Ivermectin. Again.
-
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.
-
It's not really possible to change the minds of Trumpist conspiracy theorists. What you must change, is their hearts. And good luck with that - considering what little heart they have to change. It would be like trying to fill a canvas with a drop of paint.
#FuckTrump
-
Results
Of 5939 ivermectin prescriptions, 348 (5.9%) were excluded. Of the remaining 5591 prescriptions, 4700 (84.1%) were for privately insured patients. Mean patient age was 51.8 years (SD, 15.7 years) (Table 1).Among ivermectin prescriptions, mean (SD) out-of-pocket spending was $22.48 ($24.78) for privately insured patients and $13.78 ($26.24) for Medicare Advantage patients; mean insurer reimbursement was $35.75 ($50.63) and $39.13 ($40.18), respectively; and mean total spending was $58.23 ($51.47) and $52.91 ($42.47), respectively. Aggregate total spending was $273 681.00 for privately insured patients and $47 142.81 for Medicare Advantage patients, of which insurer reimbursement represented 61.4% and 74.0%, respectively (Table 2).
In the week of August 13, 2021, private and Medicare plans paid an estimated $1 568 996.00 (43 888 × $35.75) and $924 720.16 (23 632 × $39.13) for ivermectin prescriptions for COVID-19. The weekly total of $2 493 716.16 extrapolated to $129 673 240.30 annually.
Discussion
Findings suggest that insurers heavily subsidized the costs of ivermectin prescriptions for COVID-19, even though economic theory holds that insurers should not cover ineffective care.4 Wasteful insurer spending on these prescriptions, estimated at $2.5 million in the week of August 13, 2021, would extrapolate to $129.7 million annually. For perspective, this total exceeds estimated annual Medicare spending on unnecessary imaging for low back pain, a low-value service that has received extensive attention.5 The true amount of waste is even higher because estimates did not include Medicaid spending. Moreover, by reducing barriers to a drug that some individuals use as a substitute for COVID-19 vaccination or other evidence-based care, insurance coverage could increase spending for COVID-19 complications.Limitations of this study include unclear generalizability to all private and Medicare plans. Despite this, findings suggest insurers could prevent substantial waste by restricting ivermectin coverage; for example, by requiring prior authorization. Although these restrictions might impede ivermectin use for non–COVID-19 indications, low prepandemic levels of dispensing suggest this use is infrequent.2 Consequently, the restrictions could reduce wasteful spending, and the number of patients who would experience barriers to evidence-based treatment for ivermectin would be small.
-
Don't like restrictions on off-label use. That's a doc decision, especially if it's as cheap as Ivermectin.
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
How easily some are swayed.... there was a time when free and open discussion was encouraged. Now, f you dare speak anything that doesn't fit The Narrative, you will be mocked, cancelled, ridiculed.... we are being conditioned to accept that if we even think things not endorsed by The Narrative we will be punished, and if we dare to actually DO something that doesn't fit The Narrative, we will be persecuted, hunted down, punished, etc.
And some of us are all too happy to jump on that bandwagon lest you too are made to look foolish or otherwise not be accepted by the "superior tribe".
I don't care if someone suggests eating rat shit will cure something. Discuss it, check it out, see where it leads, and fuck The Narrative.
