4 ms·

Regardless of the supposed merits or demerits of hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin, the articles you cite don't support your claim very well. The piece on hospit

by ctrlp 5y ago

Regardless of the supposed merits or demerits of hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin, the articles you cite don't support your claim very well. The piece on hospitalization only tangentially connects those two medications to toxicity in hospital. It specifically says those drugs were taken among unnamed others and that the source of influence was unnamed online sources. The quoted doctor is very hand-wavy about connecting those drugs to the hospitalization, and it's unclear from the quote whether the primary reason the patient was admitted to hospital wasn't Covid: "The patient didn’t get severe toxicity from taking the ivermectin cocktail, “but it didn’t help their Covid either”, he said." I would be very skeptical of any claims around Ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine in The Guardian, which is a very biased news source. Especially after the recent Rolling Stone mendacity regarding claims of toxicity in Oklahoma, which was a complete fabrication nonetheless amplified on the left media. The other article you cite disapprovingly mentions the author was claiming "lab leak" back in May 2020. That would seem a mark in favor of her reporting, no?

shakna 5y ago
> The other article you cite disapprovingly mentions the author was claiming "lab leak" back in May 2020. That would seem a mark in favor of her reporting, no? Not unless said reporting at the time actually had evidence to support the claim. A reporter has a duty to report based on actual evidence. She has repeated misinformation, without that evidence, an argument you just used to dismiss the entirety of the Guardian, for all time, on one subject matter. Should that not equally apply to this reporter, then?
- ctrlp 5y ago
  What is your evidence that she didn't have evidence? Lots of credible people were saying lab leak in 2020. I was there and following it closely. It wasn't hard to come by if you employed basic skepticism of the mainstream narrative. I didn't dismiss the entirety of The Guardian for all time (straw-man, anyone?), I said I would be skeptical of anything they publish related to a contested narrative because they have shown repeated bias. What's wrong with that? I'm not telling you not to be skeptical of this journalist. It seems like you're really projecting your own beliefs here.
  - shakna 5y ago
    > What is your evidence that she didn't have evidence? That is extremely easy to answer: She never presented any. Which is the entire point of everything I have said. > I would be skeptical of anything they publish related to a contested narrative because they have shown repeated bias. What's wrong with that? Nothing. It's the exact reason to not believe this journalist. As I have repeatedly pointed out.
  - idiotsecant 5y ago
    >What is your evidence that she didn't have evidence? I'm no scientist but I'm pretty sure that's not how that works.
    - ctrlp 5y ago
      If someone makes a claim that many credible scientists are making publicly, the burden to present your evidence on a cable news segment is lessened. Regardless, the fact is she published a book and I assume it's got citations. The commenter merely asserted their claim as true and I wondered if they had good reasons to believe it.

by ctrlp 5y ago

shakna 5y ago

> The other article you cite disapprovingly mentions the author was claiming "lab leak" back in May 2020. That would seem a mark in favor of her reporting, no? Not unless said reporting at the time actually had evidence to support the claim. A reporter has a duty to report based on actual evidence. She has repeated misinformation, without that evidence, an argument you just used to dismiss the entirety of the Guardian, for all time, on one subject matter. Should that not equally apply to this reporter, then?

ctrlp 5y ago
What is your evidence that she didn't have evidence? Lots of credible people were saying lab leak in 2020. I was there and following it closely. It wasn't hard to come by if you employed basic skepticism of the mainstream narrative. I didn't dismiss the entirety of The Guardian for all time (straw-man, anyone?), I said I would be skeptical of anything they publish related to a contested narrative because they have shown repeated bias. What's wrong with that? I'm not telling you not to be skeptical of this journalist. It seems like you're really projecting your own beliefs here.
- shakna 5y ago
  > What is your evidence that she didn't have evidence? That is extremely easy to answer: She never presented any. Which is the entire point of everything I have said. > I would be skeptical of anything they publish related to a contested narrative because they have shown repeated bias. What's wrong with that? Nothing. It's the exact reason to not believe this journalist. As I have repeatedly pointed out.
- idiotsecant 5y ago
  >What is your evidence that she didn't have evidence? I'm no scientist but I'm pretty sure that's not how that works.
  - ctrlp 5y ago
    If someone makes a claim that many credible scientists are making publicly, the burden to present your evidence on a cable news segment is lessened. Regardless, the fact is she published a book and I assume it's got citations. The commenter merely asserted their claim as true and I wondered if they had good reasons to believe it.