(1) If this is a genuine question, then yes. Back when this was first mooted, I came down on the side of "it's the anti-parasitic effect freeing up the immune system", before ever Scott addressed the question, because I grew up in an agricultural region where ivermectin was advertised morning, noon and night for treating various animal ailments.
(2) Yes, ivermectin is used to treat humans. FOR WORM AND PARASITE INFESTATIONS.
(3) No, you will not convince anyone except your partisans that Scott was wrong, wrong, wrong and you are right, right, right about this. When the list of trials was posted on ACX, I trawled through them all. All the positive results were also in countries that are Second or Third World regions, except for Florida. And duh, Florida. Flesh eating screwworms, anyone? A case from 2016 which is mainly in deer, but which can spread to livestock and to humans.
Hence you are not going to get your Canossa moment from Scott, with him going on social media everywhere to tender a grovelling apology to you. And even if he does change his mind, I'm not going to because see points (1) and (2) above. Scott did not convince me, I already held the opinion and was mildly chuffed to see him later come out on that side of the question.
This is your hobbyhorse, and while you may have a bee in your bonnet about it, please give it up. We've already had one of your partisans over on ACX to chivvy Scott into the grovelling apology, and as I said - it won't affect my opinion since I arrived at it independently. Ivermectin is not a miracle Covid cure. If people are suffering from existing medical problems, such as worm or parasitic infestations, then ivermectin in conjunction with other treatments probably helps by killing off the parasites and freeing the immune system of that burden to fight the virus. Ivermectin on its own in otherwise healthy people won't do anything.
Having looked at the evidence as presented by Alexandros, (and others,), the signal from Ivermectin is much stronger than previously believed.
What's disturbing is the multibillion campaign against Ivermectin. The water has been deliberately muddied by bad faith players who stand to make substantial profits so long as Ivermectin is suppressed.
When I consider these two facts, 1. Solid signal from Ivermectin plus extremely safe, (a great Pascal's Wager.) and 2. There is a well funded disinformation campaign against Ivermectin from some of the most powerful institutions in the Western world with obvious conflicts of interest,
I think it's foolish to not have Ivermectin in your house in case of Covid. There's nothing to lose and everything to gain.
The water has been deliberately muddied by bad faith players who stand to make substantial profits so long as Ivermectin is suppressed.
You'll have to elaborate on this one. What?
extremely safe
If taken at a responsible dose, but you'll recall that most of the dunking on Ivermectin was when people were going out and taking megadoses and getting sick.
Why does the discussion around Ivermectin sound so much like the discussion around GameStop stock?
There is very little if any evidence of people "taking megadoses and getting sick". There have been trials testing very large doses, far larger than those recommended by FLCCC, which are already much larger than standard antiparasitic doses, that have shown very little in terms of adverse effects, all of it transient. There is even a pre-pandemic case of a woman taking hundreds the time the recommended dose in an attempted suicide, and she walked out of the hospital 4 days later with no sign of lasting issues whatsoever. I'm not saying that people should go and take 100x doses. Only that ivermectin is one of the safest drugs we have, and even its most ardent opponents don't bother to make the case for a biologically-based downside anymore. I will steelman the opposing argument by saying that we don't know what its effects on the microbiome are, and I wouldn't feel comfortable taking large doses on an ongoing basis, but in terms of early treatment or post-exposure prophylaxis we have more than enough data to be incredibly comfortable with broad administration. Afterall, there's a reason it's available over the counter in many countries across the world. The potential for abuse is infinitesimal.
As for the waters being muddied, one of the authors of an early and very influential meta-analysis has been caught on video admitting that he phrased his conclusions in a particularly cautious manner, recommending more studies needed to be performed, on the insistence of his funders, UNITAID. Of course, writing a conclusion you don't believe in because of the influence of third-party unnamed authors who control funding for the work is the definition of academic misconduct, but said academic is still respected and is now dedicating his time proving ivermectin results are explained by "fraud" (they're not).
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
(1) If this is a genuine question, then yes. Back when this was first mooted, I came down on the side of "it's the anti-parasitic effect freeing up the immune system", before ever Scott addressed the question, because I grew up in an agricultural region where ivermectin was advertised morning, noon and night for treating various animal ailments.
(2) Yes, ivermectin is used to treat humans. FOR WORM AND PARASITE INFESTATIONS.
(3) No, you will not convince anyone except your partisans that Scott was wrong, wrong, wrong and you are right, right, right about this. When the list of trials was posted on ACX, I trawled through them all. All the positive results were also in countries that are Second or Third World regions, except for Florida. And duh, Florida. Flesh eating screwworms, anyone? A case from 2016 which is mainly in deer, but which can spread to livestock and to humans.
Hence you are not going to get your Canossa moment from Scott, with him going on social media everywhere to tender a grovelling apology to you. And even if he does change his mind, I'm not going to because see points (1) and (2) above. Scott did not convince me, I already held the opinion and was mildly chuffed to see him later come out on that side of the question.
This is your hobbyhorse, and while you may have a bee in your bonnet about it, please give it up. We've already had one of your partisans over on ACX to chivvy Scott into the grovelling apology, and as I said - it won't affect my opinion since I arrived at it independently. Ivermectin is not a miracle Covid cure. If people are suffering from existing medical problems, such as worm or parasitic infestations, then ivermectin in conjunction with other treatments probably helps by killing off the parasites and freeing the immune system of that burden to fight the virus. Ivermectin on its own in otherwise healthy people won't do anything.
Having looked at the evidence as presented by Alexandros, (and others,), the signal from Ivermectin is much stronger than previously believed.
What's disturbing is the multibillion campaign against Ivermectin. The water has been deliberately muddied by bad faith players who stand to make substantial profits so long as Ivermectin is suppressed.
When I consider these two facts, 1. Solid signal from Ivermectin plus extremely safe, (a great Pascal's Wager.) and 2. There is a well funded disinformation campaign against Ivermectin from some of the most powerful institutions in the Western world with obvious conflicts of interest,
I think it's foolish to not have Ivermectin in your house in case of Covid. There's nothing to lose and everything to gain.
You'll have to elaborate on this one. What?
If taken at a responsible dose, but you'll recall that most of the dunking on Ivermectin was when people were going out and taking megadoses and getting sick.
Why does the discussion around Ivermectin sound so much like the discussion around GameStop stock?
There is very little if any evidence of people "taking megadoses and getting sick". There have been trials testing very large doses, far larger than those recommended by FLCCC, which are already much larger than standard antiparasitic doses, that have shown very little in terms of adverse effects, all of it transient. There is even a pre-pandemic case of a woman taking hundreds the time the recommended dose in an attempted suicide, and she walked out of the hospital 4 days later with no sign of lasting issues whatsoever. I'm not saying that people should go and take 100x doses. Only that ivermectin is one of the safest drugs we have, and even its most ardent opponents don't bother to make the case for a biologically-based downside anymore. I will steelman the opposing argument by saying that we don't know what its effects on the microbiome are, and I wouldn't feel comfortable taking large doses on an ongoing basis, but in terms of early treatment or post-exposure prophylaxis we have more than enough data to be incredibly comfortable with broad administration. Afterall, there's a reason it's available over the counter in many countries across the world. The potential for abuse is infinitesimal.
If you're interested in the deepest of deep dives on the topic, this is a good place to start: https://youtube.com/watch?v=ATiX0-2PEr4
As for the waters being muddied, one of the authors of an early and very influential meta-analysis has been caught on video admitting that he phrased his conclusions in a particularly cautious manner, recommending more studies needed to be performed, on the insistence of his funders, UNITAID. Of course, writing a conclusion you don't believe in because of the influence of third-party unnamed authors who control funding for the work is the definition of academic misconduct, but said academic is still respected and is now dedicating his time proving ivermectin results are explained by "fraud" (they're not).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link