4 ms·

I think that's his "thing", promoting his own viewpoints through selection of guests and asking them certain questions. I don't mind that though. What I mind is

by okl 5y ago

I think that's his "thing", promoting his own viewpoints through selection of guests and asking them certain questions. I don't mind that though. What I mind is that he himself is (apparently) quite gullible. In his ig video he promised to "balance" opinions. So, what is the balance between facts and utter bullshit?

nextlevelwizard 5y ago
Of course a talk show host with free range on guests is going to take on guests he finds interesting and often the most interesting view points are the ones that contradict with the status quo. To me the quests seem to have some credentials and they have/had concerns over some aspects of how Covid is being treated, how the vacine is being administered, and how Covid restrictions are beign handled. They are interesting points and might be worth considering. I for one have been curious since the begining why Ivermectine was just banned fast with a smear campaign instead of doing actual trials and showing it doesn't work against Covid. None of this is antivax or utter bullshit in my mind
- okl 5y ago
  > To me the quests seem to have some credentials Like Jordan Peterson rambling about climate change? > I for one have been curious since the begining why Ivermectine was just banned fast with a smear campaign instead of doing actual trials and showing it doesn't work against Covid. I you actually cared about that, then you'd know that trials were conducted and the data did not warrant a recommendation. For example, early results where discussed here in April 2020: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7172803/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7172803/ Sorry but, by insinuating a smear campaign you are now the one who's spreading bullshit.
  - nextlevelwizard 5y ago
    >Like Jordan Peterson rambling about climate change? Yeah, Peterson isn't authority on climate change, but does that mean he shouldn't say what he thinks about it? Also I was refering to the supposed antivax episodes. I haven't listened to the Peterson episode. As I said I haven't listened to JRE since it became Spotify exclusive expect for these two episodes. Sorry you need to help me with the link you provided. I tried skimming it and I just saw that ivermectine showed promise and that due to higher than usual dosage more research is needed. >Sorry but, by insinuating a smear campaign you are now the one who's spreading bullshit. Again what bullshit? If we have a drug that shows promise, but as soon as people start talking about it all news agencies start telling how the drug is "a horse dewormer" and implying that only idiots would even consider using "a horse dewormer" on humans when it is literally our best antiparasitic that has been used for decades on humans and animals. Obviously don't take any drugs that are made for animals, but I don't understand why potential treatment was dimissed so hard out of hand at a time when didn't have enough vaccines for everyone in need and we have bunch of Ivermectine in every pharmacy around the world.
    - okl 5y ago
      I don't think you actually read the information behind that link. The outlook was very much more differentiated than "showed promise". I'm not interested in continuing this discussion since you seem more interested in framing that story instead of looking at the facts. Bye.
      - nextlevelwizard 5y ago
        I think YOU have not read the information behind the link. Literally the first section: > Caly et al. at Monash University in Australia recently published a paper in Antiviral Research, reporting that ivermectin, a medication widely used for the treatment of certain parasitic diseases in humans and livestock animals, inhibits the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in cell culture (Caly et al., 2020). *Despite the authors' cautious conclusion that ivermectin "warrants further investigation for possible benefits in humans,"* the paper has excited widespread interest on medical and veterinary websites, which often incorrectly describe the drug as a treatment or cure for COVID-19. These inappropriate statements led to a warning by the US FDA, that *ivermectin in veterinary products should not be used for human therapy* The letters and the author of the original paper all seem to be concerned about the dosage being higher than what is used to treat parasites and the amount could potentially be toxic which in their words: "important reason to be very cautious in considering ivermectin as a therapeutic for viral infection in human patients." Again I ask you to help me with finding the section that says the drug fails to meet criteria for further studies? EDIT: I tried to highlight the interesting points, but I can't figure it out so I will just put the two quotes here: 1. Despite the authors' cautious conclusion that ivermectin "warrants further investigation for possible benefits in humans," 2. ivermectin in veterinary products should not be used for human therapy

by okl 5y ago

nextlevelwizard 5y ago

Of course a talk show host with free range on guests is going to take on guests he finds interesting and often the most interesting view points are the ones that contradict with the status quo. To me the quests seem to have some credentials and they have/had concerns over some aspects of how Covid is being treated, how the vacine is being administered, and how Covid restrictions are beign handled. They are interesting points and might be worth considering. I for one have been curious since the begining why Ivermectine was just banned fast with a smear campaign instead of doing actual trials and showing it doesn't work against Covid. None of this is antivax or utter bullshit in my mind

okl 5y ago
> To me the quests seem to have some credentials Like Jordan Peterson rambling about climate change? > I for one have been curious since the begining why Ivermectine was just banned fast with a smear campaign instead of doing actual trials and showing it doesn't work against Covid. I you actually cared about that, then you'd know that trials were conducted and the data did not warrant a recommendation. For example, early results where discussed here in April 2020: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7172803/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7172803/ Sorry but, by insinuating a smear campaign you are now the one who's spreading bullshit.
- nextlevelwizard 5y ago
  >Like Jordan Peterson rambling about climate change? Yeah, Peterson isn't authority on climate change, but does that mean he shouldn't say what he thinks about it? Also I was refering to the supposed antivax episodes. I haven't listened to the Peterson episode. As I said I haven't listened to JRE since it became Spotify exclusive expect for these two episodes. Sorry you need to help me with the link you provided. I tried skimming it and I just saw that ivermectine showed promise and that due to higher than usual dosage more research is needed. >Sorry but, by insinuating a smear campaign you are now the one who's spreading bullshit. Again what bullshit? If we have a drug that shows promise, but as soon as people start talking about it all news agencies start telling how the drug is "a horse dewormer" and implying that only idiots would even consider using "a horse dewormer" on humans when it is literally our best antiparasitic that has been used for decades on humans and animals. Obviously don't take any drugs that are made for animals, but I don't understand why potential treatment was dimissed so hard out of hand at a time when didn't have enough vaccines for everyone in need and we have bunch of Ivermectine in every pharmacy around the world.
  - okl 5y ago
    I don't think you actually read the information behind that link. The outlook was very much more differentiated than "showed promise". I'm not interested in continuing this discussion since you seem more interested in framing that story instead of looking at the facts. Bye.
    - nextlevelwizard 5y ago
      I think YOU have not read the information behind the link. Literally the first section: > Caly et al. at Monash University in Australia recently published a paper in Antiviral Research, reporting that ivermectin, a medication widely used for the treatment of certain parasitic diseases in humans and livestock animals, inhibits the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in cell culture (Caly et al., 2020). *Despite the authors' cautious conclusion that ivermectin "warrants further investigation for possible benefits in humans,"* the paper has excited widespread interest on medical and veterinary websites, which often incorrectly describe the drug as a treatment or cure for COVID-19. These inappropriate statements led to a warning by the US FDA, that *ivermectin in veterinary products should not be used for human therapy* The letters and the author of the original paper all seem to be concerned about the dosage being higher than what is used to treat parasites and the amount could potentially be toxic which in their words: "important reason to be very cautious in considering ivermectin as a therapeutic for viral infection in human patients." Again I ask you to help me with finding the section that says the drug fails to meet criteria for further studies? EDIT: I tried to highlight the interesting points, but I can't figure it out so I will just put the two quotes here: 1. Despite the authors' cautious conclusion that ivermectin "warrants further investigation for possible benefits in humans," 2. ivermectin in veterinary products should not be used for human therapy