4 ms·

> The best guidance we have about these things are from the CDC. Why not the WHO? The CDC lied to us that masks were useless when in fact they believed that

by zepto 5y ago

> The best guidance we have about these things are from the CDC. Why not the WHO? The CDC lied to us that masks were useless when in fact they believed that masks were helpful but they wanted to keep the supply for medical professionals. > While they don't always get it right, That wasn’t a matter of not getting it right. It was a deliberate lie that was harmful to the health of those who followed it. > they usually have a good explanation for their error when they don't. It wasn’t an error, and the explanation was that they lied in order to manipulate public behavior. > It's a gigantic gulf to go from "they're wrong some of the time" to "I'm not going to get vaccinated, but if I do get sick, I'm going to go inject myself with horse paste because I trust whackjob talking heads on the internet more than licensed medical experts in the field." It might be for you and me who have background knowledge about vaccines and viruses, but in the absence of that, why would trust the CDC who you know for certain have been lying? Medical licenses didn’t prevent that. Also, it’s not horse paste. That’s a lie in itself. It happens to be used in horses, but it is also approved for use in humans as are many medicines also used in animals, for example Ketamine. Do you think ketamine is ‘horse paste’. Calling it horse paste shows contempt for those who think it’s a useful medicine. Why would anyone trust someone who is contemptuous of them? Remember there are hundreds of licenses medical professionals who recommend ivermectin for covid. Some of them are the very people you are calling “whackjob talking heads”. Deepak Chopra has a medial license and has written 91 books! It doesn’t seem like a medical license is sufficient to tell who is a “whackjob”. I don’t think ivermectin is effective, but that’s based on my own calculus of how to integrate the various different opinions, none of which are all that trustworthy.

MisterBastahrd 5y ago
Gonna be blunt here. I don't value the opinions of those who believes that a de-wormer is useful medicine against a virus. Not. A. One. Know who would have the most to gain by a buying spree of ivermectin? The manufacturer. Merck stated that ivermectin is not effective against COVID way back in February. C'est la vie.
- zepto 5y ago
  > Gonna be blunt here. What does that mean? Seems like you just stopped discussing the issue of trust and offered a bunch of opinions about people. > I don't value the opinions of those who believes that a de-wormer is useful medicine against a virus. Were you aware that there are new clinical trials being done now to test the hypothesis? Do you think you know better than the scientists who are conducting them?
  - MisterBastahrd 5y ago
    I know about them. I also know that they couldn't draw any conclusions about the effectiveness of ivermectin, meaning that people who are currently using it might as well be rubbing crystals for all the good it will do them. Just because a scientist tries something, doesn't mean it's a cure or a treatment. It means they're making an attempt at understanding something. We already have treatments that work. Roundworm poison isn't going to save anybody.
    - zepto 5y ago
      > I know about them. I also know that they couldn't draw any conclusions about the effectiveness of ivermectin, There are new studies being done now. We don’t know what them results will be. > meaning that people who are currently using it might as well be rubbing crystals for all the good it will do them. You don’t actually know that because you don’t know the results of the studies. > Just because a scientist tries something, doesn't mean it's a cure or a treatment. Of course, but it means they don’t think the matter is settled. You seem to be claiming it is, I.e. that you know better than the scientists conducting the studies.

by zepto 5y ago

MisterBastahrd 5y ago

Gonna be blunt here. I don't value the opinions of those who believes that a de-wormer is useful medicine against a virus. Not. A. One. Know who would have the most to gain by a buying spree of ivermectin? The manufacturer. Merck stated that ivermectin is not effective against COVID way back in February. C'est la vie.

zepto 5y ago
> Gonna be blunt here. What does that mean? Seems like you just stopped discussing the issue of trust and offered a bunch of opinions about people. > I don't value the opinions of those who believes that a de-wormer is useful medicine against a virus. Were you aware that there are new clinical trials being done now to test the hypothesis? Do you think you know better than the scientists who are conducting them?
- MisterBastahrd 5y ago
  I know about them. I also know that they couldn't draw any conclusions about the effectiveness of ivermectin, meaning that people who are currently using it might as well be rubbing crystals for all the good it will do them. Just because a scientist tries something, doesn't mean it's a cure or a treatment. It means they're making an attempt at understanding something. We already have treatments that work. Roundworm poison isn't going to save anybody.
  - zepto 5y ago
    > I know about them. I also know that they couldn't draw any conclusions about the effectiveness of ivermectin, There are new studies being done now. We don’t know what them results will be. > meaning that people who are currently using it might as well be rubbing crystals for all the good it will do them. You don’t actually know that because you don’t know the results of the studies. > Just because a scientist tries something, doesn't mean it's a cure or a treatment. Of course, but it means they don’t think the matter is settled. You seem to be claiming it is, I.e. that you know better than the scientists conducting the studies.