Clinical trials on Ivermectin now rolling in.

[stonefly-2]

History and back story on Ivermectin, an old friend most of us never knew.

https://www.isglobal.org/en/healthisglobal/-/custom-blog-portlet/ivermectina-del-suelo-a-las-lombrices-y-mas-alla/3098670/0#

[SAN compnerd]

Science is all about dividing observable fact from personal bias, opinion, and illusion.

Here's an observable fact: This thread is called "Clinical trials on Ivermectin now rolling in." Here's another: Ivermectin is not a vaccine.

You are literally arguing with and even cursing at me when I reminded you that this thread wasn't about vaccines, in a feeble attempt to keep you on topic.

Look, I'm not new to conspiracy theories or conspiracy thinkers. Even before the modern age of hyperpolarization, many of them were just looking for a fight. Fighting is a way of distracting onesself from cognitive dissonance, and that in turn allows one to believe what one wants to believe, resistant to external correction.

It's pretty normal, actually. But I don't have any interest in enabling it.



Case in point. I can honestly say this is the only time in my many years on this planet that someone has gotten offended at me for not wanting to speculate about hidden motivations of South American politicians.

Look, go have your fun. Take all the ivermectin you want. Get vaccinated, or don't. Mask up and hide down in a basement or party naked, worship crystals or pursue light therapy or burn sacrifices to Crom, it's none of my business. You seem so horribly threatened by me, and there's just no reason for it.

My only intent here is to help some of you understand the science. It's complicated. News outlets don't understand it, and many science communicators bungle it up when they try to summarize it. Heck, half of what I understand is only because I wanted a better answer to questions raised here. It helps me, too. Challenges make us work harder.

But if you don't want to understand, fine. You'll have lots of company.

So your blatant political bias is the problem I have. You completely neglect to address your lack of factual knowledge that I point out here like the CDC director taking orders from the AFT to keep schools closed.

If you humbly admitted you are ignorant of many facts (which I assume is due to your consumption of propaganda media) it might help some here like myself trust your scientific/mathematic explanations, but since the science doesn't matter to the Democrats and the left in this country and you blatantly ignore the fact that they do so over and over leads one to believe that you are either unintentionally or willfully ignorant of many critical facts that should be communicated to the broader public.

You're 'I'm just here for the science' rhetoric falls flat in light of the above. You are either clearly partisan or mind numbingly ignorant, and the second option just doesn't seem logical for someone who appears very well studied in science and math.

[as_rocketman]

So your blatant political bias is the problem I have. You completely neglect to address your lack of factual knowledge that I point out here like the CDC director taking orders from the AFT to keep schools closed.

If you humbly admitted you are ignorant of many facts (which I assume is due to your consumption of propaganda media) it might help some here like myself trust your scientific/mathematic explanations, but since the science doesn't matter to the Democrats and the left in this country and you blatantly ignore the fact that they do so over and over leads one to believe that you are either unintentionally or willfully ignorant of many critical facts that should be communicated to the broader public.

You're 'I'm just here for the science' rhetoric falls flat in light of the above. You are either clearly partisan or mind numbingly ignorant, and the second option just doesn't seem logical for someone who appears very well studied in science and math.

Wrong on all counts. Seriously, every conclusion you've drawn above is total nonsense.

You have absolutely no idea who I am. It's kind of funny, actually -- it illustrates the problem in trying to rationalize your own bias, instead of thinking logically.

What's most telling, though, is when your perception is challenged, you automatically assume anyone who thinks differently is "partisan," a "consumer of propaganda media," or "mind numbingly ignorant." You should, instead, try to figure out who is actually right before dismissing everything you disagree with as some kind of political trick.

Case in point, your protests notwithstanding, this thread was about ivermectin. The evidence for ivermectin as a useful therapy is very thin. There are a lot of trials, but nothing like a strong signal in any of them. That fact remains, whether it's me who explains it to you, or Trump does it, or Dr. Fauci or Karl Marx himself. Yet, you don't want to talk about that -- because in that arena, you will never be right.

At the end of the day, if you can't argue the facts or compare hypotheses, or even state a testable opinion, all that you're left with is ad hominem. And you're not right about that either. I know your world view cannot compute someone who disagrees with you, who thinks SARS-CoV-2 is a serious health concern and happens to agree with medical consensus on ivermectin, yet is not merely a Communist, liberal, gun-grabbing, Globalist, mass market media programee... but all I have to say to that is, what you don't know is a lot.

Think very carefully about this. You are working overtime trying to make me into your rival, if not actually your enemy. I don't take your invective all that seriously, but what if I did? If you're so determined to do that, who precisely will be left on your side? Do you really want me throwing in my lot with the shadowy forces you claim to oppose? Does this advantage you in some way?

Skepticism is keeping an open mind -- but not one so open that the mind falls out completely. Don't follow cranks and conspiracy theorists off the cliff just because you think they're motivated by the right politics. Actually look for fact and reason, or else you are doing exactly what your opposition wants you to.