The one abuse of that phrase I recall was around masks, where policymakers and science communicators initially said there was "no evidence" that they worked at

The one abuse of that phrase I recall was around masks, where policymakers and science communicators initially said there was "no evidence" that they worked at reducing COVID transmission. I agree with your criticism when it comes to this case. But when policymakers say there's no evidence for ivermectin's ability to treat COVID, I don't fault them because I see their choice of words as being aligned with the truth. Therefore they are accurately communicating science and good policy. As with all uses of language, we have to look at it on a case-by-case basis whether it's being weaponized wrongly or used appropriately. I will criticize it when it's used wrongly, and otherwise not criticize it.