I have to disagree, broadly, on the IVM issue. I follow your comments quite a bit and in one you said 'well, there might be just 10% effect'. If that is the case, why oppose its use? What is Remdesivir's effect? Yet you don't harp about it daily.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8226630/ …
-
-
Replying to @EdmundKudzayi
I've talked about remdesivir a lot - the evidence is much better than for ivm but shows a very modest effect. The initial evidence was shoddy and awful, but we've done good trials since
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @EdmundKudzayi
As for ivm, I think my position is best summed up in this post. Unlike remdesivir, we don't have a demonstrated benefit as yet, although remdesivir's benefit is very unimpressivehttps://elemental.medium.com/ivermectin-for-covid-19-an-update-5e913bb49483 …
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @GidMK
You're a sophisticated operator and my view is you are pushing subtle propaganda as per the attached tweet. We both know FDA is trying to mislead the public with the horse dewormer line. The real issue is people can't get the super safe human pills; that's the story.pic.twitter.com/MRhNodyzfA
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @EdmundKudzayi
Please be explicit here - what do you mean by "operator"? Are you accusing me of being a foreign agent (I am not from the US nor have I ever lived there)?
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @GidMK
I do not know. What I know is you are intelligent and are aware that the human ivermectin formulation is safer than Aspirin and people are buying the animal formulation because they can't get the pills. You make no attempt to explain this nuance, not because you are ignorant.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @EdmundKudzayi
Hmmm, that's not really an answer. What do you mean by "sophisticated operator", precisely?
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @GidMK
Your communication suggests someone who is trying to use their voice to achieve an outcome, not necessarily to give a balanced account to their readers. You may be a pro-vaccine operator, insisting even children not at risk get it. I cannot pin you down, but I sense bias.
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @EdmundKudzayi @GidMK
For instance, I pointed out that you conceded 'there may be a 10% effect' from IVM but carried on ploughing through with negativity. Why? 10% is good news, at least it should be. It is almost as though you don't want it to work, at all.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @EdmundKudzayi
The issue is that there is not sufficient evidence to either include or exclude a 10% benefit. Similarly, there's not enough evidence to exclude a 10% harm. In such a situation, my perspective is that we should only use the drug within a trial to answer the question
3 replies 0 retweets 6 likes
For clarity, I would be overjoyed if ivermectin worked. I AM overjoyed at the pretty decent evidence recently for fluvoxamine, which is cheap, generic, and seems to now have better evidence than ivermectin for efficacy
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.