|
|
Post by 00hmh on Aug 20, 2021 7:36:37 GMT -6
Based on the Biden Administration's recent performance in Afghanistan, I have severe doubts if they can adjust to developments in the scientific process. A President can interfere with science being used in administrative actions or even order action contrary to best science advice. In recent history we have seen political action appointing a head of agency with a specific political agenda (rarely one related to scientific process).
There is no evidence Biden had any influence whatsoever on the scientific process leading to the scientific consensus in either vaccine or climate. Most of it is outside the government or its influence, most long before Biden became President. Biden is hardly the President we should talk about as having a bent to restrict inquiry or counter science and its process when in conflict with his political agenda.
|
|
|
|
Post by rmcalhoun on Aug 20, 2021 9:09:41 GMT -6
Is Biden our president? That's a joke kinda. I hated the end of trump but it still blows my mind that Biden was all the dem party could come up with.
|
|
|
|
Post by lmills72 on Aug 20, 2021 16:37:09 GMT -6
It's been a while since either party has put forth a top-flight candidate. What's even sadder is that we are truly getting the candidates we deserve.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Aug 21, 2021 3:56:54 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by sweep on Aug 21, 2021 12:01:15 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Aug 21, 2021 12:58:03 GMT -6
I don't care for her personality, she is smart but I can't listen to her show for long unless the guest is excellent and she lets the guest talk...
Her content in this case seems to be in large part factual. At least it is where she can show a series of clips of Fox News personalities — including Tucker and Hannity — promoting ivermectin by giving it coverage without any disclaimer or caution.
It was inaccurate of Hannity to say drug is one of the “proactive treatments and practices that are already helping COVID-19 patients all across the country.” At least in terms of saying it with any scientific basis.
I would agree Rachel should be blaming the primary conspiracy theory and vaccine skepticism sites more, and blame the Facebook page and twitter instant distribution of any reports, without critical review or question. All that is the source of the the worst misinformation. OTOH in terms of broad public impact, Tucker, Hannity, and to a lesser degree other FOX personalities have been guilty of vaccine skepticism more than any other public news sources.
If we want to fact check Rachel strictly we also need to acknowledge FOX has given the horse medicine far more credibility than other major news sources, more than it seems to deserve.
|
|
|
|
Post by sweep on Aug 21, 2021 14:17:54 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Aug 21, 2021 15:17:11 GMT -6
The NIH says:
"There is insufficient evidence for the COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel (the Panel) to recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19. Results from adequately powered, well-designed, and well-conducted clinical trials are needed to provide more specific, evidence-based guidance on the role of ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19."
Which applies to the human formulation of the drug that could be used off label.
don't pretend that Hannity's statement is the equivalent. The Hannity quote was not mere harmless mention. Two problems.
The legitimate concern is that people would self medicate with the animal formulation.
And, in context of the antivax content offered on the network it was also more than mere mention. It was suggestive of more than that there is very limited evidence of positive results and that treatment can replace the choice to vaccinate. Especially in light of the more extravagant claims made elsewhere which many FOX viewers may have seen, it needs careful reporting.
Hannity's statement is not as serious as trumpeting loudly to use the drug, I agree. But responsible reporting would emphasize it is NOT having clear positive results. That it's use is unproven and the dosage, and recommended clinical use is impossible to determine based on current information.
But in any case Rachel played the clips. Seems to me that is completely fair.
|
|
|
|
Post by sweep on Aug 21, 2021 16:14:49 GMT -6
Seems to me that is completely fair.
That's a real shocker. |
|
|
|
Post by sweep on Aug 21, 2021 16:45:20 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Aug 21, 2021 17:07:49 GMT -6
What's funny is if you look at the timeline the dangerous use of veterinary Invermectin goes all the way back to early 2020. So I guess we could also blame Antiviral Research Magazine. Naw, let's just blame Fox News because my viewers are lazy liberal idiots. Huh? That article warns of the danger. What do you blame them for?
FOX does not warn...
Whatever you see there, something tells me FOX News had a bigger audience susceptible to influence and misuse than Antivirus Research Magazine. |
|
|
|
Post by sweep on Aug 21, 2021 17:28:31 GMT -6
I am talking about the linked study with the following bullet points..........
Highlights:
Ivermectin is an inhibitor of the COVID-19 causative virus (SARS-CoV-2) in vitro.
A single treatment able to effect ~5000-fold reduction in virus at 48 h in cell culture.
Ivermectin is FDA-approved for parasitic infections, and therefore has a potential for repurposing.
Ivermectin is widely available, due to its inclusion on the WHO model list of essential medicines.
Oh and the mostly impoverished rural individuals that are using veterinary Intermectin likely aren't watching Fox News.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Aug 21, 2021 18:01:16 GMT -6
I am talking about the linked study with the following bullet points.......... Highlights: Ivermectin is an inhibitor of the COVID-19 causative virus (SARS-CoV-2) in vitro. That is the rationale for investigation. But once again you are shooting from the hip.
The article says:
This type of study is commonly used in the early stages of drug development. Ivermectin was not given to people or animals in this study. Additional testing is needed to determine whether ivermectin might be safe or effective to prevent or treat coronavirus or COVID-19.
In the test tube is often different. Safety and efficacy need to be tested before approval for use. The test data actually existing is inconclusive on efficacy, without controlled study and without large sample size. The safety used in dosage sufficient for antiviral effect is NOT tested for safety. In fact there is no dosage recommendation available.
I am all for studying the matter. NOT for using untested drugs in guess work dosage that MIGHT work as a substitute for vaccination which definitely works. This antiviral effect in the test tube may or may not exist in humans at the dosage the medicine is currently used in approved use. And safety is unknown until you test that dosage. Who knows in the animal dosages with the animal formulation available in feed stores...
If the evidence available was very good, doctors would be prescribing this medicine off label, but they are prudently not choosing to do so. It is not the Biden administration or Rachel Maddow that is guiding their judgement or stopping them from doing so, merely saying what is patently true. It is not known to be safe and efficacious.
And BTW, it is sold in feed stores in Muncie, Anderson and Indianapolis which do have FOX viewers. And it is available online...have at it my friend but I think you should use something else.
I applaud study, I applaud looking at long shots. It's just that on this one Rachel is probably right when she says FOX should be more careful what they say about medical and science news. Much of what she said is no doubt overstatement, not that.
|
|
|
|
Post by sweep on Aug 22, 2021 10:29:23 GMT -6
Hilarious you are on here every day screaming about the safety of non FDA approved experimental vaccines. Do have any idea how stupid you usually look ?
"I am all for studying the matter."..............Okay so are Hannity and Carlson, they were questioning why the FDA shut down the funding for this and other therapeutics.
Dude you are a mess.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Aug 22, 2021 11:18:36 GMT -6
Hilarious you are on here every day screaming about the safety of non FDA approved experimental vaccines. "I am all for studying the matter."..............Okay so are Hannity and Carlson, they were questioning why the FDA shut down the funding for this and other therapeutics.
Drugs are developed by pharmaceutical companies and trials are required and regulated by FDA. FDA does not "fund" drugs but does fund a process for approval. See below for some information of drugs being developed.
If Tucker and Hannity have a gripe with FDA it is probably that they think the process should be less rigorous but it that is it they have not made that very clear. OTOH that is exactly what many vaccine critics are complaining about, and FOX has championed vaccine critics.
I would not have a problem if process criticism is their gripe, but would like to see the case for it, and would also insist they report accurately and responsibly on the drugs. Rachel called them out on that fairly.
Let's look at the claim that the FDA is not paying attention to treatment. Sure, it is true FDA has quite properly made vaccine a priority with emergency use authorization. And all health care agencies make vaccination the priority since NO treatment is as effective as preventing the disease from occuring.
That really doesn't mean treatment studies are shut down, though. For example
Which "shut downs" have you seen? For what reasons?
|
|
