Jump to content


The Right-Wing Disinformation Machine


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Redux said:

 

Why don't you want a safe treatment option?

 

Just like ever other sane person, I want safe, EFFECTIVE treatment options. Thank goodness we have them.

 

And thank goodness we've discovered that some options (Hydroxychloroquine, Ivermectin) are not effective, and we can move on from those attempts and focus on what works.

 

Why do you need this one thing, which has been proven ineffective, to be a treatment option?

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment

2 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

Just like ever other sane person, I want safe, EFFECTIVE treatment options. Thank goodness we have them.

 

And thank goodness we've discovered that some options (Hydroxychloroquine, Ivermectin) are not effective, and we can move on from those attempts and focus on what works.

 

Why do you need this one thing, which has been proven ineffective, to be a treatment option?

 

Why do you need Ivermectin to not work?  As a safe medicine, should we not give it fair trials and actually get the data without compromised results?

 

Meanwhile in NH

https://yournews.com/2022/03/16/2315005/new-hampshire-house-approves-over-the-counter-ivermectin/

In Ohio

https://www.news5cleveland.com/news/politics/ohio-politics/ohio-doctors-could-soon-be-required-to-promote-ivermectin-to-treat-covid-19?_amp=true

In Tennessee

https://www.wsmv.com/2022/04/09/ivermectin-its-way-becoming-available-without-prescription-tennessee/

 

I guess for me, it's the fact we're talking about a safe and world renowned medicine being wrongfully stigmatized by CNN and the like.  And even if it's only effective when Covid19 is combined with parasitic infections and you only know that after the fact, why wouldn't we want to have another tool in the tool box?  We want the same thing after all.

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
1 minute ago, Redux said:

I guess for me, it's the fact we're talking about a safe and world renowned medicine being wrongfully stigmatized by CNN and the like.  And even if it's only effective when Covid19 is combined with parasitic infections and you only know that after the fact, why wouldn't we want to have another tool in the tool box?  We want the same thing after all.

 

It's not "CNN and the like."

 

It's the actual factual manufacturer of the drug. It's not being "stigmatized" any more than alka-seltzer is being "stigmatized" as an ineffective treatment.

 

Ivermectin is not designed to treat viruses. It does not treat Covid. Neither does alka-seltzer.

 

Why aren't you complaining that alka-seltzer is being "stigmatized?"

 

Because alka-seltzer hasn't been promoted by right-wing disinformation pushers. Ivermectin has, and some people are avid consumers of that disinformation.

 

Hence the last several pages of this thread.

 

 

Why do you need this particular medicine to be in that tool box?

  • Plus1 3
Link to comment
28 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

Yes, that's what I was pointing out.

 

And then I pointed out that when they conducted actual peer-reviewed studies, ivermectin was proven to be ineffective in treating Covid. So they no longer have to use "may" or "suggests."

 

That was a good recap. Thanks.

Phase three approvals will use the same language when a drug is approved but the MOA in unknown

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
21 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

It's not "CNN and the like."

 

It's the actual factual manufacturer of the drug. It's not being "stigmatized" any more than alka-seltzer is being "stigmatized" as an ineffective treatment.

 

Ivermectin is not designed to treat viruses. It does not treat Covid. Neither does alka-seltzer.

 

Why aren't you complaining that alka-seltzer is being "stigmatized?"

 

Because alka-seltzer hasn't been promoted by right-wing disinformation pushers. Ivermectin has, and some people are avid consumers of that disinformation.

 

Hence the last several pages of this thread.

 

 

Why do you need this particular medicine to be in that tool box?

 

Actually yes, CNN specifically spread misinformation that Ivermectin wasn't for human consumption.  They did that, why would you pretend that didn't happen?  So yes CNN and the like stigmatized it.

 

The manufacturer isn't promoting it as a treatment because any usage of Ivermectin as a treatment would be off label.  But you know this.

 

I want this particular medecine to have its name cleared so that people who can actually benefit from using it if they get Covid can obtain it instead of having their doctors deny them medecine.  Sounds insane doesn't it, to have a doctor deny a safe medicine.  Sounds like a crazy conspiracy.  But luckily some states are fighting past the stigma.  I want it to be available if it works in some instances.  Not all, of course not all.  It's not going to work in a lot of instances.  The same can be said about the vaccine.  It would be nice if we could fill the tool box up when fighting covid, why wouldn't we want to have extra tools?

  • Plus1 3
Link to comment

55 minutes ago, Redux said:

 

Why would they unless there is enough collective data to back up a claim?  And there won't be enough data, not any time soon.

Why wouldn't they? Would be a very lucrative investment if the medication works and is a drug that's been on the market for a long time already. They've had 2 years now to do it.

Link to comment
34 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

It's not "CNN and the like."

 

It's the actual factual manufacturer of the drug. It's not being "stigmatized" any more than alka-seltzer is being "stigmatized" as an ineffective treatment.

 

Ivermectin is not designed to treat viruses. It does not treat Covid. Neither does alka-seltzer.

 

Why aren't you complaining that alka-seltzer is being "stigmatized?"

 

Because alka-seltzer hasn't been promoted by right-wing disinformation pushers. Ivermectin has, and some people are avid consumers of that disinformation.

 

Hence the last several pages of this thread.

 

 

Why do you need this particular medicine to be in that tool box?

Eh... CNN didn't pretty good hit job, and almost exclusively referred to it as a horse medicine of some kind with little to no mention of it being a drug with human uses. That was pretty bad BS. 

 

If that were his only point I would be in full agreement.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
11 minutes ago, ZRod said:

Why wouldn't they? Would be a very lucrative investment if the medication works and is a drug that's been on the market for a long time already. They've had 2 years now to do it.

 

Because they can't promote off label use

6 minutes ago, ZRod said:

Eh... CNN didn't pretty good hit job, and almost exclusively referred to it as a horse medicine of some kind with little to no mention of it being a drug with human uses. That was pretty bad BS. 

 

If that were his only point I would be in full agreement.

 

It's a big reason why it's so stigmatized today.  Which is so detrimental to a safe award winning medecine.

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
9 minutes ago, Redux said:

It would be nice if we could fill the tool box up when fighting covid, why wouldn't we want to have extra tools?

I think we're all for a COVID toolbox, but IMO, we should look at those tools on a pendulum scale of effectiveness vs. ineffectiveness.

 

Right now, on said scale, Ivermectin as a COVID treatment is heavily tilted more towards "ineffective" than "effective." The science and research is not strong or conclusive enough to support its use. Compare that to something like the vaccine which is heavily tilted more towards effective. The two basically couldn't be more opposite of each other right now. That's not me saying "don't study Ivermectin in the fight against COVID" though. But the overwhelming majority of the global medical community is on the same page about it right now. Maybe that'll change. It probably won't.

 

So, if we're going to talk about things in our healthcare toolbox, this begs the question why Ivermectin is getting so much attention. Because it hasn't really earned it and it doesn't really deserve it. A much more sound and reasonable argument could be made for people just giving a better damn about their overall health and how that not only helps to improve their quality of life, but fight of viruses/diseases. Things like eating whole foods, not being obese, exercising 5-6 times a week, drinking plenty of water and getting enough sleep. I'd put that cocktail of lifestyle choices up against something like Ivermectin all day at this point.

 

That's really a problem with western medicine and lifestyles in general, though. We have so many people that make horrible lifestyle choices and then expect drugs to be their saving grace.

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment
1 minute ago, Enhance said:

I think we're all for a COVID toolbox, but IMO, we should look at those tools on a pendulum scale of effectiveness vs. ineffectiveness.

 

Right now, on said scale, Ivermectin as a COVID treatment is heavily tilted more towards "ineffective" than "effective." The science and research is not strong or conclusive enough to support its use. Compare that to something like the vaccine which is heavily tilted more towards effective. The two basically couldn't be more opposite of each other right now. That's not me saying "don't study Ivermectin in the fight against COVID" though. But the overwhelming majority of the global medical community is on the same page about it right now. Maybe that'll change. It probably won't.

 

So, if we're going to talk about things in our healthcare toolbox, this begs the question why Ivermectin is getting so much attention. Because it hasn't really earned it and it doesn't really deserve it. A much more sound and reasonable argument could be made for people just giving a better damn about their overall health and how that not only helps to improve their quality of life, but fight of viruses/diseases. Things like eating whole foods, not being obese, exercising 5-6 times a week, drinking plenty of water and getting enough sleep. I'd put that cocktail of lifestyle choices up against something like Ivermectin all day at this point.

 

That's really a problem with western medicine and lifestyles in general, though. We have so many people that make horrible lifestyle choices and then expect drugs to be their saving grace.

 

Ineffective for now (hopefully just for now) but not harmful.  It depends on parasitic activity during a bout of Covid is my understanding and how the medecine treats parasites which correlates to lung function etc.  I'm no scientist.

 

And living a healthy lifestyle is the best way to battle not just Covid but literally everything.  Which, ironically, was another BIG talking point of that "right wing nutjob" Joe Rogan (lol) and undoubtedly the focal reason he bounced back from Covid so quickly and smoothly.  By the same token, we can attribute the US mortality rate from Covid to our unfortunate obesity rates and poor Healthcare system.  So again, that's why I'm eager for actual treatments (even off label) to be incorporated while vaccines become safer and more effective.

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment

4 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

So, there’s not data that it works on Covid.  Ok. 

 

You were calling it horse medecine like a day ago.  I could literally take it in front of you and have it visibly treat covid and you would find a way to deny it.  I linked plenty of things that support its use, go read them or don't, not going to beg you.

  • Plus1 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Redux said:

 

You were calling it horse medecine like a day ago.  I could literally take it in front of you and have it visibly treat covid and you would find a way to deny it.  I linked plenty of things that support its use, go read them or don't, not going to beg you.

It is horse medicine.  And, in my first post on the subject, I acknowledged that there is a human version. 
 

Why do you have such a problem with it being horse medicine?

 

People we’re literally buying horse medicine and eating it thinking it was going to save them. 

  • Plus1 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
35 minutes ago, Redux said:

 

Because they can't promote off label use

 

It's a big reason why it's so stigmatized today.  Which is so detrimental to a safe award winning medecine.

Which is why they run the trials... And then ask for authorization...

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...