Scott Adam’s had an interesting tweet this morning.
As far as I know, no city, state, or country on the planet has beaten COVID-19 with Ivermectin or HCQ. Lots of places have limited access to vaccines whereas Ivermectin and HCQ are widely available. How does your worldview explain that?
What Scott Adams doesn’t know, or doesn’t seem to know.
Yuri Deigin is waging a war on Twitter vs Ivermectin (and Bret Weinstein/Heather Heying). It’s gotten ugly…
He got nicely ratio’d there.
I remember when he had a huge hissy fit against Trump when Barr threatened to go after pot dealers.
This is a very good site for data analysis and export
Very well done, clearly put together by knowledgeable people
Interesting FAQ’s too
https://c19early.com/faq.html
Database of all ivermectin COVID-19 studies. 105 studies, 68 peer reviewed, 60 with results comparing treatment and control groups. Submit updates/corrections below. FLCCC provides treatment recommendations. Ivermectin related news can be found on Telegram channels BiRD and FLCC
https://c19ivermectin.com
Check out their other pages
Show me a place where masks, lockdowns or vaccines have “beaten” COVID.
+++Johnboy
That space between our leaders ears.
Exactly.
Double blind study paper published. Scott needs to get out more and practice being humble in front of a mirror once in a while.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.31.21258081v1
“Conclusions There were significantly lower viral loads and viable cultures in the ivermectin group, which could lead to shortening isolation time in these patients.
The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov NCT 044297411.”
Based on the second sentence, I’m wondering if vaxx, and HCQ were swapped. Either to be thought provoking or avoid twitter banning. I’m not reading to much into this am I?
Scott Adams was absolutely trashed for his “support” of Trump in 2015 and 2016.
Most of his discussions about Presidential Candidate Donald Trump highlighted his “persuasion skills” which when I first heard them seemed to scream Snake Oil and Hucksterism. It did not matter. Anyone that wasn’t virulently Anti-Trump was (and still is) the Enemy of all Correct and Unified (un)Thinking Individuals in the Popular Herd.
Scott knows.
If the brain dead morons had listened to Adams, they probably could have developed tactics to stop Trump. They were too insular, self-righteous and pig ugly stupid to listen to anyone not screaming “Orange Man Bad!”
Scott was vilified. Scott lost a lot of business opportunities, speech appearances, and money in 2016. I think he is trying to get the Ivermectin story out there now, by very timidly and indirectly asking questions about drugs that are still verboten to the new Elite American Nomenklatura. If he foolishly outright says Ivermectin works, he will be quickly banned by the right thinking Sooper-geniuses at Farcebook, Twatter, and goooogle (whose motto is no longer “Don’t Be Evil).
He does not want to be un-personed. He doesn’t want his Dilbert Business destroyed.
I have a slightly different perspective. Scott Adams has himself taken the jabs, and is now starting to spin like a top after discovering that the jabs do not work as promised, and come with a risk of antibody dependent enhancement (ADE).
For someone claiming to be skilled in the arts of persuasion, he seems to have been remarkably easily persuaded to get himself jabbed.
I listen to Scott a lot. He’s about 50% better at ‘getting it’ than most people, and about 2.5% better than the smartest people I know. That makes him right a lot of the time, but it doesn’t make him infallible.
Scott’s problem is that his ‘worldview’ is based on persuasion, not evidence, which makes him come up with real clangers like ‘there ‘s no such thing as facts, just differing interpretations of data.’ To quote the famous shingles commercial, ‘the facts don’t care’. I’ve been watching the clinical evidence on HCQ since March of 2020, and Ivermectin since it first popped up on the radar a few months later, and the evidence in both cases was sufficient to attract my attention (far better evidence for effectiveness than for any of the vaccines, BTW, and with no concomitant risk of side-effects). The FLCCC studies have been spot-on and the sample sizes are more than convincing (especially in places like India, I mean come on!). When provincial/state governors effectively offer up their populations as control groups by outlawing the use of certain meds while neighbouring polities push them, you get the equivalent of a mass scientific study. It’s not double-blind, but when you’re dealing with millions upon millions of cases, you don’t NEED double-blind.
The evidence before the court is incontrovertible / there’s no need for the jury to retire. The only question left is: does a guy as smart as Adams not get this? Possibly; as he himself points out, cognitive dissonance is a major force in human thinking and analysis. Or does a guy as smart as Adams get it, but is posing his ‘questions’ in a faux-Socratic fashion designed not to get himself and his livelihood cancelled by the fascist tech oligarchs that are largely responsible for suppressing critical medical information in a worldwide medical crisis? It’s better to be throwing fruit at the tumbril than riding it.
I’d like to know why our politicians are so opposed to early treatment of the Wuhan flu. Drugs like Ivermectin and HCQ are much cheaper than being in the hospital on a ventilator. Like any disease the earlier treatment begins the better chance of recovery. What they’re doing doesn’t make sense unless the goal is just to flex their totalitarian muscles.
In part, it was their misplaced and histrionic reaction to Trump.
In part, it is that careerist bureaucrats, who are unaccountable and risk averse, were a poor choice to lead this effort, as pointed out by Eric Weinstein, in an earlier thread. The kind of people attracted to and capable of surviving in a bureaucracy aren’t likely to challenge the status quo and stand up to peer pressure or institutional bias. Repurposed drugs are not sexy or high tech. My disappointment is with the failure of the so called “best and brightest” to think outside the box, and for putting all their eggs in one vaccine basket. None call them visionary.
Just my opinion, I have no objection to making Ivermectin available, and on the efficacy meter, I lean toward it having some efficacy. I do think it’s possible to question the use of Ivermectin for Covid in good faith. It does seem too good to be true. It is a huge leap from “in vitro efficacy” to efficacy “in vivo’ that is greater than chance. I have seen many promising drugs that failed the final statistical hurdle. The collection of covid statistics is riddled with inconsistency; many people had covid without knowing it and recovered spontaneously. We will never know.
If I were to push back against Scott Adams it would be to point out that the Ivermectin is held to a higher standard or rigor than the vaccines.
But that’s the great thing about being conservative. You can voice an opinion that differs from the party line and you won’t be excoriated and cast out for it.
Right?
…as long as you engage in 2 minutes hate for people that visit Cuba.
rd I think you’ve got it right. I think it’s a ploy to get people who don’t think that ivermectin is a viable treatment to look up the information themselves.
If they use his wording they will find the information.
Scott can often provide some interesting and insightful perspective on some issues, but he really seems to have stepped into it on this one. His “question” is poorly framed, appears biased, and is indicative of stepping well outside of his circle of competence.
“Where is the evidence of the widespread success of a treatment that was demonized, criminalized, and repressed?” Duh.
Is he a big fan of the vaccines? Is that why it feels like he is running propaganda/interference for them?