FOX and their Friends Still Pushing A Horse Medicine To Treat COVID

[Belk]

It's actually repackaged Nazi propaganda. The only difference is that they called it 'Cultural Bolshevism'.

That makes a lot of sense. Everything old is new again. :/

 

[Say it aint so]

Sweeping, wrong generalization.

Not far off. FOX viewers just departmentalize the lies. As long as the lie falls into the "owning the libs" department, then view on.

 

[AvilaSurfer]

The headline of this thread is a lie. Not one Fox host has ever pushed for horse medicine to be used for Covid.

 

[FreeinChrist]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...cy-theories-led-people-buying-horse-dewormer/

Perhaps chief among the earliest, most high-profile proponents was Fox News host Laura Ingraham, who pitched the drug long before many in conservative media or even on Fox itself joined her.

On Dec. 1, Ingraham welcomed a doctor who had advised Trump and claimed social distancing and quarantining don’t work. He mentioned the drug alongside hydroxychloroquine as having been “very successful and very safely used in most of the world.”,,,,,,


That was kibble for conservative media. The next day, Ingraham floated a conspiracy theory that rears its head to this day: the idea that drugs like ivermectin are being suppressed as coronavirus treatments because they are too cheap — or even that they would jeopardize the emergency approvals of the vaccines.

“I think we know now — and looking at the language — that in order to get emergency use authorization for these vaccines, it can’t be that there are safe therapeutics that show effectiveness against this particular virus,” Ingraham said, while mentioning ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine........

On Feb. 12, Ingraham mentioned “ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, and emerging antivirals and therapeutics that provide enormous benefit.”

By March 8, she pitched these drugs as being “used around the world to reduce covid hospitalizations and deaths.”
​

A big study supporting ivermectin, Fox's latest miracle COVID treatment, was just retracted

On the basis of preprint studies backing its use as a COVID-19 treatment, ivermectin has been adopted in parts of Latin America and India and championed by elements of the U.S. right as a preventative. But the World Health Organization, European regulators, the ivermectin manufacturer Merck, the U.S. National Institutes of Health, and the FDA have all warned against its use against COVID-19, citing a lack of evidence that it is effective. The FDA has also highlighted the drug’s “very dangerous” side effects if taken to excess or in combination with other medications; ABC News reported in February on an uptick in calls to poison control centers from people who had taken it.

Regardless, Fox News prime-time stars Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham have been puffing up ivermectin, even as they’ve been successfully undermining public efforts to get people like their viewers vaccinated by using their shows to cast doubt on the effectiveness and safety of the coronavirus vaccines.​

​

 

[Bradskii]

It's actually repackaged Nazi propaganda. The only difference is that they called it 'Cultural Bolshevism'.

"The Nazi’s launched campaigns against ‘degenerate art’, proscribed forms of modern music and famously engaged in the mass burning of subversive books. Whole neighbourhoods deemed cosmopolitan or bohemian were scheduled for demolition, as the Third Reich planned to return the German people to a rural lifestyle. Jewish influence was condemned for undermining family values and promoting the idea of women’s equality and the LGBT community.

The Nazis claimed they faced an insidious assault on the things that really matter; family, identity, music, art and intellectual life. They called this attack ‘Kulturbolschewismus’ or ‘Cultural Bolshevism’ – the Bolsheviks being the Marxist revolutionary movement in Russia." Analysis: 'Cultural Marxism' and why the Right cannot escape its essential racism – Source

It's a bit nippy today. I might burn some books.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

So the people who call us "sheep" for getting vaccinated are pushing a drug that's for livestock? And they don't see this?

 

[Vylo]

So the people who call us "sheep" for getting vaccinated are pushing a drug that's for livestock? And they don't see this?

These are folk that vote for a failed NYC real estate tycoon turned reality TV star, thinking he would help them, let alone understand or care about their plight as salt of the earth Americans.

 

[essentialsaltes]

We have always been at war with ivermectin.

Fox News host Sean Hannity is now pretending that he consistently warned his audience against the use of ivermectin, the antiparasitic drug that a constellation of right-wing personalities and grifters promoted as a COVID-19 treatment that a major study now shows is ineffective.

“People wrote this story, by the way, that I had been telling people [to use] ivermectin. Linda, is that not the one thing that I kept saying, there’s not a single study that I’ve seen that shows that it works?” he asked his producer on his nationally syndicated radio show on Friday. “One hundred percent,” she replied. He later suggested that his discussion of the drug was limited to hosting “guests on this program [who] mention it as part of their protocol; anecdotally they say it works.”

Hannity’s claim that he had waved his audience away from ivermectin is a bald-faced lie.

[here follow the receipts]

 

[hislegacy]

A five-day course of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 may reduce the duration of illness - PubMed

A five-day course of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 may reduce the duration of illness
​

Ivermectin is highly effective as a safe prophylaxis and treatment for COVID-19: Comprehensive review - Outbreak News Today

Led by the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), a group of medical and scientific experts reviewed published peer-reviewed studies, manuscripts, expert meta-analyses, and epidemiological analyses of regions with ivermectin distribution efforts all showing that ivermectin is an effective prophylaxis and treatment for COVID-19.
​

Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines - PubMed

Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.
​

In all due respect to Rachel Maddox and both of her viewers - there is clinical evidence other than the propaganda coming out of Fauci and his cronies.

 

[essentialsaltes]

​

Ivermectin is highly effective as a safe prophylaxis and treatment for COVID-19: Comprehensive review - Outbreak News Today

Why not provide the direct link to the Kory paper? Instead of 'Outbreak News Today'? Oh...

Erratum
The Editor of the American Journal of Therapeutics hereby issues an Expression of Concern for Kory P, Meduri GU, Varon J, Iglesias J, Marik PE. Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19. Am J Ther. 2021;28(3): e299–e318.

The decision is based on the evaluation of allegations of inaccurate data collection and/or reporting in at least one of the primary sources of the meta-analysis contained in the article.1,2 These allegations were first made after the publication of this article.1 The exclusion of the suspicious data appears to raise questions regarding the ivermectin's potential to decrease the mortality of COVID-19 infection.2

Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines - PubMed

Did you note the prominent Expression of Concern for the Bryant paper?

Erratum
The Editor of the American Journal of Therapeutics hereby issues an Expression of Concern for Bryant A, Lawrie TA, Dowswell T, Fordham EJ, Mitchell S, Hill SR, Tham TC. Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines. Am J Ther. 2021;28(4): e434-e460.

The decision is based on the evaluation of allegations of inaccurate data collection and/or reporting in at least 2 primary sources of the meta-analysis performed by Mr. Andrew Bryant and his collaborators.1,2 These allegations were first made after the publication of this article. The exclusion of the suspicious data appears to invalidate the findings regarding the ivermectin's potential to decrease the mortality of COVID-19 infection.2

 

[ThatRobGuy]

A five-day course of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 may reduce the duration of illness - PubMed

A five-day course of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 may reduce the duration of illness
​

Ivermectin is highly effective as a safe prophylaxis and treatment for COVID-19: Comprehensive review - Outbreak News Today

Led by the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), a group of medical and scientific experts reviewed published peer-reviewed studies, manuscripts, expert meta-analyses, and epidemiological analyses of regions with ivermectin distribution efforts all showing that ivermectin is an effective prophylaxis and treatment for COVID-19.
​

Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines - PubMed

Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.
​

In all due respect to Rachel Maddox and both of her viewers - there is clinical evidence other than the propaganda coming out of Fauci and his cronies.

With regards to the two PubMed studies...while PubMed can be a valuable tool to look at various studies, them simply being on there doesn't by default make it a well constructed study, nor does it indicate the level of validity.

It's basically just a study repository.

For instance, you can go on PubMed right now and find multiple studies regarding egg consumption with wildly differing conclusions.

IE: with a 5 minute search, I found two different studies on eggs on PubMed
Study 1)
Conclusion: Consumption of egg increases total cholesterol, LDL-C and HDL-C, among adults, high egg consumption leads to an increased risk of all-cause and CVD mortality, with the risk being evident even at the recommended intake of 2-4 eggs per week. A substantial part of this association was likely due to the egg contribution to dietary cholesterol. Our findings suggest limiting the consumption of eggs in the diet and these results should be considered in the development of dietary guidelines and updates.

Study 2)
Conclusions: Results from the three cohorts and from the updated meta-analysis show that moderate egg consumption (up to one egg per day) is not associated with cardiovascular disease risk overall, and is associated with potentially lower cardiovascular disease risk in Asian populations.


Clearly one is right and one is wrong...regardless of which, it means there are some studies on PubMed that have questionable merit.


In order to try to weed out studies that have the potential to be flawed or not applicable, it's important to look at a few key aspects of the study.

The biggest factors being the sample size, and how well it's controlled.

For instance, everything else being "on-point" with regards to ethics and methodology, a study involving only 3 people is unlikely to yield any meaningful results as it's going to throw the ratios way off.

1 out of 3 people having a certain outcome is not nearly as solid (in terms of rates and causal establishment) as 100 out of 300.

The first study cited only included 72 people...my first thought with that is, that's a pretty small group. Small enough that, even with some randomization, it's quite possible that some younger or healthier patients got a higher proportion of representation in the "Ivermectin and Ivermectin+Doxy" groups vs the placebo groups. However, the chances of that kind of inadvertent skewing diminishes the larger the study gets.

The NIH article on this study concurs:
the study sample was too small (n = 72) to draw any solid conclusions

Another red flag, the NIH article clarifies that the study was funded by Beximco Pharmaceutical Limited, Bangladesh.... so despite the authors themselves claiming there are no conflicts, that's clearly not entirely accurate as that company bankrolling it is one of the world's largest producers of Ivermectin (under their brand name, Ivera)


Now, with regards to the title of the thread...portraying it as "horse medicine" isn't a fair descriptor either. It has usages for multiple species. (much like amoxicillin can be used in dogs, however, if people started misguidedly using it to fight covid, it wouldn't be fair to accuse them of taking "dog medicine")

There's just not any strong evidence to suggest that it's effective for Covid. The left-leaning media should've left it at that instead of jumping on the "Joe Rogan's taking horse paste" bandwagon.

 

[smittymatt]

Genuinely curious, can someone provide the link where Fox recommends taking Ivermectin to combat COVID?

 

[FreeinChrist]

Ivermectin Does Not Reduce Risk of Covid Hospitalization, Large Study Finds

The anti-parasitic drug ivermectin, which has surged in popularity as an alternative treatment for Covid-19 despite a lack of strong research to back it up, showed no sign of alleviating the disease, according to results of a large clinical trial published on Wednesday.

The study, which compared more than 1,300 people infected with the coronavirus in Brazil who received either ivermectin or a placebo, effectively ruled out the drug as a treatment for Covid, the study’s authors said.

“There’s really no sign of any benefit,” said Dr. David Boulware, an infectious-disease expert at the University of Minnesota.

The researchers shared a summary of these results in August during an online presentation hosted by the National Institutes of Health, but the full data set had not been published until now in The New England Journal of Medicine. .....

For decades, ivermectin has been widely used to treat parasitic infections. Early in the pandemic, when researchers were trying thousands of old drugs against Covid-19, laboratory experiments on cells suggested that ivermectin might block the coronavirus.

At the time, skeptics pointed out that the experiments worked thanks to high concentrations of the drug — far beyond safe levels for people. Nevertheless, some doctors began prescribing ivermectin for Covid-19, despite a warning from the Food and Drug Administration that it was not approved for such use.

​

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Genuinely curious, can someone provide the link where Fox recommends taking Ivermectin to combat COVID?

I don't know if the network made an "official" recommendation for it, but a few of their on-air personalities like Tucker Carlson have advocated for it on-air.

(he was the same one who also quasi-advocated for hydroxychloroquine as well)

I'd agree that they shot their own credibility by trying to present it as exclusively a "horse dewormer" when they should've just been honest about it by saying "it's a medication that's used in humans, but it's just not effective for this" (much like would be true for several medications that have tremendous value to humans, just not for covid)

But none the less, Tucker has advocated for it on-air per the video I linked.

A person on-air (who one political faction happens to trust a lot) saying "there's several promising drugs like Ivermectin", and then portraying it as "this is the treatment that the establishment doesn't want you to know about" is tantamount to a recommendation. It's no coincidence that after Tucker started talking about it on-air, and Laura Inghram started tweeting about it, several from their political tribe started going gangbusters to try to get their hands on it.

 

[Bradskii]

Genuinely curious, can someone provide the link where Fox recommends taking Ivermectin to combat COVID?

I just linked to a video that shows it...but I see it's already been linked in the post above.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Jinx lol

 

[Bradskii]

Jinx lol

My bad, Rob. I should read the complete thread before jumping in. But it shows that the proof that Fox was pushing it was not hard to find.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

My bad, Rob. I should read the complete thread before jumping in. But it shows that the proof that Fox was pushing it was not hard to find.

lol, yeah, it was all of a 5 second google search to find that video...you're correct, it's not hard to find.

That's the issue with a virus becoming politicized... "is this an approach my side approves of?" becomes a more important qualifier than "does it actually work?"

People will claim they have a distrust of the media and people in power, yet all it took was a Tucker or a Trump to say "Ivermectin could be promising" or "Hydroxychloroquine could be a game changer" to convince people to seek out the drug.

Thankfully Trump at least advocated for vaccines once they were widely available. (despite it getting him booed at public rallies)

But the group who prides themselves on "doing their own research"...and will google back to page 20 to try to find "dubious links" between vaccines and George Soros agenda had no problem with ingesting two other drugs (Ivermectin/Hydroxychloroquine) despite the fact that I'd be willing to bet they had zero idea of how those drugs work, and had probably never heard of them before they were popularized by the aforementioned personalities, and the research was probably the extent of "Trump/Tucker said it was good, let me google to see how I can find a doctor who will give me a prescription for it???"

 

[metal-prism]

I can't believe people are still falling for this fallacy.

 

[Aaron112]

Genuinely curious, can someone provide the link where Fox recommends taking Ivermectin to combat COVID?

It was posted often on the internet, and censored/ erased all the time.
Now Ivermectin or "horse paste" as it might be called, and is for a century used freely by veternarians, is a lot more expensive (to prevent more people from being cured)
but still being used where they nkow what to do.