Seeking clarifications and justifications

[Geneco]

Any medication is dangerous if it’s taken not for it’s intended purpose. Perhaps you and your team should take a look at why it in the WHO list.

Then, by your own line of reasoning: any drug / substance are "dangerous" like the ones mentioned in the same thread and elsewhere like: vit a c, d, e, zinc, quercetin, fruits, lemon juice, povidone-iodine, lian hua qing wen, juicing/blending, etc.

None of them are intentionally purposed for covid-19.

Are you going to remove and censure these contents if anyone ever "mentions" these drugs / substances since they are "dangerous" going by your own subjective line of reasoning?

This is one of the key question that needs to be answered.

 

[Geneco]

No developed country in this world has approved such treatment yet.

This is a potentially misleading statement because ivermectin has been approved for off-label usage by doctors in certain institutions / states in developed countries like Japan and US for treatment of covid.

Also an approval does not necessarily have a bearing on a drugs real world's efficacy and safety.

 

[Mecisteus]

This is a potentially misleading statement because ivermectin has been approved for off-label usage by doctors in certain institutions / states in developed countries like Japan and US for treatment of covid.

For treatment on general public?

Also an approval does not necessarily have a bearing on a drugs real world's efficacy and safety.

And non-approval may have much more serious implications.

So why can't we can just err on the side of caution?

This is what the Mods are trying to do. Not sure why is it so hard for you to understand.

Please bring your discussion into a private channel instead.

 

[Geneco]

For treatment on general public?

Yes, general public in hospitals and clinics where approval has been granted for off-label use for treatment of covid in developed countries like USA.

And non-approval has much more serious implications.

So why can't we can just err on the side of caution?

This is what the Mods are trying to do. Not sure why is it so hard for you to understand.

Please bring your discussion into a private channel instead.

Sorry, but you are not following the crux of this thread.

The main contention is that sharing of anecdotal experience =/= advocating and giving medical advice.

If it was as alleged by the moderator in question, then your sharing of how you took a different vaccine platform for 3rd shot because you had some doubts after the previous 2 jabs is also equivalent to advocating and giving medical advice and "dangerous" or having "devastating" effects by the same line of reasoning?

Do you know how ridiculous that sounds?

 

[Mecisteus]

The main contention is that sharing of anecdotal experience =/= advocating and giving medical advice.

That's your view. Others view differently.

So why can't you respect the views of the Mods? Must argue till cows come home?

If it was as alleged by the moderator in question, then your sharing of how you took a different vaccine platform for 3rd shot because you had some doubts after the previous 2 jabs is also equivalent to advocating and giving medical advice and "dangerous" or having "devastating" effects by the same line of reasoning?

Do you know how ridiculous that sounds?

There is nothing ridiculous.

I took pfizer and then sinopharm.

Both are vaccines administered by clinics in SG. I did not administer them illegally.

 

[Geneco]

That's your view. Others view differently.

Sure. That validates our original point that this is a matter of subjective interpretation.

If so, the infraction and censuring was done on a subjective basis and not necessarily from an objective and neutral framework.

There is nothing ridiculous.

I took pfizer and then sinopharm.

Both are vaccines administered by clinics in SG. I did not administer them illegally.

Errr... Are you following along? We're not saying you administered them illegally...

What is "ridiculous" as per the line of reasoning we are criticising is to alleged that you are "promoting and advocating" for Sinopharm by just sharing your anecdotal experience about what you went through.

By the same "ridiculous" line of reasoning, it is also "dangerous" and could have "devastating" effect...

Then by your own reasoning, why don't your "err on the side of caution" and not share your experience since sharing it might sway people away from pfizer?

Fair enough or is it starting to sound ridiculous?

 

[Intrinion]

Then, by your own line of reasoning: any drug / substance are "dangerous" like the ones mentioned in the same thread and elsewhere like: vit a c, d, e, zinc, quercetin, fruits, lemon juice, povidone-iodine, lian hua qing wen, juicing/blending, etc.

None of them are intentionally purposed for covid-19.

Are you going to remove and censure these contents if anyone ever "mentions" these drugs / substances since they are "dangerous" going by your own subjective line of reasoning?

This is one of the key question that needs to be answered.

There are thousand and one substances and you are asking me why when clearly you know this answer yourself. I believe the crux of your question is asking why is ivermectin being highlighted? - simple, it has been misused in the treatment of Covid. Harmful effects were observed. Misinformed people have died from ivermectin usage. Advisories have been made by governments globally.

Now we will direct this question to you. How can you prove to us that ivermectin is safe for off label usage? If not, why the mention? For public health interests, that will remain the status quo.

We have explained our stance consistently across multiple posts in this thread

This is a potentially misleading statement because ivermectin has been approved for off-label usage by doctors in certain institutions / states in developed countries like Japan and US for treatment of covid.

Also an approval does not necessarily have a bearing on a drugs real world's efficacy and safety.

Off label use is confined within medical trials and in highly regulated medical settings. Importantly it is prescribed by medical professionals.

 

[Mecisteus]

What is "ridiculous" as per the line of reasoning we are criticising is to alleged that you are "promoting and advocating" for Sinopharm by just sharing your anecdotal experience about what you went through.

That's up to the Mods to decide then.

If such discussion is not allowed, I will stop and move on.

 

[Intrinion]

Yes, general public in hospitals and clinics where approval has been granted for off-label use for treatment of covid in developed countries like USA.

Sorry, but you are not following the crux of this thread.

The main contention is that sharing of anecdotal experience =/= advocating and giving medical advice.

If it was as alleged by the moderator in question, then your sharing of how you took a different vaccine platform for 3rd shot because you had some doubts after the previous 2 jabs is also equivalent to advocating and giving medical advice and "dangerous" or having "devastating" effects by the same line of reasoning?

Do you know how ridiculous that sounds?

It’s a persons choice on what they wish to vaccinate.

The ridiculousness is in your sharing of your alleged possession and consumption of ivermectin, a prescription drug, in a thread where the thread starter was asking how to avoid Covid.

 

[Geneco]

There are thousand and one substances and you are asking me why when clearly you know this answer yourself. I believe the crux of your question is asking why is ivermectin being highlighted? - simple, it has been misused in the treatment of Covid. Harmful effects were observed. People have died from ivermectin usage. Advisories have been made by governments globally.

Now we will direct this question to you. How can you prove to us that ivermectin is safe for off label usage? If not, why the mention? For public health interests, that will remain the status quo.

We have explained our stance consistently across multiple posts in this thread



Off label use is confined within medical trials and on highly regulated medical settings. Importantly prescribed by medical professionals.

We are not here to prove whatever drug or substance is safe or not, or if misused or if there are advisories against its usage. That's not the main contention of this thread and our queries.

We are not advocating for its use in the context of our infracted post, we are just sharing a bona fide anecdotal experience as mentioned.

We just need you to provide clarifications on the following:

1. How you made the "leap of logic" that sharing anecdotal experience is necessarily equivalent to advocating and giving medical advice as you have alleged?

2. If forum users can potentially get mislead to a "devastating" outcome by sharing of any anecdotal experience or use of drug / substances in this covid pandemic, then are you going to take action against post of similar nature like vit a c, d, e, zinc, quercetin, fruits, lemon juice, povidone-iodine, lian hua qing wen, juicing/blending, etc, or issue an advisory for users not to share anecdotal experience of such a nature?

3. Isn't this infraction an over-reach when moderator should be neutral and not be picking a side in any controversy / issue? We get labelled as "advocating" a position. But by censuring us, isn't that in itself an act of "advocating" against something?

 

[Intrinion]

The forum will follow MOH and HSA’s stance on the use of ivermectin and other prophylactic or early treatment protocols. This is consistent with how we deal with medical advice on our boards. We will take a pragmatic approach towards Covid misinformation and review our procedures periodically.

The thread starter’s post on the use his/her purported use of “Horse paste” / Ivermectin in one of the deleted post presents a clear and obvious danger to the general public if blindly heeded.

Stating maybe as a technicality in wording doesn’t absolve the thread starter of repercussions. Made worse, it was posted in the thread titled: “Those who haven't tio covid yet, how u managed to avoid it”

For dangers of improper ivermectin consumption, please see:
https://www.straitstimes.com/singap...vermectin-to-protect-herself-against-covid-19

Hence and therefore, a warning was issued to the user.

——————

There is a plethora of manuscripts to read on Ivermectin and Covid. Pubmed and Google scholar indexes them by journal and citations. Interested readers should read directly from source and understand the study’s parameters and it’s limitations (if not often, the abstract and conclusion is sufficient). Recent published studies do not conclusively prove the effectiveness of ivermectin. There are studies conducted that show that ivermectin provides no significant effects.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2022&q=ivermectin+covid
There is also a notable publication from the New England journal of medicine.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2115869

Other news:
https://www.straitstimes.com/singap...romoting-ivermectin-as-treatment-for-covid-19

I am not going to go through with you each and every list of countless supplements, medications. This is not the contention of me being here.

Noting the topic has gone 50 replies over. I have quoted the explanation of your infraction. Do take a second read.

It is within your prerogative to question on me over reaching and on my neutrality. I am clear in my conscious that my actions were in the best interest of public health. Noting the context of the thread, the post removal was necessary.

If that is considered as not being neutral or advocating against ivermectin then let it be so.

 

[Geneco]

It’s a persons choice on what they wish to vaccinate.

Of course, our post history has always been clear it's up to the individual to decide and seek medical advice when in doubt even if they ask for opinions in a Sino vaccine thread.

In any case, we are not picking issues with @MikeDirnt78 on his choice of vaccine in case you're not following along.

The ridiculousness is in your sharing of your alleged possession and consumption of ivermectin, a prescription drug, in a thread where the thread starter was asking how to avoid Covid.

View attachment 30848

You are definitely entitled to think it is "ridiculous" and we won't fault you for it.

It's your personal opinion that you think it doesn't help in covid. We respect that.

But an objective and neutral party certainly won't see the need to censure you even if you go around posting only news and studies showing "one side" of the debate. We are even willing to concede that it may or may not work prophylactically with a "maybe" in the original context.

But could the same be said about you, if you touch your heart and honestly asked yourself?

We even had to take an effort to look at 30 links in your provided google scholar link to point out that you are also making misleading statements.

Which is precisely why this is getting way too personal for you to handle this matter in a neutral and objective manner.

We don't fault you for it. We're all human too with our own biases. You think reading a study abstract and conclusion might be sufficient. We certainly think reading the entire manuscript helps one appreciate the nuances of the study and its results much better as it might explain why certain studies have differing results.

But with great power comes great responsibility.

We don't go around making wild allegations on other forum users like what you have done here and previously just because they disagree with us, or take on a different point of view.

So do you feel you can reasonably state that this infraction was meted out in good faith and it was evaluated with a neutral and objective framework?

 

[Geneco]

I am not going to go through with you each and every list of countless supplements, medications. This is not the contention of me being here.

Of course, we are not going into that. It never was about that.

Noting the topic has gone 50 replies over. I have quoted the explanation of your infraction. Do take a second read.

Already read but the following questions are not answered:

1. How you made the "leap of logic" that sharing anecdotal experience is necessarily equivalent to advocating and giving medical advice as you have alleged?

2. If forum users can potentially get mislead to a "devastating" outcome by sharing of any anecdotal experience or use of drug / substances in this covid pandemic, then are you going to take action against post of similar nature like vit a c, d, e, zinc, quercetin, fruits, lemon juice, povidone-iodine, lian hua qing wen, juicing/blending, etc, or issue an advisory for users not to share anecdotal experience of such a nature?

It is within your prerogative to question on me over reaching and on my neutrality. I am clear in my conscious that my actions were in the best interest of public health. Noting the context of the thread, the post removal was necessary.

If that is considered as not being neutral or advocating against ivermectin then let it be so.

Thank you, we are now clear that you are picking a "side" on this issue, which is what another moderator cranthir preeched against.

We certainly hope this is not a confirmation that you cannot be counted on to be or care to be objective and neutral on such matters.

 

[Intrinion]

Of course, our post history has always been clear it's up to the individual to decide and seek medical advice when in doubt even if they ask for opinions in a Sino vaccine thread.

In any case, we are not picking issues with @MikeDirnt78 on his choice of vaccine in case you're not following along.


You are definitely entitled to think it is "ridiculous" and we won't fault you for it.

It's your personal opinion that you think it doesn't help in covid. We respect that.

But an objective and neutral party certainly won't see the need to censure you even if you go around posting only news and studies showing "one side" of the debate. We are even willing to concede that it may or may not work prophylactically with a "maybe" in the original context.

But could the same be said about you, if you touch your heart and honestly asked yourself?

We even had to take an effort to look at 30 links in your provided google scholar link to point out that you are also making misleading statements.

Which is precisely why this is getting way too personal for you to handle this matter in a neutral and objective manner.

We don't fault you for it. We're all human too with our own biases. You think reading on abstract and conclusion might be sufficient. We certainly think reading the entire manuscript helps one appreciate the nuances of the study and its results much better.

But with great power comes great responsibility.

So do you feel you can reasonably state that this infraction was meted out in good faith and it was evaluated with a neutral and objective framework?

Throughout my interaction with you here, I have been patient and professional with you. Attempts were taken to see from your perspective and also, to illustrate ours.

In your appeal statement you pointed out the following

2. By infracting our post isn't the moderator affirming and picking a side in a contentious and controversial topic? Is the moderator aware of the mounting clinical and scientific evidence of easily more than 30 peer-reviewed studies suggesting favouring the efficacy of Ivermectin in Covid-19? Is the moderator aware that the often invoked HSA advisory on ivermectin is already "dated" and has not been updated or advised on the bulk of valid peer-reviewed clinical evidence from trials and studies.

My response to you was with a google scholar page with the following reply -
“Recently studies show that ivermectin provides no significant effects”. Please note that there was a typo error on this part. It should read “do also show”

With your feedback, I immediately followed up with an amendment to my post for clarity. The amended follow up reads:

“Recent published studies do not conclusively prove the effectiveness of ivermectin. There are studies conducted that show that ivermectin provides no significant effects.”

It is within your prerogative to question on me over reaching and on my neutrality. I am clear in my conscious that my actions were in the best interest of public health. Noting the context of the thread, the post removal was necessary.

If that is considered as not being neutral or advocating against ivermectin then let it be so.

I apologize if this may not be the resolution you might be looking for. I understand your frustration and appreciate that you took time off your day to address this.

 

[Geneco]

That's up to the Mods to decide then.

If such discussion is not allowed, I will stop and move on.

The issue is there is no fair warning or even consistency when their line of reasoning for the infraction is generalised.

 

[Mecisteus]

The issue is there is no fair warning or even consistency when their line of reasoning for the infraction is generalised.

When it comes to health issues, Mods need to err on the side of caution. Fair enough right?

When it comes to Russia vs Ukraine vs US vs China, they are supposed to be neutral. Agree?

 

[Intrinion]

When it comes to health issues, Mods need to err on the side of caution. Fair enough right?

When it comes to Russia vs Ukraine vs US vs China, they are supposed to be neutral. Agree?

I agree and share similar sentiments with my fellow moderator on his/her view on fake news. We take a very hands off approach to them.

There is however a stark difference when it comes to health related matters particularly when there is an advisory from the local authorities - https://www.hsa.gov.sg/consumer-safety/articles/ivermectin-advisory

As stated, we will heed what was stated in the advisory and err to the side of caution by taking action with public health interests in mind.. This is a clear cut matter.

 

[IndianChief]

Mini mod hard at work here.. Is he any closer to finally becoming a mod?

 

[Geneco]

Throughout my interaction with you here, I have been patient and professional with you. Attempts were taken to see from your perspective and also go illustrate ours.

Yes, we really do appreciate your time and help on this matter.

But it is very unprofessional to allege forum users of trying to "misleading the general public" to some "dangerous" or "devastating" outcome on a single sharing of an personal anecdote; and infract us without fair warning on an unjustified allegation that we intend to mislead or cause such outcomes.

How is such an intention established even if we were to generously assume such "dangerous" outcomes are real? Panadol and even fillet-o-fish can be "dangerous" if consumed in the wrong manner.

When a mere post deletion and a 0 point warning would suffice for this first instance where we were just sharing anecdotal evidence.

How is our sharing that "maybe it helps" more "egregious" or "intentional" than someone saying: take these xyz medications / things as they help with covid"; which is also done in this forum and these posts still exists.

In your appeal statement you pointed out the following

My response to you was with a google scholar page with the following reply.
“Recently studies show that ivermectin provides no significant effects”. Please note that there was a typo error on this part. It should read “do also show”

With your feedback, I immediately followed up with an amendment to my post for clarity. The amended follow up reads:

“Recent published studies do not conclusively prove the effectiveness of ivermectin. There are studies conducted that show that ivermectin provides no significant effects.”

Which illustrates the point that it is important to read the entire manuscript instead of just the abstract or conclusion because the devil is in the details.

Which in part explains how different studies can show conflicting data. Their protocols, dosages, patient baseline can and are often different.

Which is also why @paul02 brought in a reasonable criticism of the notable NEJM study to show why it does not always stand up to close scrutiny.

I apologize if this may not be the resolution you might be looking for. I understand your frustration and appreciate that you take time off your day to address this.

There is no need to apologize, we just need questions to be clarified on why certain allegations are made.

Everyone will be better off if the forum is moderated on a fair, objective and neutral framework which is consistent and not arbitrary.

 

[Geneco]

When it comes to health issues, Mods need to err on the side of caution. Fair enough right?

When it comes to Russia vs Ukraine vs US vs China, they are supposed to be neutral. Agree?

If so, then jolly well issue a pinned thread and issue a statement to all forum users that sharing of personal health anecdotes is strictly not permitted.

Then you can't even share your anecdote of taking sinopharm after 2x pfizer because that might "endanger" certain users to avoid pfizer and that could mean the difference between having more neutralising antibodies or less and/or life or death.

You will also get an infraction for all your previous personal sharing of your medical decision.

Sound fair and consistent?

Why don't you lead by example and ask to be infracted to be consistent? It's certainly plausible and not a stretch of imagination to see how users might be lead to avoid pfizer jabs after your sharing...