WW3 Please SAY NO!

[carlsonjok]

Originally Posted by G1911

Yes, I am very well aware. It is used for both. The media and the left billed it as morons advocating using horse dewormer, which is an intentional lie by omission as they pretended it was crazy to take this commonly used human medication by excising this information. We had multiple people in the Covid thread unaware this was, in fact, commonly prescribed to humans.

Man, I hate to break it to you, but emanations from right wing noise machine notwithstanding, it was morons advocating the use of horse dewormer. I couldn't find ivermectin paste for the longest time. And, even today, all dewormers, even those based on fenbendazole or pyrantel pamoate, are kept in a locked cabinet at my local farm store; a privilege previously only enjoyed by guns, ammo, and chainsaw chains.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by carlsonjok

Man, I hate to break it to you, but emanations from right wing noise machine notwithstanding, it was morons advocating the use of horse dewormer. I couldn't find ivermectin paste for the longest time. And, even today, all dewormers, even those based on fenbendazole or pyrantel pamoate, are kept in a locked cabinet at my local farm store; a privilege previously only enjoyed by guns, ammo, and chainsaw chains.

I am confident you are well aware the pretense that "horse dewormer" is an accurate description of Ivermectin, which is also for humans and very commonly prescribed to them is political crap.

I disagree with Irv that Ivermectin has been shown to help Covid. I know for a fact this "LOL morons want humans to take horse dewormer" narrative that works by not acknowledging or straight up denying (as some in the Covid thread humorously tried to do) it is a drug for humans is a complete fiction.

I am also aware that most people are just going to parrot whatever their tribe says, no matter how obviously false it is.

[Peter_Spaeth]

There are countless things in science where the data just isn't conclusive one way or the other, and depending on your point of view, or agenda, you can argue the case either way and cherry pick what supports you. I see this almost every time I research some product or drug claim. Bottom line, when someone offering something touts it as beng evidence-based, don't accept it at face value.

[carlsonjok]

Originally Posted by G1911

I am confident you are well aware the pretense that "horse dewormer" is an accurate description of Ivermectin, which is also for humans and very commonly prescribed to them is political crap.

Yes, I am aware that it has uses beyond an anti-parasite for livestock. I actually posted where it's use is indicated upthread. I am also aware that very few doctors would actually prescribe it as a COVID treatment.

Which led to an army of mouth breathing dimwits to haul tail to their local Tractor Supply to clear the shelves of Duramectin and Sheep Drench because some conspiracist shock jock told them that the only reason they can't buy it from their local Walgreens is because all those pointy-headed scientists are just part of the New World Order, Agenda 21, Bilderberg financed cabal intent on emptying America of the plain folk of the land in order to turn it into a Marxist utopia where you are assigned an appellation via Random Drag Queen Name Generator and pronouns from a list of 57 options; so head on out to your local Farm and Fleet, save your family's lives and strike a blow for freedumb at the same time! And before you do, please check out our store where 50 pound tubs of Armageddon Rations are 20% for the first 100 buyers!



Some of the above may be hyperbole. Some.

More seriously, I know you want to blame it all on the media finding one random Cletus in Bug Tussle, Missouri eating ivermectin paste. I am a horse owner. As are most of my friends. It wasn't just MSNBC and CNN. It was all over the equestrian media also. And, get this. I was over at ValleyVet.com getting my spring vaccinations and, for giggles, looked at the page for ivermectin wormer. The following disclaimer was in bright red:

COVID-19 ALERT CONCERNING DURVET IVERMECTIN PRODUCTS: WARNING! A number of Durvet products including Duramectin Equine Dewormer, Ivermectin Equine Dewormer, Ivermectin Sheep Drench, Ivermectin Pour On, Ivermectin Injection and Ivermectin Plus Injection contain the anti-parasite ingredient Ivermectin. Despite media reports that Ivermectin could potentially be used to treat people with COVID-19, these products are not safe or approved for human use, which could cause severe personal injury or death.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by carlsonjok

Yes, I am aware that it has uses beyond an anti-parasite for livestock. I actually posted where it's use is indicated upthread.

Yes, after a post highlighting that the characterization that ignores its frequent use for humans, and then followed by "it was morons advocating the use of horse dewormer", yet again ignoring that it is not weird for humans to use Ivermectin. As I have said multiple times, I am not convinced that it works, but the mainstream narrative here likes to center around a fiction: that it is stupid for people to use this, completely ignoring it's long history of exactly that before it was decided this was political.

Originally Posted by carlsonjok

Which led to an army of mouth breathing dimwits to haul tail to their local Tractor Supply to clear the shelves of Duramectin and Sheep Drench because some conspiracist shock jock told them that the only reason they can't buy it from their local Walgreens is because all those pointy-headed scientists are just part of the New World Order, Agenda 21, Bilderberg financed cabal intent on emptying America of the plain folk of the land in order to turn it into a Marxist utopia where you are assigned an appellation via Random Drag Queen Name Generator and pronouns from a list of 57 options; so head on out to your local Farm and Fleet, save your family's lives and strike a blow for freedumb at the same time! And before you do, please check out our store where 50 pound tubs of Armageddon Rations are 20% for the first 100 buyers!



Some of the above may be hyperbole. Some.

More seriously, I know you want to blame it all on the media finding one random Cletus in Bug Tussle, Missouri eating ivermectin paste. I am a horse owner. As are most of my friends. It wasn't just MSNBC and CNN. It was all over the equestrian media also. And, get this. I was over at ValleyVet.com getting my spring vaccinations and, for giggles, looked at the page for ivermectin wormer. The following disclaimer was in bright red:

COVID-19 ALERT CONCERNING DURVET IVERMECTIN PRODUCTS: WARNING! A number of Durvet products including Duramectin Equine Dewormer, Ivermectin Equine Dewormer, Ivermectin Sheep Drench, Ivermectin Pour On, Ivermectin Injection and Ivermectin Plus Injection contain the anti-parasite ingredient Ivermectin. Despite media reports that Ivermectin could potentially be used to treat people with COVID-19, these products are not safe or approved for human use, which could cause severe personal injury or death.

I find extremist caricatures of leftists by right wingers to always be absurd. So for extremist caricatures of right wingers by leftists. I am not in either camp so there is nothing to say with this; it's just incredibly biased attacks from angry people that are not based in reason. I have never read a reasonable argument that begins by saying anyone who disagrees is a mouth-breathing dimwit.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I am delighted Matt's wife got better, but it would not take me long to find numerous anecdotes of people who self medicated and had disastrous results. The plural of anecdote is not data. What we need above all else is agenda-free analysis of the best data we can get, to guide rational decisionmaking.

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I am delighted Matt's wife got better, but it would not take me long to find numerous anecdotes of people who self medicated and had disastrous results. The plural of anecdote is not data. What we need above all else is agenda-free analysis of the best data we can get, to guide rational decisionmaking.

Question: How many of Pfizer’s reported studies and data do not support the purported indications for their products?

Answer: The studies reported with invisible ink.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

Question: How many of Pfizer’s reported studies and data do not support the purported indications for their products?

Answer: The studies reported with invisible ink.

Listen to a doctor you trust, especially if you don’t have a medical degree. Best advice anyone can give. Don’t listen to Twitter, Fox News or MSNBC.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

Question: How many of Pfizer’s reported studies and data do not support the purported indications for their products?

Answer: The studies reported with invisible ink.

There are very interesting pieces on what antidepressant trials show overall, when you include the ones that don't get submitted in support of an NDA because they were essentially failures.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

The plural of anecdote is not data. What we need above all else is agenda-free analysis of the best data we can get, to guide rational decisionmaking.

+1. Objective investigation into datasets is 100% what we are not going to get though.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

+1. Objective investigation into datasets is 100% what we are not going to get though.

You mean you don't think a clinical trial of a drug or vaccine sponsored by the company that stands to make millions of dollars if it's successful is objective?

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by G1911

I find extremist caricatures of leftists by right wingers to always be absurd. So for extremist caricatures of right wingers by leftists. I am not in either camp so there is nothing to say with this; it's just incredibly biased attacks from angry people that are not based in reason. I have never read a reasonable argument that begins by saying anyone who disagrees is a mouth-breathing dimwit.

In regards to the section I've put in bold, BS.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by AustinMike

In regards to the section I've put in bold, BS.

I am, on this exact page, expressing an opinion that does not mesh with either factional narrative about the two issues being discussed, Ivermectin and the war. I forgot that you know me so well, rando stranger.

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by G1911

I am, on this exact page, expressing an opinion that does not mesh with either factional narrative about the two issues being discussed, Ivermectin and the war. I forgot that you know me so well, rando stranger.

I may not know you, but I can form a judgement about you based upon what you write and the views you espouse. In the Roberto Clemente thread, the Florida state law that makes it illegal for school children in Florida to be taught that blacks have been discriminated against solely because of their skin color, is discussed. A few of my favorite quotes of yours from that thread:

Originally Posted by G1911

I would encourage you to read the law…

Originally Posted by G1911

In a perfect world we could all read everything; I completely understand people having opinions on 2,000 page budget bills they haven’t read because it’s so much work and designed to be confusing.

This one is short and direct. It takes 10 minutes at most to read. Those who have read it struggle to find anything specific to attack and still choose to follow op-ed claims instead that are demonstrably false, or to even go so far as to dismiss a reason based standard entirely because they cannot find what is unreasonable and actually in the bill. The only giveaway that this was written by Republicans instead of Democrats is the “any race”; only that there’s no carve out to not protect whites like every other race.

Originally Posted by G1911

… There is little excuse for the confusion, as it takes less than 10 minutes to read and the people outraged continue to be unable to actually find anything in the bill to object too. So much so, that a reason based standard itself has to be dismissed in order to toe the party line here. …

Even though this law clearly makes it illegal to discuss the fact that black people have been discriminated against solely because of their skin color, you cannot find anything wrong with it. To support the view that there is nothing wrong with the law as written, you misrepresent what it actually says. Some more favorite quotes from the thread:

Originally Posted by G1911

It does not, in any way, “force schools and libraries to remove literature about people of color or with LGBTQ themes.” … this a complete lie, …
… Obviously, a book celebrating Roberto Clemente is not banned, unless it argues that Clemente was morally superior to others because of his skin color (what we would call racist if it was about a white male). It’s a smart move to do this though, people are by and large not going to read the actual bill or do any research whatsoever, they’ll just follow whatever articles that preach their views to them say without any inquiry. Announcing they’re pulling an unobjectionable book that obviously is not banned by this law is just optics politics. It’s rage bait for their base, regardless of how absurd it is on even cursory inspection. …

Originally Posted by G1911

This claim that these books were banned appears to be completely false. Furthermore, anyone who has read the short law would know that such books are not banned from school libraries whatsoever, and that the law very explicitly requires the achievements of and problems experienced by African Americans to be taught to children. This is just fake rage bait for people who are unable or unwilling to to put even 1 minute into checking if it’s true, or reading the law.

Originally Posted by G1911

This is my problem with the narratives against it - almost nobody can object to the actual content in the bill, because it's very explicit in every clause about not allowing discrimination between the races and sexes. It is difficult to see what, exactly, the left is so angry about with the bill and why they will not tackle the bill itself but only their media and political narratives. …

Originally Posted by G1911

I'm trying to understand what is problematic. My liberal self is unable to see it reading the bill. … I have posted both the full text and the portion containing what is banned, seems good to me.

It was not long ago that the left would have loved this bill, because it treats the races and sexes the same and bans discrimination, while specifically stipulating that African American achievement be taught. But now, because it bans advocating racism in the classroom towards any race without a carve out for a particular race, it is wrong and terrible.

Originally Posted by G1911

… the actual law is pretty hard to object too because you have to endorse teaching open racism to do so.

Governors lie. The media lies. Go to the source and don’t play the rage bait game. Somebody saying something doesn’t make it true.

Originally Posted by G1911

… It's only because it bans teaching racism against ANY race that there is a public outcry and anger. …
If we are fine with all other (or most) such bills though - how is this one different and objectionable? Nobody can ever answer this question without using political statements and op-eds filled with falsehoods that have nothing to do with the actual law.

Originally Posted by G1911

I think I'm more convinced the law is a good idea, as no real argument against the law as it is actually written is ever put forth. … I fail to see why we would want to teach racism against any race in school, or which of the 8 very direct and specific points is bad policy, nor can anyone state an argument against any of them, apparently.

Originally Posted by G1911

I get some people are really upset by this law, but dealing with what it actually says makes for a much better argument than making blatantly false claims about the text.

Yes, it's rage bait for both sides. The left media gets to completely lie about the text to feed it's rage machine and stir up their base…

When you write that there is nothing wrong with the simple, short bill, you are either misrepresenting the bill or are in agreement that school kids should not be taught about the discrimination blacks faced simply because of their skin color. If it’s the latter, then that definitely shows that you are in a certain camp. If it’s the former, then let me quote you again:

Originally Posted by G1911

… I cannot fathom why anyone would put culture war points over actual fact. I do not understand why people have adopted such a tribalist mentality that they must attack or make false claims about anything anyone outside of their political tribe has passed. …

Since you are making false claims about the law in order to attack a certain camp, you must be in the other camp.

One last quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

… It's the normal path of the ideologue, judgement before reading what is in question, then being unable to cite their claims in the document in question, the dismissal of reason and a reason standard itself because that doesn't find what they want to find, until the anger and ad hominem are all that's left.

Another path of the ideologue is to ignore what is actually contained within the document in question, make false claims about what the document says, and say anyone who has a problem with the document does so purely on unreasoned political grounds.

So yes, your words regarding the Florida law clearly puts you in one camp versus the other.

[carlsonjok]

Originally Posted by G1911

Yes, after a post highlighting that the characterization that ignores its frequent use for humans, and then followed by "it was morons advocating the use of horse dewormer", yet again ignoring that it is not weird for humans to use Ivermectin. As I have said multiple times, I am not convinced that it works, but the mainstream narrative here likes to center around a fiction: that it is stupid for people to use this, completely ignoring it's long history of exactly that before it was decided this was political.

You know, it is possible that two things can be true at the same time. It is true that ivermectin is used as an anti-parasite in both humans and animals which I have acknowledged several times (is it too recursive to point out your repeated failure to acknowledge my acknowledgement?) It is also true that there were runs on the livestock versions, forcing retail channels for those products to put any inventory that actually remained under lock and key. Despite the fact that opinions of people who know what they are talking about (doctors and virologists) were overwhelming against the idea, at a minimum until there was at least some definitive proof derived through careful scientific study.

I find extremist caricatures of leftists by right wingers to always be absurd. So for extremist caricatures of right wingers by leftists. I am not in either camp so there is nothing to say with this; it's just incredibly biased attacks from angry people that are not based in reason. I have never read a reasonable argument that begins by saying anyone who disagrees is a mouth-breathing dimwit.

Sure. Just a caricature. Totally.

Since your preferred mode of arguing is to focus on the premise rather than the conclusion, then setting up a strawman which you deftly knock down, I will say this: Yes, one of the articles calls it horse medicine. The point here (read this closely) is that right wing media personalities with wide audiences were pushing ivermectin as a cure for COVID. And a large number of people acted on that, contrary to the best available scientific evidence and medical advice. If calling stupid people stupid offends you, what would an above-it-all, latter day Cicero such as yourself (note: this is also hyperbole) call them? This isn't the Roman Senate or even the Macneil-Lehrer NewsHour. This is a chat board for people who collect pictures of athletes printed on cardboard. We're supposed to be having fun here.

If I thought you were actually engaging in good faith, I'd tell you about my farrier (that is a person who trims hooves and shoes horses) who is the living embodiment of most of the stereotypes that offend you so. I see you using the same logical fallacies that you used over in the book banning thread. So, we are definitely in "shame on me" territory here. So, taking the advice I was given but ignored, the last word is yours.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by carlsonjok

You know, it is possible that two things can be true at the same time. It is true that ivermectin is used as an anti-parasite in both humans and animals which I have acknowledged several times (is it too recursive to point out your repeated failure to acknowledge my acknowledgement?) It is also true that there were runs on the livestock versions, forcing retail channels for those products to put any inventory that actually remained under lock and key. Despite the fact that opinions of people who know what they are talking about (doctors and virologists) were overwhelming against the idea, at a minimum until there was at least some definitive proof derived through careful scientific study.



Sure. Just a caricature. Totally.

Since your preferred mode of arguing is to focus on the premise rather than the conclusion, then setting up a strawman which you deftly knock down, I will say this: Yes, one of the articles calls it horse medicine. The point here (read this closely) is that right wing media personalities with wide audiences were pushing ivermectin as a cure for COVID. And a large number of people acted on that, contrary to the best available scientific evidence and medical advice. If calling stupid people stupid offends you, what would an above-it-all, latter day Cicero such as yourself (note: this is also hyperbole) call them? This isn't the Roman Senate or even the Macneil-Lehrer NewsHour. This is a chat board for people who collect pictures of athletes printed on cardboard. We're supposed to be having fun here.

If I thought you were actually engaging in good faith, I'd tell you about my farrier (that is a person who trims hooves and shoes horses) who is the living embodiment of most of the stereotypes that offend you so. I see you using the same logical fallacies that you used over in the book banning thread. So, we are definitely in "shame on me" territory here. So, taking the advice I was given but ignored, the last word is yours.

Yes. A conclusion should be drawn from reasoned and true premises. This is exactly why we will never find common ground. I think conclusions should be rooted in premises, and you reject the root concept that form the logical method. I will, for the second time, leave the personal insults to you to make. We all have our ways of thinking.