4 ms·

Imagine thinking Ivermectin is only "worshiped" by the "scientifically challenged". What an ignorant and stupid-ass thing to say, and the only reason for saying

Imagine thinking Ivermectin is only "worshiped" by the "scientifically challenged". What an ignorant and stupid-ass thing to say, and the only reason for saying it is a consumption of crap from mainstream media outlet.

loxias 5y ago
OK. Prove me wrong? How about at least an attempt at offering a counterpoint with cited sources? EDIT: (added all this word soup) In my non-scientific opinion, which is purely anecdotal, a while ago, back when ivermectin was a thing, there's was high overlap between the people excited about it and those with no grasp of common sense, let alone science. To my eyes, the same people were afraid of bill gates microchipping them and evil Jewish space lasers. This is my first hand lived experience. > What an ignorant and stupid-ass thing to say, and the only reason for saying it is a consumption of crap from mainstream media outlet. That response sucks -- you can do better. I'll help you, I'm pro-science and pro-discourse. Instead of offering your own guess as to what motivates my thoughts (which is both incorrect, and makes you look dumb, lol), what you want to do instead say something appealing to reason, with content. Something like: "I don't think you should lump ivermectin in with those injecting bleach. Though ridiculed by many, there's some reason to suspect it may be useful. For example, did you know that there was $STUDY and $STUDY that showed $INTERESTING_RESULT, published in $RESPECTED_JOURNAL?" But then you'd have to find values for those variables, and good luck with that. Much of the misinformation on ivermectin draws on sparse low-quality studies, including studies that were later retracted and one that was rife with fraud. One of the key studies (to the ivermectin delusion) not only has blatant plagiarism, but also "they had reported the study as starting on the eighth of June. And they included a number of patients who had died before that date". :P Once you catch something like that, are you gonna still believe the study? Which, by the way, was never actually published in a peer reviewed journal, just posted as a preprint! Source: https://www.sideeffectspublicmedia.org/coronavirus/2021-12-08/how-shaky-ivermectin-studies-overseas-wreaked-havoc-in-the-u-s https://www.sideeffectspublicmedia.org/coronavirus/2021-12-0... Notice how I was able to back up my central assertion "ivermectin people are believing in nonsense" with a motivating *actual reason* "the papers they are basing their opinions on are of low quality, unpublished, non-peer reviewed, and below any sensible standard of quality" and that I can even *cite a source*? Do that instead of what you did. :) Also, I can't help but laugh at the notion of "mainstream media" as an insult. :D Like, "Oh, I don't trust those fools at the BBC, or the Reuters cabal. I get all MY facts exclusively from my neighbor Bob and his facebook group."
- mikem170 5y ago
  This guy [0] made a detailed good case that ivermectin shows positive results only in studies done in parts of the world where intestinal worms are very common, likely because intestinal worms and their interactions with the microbiome cause known problems for the immune system, including when it needs to fight a covid infection. So if you have intestinal worms, the data supports that idea that ivermectin helps with covid infections, also. If you don't have worms it doesn't. Maybe this is too nuanced for the mainstream media. [0] https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/ivermectin-much-more-than-you-wanted https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/ivermectin-much-more-t...
- bigyellow 5y ago
  > Also, I can't help but laugh at the notion of "mainstream media" as an insult. :D Like, "Oh, I don't trust those fools at the BBC, or the Reuters cabal. Heh, wow you're so clever with your "laugh". It's not like the CEO of Reuters is also on the Pfizer board of directors ... oh wait ... that's exactly the case. https://www.pfizer.com/people/leadership/board_of_directors/james_smith https://www.pfizer.com/people/leadership/board_of_directors/...

loxias 5y ago

OK. Prove me wrong? How about at least an attempt at offering a counterpoint with cited sources? EDIT: (added all this word soup) In my non-scientific opinion, which is purely anecdotal, a while ago, back when ivermectin was a thing, there's was high overlap between the people excited about it and those with no grasp of common sense, let alone science. To my eyes, the same people were afraid of bill gates microchipping them and evil Jewish space lasers. This is my first hand lived experience. > What an ignorant and stupid-ass thing to say, and the only reason for saying it is a consumption of crap from mainstream media outlet. That response sucks -- you can do better. I'll help you, I'm pro-science and pro-discourse. Instead of offering your own guess as to what motivates my thoughts (which is both incorrect, and makes you look dumb, lol), what you want to do instead say something appealing to reason, with content. Something like: "I don't think you should lump ivermectin in with those injecting bleach. Though ridiculed by many, there's some reason to suspect it may be useful. For example, did you know that there was $STUDY and $STUDY that showed $INTERESTING_RESULT, published in $RESPECTED_JOURNAL?" But then you'd have to find values for those variables, and good luck with that. Much of the misinformation on ivermectin draws on sparse low-quality studies, including studies that were later retracted and one that was rife with fraud. One of the key studies (to the ivermectin delusion) not only has blatant plagiarism, but also "they had reported the study as starting on the eighth of June. And they included a number of patients who had died before that date". :P Once you catch something like that, are you gonna still believe the study? Which, by the way, was never actually published in a peer reviewed journal, just posted as a preprint! Source: https://www.sideeffectspublicmedia.org/coronavirus/2021-12-08/how-shaky-ivermectin-studies-overseas-wreaked-havoc-in-the-u-s https://www.sideeffectspublicmedia.org/coronavirus/2021-12-0... Notice how I was able to back up my central assertion "ivermectin people are believing in nonsense" with a motivating *actual reason* "the papers they are basing their opinions on are of low quality, unpublished, non-peer reviewed, and below any sensible standard of quality" and that I can even *cite a source*? Do that instead of what you did. :) Also, I can't help but laugh at the notion of "mainstream media" as an insult. :D Like, "Oh, I don't trust those fools at the BBC, or the Reuters cabal. I get all MY facts exclusively from my neighbor Bob and his facebook group."

mikem170 5y ago
This guy [0] made a detailed good case that ivermectin shows positive results only in studies done in parts of the world where intestinal worms are very common, likely because intestinal worms and their interactions with the microbiome cause known problems for the immune system, including when it needs to fight a covid infection. So if you have intestinal worms, the data supports that idea that ivermectin helps with covid infections, also. If you don't have worms it doesn't. Maybe this is too nuanced for the mainstream media. [0] https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/ivermectin-much-more-than-you-wanted https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/ivermectin-much-more-t...
bigyellow 5y ago
> Also, I can't help but laugh at the notion of "mainstream media" as an insult. :D Like, "Oh, I don't trust those fools at the BBC, or the Reuters cabal. Heh, wow you're so clever with your "laugh". It's not like the CEO of Reuters is also on the Pfizer board of directors ... oh wait ... that's exactly the case. https://www.pfizer.com/people/leadership/board_of_directors/james_smith https://www.pfizer.com/people/leadership/board_of_directors/...