6 ms·

Directly from the article: > "Sometimes these people even have a specific theory for why elites are covering up ivermectin, like that pharma companies want you

Directly from the article: > "Sometimes these people even have a specific theory for why elites are covering up ivermectin, like that pharma companies want you to use more expensive patented drugs instead. This theory is extremely plausible. Pharma companies are always trying to convince people to use expensive patented drugs instead of equally good generic alternatives. Ivermectin believers probably heard about this from the many, many good articles by responsible news outlets, discussing the many, many times pharma companies have tried to trick people into using more expensive patented medications. Like this ACSH article about Nexium. Or my article on esketamine. Given that dozens of studies said a drug worked, and elites continued to deny it worked, and there are well-known times where elites lie about drugs in order to make money, it was an incredibly reasonable inference that this was one of those times. > If you have a lot of experience with pharma, you know who lies and who doesn’t, and you know what lies they’re willing to tell and which ones they shrink back from. As far as I know, no reputable scientist has ever come out and said ‘esketamine definitely works better than regular ketamine’. The regulatory system just heavily implied it. > I claim that with ivermectin, even the people who don’t usually lie were saying it was ineffective, and they were saying it more directly and decisively than liars usually do. But most people can’t translate Pharma → English fluently enough to know where the space of “things people routinely lie about and nobody worries about it too much” ends. So they incredibly reasonably assume anything could be a lie. And if you don’t know which statements about pharmaceuticals are lies, “the one that has dozens of studies contradicting it” is a pretty good heuristic!"

mewpmewp2 5y ago
What are these paragraphs in response to? > I claim that with ivermectin, even the people who don’t usually lie were saying it was ineffective, and they were saying it more directly and decisively than liars usually do. But most people can’t translate Pharma → English fluently enough to know where the space of “things people routinely lie about and nobody worries about it too much” ends. So they incredibly reasonably assume anything could be a lie. And if you don’t know which statements about pharmaceuticals are lies, “the one that has dozens of studies contradicting it” is a pretty good heuristic!" We currently have a unique situation. Never in the world have scientists, experts or doctors been as pressured to direct people to current vaccines. There's a clear risk to losing your credibility and your job if you were to contradict. Even if you were to think that something may be wrong, it would be a herculean task for you to prove it and is it really worth it to sacrifice your career and everything else? Maybe you are just 50/50 or 80% sure, and incase of that 20% uncertainty you definitely don't want to risk your life work. Also chicken and an egg problem. Anyone who claims current vaccines are unsafe or ineffective are discredited, so after they have made their claim you can just call them misinformation spreaders and tell again "no credible scientist has said X" and if that credible scientist says X, you will just stop considering them as credible. But my point is more oriented towards vaccines than Ivermectin honestly. I'm not a proponent of Ivermectin, but I'm just trying to discuss what results might current motivations in the world yield, and I believe it's definitely possible that Ivermectin COULD be improperly discredited in current ecosystem of everything. With all the social pressures, dire situation, debates being blocked, people labelled immediately misinformation spreaders if their conclusions don't fit the mainstream narrative, I would say very many untruths are possible. I myself can't trust MSM at all any longer, and I am 95% sure that vaccines are not as safe and effective as MSM is trying to portray them as. I don't know exactly how unsafe or how ineffective they are, but that's mostly because proper debate is not allowed. Until this clears up, I'm going to skip on vaccines.
- Nursie 5y ago
  > Anyone who claims current vaccines are unsafe or ineffective Needs to come up with some compelling evidence. That's what your evaluation is missing.
  - mewpmewp2 5y ago
    What would be compelling evidence? Would excess deaths in summer in 0 - 45 age group, in Europe be compelling or is there some other explanation to those? For preventing spread ineffectiveness, would Gibraltar being #2 in the World by infection rate while having 99% vaccination be compelling? For waning hospital and death protection would Israel data be compelling? What about countless anecdotal stories of similar persistent adverse effects and VAERS reports? If none of that is evidence, then even if this vaccine was unsafe, it would be virtually impossible to prove that, no?
    - Nursie 5y ago
      > Would excess deaths in summer in 0 - 45 age group, in Europe be compelling or is there some other explanation to those? I don't know, what figures are you referring to and what do you think those are evidence of? > For preventing spread ineffectiveness, would Gibraltar being #2 in the World by infection rate while having 99% vaccination be compelling? Taken in isolation, not particularly, no. What you appear to have there is some vaguely formed speculation. > For waning hospital and death protection would Israel data be compelling? Be specific, what claims are you making and what evidence do you think backs them up? > What about countless anecdotal stories of similar persistent adverse effects and VAERS reports? Perhaps you could count them, and investigate to understand if the anecdotes and VAERS reports are true or not, and at what rate they occur. VAERS is by design a catch-all and self-reported, so the data there is interesting but not necessarily trustworthy. Anecdotes are not data, after all.
      - mewpmewp2 5y ago
        I have scanned through so many forums reading anecdotal stories, also downloaded VAERS data, and I definitely see a pattern, but this is not enough of compelling evidence for anyone. But let's just focus on what could be causing excess deaths during summer. Source: https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps/ https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps/ Scroll to Excess Mortality See 0-14 age group excess mortality growth during summer (EU approved vaccines for 12+ in May). There has been similar rate variance in winters, but this can be explained by bad flu seasons, there's no such variance ever during summer. If vaccines really were the cause, it means only 12-14 group should be affecting the rate, this means that with 0-11 the growth could be 4x that assuming linear relation. Also see 15-44 excess which has never been climbing that fast and is much higher than previously in total. You can also include other years from 2016 to compare. These may not be vaccines, but what is causing this then and why specifically in younger demographics? I'm honestly looking to understand what could be the explanation here.

mewpmewp2 5y ago

What are these paragraphs in response to? > I claim that with ivermectin, even the people who don’t usually lie were saying it was ineffective, and they were saying it more directly and decisively than liars usually do. But most people can’t translate Pharma → English fluently enough to know where the space of “things people routinely lie about and nobody worries about it too much” ends. So they incredibly reasonably assume anything could be a lie. And if you don’t know which statements about pharmaceuticals are lies, “the one that has dozens of studies contradicting it” is a pretty good heuristic!" We currently have a unique situation. Never in the world have scientists, experts or doctors been as pressured to direct people to current vaccines. There's a clear risk to losing your credibility and your job if you were to contradict. Even if you were to think that something may be wrong, it would be a herculean task for you to prove it and is it really worth it to sacrifice your career and everything else? Maybe you are just 50/50 or 80% sure, and incase of that 20% uncertainty you definitely don't want to risk your life work. Also chicken and an egg problem. Anyone who claims current vaccines are unsafe or ineffective are discredited, so after they have made their claim you can just call them misinformation spreaders and tell again "no credible scientist has said X" and if that credible scientist says X, you will just stop considering them as credible. But my point is more oriented towards vaccines than Ivermectin honestly. I'm not a proponent of Ivermectin, but I'm just trying to discuss what results might current motivations in the world yield, and I believe it's definitely possible that Ivermectin COULD be improperly discredited in current ecosystem of everything. With all the social pressures, dire situation, debates being blocked, people labelled immediately misinformation spreaders if their conclusions don't fit the mainstream narrative, I would say very many untruths are possible. I myself can't trust MSM at all any longer, and I am 95% sure that vaccines are not as safe and effective as MSM is trying to portray them as. I don't know exactly how unsafe or how ineffective they are, but that's mostly because proper debate is not allowed. Until this clears up, I'm going to skip on vaccines.

Nursie 5y ago
> Anyone who claims current vaccines are unsafe or ineffective Needs to come up with some compelling evidence. That's what your evaluation is missing.
- mewpmewp2 5y ago
  What would be compelling evidence? Would excess deaths in summer in 0 - 45 age group, in Europe be compelling or is there some other explanation to those? For preventing spread ineffectiveness, would Gibraltar being #2 in the World by infection rate while having 99% vaccination be compelling? For waning hospital and death protection would Israel data be compelling? What about countless anecdotal stories of similar persistent adverse effects and VAERS reports? If none of that is evidence, then even if this vaccine was unsafe, it would be virtually impossible to prove that, no?
  - Nursie 5y ago
    > Would excess deaths in summer in 0 - 45 age group, in Europe be compelling or is there some other explanation to those? I don't know, what figures are you referring to and what do you think those are evidence of? > For preventing spread ineffectiveness, would Gibraltar being #2 in the World by infection rate while having 99% vaccination be compelling? Taken in isolation, not particularly, no. What you appear to have there is some vaguely formed speculation. > For waning hospital and death protection would Israel data be compelling? Be specific, what claims are you making and what evidence do you think backs them up? > What about countless anecdotal stories of similar persistent adverse effects and VAERS reports? Perhaps you could count them, and investigate to understand if the anecdotes and VAERS reports are true or not, and at what rate they occur. VAERS is by design a catch-all and self-reported, so the data there is interesting but not necessarily trustworthy. Anecdotes are not data, after all.
    - mewpmewp2 5y ago
      I have scanned through so many forums reading anecdotal stories, also downloaded VAERS data, and I definitely see a pattern, but this is not enough of compelling evidence for anyone. But let's just focus on what could be causing excess deaths during summer. Source: https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps/ https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps/ Scroll to Excess Mortality See 0-14 age group excess mortality growth during summer (EU approved vaccines for 12+ in May). There has been similar rate variance in winters, but this can be explained by bad flu seasons, there's no such variance ever during summer. If vaccines really were the cause, it means only 12-14 group should be affecting the rate, this means that with 0-11 the growth could be 4x that assuming linear relation. Also see 15-44 excess which has never been climbing that fast and is much higher than previously in total. You can also include other years from 2016 to compare. These may not be vaccines, but what is causing this then and why specifically in younger demographics? I'm honestly looking to understand what could be the explanation here.