<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Exchange Server">
<!-- converted from text --><style><!-- .EmailQuote { margin-left: 1pt; padding-left: 4pt; border-left: #800000 2px solid; } --></style>
</head>
<body>
<div>
<div class="x_quote">On </div>
</div>
<font size="2"><span style="font-size:11pt;">
<div class="PlainText">On Sat, Nov 19, 2022 at 07:51:21PM -0500, Khalid Baheyeldin wrote:<br>
> Subject: Re: [kwlug-disc] Ivermectin<br>
> <br>
> There is no nuance here: Ivermectin does not work against<br>
> COVID-19 in any way.<br>
> <br>
> I have a pharmacy degree and was licensed decades ago, but<br>
> switched after a few months to the new fangled computer thing.<br>
> So like any non-specialist, I lookup information and see if it<br>
> is backed by evidence, under rigorous controlled testing<br>
> conditions, or not. If not, there is not weight to the claim.<br>
> ...<br>
> So no, neither HCQ nor Ivermectin do any good for COVID-19 ...<br>
> And yes, vaccines are our best shot, followed by Paxlovid, and<br>
> perhaps one or two monoclonal antibodies that did not have<br>
> their efficacy reduced by viral mutations.<br>
<br>
I can hear Heisenberg rolling over in his grave on account of<br>
your certainty. What makes you think that anything in science is<br>
final or absolute? Our experience with computer programming<br>
should give us a hint: complex programs without bugs? especially<br>
in changing environments and usage conditions? Everything is a<br>
work in progress.<br>
<br>
> It is just like Hydroxychloroquine: what works against a<br>
> certain pathogen or disease at a given dose, at does not work<br>
> for other pathogens or conditions at a different dose. Viruses<br>
> and intestinal worms have very different biologies and modes of<br>
> infections (one is inside the cells, the other is outside, for<br>
> one).<br>
<br>
This sounds reductionist and dogmatic to me, approaching the idea<br>
that pathologies have a single cause and are therefore cured by a<br>
pharmaceutical product that attacks that single cause. Covid-19<br>
isn't a single thing but a collection of symptoms usually<br>
associated with (often different) respiratory diseases that were<br>
suddenly grouped together due to the identification of a certain<br>
virus (among the nearly one quadrillion viruses normally resident<br>
in a human body). It's highly unlikely that a single intervention<br>
can make a difference here. None of the uses of<br>
hydroxychloroquine or invermectin that I've heard about use only<br>
one of those drugs, They are always combined with other kinds of<br>
medical attention, under the credible suspicion that those who<br>
are the sickest have become vulnerable in many ways. Therefore<br>
testing for the effectiveness of a single drug in these<br>
circumstances is bound to fail, possibly intentionally so.<br>
<br>
> One example with dire consequences is thalidomide. It was used<br>
> as a painkiller (like Tylenol), then its use was expanded for<br>
> morning sickness for pregnant women. The result was babies were<br>
> born with incomplete hands or feet. Canada, the UK and Europe<br>
> allowed that use with disastrous results. In the USA, one Dr.<br>
> Frances Oldham Kelsey who worked for the FDA refused to approve<br>
> the drug, and stuck to her position that the company must<br>
> submit safety data, despite pressure from superiors.<br>
<br>
Gee, that sounds a lot like the current debates about the<br>
approval of vaccines: they are currently only approved under<br>
an emergency-use authorization because the usual safety studies<br>
have not been completed. The numbers of people currently<br>
vaccinated do not constitute a study; where is the control group?<br>
Safety studies take years. Have you ever heard of long-term<br>
effects? Where are the lessons pointed to by the thalidomide case<br>
being applied?<br>
<br>
Norman Doidge described the problems of the "master narrative" of<br>
the pharmalogical response to Covid-19 in a Globe and Mail<br>
article in January 2022<br>
<<a href="https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-vaccines-are-a-tool-not-a-silver-bullet-if-wed-allowed-more-scientific/">https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-vaccines-are-a-tool-not-a-silver-bullet-if-wed-allowed-more-scientific/</a>><br>
(if you can't get access to this article, I have PDF of it). This<br>
is what he says about the difficulty of merely quoting a<br>
selection of studies, as you do in the rest of your message:<br>
<br>
So why hasn’t treatment focused more on repurposed drugs?<br>
<br>
First, because the master narrative, once it took hold,<br>
directed our attention away from this possibility.<br>
Second, in North America, the first repurposed drug that<br>
came to public attention was hydroxychloroquine. When it<br>
was endorsed by then-president Donald Trump it became<br>
highly politicized. People’s opinions about it often had<br>
more to do with their political affiliation than whether<br>
they had read any of the (now) 303 studies. Third,<br>
agencies that regulate drugs, such as the U.S. Food and<br>
Drug Administration and Health Canada, mandate that any<br>
drug they evaluate have a sponsor, usually a drug company<br>
agreeing to assume liabilities for the drug. It’s an<br>
extremely expensive process. If an old, cheap generic<br>
drug shows promise for repurposing, it still needs a<br>
sponsor to get approved for that. But drug companies have<br>
no financial incentive to do so. So usually there are no<br>
sponsors, and the drugs languish.<br>
<br>
Of all the reasons that we didn’t focus on repurposed<br>
drugs, I would argue, the master narrative was the most<br>
important, because of the way it organized so many<br>
people’s thoughts, attention, and emotions.<br>
<br>
This mailing list frequently contains good arguments as to why we<br>
should be skeptical of the large corporations that dominate our<br>
activities in the tech world. An effective and frequently used<br>
rule of thumb in these discussions has been "follow the money".<br>
You have failed to do this in your discussion of the studies you<br>
quote. Who benefits from them?<br>
<br>
How bias-free were your pharmaceutical studies? How much of the<br>
information and textbooks were associated with pharmaceutical<br>
companies?<br>
<br>
Science never has an end point. It is, like all other forms of<br>
knowledge, a process of discovery and debate. Our experience with<br>
computer tech appears to demonstrate that there's no level<br>
playing field here and the big players monopolize the knowledge<br>
and development process. That's why I find it very troubling that<br>
your opening position implies that there is no longer a debate on<br>
these issues. That echoes the desire of the powers-that-be.<br>
<br>
-- Steve<br>
<br>
-- <br>
Steve Izma<br>
-<br>
Home: 35 Locust St., Kitchener, Ontario, Canada N2H 1W6<br>
E-mail: sizma@golden.net phone: 519-745-1313<br>
cell (text only; not frequently checked): 519-998-2684<br>
<br>
==<br>
The most erroneous stories are those we think we know best – and<br>
therefore never scrutinize or question.<br>
-- Stephen Jay Gould, *Full House: The Spread of Excellence<br>
from Plato to Darwin*, 1996<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
kwlug-disc mailing list<br>
To unsubscribe, send an email to kwlug-disc-leave@kwlug.org<br>
with the subject "unsubscribe", or email<br>
kwlug-disc-owner@kwlug.org to contact a human being.<br>
</div>
</span></font>
</body>
</html>