4 ms·

What you're saying is a theory. It's a good theory but youre technically spouting misinformation by claiming it's hard fact. This theory was developed by Scot

What you're saying is a theory. It's a good theory but youre technically spouting misinformation by claiming it's hard fact. This theory was developed by Scott Alexander from SSC in his ivermectin blog post. Joe Rogan never claimed anyone should take medical advice from him. He had Sanjay Gupta and Robert Malone both medical doctors with differing opinions. This is how the media is supposed to work. It's not supposed to be just the people you agree with(that's propaganda).

rootsudo 5y ago
Misinformation seems to be the boogeyman of our time. Something you don't agree with just slap the label "Misinformation!" "Yes, the evidence suggests it but.." - "MISINFORMATION.
- edmcnulty101 5y ago
  Stating something with no scientific backing is literal misinformation. Theres been not a single study to show parasite Covid ivermectin connection. Claiming it's fact instead of a theory is literal misinformation, even if it's a good theory.
  - WaxedChewbacca 5y ago
FeepingCreature 5y ago
Far as I know, the theory was proposed first by @GidMK on Twitter. (For the record.) edit: Apparently someone else? I've seen it on Twitter before Scott's blog, but I can't find the thread anymore. edit: It was Avi Bitterman @AviBittMD. Also linked in the article.
- edmcnulty101 5y ago
  Yes you're right! Thanks for the clarification. Scott does address this in his blog/article. It's been almost 5 months since I read the article. Scott does attribute numerous references to the original postulators after looking again. Via Scott's article plus numerous links: " As several doctors and researchers have pointed out (h/t especially Avi Bitterman and David Boulware)" * https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/ivermectin-much-more-than-you-wanted?s=r https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/ivermectin-much-more-t... * https://twitter.com/AviBittMD/status/1461076939192602628 https://twitter.com/AviBittMD/status/1461076939192602628
aczerepinski 5y ago
Not every issue needs to have both sides represented as if they are both reasonable and should both be considered. For example if you have a NASA expert talking about nearby galaxies, it isn't necessary to also invite a flat-earther to spout whatever nonsense they believe about space. During a deadly pandemic that's killing millions, it's perfectly fine to only present the information that will save lives.
- enchiridion 5y ago
  I disagree. The dangerous issues are precisely the ones that need more debate. The consequences of blindly following a single push are potentially cataclysmic. Your last statement relies on the assumption that the authorities actually know what information will save lives. I do not believe that is true. I do believe in the reasoning and self preservation instincts of most people. The way these experts have acted shows very little respect for the sanctity of the individual.
  - mikeyouse 5y ago
    Listening to Joe Rogan corresponded to a halving of vaccination rate in those people and his idiotic breed of “both sides” literally got people killed. But glad we avoided something “cataclysmic” like more vaccination. These are the most naive arguments I could imagine. It’s certainly not important to platform a bunch of conspiracy riddled garbage.
    - enchiridion 5y ago
      "Platform", as in allow free speech, a core founding idea of liberal democracies everywhere. I'm aware speech on private platforms is not protected from the actions of the platform by the First Amendment. That doesn't mean it is morally acceptable for these platforms to infringe. "Conspiracy riddled garbage" which has turned out in more than one case to be right (the effectiveness of masking, effectiveness of social distancing, the effectiveness of lock downs). Just because the evidence currently looks to be in favor of vaccination doesn't mean we should shutdown dissenting opinions. Millions of people have given their lives to protect the ideal of free speech and similar freedoms. I have no issue with the fact that exercising that right may cause some harm. I fundamentally believe that free speech leads to better outcomes over the long term. Additionally, in this particular case the harm is not immediately obvious to me. If you are in a position to affect outcomes in this area (as many on HN probably are, given ties to social media), I hope you reflect on the environment of freedom you currently benefit from. Are comfortable restricting freedoms for future generations, who's situations and trials are unknown to you?
brokensegue 5y ago
SSC is not the progenitor of this theory

rootsudo 5y ago

Misinformation seems to be the boogeyman of our time. Something you don't agree with just slap the label "Misinformation!" "Yes, the evidence suggests it but.." - "MISINFORMATION.

edmcnulty101 5y ago
Stating something with no scientific backing is literal misinformation. Theres been not a single study to show parasite Covid ivermectin connection. Claiming it's fact instead of a theory is literal misinformation, even if it's a good theory.
- WaxedChewbacca 5y ago

FeepingCreature 5y ago

Far as I know, the theory was proposed first by @GidMK on Twitter. (For the record.) edit: Apparently someone else? I've seen it on Twitter before Scott's blog, but I can't find the thread anymore. edit: It was Avi Bitterman @AviBittMD. Also linked in the article.

edmcnulty101 5y ago
Yes you're right! Thanks for the clarification. Scott does address this in his blog/article. It's been almost 5 months since I read the article. Scott does attribute numerous references to the original postulators after looking again. Via Scott's article plus numerous links: " As several doctors and researchers have pointed out (h/t especially Avi Bitterman and David Boulware)" * https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/ivermectin-much-more-than-you-wanted?s=r https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/ivermectin-much-more-t... * https://twitter.com/AviBittMD/status/1461076939192602628 https://twitter.com/AviBittMD/status/1461076939192602628

aczerepinski 5y ago

Not every issue needs to have both sides represented as if they are both reasonable and should both be considered. For example if you have a NASA expert talking about nearby galaxies, it isn't necessary to also invite a flat-earther to spout whatever nonsense they believe about space. During a deadly pandemic that's killing millions, it's perfectly fine to only present the information that will save lives.

enchiridion 5y ago
I disagree. The dangerous issues are precisely the ones that need more debate. The consequences of blindly following a single push are potentially cataclysmic. Your last statement relies on the assumption that the authorities actually know what information will save lives. I do not believe that is true. I do believe in the reasoning and self preservation instincts of most people. The way these experts have acted shows very little respect for the sanctity of the individual.
- mikeyouse 5y ago
  Listening to Joe Rogan corresponded to a halving of vaccination rate in those people and his idiotic breed of “both sides” literally got people killed. But glad we avoided something “cataclysmic” like more vaccination. These are the most naive arguments I could imagine. It’s certainly not important to platform a bunch of conspiracy riddled garbage.
  - enchiridion 5y ago
    "Platform", as in allow free speech, a core founding idea of liberal democracies everywhere. I'm aware speech on private platforms is not protected from the actions of the platform by the First Amendment. That doesn't mean it is morally acceptable for these platforms to infringe. "Conspiracy riddled garbage" which has turned out in more than one case to be right (the effectiveness of masking, effectiveness of social distancing, the effectiveness of lock downs). Just because the evidence currently looks to be in favor of vaccination doesn't mean we should shutdown dissenting opinions. Millions of people have given their lives to protect the ideal of free speech and similar freedoms. I have no issue with the fact that exercising that right may cause some harm. I fundamentally believe that free speech leads to better outcomes over the long term. Additionally, in this particular case the harm is not immediately obvious to me. If you are in a position to affect outcomes in this area (as many on HN probably are, given ties to social media), I hope you reflect on the environment of freedom you currently benefit from. Are comfortable restricting freedoms for future generations, who's situations and trials are unknown to you?

brokensegue 5y ago

SSC is not the progenitor of this theory