3 ms·

> The misunderstandings around this drug also stem from the fact that its detractors were unhinged and anti-scientific. They were dismissing a large, obvious st

> The misunderstandings around this drug also stem from the fact that its detractors were unhinged and anti-scientific. They were dismissing a large, obvious statistical effect without any argument. No. The extreme pushback started after higher quality studies came out that showed there was no effect and those swayed by the initial Brazilian data wouldn’t let it go. For some segment of the population it became a magical COVID cure and any high quality studies were just big pharma ignoring cheap solutions so they could make more money.

gadders 5y ago
No. The extreme pushback started when Donald Trump mentioned it.
- SamBam 5y ago
  I think that's right but not complete. I think the biggest pushback came from the notion that a large segment of the population appeared to be against the scientific consensus on Covid, contemptuous about risk mitigation strategies, skeptical/fear-mongering about the vaccines, and pushing conspiracy theories, and then these were the who turned around and said there's a great drug that works miracles against Covid and the government doesn't want you to have it. Now, this may not be an accurate representation of all those who were talking about ivermectin, but they were the most prominent voices -- the "do your research" types. The bias that this produced in others against even considering ivermectin was strictly irrational, of course, since it was against the sources and not about studies, but, that said, many of these same people had been pushing hydroxychloroquine, massive vitamins C injections, and urine therapy, all without evidence. The underlying desire for ivermectin to be real seemed (at least from the outside) to stem more from discovering some cheap secret weapon that "the scientific community" didn't want them to know about.
  - FeepingCreature 5y ago
    Yeah but the problem is that every time this happens, the inevitable pushback ends up validating all their fears, whether or not the secret weapon is real. The whole system evolves towards bipolarity, where things that split society into two halves are amplified. That's why all the moderates only see extremists on the other side.

gadders 5y ago

No. The extreme pushback started when Donald Trump mentioned it.

SamBam 5y ago
I think that's right but not complete. I think the biggest pushback came from the notion that a large segment of the population appeared to be against the scientific consensus on Covid, contemptuous about risk mitigation strategies, skeptical/fear-mongering about the vaccines, and pushing conspiracy theories, and then these were the who turned around and said there's a great drug that works miracles against Covid and the government doesn't want you to have it. Now, this may not be an accurate representation of all those who were talking about ivermectin, but they were the most prominent voices -- the "do your research" types. The bias that this produced in others against even considering ivermectin was strictly irrational, of course, since it was against the sources and not about studies, but, that said, many of these same people had been pushing hydroxychloroquine, massive vitamins C injections, and urine therapy, all without evidence. The underlying desire for ivermectin to be real seemed (at least from the outside) to stem more from discovering some cheap secret weapon that "the scientific community" didn't want them to know about.
- FeepingCreature 5y ago
  Yeah but the problem is that every time this happens, the inevitable pushback ends up validating all their fears, whether or not the secret weapon is real. The whole system evolves towards bipolarity, where things that split society into two halves are amplified. That's why all the moderates only see extremists on the other side.