Large Ivermectin study shows it works

[photofly]

If you have any clue how racist that last post is, you'll fix it, pronto.

Are you one of those people who think certain religions equate to race? In your world, what races are allowed to be what religions? Do you have any idea what race I am? If you have any idea how racist your post is, you'll fix it, pronto.

Are you interested in actually answering the question? Is it "anti-vax" to discuss non-vaccine prophylaxis or treatments, as your original response implies? Or are you just here for ad hominem attacks and name calling in response to what you view as heresy?

It wasn't an ad hominem attack, because I (carefully) didn't say anything about you. Nor did I call you any names. But your post engages in stereotyping of minorities which I'm sure doesn't reflect how you feel and which detracts from the points you want to make. You can double down, or you can choose to make the same points equally forcefully and engage in the same amount of invective without the bigotry.

[Just another canuck]

…

[photofly]

You do understand that big pharma is a much higher paying potential employer to all those that work within the FDA? Don’t you?

Conspiracy theories are soooo boring...

[Just another canuck]

…

[BTD]

The problem is when an institution such as the FDA puts out tweets saying it is horse dewormer and “you are not a horse”. That is a straw man argument. Real progress is better made when an argument is steel manned and then picked apart. The die hards aren’t going to change their minds either way.

The "argument" is simple: don't experiment with un-approved therapies. Die-hards aren't the ones the FDA hopes to reach; nobody can reach them. The intended target are the easily-influenced who might think of experimenting, based on unsubstantiated but simple and tempting things they read or heard on the internet. Providing simple, memorable counter-messages is probably the best way to achieve their aims.

It's also not the FDA's role to engage in debate or put out steel arguments. Approval of on-label medication use isn't a political process, subject to democratic vote, or open for debate. It's an expert led-process within the FDA on the basis of evidence and what you do or don't think the arguments for or against a therapy is is entirely irrelevant, unless you happen to work in the FDA. The FDA's public announcements are merely there to make sure people don't take un-approved therapies. To that end, whatever line the FDA wants to put out to undo that influence is onside.

In my opinion it is a much better tactic, for the longevity of the institution that requires public trust to stay in the pocket of the argument, and put forth a statement that doesn’t tread closely to bullsh*t. Their goal is clearly to influence the public conversation based on the tweets. They chose to enter that space. When they do, integrity should be top of mind. Instead you get tweets like this.

B9B90E3F-8826-438A-B7F5-419E3A8E7C46.png (600.83 KiB) Viewed 2044 times

Now you have reasonable people go “WTF”? Then they start to question the institution as a whole and why they might do this, and one of the reasons that quickly floats to the top is “control the narrative” which may or may not be true. However, it then becomes a straight line to see how people hesitate when told to “trust the experts”.

Not too mention the poor basterd that gets a prescription of ivermectin for a parasite and now the doctor has to walk back all the horse dewormer talk and convince him it is actually a safe drug.

Of course this is all my opinion on the matter, but that’s what we are all here doing anyway.

[photofly]

Seeing it up close, it's a fairly clear attempt at humour, so I think it's distinguishable from and not likely to be taken as an attempt at a serious presentation of scientific argument. I don't think it would dismay me to see that, if I had been prescribed Ivermectin for an on-label use, in an appropriate dose. It might remind me think twice before heading down to the farm store, which people were actually doing. (I have a completely serious local newspaper report from about here quoting a local farmer as doing just that, and saying how wonderful that it had kept him COVID-free.) Maybe intentional humour is misplaced here, maybe not.

[Vaticinator]

your post engages in stereotyping of minorities

A minority of 1.8 billion people. Right.

I guess I'll never get an honest answer to my question.

[palebird]

The "argument" is simple: don't experiment with un-approved therapies.

Sooo what about those "experimental emergency use only" vaccines??

[photofly]

your post engages in stereotyping of minorities

A minority of 1.8 billion people. Right.

I guess I'll never get an honest answer to my question.

A side problem of casual bigotry is that it overshadows whatever point you wanted to make or question you wanted to ask. At this point I have no idea what you wanted to know, nor am I motivated to read through to find out.

[Vaticinator]

A side problem of casual bigotry is that it

....makes you conflate religion with race?

[TG]

Forget about Ivermectin! What about Chloroquine and Hydroxychloroquine?


Oh! Right....It felt out of fashion (Failed!)
So now Ivermectin is the new narrative.

I think we call that cognitive dissonance.
You bunch of deniers wants to resolve that dissonance so bad about Chloroquine that here comes Ivermectin! The latest fad to make sense of it.

[Arnie Pye]

I'm launching an observational study. Remember when tide pod consumption was a thing? I think it had to be a good 5 years ago. There was no COVID. Consuming tide pods prevented COVID.

You don't even need to go to the local TSC Store or your local vet. They are available all over the world and they're super cheap. $0.25/dose. You're welcome.