Why is the media still lying about Ivermectin?

The only part of my argument that had anything to do with the FDA was the approval of ivermectin.

I'm not really interested in hearing you carry on about irrelevant subjects so I'll just continue to dismiss you to your face until you figure out how to ask me what my argument is since you don't seem to know.

You are the only one talking about it. I'm telling you over and over it isn't the subject.

If you can't pick up on direct statements like that than there is no hope of you ever having a position in the conversation.

 

Strawman fallacies will be identified and dismissed.

Be better.

 

Somebody who would want to have a conversation would not stubbornly insist their straw man isn't a straw man they would ask why the opponents thinks that what they posted was a straw man.

And I would happily explain.

The fact that you haven't figured this out means that you're just on a soapbox with a sandwich board.

And at this point my only purpose in communicating with you is too frustrate you.

I will stop doing that and start treating you like an intellectual equal the second you start acting like one.

 

Homeopathy is an accepted practice worldwide and there is ample evidence that it works in many cases. It is also a fact that many FDA approved methods of curing disease kill the patient before the disease itself. I have used homeopathy to cure my own cancer and so have many others. I am skeptical of AMA, FDA and other government agencies. Whenever huge sums of money are involved corruption will soon follow. Free people should be able to research and use whatever means they choose to cure their own bodies. And for the record I can not stand Trump and most of his followers.

 

You misquoting people doesn’t hurt feelings. It severely damages your credibility. You have claimed I posted content to you that was to another poster and now you keep arguing against strawmen—things I’ve never said.

Being weary does not imply hurt feelings. Just more made up stuff I guess.

I think you have confused yourself.

Then:

I’m going to let you argue with yourself on that one.

Cool.

I’m quite certain I never said all empirical evidence is equal or that all is sufficient to base decisions on. Did I?

.
Absolutely. Even clinical trials! For example the clinical trial for Thalidomide.

Even the early clinical trials for the Covid vaccines were kind of crap even though the circumstances that made them crap were mostly unavoidable. But there is still value for decision making.

Do you know anyone who has proposed actually carrying out this scenario?

 

Yes, you bought the excuse. It’s a fine excuse early except for the fact those making the excuses made no effort to rectify the situation. They did encourage domestic production by complaining about the shortage.

And guess what? By late fall of 2020 there were MILLIONS of N95 NIOSH approved masks gathering dust on US warehouse shelves with NO buyers! Mask manufacturers spent millions tooling up to produce a product the CDC said they wanted, but actively campaigned AGAINST usage of for a year as domestic producers came closer and closer to bankruptcy because the CDC and NIH told people to NOT buy their product.

Now people actually BELIEVE cloth masks are superior because the CDC lied for almost two years. And you complain about people who are hung up on a mostly harmless product like Ivermectin.

 

I posted the official version and the opposition's version of this issue.

(post #149)
http://politicalforum.com/index.php...bout-ivermectin.591850/page-6#post-1072926922

You only commented on the official version. What do you think of the opposition's version? It looks like science to me.

 

By quality you mean studies by Pharma that have a financial stake. Just because they may not be done in America doesn’t mean they are not good studies.

 

Are you deliberately attempting to take this thread off topic? The topic is concerning ivermectin and suggests lies are being told. Awareness of "the other" or any number of drugs is irrelevant and off topic. Back to my original post which was 100% on topic. You quoted it in its entirety and completely ignored it, are you going to address it or just continue to make lots of noise?

 

How would you know? Your depleted uranium spam has been addressed(here and elsewhere) and ignored numerous times.

 

Addressed, but not debunked.

 

Maybe you should take your off topic uranium crap to the conspiracy section. You wouldn't understand if anything were debunked and since you ignore or deny any such attempt it seems moot.

 

Are you deliberately trying to take the thread off topic by posting a video containing mostly information on hydroxychloroquine?

I have responded to your posts specifically. Perhaps since you don’t like how I point out the flaws of your arguments in an open forum we should try another angle. My PM is on and functional. Why don’t you write a response to your own post that you think bolsters your argument or makes you feel warm and fuzzy and PM it to me. I will copy and post your response to your post under my name on the open forum. Then you can feel good someone agrees with you and posts content you find acceptable. Good idea?

 

You didn't answer my question and that video has significant data relating to ivermectin. Why are you persisting in dragging this thread off topic?

You began this tedious off topic side-issue by raising a point on something nothing to do with ivermectin and by baiting me as a supposed puppet. I don't actually have any interest in your responses - unless you care to respond to the damn post you quoted and ignored.

I have no such dislike and you haven't pointed out any flaws. I have no interest in continuing your off topic diversion via PM.

 

My post to you had significant information pertaining to the thread title and OP. Media lies to influence people like you to believe certain things and be uninformed on other things. It’s what media does. I used your post as a prime example of this and you have strengthened my argument bu demonstrating further lack of knowledge on the subject. You lack the knowledge because you listen to media instead of using a broad spectrum of information sources based on actual empirical evidence.

Before you get more flustered and go off on a tirade about Fox News or something, when I say media I mean ALL media. They are ALL trying to limit your actual knowledge and influence your opinions. This IS the subject of the OP. I’m not sure why you haven’t picked up on that yet…

My first post to you did address the post I quoted. I showed a pharmaceutical company is doing exactly what you are complaining about. They took two drugs created for another purpose and are giving them off label to people to see what happens. Period. Full stop. I also pointed out later 20% of drugs prescribed are off label. Your post I responded to is illegitimate because every day doctors and drug companies do what you complain about with hydroxy and ivermectin. But since you are completely unaware of that fact, you focus on the only two drugs media has informed you a little about and lied a lot about.

I’m uninterested in PMing as well. It was a lighthearted attempt at getting you to try critical thought…but it obviously failed.

 

Nope. How can the title confuse you so much?

Why is the media still lying about Ivermectin?
Your post was nothing to do with at all. The OP is why is the media suppressing this "miracle cure" and making up stories.

So you are playing the supercilious card? Really? It doesn't overtly or covertly influence me to do anything - I have long since stopped taking anything reported on face value.

Meh. I haven't even elaborated on any of it!

Supercilious crap. I don't lack the knowledge and my sources are generally bolstered by that very thing. You seem to be quite an antagonistic individual with not much to say.

Projection. I don't get flustered and I don't need your needless patronising.

Not even close to the amount that that statement applies to conspiracy garbage.

On IVERMECTIN specifically! I'm surprised this obvious point escapes you.

Irrelevant and I am not complaining. I am pointing out that Ivermectin is not the magic drug that noisy conspiracy theorists claim it is.

Still irrelevant.

Irrelevant. I was addressing its efficacy.

Bullshit. I focused on the drug mentioned in the OP. You seem so wrapped up in your superciliousness that you can't see anything but your own claims.

I don't need your fumbled, off-topic incentive to use what I use already. Your assessment of its failure is meaningless.

 

Ivermectin MIGHT be of use if you have symptomatic Covid already and it is a doctor prescribed treatment. It is FAR too dangerous to use ANY other way. But of course Trumpers take that to mean it should ONLY be self administered by totally unqualified people.

After all that method worked for the Presidency and every other position in the Trump "administration"

 

Perhaps you should take a few minutes and read the OP and think about it a little. The OP is not about the efficacy of Ivermectin. It’s about media lying about it. The lying is a problem whether it turns out to have any efficacy for Covid treatment or not.

Lies like the OP presents have consequences. When the media is caught red handed in a blatant lie like that trust in the information they provide evaporates with people who care about honesty. Then, when the media does happen to present something true, like Ivermectin has not been shown to be efficacious in the treatment or prevention of Covid, they aren’t believed. Why should they be believed? They just told an outright lie about Ivermectin.

The point is, you or I or anyone else can provide correct information, but when millions of people are consuming lies from the media, it’s always going to be an uphill battle.

These lies told by media and others (and repeated by people who are not knowledgeable on the subject matter and parrot things they see in media or YouTube) ARE what lead to conspiracy theories.

Conspiracy theories can be annoying. Like flies. Buzzing around in your ear. But do you know where those flies came from? They were hatched and nourished in the rotting, stinking body of lies and dis/misinformation told throughout the pandemic. Disinformation like telling people not to wear masks in the places where infection is most likely and instead mandating their use where infections are least likely. Lies like “RT-PCR tests are gold standard and increasing testing is the answer to the pandemic”. Lies like “it doesn’t matter what kind of mask you wear, just so that everyone does” or “homemade cloth masks are just as good as those purchased from medical supply stores”. Disinformation like “vaccines don’t prevent infection, they just decrease severity of disease”. The corpse of lies is bloated in the hot sun of empirical evidence. And the flies can smell it from miles away. They come, lay their eggs that hatch into maggots that consume the body of lies. When they are full, they pupate, and then emerge as the flies of conspiracy buzzing around your ears.

The OP was about these needless and senseless lies told by media. It went completely over your head because you now think the thread topic is efficacy of Ivermectin. It’s not. It’s the lies you are told and believe and those same lies that breed conspiracy theories because information sources and bureaucracies are KNOWN liars.

If you want to make an intellectual argument on the OP go ahead. But you don’t even know what the point of the OP was at this point.

 

Already done.

The OP is exactly about the efficacy. It implicitly suggests this is the reason for it being "lied about" in the first place.

I already did. It doesn't work, and some of those isolated reports of lies - so what. It can't possibly be used to make such a sweeping across the board generalization.

Yes I do. As for the rest of your post - pass. You take care, seems you have some anger issues.

 

I just did a quick search in the batshit conspiracy section and this post has been spammed about a dozen times and various more within other batshit posts.

When somebody like you labels absolutely anyone as naive, it is the height of absurdity. You are completely ignorant on almost every subject you post on. You dismiss every single piece of data regardless, if it contradicts your inept gullibly pre-formulated batshit.

Of all the complete spam comments you make, this one is the worst. Dozens of times you come up with this crap about the scientific method. Not ONCE do you ever use it, not ONCE when requested do you show how you use it. You already have the conclusion before you do anything and then never verify a single thing.

If it's batshit you post it and believe it!

Says everything and of course it doesn't stop you from cutting and pasting literally hundreds of batshit links from crazy conspiracy websites for the gullible.

 

Apparently not.

Suggests? Please read the OP. Or are you making the argument lying about something that hasn’t shown much efficacy is acceptable?

What generalization? I’ve been very specific as was the OP. Thanks for admitting you condone lying. I had my suspicions but it’s good of you to come out and say so clearly.

You do not understand the OP. Now we know why. Because you support dishonesty that bolsters your opinions in some way.

Anger issues? Because I don’t like people telling bald faced lies and passing those lies off as “science”? Because I point out you support such lies? Yes, I’ve taken the gloves off when I address authoritarianism, dishonesty, and ignorance on PF. But it’s not anger. It’s because I love science and am weary of seeing it destroyed by bureaucrats, media, and politicians while people like you cheer the disinformation from the sidelines.

 

Your opinion means nothing to me.

Please stop your repeat suggestions. YOU go read it. Read the last line.

That "the media lies about ivermectin" because of these debatable and isolated examples.

I don't care what you think you have done. I addressed the OP. Period.

What an idiotic non-sequitur claim.

Fairly dumb claim. Do you need simple English explained to you? The OP uses isolated incidents to suggest that "the media is still lying". That is a grossly distorted generalization. Then we have the totally obvious - what is the purpose of the supposed media lies.

You seem to be one of those people who form idiotic conclusions based on your poor comprehension skills.

No, because you seemed fit to post a rant about it when it is nothing to do with the OP.

No, because you seemed fit to post a rant about it when it is nothing to do with the OP. I do not support any lies that harm science.

Good for you, take it to a relevant thread.

What a completely idiotic claim. I despise disinformation and am none too fond of conspiracy theorists in general.

Anger issues - clearly.

 

That’s why I provide evidence, not just opinion.

I have read every line. Notice the use of the word “potential” by the OP. Please read the OP and think critically about what it says, not what you need it to say to have an argument. That is strawman fallacy.

What’s debatable? The OP example is a complete fabrication by media. It’s not at all debatable.

And these examples are not isolated either. This particular garbage ran in the Guardian, Newsweek, Rolling Stone, local news, and social media.

Even official reports from the CDC are also misleading. When you look at actual data, only about 100 people had a moderate or worse reaction to ivermectin between January and August 2021. A couple deaths and a handful of hospital admittances—in the WHOLE country in a 8-9 month period. Not much different than adverse reactions to vaccination over the same period.

This doesn’t even scratch the surface of lies told about Ivermectin. Such as it’s only a veterinary drug etc.

There is no reason to lie. Just report the facts on trial results.

The OP asked a question you have not addressed. Period.

You said the lies are not a big deal. Now I point that out and you come back with appeal to the stone fallacy. Predictable.

More appeal to the stone and ad hominem fallacy. There is no generalization and no claim by me or the OP is distorted as I’ve shown above.

No, I’m one of the few here who bases my posts on actual evidence, not politics or unsubstantiated opinion. Facts frustrate many. It looks like facts drive you to making fallacious arguments instead of intellectual arguments or ones based on empirical evidence.

You clearly support lying by the media. Yes, that IS the subject of the OP.

This is the appropriate thread—a thread about media lying about science.

More appeal to the stone fallacy. You are destroying any credibility you have left with your complete reliance on fallacy. When lies are pointed out you dismiss them like this:

I’m not a fan of conspiracy theories either. That’s why I’m taking the time to educate you on where they come from—lies told by media, bureaucracies, and politicians.

Sure. More fallacy from you.

 

No, there are many faults exhibited.

There are issues of how candidates are selected, whether any controls are in place (such as placebos, etc.), the number of those in the test, etc., etc. Some of the tests cited on this board weren't even prospective - they simply aggregated the outcomes of numerous past tests that themselves didn't meet standards required by the FDA.

I don't know of any test oriented to determining whether ivermectin is useful as a preventative.

 

A lie. Nowhere did I say that!

You point out nothing, you lie and I come back with "what an idiot non-sequitur". Have you found out a new fallacy and want to use it to show how "good" you are at debating? If someone says something that is completely untrue it isn't a stone fallacy to not reply to it! Pointing out that is untrue addresses it. Look up "hasty generalization fallacy" apply it to your seemingly strange comprehension issues and the actual OP.

Yes there is. The OP gives examples that suggest the media is continuing to lie but for many reasons this is not accurate. Loose claims may well get picked up by other outlets but it isn't a widespread thing. There is no ongoing concerted media campaign here. Isolated incidents are just as likely to say good things about it.

It looks like you are deliberately antagonistic and fairly useless at assessing people. I love facts and I love empirical evidence.

Show how this is clear to you. It is a ludicrous bullshit claim.

Since your assessment is based on lies your statement about fallacies is ridiculous. I see you basically doing this antagonistic arguing with everyone in the thread.

Anger issues.

"So what" as in "so what this doesn't show across the board media lies - it is limited and it doesn't show continuing lies". Duh! I sure hope that isn't your evidence for why things are "clear" to you bolded just above?

No such education is necessary. Conspiracies come from clowns who have a preloaded leaning towards anything anti-establishment, no matter what it is. There may well be numerous media distorted sources that fuel this, but always the reasoning will be based on distrust of authority/government.