3475: Kyle Rittenhouse and Princess Diana Spencer

[Sparrow]

[Apia resurrected]

When we talked about ivermectin you argued your way through it, but unfortunately for you that's a field I know extremely well because of my work. Something like: a drug is very promising doesn't mean a lot in that world, only hard significant data. I learned it the hard way because very promising at first and failing after can mean loosing jobs for people.
You never admitted to anything.
It's OK to not know everything! I also don't.
But you think logic and knowledge are on your side, and when someone knows more about a thing you just ignore it.
Logic would hate that!

[sketchowl]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

you think you’re giving us an opportunity to grow? ooooooooh thaaaaaank you. golly moses, i didn’t know you were doing us all a favor. would you like your apology in the form of being blown while you scold us for not learning our lessons, you pedantic fuck?

seriously, this guy. *fart noise*

This is silly. My point was wanting to move the discussion closer to truth and away from propaganda in the news. Does that require good faith discourse, yes. Does good faith discourse require some modicum of open minded logical thought, yes. Is me pointing out the lack of such a condition as an issue when a counter-narrative (the truth) to Rod somehow doing "us all a favor", no.

To recap, Sparrow projects my intent then falls back on ad hominem attack. Seems we aren't moving any closer to good faith discourse.

Originally Posted by Sparrow

You hate me b/c I bring up counter points you don't like. This sounds healthy.

Originally Posted by Apia resurrected

When we talked about ivermectin you argued your way through it, but unfortunately for you that's a field I know extremely well because of my work. Something like: a drug is very promising doesn't mean a lot in that world, only hard significant data. I learned it the hard way because very promising at first and failing after can mean loosing jobs for people.
You never admitted to anything.
It's OK to not know everything! I also don't.
But you think logic and knowledge are on your side, and when someone knows more about a thing you just ignore it.
Logic would hate that!

I gave you a bunch of examples of significant data, including going point by point of your questions with specific answers. The data on this particular compound is still available for you to consult at anytime. Are you asking me to google the information I referenced and send it to you?

If memory serves the discussion was left with my position being there is lots of in use application worldwide (data), the function (which is directly applicable to this off label use - insofar as it is trying to be replicated by big pharma to be used under patents) and risk profile are well known and documented (data) and a bunch of promising studies; so why not try and use it if it most likely will work and is known to do no harm. The last part is the bit you latched onto as the piece you represent yourself to be most competent to evaluate. Thus, leaving your position as I understand it - a specifically designed trial of a certain size that you are familiar with and understand must happen before anyone is allowed to use a compound. So all off label application of all medication would therefore be prohibited.

That is fine if that is your position, I don't agree and beating the it does no harm so let's apply it and see if we can save lives given the real world data and studies while we wait on the lab studies vs I want it in a lab my way only or no one is allowed to attempt treatment debate won't get us anywhere.

Never admitted to anything? What is there to admit to? Are you looking for an admission that I have used and advised others on the use Ivermectin? Well then yes, I have. When I had COVID-19 I used it and my symptoms only lasted 2 days. Obviously this is anecdotal and why I haven't included it previously. Further to your point, of course I don't know everything, no one does but I'm willing to explore what I don't know and try to learn - I don't really understand this point. Logic is on my side as I've argued my point logically as for knowledge I feel I have evaluated additional resources than you have especially given the position you have taken here that you are unfamiliar even with the data I stated in response to you specific questions in this very forum much less the underlying source publications/experiments etc. I will concede you know the employment and economic impacts of big pharma drug trials better than I do but that is completely irrelevant to the off label use of an already available generic compound.

[Sparrow]

tl;dr

[Apia resurrected]

Personal experience and the fact the something is in use isn't any kind of serious proof or evidence based medicine.
Promising, most likely....
Also nothing.
When there will be real clinical studies with significant results I will change my mind, I promise.
Listen even I hoped that Hydroxychloroquine would help 1.5 years ago.
The studies in vitro looked very promising.
And now no one really thinks that anymore.
It failed completely. And I even remember the CEO of my company saying he thinks it will be a game changer.
Here my proof how wrong the CEO of my company was
https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/quest-f...chief/45653476

[Apia resurrected]

"Obviously this is anecdotal and why I haven't included it previously. "
Exactly.
I jump on my trampolin every day and haven't been sick since.
Coincidence? Who knows.
Or am I also in big trampolin?

[Apia resurrected]

One last time:
The "data" you are offering isn't good enough and doesn't meet the scientific standards.
That doesn't mean that your point is wrong ( see logic)
It means that it's only claims with not enough proof.
Let's see how the promising studies will turn out. I would love to have a rather cheap and effective generic drug that works against covud. When are the results expected?

[sketchowl]

Originally Posted by Apia resurrected

"Obviously this is anecdotal and why I haven't included it previously. "
Exactly.
I jump on my trampolin every day and haven't been sick since.
Coincidence? Who knows.
Or am I also in big trampolin?

This is the exact point I was making that it is purely anecdotal, I was asked and compelled to make some admission, assumed that's what you desired to hear, that is all.

Originally Posted by Apia resurrected

One last time:
The "data" you are offering isn't good enough and doesn't meet the scientific standards.
That doesn't mean that your point is wrong ( see logic)
It means that it's only claims with not enough proof.
Let's see how the promising studies will turn out. I would love to have a rather cheap and effective generic drug that works against covud. When are the results expected?

I think I'm talking past you, you seem to be missing the point. Here is the quoted point below.

Originally Posted by sketchowl

If memory serves the discussion was left with my position being there is lots of in use application worldwide (data), the function (which is directly applicable to this off label use - insofar as it is trying to be replicated by big pharma to be used under patents) and risk profile are well known and documented (data) and a bunch of promising studies; so why not try and use it if it most likely will work and is known to do no harm. The last part is the bit you latched onto as the piece you represent yourself to be most competent to evaluate. Thus, leaving your position as I understand it - a specifically designed trial of a certain size that you are familiar with and understand must happen before anyone is allowed to use a compound. So all off label application of all medication would therefore be prohibited.

So let me use the exact same point but with a less triggering specific subject; In your world view as you have expressed it to this point, Vitamin D should not be used to treat COVID either since that would be an off label use that hasn't done the study that you want specifically. Is this correct?

[Apia resurrected]

Studies have been done. Vitamin D failed to show effects on Covid.

https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/886544

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...rticle/2776738

NEWS RELEASE 23-APR-2021
High dose of vitamin D fails to improve condition of moderate to severe COVID-19 patients
A clinical trial was conducted with 240 patients who were given 200,000 IU of vitamin D3 on admission to hospital. The supplementation did not reduce length of stay or affect the proportion requiring intensive.

[Apia resurrected]

Read this for context.
https://www.mcgill.ca/newsroom/chann...ggested-331358