I'm not saying "I'm just a skeptic." People keep putting words in my mouth or arguing against points that I didn't make. My original argument was against the p

I'm not saying "I'm just a skeptic." People keep putting words in my mouth or arguing against points that I didn't make. My original argument was against the poster who said that there was no reason to lie about the utility of ivermectin. I said that there was. In arguing against points that I didn't make, though, you keep making points that I still disagree with. Such as this false dichotomy you keep laying out: > Now, what we can posit is that there is a worldwide conspiracy to suppress the fact that ivermectin is effective OR we can posit that ivermectin doesn't actually work very well for Covid. Those aren't the only two options. A third option is that ivermectin does actually have some mechanism of action that has some utility in treating COVID, and that the informal clinical data which continues its usage is because of that. You're acting as if there are formal studies which indicate that it has no utility, but all of the data debunking the utility of ivermectin instead suggests that there is simply not a rigorous study formally demonstrating the utility. For the third or fourth time, I'm not even saying that I believe that it does have utility. I actually don't care about ivermectin. > If we're trading on anecdotes, then I'll say that ivermectin doesn't work I don't remember laying out an anecdote saying that ivermectin does work. An argument was put forth saying that if ivermectin did work, there would be scientists and doctors all over the world studying and using it. I said that there were scientists and doctors all over the world studying and using it. I think it's entirely possible it does nothing and those things could still be true. You're the only one between us who is actually making a claim about the utility of the drug. > This is why you don't believe claims without data. I don't know what claim I'm purported to be believing.