4 ms·

Yes it's about signaling. But it's also more than that. It might not change minds, but that doesn't mean it doesn't instill an initial position. And it definit

Yes it's about signaling. But it's also more than that. It might not change minds, but that doesn't mean it doesn't instill an initial position. And it definitely prevents many people from even considering an alternative position. Look at the ivermectin controversy. It's an FDA approved medicine, listed as one of the most necessary in the world which has a Nobel prize for it's discovery. But how many (even educated) people won't take the time to even realize that, because it's been branded nothing more than "horse de-wormer" taken by gullible idiots who buy it from the feed & seed store? And you end up in a position where you can't even debate efficacy or ethical/philosophical questions re: policy and medical self-determination, but get stuck because the "more enlightened" side doesn't even realize it's real medicine, FDA approved and tested as safe, used all around the world regularly by human patients.

SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
> Look at the ivermectin controversy. It's an FDA approved medicine ... a real medicine ... tested as safe. This is oversimplifying. A medicine is effective or not for particular conditions, not in general. FDA approval of drugs like this is "safe and effective" _for_ a particular use, not general "approval" for every purpose. As for safe, "the dose makes the poison". (1) The correct dose of Ivermectin is of course useful for control of parasites in humans and other animals such as horses, but it is not useful for COVID-19 (4). However people have in fact "bought Ivermectin from the feed store" (2) and self-dosed with the wrong amount, effectively poisoning themselves (3) for nothing (4). You can call this "gullible idiots" if you like, but it's sad that they were mislead on something so consequential. If Ivermectin was effective for COVID-19, then medical staff would be administering safe doses. Fortunately there are are drugs arriving that have demonstrated effectiveness against COVID-19 (5), there is no need to cling to Ivermectin 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dose_makes_the_poison https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dose_makes_the_poison 2) https://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/store-only-lets-you-buy-ivermectin-if-you-show-a-picture-with-your-horse/ https://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/store-only-le... 3) https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/09/04/1034217306/ivermectin-overdose-exposure-cases-poison-control-centers https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/0... 4) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-58170809 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-58170809 5) https://edition.cnn.com/2021/10/11/health/molnupiravir-covid-19-antiviral-merck-request/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2021/10/11/health/molnupiravir-covid... https://www.ft.com/content/17cf953b-38b5-4862-814f-ad51f1066f19 https://www.ft.com/content/17cf953b-38b5-4862-814f-ad51f1066...
- tinus_hn 5y ago
  I didn’t see the headlines ‘people using an anti malaria drug against covid!’ All I saw was ‘people killing themselves using horse dewormer against covid!’.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
    Same here. I'm not getting the point that you are making though.
    - tinus_hn 5y ago
      No, that’s clear. But that was the point of the comment you were responding to.
- proc0 5y ago
  Your sources are biased. Mainstream media is paid to promote the main narrative, this is simple facts. When was the last time they contradicted the government authorities? Furthermore, I could refute your points without needing those sources. We can just discuss them casually if we do so in good faith. > If Ivermectin was effective for COVID-19, then medical staff would be administering safe doses. They are doing that, you just don't hear about it for the reasons stated above. > Fortunately there are are drugs arriving that have demonstrated effectiveness against COVID-19 (5), there is no need to cling to Ivermectin If you just read the details of those new drugs, you can see it's mostly Ivermectin. Admittedly I have no sources, but again, if you don't believe me, I would just say consider expanding your sources of information, what I'm saying isn't hard to find.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
    > Your sources are biased. Mainstream media is paid ... I am not here for this conspiracy-theorising rabbit hole > They are doing that (medical staff would be administering safe doses of Ivermectin for COVID-19) Citation needed, and study results needed. > the details of those new drugs, you can see it's mostly Ivermectin. I am a loss to pinpoint the misunderstanding that gives rise to statements like this. In what way are different chemicals "mostly Ivermectin" and how did you arrive at that belief? FYI, if you want to dig deeper, the relevant Wikipedia pages are https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molnupiravir https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molnupiravir https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivermectin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivermectin And I'm not seeing a similarity of structure or mechanism, are you? The other drug, AstraZeneca's AZD7442, "contains two different antibodies" so won't be anything like _either_ of these. > consider expanding your sources of information Thank you for the suggestion, I have seen it before but I have never seen it mean anything other than "you should read the same junk science and disinformation as I, to validate my choices" and then fail to give examples that are both specific and reputable.

SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago

> Look at the ivermectin controversy. It's an FDA approved medicine ... a real medicine ... tested as safe. This is oversimplifying. A medicine is effective or not for particular conditions, not in general. FDA approval of drugs like this is "safe and effective" _for_ a particular use, not general "approval" for every purpose. As for safe, "the dose makes the poison". (1) The correct dose of Ivermectin is of course useful for control of parasites in humans and other animals such as horses, but it is not useful for COVID-19 (4). However people have in fact "bought Ivermectin from the feed store" (2) and self-dosed with the wrong amount, effectively poisoning themselves (3) for nothing (4). You can call this "gullible idiots" if you like, but it's sad that they were mislead on something so consequential. If Ivermectin was effective for COVID-19, then medical staff would be administering safe doses. Fortunately there are are drugs arriving that have demonstrated effectiveness against COVID-19 (5), there is no need to cling to Ivermectin 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dose_makes_the_poison https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dose_makes_the_poison 2) https://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/store-only-lets-you-buy-ivermectin-if-you-show-a-picture-with-your-horse/ https://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/store-only-le... 3) https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/09/04/1034217306/ivermectin-overdose-exposure-cases-poison-control-centers https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/0... 4) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-58170809 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-58170809 5) https://edition.cnn.com/2021/10/11/health/molnupiravir-covid-19-antiviral-merck-request/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2021/10/11/health/molnupiravir-covid... https://www.ft.com/content/17cf953b-38b5-4862-814f-ad51f1066f19 https://www.ft.com/content/17cf953b-38b5-4862-814f-ad51f1066...

tinus_hn 5y ago
I didn’t see the headlines ‘people using an anti malaria drug against covid!’ All I saw was ‘people killing themselves using horse dewormer against covid!’.
- SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
  Same here. I'm not getting the point that you are making though.
  - tinus_hn 5y ago
    No, that’s clear. But that was the point of the comment you were responding to.
proc0 5y ago
Your sources are biased. Mainstream media is paid to promote the main narrative, this is simple facts. When was the last time they contradicted the government authorities? Furthermore, I could refute your points without needing those sources. We can just discuss them casually if we do so in good faith. > If Ivermectin was effective for COVID-19, then medical staff would be administering safe doses. They are doing that, you just don't hear about it for the reasons stated above. > Fortunately there are are drugs arriving that have demonstrated effectiveness against COVID-19 (5), there is no need to cling to Ivermectin If you just read the details of those new drugs, you can see it's mostly Ivermectin. Admittedly I have no sources, but again, if you don't believe me, I would just say consider expanding your sources of information, what I'm saying isn't hard to find.
- SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
  > Your sources are biased. Mainstream media is paid ... I am not here for this conspiracy-theorising rabbit hole > They are doing that (medical staff would be administering safe doses of Ivermectin for COVID-19) Citation needed, and study results needed. > the details of those new drugs, you can see it's mostly Ivermectin. I am a loss to pinpoint the misunderstanding that gives rise to statements like this. In what way are different chemicals "mostly Ivermectin" and how did you arrive at that belief? FYI, if you want to dig deeper, the relevant Wikipedia pages are https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molnupiravir https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molnupiravir https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivermectin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivermectin And I'm not seeing a similarity of structure or mechanism, are you? The other drug, AstraZeneca's AZD7442, "contains two different antibodies" so won't be anything like _either_ of these. > consider expanding your sources of information Thank you for the suggestion, I have seen it before but I have never seen it mean anything other than "you should read the same junk science and disinformation as I, to validate my choices" and then fail to give examples that are both specific and reputable.