3 ms·

Not op, but "We don't know" != "False" Also, op does not claim "no one showed this actually works." Your comment is not in good faith.

gizmo686 5y ago
The top-line claim in the linked fact-check is "Pfizer’s new pill to treat COVID-19 is just ivermectin repackaged". The claim is explicitly countered by claims in the fact check: "They are dramatically different molecules. The drugs are different in their structure and their molecular size". I have not fact-checked the fact check, but to suggest that the headline claim of "false" is misleading or inconsistent with the body of the article is simply wrong. The comment about Ivermectin still being studied and not yet known to be effective is not relevant to the claim under review, but merely added to provide the reader with context.
- ccn0p 5y ago
  Thanks for the response. You're right, but, I'm not trying to say that the headline claim of "false" is misleading with the body of the article. I'm trying to say something more nuanced... that the headline claim of "false" is misleading from the actual conversations happening out there right now. Which in a way is not a problem with just fact checkers, but the Internet as a whole. BUT... In my opinion, "fact checkers" by nature of their name have a greater responsibility to Internet discourse than the random comment thread or opinion article because they claim to be an authoritative source. I can't help but think of the Ministry of Truth.
  - sdenton4 5y ago
    Why keep reading an article that's placed wrong information front and center? The false info should lower your prior on anything else the article says... Unless of course you're just looking to confirm your biases, in which case you'll find whatever you want to find.
  - ashtonkem 5y ago
    So basically someone proved their position thoroughly with regards to this singular claim, but you’re still skeptical towards the fact checkers because …? Kinda seems like the fact checkers were right here, and yet you still persist for whatever reason.
nuerow 5y ago
> Not op, but "We don't know" != "False" That's not what the fat checker states. At all. The fact checker states, and I quote: > however, it has yet to be proven that it can treat COVID-19." "It is yet to be proven" means, quite literally, anyone who looked into it never saw it work, ever. At all.
- vmception 5y ago
  > "It is yet to be proven" means, quite literally, anyone who looked into it never saw it work, ever. At all. [yet]. There are studies ongoing. Not in the anti-vaxxer "I'm still doing research" sense, but in the sense that there are actual non-Facebook studies ongoing. Even that AP fact checker article mentions that. When the context says there are studies ongoing and yet to be proven is mentioned, it means that the conclusion has not been drawn. In isolation, when yet to be proven is written with no other context, it means what you interpreted: that nobody has ever seen it work, and we need a nice way to say that. The fact checker and this conversation both accurately conveyed how different ivermectin is from what Pfizer is developing: the compounds are different, the molecules are different, everything is different. They don't say the result is different. Ivermectin - a completely different compound and molecule - has a hypothesis and limited result showing it functions as a protease inhibitor. It does omit where there are similarities being studied and what those hypothesis are. This is actually new information to me and I found that looking for a response to you. This isn't about Ivermectin or laughing at Republicans turn their whole states blue from a lack of oxygen as well as the remaining population, its just about what is omitted from the fact checking article.
- naasking 5y ago
  > "It is yet to be proven" means, quite literally, anyone who looked into it never saw it work, ever. At all. This claim is quite literally false. If no one saw an effect, then we wouldn't still be talking about it. Most of the studies listed here [1] all claim to have seen it work. You can of course claim these are poor or unconvincing studies for various reasons, but they still falsify your claim that no one who looked into it ever saw it work. [1] https://ivmmeta.com/ https://ivmmeta.com/
  - 5y ago

gizmo686 5y ago

The top-line claim in the linked fact-check is "Pfizer’s new pill to treat COVID-19 is just ivermectin repackaged". The claim is explicitly countered by claims in the fact check: "They are dramatically different molecules. The drugs are different in their structure and their molecular size". I have not fact-checked the fact check, but to suggest that the headline claim of "false" is misleading or inconsistent with the body of the article is simply wrong. The comment about Ivermectin still being studied and not yet known to be effective is not relevant to the claim under review, but merely added to provide the reader with context.

ccn0p 5y ago
Thanks for the response. You're right, but, I'm not trying to say that the headline claim of "false" is misleading with the body of the article. I'm trying to say something more nuanced... that the headline claim of "false" is misleading from the actual conversations happening out there right now. Which in a way is not a problem with just fact checkers, but the Internet as a whole. BUT... In my opinion, "fact checkers" by nature of their name have a greater responsibility to Internet discourse than the random comment thread or opinion article because they claim to be an authoritative source. I can't help but think of the Ministry of Truth.
- sdenton4 5y ago
  Why keep reading an article that's placed wrong information front and center? The false info should lower your prior on anything else the article says... Unless of course you're just looking to confirm your biases, in which case you'll find whatever you want to find.
- ashtonkem 5y ago
  So basically someone proved their position thoroughly with regards to this singular claim, but you’re still skeptical towards the fact checkers because …? Kinda seems like the fact checkers were right here, and yet you still persist for whatever reason.

nuerow 5y ago

> Not op, but "We don't know" != "False" That's not what the fat checker states. At all. The fact checker states, and I quote: > however, it has yet to be proven that it can treat COVID-19." "It is yet to be proven" means, quite literally, anyone who looked into it never saw it work, ever. At all.

vmception 5y ago
> "It is yet to be proven" means, quite literally, anyone who looked into it never saw it work, ever. At all. [yet]. There are studies ongoing. Not in the anti-vaxxer "I'm still doing research" sense, but in the sense that there are actual non-Facebook studies ongoing. Even that AP fact checker article mentions that. When the context says there are studies ongoing and yet to be proven is mentioned, it means that the conclusion has not been drawn. In isolation, when yet to be proven is written with no other context, it means what you interpreted: that nobody has ever seen it work, and we need a nice way to say that. The fact checker and this conversation both accurately conveyed how different ivermectin is from what Pfizer is developing: the compounds are different, the molecules are different, everything is different. They don't say the result is different. Ivermectin - a completely different compound and molecule - has a hypothesis and limited result showing it functions as a protease inhibitor. It does omit where there are similarities being studied and what those hypothesis are. This is actually new information to me and I found that looking for a response to you. This isn't about Ivermectin or laughing at Republicans turn their whole states blue from a lack of oxygen as well as the remaining population, its just about what is omitted from the fact checking article.
naasking 5y ago
> "It is yet to be proven" means, quite literally, anyone who looked into it never saw it work, ever. At all. This claim is quite literally false. If no one saw an effect, then we wouldn't still be talking about it. Most of the studies listed here [1] all claim to have seen it work. You can of course claim these are poor or unconvincing studies for various reasons, but they still falsify your claim that no one who looked into it ever saw it work. [1] https://ivmmeta.com/ https://ivmmeta.com/
- 5y ago