The Right-Wing Disinformation Machine

[BigRedBuster]

5 minutes ago, ZRod said:

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

And, we see it all the time with a manufacturer putting out a statement saying they think this is going to be a treatment but we need to do trials. Has this manufacturer said that?

[commando]

why do i get the impression someone bought all the ivermectin at tractor supply and is now rationalizing that purchase?

[Enhance]

30 minutes ago, Redux said:

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.

Honest and genuine question - why the use of the word "hopeful?" Are you using "hopeful" in the sense of it being another tool in the tool chest, or "hopeful" specifically because it is Ivermectin?

 

Because if we can all agree that it is currently considered ineffective against COVID, why do we have a vested interest in its success or failure? To me, it is incredibly weird that the last 5+ pages or so of this thread have been taken up by a debate/discussion about a drug that is currently considered ineffective and doesn't have a significant amount of evidence to suggest it will be.

 

I really don't have anything against Ivermectin but this all kind goes back to the original point I made. Ivermectin is getting a disproportionate about of focus IMO. 

 

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.

 

I think Joe was spot on about that, as well as other health & fitness experts. I firmly believe that if we were healthier country then we wouldn't need to rely so heavily on medications, but a lot of that comes down to personal choice.

 

But, again, I think that conversation probably deserves waaaaaaaaaay more effort than Ivermectin right? I mean we have considerable heaps and decades worth of data showing us the importance of healthy lifestyle choices in regards to what we eat, how we sleep, exercise, etc. I feel like that probably deserves way more focus than Ivermectin at this point. Let the scientists sort out Ivermectin.

[Redux]

15 minutes ago, ZRod said:

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

 

And thoe trials were inconsistent/inconclusive.  They need to be given a fair run.

8 minutes ago, commando said:

why do i get the impression someone bought all the ivermectin at tractor supply and is now rationalizing that purchase?

 

See these are posts that get laugh emojis, they can't be taken seriously 

[Redux]

44 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

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. 

 

Because the conversation isn't about horse medicine, it's about people medicine and the potential benefits of it.  But you're taking the CNN route and pretending you don't know how you're insinuating it.  If you want to be seen as disingenuous that's your choice and it's noted.

[Redux]

14 minutes ago, Enhance said:

Honest and genuine question - why the use of the word "hopeful?" Are you using "hopeful" in the sense of it being another tool in the tool chest, or "hopeful" specifically because it is Ivermectin?

 

I'm hopeful the intentionally misleading stigmatisms thrown at a nobel winning harmless people medecine can be lifted.  I'm hopeful Ivermectin, because it was specifically targeted, can be given a fair trial.  I explained very clearly I'm hopeful for it to be a treatment, has nothing to do with the politicization of medecines and vaccines amidst a pandemic, which is what I'm assuming you're alluding to here?

 

19 minutes ago, Enhance said:

Because if we can all agree that it is currently considered ineffective against COVID, why do we have a vested interest in its success or failure? To me, it is incredibly weird that the last 5+ pages or so of this thread have been taken up by a debate/discussion about a drug that is currently considered ineffective and doesn't have a significant amount of evidence to suggest it will be.

 

I can agree that the promoted data available to the public considers Ivermectin ineffective (though harmless otherwise).  I agree that Ivermectin is CONSIDERED ineffective by many.

 

I don't find it weird at all.  I actually find it weird that people have such pushback towards a harmless treatment that, despite what some thing, does have potential to help treat covid.  Again, I'm hopeful this will be calculated and proven.  We all should be hopeful for that, instead of continuing to disregard it and mislabel it.

 

23 minutes ago, Enhance said:

I really don't have anything against Ivermectin but this all kind goes back to the original point I made. Ivermectin is getting a disproportionate about of focus IMO. 

 

Nor should you, or anyone really for that matter.  It's getting focus because the media flat out lied about it, effectiveness not withstanding.  Doctors now deemed quacks for thinking it still could be effective are another reason it gets focus.  And it should, why not explore it since it's harmless?

 

And yes, maybe the media could focus on promoting healthy living.  But instead they focus solely on vaccines and mudslinging anything to the contrary and ignore healthy living completely.  Well, unless it can be used as propaganda:

 

https://medium.com/equality-includes-you/the-surprising-link-between-fitness-and-racism-866039cec2ae

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.self.com/story/anti-fatness-fitness/amp

[Redux]

Actually it speaks volumes I had to continuously explain a blatant instance of Left Wing Disinformation on the Right Wing Disinformation Machine thread.  Had CNN not openly lied about Ivermectin, much of this pushback wouldn't exist and let us be frank, less people would have been stupid enough to take the animal version.

[NebraskaHarry]

10 minutes ago, Redux said:

Actually it speaks volumes I had to continuously explain a blatant instance of Left Wing Disinformation on the Right Wing Disinformation Machine thread.  Had CNN not openly lied about Ivermectin, much of this pushback wouldn't exist and let us be frank, less people would have been stupid enough to take the animal version.

So people are that stupid that just to spite CNN they were going to go find this deworming medicine and take it? Even if that meant going to tractor supply and buying the livestock version because they couldn't get the human version elsewhere? ... yeah, I can believe that. And I'm serious, some people are that stupid. 

[Enhance]

18 minutes ago, Redux said:

Had CNN not openly lied about Ivermectin, much of this pushback wouldn't exist and let us be frank, less people would have been stupid enough to take the animal version.

Ehh... we have to look at the whole picture.

 

It was primarily groups who had an aversion to mask wearing, vaccinations, and government involvement in the COVID pandemic who INCORRECTLY propagated it as an effective treatment against COVID more than a year ago before anybody on CNN started calling it a horse medication and trying to dunk on people who were taking Ivermectin

 

So, I'm not going to defend CNN or give them a pass, but the single biggest reason we're having a conversation about Ivermectin right now is because it became an international political pissing match but CNN wasn't the one who made Ivermectin a thing in the first place. Nobody in the media started that. It was the people who started taking the stuff and suggesting it was a safe, effective COVID treatment when it wasn't... and still hasn't proven to be so. Stupidity snowballed from there from all parties involved.

[Guy Chamberlin]

4 hours ago, Redux said:

 

Welcome to most clinical trials.  Also, those conflicts of interest are coming from the side that doesn't want to find a successful treatment.  Again we're talking about a non harmful people medecine, so if it doesn't work for everyone as a treatment it's not a big deal.  So why would there be so much "conflict? 

 

No, it's not proven yet to treat Covid.  Probably never will be because, vaccines.  Again it's non harmu, and off label use is not a new concept.

 

Vaccines are preventative, medecine is treatment.  Why wouldn't we want both to help fight a pandemic?  You hear how ridiculous that sentiment you make is right?  And that effectiveness you're touting has as much time being tested as Ivermectin does as a treatment.

 

It wasn't lazy, it was intentional misinformation to deter people from seeking out Ivermectin.  Last time, a non harmful people drug that has been tested and used successfully as a treatment medecine.  The only reason you or anyone else is so against a non harmful people medecine as a treatment is because you've been indoctrinated to so so.

 

I see the problem. You're mad at liberal social media flamers for mocking people taking a horse de-wormer, and ignoring that Ivermectin actually has a successful human component.

 

I get that.

 

But that's a separate issue from whether Ivermectin was a legitimate COVID treatment with a potential to alleviate the pandemic. It wasn't. I"m not speaking for you, but a lot of people who cast the pandemic in partisan terms wanted to promote Ivermectin and Hydroxychlorine IN PLACE of Covid vaccines, which required willfully misreading the research on both. That knee-jerk ignorance likely cost thousands of lives. 

 

When you get knee deep in that kind of argument, it is pretty tempting to ask people why they'd take a horse de-wormer treatment over a far more proven preventative. The fact that Ivermectin is a relatively harmless human drug doesn't change the bigger issue. 

[ZRod]

1 hour ago, Redux said:

 

And thoe trials were inconsistent/inconclusive.  They need to be given a fair run.

What trials? I thought you said the ones you posted were supposedly conclusive and show that it worked. Now they don't?

[Redux]

15 minutes ago, ZRod said:

What trials? I thought you said the ones you posted were supposedly conclusive and show that it worked. Now they don't?

 

The trial of Ivermectin has been largely inconsistent across the board.  I'm not so conceited that I wouldn't want an honest trial and honest results.

[ZRod]

Just now, Redux said:

 

The trial of Ivermectin has been largely inconsistent across the board.  I'm not so conceited that I wouldn't want an honest trial and honest results.

So why do you think the company that produces it hasn't conducted trials? They had 2 years, and it could have made them a lot of money if successful.

[Redux]

31 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

I see the problem. You're mad at liberal social media flamers for mocking people taking a horse de-wormer, and ignoring that Ivermectin actually has a successful human component.

 

I get that.

 

But that's a separate issue from whether Ivermectin was a legitimate COVID treatment with a potential to alleviate the pandemic. It wasn't. I"m not speaking for you, but a lot of people who cast the pandemic in partisan terms wanted to promote Ivermectin and Hydroxychlorine IN PLACE of Covid vaccines, which required willfully misreading the research on both. That knee-jerk ignorance likely cost thousands of lives. 

 

When you get knee deep in that kind of argument, it is pretty tempting to ask people why they'd take a horse de-wormer treatment over a far more proven preventative. The fact that Ivermectin is a relatively harmless human drug doesn't change the bigger issue. 

 

I'm disheartened an concerned harmless medicines were stigmatized by the media and in turn large portions of the public which eventually hurt trials and eventually led to it being deemed ineffective.  Take the politics out of medecine completely, if we did that the hesitancy to at least discuss Ivermectin as a treatment would be far less tumultuous.

[Redux]

1 minute ago, ZRod said:

So why do you think the company that produces it hasn't conducted trials? They had 2 years, and it could have made them a lot of money if successful.

 

I could speculate, but that wouldn't be a genuine answer.  I hope they end up doing so if they aren't already.