muckrights-sans-merde
bonum fabula frat
### a-reply-to-dr-roy
*originally posted:* sep 2021
dr. roy (phd in medical biophysics, even) had a question today:
> Thu 22:02:10 │ 〖schestowitz-TR2〗 │ how does a deowrmer help against such a microorganism anyway?
> Thu 22:02:27 │ 〖schestowitz-TR2〗 │ maybe some naufacturers of these though some online disinfo would help them boost sales
> Thu 22:03:16 │ 〖schestowitz-TR2〗 │ so people cannot exercise very simple critical skills
the following is NOT a recommendation that you self-administer medicine, nor have i tried to do this, nor does it sound like a safe thing to do (particularly with all the people ending up in the emergency room from trying it).
what this post is about is simply a response to roys question.
i put essentially no research at all into this, it is NOT a topic i follow closely, in fact im mostly going to refer roy to what gizmodo says about it.
i dont put a lot of stock in gizmodo, though what they said makes more sense than what roy said, so maybe it will help.
first impressions though:
> Thu 22:02:10 │ 〖schestowitz-TR2〗 │ how does a deowrmer help against such a microorganism anyway?
i dont know, but it isnt really crazy. when i was in the uk, i used a formaldehyde-based disinfectant for cleaning. i thought it was a terrible idea really, but it was what was available and until we had to buy more, i figured it would probably do. i certainly didnt want to make a habit of it.
note that formaldehyde, for better or worse, is used to kill fungi, pests and infectious microorganisms. dewormers are meant to be ingested, and they also kill small organisms, so why not try them on viruses, right?
but wait, that does sound stupid, just like you said. at least, its not something i would have tried.
but if you just looked this up, instead of saying "this sounds stupid, so it must be stupid, so there must be stupid people with a stupid idea that is easy to dismiss here" you would probably know more about where this mistake is coming from. thats the basic idea behind this post-- to not be so dismissive of ideas you dont know anything about.
oh, we all do it sometimes. i know i do. do you know how much you do it? because i really try to go back and check these things sometimes. you should try it.
> Thu 22:02:27 │ 〖schestowitz-TR2〗 │ maybe some naufacturers of these though some online disinfo would help them boost sales
maybe thats it. did you figure out how the disinformation took hold, what it was based on?
> Thu 22:03:16 │ 〖schestowitz-TR2〗 │ so people cannot exercise very simple critical skills
thats possible i guess, but wait for the strawman:
> Thu 22:03:32 │ 〖schestowitz-TR2〗 │ like... worn is same as virsus. Where's the logic in THAT?
see, youre actually making fun of real medical research now.
heres the gizmodo url: https://gizmodo.com/the-truth-about-ivermectin-1847570437
the first thing to note is that it isnt a horse dewormer, theyre calling it that because the supplies are so low that people are buying it from feed stores. thats done by weight, and for horses, and even if you do the math right it sounds like a way for a lot of people to overdose.
not that i would rush to take even a proper dose without consulting a doctor (maybe a medical doctor though, as my experience with people who have phds in medical biophysics is pretty dodgy) because even a proper dose seems like it could have some really nasty side effects.
here is where it would help if you understood the desperation of people, but i dont think you do.
the article goes on to talk about studies where ivermectin was shown in initial trials to work as an antiviral IN THE LAB.
that part at least, was not the stupid assumption of the self-medicating public, but just because it works in vitro doesnt mean there will be worthwhile results in the sort of application people are counting on. but again, it would help if you understood the desperation of some people. its interesting because when you chastise dfc for not understanding crime rates being higher among the poor, you fail to recognise the extremely similar lesson with regards to this example.
something to think about.
the assumption people are making, rather than worm = virus (though if theyre tech writers, they cant always tell one from the other) its lab results = practical application as the poor assumption being made-- again, by desperate (and misinformed) people.
all of the above is right there at your fingertips, you just have to open searx or whatever you use now, and type in... i mean, at this point you probably know how to form a good search query, but even if you didnt you could just say "why do people think ivermectin..." that sort of thing.
and then you would know! plus, if in the future ivermectin is used as an antiviral (considering that not enough people are vaccinated now, and may not be in the future, a good and thoroughly-tested and doctor-prescribed antiviral could potentially save a lot of lives-- youd think a trained medical researcher would find that sort of thing really intriguing even if its far from ready yet) you wont be so surprised.
hopefully you arent this dismissive and unimaginative when youre doing actual medical research or whatever, because i already know what youre like as a tech writer.
=> https://muckrights-sans-merde.neocities.org