Ivermectin. Again.
-
@lufins-dad said in Ivermectin. Again.:
I find it very interesting that every refugee at the border is being given Ivermectin
It's been policy for a couple of years, apparently. It's being used to treat helminthic infections (iow, worms and other parasites).
https://www.cdc.gov/immigrantrefugeehealth/pdf/intestinal-parasites-overseas.pdf
I don't think the recommendation has anything to do with COVID, but since we're not testing those people, we'll never know, amirite?
@george-k said in Ivermectin. Again.:
@lufins-dad said in Ivermectin. Again.:
I find it very interesting that every refugee at the border is being given Ivermectin
It's been policy for a couple of years, apparently. It's being used to treat helminthic infections (iow, worms and other parasites).
https://www.cdc.gov/immigrantrefugeehealth/pdf/intestinal-parasites-overseas.pdf
I don't think the recommendation has anything to do with COVID, but since we're not testing those people, we'll never know, amirite?
Oh, I am sure it’s strictly over parasite issues, but why let the truth get in the way of facts. The FDA and CDC along with the Biden Administration are making every Haitian refugee take Horse Dewormer!
-
Those tweets from the CDC are so perfectly in line with the mocking pop culture tone of leftists vs conservatives. Horse dewormer LOL at the idiots. This is completely cultural and it is just another in a million cases in point of why culture matters. As a mature person I no longer giggle at the other tribe, but I do feel sorry for those who self-sort by doing so.
-
You know, I want to give credit to the journalist that wrote this piece. It might be the best actual news piece that I have read in a while.
-
On a lark, I ran some countries that regularly use Ivermectin through the Our World in Data graphs and holy crap, that is some strong anecdotal evidence…
-
Like Weinstein said, the problem with "trust the science" is the "the" qualifier.
@aqua-letifer said in Ivermectin. Again.:
Like Weinstein said, the problem with "trust the science" is the "the" qualifier.
That's true, but I must say that my appreciation of B. Weinstein has lessened quite a bit during COVID.
-
@aqua-letifer said in Ivermectin. Again.:
Like Weinstein said, the problem with "trust the science" is the "the" qualifier.
That's true, but I must say that my appreciation of B. Weinstein has lessened quite a bit during COVID.
@klaus said in Ivermectin. Again.:
@aqua-letifer said in Ivermectin. Again.:
Like Weinstein said, the problem with "trust the science" is the "the" qualifier.
That's true, but I must say that my appreciation of B. Weinstein has lessened quite a bit during COVID.
Why? Asking goofy, ridiculous questions is a shitload more scientific than refusing to question findings or political statements. And he's not at all wrong about the problem with "trust the science."
-
@klaus said in Ivermectin. Again.:
@aqua-letifer said in Ivermectin. Again.:
Like Weinstein said, the problem with "trust the science" is the "the" qualifier.
That's true, but I must say that my appreciation of B. Weinstein has lessened quite a bit during COVID.
Why? Asking goofy, ridiculous questions is a shitload more scientific than refusing to question findings or political statements. And he's not at all wrong about the problem with "trust the science."
@aqua-letifer said in Ivermectin. Again.:
@klaus said in Ivermectin. Again.:
@aqua-letifer said in Ivermectin. Again.:
Like Weinstein said, the problem with "trust the science" is the "the" qualifier.
That's true, but I must say that my appreciation of B. Weinstein has lessened quite a bit during COVID.
Why? Asking goofy, ridiculous questions is a shitload more scientific than refusing to question findings or political statements. And he's not at all wrong about the problem with "trust the science."
All scientific findings should be questioned, especially if there's reason to do so. But there's a difference between healthy skepticism and full-blown conspiracy theories. The difference is that in the former case you ask critical questions and are open to new evidence and adapt your position correspondingly, whereas in the latter case you shoehorn all evidence into a fixed predetermined model of reality. My impression of him was that he was doing the latter and not the former.
-
@aqua-letifer said in Ivermectin. Again.:
@klaus said in Ivermectin. Again.:
@aqua-letifer said in Ivermectin. Again.:
Like Weinstein said, the problem with "trust the science" is the "the" qualifier.
That's true, but I must say that my appreciation of B. Weinstein has lessened quite a bit during COVID.
Why? Asking goofy, ridiculous questions is a shitload more scientific than refusing to question findings or political statements. And he's not at all wrong about the problem with "trust the science."
All scientific findings should be questioned, especially if there's reason to do so. But there's a difference between healthy skepticism and full-blown conspiracy theories. The difference is that in the former case you ask critical questions and are open to new evidence and adapt your position correspondingly, whereas in the latter case you shoehorn all evidence into a fixed predetermined model of reality. My impression of him was that he was doing the latter and not the former.
@klaus said in Ivermectin. Again.:
@aqua-letifer said in Ivermectin. Again.:
@klaus said in Ivermectin. Again.:
@aqua-letifer said in Ivermectin. Again.:
Like Weinstein said, the problem with "trust the science" is the "the" qualifier.
That's true, but I must say that my appreciation of B. Weinstein has lessened quite a bit during COVID.
Why? Asking goofy, ridiculous questions is a shitload more scientific than refusing to question findings or political statements. And he's not at all wrong about the problem with "trust the science."
All scientific findings should be questioned, especially if there's reason to do so. But there's a difference between healthy skepticism and full-blown conspiracy theories. The difference is that in the former case you ask critical questions and are open to new evidence and adapt your position correspondingly, whereas in the latter case you shoehorn all evidence into a fixed predetermined model of reality. My impression of him was that he was doing the latter and not the former.
I keep listening to his podcast. I don't hear him doing that. The closest he seems to get is in claiming (with anecdotal evidence only, but at least it's not baseless) that there is a coordinated effort to suppress research into ivermectin effectiveness against Sars-cov-2.
The volume of research is most certainly skewed—any simple keyword search can prove it. But it could be for reasons other than external coercion.
So, based on evidence, he's making some leaps in conclusion that have yet to be proven true and might be incorrect. I'd hardly call him a kook.
-
@klaus said in Ivermectin. Again.:
@aqua-letifer said in Ivermectin. Again.:
@klaus said in Ivermectin. Again.:
@aqua-letifer said in Ivermectin. Again.:
Like Weinstein said, the problem with "trust the science" is the "the" qualifier.
That's true, but I must say that my appreciation of B. Weinstein has lessened quite a bit during COVID.
Why? Asking goofy, ridiculous questions is a shitload more scientific than refusing to question findings or political statements. And he's not at all wrong about the problem with "trust the science."
All scientific findings should be questioned, especially if there's reason to do so. But there's a difference between healthy skepticism and full-blown conspiracy theories. The difference is that in the former case you ask critical questions and are open to new evidence and adapt your position correspondingly, whereas in the latter case you shoehorn all evidence into a fixed predetermined model of reality. My impression of him was that he was doing the latter and not the former.
I keep listening to his podcast. I don't hear him doing that. The closest he seems to get is in claiming (with anecdotal evidence only, but at least it's not baseless) that there is a coordinated effort to suppress research into ivermectin effectiveness against Sars-cov-2.
The volume of research is most certainly skewed—any simple keyword search can prove it. But it could be for reasons other than external coercion.
So, based on evidence, he's making some leaps in conclusion that have yet to be proven true and might be incorrect. I'd hardly call him a kook.
@aqua-letifer said in Ivermectin. Again.:
@klaus said in Ivermectin. Again.:
@aqua-letifer said in Ivermectin. Again.:
@klaus said in Ivermectin. Again.:
@aqua-letifer said in Ivermectin. Again.:
Like Weinstein said, the problem with "trust the science" is the "the" qualifier.
That's true, but I must say that my appreciation of B. Weinstein has lessened quite a bit during COVID.
Why? Asking goofy, ridiculous questions is a shitload more scientific than refusing to question findings or political statements. And he's not at all wrong about the problem with "trust the science."
All scientific findings should be questioned, especially if there's reason to do so. But there's a difference between healthy skepticism and full-blown conspiracy theories. The difference is that in the former case you ask critical questions and are open to new evidence and adapt your position correspondingly, whereas in the latter case you shoehorn all evidence into a fixed predetermined model of reality. My impression of him was that he was doing the latter and not the former.
I keep listening to his podcast. I don't hear him doing that. The closest he seems to get is in claiming (with anecdotal evidence only, but at least it's not baseless) that there is a coordinated effort to suppress research into ivermectin effectiveness against Sars-cov-2.
The volume of research is most certainly skewed—any simple keyword search can prove it. But it could be for reasons other than external coercion.
So, based on evidence, he's making some leaps in conclusion that have yet to be proven true and might be incorrect. I'd hardly call him a kook.
His dubious claims have been documented, e.g., here.
-
@aqua-letifer said in Ivermectin. Again.:
@klaus said in Ivermectin. Again.:
@aqua-letifer said in Ivermectin. Again.:
@klaus said in Ivermectin. Again.:
@aqua-letifer said in Ivermectin. Again.:
Like Weinstein said, the problem with "trust the science" is the "the" qualifier.
That's true, but I must say that my appreciation of B. Weinstein has lessened quite a bit during COVID.
Why? Asking goofy, ridiculous questions is a shitload more scientific than refusing to question findings or political statements. And he's not at all wrong about the problem with "trust the science."
All scientific findings should be questioned, especially if there's reason to do so. But there's a difference between healthy skepticism and full-blown conspiracy theories. The difference is that in the former case you ask critical questions and are open to new evidence and adapt your position correspondingly, whereas in the latter case you shoehorn all evidence into a fixed predetermined model of reality. My impression of him was that he was doing the latter and not the former.
I keep listening to his podcast. I don't hear him doing that. The closest he seems to get is in claiming (with anecdotal evidence only, but at least it's not baseless) that there is a coordinated effort to suppress research into ivermectin effectiveness against Sars-cov-2.
The volume of research is most certainly skewed—any simple keyword search can prove it. But it could be for reasons other than external coercion.
So, based on evidence, he's making some leaps in conclusion that have yet to be proven true and might be incorrect. I'd hardly call him a kook.
His dubious claims have been documented, e.g., here.
@klaus said in Ivermectin. Again.:
@aqua-letifer said in Ivermectin. Again.:
@klaus said in Ivermectin. Again.:
@aqua-letifer said in Ivermectin. Again.:
@klaus said in Ivermectin. Again.:
@aqua-letifer said in Ivermectin. Again.:
Like Weinstein said, the problem with "trust the science" is the "the" qualifier.
That's true, but I must say that my appreciation of B. Weinstein has lessened quite a bit during COVID.
Why? Asking goofy, ridiculous questions is a shitload more scientific than refusing to question findings or political statements. And he's not at all wrong about the problem with "trust the science."
All scientific findings should be questioned, especially if there's reason to do so. But there's a difference between healthy skepticism and full-blown conspiracy theories. The difference is that in the former case you ask critical questions and are open to new evidence and adapt your position correspondingly, whereas in the latter case you shoehorn all evidence into a fixed predetermined model of reality. My impression of him was that he was doing the latter and not the former.
I keep listening to his podcast. I don't hear him doing that. The closest he seems to get is in claiming (with anecdotal evidence only, but at least it's not baseless) that there is a coordinated effort to suppress research into ivermectin effectiveness against Sars-cov-2.
The volume of research is most certainly skewed—any simple keyword search can prove it. But it could be for reasons other than external coercion.
So, based on evidence, he's making some leaps in conclusion that have yet to be proven true and might be incorrect. I'd hardly call him a kook.
His dubious claims have been documented, e.g., here.
Klaus, I don’t see them actually documenting anything. I see them making claims and linking to several things about his guests, but I don’t see a transcript, a quote, or a link to a video of Weinstein making the allegations that there alleging. I’m only about a third of the way through, but it hits me as an opinion piece that is extrapolating…
The Brad
-
@aqua-letifer said in Ivermectin. Again.:
@klaus said in Ivermectin. Again.:
@aqua-letifer said in Ivermectin. Again.:
@klaus said in Ivermectin. Again.:
@aqua-letifer said in Ivermectin. Again.:
Like Weinstein said, the problem with "trust the science" is the "the" qualifier.
That's true, but I must say that my appreciation of B. Weinstein has lessened quite a bit during COVID.
Why? Asking goofy, ridiculous questions is a shitload more scientific than refusing to question findings or political statements. And he's not at all wrong about the problem with "trust the science."
All scientific findings should be questioned, especially if there's reason to do so. But there's a difference between healthy skepticism and full-blown conspiracy theories. The difference is that in the former case you ask critical questions and are open to new evidence and adapt your position correspondingly, whereas in the latter case you shoehorn all evidence into a fixed predetermined model of reality. My impression of him was that he was doing the latter and not the former.
I keep listening to his podcast. I don't hear him doing that. The closest he seems to get is in claiming (with anecdotal evidence only, but at least it's not baseless) that there is a coordinated effort to suppress research into ivermectin effectiveness against Sars-cov-2.
The volume of research is most certainly skewed—any simple keyword search can prove it. But it could be for reasons other than external coercion.
So, based on evidence, he's making some leaps in conclusion that have yet to be proven true and might be incorrect. I'd hardly call him a kook.
His dubious claims have been documented, e.g., here.
@klaus said in Ivermectin. Again.:
@aqua-letifer said in Ivermectin. Again.:
@klaus said in Ivermectin. Again.:
@aqua-letifer said in Ivermectin. Again.:
@klaus said in Ivermectin. Again.:
@aqua-letifer said in Ivermectin. Again.:
Like Weinstein said, the problem with "trust the science" is the "the" qualifier.
That's true, but I must say that my appreciation of B. Weinstein has lessened quite a bit during COVID.
Why? Asking goofy, ridiculous questions is a shitload more scientific than refusing to question findings or political statements. And he's not at all wrong about the problem with "trust the science."
All scientific findings should be questioned, especially if there's reason to do so. But there's a difference between healthy skepticism and full-blown conspiracy theories. The difference is that in the former case you ask critical questions and are open to new evidence and adapt your position correspondingly, whereas in the latter case you shoehorn all evidence into a fixed predetermined model of reality. My impression of him was that he was doing the latter and not the former.
I keep listening to his podcast. I don't hear him doing that. The closest he seems to get is in claiming (with anecdotal evidence only, but at least it's not baseless) that there is a coordinated effort to suppress research into ivermectin effectiveness against Sars-cov-2.
The volume of research is most certainly skewed—any simple keyword search can prove it. But it could be for reasons other than external coercion.
So, based on evidence, he's making some leaps in conclusion that have yet to be proven true and might be incorrect. I'd hardly call him a kook.
His dubious claims have been documented, e.g., here.
Yes, you've got your one thing pre-delta wave that you enjoy very much, thank you. If I limited myself to only listening to podcasts from people who are right all the time about everything, I'd have to go out and buy recording equipment.
-
@klaus said in Ivermectin. Again.:
@aqua-letifer said in Ivermectin. Again.:
@klaus said in Ivermectin. Again.:
@aqua-letifer said in Ivermectin. Again.:
@klaus said in Ivermectin. Again.:
@aqua-letifer said in Ivermectin. Again.:
Like Weinstein said, the problem with "trust the science" is the "the" qualifier.
That's true, but I must say that my appreciation of B. Weinstein has lessened quite a bit during COVID.
Why? Asking goofy, ridiculous questions is a shitload more scientific than refusing to question findings or political statements. And he's not at all wrong about the problem with "trust the science."
All scientific findings should be questioned, especially if there's reason to do so. But there's a difference between healthy skepticism and full-blown conspiracy theories. The difference is that in the former case you ask critical questions and are open to new evidence and adapt your position correspondingly, whereas in the latter case you shoehorn all evidence into a fixed predetermined model of reality. My impression of him was that he was doing the latter and not the former.
I keep listening to his podcast. I don't hear him doing that. The closest he seems to get is in claiming (with anecdotal evidence only, but at least it's not baseless) that there is a coordinated effort to suppress research into ivermectin effectiveness against Sars-cov-2.
The volume of research is most certainly skewed—any simple keyword search can prove it. But it could be for reasons other than external coercion.
So, based on evidence, he's making some leaps in conclusion that have yet to be proven true and might be incorrect. I'd hardly call him a kook.
His dubious claims have been documented, e.g., here.
Klaus, I don’t see them actually documenting anything. I see them making claims and linking to several things about his guests, but I don’t see a transcript, a quote, or a link to a video of Weinstein making the allegations that there alleging. I’m only about a third of the way through, but it hits me as an opinion piece that is extrapolating…
@lufins-dad said in Ivermectin. Again.:
a quote,
There are many quotes in the text. You doubt that the videos/podcasts actually contain those quotes?
-
@klaus said in Ivermectin. Again.:
@aqua-letifer said in Ivermectin. Again.:
@klaus said in Ivermectin. Again.:
@aqua-letifer said in Ivermectin. Again.:
@klaus said in Ivermectin. Again.:
@aqua-letifer said in Ivermectin. Again.:
Like Weinstein said, the problem with "trust the science" is the "the" qualifier.
That's true, but I must say that my appreciation of B. Weinstein has lessened quite a bit during COVID.
Why? Asking goofy, ridiculous questions is a shitload more scientific than refusing to question findings or political statements. And he's not at all wrong about the problem with "trust the science."
All scientific findings should be questioned, especially if there's reason to do so. But there's a difference between healthy skepticism and full-blown conspiracy theories. The difference is that in the former case you ask critical questions and are open to new evidence and adapt your position correspondingly, whereas in the latter case you shoehorn all evidence into a fixed predetermined model of reality. My impression of him was that he was doing the latter and not the former.
I keep listening to his podcast. I don't hear him doing that. The closest he seems to get is in claiming (with anecdotal evidence only, but at least it's not baseless) that there is a coordinated effort to suppress research into ivermectin effectiveness against Sars-cov-2.
The volume of research is most certainly skewed—any simple keyword search can prove it. But it could be for reasons other than external coercion.
So, based on evidence, he's making some leaps in conclusion that have yet to be proven true and might be incorrect. I'd hardly call him a kook.
His dubious claims have been documented, e.g., here.
Klaus, I don’t see them actually documenting anything. I see them making claims and linking to several things about his guests, but I don’t see a transcript, a quote, or a link to a video of Weinstein making the allegations that there alleging. I’m only about a third of the way through, but it hits me as an opinion piece that is extrapolating…
@lufins-dad said in Ivermectin. Again.:
@klaus said in Ivermectin. Again.:
@aqua-letifer said in Ivermectin. Again.:
@klaus said in Ivermectin. Again.:
@aqua-letifer said in Ivermectin. Again.:
@klaus said in Ivermectin. Again.:
@aqua-letifer said in Ivermectin. Again.:
Like Weinstein said, the problem with "trust the science" is the "the" qualifier.
That's true, but I must say that my appreciation of B. Weinstein has lessened quite a bit during COVID.
Why? Asking goofy, ridiculous questions is a shitload more scientific than refusing to question findings or political statements. And he's not at all wrong about the problem with "trust the science."
All scientific findings should be questioned, especially if there's reason to do so. But there's a difference between healthy skepticism and full-blown conspiracy theories. The difference is that in the former case you ask critical questions and are open to new evidence and adapt your position correspondingly, whereas in the latter case you shoehorn all evidence into a fixed predetermined model of reality. My impression of him was that he was doing the latter and not the former.
I keep listening to his podcast. I don't hear him doing that. The closest he seems to get is in claiming (with anecdotal evidence only, but at least it's not baseless) that there is a coordinated effort to suppress research into ivermectin effectiveness against Sars-cov-2.
The volume of research is most certainly skewed—any simple keyword search can prove it. But it could be for reasons other than external coercion.
So, based on evidence, he's making some leaps in conclusion that have yet to be proven true and might be incorrect. I'd hardly call him a kook.
His dubious claims have been documented, e.g., here.
Klaus, I don’t see them actually documenting anything. I see them making claims and linking to several things about his guests, but I don’t see a transcript, a quote, or a link to a video of Weinstein making the allegations that there alleging. I’m only about a third of the way through, but it hits me as an opinion piece that is extrapolating…
It's not as zany as the article makes it out to be. None of it is.
Weinstein's right: Ivermectin is a third rail topic. You can talk about Vitamin D and cardio vs COVID without any trouble (probably because there's no associated Trump sound byte), but never mention the horse paste. If you do you're one of THOSE.
Please love yourself.
-
@lufins-dad said in Ivermectin. Again.:
a quote,
There are many quotes in the text. You doubt that the videos/podcasts actually contain those quotes?
@klaus said in Ivermectin. Again.:
@lufins-dad said in Ivermectin. Again.:
a quote,
There are many quotes in the text. You doubt that the videos/podcasts actually contain those quotes?
He and his guests offered the claim that ivermectin is “99 percent effective” in treating COVID-19; that it could be used as a prophylaxis against infection; and that were it widely used, the pandemic would end in “a month.”
Based on the above, which quote should be attributed to which speaker?
"He AND his guests" is disingenuous at best. What evidence does he provide for universal agreement? None.
Please love yourself.
-
@lufins-dad said in Ivermectin. Again.:
@klaus said in Ivermectin. Again.:
@aqua-letifer said in Ivermectin. Again.:
@klaus said in Ivermectin. Again.:
@aqua-letifer said in Ivermectin. Again.:
@klaus said in Ivermectin. Again.:
@aqua-letifer said in Ivermectin. Again.:
Like Weinstein said, the problem with "trust the science" is the "the" qualifier.
That's true, but I must say that my appreciation of B. Weinstein has lessened quite a bit during COVID.
Why? Asking goofy, ridiculous questions is a shitload more scientific than refusing to question findings or political statements. And he's not at all wrong about the problem with "trust the science."
All scientific findings should be questioned, especially if there's reason to do so. But there's a difference between healthy skepticism and full-blown conspiracy theories. The difference is that in the former case you ask critical questions and are open to new evidence and adapt your position correspondingly, whereas in the latter case you shoehorn all evidence into a fixed predetermined model of reality. My impression of him was that he was doing the latter and not the former.
I keep listening to his podcast. I don't hear him doing that. The closest he seems to get is in claiming (with anecdotal evidence only, but at least it's not baseless) that there is a coordinated effort to suppress research into ivermectin effectiveness against Sars-cov-2.
The volume of research is most certainly skewed—any simple keyword search can prove it. But it could be for reasons other than external coercion.
So, based on evidence, he's making some leaps in conclusion that have yet to be proven true and might be incorrect. I'd hardly call him a kook.
His dubious claims have been documented, e.g., here.
Klaus, I don’t see them actually documenting anything. I see them making claims and linking to several things about his guests, but I don’t see a transcript, a quote, or a link to a video of Weinstein making the allegations that there alleging. I’m only about a third of the way through, but it hits me as an opinion piece that is extrapolating…
It's not as zany as the article makes it out to be. None of it is.
Weinstein's right: Ivermectin is a third rail topic. You can talk about Vitamin D and cardio vs COVID without any trouble (probably because there's no associated Trump sound byte), but never mention the horse paste. If you do you're one of THOSE.
@aqua-letifer said in Ivermectin. Again.:
@lufins-dad said in Ivermectin. Again.:
@klaus said in Ivermectin. Again.:
@aqua-letifer said in Ivermectin. Again.:
@klaus said in Ivermectin. Again.:
@aqua-letifer said in Ivermectin. Again.:
@klaus said in Ivermectin. Again.:
@aqua-letifer said in Ivermectin. Again.:
Like Weinstein said, the problem with "trust the science" is the "the" qualifier.
That's true, but I must say that my appreciation of B. Weinstein has lessened quite a bit during COVID.
Why? Asking goofy, ridiculous questions is a shitload more scientific than refusing to question findings or political statements. And he's not at all wrong about the problem with "trust the science."
All scientific findings should be questioned, especially if there's reason to do so. But there's a difference between healthy skepticism and full-blown conspiracy theories. The difference is that in the former case you ask critical questions and are open to new evidence and adapt your position correspondingly, whereas in the latter case you shoehorn all evidence into a fixed predetermined model of reality. My impression of him was that he was doing the latter and not the former.
I keep listening to his podcast. I don't hear him doing that. The closest he seems to get is in claiming (with anecdotal evidence only, but at least it's not baseless) that there is a coordinated effort to suppress research into ivermectin effectiveness against Sars-cov-2.
The volume of research is most certainly skewed—any simple keyword search can prove it. But it could be for reasons other than external coercion.
So, based on evidence, he's making some leaps in conclusion that have yet to be proven true and might be incorrect. I'd hardly call him a kook.
His dubious claims have been documented, e.g., here.
Klaus, I don’t see them actually documenting anything. I see them making claims and linking to several things about his guests, but I don’t see a transcript, a quote, or a link to a video of Weinstein making the allegations that there alleging. I’m only about a third of the way through, but it hits me as an opinion piece that is extrapolating…
It's not as zany as the article makes it out to be. None of it is.
Weinstein's right: Ivermectin is a third rail topic. You can talk about Vitamin D and cardio vs COVID without any trouble (probably because there's no associated Trump sound byte), but never mention the horse paste. If you do you're one of THOSE.
Yep. Trump + Conspiracy Theory = Ivermectin = No More Dinner Party Invites
-
@klaus said in Ivermectin. Again.:
@lufins-dad said in Ivermectin. Again.:
a quote,
There are many quotes in the text. You doubt that the videos/podcasts actually contain those quotes?
He and his guests offered the claim that ivermectin is “99 percent effective” in treating COVID-19; that it could be used as a prophylaxis against infection; and that were it widely used, the pandemic would end in “a month.”
Based on the above, which quote should be attributed to which speaker?
"He AND his guests" is disingenuous at best. What evidence does he provide for universal agreement? None.
@aqua-letifer said in Ivermectin. Again.:
@klaus said in Ivermectin. Again.:
@lufins-dad said in Ivermectin. Again.:
a quote,
There are many quotes in the text. You doubt that the videos/podcasts actually contain those quotes?
He and his guests offered the claim that ivermectin is “99 percent effective” in treating COVID-19; that it could be used as a prophylaxis against infection; and that were it widely used, the pandemic would end in “a month.”
Based on the above, which quote should be attributed to which speaker?
"He AND his guests" is disingenuous at best. What evidence does he provide for universal agreement? None.
“On the same podcast, he and his guests argued that the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines authorized for use in the United States, as well as the AstraZeneca adenovirus-vector vaccine, are so unsafe that the vaccinated are secretly dropping like flies from their effects. He also has avowed, on both the podcast and his Twitter feed, his trust in a UK physician named Tess Lawrie who has published a phenomenally insane paper that calls COVID-19 vaccines “unsafe for human use.” The paper advises that “Preparation should now be made to scale up humanitarian efforts to assist those harmed by the COVID-19 vaccines.”
Again, I’m not seeing the cite or the quote from Weinstein arguing that the vaccines were unsafe. I would like to see his exact words. Also, if he has avowed trust in the UK professor, that does not equate approval or agreement with the “phenomenally insane” paper.
