P&Ns middle name is and

[MrSquished]

 

[trenchfoot]

That's some side eye.

I used to erase the eyeballs out of my mom's fashion magazine covers and ink them back in cockeyed 'cuz it was a whole lot of fun watching her reaction to that. Sometimes she'd actually throw the mag away out of disgust. Idle hands and all that.

Fond memories.

 

[KMFJD]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1430272878268887056

 

[ElFenix]

lina for gov

https://twitter.com/x/status/1430266699220090880

 

[mikeymikec]

This explains a lot:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1386330852544499714

TLDR: They believe it is okay to lie in service of the "greater truth."

"Finchelstein explains something interesting: They create the reality they believe already exists."

Brexit to a T.

 

[TheVrolok]

no, i'm pretty damn sure that the jury has concluded it's study and has found it has no effect on covid

https://twitter.com/x/status/1427279978673197059

Well, you probably shouldn't be, because that's not really what the literature says. You can feel free to check my posting history, I am absolutely not an ivermectin guy nor anything near a covid conspiracy theorist. I simply read the literature.

Cochrane published what is still the best review to date in late July (as far as I know, haven't looked in the last 3-4 weeks and I haven't managed covid in the hospital in months).

Essentially, ivermectin has no substantial data to suggest benefit, and no data to suggest harm. The evidence that does exist is very low quality at best. There is some basic science literature that could substantiate mechanism of benefit.

The sum total of the above is that ivermectin should remain absolutely NOT part of the treatment of covid, however, continuing studies is reasonable.

That is very different than "it's proven not to work!" which is simply not true and to argue that is disingenuous and bad for the argument.

Personally, I think it's highly highly unlikely ivermectin will provide benefit in the management of Covid, but we'll be more sure of that as better quality studies are completed. Simply, "there's no evidence that it works" doesn't necessarily mean "there's evidence that it doesn't work."

In this age of anti intellectualism, it's really important to let the science speak for itself and not add even a little bit of exaggeration or colloquial interpretation as it weakens this and then further science based arguments in the eyes of the anti science crowd.

To the initial point, though, ivermectin is used incredibly commonly in humans.. Just not as often in the first world, fortunately. Calling it an animal medicine is a disingenuous smug sounding representation making the left look bad. I'm a lefty btw, stop making us look bad!

Just to firm that point up, I think I've used ivermectin for scabies probably a handful of times this year so far (premethrin was impractical), I have at least one person using it (topically) for rosacea, and I'd say I see strongyloidiasis once or twice a year where we use ivermectin (we have a population that travels to the third world frequently).

 

[brycejones]

Well, you probably shouldn't be, because that's not really what the literature says. You can feel free to check my posting history, I am absolutely not an ivermectin guy nor anything near a covid conspiracy theorist. I simply read the literature.

Cochrane published what is still the best review to date in late July (as far as I know, haven't looked in the last 3-4 weeks and I haven't managed covid in the hospital in months).

Essentially, ivermectin has no substantial data to suggest benefit, and no data to suggest harm. The evidence that does exist is very low quality at best. There is some basic science literature that could substantiate mechanism of benefit.

The sum total of the above is that ivermectin should remain absolutely NOT part of the treatment of covid, however, continuing studies is reasonable.

That is very different than "it's proven not to work!" which is simply not true and to argue that is disingenuous and bad for the argument.

Personally, I think it's highly highly unlikely ivermectin will provide benefit in the management of Covid, but we'll be more sure of that as better quality studies are completed.

In this age of anti intellectualism, it's really important to let the science speak for itself and not add even a little bit of exaggeration or colloquial interpretation as it weakens this and then further science based arguments in the eyes of the anti science crowd.

To the initial point, though, ivermectin is used incredibly commonly in humans.. Just not as often in the first world, fortunately. Calling it an animal medicine is a disingenuous smug sounding representation making the left look bad. I'm a lefty btw, stop making us look bad!

Just to firm that point up, I think I've used ivermectin for scabies probably a handful of times this year so far (premethrin was impractical), I have at least one person using it (topically) for rosacea, and I'd say I see strongyloidiasis once or twice a year where we use ivermectin (we have a population that travels to the third world frequently).

Even when you did use I doubt you told them to go them to the feed store to pick up some horse pills.

 

[TheVrolok]

Even when you did use I doubt you told them to go them to the feed store to pick up some horse pills.

Of course not, but it's still disingenuous. When you're arguing from the correct/virtuous position, being disingenuous even if it's tongue in cheek is bad for the argument and doesn't belong in arguments over science. Muddies the waters. Now if your goal is a scathing tweet, go at it, but unfortunately/fortunately there are still some (small) people in the "reachable" group that recoil from these types of things.

Of course the right suggesting folks should go to get medications that are available OTC for animal indications is ridiculous, and it should be ridiculous on its face (although unfortunately these days..).

 

[purbeast0]

Wrong thread you douchebags.

 

[TheVrolok]

Wrong thread you douchebags.

I have little tolerance for obfuscation of the good information related to the pandemic which only serves to further it. Propaganda meme thread (certainly more for the right than lift) or not.

And KFMJD agreeing with you after being corrected for his misinformation is a little cringe.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

What's cringe, is the continued soap boxing. I vote, either post memes or GTFO of this thread.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

 

[DAPUNISHER]

 

[KMFJD]

I have little tolerance for obfuscation of the good information related to the pandemic which only serves to further it. Propaganda meme thread (certainly more for the right than lift) or not.

And KMFJD agreeing with you after being corrected for his misinformation is a little cringe.

i also agreed with your post and i appreciate the informative response but this is the wrong place for that discussion and that is why i agreed with him

 

[KMFJD]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1430343630749843456

 

[KMFJD]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1430191065731112960

 

[DAPUNISHER]

 

[DAPUNISHER]

 

[DAPUNISHER]

 

[DAPUNISHER]

https://imgur.com/1zBZlSa

 

[KMFJD]

 

[hal2kilo]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1430343630749843456

Hallucinogens should only be used like once a month. Not everyday.

 

[KMFJD]

 

[KMFJD]

 

[KMFJD]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1430541217889079300