113 thoughts on “Sunday’s Papers

  1. SOQ

    After the Belfast Telegraph’s hit piece on Ivor Cummings, because of Ivermectin it looks like The Independent is going after Marcus De Brun.

    Drugs are prescribed off label all the time so why such uproar about one of the safest in the world? Either it works or it doesn’t and if it doesn’t then nobody will be prescribing it. I cannot remember a time before when big Pharma had such a corrupting influence on health care.

    https://www.independent.ie/world-news/coronavirus/gps-using-wormer-as-treatment-for-covid-40934002.html

    Reply
    1. Bitnboxy

      IVORmectin rather.

      Would ya stop. De Brun is lapping up the attention and already busy tweeting about the Indo story. I mean he started the ball rolling by tweeting a handful of anointed “truth-teller” GPs are administering Ivormectin to those with severe symptoms of Covid. As ever it’s about keeping the circus noise around him going, and oh a a nice little “gofund me” on the back of it to establish an “alternative media source” even though we are crawling with them now.

      I’m bored. Same old nonsense.

      Reply
      1. SOQ

        Ivermectin is primarily an early intervention treatment- nobody is claiming it is to be used for severe symptoms of CoVid-19. I hardly think that Marcus invited such a piece, which is what you are inferring.

        It amazes me how people who have put their professions and livelihoods on the line will have their motives so readily questioned and yet. an industry which has already been fined billions for bribery and corruption can do no wrong.

        There are none so blind as those who will not see.

        Reply
          1. Bitnboxy

            @SOQ. De Brun knows exactly what he was doing with the Ivormectin tweet. It’s not about Ivormectin, it’s about publicity and a Trumpian strategy for mass attention. It does work alas.

          2. SOQ

            And you know Marcus personally to be able to explain his motivations then so?

            You are smearing- nothing more.

          3. chris

            @ Tom J Why should any one be interested in a compromised institution that is funded by pharmaceutical companies. The only two board members with a conscience left when it rushed through approval for Pfizer despite it still being in trial.

          4. f_lawless

            @Tom J
            I’m interested. I thought there was a very propagandistic vibe off that article. The main photo of the horse was the initial giveaway. There’s been a concerted media campaign to tarnish public perception of Ivermectin by repeatedly focusing on one of its uses as an antiparasitic for animals.

            You just have to look at what the FDA tweeted on their official twitter channel when linking to the same piece. (The same picture of the horse is used):

            “You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y’all. Stop it.”
            https://twitter.com/us_fda/status/1429050070243192839

            Then there’s this line in the article:
            “Currently available data do not show ivermectin is effective against COVID-19”.
            This is clearly not true as those who’ve looked into it would know. There are already numerous randomised control trials which have demonstrated its efficacy. Also, there’s the empirical evidence from various countries around the world.

            When you consider that that Big Pharma provides 75% of the FDA’s Drug Review Budget, the obvious conclusion is that regulatory capture accounts for such a reaction from the FDA

        1. Bitnboxy

          @Chris To be fair, I think we can both agree that this is something in which you are well versed yourself given your own ability to spew out a profound ignorance and invective in any comment you “compose”. If fact, you are quite unparalleled in your short tenure on here.

          Well done!

          :-p

          Reply
          1. Bitnboxy

            @Chris Glad we can at least agree on the substance of my comment re the content of your, ahem, “posts”.

          2. chris

            @Bitntardy I was referring to yours (obviously). As for content – I’ve yet to see you provide anything of worth, as is typical of those brainwashed by propaganda.

    2. Cian

      Aromatherapy, Reflexology, “Himalayan” salt lamps, Halotherapy, Bach flower remedies, Homeopathy, Cupping, Magnetic field therapy, Psychic surgery, Reiki, and other woo

      “Either works or it doesn’t and if it doesn’t then nobody will be prescribing it.”

      Reply
      1. Johnny

        …list of withdrawn “approved” drugs or woo,woo.

        Amphetamine Mix (Adderall XR) 2005 Canada Withdrawn over reports of increased risk of stroke, reinstated after increased risk not found.

        Alatrofloxacin 2006 Worldwide Serious hepatotoxicity leading to liver transplant or death.

        Alclofenac 1979 UK Vasculitis

        Alpidem (Ananxyl) 1995 Worldwide Not approved in the US, withdrawn in France in 1994[4] and the rest of the market in 1995 because of rare but serious hepatotoxicity.

        Alosetron (Lotronex) 2000 US Serious gastrointestinal adverse events; ischemic colitis; severe constipation.[2] Reintroduced 2002 with restricted indication and new controls

        Alphaxolone/Alphadolone (Althesin) 1984 France, Germany, UK Anaphylaxis, possibly due to carrier oil

        Amineptine (Survector) 1999 France, US Hepatotoxicity, dermatological side effects, and abuse potential

        Aminopyrine 1999 France, Thailand risk of agranulocytosis and severe acne

        Amobarbital 1980 Norway Risk of barbiturate toxicity

        Amoproxan 1970 France Dermatologic and ophthalmic toxicity

        Anagestone acetate 1969 Germany Animal carcinogenicity

        Antrafenine 1984 France Unspecific experimental toxicity

        Aprotinin (Trasylol) 2008 US Increased risk of death.

        Ardeparin (Normiflo) 2001 US Withdrawn at request of NDA originator.

        And on and on and on…….

        What are Himalayan salt lamps?

        I highly recommend for an out touch outdated oul lad a few the alternatives you listed,or do you still really believe in better living through the pharmacy,how old fashioned and country.

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_withdrawn_drugs

        Reply
        1. bisted

          …what is the difference between a conventional piece of beef for roasting and one which has been aged using Himalayan salt…about €30…

          Reply
          1. Johnny

            ….price and value are not often correlated?
            They pay quite a bit for “Kobe” beef, a friend on occasion swore by steak tartare and a pint glass of cheapest vodka he could get with a dash Bloody Mary mix,breakfast champions he’d claim,while sweating profusely……coffee and a smoke for me,hope things good with you bisted.

        2. Cian

          Johnny,
          Seems to me like the system works. If there are medicines that don’t work or cause wider issues these are caught and the medicine withdrawn.

          Reply
          1. johnny

            ..some ‘system’ FFG created,14 years to clear the waiting lists,IF the ‘system’ runs at a generous 5% above its pre covid levels,it ‘s part comedy and tragedy that FFG which designed this,is still in charge of ‘health” in irl or are the nurses…..

            “He said said if the health service ran at 105% of pre pandemic levels, it would take 14 years to clear the backlog”

            https://www.rte.ie/news/health/2021/1009/1252712-hospital-waiting-lists/

            -by the way how many Afghan refugees did Simon agree take off Joe ?

      2. SOQ

        None of what you mention is a prescribed drug Cian- in fact, none of them are drugs at all. And, if people feel they are doing them some good, then why not? It’s not that long ago since acupuncture would have been on that dismissive list of course.

        If it is a case that all off label drug prescribing is to be banned then at least that would be consistent, but to selectively pick on one which just happens to be an early intervention alternative to experimental vaccines with no long term safety data, stinks to the high heavens.

        Reply
        1. Cian

          You have strange moral compas:

          Doctors prescribing off-label medicines (without evidence) = it’s grand like.

          Doctors recommending patients take an approved vaccine = Nuremburg-violation murderer.

          Reply
          1. Cian

            and why not if it works?
            I agree. if it works

            So far, the evidence for Ivermectin being in any way useful is non-existent/fairly weak. All of the trials that showed it to be useful were fraudulent and/or retracted.

      1. chris

        They know fascism when they see it. They’ve also got a heavily propagandised media, so kudos for so many seeing through the ploopy-ploopy-ploopkins.

        Reply
  2. johnny

    …i was expecting a follow up from sinead,after giving the sindo its best selling ed this year,with those hideous pic’s of her drunken interview with Ian Bailey?
    has she been dropped again,bit cruel use her like that.

    Reply
  3. Fearganainm

    Woe unto the Ivermectinites:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-58170809

    “…Prof Andrew Hill, from the University of Liverpool, wrote an influential positive review of ivermectin, originally saying the world should “get prepared, get supplies, get ready to approve [the drug]”. Now he says the studies don’t stand up to scrutiny…”

    Reply
    1. SOQ

      Given that India is threatening to sentence WHO Chief Scientist Dr. Soumya Swaminathan to death for misleading claims over Ivermectin- you can be pretty certain that there is strong opinions on all sides.

      Personally, I’ll take the opinion of front line doctors over academics any day, because they have first hand experience of what does and does not work.

      Reply
      1. Fearganainm

        India? Or a ragtag collection of lawyers? Be specific before posting. The medical qualifications of the lawyers would be helpful, if you have them.

        At an average of 253 deaths per day over the last seven days (as of yesterday), India still has some way to go.

        Reply
        1. SOQ

          You can search for The Indian Bar Association yourself.

          India is the second most populated country in the world with nearly a fifth of the world’s population- 1352.6 MILLION- 250 odd deaths is a ratio most countries can only dream of.

          Reply
          1. Fearganainm

            Of course I can search for the Indian Bar association myself, and unsurprisingly, I already did. A Modi fan club, taking its lead from the U.S.-based ‘Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance’ (FLCCC) and the British Ivermectin Recommendation Development (BIRD) Panel. No surprises there at all.

            Back in June it was reported that ‘…the directorate general of health services at India’s Ministry of Health and Family Welfare recently dropped ivermectin from its list of recommended COVID treatments…’

            Soumya Swaminathan is still alive and well and seemingly unperturbed by the Ivermectin cult’s local legal lynch mob.

            https://healthpolicy-watch.org/indian-bar-association-rebukes-who-chief-scientist-over-whos-ivermectin-guidelines-for-covid-treatment/

          2. SOQ

            They served notice on Tedros, Swaminathan and Kuma for contempt of the Bombay high court which had given a green light for use of Ivermectin for treatment of Covid-19. Something which the media reports claiming India has removed recommendations for its use, conveniently ignore.

            https://www.drrobertyoung.com/post/who-leaders-face-the-death-penalty-in-india-for-murder-medical-misinformation-on-ivermectin-hcq

            So given that the medical profession are so divided on this issue, what qualifies you to be so certain that it doesn’t work?

            Or is just a case of spinning because that is what you think you should do?

    1. chris

      There’s no gnashing of teeth as it is evident, not just in trial but in practice – ivermectins effectiveness.

      Whereas the vaccines denonstratedly don’t. Imagine, at this point in the game still getting suckered by the propaganda.

      Reply
          1. Fearganainm

            While you prefer to take your line from, among others, the ‘Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance’ (FLCCC) , a prominent member of which believes that a variety of medical conditions are caused by people having sex with demons in their sleep. Or perhaps you’re a fan of the British Ivermectin Recommendation Development (BIRD) Panel, which exists to push Ivermectin?

            Nobody could ever accuse you of ‘following the science’, eh?

            You’re a hoot.

        1. E'Matty

          This year’s flu vaccine will be a bit of guesswork too as Scientists usually develop the annual influenza vaccines based on the composition of the flu strains that circulated the year before. Given the fact the flu “disappeared” last year, they don’t have the usual data points to verify against. Think I heard talk of a quadrivalent flu vaccine for the elderly this year too. Regular mass vaccination the new normal in the new Biosecurity Age it would appear.

          Reply
  4. Fearganainm

    Poor chris. Blissfully unaware of the chief sources of misinformation that he regurgitates. No clue as to who has fed him the tripe that he claims to believe in. Maybe he believes that he’s a scientist who has researched and discovered all his nonsense independently of the actual sources that have been spraying it to him.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/13/ivermectin-treatment-covid-19-anti-vaxxers-advocates

    She’s an Ivermectin fan these days, chris, bow to your queen:

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/stella-immanuel-trumps-new-covid-doctor-believes-in-alien-dna-demon-sperm-and-hydroxychloroquine

    Reply
      1. Fearganainm

        The clarification re Mississippi Department of Health already appears in the article posted in The Guardian. What have you to say about the rest of the information?

        Reply
      1. Fearganainm

        No they haven’t. Spurious claims that failed to meet scientific/medical scrutiny were posted and articles demolishing said claims were posted too.

        Trying to smuggle refuted lies as ‘truth’ doesn’t work.

        Your best bet now is to retire from anonymous ‘public life’, slather yourself in Ivermectin, pull the bedcovers over your head and wait for Stella Immanuel to appear to you as a succubus. I doubt that her sweet nothings will amount to much but she’s got conspiracy theories that will blow your mind.

        It’s all that you’ve got to look forward to – don’t fight it.

        Reply
        1. SOQ

          Trying to pick one person whom you know with not sit well with the general public, to smear all, is tacky to say the least.

          If you are unfortunate enough to develop CoVid-19 then don’t take it- it really is that simple.

          Preventing doctors who genuinely believe it works from prescribing it is dangerous and will according to them, cost lives. Are you prepared to have that on your conscience?

          Reply
          1. Fearganainm

            ‘…who genuinely believe it works…’ – don’t you think that medical treatment should be based upon something more than ‘genuine belief’, such as successful trials and testing? Or such as a sound basis upon which to prescribe the use of something developed for particular use to be used to treat something entirely different? Medicines aren’t meant to be dispensed on a whim.

          2. SOQ

            There are doctors, including some Irish ones, who are prepared to put their careers on the line over this. They are the professionals and they believe it works and that they are doing the right thing by their patients.

            No amount of anonymous waffle on the internet by someone who is not even a medic, cherry picking individuals to smear, comes close.

            There is nothing wrong with repurposing of drugs, I expect Pharma even encourages it- except not in this case because they will lose bigtime if it does actually work.

  5. Fearganainm

    Here’s some reality:

    https://ebm.bmj.com/content/early/2021/05/26/bmjebm-2021-111678

    and some more:

    https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/frontiers-removes-controversial-ivermectin-paper-pre-publication-68505

    and more:

    https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/jul/16/huge-study-supporting-ivermectin-as-covid-treatment-withdrawn-over-ethical-concerns

    and more:

    https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02081-w

    To date there are no Ivermectin studies that confirm a positive outcome that have been accepted by the world’s medical/scientific communities. Claims made by a few mavericks and cranks have not stood up to scientific scrutiny. There are some trials ongoing but the general consensus is that they are not likely to confirm the wild claims made by the Ivermectin cultists.

    Reply
    1. chris

      You’ve already confirmed you haven’t a clue what reality is. If you’re happy with taking a vaccine that has no long term studies (usual at least 8 years) no animal testing and no idemnity for the manufacturer, then so be it.

      Reply
      1. Fearganainm

        According to you, you’ve never heard of the people who are the originators of the material that you post. The wild or unsubstantiated claims, the dodgy research that gets exposed as dodgy, the erroneous statistics that wither away when exposed to scrutiny, you post word for word what these people and organisations you claim to have never heard of put out and you talk about reality? It would appear that you don’t even check out the sources of your tripe. That’s not even doing your own research, it’s cutting and pasting.

        Your ‘sources’ appear to be ‘people who think like you who post on Twitter’. That’s not a good look.

        Reply
          1. chris

            You’ve clearly become obsessed with Ivermectin. I’m not, and I find your constant need to argue about it tiresome.

            If you can’t stop thinking about it you might have developed a compulsive disorder. Try distracting yourself with something else and if that doesn’t work – see a trained professional.

    2. f_lawless

      @Fearganainm

      You’re behind the curve on that one. This rebuttal has been posted before:

      https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/FLCCC-BIRD-Guardian-Elgazzar-Study-FINAL-1.pdf

      “The Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), a group of highly published, world-renowned critical care physicians and scholars, and the British Ivermectin Recommendation Development Group (BIRD), a U.K. based group of medical and scientific experts from over 15 countries, are concerned over the misrepresentation of science in the recent article published in the Guardian regarding the withdrawal of Professor Emeritus Ahmed Elgazzar!s study into ivermectin that was first posted December 16, 2020.

      Contrary to the voices quoted in the article, there is no scientific basis to state that the removal of one study from meta-analyses would “reverse results”. Worryingly, this article’s insinuation is reported as if it is fact.

      According to the most recent analyses by BIRD, excluding the Elgazzar data from the cited meta-analyses by Bryant and Hill does not change the conclusions of these reviews, with the findings still clearly favouring ivermectin for both prevention and treatment.

      This article raise questions of journalistic integrity and we invite the Guardian to make appropriate corrections to the reporting and properly check the veracity of their claims

      Recognise propaganda for what it is.

      Reply
          1. Chris

            The people you are trying to argue against understand that mainstream media publications have become compromised. What you imagine are ‘facts’ are – in essence propaganda. Hence no zingers or gotchas will register. You’d be better off forgetting all about Ivermectin. The circular arguments will go no where.

        1. f_lawless

          The Guardian respond to calls for corrections?! You’re having a laugh. Who can forget the Guardians front page evidence-free smear piece on Julian Assange during the “Russiagate” hysteria alleging that Manafort had secretly met with him 3 times at the Ecuadorian embassy on behalf of the Russians. No other media outlet touched it because it was crude propaganda and yet the story was never retracted. No apologies necessary when you’re doing the bidding of powerful elites

          https://theintercept.com/2019/01/02/five-weeks-after-the-guardians-viral-blockbuster-assangemanafort-scoop-no-evidence-has-emerged-just-stonewalling/

          Reply
          1. Chris

            +1 They’ve been heavily compromised for a good while. It became especially apparent when they developed their US presence. Another CIA asset.

          2. Fearganainm

            Your wee rant is nothing to do with Ivermectin and the myriad sources that blow away the claims of the two interest groups that you’re fanboying.

            “…In fact, Chaccour says, the chemical companies that produce the ingredients for ivermectin have seen their profits soar. Meyerowitz-Katz says even though ivermectin is off-patent – which means rival pharmaceutical companies can produce cheap generic versions of the drug – the stock prices of two companies that make patented ivermectin products have soared. Chaccour makes it clear he does not believe these companies are behind the ivermectin push, but says it is wrong for those promoting ivermectin to say the drug was being downplayed because it was not as profitable as new, patented drugs…”

            Follow the money and quit pimping a useless product.

            https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/sep/25/fraudulent-ivermectin-studies-open-up-new-battleground-between-science-and-misinformation

          3. f_lawless

            Let’s not beat around the bush. Even before the Covid era it had become standard practice for governments to maintain an “online presence” in order to exert influence over online public discourse. A huge amount of money is being funneled through to governments to supposedly “combat Covid misinformation” online. What it effectively amounts to is an army of unqualified trolls seeking to derail any meaningful debate. Broadsheet is an obvious target in Ireland as it’s one of the few Irish outlets already with a degree of popularity that posts alternative viewpoints to the establishment line on Covid issues.

            Your aggressive tone and use of hyperbolic language to persistently try and “police” perfectly reasonable viewpoints that dissent from establishment narratives puts you as prime suspect for being a paid troll. You don’t address points that are made. It seems all you’re here to do is go on the attack. Probably just churning out the comments to get your stats up. Maybe it’s double pay on Sunday?

          4. Chris

            And there was me thinking that the poor lad was having a mental health issue. Nativity, when will I learn.

  6. Fearganainm

    @SOQ

    Is your ‘source’ on India really Robert O. Young? This Robert O. Young?

    https://quackwatch.org/11ind/young3/

    The criminal spoofer who appears to have invented/embellished his credentials?

    The link that you posted was some ride – utter bilge.

    Don’t forget:

    I, Robert O. Young, declare freely and voluntarily, under penalty of perjury that
    I do not have any post high-school educational degrees from any accredited schools.
    I am not a Microbiologist.
    I am not a Hematologist.
    I am not a Medical Doctor.
    I am not a Naturopathic Doctor.
    I am not a trained scientist.

    Some ‘source’ that is.

    Reply
  7. Fearganainm

    Interesting to see SOQ resorting to claiming that multple user names are at work. It really only takes one person to challenge and refute the dubious claims and sources that you use. What were you even thinking of using a source like Robert O. Young? He’s a convicted criminal, a charlatan, a man who has peddled bogus ‘cures’ that actually threatened the lives of patients, a man who has made millions of dollars duping gullible people and has been convicted for doing so. What are you doing even reading him, let alone citing him?

    Is your sulk really about being called out for using such appalling sources?

    Reply
  8. Fearganainm

    @f_lawless

    Your pimping of Ivermectin is challenged and you imagine that anyone doing that has to be a government employee? You’re hilarious. You’re on the wrong side of the science, the wrong side of medical trials, the wrong side of research and you think it takes some malign plot to expose your ignorance?

    Unqualified is you. As in, you don’t know what you’re talking about. There is no polite debate to be had with ignorance – wrong is wrong and your ivermectin fetish is flat-out wrong. It’s not a ‘reasonable viewpoint’ to advocate use of a drug that is totally unsuitable and, in terms of treating Covid-19, ineffective. And if you keep trying to push it you’ll be told so. It doesn’t require a plot to do that.

    Incidentally, I wouldn’t be accepted for any government post for reasons that would frighten you.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored Link
Broadsheet.ie