The restriction of Ivermectin by Joe Biden.

Author: Bones

Posts

Total: 23
Topic's author
#1
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 964
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
I was listening to the Joe Rogan experience episode with Theo Von, in which the two discuss Joe's quick recovery from Covid-19 - a conversation which followed after a discussion of "fake news", in particular how CNN repeatedly makes the claim the Joe took horse dewormer (this claim is, by the way, is completely false. Rogan invited neurosurgeon and CNN chief medical correspondent Sanjay Gupta onto his podcast where he asked “does it bother you that the network you work for…just outright lied about me taking horse dewormer?” to which Gupta replied that his colleagues “shouldn’t have said that.”) 

Right of the bat, CNN lying about what Joe took is suspicious, it is akin to saying that I promote ingesting cleaning products on the basis that I promote water. Joe went on to say that he was well within 2 days, received a negative covid test within 3 and back in the gym in 5 days. He went on to say something along the lines of the Biden administration restricting the use of Ivermectin in Florida and then concluding that they are doing this because pharmaceutical and vaccine companies want people to use their products and treatments. 

How much of this is true? I would consider myself politically neutral and a person who follows where the evidence goes so this isn't a view which I will passionately defend, though thus far it does seem at least possible. 
Topic's author
#2
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 964
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@whiteflame
Perhaps you have an opinion on Ivermectin?
Topic's author
#3
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 964
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
Also, he specifically took Monoclonal antibodies.
#4
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 3,198
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@Bones
I'll weigh in.

I was listening to the Joe Rogan experience episode with Theo Von, in which the two discuss Joe's quick recovery from Covid-19 - a conversation which followed after a discussion of "fake news", in particular how CNN repeatedly makes the claim the Joe took horse dewormer (this claim is, by the way, is completely false. Rogan invited neurosurgeon and CNN chief medical correspondent Sanjay Gupta onto his podcast where he asked “does it bother you that the network you work for…just outright lied about me taking horse dewormer?” to which Gupta replied that his colleagues “shouldn’t have said that.”) 
In the sense that he took a human version of ivermectin, I suppose that Joe has a point, but that seems like a minor point. Ivermectin is, at base, anti-parasitic and functions well against worms. So Joe Rogan still took dewormer, just not in a formulation or dose that would be prescribed for a horse. So when you say:

Right of the bat, CNN lying about what Joe took is suspicious, it is akin to saying that I promote ingesting cleaning products on the basis that I promote water.
I disagree. The drug is the same at base. They function in the same capacities. In the sense that ivermectin prescribed for humans is prescribed at a dose that presents little or no danger to humans, whereas ivermectin prescribed for horses could present a danger to humans, you're right that there is a distinction. I just wouldn't say that the distinction is this stark.

Joe went on to say that he was well within 2 days, received a negative covid test within 3 and back in the gym in 5 days. He went on to say something along the lines of the Biden administration restricting the use of Ivermectin in Florida and then concluding that they are doing this because pharmaceutical and vaccine companies want people to use their products and treatments. 
Joe is clearly attributing his rapid recovery to what he took over this time, which is fallacious. He could have recovered similarly without the treatment. It could be a placebo effect. Ivermectin does contain a zinc ionophore that has some established antiviral activity in vitro, but there is a lot of uncertainty with regards to its effectiveness in this regard at any dose, let alone at a safe, human dose. I also really don't understand the argument you're getting into here. If there existed proof that there was a widely available and cheap method to prevent hospitalizations and death from COVID-19, the government would be incredibly foolish to ignore it, especially when ending the pandemic is one of the central aims of the administration. I don't see what Biden or his administration stand to gain from pharmaceutical companies that could possibly outstrip ending the pandemic, but apparently Joe Rogan knows something I don't.


#5
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@Bones
Here is a post from whiteflame in a thread where I also asked about Ivermectin. At the time, a study showed that Ivermectin could potentially act as a protease inhibitor. I have not done further research since, but this could be helpful.

#6
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@whiteflame
I don't see what Biden or his administration stand to gain from pharmaceutical companies that could possibly outstrip ending the pandemic
$$$
Look how much money has been made by pharmaceutical companies with vaccines. And imagine how much more can be made from multiple boosters for everyone. Then if the pandemic continues long enough to roll out a COVID-specific antiviral medication on a large scale, they get even richer.

Politicians and bureaucrats on both sides have proven to be selfish and corrupt. Pharmaceutical companies also have a bad track record for integrity. They pay the politicians and bureaucrats who then approve and roll out the product, and both parties laugh their way to the bank on the taxpayer's dime.

This doesn't prove that it is happening. But it is a very plausible example of what both parties stand to gain by drawing out the pandemic.
#7
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 3,198
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Frankly, I don’t get how you could go through the cost/benefit calculus of this decision as the central decision-maker for a country and side with the money. I’m not saying that money doesn’t corrupt, but I think the presumption that money is enough by itself to effectively prevent an end to the pandemic doesn’t make sense from the perspective of a president, especially one who has made ending the pandemic key to their platform, and even more especially if you have clearly proven evidence of antiviral efficacy in a readily available drug. Seems like this is the kind of thing that would place a tremendous amount of risk on any politician that buys into it, and getting a payday out of it, no matter how big, seems like a huge gamble with a massive downside.

Maybe this could happen, but I don’t buy it.
#8
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@whiteflame
I’m not saying that money doesn’t corrupt, but I think the presumption that money is enough by itself to effectively prevent an end to the pandemic doesn’t make sense from the perspective of a president,
Not just the president. Politicians in general, but also unelected bureaucrats. Think of how much influence Fauci holds, or the CDC and FDA.


especially one who has made ending the pandemic key to their platform,
Biden said he wasn't going to raise taxes even one penny for the middle class. He also said, along with plenty of other officials, that they would never mandate vaccines. Politicians lie. All of them. All the time.


and even more especially if you have clearly proven evidence of antiviral efficacy in a readily available drug.
Well I think there is evidence showing a correlation between the use of Ivermectin and a more positive outlook on mortality and hospitalization rates. The problem is finding out why that would be. But there are a lot of studies and a lot of medical professionals claiming it makes a difference. Don't you find it odd that both the media and the government have gone to extreme lengths - at the cost of their integrity through lies and deception - to attack and suppress Ivermectin?

I guess the main point is this:
  • Most, if not all, politicians are lying scumbags who will do anything for money and power.
  • Pharmaceutical companies are operated by lying scumbags who will do anything for money and power.
  • Journalists are lying scumbags with no integrity for honest reporting who will do anything for money and power.
  • Citizens are terrified of COVID-19 and will allow the government to do practically anything, as long as they promise to keep the citizens safe.
So there are lying scumbags everywhere who want money and power, and they have found an opportunity to eliminate nearly all accountability from the citizens through fear. That sounds like a recipe for disaster ready to be taken advantage of. And I don't think the lying scumbags place nearly the same amount of value on human life that you do. Totalitarian regimes don't have a great track record of that.

I really do hope I'm wrong and you're right though...
#9
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 3,198
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
I don’t buy it, dude. I really don’t. We’re not talking about an increase in taxation here, which practically every president since Reagan has done. We’re not talking about the freedom to make medical choices, though that is a separate and dubious choice in some ways. We’re talking about prolonging the worst effects of a pandemic for no reason apart from personal profit. What you’re arguing is that Biden (and yes, it is Biden at base - it doesn’t matter who else is involved because he has the power to do something about it) is sacrificing those lives, daily, for the sole purpose of enriching himself. If that was true, it wouldn’t just be an impeachable offense, though that would be the base response to learning that he knew a readily available and cheap drug was a proven, effective antiviral at doses that would not be harmful to humans. He would be responsible for thousands of preventable deaths, with that number climbing daily.

So, no, I don’t find it odd at all that ivermectin’s getting a bad rap. We’ve discussed this before and the evidence, based on everything I’ve read, is not there. Claims of effectiveness from medical professionals seem largely backed by anecdote, minimal and difficult to compare studies due to their use to different methodologies, and there are issues with clashing results between studies. At best, there’s a case to be made for pursuing further research, not anything that would establish a proven track record for the drug against SARS-CoV-2. 

At base, I guess the main difference between us is that you’d assume that, based on many of the actors in this case having done terrible things before (won’t challenge that), that they can and will do terrible things any time they get the opportunity, whereas I’m looking more at the risk/benefit scenario from their perspective. If it was just the pharmaceutical companies or just very specific parts of the government involved, I might be more inclined to believe that this could happen. From where I’m sitting, with the sheer number of people who have to be in on this and the almost complete lack of outrage, it sounds like a conspiracy theory to me.
#10
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,864
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
Remember kids, all those TV commercials that start out by saying "You might be entitled to financial compensation" for taking some drug were "ALL" approved by the FDA. Well except the covid vaccines you are just fucked up the river on that one.

#11
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@whiteflame
Just to clarify, I am still skeptical of Ivermectin being an effective treatment for COVID-19. I linked specifically to your post in my thread because I thought it was a helpful insight on the proposed mechanism of Ivermectin as a protease inhibitor. I agree that it does not establish a causal relationship. My criticism was more that you can't even hardly talk about Ivermectin without being censored, and the media's dishonest coverage of the drug.

My original intent was only to show that there is a motive (ridiculous amounts of money). But motive does not assume guilt. I understand it would take more evidence to convince someone of such a conspiracy theory. Honestly, I am more concerned about a totalitarian takeover that is taking advantage of the current COVID situation than I am about Ivermectin itself. But it is also in that context that the intentional suppression of possible benefits of Ivermectin seems more plausible to me. The massive transfer of wealth from taxpayers to pharmaceutical companies (I believe in the amount of trillions of dollars to date) seems significant enough to not just brush off foul play by many bad actors.

 
At base, I guess the main difference between us is that you’d assume that, based on many of the actors in this case having done terrible things before (won’t challenge that), that they can and will do terrible things any time they get the opportunity...
I don't think that bad actors always do terrible things any time they get the opportunity. Rather, there is no virtue to restrain them from doing terrible things. Those who value honesty will avoid lying simply because of their character. Those who do not value honesty will not hesitate to lie if it is expedient and if they think they can get away with it. It seems virtue is utterly lacking in our national leadership, so I place no weight on their character restraining bad behavior. The only restraint then is what they think they can get away with.

...whereas I’m looking more at the risk/benefit scenario from their perspective.
One of the components of this would be the value that is placed on human life. How do you know how much value Joe Biden places on human life to make such a risk/benefit calculation?

This is not a question to be contentious. Rather, it is a question analyzing how certain we can be of the character of our leaders. Especially when those leaders have a history of showing lack of virtue.
#12
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 3,198
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
My criticism was more that you can't even hardly talk about Ivermectin without being censored, and the media's dishonest coverage of the drug.
I think that part of the problem here is that there isn't a happy medium, either on the general discussion surrounding ivermectin or the responses from media. There is a substantial subset of the population that gives it far more credit than the data actually warrants and would pursue anything so long as it represents a potentially viable alternative to the vaccine. The media coverage is often quick to dismiss it on the basis that some of its usage has resulted in poisoning (not at human doses) and that it has been used largely as an anti-parasitic, which is akin to how HCQ was previously used and HCQ turned out to be a bust. Neither view is all that reasonable, in my opinion, and the truth lies somewhere in the middle, but that's where we are right now.

Honestly, I am more concerned about a totalitarian takeover that is taking advantage of the current COVID situation than I am about Ivermectin itself. 
Not sure I really get this, but fine.

But it is also in that context that the intentional suppression of possible benefits of Ivermectin seems more plausible to me. 
I might agree more with your position if not for statements like this. I'm not clear that there's any evidence that data has been suppressed with regards to ivermectin, or that there even is substantial data supporting plausible benefits for ivermectin against SARS-CoV-2. What exists remains frustratingly minimal, and all that tells me is that the studies need to be done on a larger scale with better controls. In that respect, saying that there is intention suppression going on feels like a leap in logic already because we haven't established that suppression is happening at all. Maybe your point is, as you said earlier in this paragraph, to simply assess the motive to intentionally suppress such information, in which case we encounter the problem of competing interests. I'm not saying that no one sees any benefit in this suppression. I'm saying that the major actor in this (the President), who would be privy to said information, is likelier than not to see greater risk in suppression than they would meaningful benefit. Maybe I'm making some faulty assumptions in here, but considering just how badly many companies have been affected by the pandemic, there are clearly other competing money interests at play in this, even among for-profit companies.

One of the components of this would be the value that is placed on human life. How do you know how much value Joe Biden places on human life to make such a risk/benefit calculation?
Actually, it isn't a chief component in my analysis. It doesn't even feature. I'm not presuming what value Joe Biden places on life at all, but rather the negative effects on his career and legacy that result from being outed as having effectively caused the deaths of a great many people. I don't assume that those lives will weigh on him personally, though they may. Any politician, no matter how little they actually care about lives, does tend to care about the career they've built, especially if it is a very long one as Joe Biden's is.

#13
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 561
Posts: 19,889
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@sadolite
"You might be entitled to financial compensation" for taking some drug were "ALL" approved by the FDA. Well except the covid vaccines you are just fucked up the river on that one.

Actually the government will owe the victims compensation but Pfizer and Moderna won't own a cent, that's the disgusting reality considering how brutally dangerous mRNA can be.

This 'no vaccine before has been too dangerous post-trial' argument doesn't work for next level tech like mRNA body cell hijacking to brute force immunity. This is a new level of risk, where the companies who are greedy for profit has no liability.
#14
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,864
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
"the government will owe the victims" And with what money will they be paid? The govt is 30 trillion in debt.  And would you please unblock me if you are going to respond to my posts. Its so lame to block people who just voice  opinions  and block them because you don't like them. I don't  troll  you or stalk you or do anything that would justify blocking me. I never do that to anyone. I do however make the occasional sarcastic remarks to things that simply defy all logic.

17 days later

#15
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,294
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Have you considered who benefits if anti-parasitics are not effective against the virus but a lot of people think they are?

$$$
#16
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Have you considered who benefits if anti-parasitics are not effective against the virus but a lot of people think they are?

$$$
There is always an argument like this to be made. But this is also the same argument used the other way. Who benefits if a relatively cheap drug like Ivermectin is effective against the virus, but a lot of people think it is not?

But this doesn't automatically incriminate vaccine companies. It does seem far more compelling though then the argument against Ivermectin.
#17
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,294
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Who benefits if a relatively cheap drug like Ivermectin is effective against the virus, but a lot of people think it is not?
Nobody, obviously.

You are clearly not very good at thinking like a corrupt pharmaceutical company. Please leave the discussions about market manipulation to the experts in the future.

Step one: Obtain inside information about relatively cheap drug being effective against COVID.

Step two: Keep this information secret just long enough to purchase several million units of relatively cheap drug at relatively cheap price, because it is a relatively cheap drug. Few weeks at most.

Step three: Use politicians and media to release information about relatively cheap drug being effective against COVID, you are a drug company so these groups are on your side and will do what you say. Watch demand and price of drug rise.

Step four: Profit.
#18
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
So if corrupt pharmaceutical companies are in bed with corrupt politicians, why can't that same argument be used against Pfizer suppressing Ivermectin in order to boost vaccine sales, thus establishing a potential motive?
#19
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,294
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
What you don't seem to realize is that money-making is the goal here, if plan A makes less money than plan B they will want to go with plan B.

Hypothetically speaking if Ivermectin was an effective treatment for COVID and nobody knew it except for the drug companies then what you describe is not an efficient money-making option.
#20
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
What you don't seem to realize is that money-making is the goal here, if plan A makes less money than plan B they will want to go with plan B.

Hypothetically speaking if Ivermectin was an effective treatment for COVID and nobody knew it except for the drug companies then what you describe is not an efficient money-making option.
What is a more efficient money making scheme for a drug company:
  • Treating only people that have COVID-19 with a drug that has an expired patent like Ivermectin?
  • Vaccinating the entire global population with a patented vaccine that loses significant efficacy around six months and has the potential for unlimited boosters?
#21
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
What is a more efficient money making scheme for a drug company:
  • Treating only people that have COVID-19 with a drug that has an expired patent like Ivermectin?
  • Vaccinating the entire global population with a patented vaccine that loses significant efficacy around six months and has the potential for unlimited boosters
Generally speaking, if you want to characterize big Pharma as a bunch of cold-blooded profiteers, I'm probably going to agree with you but COVID is a particularly convoluted case.

There are over 200 different types of COVID vaccines in various stages of production and development.  The Theory of Capitalism suggests that if a vaccine can be developed with a longer efficacy, it will be.  Likewise, competition for a cheaper vaccine is incredibly stiff.  The reason so many different labs were able to develop so many different vaccines so quickly was because of massive data sharing by governments- particular China and the US.

Moderna gave up its fight with the US Govt over the main mRNA patent just yesterday- so it now look like the National Institutes of Health owns the main  patent for that technology and the US taxpayer will be the primary beneficiary of the expected $20 billion dollar windfall from that technology for 2021- thanks, big government solutions!

So far, the primary beneficiaries of FOX News promoted Ivermectin misinformation have been the Indian and Brazilian pharmaceutical companies that manufacture the generics.  SImone Gold's American Frontline Doctor's network seems to be the primary US beneficiaries in spite of Gold's claims to the contrary.

Let's also note that Ivermectin is a therapeutic for disease while vaccines are a prophylactic.  The Hippocratic Oath as well as common sense recommends prevention, even at substantially greater cost, over treatment.


#22
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@oromagi
Let me just make clear I am not arguing that Ivermectin is a proven effective treatment for COVID-19. I think there is evidence suggesting a possible correlation between early treatment with Ivermectin and a more positive outcome, but I am not willing to stake that claim without a more concrete case.

What Discipulus seems to be saying is that the possibility of profit to be made for misleading people about Ivermectin is a good enough argument to dismiss any suggestion that vaccine companies could possibly have a motive to suppress Ivermectin.

My rebuttal is that argument doesn't prove anything. It offers a potential motive for intentional misinformation about Ivermectin, but it doesn't prove it. I previously said motive doesn't imply guilt.

The same argument can also be used against vaccine companies. Let's assume for the argument that Ivermectin is effective for COVID-19. If a safe and effective treatment for COVID-19 was found early on, that would have probably seriously reduced the amount of vaccines being purchased and administered around the world. That's a potential motive, but it doesn't prove it happened that way.

34 days later

#23
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,864
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
What is the scientific reasoning to not use "Ivermectin" a tested FDA approved drug with acceptable long term side effects according to the FDA unlike covid-19 vaccines which are not tested and authorized only for emergency use with unknown long term side effects. I would like to follow the "SCIENCE" Not the unscientific king like decrees of a politician with dementia.