Good grief. America's Frontline Doctors, a group of quacks who claim to know more than actual experts are pushing the use of ineffective parasite med to prevent and or treat COVID.
On a personal note, my hubby works for a farm store and has overheard customers explaining to each other how to dose animal wormer for people. This is in a community that is anti-mask, anti-vaccine, let's just all get infected. Up until, you know, they need hospitalization .
According to a study done at MIT, 19 of the top 20 facebook American Christian groups are run by Eastern European troll farms, largely Estonia and Macedonia. They exist to seed DISinformation and get 75 MILLION views PER MONTH.
Troll farms—professionalized groups that work in a coordinated fashion to post provocative content, often propaganda, to social networks—were still building massive audiences by running networks of facebook pages. Their content was reaching 140 million US users per month—75% of whom had never followed any of the pages. They were seeing the content because facebook’s content-recommendation system had pushed it into their news feeds.
Quote
As of October 2019, around 15,000 facebook pages with a majority US audience were being run out of Kosovo and Macedonia, known bad actors during the 2016 election.
Collectively, those troll-farm pages—which the report treats as a single page for comparison purposes—reached 140 million US users monthly and 360 million global users weekly. Walmart’s page reached the second-largest US audience at 100 million.
The troll farm pages also combined to form:
the largest Christian American page on facebook, 20 times larger than the next largest—reaching 75 million US users monthly, 95% of whom had never followed any of the pages.
the largest African-American page on facebook, three times larger than the next largest—reaching 30 million US users monthly, 85% of whom had never followed any of the pages.
the second-largest Native American page on facebook, reaching 400,000 users monthly, 90% of whom had never followed any of the pages.
the fifth-largest women’s page on facebook, reaching 60 million US users monthly, 90% of whom had never followed any of the pages.
I have never had accounts on fakebook, twatter, iNsTa or any of the other crap so I admittedly don't know what I'm talking about. But is this ^ what you're referring to?
Well, they have flat out said that GSW patients were having a hard time getting care because there was no room in the inn due to all the ivermectin ODs.
And now that that story is debunked there seems to be a media effort related to making it look ridiculously asinine and over-the-top to care that it was published in the first place. After all, it was only one article based on statements by one doctor in one state and blah, blah, blah.
I know I have some differences from some of you here in that I just don't have a much tolerance for this. I think it *is* significant that a fairly reasonable publication like Rolling Stone was so willing to run with the story without the most utterly basic fact-checking when the media have supposedly been trying to be more conscientious about fact-checking than ever before, and their story was picked up by social media and MSM as they knew it would be. I consider it a symptom of the whole/larger problem. We're all rightfully upset that some people are believing whatever they want to believe; whatever fits their narrative with regard to immunization. But in my book it's not wrong when they do it but okay when we do it. There are a lot more people believing what they want to believe than just anti-vaxxers about various topics.
I do live in an area that could be ripe for horse paste abuse (allegedly), but it hasn't happened in this community (yet). I have no doubt it has happened in various places. Apparently* there were 459 calls to US poison control centers related to ivermectin use in the month of August 2021. So approximately 1.38 x10 ^-6 of the US population had concerns about ivermectin effects that month and Rolling Stone wanted in on the fun of whipping that up.
I've tried to pipe down for a few weeks but haven't changed my mind. If it eliminates me from the cool kids club so be it.
*According to Rolling Stone.
ETA: Will include CDC emergency bulletin r/t increase in ivermectin prescriptions and the danger therein.
What!!
American media makes *** up????
Why didn't anyone tell me this before??? The for profit news sections are making *** up?? Holy *** Batman ??????
It's why you need education! So you can sift through and find the right reporters who value credibility and even then, you can't expect them to be experts so you corroborate their reporting with other reliable sources and arrive at the truth.
Have you worked in a hospital before? How many people have opinions on subject matter and still a consult is required, even after an attending has stuck his oar in.
And between the nurses, Drs, attending, consult, etc, how many times do they get it wrong?
Looks like it was double blind, but the vaccine was being given before completed. Now if there's more to it, anyone is free to share if a double blind study was completed for any of the COVID vaccines before administering them.
The part that gets me is the same people who will argue for example, Ivermectin is not FDA approved for COVID are the same people that supported using the COVID vaccines before FDA approval. Why the double standard?
The same people who say "I trust the experts" are the same ones dismissing experts (you know, providers) saying they've prescribed Ivermectin and seen results.
If you disagree with MD RX Ivermectin as a tx for COVID, explain why without any double standards.
Looks like it was double blind, but the vaccine was being given before completed. Now if there's more to it, anyone is free to share if a double blind study was completed for any of the COVID vaccines before administering them.
The part that gets me is the same people who will argue for example, Ivermectin is not FDA approved for COVID are the same people that supported using the COVID vaccines before FDA approval. Why the double standard?
The same people who say "I trust the experts" are the same ones dismissing experts (you know, providers) saying they've prescribed Ivermectin and seen results.
If you disagree with MD RX Ivermectin as a tx for COVID, explain why without any double standards.
No vaccines were used here until they had FDA emergency use authorization. There is no double standard. There is no emergency use authorization for off label use of ivermectin in treatment of covid.
If she didn't SOUND so stupid, she wouldn't LOOK so stupid. We all make judgments about who we want our medical advisors to be and I would be a little nervous if a Preacher Paula wannabe wanted to give me a prescription for chicken soup.
Okay, well, after some intense minutes of thumb-sucking and rocking in the corner, I will address the important part of your post:
I think so. Either that or my entire career has been a series of day trips to the Big Top. Can't be sure.
The point was you can't trust any news sources today completely because very few of them actually seek out credibility. I do think that the BBC, The Guardian, The NY Times, The Atlantic and the Post try harder than the rest though.
You need to have a fund of knowledge to reference anything to really understand what's being said to you. I always harp on about the big picture because so many people just don't seem to be able to see it!
Looks like it was double blind, but the vaccine was being given before completed. Now if there's more to it, anyone is free to share if a double blind study was completed for any of the COVID vaccines before administering them.
The part that gets me is the same people who will argue for example, Ivermectin is not FDA approved for COVID are the same people that supported using the COVID vaccines before FDA approval. Why the double standard?
The same people who say "I trust the experts" are the same ones dismissing experts (you know, providers) saying they've prescribed Ivermectin and seen results.
If you disagree with MD RX Ivermectin as a tx for COVID, explain why without any double standards.
Because it's illogical!
You know what a virus is, you know what a vaccine is and how it works. Knowing what ivermectin is used for, how can it possibly work except maybe to suppress some MINOR sxs which is not what YOU WANT because you can still infect others in a PANDEMIC! AND YOU CAN STILL GET VERY ILL!
The point was you can't trust any news sources today completely because very few of them actually seek out credibility.
I don't suffer from trusting news sources. I understood your point; I didn't address it because it had very little to do with what I wrote. We are currently posting on pg 25 of hand-wringing over all the ivermectin poisonings.
People of a variety of demographics do all sorts of crazy sh*t to themselves and will never cease to come up with more ways. I had a lifetime's education packed into about the first 6 months of taking care of them. But I get it; the ? talk is irresistible whether there are millions of people poisoning themselves or 1000, 459 or 10.
Looks like it was double blind, but the vaccine was being given before completed. Now if there's more to it, anyone is free to share if a double blind study was completed for any of the COVID vaccines before administering them.
The part that gets me is the same people who will argue for example, Ivermectin is not FDA approved for COVID are the same people that supported using the COVID vaccines before FDA approval. Why the double standard?
The same people who say "I trust the experts" are the same ones dismissing experts (you know, providers) saying they've prescribed Ivermectin and seen results.
If you disagree with MD RX Ivermectin as a tx for COVID, explain why without any double standards.
The final phase of clinical trials prior to approval, phase III finsihed prior to the EUA, so I'm not sure where you're getting that "the vaccine was being given before it was completed".
The difference is that the EUA was established because the vaccines had been shown to be safe and effective, and despite the hype surrounding Ivermectin it has yet to be shown to be safe and effective in treating Covid. I don't see how it's a double standard to support treatments that are proven to work and not those that haven't been proven to work. That seems like pretty reasonable criteria to support or not support a medical intervention.
JKL33
7,049 Posts
In the process of looking for the study...
Is it about this:
https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/09/16/1035851/facebook-troll-farms-report-us-2020-election/
I have never had accounts on fakebook, twatter, iNsTa or any of the other crap so I admittedly don't know what I'm talking about. But is this ^ what you're referring to?