Hi, may we know why this post was deleted?

[Geneco]

Hi,

For your kind clarifications with regards to the deletion of the following:

Geneco said:
Not sure why Singapore did a local trial last year using a "random drug that is used for animals"?

Quote from a NUHS media release 25 April 2021 based on a large local trial with a few treatment arms including ivermectin on a single 12mg dose.

From page 3, para 3:

"..., men who received ivermectin had fewer symptomatic infections compared with vitamin C."

https://www.nuhs.edu.sg/sites/nuhs/NUHS Assets/News Documents/NUHS Corp/Media Releases/2021/Oral-hydrochloroquine-and-povidone-iodine-throat-spray-can-reduce-spread-of-covid-19-in-high-transmission-settings.pdf

Mind boggling isn't it?

Thank you!

 

[Intrinion]

Correct at the time of this posting, Ivermectin is not approved by the Health Sciences Authority of Singapore for prevention or treatment of Covid-19.

Noting the dangers of ivermectin, lifting a few selected lines from a study and using it to fit your narrative is dangerous. If you read the full manuscript, ivermectin is not effective in the prophylaxis of Covid. (Under Primary outcomes)

Additionally, medical trials are conducted in a carefully controlled manner (dosages etc.) under close supervision and observation by trained medical professionals. The trials also undergo multiple review and ethics boards to ensure safety of their participants.

To fully understand medical trials, one has to look at the data, exclusion criteria, participants as well as the limitations explicitly written.

Using certain mentioned lines / observations as a push to encourage the improper and unprescribed use of the drug is dangerous. An example illustrating the dangers of drug (ivermectin) misuse is highlighted in this thread. We will not allow you to pusue some dangerous angle that endangers our forum population.

Hence and therefore we have removed the post.

 

[Geneco]

Correct at the time of this posting, Ivermectin is not approved by the Health Sciences Authority of Singapore for prevention or treatment of Covid-19.

Noted, but our post does not suggest or encourage its use, we have stated in our signature a medical disclaimer that our content is informational and not intended as medical advice.

Why jump the gun?

Noting the dangers of ivermectin, lifting a few selected lines from a study and using it to fit your narrative is dangerous.

We are merely providing information from a legitimate local study and in particular we are quoting word from word from the "Secondary outcomes" section.

Our quote does not change the results or frame the results differently as supported by data from Table 2 below:

If you read the full manuscript, ivermectin is not effective in the prevention or treatment of Covid.

Nope, your statement is a half-truth as it is clarified by page 317, under "Secondary Outcomes" of "Positive impact of oral hydroxychloroquine and povidone-iodine throat spray for COVID-19 prophylaxis: An open-label randomized trial" of

www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(21)00345-3/pdf

"Despite no evidence of their having lower infection rates, men who received ivermectin had fewer symptomatic infections compared with vitamin C (Table 2)."

See table 2 below for raw data supporting the above conclusion made by the study authors:

Additionally, medical trials are conducted in a carefully controlled manner under close supervision and observation by trained medical professionals. They also undergo multiple review and ethics boards to ensure safety of their participants.

Encouraging improper and unprescribed use of the drug is dangerous. An example illustrating the dangers of drug (ivermectin) misuse is highlighted in this thread. We will not allow you to take things out of context and use a few selected sentences to endanger the forum population.

Hence and therefore we have removed it.

Again, our post or post history has not in any way encouraged "improper and unprescribed use" as you have alleged.

We are merely reporting word from word from the "Secondary outcomes" section of a local peer-reviewed study and not as you alleged "take things out of context and use a few selected sentences to endanger the forum population."

We have also shown you have taken the study out of context and stated a half truth:

If you read the full manuscript, ivermectin is not effective in the prevention or treatment of Covid.

No where did the quoted study make an such a conclusion as quoted above.

Whilst the Primary Outcome of "Prevention of infection" is not statistically significant, but one can see clearly in table 2 under "Secondary Outcomes" for "Symptomatic COVID-10" there is a marked difference compared to controls.

In view of your allegations, we take this as a serious and damning attack on us and it is very unfortunate such a statement is made on us without sufficient evidence.

We hope you will retract such an irresponsible statement which is an unjustified and unwarranted attack on us.

 

[Intrinion]

please see the updated responses

 

[Intrinion]

Despite no evidence of their having lower infection rates, men who received ivermectin had fewer symptomatic infections compared with vitamin C (Table 2)."

I refer you to the following sentence in bold and underlined. Stated is no evidence of lower infections rates. If you look at the primary outcome, both ivermectin and vitamin C are not statistically significant in the prophylaxis of Covid.

In your original post, you had cleverly omitted this crucial sentence.

Therefore, I wonder who is in fact trying to mislead the forum population and coming at it from some misguided angle with masked intentions.

 

[Geneco]

please see the updated responses

Appreciate your response but to put it in proper context, we are merely responding to another user who stated in his post that ivm is a "random drug that is used for animals", and that he wanted to understand the "logic" behind why people use it.

noname2016:
I don’t really understand the logic. I’m not pro or anti vaccine.
for anti vaccine I can sort of understand if they are fearful to take cus of long term unknown effects or whatever, but then how come they are not afraid of taking a random drug that is used for animals??

https://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/...taking-fake-ivermectin.6613488/post-137048213
For which we quoted a legitimate study showing use on humans, and the results of the "secondary outcomes" for which forms part of the reason which explains why people use it.

In no where did we encourage its use in our post.

So isn't it a stretch to pre-suppose we are pursuing a "dangerous angle" or "dangerous" narrative when we are merely reporting study results.

 

[Intrinion]

So isn't it a stretch to pre-suppose we are pursuing a "dangerous angle" or "dangerous" narrative when we are merely reporting study results.

And yet by highlighting only selected positive / pro ivermectin observations and conveniently or well to put it crudely, omitting crucial information such as “evidence of their having lower infection rates”

Wouldn’t you say that it is misleading and doesn’t highlight the full picture no?

 

[Geneco]

I refer you to the following sentence in bold and underlined. Stated is no evidence of lower infections rates. If you look at the primary outcome, both ivermectin and vitamin C are not statistically significant in the prophylaxis of Covid.

In your original post, you had cleverly omitted this crucial sentence.

Therefore, I wonder who is in fact trying to mislead the forum population and coming at it from some misguided angle with masked intentions.

View attachment 29606

No where in our post did we claim ivm lowered infection rates. So including or not including it would have no consequence as the results of the "secondary outcome" is still true:

"Despite no evidence of their having lower infection rates,, men who received ivermectin had fewer symptomatic infections compared with vitamin C (Table 2)."

Including or not including "Despite no evidence of their having lower infection rates", would have no bearing on the results of the "secondary outcomes" as per table 2.

We read the study in full, provided a full link to it for others to verify.

We would not have done that if our intention is merely to "mislead the forum population".

There is no "misguided angle or masked intentions" as we are merely reporting a statement that is fully inline with the results published in table 2 of the study.

 

[Intrinion]

Including or not including "Despite no evidence of their having lower infection rates", would have no bearing on the results of the "secondary outcomes" as per table 2.

Ah back to my first point, it conveniently omitting crucial information isn’t it not?

Regardless if or if the source was not cited, users who do not take time read the published article containing those few words that preceded your shortened sentence (which is most people) will form a different impression of the drug. It is wünderbar! vs It does not prevent infection hmm..

So our opinion is that you were trying to mislead. That is also the reason for the removal of the post.

 

[reddevil0728]

The continued use of "we" is very suspect.

 

[Geneco]

And yet by highlighting only selected positive / pro ivermectin observations and conveniently or well to put it crudely, omitting crucial information such as “evidence of their having lower infection rates”

Wouldn’t you say that it is misleading and doesn’t highlight the full picture no?

We respectfully disagree.

Another person can also make the claim that by posting the half truth:

Intrinion said:
If you read the full manuscript, ivermectin is not effective in the prevention or treatment of Covid.

That you are also "misleading the forum population" by claiming to have read the study in full. For which you have deleted in your original response. Is this a responsible or reasonable thing to do? Instead of posting a correcting clarification?

Yet, you are putting out such allegations on us.

For full reasons see post #8 previously.

 

[Intrinion]

What I m trying to say is that

“Despite no evidence of their having lower infection rates, men who received ivermectin had fewer symptomatic infections compared with vitamin C “

vs

“… men who received ivermectin had fewer symptomatic infections compared with vitamin C “

is interpreted by users differently

 

[Geneco]

Ah back to my first point, it conveniently omitting crucial information isn’t it not?

As said, It was not relevant to include the first part, in order for us to make out our point in context to our response to the forum user asking the question.

Regardless if or if the source was not cited, users who do not take time read the published article containing the few words that preceded your shortened sentence (which is most people - not in academia) will form a different impression and option of the drug.

Yes, the impression they form would be accurate of what the study has found and form a reasonable explanation for our response to the forum user asking the question.

That is misleading and misinformation. It is also the reason for the removal of the post.

As said, there is no intention to mislead or to misinform in the context of our response to the forum user.

For the record, we have also explained to the user in this post (https://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/...taking-fake-ivermectin.6613488/post-137051409), why the primary outcome shows no statistically significant results, i.e. why infection is not lowered in the IVM treatment group.

If it were our intention to mislead or misinform, we would not have gone to such lengths to explain the full study in the following posts in that thread.

 

[Geneco]

What I m trying to say is that

“Despite no evidence of their having lower infection rates, men who received ivermectin had fewer symptomatic infections compared with vitamin C “

vs

“… men who received ivermectin had fewer symptomatic infections compared with vitamin C “

is interpreted by users differently

As said, in context of our reply to the user, if we don't leave the "preventing infections" part out, it will not answer the forum's users question as to "the logic" as to why people use it.

There was also other reasons to leave it out, as there are newer and better designed studies or research which shows efficacy in prevention.

We could have brought that out to form an even more "dangerous" and "misguided" narrative, but why didn't we?

Why did we bother to explain in our later posts, the results of the study in full, if our intentions were just to merely "mislead" and "misinform"?

 

[Intrinion]

is it answering or omitting crucial information? I wonder

Both the user and myself have raised similar questions. If clarification and full disclosure is what you want then then why omit.

 

[Geneco]

In essence, we understand your gripe is that we didn't include the "primary outcome + secondary outcome" statement together as a whole.

But just quoting the "secondary outcome" in our case in the context of our response to the user, is by no reasonable measure part of an attempt to "mislead" or "misinform" or to lead users on a "misguided" angle or "dangerous" narrative by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Geneco]

is it answering or omitting crucial information? I wonder

Both the user and myself have raised similar questions.

The user has questioned that similarly as you had and we took the liberty to explain the "primary outcome" results in full below:

https://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/...taking-fake-ivermectin.6613488/post-137051409
The key question reasonable readers have to ask is:

Does an act of omission in a single forum reply to a specific question justify your allegations that we are on an attempt to "mislead" or "misinform" or to lead users on a "misguided" angle or "dangerous" narrative"?

 

[Geneco]

The continued use of "we" is very suspect.

Here's a lil' titbit to suss out the conspiracy theories some might have in mind.

"While switching from singular “I” to the plural “we” may not make you a king or win you a premiership, it might help shift your perspective from self-focused to others-focused, make you more aware of the needs of others and, as you work to meet those needs, might just make you a better leader."

https://hbr.org/2015/03/if-you-want-to-be-the-boss-say-we-not-i

 

[Dragon]

The Moderator has answered your query and since you refuse to accept it, it is pointless to debate further.