Countering COVID misinformation: ‘Stop looking at Facebook’

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/10/04/countering-covid-misinformation-stop-looking-at-facebook/

 

Doctors are frustrated at the level of denial and misinformation they still encounter

By Heather Hollingsworth | Associated Press

The COVID-19 patient’s health was deteriorating quickly at a Michigan hospital, but he was having none of the doctor’s diagnosis. Despite dangerously low oxygen levels, the unvaccinated man didn’t think he was that sick and got so irate over a hospital policy forbidding his wife from being at his bedside that he threatened to walk out of the building.

Dr. Matthew Trunsky didn’t hold back in his response: “You are welcome to leave, but you will be dead before you get to your car,'” he said.

Such exchanges have become all-too-common for medical workers who are growing weary of COVID-19 denial and misinformation that have made it exasperating to treat unvaccinated patients during the delta-driven surge.

The Associated Press asked six doctors from across the country to describe the types of misinformation and denial they see on a daily basis and how they respond to it.

They describe being aggravated at the constant requests to be prescribed the veterinary parasite drug Ivermectin, with patients lashing out at doctors when they are told that it’s not a safe coronavirus treatment. An Illinois family practice doctor has patients tell him that microchips are embedded in vaccines as part of a ploy to take over people’s DNA. A Louisiana doctor has resorted to showing patients a list of ingredients in Twinkies, reminding those who are skeptical about the makeup of vaccines that everyday products have lots of safe additives that no one really understands.

 

[jg121783 3,908]

17 minutes ago, Crtcl Rice Theory said:

They describe being aggravated at the constant requests to be prescribed the veterinary parasite drug Ivermectin, with patients lashing out at doctors when they are told that it’s not a safe coronavirus treatment.

Here we go with the "horse paste" narrative again. This article sidestepping the fact that there is a long time FDA approved version of this drug for human use with almost no safety issues reported goes a long way to discredit the rest of the article. You can debate whether or not it is effective against covid but there is no debating that there is a safe FDA approved for human use version of the drug and it is not just a "veterinary" or "horse" paste. Looks like a bunch of propaganda bs meant to stir up hysteria to me.

[Mike E 11,727]

7 minutes ago, jg121783 said:

Here we go with the "horse paste" narrative again. This article sidestepping the fact that there is a long time FDA approved version of this drug for human use with almost no safety issues reported goes a long way to discredit the rest of the article. You can debate whether or not it is effective against covid but there is no debating that there is a safe FDA approved for human use version of the drug and it is not just a "veterinary" or "horse" paste. Looks like a bunch of propaganda bs meant to stir up hysteria to me.

So what is chemical difference between horse paste and ivermectin prescribed for humans? I really want to know.  

[jg121783 3,908]

4 minutes ago, Mike E said:

So what is chemical difference between horse paste and ivermectin prescribed for humans? I really want to know.  

I believe the only differences are the method of administering and the dosage. What's the chemical difference between water horses drink and the water people drink?

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

Ivermectin: How false science created a Covid 'miracle' drug

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-58170809

 

Campaigners for the drug point to a number of scientific studies and often claim this evidence is being ignored or covered up. But a review by a group of independent scientists has cast serious doubt on that body of research.

 

The BBC can reveal that more than a third of 26 major trials of the drug for use on Covid have serious errors or signs of potential fraud. None of the rest show convincing evidence of ivermectin's effectiveness.

 

Dr Kyle Sheldrick, one of the group investigating the studies, said they had not found "a single clinical trial" claiming to show that ivermectin prevented Covid deaths that did not contain "either obvious signs of fabrication or errors so critical they invalidate the study".

 

Major problems included:

 

The same patient data being used multiple times for supposedly different people

Evidence that selection of patients for test groups was not random

Numbers unlikely to occur naturally

Percentages calculated incorrectly

Local health bodies unaware of the studies

The scientists in the group - Dr Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz, Dr James Heathers, Dr Nick Brown and Dr Sheldrick - each have a track record of exposing dodgy science. They've been working together remotely on an informal and voluntary basis during the pandemic.

[LIBrty4all 3,749]

My doctor prescribes ivermectin.  And she's not a veterinarian.  Pretty simple concept for those with a functioning cortex. 

[jg121783 3,908]

2 hours ago, Crtcl Rice Theory said:

Ivermectin: How false science created a Covid 'miracle' drug

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-58170809

 

Campaigners for the drug point to a number of scientific studies and often claim this evidence is being ignored or covered up. But a review by a group of independent scientists has cast serious doubt on that body of research.

 

The BBC can reveal that more than a third of 26 major trials of the drug for use on Covid have serious errors or signs of potential fraud. None of the rest show convincing evidence of ivermectin's effectiveness.

 

Dr Kyle Sheldrick, one of the group investigating the studies, said they had not found "a single clinical trial" claiming to show that ivermectin prevented Covid deaths that did not contain "either obvious signs of fabrication or errors so critical they invalidate the study".

 

Major problems included:

 

The same patient data being used multiple times for supposedly different people

Evidence that selection of patients for test groups was not random

Numbers unlikely to occur naturally

Percentages calculated incorrectly

Local health bodies unaware of the studies

The scientists in the group - Dr Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz, Dr James Heathers, Dr Nick Brown and Dr Sheldrick - each have a track record of exposing dodgy science. They've been working together remotely on an informal and voluntary basis during the pandemic.

So do you admit then that there is in fact an FDA approved version for humans that has a track record of being safe with various uses for humans and the article you originally posted got it wrong when they referred to it as merely a "veterinary parasite drug" that could be "unsafe" (whatever your opinion is on its effectiveness) if used to treat covid?

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

12 minutes ago, jg121783 said:

So do you admit then that there is in fact an FDA approved version for humans that has a track record of being safe with various uses for humans and the article you originally posted got it wrong when they referred to it as merely a "veterinary parasite drug" that could be "unsafe" (whatever your opinion is on its effectiveness) if used to treat covid?

The amount of people trying use vet versions is significant and dangerous.

 

CVM Letter to Veterinarians and Retailers: Help Stop Misuse of Animal Ivermectin to Prevent or Treat COVID-19 in Humans

• Share
• Tweet
• Email

 

August 30, 2021

Dear Veterinarians and Retailers of Animal Health Products,

The FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine has continued concerns that there are people using animal formulations of ivermectin to treat or prevent COVID-19 in humans. 

As noted in many recent news stories and in a Health Alert from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, poison control centers across the United States are seeing a sharp spike in reports of people suffering adverse health effects after taking animal ivermectin. People are purchasing various highly concentrated animal ivermectin drug formulations such as “pour-on,” injectable, paste, and “drench” that are intended for horses, cattle, and sheep, and taking these drugs has made some people very sick. 

Even if animal drugs have the same active ingredient as an approved human drug, animal drugs have not been evaluated for safety or effectiveness in humans. Treating human medical conditions with veterinary drugs can be very dangerous. The drug may not work at all, or it could worsen the illness and/or lead to serious, potentially life-threatening health complications. People should not take products approved for veterinary use, “for research only,” or otherwise not for human consumption. 

We are asking for your help in sharing important safety information about the misuse of animal ivermectin to prevent or treat COVID-19 in people. To assist you, we have developed a sign that is available for download if you’d like to pass it out or post it at your place of business to remind people about the dangers of treating themselves with animal ivermectin.

CVM is hearing of reports of decreased availability of certain animal ivermectin products in certain regions of the country. If you are a veterinarian or animal caretaker who is having difficulty obtaining this drug for animal use, please let us know by emailing AnimalDrugShortages@fda.hhs.gov.

Please help us protect public health by reporting any animal drug advertising/animal ivermectin products with claims about preventing or curing COVID-19 by emailing FDA-COVID-19-Fraudulent-Products@fda.hhs.gov or calling 1-888-InfoFDA (1-888-463-6332). 

 

Edited October 10, 2021 by Crtcl Rice Theory

[jg121783 3,908]

5 minutes ago, Crtcl Rice Theory said:

The amount of people trying use vet versions is significant and dangerous.

If true its not relevant to the question I asked. Here is a quote from your article.

 

3 hours ago, Crtcl Rice Theory said:

They describe being aggravated at the constant requests to be prescribed the veterinary parasite drug Ivermectin...

Why would patients request to be prescribed the veterinary version? Seems to me you are trying to deflect from what I asked with a red herring. I asked you do you or do you not concede that the article got it wrong when they implied that ivermectin is nothing more than a "veterinary parasite drug" (which the article clearly attempts to imply) and that it (the FDA approved version in recommended doses) could be unsafe (again effectiveness is a separate debate) when used to treat covid or anything else for that matter?

[Mike E 11,727]

55 minutes ago, Crtcl Rice Theory said:

The amount of people trying use vet versions is significant and dangerous. 

 

Yes.  We keep hearing that.  
 

Why is it dangerous if it is the same chemical composition?

 

Maybe ask your fraternal twin @Crtcl Thinking Theory why it is dangerous.  
 

I can imagine that because a horse masses more than an human, that the over dose is an issue. Good think there are pill cutters, knifes, and scales for all that.  
 

So for people with 5th grade math skills why is horse paste dangerous to humans?

[Rosalind F 178]

Ivermectin is approved by the FDA - sure. But it is approved in specific dosages for specific indications. Just because abiraterone acetate was approved for the treatment of therapy-resistant prostate cancer does not mean everybody can go and swallow abiraterone acetate without hesitation. 

 

Also, for folks worried about the effect on pregnancy and long-term studies in animals - those were not studied for ivermectin. The information is from the Stromectol (ivermectin) drug label from FDA site (https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/98/50-742s001_Stromectol_PrntLbl.PDF).

Should we be concerned? I actually don't think we need to be worried about it either for ivermectin or COVID-19 vaccine.

 

 

The problem with ivermectin is not the safety of the drug substance (active pharmaceutical ingredient) at the indicated dose. Without additional digging in the details, I can see following potential issues with taking veterinary drugs:

1) Drugs for human use are approved in specific form (pills, solution, syrup, etc) for the specific chemical route of production with limits of impurities that are all well-defined and tested for routinely at manufacturing sites. So with the different manufacturing process we can get whole different list of impurities and residual solvents -> potential adverse reactions from impurities. 

2) Different dosage form (paste, solution for injections vs pills) will lead to different absorption rate of the drug substance -> more severe adverse reactions from the drug substance.

3)  I am not very familiar with manufacturing of veterinary drugs but I can imagine the quality control is not as thorough -> more variability of adverse reactions from both drug substance and impurities.

 

 

Edit: forgot to mention that ivermectin is approved as a single dose. So taking it continuously for prevention of COVID-19 even at approved dose will likely be dangerous. 

Edited October 11, 2021 by Rosalind F

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

2 hours ago, jg121783 said:

If true its not relevant to the question I asked. Here is a quote from your article.

 

Why would patients request to be prescribed the veterinary version? Seems to me you are trying to deflect from what I asked with a red herring. I asked you do you or do you not concede that the article got it wrong when they implied that ivermectin is nothing more than a "veterinary parasite drug" (which the article clearly attempts to imply) and that it (the FDA approved version in recommended doses) could be unsafe (again effectiveness is a separate debate) when used to treat covid or anything else for that matter?

The article does not imply the invermectin is only a Veterinarian drug, that is your reading.

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

COVID, vaccine misinformation spread by hundreds of websites, analysis finds

Daniel Funke

USA TODAY

 

 

 

AD

0:07

More than 500 websites have promoted misinformation about the coronavirus – including debunked claims about vaccines, according to a firm that rates the credibility of websites.

NewsGuard announced Wednesday that of the more than 6,700 websites it has analyzed, 519 have published false information about COVID-19. Some of the sites publish dubious health information or political conspiracy theories, while others were "created specifically to spread misinformation about COVID-19," the company says on its website.

"It's become virtually impossible for people to tell the difference between a generally reliable site and an untrustworthy site," Gordon Crovitz, co-founder of NewsGuard, told USA TODAY in an exclusive interview. "And that is why there is such a big business in publishing this information

►Fact check:6 of the most persistent misconceptions about COVID-19 vaccines

►It's not just Facebook and Twitter:TikTok is 'hatescape' for racism and white supremacy, study says

The findings come as new daily COVID-19 infections, hospitalizations and deaths remain high across much of the country. About 53% of Americans have been fully vaccinated against the virus, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

 

Launched in spring 2018, NewsGuard employs experienced journalists to assess the credibility and transparency of the most popular news and information websites in the U.S., United Kingdom, Germany, France and Italy. The firm publishes "nutrition labels" that tell users whether a source adheres to or violates journalistic standards.

"We don't believe in blocking stuff and not letting people see things," said Steven Brill, co-founder of NewsGuard. "What we believe in is giving people information about what they're about to see so they can make their own decision."

In Wednesday's release, NewsGuard also identified 50 of the top COVID-19 vaccine myths spreading online. They include debunked claims that the vaccines alter people's DNA, cause infertility or create new variants of the virus.

 

"They're all hoaxes that have gained traction, and we know that because we see them spreading from website to website," said Matt Skibinski, NewsGuard's general manager.

Of the sites on NewsGuard's list, 339 have an audience predominantly based in the U.S. Several of them, including InfoWars and Mercola.com, have a track record of promoting conspiracy theories and dubious health claims. Others try to dupe people by using domain names close to those of credible news outlets, such as WashingtonPosted.news and Ussanews.com, mimicking washingtonpost.com and USNews.com.

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2021/09/08/covid-vaccine-misinformation-spread-websites-analysis-finds/5732789001/

[jg121783 3,908]

22 minutes ago, Crtcl Rice Theory said:

The article does not imply the invermectin is only a Veterinarian drug, that is your reading.

Come on your smarter than that. The article literally claims people are requesting to be prescribed the veterinary version of ivermectin. Either people are actually specifically requesting the veterinary version or this is a fabrication intended to fool people who don't know better into thinking ivermectin is nothing more than horse paste.

[TBoneTX 43,437]

2 hours ago, Crtcl Rice Theory said:

The article does not imply the invermectin is only a Veterinarian drug, that is your reading.

You're adding the word "only" here.

Words mean things.  As written, the article modifies the noun Ivermectin with the phrase "the veterinary parasite drug" and doesn't qualify the matter further.