Lawyers Guns and Money and the Herman Cain Award

M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic General
I struggle to understand why so many people are determined to die on the antivax hill.

I'm not sure if this is "the" answer, but it makes about as much sense as anything I've read so far:

>>>The whole key to understanding the anti-vax pro-horse dewormer mentality is that it’s not just this one thing for these people. Admitting that they’ve been wrong about this isn’t like admitting you were wrong about thinking that Willie Mays hit 700 home runs or that Detroit is the capital of Michigan. To admit you were wrong about this thing in particular would be to pull on a thread that could unravel your entire social and political identity. For those in the right wing bubble/base, admitting error on this point basically requires a literal conversion experience. It would be like a former Christian fundamentalist coming to the view that the Bible isn’t actually the inerrant word of God. In other words, that’s not just some random fact, but THE fact, that holds every other part of the person’s world view together.

However, we can ask: May someone have telling grounds for believing that the earth has only existed for a short time, say since his own birth? – Suppose he had always been told that, – would he have any good reason to doubt it? Men have believed that they could make the rain; why should not a king be brought up in the belief that the world began with him? And if [G.E.] Moore and this king were to meet and discuss, could Moore really prove his belief to be the right one? I do not say that Moore could not convert the king to his view, but it would be a conversion of a special kind; the king would be brought to look at the world in a different way. Remember that one is sometimes convinced of the correctness of a view by its simplicity or symmetry, i.e., these are what induce one to go over to this point of view. One then simply says something like: “That’s how it must be.”

Wittgenstein, On Certainty<<<

 
M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic General
Here's another person who died on the anti mask/antivax hill:

1631576460381.png


Contrary to the above, he does not strike me as being particularly smart or wise. Then again, the post just says he was one of the smartest and wisest person "I've known."

Last year he was celebrating his "right" to spread disease and die:

>>>“We were so thankful that a federal court would recognize our God-given right to worship him, our creator, without the government interfering,” Pastor Bob Enyart of Denver Bible Church said.<<<

 
S

shadyJ

Speaker of the House
Staff member
One thing I like about anti-vaxxers is that they put themselves at the greatest risk for their own stupidity at least as much as putting others in harm's way, which is unusual in this day and age. I am a big fan of the Hermain Cain awards.
 
BMXTRIX

BMXTRIX

Audioholic Warlord
...pro-horse dewormer...
I believe that these types of statements are not at all helpful from the pro-vaccination community.

Ivermectin hasn't gone through proper testing against COVID-19 at this point. There have been conflicting reports of effectiveness, but certainly as a matter of potential, it should be properly tested. If refuted, properly, then that can be put out there.

It is of course the major problem with a capitalistic economy. Why test any product that will deliver almost nothing in profits? It's the headache of America. You can't have the government fund the testing, because that's not how it works. No company will fund unprofitable testing, because that's stupid. So, you end up without any serious testing and wind up with guesses and bad information, which is just a crap way of doing things.

Ivermectin won the inventors a Nobel prize. It's not some medication to be dumbed down as being used only on horses. It is FDA approved and WHO approved as a tool to fight parasitic infections.

This doesn't mean it is a cure all. It means that it shouldn't simply be disregarded either. I am of the belief that existing medications could certainly help with the fight against COVID, but I live in the reality that there are too many to fully understand their impact, and that the science could take many years or decades to comprehend and apply.

Right now, we have actual vaccines that produce an immune response which is truly helpful. Those are our best tools.
What is a shame, if not actually shameful, is that unlike some other vaccines which produce a long-term immune response, it seems that these vaccines leave us with a response that fades rather quickly. Instead of a cure which mostly eradicates the disease, we are left with an active, highly contagious disease in our communities that may forever change the landscape of how we live our lives.
 
Dan

Dan

Senior Audioholic
The reason no one thought to test Ivermectin is that it is used to kill more complex organisms (worms) by wrecking the neuromuscular communication. Viruses do not have such connections as they are only a single cell. It is impractical to test every known drug against every infection due to cost and the thousands of man years it would take to do it. Why not test the virus against battery acid? I am sure it would kill the virus. Now who wants to try ingesting that?
 
GO-NAD!

GO-NAD!

Audioholic Spartan
I believe that these types of statements are not at all helpful from the pro-vaccination community.

Ivermectin hasn't gone through proper testing against COVID-19 at this point. There have been conflicting reports of effectiveness, but certainly as a matter of potential, it should be properly tested. If refuted, properly, then that can be put out there.

It is of course the major problem with a capitalistic economy. Why test any product that will deliver almost nothing in profits? It's the headache of America. You can't have the government fund the testing, because that's not how it works. No company will fund unprofitable testing, because that's stupid. So, you end up without any serious testing and wind up with guesses and bad information, which is just a crap way of doing things.

Ivermectin won the inventors a Nobel prize. It's not some medication to be dumbed down as being used only on horses. It is FDA approved and WHO approved as a tool to fight parasitic infections.

This doesn't mean it is a cure all. It means that it shouldn't simply be disregarded either. I am of the belief that existing medications could certainly help with the fight against COVID, but I live in the reality that there are too many to fully understand their impact, and that the science could take many years or decades to comprehend and apply.

Right now, we have actual vaccines that produce an immune response which is truly helpful. Those are our best tools.
What is a shame, if not actually shameful, is that unlike some other vaccines which produce a long-term immune response, it seems that these vaccines leave us with a response that fades rather quickly. Instead of a cure which mostly eradicates the disease, we are left with an active, highly contagious disease in our communities that may forever change the landscape of how we live our lives.
I've wondered how people seized onto Ivermectin as a possible therapeutic drug to treat COVID infections in the first place. Apparently, poorer countries with inadequate supplies of vaccines were using it out of desperation.
How the right’s ivermectin conspiracy theories led to people buying horse dewormer (msn.com)

This trial of ivermectin was "stopped early for futility". The same thing happened with Hydroxychloroquine.
General 2 — TOGETHER Trial

I'm all for using whatever is available to help stomp out this pandemic, as long as it has some demonstrable effectiveness. But, as you said, our best tool right now, is vaccination. The sooner right-wing talking heads like Laura Ingraham start advising their viewers to get vaccinated instead of pumping air into the tires of an unproven remedy, the better.
 
BMXTRIX

BMXTRIX

Audioholic Warlord
...Why not test the virus against battery acid? ....who wants to try ingesting that?
Do NOT underestimate the stupid throughout this world. You may be proven incredibly incorrect.

On a more serious side, I am most completely NOT a virologist, scientist, etc. I like to think like one as best I can, but will admit my level of Google stupidity overall. I can accept any number of reasons why not to test all drugs, and it makes complete sense. But, just as often, happenstance leads one drug to another cure. Looking for solution A, but finding solution-B. I accept that as reality as well. The ability for our bodies to do weird things at unexpected times is nerve-wracking. I simply admit I don't understand it. I trust that scientists, for the most part, are looking out for the well being of as many people as possible, and that money still drives so many things as to make some solutions a bad profit making decision. It doesn't mean I believe that anyone should follow bad science. That's pretty stupid in my view. But, I do believe that an expired patent means it's not as likely to be studied. Fortunately, there are some who will try all sorts of solutions. I'm grateful for that, and will still be get my booster shot shortly. :D
 
ryanosaur

ryanosaur

Audioholic Warlord
IIRC, Brazil leaned heavily on Ivermectin and we can all see how that played out.
*shakes head disapprovingly
 
M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic General
I believe that these types of statements are not at all helpful from the pro-vaccination community.

Ivermectin hasn't gone through proper testing against COVID-19 at this point. There have been conflicting reports of effectiveness, but certainly as a matter of potential, it should be properly tested. If refuted, properly, then that can be put out there.

It is of course the major problem with a capitalistic economy. Why test any product that will deliver almost nothing in profits? It's the headache of America. You can't have the government fund the testing, because that's not how it works. No company will fund unprofitable testing, because that's stupid. So, you end up without any serious testing and wind up with guesses and bad information, which is just a crap way of doing things.

Ivermectin won the inventors a Nobel prize. It's not some medication to be dumbed down as being used only on horses. It is FDA approved and WHO approved as a tool to fight parasitic infections.

This doesn't mean it is a cure all. It means that it shouldn't simply be disregarded either. I am of the belief that existing medications could certainly help with the fight against COVID, but I live in the reality that there are too many to fully understand their impact, and that the science could take many years or decades to comprehend and apply.

Right now, we have actual vaccines that produce an immune response which is truly helpful. Those are our best tools.
What is a shame, if not actually shameful, is that unlike some other vaccines which produce a long-term immune response, it seems that these vaccines leave us with a response that fades rather quickly. Instead of a cure which mostly eradicates the disease, we are left with an active, highly contagious disease in our communities that may forever change the landscape of how we live our lives.
Having spent an unhealthy amount of time on the Herman Cain Award thread, I'm not convinced that there are any statements that are helpful when it comes to antivaxers. Having said that, there are a few that get vaccinated after seeing all the "awards" going to antivaxers. Raw fear seems to motivate a few.

One aspect of the antivax belief system that is a mystery to me is why many antivaxers seem to be okay with antibody transfusions.

I guess one explanation is that they believe no vaccine/infection/antibody transfusions will result in better immunity. Even if (big if) it does result in better immunity, the numbers don't lie. One's odds of a positive outcome are much better with vaccines.

>>>>GARLAND, Texas (AP) — Tea party firebrand Allen West, a candidate for the Republican nomination for governor of Texas, said Saturday that he has received monoclonal antibody injections (sic) after being diagnosed with COVID-19 pneumonia. . . . He also said his wife, Angela West, also tested positive and has received monoclonal antibodies. According to his Twitter account, Allen West did not get vaccinated against the virus, but his wife did. <<<


>>>“It is infinitely preferable to have natural immunity than vaccine immunity and that is what I have hoped for the entire time,” Prager told listeners from his home, where he is quarantining. “Hence... I have engaged with strangers, constantly hugging them, taking photos with them knowing that I was making myself very susceptible to getting COVID… [It is] what I wanted, in the hope I would achieve natural immunity and be taken care of by therapeutics. That is exactly what has happened.” . . . He has received a course of Regeneron’s monoclonal antibody treatment and told his audience that he has been following the “Zelenko Protocol,” an ineffectual combination of prescription drugs popular with the far right but not meant to treat COVID, and is now also taking ivermectin, an unapproved medication that is used in animals and humans to treat infections caused by parasitic worms and certain skin conditions, but again, not COVID.

 
M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic General
But, I do believe that an expired patent means it's not as likely to be studied.
It is (sometimes) possible to get a patent on a new use for an old compound. The doctor (below) may or may not get a patent, but the possibility is nevertheless a financial incentive:

>>>A Sydney gastroenterologist who has been enthusiastically promoting an unapproved Covid-19 treatment, including to Australian politicians and general practitioners, has filed a patent in the US for the same treatment, allowing him to commercialise and profit from it, if approved.<<<


There are numerous COVID trials involving Ivermectin. The link below is just an example; I'm too lazy to google and find all of the trials.

 
Dan

Dan

Senior Audioholic
Do NOT underestimate the stupid throughout this world. You may be proven incredibly incorrect.

On a more serious side, I am most completely NOT a virologist, scientist, etc. I like to think like one as best I can, but will admit my level of Google stupidity overall. I can accept any number of reasons why not to test all drugs, and it makes complete sense. But, just as often, happenstance leads one drug to another cure. Looking for solution A, but finding solution-B. I accept that as reality as well. The ability for our bodies to do weird things at unexpected times is nerve-wracking. I simply admit I don't understand it. I trust that scientists, for the most part, are looking out for the well being of as many people as possible, and that money still drives so many things as to make some solutions a bad profit making decision. It doesn't mean I believe that anyone should follow bad science. That's pretty stupid in my view. But, I do believe that an expired patent means it's not as likely to be studied. Fortunately, there are some who will try all sorts of solutions. I'm grateful for that, and will still be get my booster shot shortly. :D
Sadly, you are correct. Remember when Trump suggested using bleach and people drank it? And of course the chloroquine fiasco.

And yes surprises happen,. Viagra was being tested as a heart drug when the testing revealed an unexpected side effect ;). It still has use in treating pulmonary edema from altitude sickness, Rogaine was another cardiac drug that grew hair. But ivermectin only caught on (dare I say went viral) after incredibly safe and effective vaccines were on the market. The vaccines work (prior to infection) far better than any antiviral drug can possibly work after you've been infected.
 
Eppie

Eppie

Audioholic Field Marshall
I believe that these types of statements are not at all helpful from the pro-vaccination community.

Ivermectin hasn't gone through proper testing against COVID-19 at this point. There have been conflicting reports of effectiveness, but certainly as a matter of potential, it should be properly tested. If refuted, properly, then that can be put out there.

It is of course the major problem with a capitalistic economy. Why test any product that will deliver almost nothing in profits? It's the headache of America. You can't have the government fund the testing, because that's not how it works. No company will fund unprofitable testing, because that's stupid. So, you end up without any serious testing and wind up with guesses and bad information, which is just a crap way of doing things.

Ivermectin won the inventors a Nobel prize. It's not some medication to be dumbed down as being used only on horses. It is FDA approved and WHO approved as a tool to fight parasitic infections.

This doesn't mean it is a cure all. It means that it shouldn't simply be disregarded either. I am of the belief that existing medications could certainly help with the fight against COVID, but I live in the reality that there are too many to fully understand their impact, and that the science could take many years or decades to comprehend and apply.

Right now, we have actual vaccines that produce an immune response which is truly helpful. Those are our best tools.
What is a shame, if not actually shameful, is that unlike some other vaccines which produce a long-term immune response, it seems that these vaccines leave us with a response that fades rather quickly. Instead of a cure which mostly eradicates the disease, we are left with an active, highly contagious disease in our communities that may forever change the landscape of how we live our lives.
The BBC recently ran an article on how flawed the support for Ivermectin is. It's addressed in this video and the articles are linked in the description.
 
BMXTRIX

BMXTRIX

Audioholic Warlord
The BBC recently ran an article on how flawed the support for Ivermectin is. It's addressed in this video and the articles are linked in the description.
Has there been any serious analysis of this website?


Some people seem to want to have a horse in the race of demanding that Ivermectin is useless. Some seem to demand that it is effective. I am more interested in finding out if it actually does and if it really helps. I may be a bit at a loss, without digging into studies, as to understand how things compare to a placebo, or what their placebo baseline is for their measurements of improvement.

When MOST people actually do improve and recover from COVID, it's hard to know what impact a specific drug may have in making that happen when odds are good you would recover without any drug. I'm still just curious more than anything. If I were a government official who saw numbers like that website shows, I would be pushing very hard to get a very serious national test completed as soon as possible.
 
Eppie

Eppie

Audioholic Field Marshall
Has there been any serious analysis of this website?


Some people seem to want to have a horse in the race of demanding that Ivermectin is useless. Some seem to demand that it is effective. I am more interested in finding out if it actually does and if it really helps. I may be a bit at a loss, without digging into studies, as to understand how things compare to a placebo, or what their placebo baseline is for their measurements of improvement.

When MOST people actually do improve and recover from COVID, it's hard to know what impact a specific drug may have in making that happen when odds are good you would recover without any drug. I'm still just curious more than anything. If I were a government official who saw numbers like that website shows, I would be pushing very hard to get a very serious national test completed as soon as possible.
Not that I've come across but what I like about Dr Campbell is that he doesn't take these news reports at face value. He looks at their sources and tries to separate the facts from opinions, so the video title might be a little misleading. It's not an endorsement of the BBC article but more of an analysis. There doesn't seem to be any clear consensus in the medical community yet.
 
Last edited:
BMXTRIX

BMXTRIX

Audioholic Warlord
Not that I've come across but what I like about Dr Campbell is that he doesn't take these news reports at face value. He looks at their sources and tries to separate the facts from opinions, so the video title might be a little misleading. It's not an endorsement of the BBC article but more of an analysis. The doesn't seem to be any clear consensus in the medical community yet.
Well, he certainly did seem to indicate that the website I linked did seem to provide a more accurate overall picture of the analysis of Ivermectin which has been done up to this point. He also said that the data indicated that Ivermectin appeared to be of some benefit, according to the data.

This is the hard part. People who HATE being wrong are on both sides of the argument. They will go to their deathbeds swearing that Ivermectin is useless, even if studies show it to be effective. It isn't completely effective, which means that there will always be people who get sick and die, even with Ivermectin, and those cases will be used as proof.

Obviously, the same is true the other way if final analysis is that it isn't effective. People also get better and will take Ivermectin, and that's all the proof some people will need.

If the data indicates that Ivermectin is of some benefit, then it should certainly be considered as a tool.

Which does lead me back to the problem of a company no longer owning a patent, so who is going to pay for everything necessary to get FDA approval for use as a drug to fight COVID? I do believe studies are in place for use, but can and will these studies be presented to the FDA so it can be approved for such use?
 
Eppie

Eppie

Audioholic Field Marshall
This is just opinion, but part of the push against Ivermectin is that it is administered after someone is admitted to hospital while the vaccination push is to keep people out of hospitals. The anti-vaxer crowd have no clue what it's been like for front line health care workers and have gone as far as protesting in front of hospitals here. I know several people who work in health care and overcrowded wards and overworked staff is very real. The stress is so bad that staff are taking early retirement or just quitting and some hospitals ended up even more understaffed. That has led to elective surgeries being pushed back months, which affects other people's health and it just snowballs.

From a hospital administration view, you need to keep Covid patients from overwhelming your wards, and that's accomplished through vaccination. If you allow people to believe that it's ok to get Covid-19 because they can always treat it with Ivermectin, you may end up with outbreaks that overwhelm the system and impact other patients. For those admitted to hospital with Covid, you obviously want to have every tool available at your disposal, so I think the studies will continue, but FDA approval may come down to dollars. Pharma is profit driven so the push for FDA approval won't come until some accountant says that there is money to be made. If the patent expired then that may come down to a company that produces generics.
 
newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top