Anything you see on the front page of youtube, i.e. you didn't specifically search for it, is most likely being promoted by some ad agency or think tank somewhere down the line. Meaning it's propaganda to some extent.
The exceptions to this rule are, of course, independent creators that the algorithm latches onto, but the algorithm only promotes videos that people are gonna click on and generate revenue for Youtube. That is, in a way, controlled propaganda too.
I see "African grey parrot singing along to I can see clearly now", "Cucumbers are cat's enemy - Funny Pet Reaction | Purr Purr", "Cockatoo Farts and Runs Away", "House Relax: Ed Sheeran, Martin Garrix, Kygo, Dua Lipa, Avicii, The...", "Venezuela 1-3 Argentina | Eliminatorias a Qatar 2022 -...", etc.
This is because yesterday I looked at videos of Alex the African grey parrot.
As far as I can tell, there are no ad agencies or think tanks involved here, except I guess that Atlantic Records made Ed Sheeran more popular than he was already by promoting him. I think this is pretty much purely "videos that people are gonna click on".
I see the "House Relax" one when I go to YouTube in a private window without signing in. It seems to be one of the "stock" links that YouTube shows complete newbies that have never been there before (as far as it knows), so I'm guessing it's pretty strongly advertised presumably at the behest of the ad agencies.
I do, always, see three or four covid-19 videos when I go to the main YT page. Whatever you think about their message, they look like propaganda to me.
The current “ivermectin is a dangerous horse dewormer” debacle has been the biggest example of a moment where I’m not sure whether everyone is lying at this point. YouTube censored a few videos with actual experts and doctors who were discussing ivm.
Yes we had issues with HCQ in the beginning, but ivm is being actually studied right now by Oxford Uni/NHS in their big covid trials in the UK… it’s amazing what a hit job the media is doing on it.
There's a difference between trials and it being suitable for public use though, right? It is undeniably a horse dewormer, and has had some use on humans, but not as a covid treatment.
For me, it's about preventing people that aren't medical professionals from self-medicating with a potentially harmful substance. Plus there's been some less than stellar suggestions of covid treatments in the past ranging from dubious to lethal. If it turns out to be safe, then doctors will no doubt prescribe it as necessary.
It's in significant use in humans as a dewormer, though. It's used in humans to treat river blindness which is caused by a worm. It's also used for the prevention of worms in dogs. It's fair to call it a dewormer, even if you disagree with including the 'horse' part.
Correct, and while it's use as an anti-viral has been noted pre-covid we don't understand what it's method of action is, or why it sometimes behaves as an anti-viral.
I'm not recommending using drugs we don't understand or have a full picture of. I am recommending to stop calling it horse dewormer. At the very least call it an anti-parasitic in use in the 3rd and 2nd worlds.
Two people in my circle were taking IVM pre-pandemic to treat rosacea and lyme disease. This is not an obscure drug in the 1st world. It also doesn't need to be an anti-viral to work on covid - it's already a general anti-inflammatory. Inflammation of the lungs is why people can't breath and often die, and that inflammation is due to the body's own immune response, not the virus itself. The virus is gone by that point. But our standard protocol at first symptoms does not include treating potential inflammation, so by the time people get to hospital it's often too late. It's not good.
You can drop the '3rd and 2nd worlds' part. It's used for the treatment of parasites in the 1st world as well.
I'm not a infectious diseases expert, but to my knowledge the viruses that it's been found to be effective against are all mosquito borne; it's just as likely related to it's toxic action on mosquitos in general. Still, it's all baseless conjecture on everyone's part. If someone cares to throw money at it, it's something that can be investigated.
At the end of the day just get the widely available vaccine and move on with life, like you would for other viruses that we've got vaccines for. I feel like we're all making this way harder than it has to be just so we can all continue to yell at each other.
Ok, I'll be more specific. Using the word "horse" is like calling other medications that are used on people and dogs as "dog" medicine.
The qualifier is not necessary. Truthfully, they should just call it ivermectin and describe what it actually is, how it has actually been used, and the current state of research showing that currently has little proof of effectiveness though there are trials ongoing.
I figured that term had taken off because people were acquiring it from farm stores or pet supply places, so they were literally buying "horse dewormer", as it might be labeled on the packaging or signage. Same as they do for other off-prescription medications (antibiotics).
My point about “horse dewormer” is that some articles in the media list it as just that without mentioning at all that it is also human medication. Look at the recent articles about Joe Rogan, they couldn’t stop themselves.
Afaik the only difference between human and animal ivm are levels of impurity.
That's because people are literally buying and eating horse dewormer. Its in a package that says "horse dewormer" on it. It's sold at livestock stores in the "horse medicine" section. The media is 100% correct to call what people are poisoning themselves with "horse dewormer".
I bet you get mad at the news for reporting rain because water exists in other forms, and has other ways of moving about besides rain right?
It's really hard to poison yourself with ivermectin if you're a vertebrate. Apparently the total number of poisoning cases in the US, a country of 330 million people, is about 500, and the vast majority of those cases had minor or no effects; people were just worried. So if you buy horse dewormer in a livestock store and take it, you'll probably still be fine.
Did Joe Rogan literally buy and eat something from a package that says "horse dewormer" on it? You willingly ignored the salient parts of the comment you responded to (ironically providing more evidence of the very phenomenon that they're trying to discuss).
Which brings up another point: some pharmacies are refusing to fill it, even when prescribed by a doctor. If you want to place the blame for people getting "horse dewormer", such pharmacies deserve part of the blame.
Too bad most of the people who want horse dewormer were the same people who wanted the "pharmacist conscience" laws that allow pharmacists to deny their veterinary prescriptions. Who would have thought that such a law would come back to bite them.
Since you dodged the question, it's worth asking again.
The complaint, stated by sprafa, is: "Look at the recent articles about Joe Rogan, they couldn’t stop themselves."
... to which you responded, ignoring the complaint and doubling down, right before kicking it up a notch with a personal attack/shameless attempt to strawman ("I bet you get mad at the news for[...] right?").
So did Rogan literally buy and eat something from a package that says "horse dewormer" or not?
I mean, it's quite likely the ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine has some effect against the virus in the early stages of infection, but their use needs to be balanced against their side effects, of which there are many. It's like how bleach kills cancer cells, but you really shouldn't be treating cancer with it...
I mean, it's great that you personally believe something, but to make ethical medical decisions we need lots of clinical data. If your belief is well founded, which it damn well might be, the data should bear that out.
The data on the safety of Ivermectin is very well established.
It's well-known to be very safe with pretty minimal side effects and extremely low serious side effect rates despite the billions of doses handed out over the past decades.
The real question is about its anti-viral properties. We know they exist, but don't know why or to what extent. Further, we don't know if they extend to COVID and we don't now if the effective dosage is high enough to increase the rates of side effects (especially bad ones).
The result is extremists on both sides saying wild garbage. Either it's the salvation of mankind hidden from you by the grand conspiracy or it's toxic horse dewormer that will certainly kill anyone who even approaches it.
This is a real problem. If I were researching Ivermectin and COVID, I'd be scared that loonies from one side or the other might attempt to hurt me or ruin my life over their delusions.
We have lots of clinical data, their belief is well founded, and the data does bear that out. It's as if you commented without even skimming the Wikipedia article about ivermectin.
> IVM is as useful as eating dirt in relation to COVID, until proven otherwise with studies
Um. No. IVM is useful or not useful regardless of whether studies have been done.
Studies are useful for finding out whether it is useful, but they do not affect the result.
If people take it now and then it turns out it's a miracle cure that halts ageing the people taking it now will have benefited. If instead it actually causes incurable cancer in five years the people taking it now are in the shitter. These things are true or false regardless of whether we know them and regardless of whether we got that knowledge from formal studies.
In fact, most of the "people are dying because they're injecting themselves with horse dewormer" story can be traced back to a rolling stone article that quoted a doctor who said so. The only problem was, they actually quoted the doctor's name as well as an actual hospital he supposedly worked at - and the hospital issued a statement that that doctor neither worked there nor had they treated any Ivermectin overdoses (https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/rolling-stone-s-ive...). In other words, "people overdosing on horse dewormer" is actual misinformation... which isn't being censored.
Relying on one source for information is wrong, the hearsay article which reported what the doc in Oklahoma said without verifying the claims about ivermectin overdoses was wrong.
What is not wrong is this:
According to the National Poison Data System (NPDS), which collects information from the nation's 55 poison control centers, there was a 245% jump in reported exposure cases from July to August — from 133 to 459.
On the one hand, it's nice to know this number is low, on the other hand the numbers are likely under-reporting. Low toxicity doses and symptoms are likely unrecorded. Self medication with prescription drugs is a bad idea.
No. The Rolling Stone debacle literally just happened.
The idea "most of the story" is traced backed to one bad article, from two days ago, when it's been a story for over a month is ridiculous nut-picking.
To be fair, the bans usually were about china fabricating the virus on purpose and releasing it with intention, accompanied by racism against Asians. This is pretty different from the accidental leak of a research-object, which is now the accepted theory.
The media did themselves and the public a disservice by gluing the two theories together and blending them. Several friends - college educated, intelligent professionals - were confused enough to approach and ask me about the lab leak/release theories.
The intentional lab release theory is the stuff of nonsense conspiracy theories. The accidental leak theory has always had some support but is now more widely accepted (but will likely never have hard proof).
For a time, both were bannable offenses on Facebook, Youtube and others. Likely because the media glued them together and assigned them both as "disinformation".
It wasn't really the media doing that. It was more a combination between nut heads, meme heads with their umbrella-connection and the first panic. The media just amplified it and rode the wave, as usual. And after the message was out, it was hard to turn it around. And I guess the platforms were just unable to distinguish between them, as also had more interest to wait till the nutty wave died down.
Not sure what you mean. These articles are all from 6+ months after the first panic. At that point, the theories were already long merged and spreading wild. They were already present from the first days in January 2020, when China's situation became epidemic. And this didn't really change till spring 2021 when everyone cooled down a bit and sanity returned a bit.
> To be fair, the bans usually were about china fabricating the virus on purpose and releasing it with intention, accompanied by racism against Asians. This is pretty different from the accidental leak of a research-object, which is now the accepted theory.
No, both versions were lumped into the same bucket.
"most plausible theory" according to whom? It's not a theory, it's a hypothesis with little tangible but evidence due to the nature of chinas control. It could have happened, it may not have. The problem with lab leak discussion on YouTube/Facebook is it was heavily associated with politics, and incredible unsubstantiated claims. "Experts" from nowhere, hired degrees talking about a lab they know nothing about, anonymous and convenient unheard of "researchers" supposedly "exposing the lab leak". The disinformation was incredible. Even if lab leak did happen - very few had the actual proof or good arguments to back it.
I've used the "pour-on" version of IVM which is used on livestock. I could hardly avoid it: we were deworming and branding a herd of cattle; the method of application was to pour IVM on each critter's back and spread it with your hands. Doing so probably put enough ivermectin in my system to kill any parasites I had 50 times over. Never suffered any consequences AFAICT. I have noticed that the guys who regularly do this are extremely healthy but they're all cowboys, so a selection bias is likely present.
I don't think it absorbs that well through the skin; there are topical ivermectin preparations that are supposed to be safer for kittens and the white-footed dog breeds that have a defect in the enzyme that detoxifies it.
In general, though, people panicking about ivermectin poisoning is ridiculous. Mass ivermectin administration is a common parasite-extermination measure.
When we use pour-on we just pour it on. I've never seen any instructions to rub it on with your hands. Liquid that gets stuck to your hands is liquid that isn't still on the animal's skin where it will have therapeutic effect.
But sure, it's completely safe for human beings to be exposed to ivermectin. WHO wouldn't recommend it otherwise.
The dose makes the poison; nothing is completely safe to be exposed to. The lethal dose of ivermectin is about 10 mg/kg orally, so it's about 250 times more poisonous than table salt, which from my point of view puts it in the "dangerous poisons" category. But that's about 30 times the standard therapeutic dose, so it's pretty unlikely to happen by accident.
However, that's the standard therapeutic dose for parasites. To work as an antiviral it needs to interfere with viral replication somehow, and since viruses replicate using normal somatic-cell metabolic processes, you'd probably have to take a high enough dose of ivermectin for it to interfere with normal somatic-cell metabolic processes. That, in turn, means you're going to see side effects you wouldn't see at the normal antiparasitic doses.
Nevertheless, there isn't in fact an epidemic of serious ivermectin poisoning, horse dewormers or no. Maybe one in ten million people in the US, less elsewhere.
Weird this needs to be reiterated in Covid 2021....What do you think "media" should be doing? Remember, media =/= op-ed journalists that you want to have the same opinion as you.
"media" should not have to do anything by anyone's standards. it is a omnipresent, global, ever changing opinion glued transparently to percieved values and morays of the time.
If you click on a link/article that says "X will not work and we do not like it", then that media outfit is doing exactly what it needs to do as a media outfit.
