5 ms·
Yep, same thing with calling ivermectin horse medicine instead of representing it accurately, a nobel prize winning medicine of which billions of doses have bee
by adflux 5y ago
Yep, same thing with calling ivermectin horse medicine instead of representing it accurately, a nobel prize winning medicine of which billions of doses have been safely administred to humans.
Good journalism is hard to find nowadays. But journalism infested with politics is worse, and so widespread nowadays.
- ceejayoz 5y ago> a nobel prize winning medicine For treating parasites. Give a heart transplant to a kid with a cold and you'll get yelled at, too, despite it being a wonderful procedure to have in our medical quiver.
- adflux 5y agoIt's the intentional misrepresentation of facts which I am referring to. I have no problems with journalists writing science backed articles about using ivermectin for treating covid19. I have problems with journalists intentionally calling it horse dewormer as if that is only what it is. So your analogy really doesn't make sense here.
- ceejayoz 5y agoI'm noting that calling it "Nobel Prize winning medicine" is just as technically accurate and potentially misleading as calling it "horse dewormer". You're doing the same thing you're complaining about.
- adflux 5y agoFrom the intro on Wikipedia: Ivermectin was discovered in 1975 and came into medical use in 1981;[12][13] William Campbell and Satoshi Ōmura won the 2015 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for its discovery and applications. When you are referring to this in regards to covid19, calling it horse dewormer is intentionally mispresenting an argument in an attempt to discount it.
- ceejayoz 5y ago> When you are referring to this in regards to covid19, calling it horse dewormer is intentionally mispresenting an argument in an attempt to discount it. "Nobel Prize winning medication" is similarly a misrepresentation in the context of COVID. It's both a Nobel Prize winning medicine, and horse dewormer. It's also a human antiparisitic. None of these individually describe it completely, but there's one thing it's not currently - a proven COVID treatment.
- hammock 5y agoAnd Viagra is for treating high blood pressure.
- ceejayoz 5y agoNo, Viagra is clinically tested and FDA approved specifically for erectile dysfunction.
- throwaway0a5e 5y agoAnd it also happens to lower blood pressure which is the condition it was originally developed to treat. So if you have high but not "give this dud an Rx" high blood pressure, want Viagra and your doctor is a bro...
- ceejayoz 5y agoSure. They were able to demonstrate to the FDA's satisfaction that it had a beneficial use outside the original intent of developing the drug. That's not unusual, but there's also a procedure you go through. The FDA specifically warns against using ivermectin to treat COVID. So does its manufacturer (https://www.merck.com/news/merck-statement-on-ivermectin-use-during-the-covid-19-pandemic/ https://www.merck.com/news/merck-statement-on-ivermectin-use...). Comparing the two scenarios is silly.
- mizzack 5y agoMerck is expecting to rake in billions on sales of molnupiravir. Ivermectin is off patent.
- swader999 5y agoThat's a lazy dismissal. This paper describes twenty ways in which ivermectin can mitigate corona virus infection: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8203399/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8203399/
- throwawaymedia 5y agohttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28864889 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28864889
- happytoexplain 5y agoI rarely (maybe never?) saw any journalist say that all ivermectin is horse medicine. However, people did take horse medicine because of the similarly irresponsible use of ivermectin as another weird political side-taking thing, the same way people bought UV products to use on themselves or ingested disinfectant. So, I think the criticism is mostly fair.
- adflux 5y agoBunch of articles on CNN... https://edition.cnn.com/2021/08/21/us/mississippi-poison-control-covid-livestock-drug/index.html?utm_content=2021-08-21T15%3A30%3A21&utm_medium=social&utm_term=link&utm_source=fbCNN&fbclid=IwAR1HmRyBcP9HODD-WlOIF_9FOYN0verTBVmbv_rro9Ri0z-o2TRdKEYhavg https://edition.cnn.com/2021/08/21/us/mississippi-poison-con... for instance.
- happytoexplain 5y agoI'm aware of this article. She says "they're taking something called Ivermectin, which is an anti-parasite drug for horses", which isn't the whole story, but is also a reasonable sentence, since they were in fact taking a horse medicine called ivermectin and the same article explicitly states that there are human formulations and you can take those if your doctor prescribes them. So, I think it's unfair to use this as evidence of your assertion, or as rationale for the broader, usually politically-motivated bitterness about the media. I'm sure you could find some example of an article I haven't seen that committed the sin you claim, especially from somewhere as biased as CNN, but I would only have to take back the "maybe never?" part of my statement, and it may reasonably still stand.
- adflux 5y agohttps://twitter.com/us_fda/status/1429050070243192839 https://twitter.com/us_fda/status/1429050070243192839 how about the FDA? https://twitter.com/redsteeze/status/1448637553129648129?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1448637878800502784%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es2_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fcovid-19%2Fjoe-rogan-crushes-cnn-over-ivermectin-horse-paste-propaganda-gets-gupta-concede https://twitter.com/redsteeze/status/1448637553129648129?ref... Fauci/Acosta on CNN