3 ms·

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 a

by 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.
- proc0 5y ago
  > I am not here for this conspiracy-theorising rabbit hole It's not a rabbit hole, but it is a different thread. I can summarize it this way: official media outlets can only give you a partial picture. It's not in their best interest to show you the full picture for multiple reasons. Any meta-analysis would reveal this, but those results would, of course, never show up in those sources. > 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. I can't comment on the specific chemical properties or differences in the molecules. I also cannot fully expand on everything that I've read and watched on this, or give sources, sorry. There is really too much information. However, you can see ivermectin has anti-viral properties in the wiki, and the Covid19 section just says it's not approved with exception fo the trials. It's not far-fetched to suggest the official authorities on this will end up concluding it does help. Additionally, it has been tried around the world, this isn't another "theory". Again, it's just not reported by the main outlets. > "you should read the same junk science and disinformation as I, to validate my choices" Not really what I'm saying. We are transitioning worlds right now. The old world consisted of a concentrated number of official media outlets telling people what was the truth. The new world consists of anyone having the ability to search for multiple angles of what the truth could be. It is certainly harder and more time-consuming to the work, but that doesn't mean there aren't thousands of perfectly capable people doing the work and sharing it to the world to the demise of these official outlets, which seem to be desperately trying to stay as the only source of information by demonizing everything else.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
    There are (at least) two issues with this approach. The first is that specialised subjects are not well-understood by everyone else. Your frankly incoherent and "not even wrong" statements regarding Ivermectin vs other drugs are a good example of this. You assert confidently; but when pressed, you admit not understanding the necessary context at all. The second is that if the mainstream media has a problem with being complete and unbiased, then this goes more than double for other sources. Misunderstanding and disinformation is rife. Easy (wrong but satisfying) answers are easy to come by. And people seeking fame are eager to supply them. As they used to say in computing: "Garbage in, Garbage out" We run the risk of being garbage repeaters. The media is changing, that is inevitable. However there is no guarantee that the change will be an improvement. From what we have seen so far, it is not. I'm not surprised that you did not give any examples of your sources, this is the pattern, nothing that can be held up to scrutiny. We may be "We are transitioning worlds right now" but that does not mean that chemical facts will go away via wishful thinking. Delusions about such consequential matters will continue to to have consequences.

by proc0 5y ago

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.

proc0 5y ago
> I am not here for this conspiracy-theorising rabbit hole It's not a rabbit hole, but it is a different thread. I can summarize it this way: official media outlets can only give you a partial picture. It's not in their best interest to show you the full picture for multiple reasons. Any meta-analysis would reveal this, but those results would, of course, never show up in those sources. > 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. I can't comment on the specific chemical properties or differences in the molecules. I also cannot fully expand on everything that I've read and watched on this, or give sources, sorry. There is really too much information. However, you can see ivermectin has anti-viral properties in the wiki, and the Covid19 section just says it's not approved with exception fo the trials. It's not far-fetched to suggest the official authorities on this will end up concluding it does help. Additionally, it has been tried around the world, this isn't another "theory". Again, it's just not reported by the main outlets. > "you should read the same junk science and disinformation as I, to validate my choices" Not really what I'm saying. We are transitioning worlds right now. The old world consisted of a concentrated number of official media outlets telling people what was the truth. The new world consists of anyone having the ability to search for multiple angles of what the truth could be. It is certainly harder and more time-consuming to the work, but that doesn't mean there aren't thousands of perfectly capable people doing the work and sharing it to the world to the demise of these official outlets, which seem to be desperately trying to stay as the only source of information by demonizing everything else.
- SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
  There are (at least) two issues with this approach. The first is that specialised subjects are not well-understood by everyone else. Your frankly incoherent and "not even wrong" statements regarding Ivermectin vs other drugs are a good example of this. You assert confidently; but when pressed, you admit not understanding the necessary context at all. The second is that if the mainstream media has a problem with being complete and unbiased, then this goes more than double for other sources. Misunderstanding and disinformation is rife. Easy (wrong but satisfying) answers are easy to come by. And people seeking fame are eager to supply them. As they used to say in computing: "Garbage in, Garbage out" We run the risk of being garbage repeaters. The media is changing, that is inevitable. However there is no guarantee that the change will be an improvement. From what we have seen so far, it is not. I'm not surprised that you did not give any examples of your sources, this is the pattern, nothing that can be held up to scrutiny. We may be "We are transitioning worlds right now" but that does not mean that chemical facts will go away via wishful thinking. Delusions about such consequential matters will continue to to have consequences.