4 ms·

Then you say, "Ivermectin is also used in a veterinarian capacity at concentration levels dangerous to humans." But the media chose the sensational way of sayi

by LanceH 5y ago

Then you say, "Ivermectin is also used in a veterinarian capacity at concentration levels dangerous to humans." But the media chose the sensational way of saying it. It was also frequently dismissed entirely as being for horses without reference to concentration levels or what it actually does. > You might find it politically inconvenient to reconcile this with the stance you’ve chosen You might find it politically inconvenient to reconcile this with the stance you’ve chosen but the media and your side isn't right just because the other side is wrong.

brokensegue 5y ago
People were literally taking formulations of the drug meant for horses.
acdha 5y ago
> You might find it politically inconvenient to reconcile this with the stance you’ve chosen but the media and your side isn't right just because the other side is wrong. Oh, a strawman argument with bonus points for trying to look clever by pretending this is a “both-sides” situation so you can avoid intellectual engagement. If you re-read the thread you might notice that this was specifically in response to someone who was incorrectly claiming that people misusing animal medication didn't really happen. Nobody was saying that it's never used for humans — the big questions were whether it was useful for treating COVID (no) and whether it was a good idea to take non-human formulations and/or doses well outside of the safe ranges without involving a doctor (even more strongly no). If you want to rant about “the media” or sides, it would probably be a good first step to be specific about what you're talking about so anyone else can evaluate whatever claims you're making. “the media” covers a very wide range of voices and it's not like there's anywhere close to 100% fidelity between different parts of the media or, for that matter, the scientific and governmental voices they're reporting on.

by LanceH 5y ago

brokensegue 5y ago

People were literally taking formulations of the drug meant for horses.

acdha 5y ago

> You might find it politically inconvenient to reconcile this with the stance you’ve chosen but the media and your side isn't right just because the other side is wrong. Oh, a strawman argument with bonus points for trying to look clever by pretending this is a “both-sides” situation so you can avoid intellectual engagement. If you re-read the thread you might notice that this was specifically in response to someone who was incorrectly claiming that people misusing animal medication didn't really happen. Nobody was saying that it's never used for humans — the big questions were whether it was useful for treating COVID (no) and whether it was a good idea to take non-human formulations and/or doses well outside of the safe ranges without involving a doctor (even more strongly no). If you want to rant about “the media” or sides, it would probably be a good first step to be specific about what you're talking about so anyone else can evaluate whatever claims you're making. “the media” covers a very wide range of voices and it's not like there's anywhere close to 100% fidelity between different parts of the media or, for that matter, the scientific and governmental voices they're reporting on.