Ivermectin, for the interested

[J@son]

Im sorry , but this thread is about ivermectin, you can try and turn it into 'They are trying to make me take ivermectin !!' hence 'They are antivaxxers !' hence 'They wear foil hats and think the earth is flat' if you like, but no one has said that.

I think you misunderstood my point here. I don't think you are trying force anyone to take Ivermectin. And I have not claimed to know whether you are anti-vax or not. However, I do think you are deeply suspicious of mainstream consensus. And I think this is why you are engaged in this argument - why it appeals to you. Like me, you are clearly not an expert. So why are you investing in this? I think this is about something else for you. That is why I say it is not about Ivermectin.

If it's any consolation, I think much the same can be said for me and everyone else who is wasting Friday evening posting on this thread.

the countries who can afford the vaccine, and are actively mass jabbing, sometimes using coercion, dismiss ivermectin as a quack , dangerous treatment, 'for horses'
In countries where vaccines are less affordable/available , ivermectin is prescribed and actively promoted by the government, its usually already been used for other pre covid ailments, and err, is not just for horses !

Presumably the countries who can afford and have available supplies of vaccine also can afford and could obtain Ivermectin. So why are they not doing this? There are two possible explanations. You can believe that there is a global conspiracy to suppress an effective alternative treatment to the vaccines. Or you can believe that Ivermectin does not offer an effective treatment.

The first position seems ludicrous. And even if you are not reaching for a tin foil hat, you must have noticed that many of the people who agree with your position on this are already wearing theirs.

 

[J@son]

remind us - how did the ‘consensus’ thing go back in the thirties?

I think it went really well, didn't it? The mainstream consensus managed to defeat fascism in Germany and Italy; build a welfare state; dismantle an empire without a catastrophic loss of blood and treasure; successfully negotiate more than 60 years of sustained growth in living standards; successfully - and repeatedly - transfer political power without violence in democratic elections that broadly reflected the will of the people.... I could go on. How much reminding do you need?

 

[Freeforester]

 

[Freeforester]

I think it went really well, didn't it? The mainstream consensus managed to defeat fascism in Germany and Italy; build a welfare state; dismantle an empire without a catastrophic loss of blood and treasure; successfully negotiate more than 60 years of sustained growth in living standards; successfully - and repeatedly - transfer political power without violence in democratic elections that broadly reflected the will of the people.... I could go on. How much reminding do you need?

The ‘consensus’ referred to was the unquestioning rise of fascism in Europe, but I get that you get that, probably, just as you can surely see the dangers of being led unquestioning toward an unknown endpoint as regards the use of waning vaccines of already demonstrable limited efficacy against an evolving threat, possibly being driven by ineffective/not wholly effective vaccines. See #503.

 

[Freeforester]

An interesting commentary as regards the financial aspects surrounding the arrival of the ’new kid on the block’.
There’s gold in them thar hills…

 

[mealiejimmy]

Can I ask the principal supporters of Ivermection in this topic e.g Freeforester, Zambezi, Rewulf etc whether or not they have received any of the approved Covid vaccinations.
Please state the reasons for your answers
Also, are there any other medical situations where you have supported the use of an unapproved treatment rather than an approved treatment?

Cheers

Bruce

 

[Rewulf]

I think you misunderstood my point here. I don't think you are trying force anyone to take Ivermectin. And I have not claimed to know whether you are anti-vax or not. However, I do think you are deeply suspicious of mainstream consensus. And I think this is why you are engaged in this argument - why it appeals to you. Like me, you are clearly not an expert. So why are you investing in this? I think this is about something else for you. That is why I say it is not about Ivermectin.

Perhaps I did.
The crux of the debate is about whether invermectin 'works' or not, but the reasons why you will get different answers to the question differ from region to region, the differences between those regions seems to depend on whether or not they can afford vaccines.
In this country we have lumbering behemoth of state funded medicine via taxation, ergo vaccines=good , and ivermectin=a dangerous quack therapy 'that definitely does not work'
Do I know whether ivermectin works on covid or not... do you ? No.
But the crux again is whether you believe what you are told by the powers that be, who are pushing really hard to sell you a vaccine program that could last (theoretically) for decades.
Do you have any idea what kind of money is involved there ?

Presumably the countries who can afford and have available supplies of vaccine also can afford and could obtain Ivermectin. So why are they not doing this? There are two possible explanations. You can believe that there is a global conspiracy to suppress an effective alternative treatment to the vaccines. Or you can believe that Ivermectin does not offer an effective treatment.

The first position seems ludicrous. And even if you are not reaching for a tin foil hat, you must have noticed that many of the people who agree with your position on this are already wearing theirs.

As above , vaccines=a strong revenue stream for years to come, vs ivermectin , an out of licence treatment that costs pennies per dose.*
When money is at stake , whos lobby carries the most power ?

Thats not tin foil hat territory, its simple basic facts.

The trouble is, when you cast doubt on official consensus these days, with good reason, the first thing that those who support consensus do is point the conspiracy finger, and declare the view invalid, due to mental health issues.
This is a dangerous mindset, and means that discussion outside of the box cannot be done without ridicule, or dismissal.

Can I ask the principal supporters of Ivermection in this topic e.g Freeforester, Zambezi, Rewulf etc whether or not they have received any of the approved Covid vaccinations.
Please state the reasons for your answers
Also, are there any other medical situations where you have supported the use of an unapproved treatment rather than an approved treatment?

First of all , I am not a supporter of ivermectin, as I have repeatedly said, what I find troubling is that a sensible discussion about it, cannot be had without ridicule and calls for the thread to be censored, due to 'dangerous talk' that 'may cost lives'
Do you know anyone who uses ivermectin to treat covid Bruce ?
Ive managed to find 1 person who used it last year because he thought he had covid (he didnt) thats among a pretty big circle of friends , associates and customers.
So exactly how wide is this 'danger' spread out ?
I suspect in this country , barely anything at all, so why do we have doctors begging mods for the thread to be shut down ?

I have been double jabbed, but also had covid last year.
In hindsight I wish I hadnt bothered, I was ill for 3 days, my partner for a week, a good friend whose entire family 65,66,38, 35, 32 all double jabbed , all caught covid 2 months after vaxxed , all except 32, very ill, with one needing hospital treatment.
Nearly every person I know who was jabbed with AZ reported at least a few days of being ill , some much longer, a few with long covid style symptoms.
Myself , I havent felt right since the first jab , aches and pains Id never had before, mentioned this to nurse on second jab, told 'thats perfectly normal' Why ?

Again , would I take ivermectin, no.
Would I have a flu jab or another booster covid jab , no.

*I find the idea of a vaccine dependant populace, disturbing , and you should too.

 

[Buchan]

Out of courtesy, I started to watch one of the videos with Dr McCullough.
It started OK with a concern that no treatment was being given peole with covid BEFORE they were hospitalised, which is a reasonable premis, but given asymptomatic or subclinical infection is the norm, that's also little pointless. It's worth commenting that
there is no at home treatment for influenza for instance.
He seems to be advocating that it's better to treat an infection than prevent it, which is plainly wrong.
He advocates colchicine, which is an odd choice, being mainly a treatement for gout
From one of his papers, the abstract states that:
"No single therapeutic option thus far has been entirely effective and therefore a combination is required at this time." Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine, 2020, 21(4): 517-530 DOI: 10.31083/j.rcm.2020.04.264 Now in fairness, the paper does advocate multiple drug treatments. The probelm with this is that with multiple treatment it is hard to determine which has worked and which hasn't, and also that the recovery was not just due to chance (ie normal immune response).
So although he says he's the most published person, I'd suggest his reasoning is flawed. It's notable that his citation index (a measure of who quotes his research) has dropped dramatically in the last year.

 

[Rewulf]

there is no at home treatment for influenza for instance.

There are treatments for symptoms of viral infection, paracetomol ect, but besides antivirals like tamiflu, generally there is no at home (or hospital for that matter) cure for any virus.

He seems to be advocating that it's better to treat an infection than prevent it, which is plainly wrong.

Generally you would be right, but the vaccines available dont really prevent infection or transmission, and as Ive put in my last post , fully vaxxed people have become seriously ill, these cases are not isolated.
Ive heard at least 10 % of hospital admissions for covid are fully vaxxed ?

Again, Im not anti vax, it just seems strange to me that we have become solely reliant on a treatment that (I believe) isnt as effective as we have been lead to believe.
A treatment that , as well as not properly tested, has no longevity , and makes us reliant on constant top ups ......

 

[John Galt]

Can I ask the principal supporters of Ivermection in this topic e.g Freeforester, Zambezi, Rewulf etc whether or not they have received any of the approved Covid vaccinations.
Please state the reasons for your answers
Also, are there any other medical situations where you have supported the use of an unapproved treatment rather than an approved treatment?

Cheers

Bruce

No I have not had any of the covid injections and will not.... EVER.

They are EUA which is Emergency Use Application, ie untested and the producers have no liability for deaths or injuries. It takes ten years to get a drug to market not ten days.

They are clearly not vaccinations as you can still catch the CV flu and pass it on, which is obviously not the case with polio or smallpox. Therefore they are NOT vaccinations, they are a cocktail of heaven only knows what and NOBODY knows the long term affects of taking them as they have no testing history.

Furthermore anyone who can do fairly simple maths can easily work out their chances of dying with Cv19.

Age Infection Survival Rate

0-19 99.9973%
20-29 99.986%
30-39 99.969%
40-49 99.918%
50-59 99.73%
60-69 99.41%
70+ 97.6% (non-inst.)
70+ 94.5% (all)

In my opinion anyone under 70 who wants to get jabbed with an EUA drug and the never ending rounds of boosters to follow, deserves the rewards they risk reaping. I will rely on my immune system thanks.

Also....

IF YOU HAVE TO BE PERSUADED, REMINDED, PRESSURED, LIED TO, INCENTIVISED, COERCED, BULLIED, SOCIALLY SHAMED, GUILT TRIPPED, THREATENED, PAID, PUNISHED AND CRIMINALIZED, IF ALL OF THIS IS NECESSARY FOR YOUR COMPLIANCE, YOU CAN BE ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN THAT WHAT IS BEING PROMOTED IN NOT IN YOUR BEST INTEREST!

 

[Freeforester]

Hi Bruce, thanks for this, I’m the one who earlier in this very thread ‘fessed up‘ to being the ‘doped nag‘ in the race, it’s for me a matter of personal preference and safety, I know three people who have had very poor personal outcomes at the vaccine end of the business, and have learned of others through private conversations with health professionals who are now effectively unfit for much of anything, owing to the effects of the vaccines though I accept that until now this has been statistically a relatively minor occurrence (albeit with life-changing outcomes to these unfortunate ones). I’ve not therefore offered myself up for the experiment thus far. I’m also (speaking as a non-parent!) very much against the idea of inoculating the young (tomorrow’s would-be parents) as indeed the Scandinavians now are, especially given the evidence of a) acknowledged increased levels of myo- and pericarditis among vaccinated young boys, and b) the tendency of the vaccine constituent parts to be found to aggregate in the ovaries of females, or according to Pfizer’s own findings per the FOI response about this aspect, which I (personally, and again, speaking as a non-parent) feel are not sufficiently publicised, much less adequately considered by many parents who would otherwise offer up their children for the vaccine.

Given these genuinely held misgivings, I see the weight of evidence in favour of ivermectin (especially in context of its unbeatable safety record, I won’t delve into the stats for adverse effects of the vaccines thus far, bearing in mind there’s forty years of records for Ivermectin’s safety record), principally due to its elegant, simple and effective means of prevention of reproduction of the virus within the users’ cells, thus preventing further spread of the virus - the key to the dramatic fall in rates of delta variant in Delhi recorded back in May (ie well before the vaccine programme there got properly going) - along with its accessibility to poor people and countries around the world not in a position to afford the unjustifiably high cost of vaccines which are increasingly found to be wanting in terms of both efficacy (against breakthrough variants, the evolution of which, to my mind can only be further driven by further deployment of such only partially effective therapeutics, much in the same way as all manner of resistant strains of both pathogens and other problems are increasingly found where partially ineffective ‘solutions’ are used) and longevity of protection ie the lack thereof (see Iceland, Israel, and increasingly in the UK and elsewhere), and you will perhaps accept if not wholly understand my preference for the simple, safe and proven choice (among those countries where it is used, if not universally among my fellow SD ‘interested’ parties).

I tend to see the emergence of the new contender Molnupiravir as one which rather poses something of a difficulty to those who prefer to talk down to proponents of, and of ivermectin - the mode of function may be different, however the functional, practical effects are almost entirely as is the case with ivermectin (according to those who advocate the use of the latter) - do these people rally behind the new (expensive) drug which is not quite so effective as the ‘alternative’ (cheap) one doing the same job, but better, and much more safely? And while we are considering it, why is it that a new drug can come in and get ‘onstream‘ (as is now widely anticipated) with the most cursory Initial signs of efficacy, yet one which has a far greater observed level of efficacy around the planet is required to show still more trial results? I’m afraid I’m a little tired of the trope ‘because it doesn’t work’ by those who detract it without actually addressing the many successes, much less their ignoring the varied modes of function of ivermectin, including its anti coagulatory properties, which are surely beyond any reasonable doubt of anyone with a modicum of interest, much less even a mere (dis-)’interested’ lay person. Surely by now the evidence of the FLCCC being little more than a bunch of quacks would have been gathered and their claims scotched by these more ‘learned’ types? Is Professor Carvallo a liar, or did he treat the 788 in the frontline in Buenos Aires’s 3 hospitals successfully? Too successfully, ie the notion that all 788 of those he gave ivermectin & carrageenan and set them to work among the infected and that all 788 did not succumb is to his detractors somehow just too fantastical, though now, with molnupiravir, a similarly 100% per successful outcome is conversely somehow quite believable? Come come!

Jason is quite more or less correct in his reckoning that nothing would shift my ‘belief’ in the effectiveness of ivermectin, where used as recommended by its proponents (quite a different thing from the dosage and methods used in the laughably named ‘PRINCIPLE’ trial, but I digress), and though several attempts have been made to either discredit or somehow persuade either myself or others away from it’s safety and simple efficacy, they have until now and will continue to fail. One practical reason is simply the lack of evidence offered to the contrary, as by now I’m as inured to the notion that it does not work as he is clearly minded to attempt to persuade otherwise: my partner’s nephew caught the virus at work, and spent the better part of the following week at home; his parents (fellow ‘believers’ and users of ivermectin) shared the family home with the him during his ’isolation’, and ‘believing’ themselves to be protected, somehow managed not to catch this, latest, most infectious delta variant. Of no statistical bearing whatever, I’m quite sure, and yet, somehow persuasive to such ’feeble minded’ folk…

As the wizened Jedi put it: ‘the power in this one, strong it is’ - Froude, I feel put it a little more prosaically ’For all of us, may be sitting in judgement on matters which we may know but of little’. Without the benefit of the crystal ball, we must decide for ourselves, or entrust ourselves to the ’better judgement’ of others; but whom, and why? The precautionary principle rules out the ’vaccine’ for me personally, the evidence I’ve considered in respect of ivermectin (not least in preventing reproduction of the virus, something we can all do, with NO downside) far outweighs the known and learnt disadvantages and shortcomings of the alternatives, again, for me. But - by all means, believe what you will, protect yourself and your loved ones as you see it best, hang on in there, and good luck to one and all, without prejudice.

—————————

btw, I’d respectfully point you toward the table on pp 18-19 in the Public Health document below, which indicates a fivefold rate of death among those hospitalised due to Covid despite being fully vaccinated, as compared to someone who has not been vaccinated, though the unvaccinated and hospitalised outnumber the vaccinated by three to one; numbers are statistically small, thankfully, though the last time I checked, recovery was still generally felt to be preferable to the alternative, others may disagree. Period covered was 01Feb to 02 Aug 2021:

https://assets.publishing.service.g...t_data/file/1009243/Technical_Briefing_20.pdf

 

[Freeforester]

See parts 3,4,5 for updates on aspects of Molnupiravir, and the suspension of the Moderna vaccine in Finland, Sweden and Denmark, leaving only the self confessed ’waning’ Pfizer alternative available to them. See also the ‘vaccine paradox‘ as outlined in Richard Harvey’s comment to Terry Megaton ‘s query re why some get so sick after the jab - something else not much conveyed by those promoting same, I wyte.

 

[zambezi]

Jason is quite more or less correct in his reckoning that nothing would shift my ‘belief’ in the effectiveness of ivermectin, where used as recommended by its proponents... it’s safety and simple efficacy

Me too. Simply because many experts state that the data for its use is compelling.

Regardless of whether or not you side with the experts that advocate Ivermectin for covid prophylaxis and treatment, what is 100% true is that it is safe. [Rushed to market drugs that contain NHC?...not so sure. We simply do not have 4 decades of human use of that]

The strongest scientific wording against the use of Ivermectin for suppression of SARS-CoV-2 replication is "the available data is not conclusive" [Cochrane, et al]

If the huge cohort of data out of India is not convincing enough, then I do not think a smaller "controlled" mass trial would pass muster for those so minded either.

And just to be clear why we need treatments other than covid vaccines, the latest govt data re-affirms the Oxford University position that vaccinated folk can be as infectious as unvaccinated:

 

[Freeforester]

Comedy gold, lol!

 

[User00033]

A little while ago I talked face-to-face with an anti-vaxxer. I emphasise the face-to-face part because I suspect the majority of most peoples’ conversations across the divide in vaccination philosophy are conducted online.

About two minutes into the conversation with this person I decided to no longer speak my mind, and just listen. That’s quite rare for me to do that. Over the subsequent 30 minutes or so I was harangued on a range of pseudoscience theories derived exclusively from YouTube, with frequent reference to Ivermectin.

When the lecture ground to a sudden halt as she ran out of steam, I took the opportunity to ask a simple question.

Would you mind showing me your YouTube feed? I’m quite interested in some of these videos.
Yeah, of course, you’ll see the truth is all there, you’ve just got to know where to look!

A few swipes and taps and the phone was passed to me. It was quite uncomfortable because I didn’t really expect her to agree... No matter how much we espouse a particular point of view, if we are confronted with a request to inspect our search or watch history it suddenly feels like an invasion of privacy. But for this anti-vax warrior it was almost a badge of honour… I’ve done my research… have you?

I scrolled through her YT homepage and was duly unsurprised by what I saw. Every single Covid related video was published by fringe activists, radical bloggers and various groups several of which I recognised as originating from the American extreme conservative / religious right-wing. I sneakily flicked over to her watch history and saw the same pattern. Not a single watch from a mainstream university or science / research / medical organisation. Nothing. Nada. There was a smattering of female interest beauty bloggers and cutesy videos of rescue dogs and cats but not much else… The overwhelming watch history going back days and days was anti-vax and associated side shows such as Ivermectin.

As I was absorbing all of this I realise she was talking at me again… I can show you the Facebook links too… You should join our group. I’ll share them with you, you really really need to go and read this stuff Dave.

As I drove home I was overcome with a surge of frustration. I know this woman through a tree seedling nursery that I have bought product from for the last 16 years or so. I would guesstimate I’ve known her on a face-to-face chat basis for probably 10 years and we have shared a few pints in the pub as part of a broader group of riparian regeneration enthusiasts who organise working bees on dairy farms to improve water quality. If you had asked me to characterise this woman say five years ago I would never have put her in the category that I do now. Back then I would have described her as a good honest hard-working rural woman who knows her trees.

Today she is one of a handful of crazies who have emerged from the woodwork in our community, self-appointed as a leader and administrator of a local Facebook anti-vax group hellbent on arguing against all rational logic and common sense. They rail against the knowledge and experience of the medical professionals that guide us through our lives and this current pandemic, particularly one of our two local GP practices. Because she and her friends know better.

As far as I know she didn’t complete high school, leaving at 16, and has a very elementary trade qualification in aboriculture.

What my wife and I have noticed about her Facebook group is that despite it having just shy of 100 members there are only 5 or 6 regular posters. Several people in our community have tried to post to counter arguments to the group’s views, but their comments aren’t making it past the administrator and aren’t published. So what the group’s members see is nothing more than an echo chamber of self-indulgent misinformation and outright lies.

There are four main groups of anti-vaxxer:

1. Ideological opposition - philosophical - either extreme religious or extreme “nature / organic” beliefs. You could say the former sits on the right, the latter on the left.
2. Big Brother conspiracy theorists - belief that Big Pharma and the medical industrial complex are out get you, control you, take over the world.
3. Freedom of choice fighters - those who cannot tolerate being told what to do, and will resist instruction no matter what (particularly if the government of the day is left of centre). This kind of behaviour is hardened by concepts such as vaccine passports and “no jab no fly”.
4. The uncertain and fearful - a common element to this group is an inability to understand the risk to benefit ratio of vaccination versus catching the disease. Many of the arguments we see posted online are fundamentally rooted in the poster’s failure to correctly interpret “statistics”, particularly those who are sharing posts from dubious sources where “statistics” are being manipulated to appeal to those who are probably not very intelligent. This group are highly prone to disappearing down internet rabbit holes to try and find answers that assuage’s their fear.

None of these groups are mutually exclusive of course. We’ve probably all come across a couple of individuals who are fearful conspiracy theorists that hate being told what to do by government yet live within the constraints of a strict religious order! It’s quite fun to play the game of placing individuals we encounter into the various groups.

So take a look at your YouTube history. Note just how powerful the algorithm is, how it drives your conformation bias. Ask yourself if you are truly seeing the big picture. Ask yourself how far down the rabbit hole am I? Am I feeding myself (mis)information that confirms my viewpoint and makes me feel better in the moment, to the detriment of my long-term prospects? Am I kidding myself to the point that I am heading into a lifelong cul-de-sac of social exclusion and relationship troubles? Would my life actually be a lot better if I took a lengthy break from the Internet?

The Ivermectin debate is just one of several in this complex social problem we have created for ourselves. I’ve come to the conclusion that there’s nothing I can do to sway the typical anti-vaxxer. They are a highly vocal but very small minority, and they are best left to the principles of Darwin which will take care of this problem in the coming decades and centuries. Each to their own, only our descendants beyond our lifespans will see whose genes get to win the long game.

 

[mchughcb]

A little while ago I talked face-to-face with an anti-vaxxer. I emphasise the face-to-face part because I suspect the majority of most peoples’ conversations across the divide in vaccination philosophy are conducted online.


The Ivermectin debate is just one of several in this complex social problem we have created for ourselves. I’ve come to the conclusion that there’s nothing I can do to sway the typical anti-vaxxer. They are a highly vocal but very small minority, and they are best left to the principles of Darwin which will take care of this problem in the coming decades and centuries. Each to their own, only our descendants beyond our lifespans will see whose genes get to win the long game.

The last thing the world needs is to take advice from NZ Government, the flogs that promoted the elimination strategy that has bankrupted Australia following a country that told the world how great they were in lockdowns.

Melbourne is still in lockdown with a covid elimination strategy with almost 2000 cases a day.

 

[shakey jake]

A little while ago I talked face-to-face with an anti-vaxxer. I emphasise the face-to-face part because I suspect the majority of most peoples’ conversations across the divide in vaccination philosophy are conducted online.

About two minutes into the conversation with this person I decided to no longer speak my mind, and just listen. That’s quite rare for me to do that. Over the subsequent 30 minutes or so I was harangued on a range of pseudoscience theories derived exclusively from YouTube, with frequent reference to Ivermectin.

When the lecture ground to a sudden halt as she ran out of steam, I took the opportunity to ask a simple question.

Would you mind showing me your YouTube feed? I’m quite interested in some of these videos.
Yeah, of course, you’ll see the truth is all there, you’ve just got to know where to look!

A few swipes and taps and the phone was passed to me. It was quite uncomfortable because I didn’t really expect her to agree... No matter how much we espouse a particular point of view, if we are confronted with a request to inspect our search or watch history it suddenly feels like an invasion of privacy. But for this anti-vax warrior it was almost a badge of honour… I’ve done my research… have you?

I scrolled through her YT homepage and was duly unsurprised by what I saw. Every single Covid related video was published by fringe activists, radical bloggers and various groups several of which I recognised as originating from the American extreme conservative / religious right-wing. I sneakily flicked over to her watch history and saw the same pattern. Not a single watch from a mainstream university or science / research / medical organisation. Nothing. Nada. There was a smattering of female interest beauty bloggers and cutesy videos of rescue dogs and cats but not much else… The overwhelming watch history going back days and days was anti-vax and associated side shows such as Ivermectin.

As I was absorbing all of this I realise she was talking at me again… I can show you the Facebook links too… You should join our group. I’ll share them with you, you really really need to go and read this stuff Dave.

As I drove home I was overcome with a surge of frustration. I know this woman through a tree seedling nursery that I have bought product from for the last 16 years or so. I would guesstimate I’ve known her on a face-to-face chat basis for probably 10 years and we have shared a few pints in the pub as part of a broader group of riparian regeneration enthusiasts who organise working bees on dairy farms to improve water quality. If you had asked me to characterise this woman say five years ago I would never have put her in the category that I do now. Back then I would have described her as a good honest hard-working rural woman who knows her trees.

Today she is one of a handful of crazies who have emerged from the woodwork in our community, self-appointed as a leader and administrator of a local Facebook anti-vax group hellbent on arguing against all rational logic and common sense. They rail against the knowledge and experience of the medical professionals that guide us through our lives and this current pandemic, particularly one of our two local GP practices. Because she and her friends know better.

As far as I know she didn’t complete high school, leaving at 16, and has a very elementary trade qualification in aboriculture.

What my wife and I have noticed about her Facebook group is that despite it having just shy of 100 members there are only 5 or 6 regular posters. Several people in our community have tried to post to counter arguments to the group’s views, but their comments aren’t making it past the administrator and aren’t published. So what the group’s members see is nothing more than an echo chamber of self-indulgent misinformation and outright lies.

There are four main groups of anti-vaxxer:

1. Ideological opposition - philosophical - either extreme religious or extreme “nature / organic” beliefs. You could say the former sits on the right, the latter on the left.
2. Big Brother conspiracy theorists - belief that Big Pharma and the medical industrial complex are out get you, control you, take over the world.
3. Freedom of choice fighters - those who cannot tolerate being told what to do, and will resist instruction no matter what (particularly if the government of the day is left of centre). This kind of behaviour is hardened by concepts such as vaccine passports and “no jab no fly”.
4. The uncertain and fearful - a common element to this group is an inability to understand the risk to benefit ratio of vaccination versus catching the disease. Many of the arguments we see posted online are fundamentally rooted in the poster’s failure to correctly interpret “statistics”, particularly those who are sharing posts from dubious sources where “statistics” are being manipulated to appeal to those who are probably not very intelligent. This group are highly prone to disappearing down internet rabbit holes to try and find answers that assuage’s their fear.

None of these groups are mutually exclusive of course. We’ve probably all come across a couple of individuals who are fearful conspiracy theorists that hate being told what to do by government yet live within the constraints of a strict religious order! It’s quite fun to play the game of placing individuals we encounter into the various groups.

So take a look at your YouTube history. Note just how powerful the algorithm is, how it drives your conformation bias. Ask yourself if you are truly seeing the big picture. Ask yourself how far down the rabbit hole am I? Am I feeding myself (mis)information that confirms my viewpoint and makes me feel better in the moment, to the detriment of my long-term prospects? Am I kidding myself to the point that I am heading into a lifelong cul-de-sac of social exclusion and relationship troubles? Would my life actually be a lot better if I took a lengthy break from the Internet?

The Ivermectin debate is just one of several in this complex social problem we have created for ourselves. I’ve come to the conclusion that there’s nothing I can do to sway the typical anti-vaxxer. They are a highly vocal but very small minority, and they are best left to the principles of Darwin which will take care of this problem in the coming decades and centuries. Each to their own, only our descendants beyond our lifespans will see whose genes get to win the long game.

i upset my brother inlaw a couple of weeks ago,he buys in to all conspiricy theories and has loads of face book proof, after hearing how toxic tap water is i bit and tried to explain the video. big mistake you cant teach stupid

 

[Freeforester]

A little while ago I talked face-to-face with an anti-vaxxer. I emphasise the face-to-face part because I suspect the majority of most peoples’ conversations across the divide in vaccination philosophy are conducted online.

About two minutes into the conversation with this person I decided to no longer speak my mind, and just listen. That’s quite rare for me to do that. Over the subsequent 30 minutes or so I was harangued on a range of pseudoscience theories derived exclusively from YouTube, with frequent reference to Ivermectin.

When the lecture ground to a sudden halt as she ran out of steam, I took the opportunity to ask a simple question.

Would you mind showing me your YouTube feed? I’m quite interested in some of these videos.
Yeah, of course, you’ll see the truth is all there, you’ve just got to know where to look!

A few swipes and taps and the phone was passed to me. It was quite uncomfortable because I didn’t really expect her to agree... No matter how much we espouse a particular point of view, if we are confronted with a request to inspect our search or watch history it suddenly feels like an invasion of privacy. But for this anti-vax warrior it was almost a badge of honour… I’ve done my research… have you?

I scrolled through her YT homepage and was duly unsurprised by what I saw. Every single Covid related video was published by fringe activists, radical bloggers and various groups several of which I recognised as originating from the American extreme conservative / religious right-wing. I sneakily flicked over to her watch history and saw the same pattern. Not a single watch from a mainstream university or science / research / medical organisation. Nothing. Nada. There was a smattering of female interest beauty bloggers and cutesy videos of rescue dogs and cats but not much else… The overwhelming watch history going back days and days was anti-vax and associated side shows such as Ivermectin.

As I was absorbing all of this I realise she was talking at me again… I can show you the Facebook links too… You should join our group. I’ll share them with you, you really really need to go and read this stuff Dave.

As I drove home I was overcome with a surge of frustration. I know this woman through a tree seedling nursery that I have bought product from for the last 16 years or so. I would guesstimate I’ve known her on a face-to-face chat basis for probably 10 years and we have shared a few pints in the pub as part of a broader group of riparian regeneration enthusiasts who organise working bees on dairy farms to improve water quality. If you had asked me to characterise this woman say five years ago I would never have put her in the category that I do now. Back then I would have described her as a good honest hard-working rural woman who knows her trees.

Today she is one of a handful of crazies who have emerged from the woodwork in our community, self-appointed as a leader and administrator of a local Facebook anti-vax group hellbent on arguing against all rational logic and common sense. They rail against the knowledge and experience of the medical professionals that guide us through our lives and this current pandemic, particularly one of our two local GP practices. Because she and her friends know better.

As far as I know she didn’t complete high school, leaving at 16, and has a very elementary trade qualification in aboriculture.

What my wife and I have noticed about her Facebook group is that despite it having just shy of 100 members there are only 5 or 6 regular posters. Several people in our community have tried to post to counter arguments to the group’s views, but their comments aren’t making it past the administrator and aren’t published. So what the group’s members see is nothing more than an echo chamber of self-indulgent misinformation and outright lies.

There are four main groups of anti-vaxxer:

1. Ideological opposition - philosophical - either extreme religious or extreme “nature / organic” beliefs. You could say the former sits on the right, the latter on the left.
2. Big Brother conspiracy theorists - belief that Big Pharma and the medical industrial complex are out get you, control you, take over the world.
3. Freedom of choice fighters - those who cannot tolerate being told what to do, and will resist instruction no matter what (particularly if the government of the day is left of centre). This kind of behaviour is hardened by concepts such as vaccine passports and “no jab no fly”.
4. The uncertain and fearful - a common element to this group is an inability to understand the risk to benefit ratio of vaccination versus catching the disease. Many of the arguments we see posted online are fundamentally rooted in the poster’s failure to correctly interpret “statistics”, particularly those who are sharing posts from dubious sources where “statistics” are being manipulated to appeal to those who are probably not very intelligent. This group are highly prone to disappearing down internet rabbit holes to try and find answers that assuage’s their fear.

None of these groups are mutually exclusive of course. We’ve probably all come across a couple of individuals who are fearful conspiracy theorists that hate being told what to do by government yet live within the constraints of a strict religious order! It’s quite fun to play the game of placing individuals we encounter into the various groups.

So take a look at your YouTube history. Note just how powerful the algorithm is, how it drives your conformation bias. Ask yourself if you are truly seeing the big picture. Ask yourself how far down the rabbit hole am I? Am I feeding myself (mis)information that confirms my viewpoint and makes me feel better in the moment, to the detriment of my long-term prospects? Am I kidding myself to the point that I am heading into a lifelong cul-de-sac of social exclusion and relationship troubles? Would my life actually be a lot better if I took a lengthy break from the Internet?

The Ivermectin debate is just one of several in this complex social problem we have created for ourselves. I’ve come to the conclusion that there’s nothing I can do to sway the typical anti-vaxxer. They are a highly vocal but very small minority, and they are best left to the principles of Darwin which will take care of this problem in the coming decades and centuries. Each to their own, only our descendants beyond our lifespans will see whose genes get to win the long game.

Love the (potential) Freudian slip, DK, but you’re right, conformation bias is sure on the increase too. Otoh of course it’s good to keep an open mind about things, eh? I don’t know how a tv works, but I do recognise propaganda when I hear it, though I’m personally more interested in how ivermectin works within the body to prevent reproduction of this virus, that’s now abroad in NZ too, I understand.

For sure, apart from those whose health has been impacted by the virus and/or the vaccine it’s all a bit academic and merely an exercise in seeing whether or not the public at large are awake to all the nonsense, half truths etc, and from where it emanates. Heads, or tails?

 

[zambezi]

A little while ago I talked face-to-face with an anti-vaxxer. I emphasise the face-to-face part because I suspect the majority of most peoples’ conversations across the divide in vaccination philosophy are conducted online.

About two minutes into the conversation with this person I decided to no longer speak my mind, and just listen. That’s quite rare for me to do that. Over the subsequent 30 minutes or so I was harangued on a range of pseudoscience theories derived exclusively from YouTube, with frequent reference to Ivermectin.

When the lecture ground to a sudden halt as she ran out of steam, I took the opportunity to ask a simple question.

Would you mind showing me your YouTube feed? I’m quite interested in some of these videos.
Yeah, of course, you’ll see the truth is all there, you’ve just got to know where to look!

A few swipes and taps and the phone was passed to me. It was quite uncomfortable because I didn’t really expect her to agree... No matter how much we espouse a particular point of view, if we are confronted with a request to inspect our search or watch history it suddenly feels like an invasion of privacy. But for this anti-vax warrior it was almost a badge of honour… I’ve done my research… have you?

I scrolled through her YT homepage and was duly unsurprised by what I saw. Every single Covid related video was published by fringe activists, radical bloggers and various groups several of which I recognised as originating from the American extreme conservative / religious right-wing. I sneakily flicked over to her watch history and saw the same pattern. Not a single watch from a mainstream university or science / research / medical organisation. Nothing. Nada. There was a smattering of female interest beauty bloggers and cutesy videos of rescue dogs and cats but not much else… The overwhelming watch history going back days and days was anti-vax and associated side shows such as Ivermectin.

As I was absorbing all of this I realise she was talking at me again… I can show you the Facebook links too… You should join our group. I’ll share them with you, you really really need to go and read this stuff Dave.

As I drove home I was overcome with a surge of frustration. I know this woman through a tree seedling nursery that I have bought product from for the last 16 years or so. I would guesstimate I’ve known her on a face-to-face chat basis for probably 10 years and we have shared a few pints in the pub as part of a broader group of riparian regeneration enthusiasts who organise working bees on dairy farms to improve water quality. If you had asked me to characterise this woman say five years ago I would never have put her in the category that I do now. Back then I would have described her as a good honest hard-working rural woman who knows her trees.

Today she is one of a handful of crazies who have emerged from the woodwork in our community, self-appointed as a leader and administrator of a local Facebook anti-vax group hellbent on arguing against all rational logic and common sense. They rail against the knowledge and experience of the medical professionals that guide us through our lives and this current pandemic, particularly one of our two local GP practices. Because she and her friends know better.

As far as I know she didn’t complete high school, leaving at 16, and has a very elementary trade qualification in aboriculture.

What my wife and I have noticed about her Facebook group is that despite it having just shy of 100 members there are only 5 or 6 regular posters. Several people in our community have tried to post to counter arguments to the group’s views, but their comments aren’t making it past the administrator and aren’t published. So what the group’s members see is nothing more than an echo chamber of self-indulgent misinformation and outright lies.

There are four main groups of anti-vaxxer:

1. Ideological opposition - philosophical - either extreme religious or extreme “nature / organic” beliefs. You could say the former sits on the right, the latter on the left.
2. Big Brother conspiracy theorists - belief that Big Pharma and the medical industrial complex are out get you, control you, take over the world.
3. Freedom of choice fighters - those who cannot tolerate being told what to do, and will resist instruction no matter what (particularly if the government of the day is left of centre). This kind of behaviour is hardened by concepts such as vaccine passports and “no jab no fly”.
4. The uncertain and fearful - a common element to this group is an inability to understand the risk to benefit ratio of vaccination versus catching the disease. Many of the arguments we see posted online are fundamentally rooted in the poster’s failure to correctly interpret “statistics”, particularly those who are sharing posts from dubious sources where “statistics” are being manipulated to appeal to those who are probably not very intelligent. This group are highly prone to disappearing down internet rabbit holes to try and find answers that assuage’s their fear.

None of these groups are mutually exclusive of course. We’ve probably all come across a couple of individuals who are fearful conspiracy theorists that hate being told what to do by government yet live within the constraints of a strict religious order! It’s quite fun to play the game of placing individuals we encounter into the various groups.

So take a look at your YouTube history. Note just how powerful the algorithm is, how it drives your conformation bias. Ask yourself if you are truly seeing the big picture. Ask yourself how far down the rabbit hole am I? Am I feeding myself (mis)information that confirms my viewpoint and makes me feel better in the moment, to the detriment of my long-term prospects? Am I kidding myself to the point that I am heading into a lifelong cul-de-sac of social exclusion and relationship troubles? Would my life actually be a lot better if I took a lengthy break from the Internet?

The Ivermectin debate is just one of several in this complex social problem we have created for ourselves. I’ve come to the conclusion that there’s nothing I can do to sway the typical anti-vaxxer. They are a highly vocal but very small minority, and they are best left to the principles of Darwin which will take care of this problem in the coming decades and centuries. Each to their own, only our descendants beyond our lifespans will see whose genes get to win the long game.

Long post. Lots of detail. We do not get to hear the other party's version of the conversation, but assuming this to be an accurate record, she does seem to lack the critical thought required to assay relevant data.

For example, you state that her references did not include " Not a single watch from a mainstream university or science / research / medical organisation"

That said, I do wonder at your reporting objectivity because there have been a myriad links to reputable medical experts on this and other Ivermectin threads.

And yet you, and others, continue to condemn any that share that science as "flat-earthers/anti-vaxxers/tin foil hat wearers/conspiricists" and, from the above, a slur on the IQ of anyone that considers treatments apart from vaccines.

Your four groups of "anti-vaxxer" is just woeful perjoration that ignores the facts.

For the record, most on this forum who want Ivermectin analysis moved to the forefront are not "anti-vaxxers". Most have had all the vaccines produced to date. You know, the ones that actually stop the targetted disease. Most of those who want non-vaccine solutions to covid do so because the data says the current covid vaccine strategy demonstrates limited/short-lived efficacy, vaccines are insufficiently tested for safety in all cases, they are statistically not required by some members of society, and statistically carry elevated risk for those same groups for whom covid is unlikely to be a danger.

Some folk may balk at having the covid vaccine for dippy reasons. Others do it because critical thought and data suggest it may not be the best solution. Recall the result of the Mellon University survey? The most resistant to covid vaccines were those of tertiary education. That does not fit your narrative.

 

[zambezi]

Is there anyone reading this forum that does not want to see objective trials of Ivermectin?

Because the studies so far suggest we would be in error if we do not:

https://ivmmeta.com/