetically wrong on problem 1a, you don't really need to pay attention to their solution to problem 1b.

[swader999]

Ok, so just ad hominem then I guess. Lazy and a disservice to yourself and anyone suffering from this.

[mikeyouse]

Sometimes the timing is just great -- how about the fact that the protocol was designed by several grifters selling fraudulent "long Covid" tests and charging people thousands of dollars for tele-health visits where they then lie about lab tests and prescribe drugs that don't remotely work.

Just published now:

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2022/01/desperate-patie...

These people should be in prison.

[swader999]

I didn't suggest anyone use IncellDX or covid long haulers.com. Just because Bruce Patterson had his name associated with the flccc doesn't prove anything about it's viability. Keep trying.

[mikeyouse]

If the fact that fraudulent grifters developed the treatment protocol you're advocating for, I'm not sure where to go from there. (Not just Patterson, but Yogendra too -- it's not just "his name associated" with flccc -- he and yogendera are two of the primary authors of the protocol!)

And if I understand your timeline right --- you think a single dose of the vaccine gave you "long covid" symptoms? So you're going to rely on the long-covid treatment path, even though you've never had the virus? Yikes man..

[texasbigdata]

Super not helpful. Also, some of your points could be debated (fluvoxamine recently, statins in trials, vitamin C, etc). But overall the tone makes it hard to have a civil discussion.

[mikeyouse]

It's my contention that it's actively harmful to truth, science, and public health when we pretend like there's value in having a "civil conversation" with bad faith actors.

There's no benefit to cosplaying as Socrates when there is no data point or research result that could change the mind of these weird conspiracy theorists. If a well-done study came out tomorrow that demonstrated Ivermectin worked to help Covid patients, it would literally be in every hospital's protocol tomorrow.

On the opposite side, these charlatans have been promoting IVM since March 2020 with absolutely no evidence of efficacy (often at the expense of convincing people to not get vaccinated). What little evidence has come out has only weakened the case for it as a treatment, and yet, they're still promoting it as fervently as ever.

If you want a long-covid treatment protocol, you should absolutely look somewhere else aside from the pages of the most stubbornly wrong people in this whole pandemic. They've shown repeatedly that they don't care about updating their priors when there's contradictory evidence. At least the HCQ dorks have mostly retired to complaining about cancel culture.

[texasbigdata]

I personally formed a three person reading group with 2 friends (one chemistry PhD and one retired tech CEO that's a longevity genius) and we read a stack of these papers end to end and even attempted to fumble through a recalcution of a meta-analysis following the retraction of one paper.

Before personally taking the medicine we spent 1.5 weeks reading everything we could find. Straight from Google Scholar or pubmed. Respectfully, I disagree with you. But that's based on my own reading and I'm not an MD or medical professional.

I would say, a) it is very common in certain countries, and like hey, they awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine partially for it in 2015, but b) we have to agree to disagree here, were just too far apart on tone. But respect your point of view.

[mikeyouse]

Ivermectin is a fine anti-parasite, and plausibly has a mechanism of action that could benefit specific patients infected with specific viruses. Unfortunately for all of us, it has no measurable benefit on Covid. As shown again and again.

We have hundreds of millions of active infections, it's dead-simple to do research studies to determine whether something prevents hospitalization, or shortens length-of-stay, etc etc. You don't have to spend weeks of your life reading primary materials -- here's the EUA for Paxlovid (Section 14):

https://www.fda.gov/media/155050/download

A pre-registered RCT, with specific endpoints and statistically significant evidence that it lowers viral load, and prevents hospitalization and death. It only took 4 months from study enrollment -> results to see how effective it was. Paxlovid works! Hurray! IVM doesn't. Rats.

Good faith individuals would move on and investigate something else that could help humanity but admitting you were wrong doesn't get you invited onto Joe Rogan so here we are, with people still referencing their nonsense.