Fact check doesn't like ivermectin
(web.archive.org)
Comments (34)
sorted by:
I got this email today, and it covers the ivermectin story. This is a bit bizarre because the discussion about it ended at the beginning of the year when all the states gave up and Covid was pushed to the side.
Why bring up a losing argument and act as if you won?
Because establishing the principle that little people do not get to disobey the state is very important for them?
There still exists a vanishingly small number of people who are still in it to win (lose) it, and appreciate these "owns." I was exiting a building the other day with a group of people, and I actually saw a person driving, alone, with a mask on. I literally have not seen a mask in months, not even in grocery stores, which seem to be the remaining locus for peoples' groundless anxiety.
Naturally, I raised my arm, pointed at this lunatic, and said "Holy mackerel, look at that!" to the group. The two eyeballs in the car darted over to take in my pointed finger, then quickly darted back to front, and the car rolled on from the stop sign it had been stopped at. This is really the only reasonable way to treat these situations, and should have been the universal response from the beginning.
I saw 150 people wearing the mask yesterday. It's somewhere between 10 and 25% of all people you see outside.
Beg pardon for the necessary correction: It might be between 10 and 25% of all people you see outside. I live in Northern Florida. I go months at a time without seeing a single mask, even downtown in the center of the City. It's actually kind of startling to see one. "Oh, right--this shit's still going on?" is what one thinks upon encountering a mask in North Florida.
Yes, that 'you' meant people in this part of the California coast. It's pointless to even say anything. Good thing I'm not here for the people.
In St. Petersburg, there are still too many wearing masks outdoors and indoors, though I estimate maybe 1% or less of the population wears them.
It's either criminals wanting to conceal their faces from CCTV cameras and cops or hypochondriacs shitting themselves with irrational fear.
Are...are you serious? Someone's in a car by themselves driving around with this thing strapped to their kisser, and your concern is whether it's the thing that does jack shit, or the thing that does diddly squat?
No. If you are wearing ANY kind of mask in your car you are a retard.
Living in a face diaper state and working in a field that STILL REQUIRES THE FUCKING...sorry, it just slips out sometimes. Anyway, sometimes you just get used to the discomfort of the fucking thing, and in your rush to get gone after a shift, just forget that the stupid thing is still on your face.
So, I personally don't necessarily tar everyone with the same "dumb fuckface still thinks coof is a serious threat" brush; it could just be a legitimate fuck up, not a political statement.
This is why I prefaced it by explaining that mask use is extremely rare here and has been for a long time. It is most certainly a sign of a person who is living in the alternate reality game provided by their television and phone, and not by any reasonable observation of the world as it is.
Beyond that, wearing a cloth napkin on your face is absurd, and always has been. One of the more troubling transformations--I would argue, on the level of post-9/11 disorderings--was the widespread acceptance of such a blatantly ridiculous ritual, in such a brief timespan. The marching orders were rolled out, accepted, then made mandatory in many places in short order.
In motherfucking America. The United States. Fucking Americans from coast to coast gleefully cheered on Government mandates to strap napkins on faces, including those of children. For years. Like I said, troubling, deeply troubling.
The N95 in their car just shows fear and ignorance. A N95 in general shows they don't understand the mechanics of airborne viruses.
N95s are for particles. Small particles, like dust, but particles nonetheless. Doesn't stop anything airborne, doesn't stop moisture and in fact wicks moisture.
Epidemiological studies prior to 2020 consistently showed no effectiveness of a mask as prophylaxis for disease pathogens. For the same reason that condoms are oft cited as being only 99% effective. It's a fucking plastic barrier--it should be 100% effective, period, right? Except that with condoms or masks, it comes down to iterations, to use over time. There is no demonstrated benefit over time, or as a policy, of using masks to prevent airborne disease.
After 2020, of course, the "exshperts" started saying "New England Journal of Medicine? Never heard of it," and started using engineering studies instead of epidemiological ones to tout the effectiveness of face-diapers to stop the coofs.
The funny thing is almost all mask studies since 2020 have shown the same results as all mask studies for the past century. The only thing that has changed is the conclusion section.
I doubt most people with "N95" masks have real N95 masks. Most I see are the folding cone types that don't looks like they seal well to the face and are unverified and manufactured in China to no real standards. I have a box of 3M verified N95 masks for woodworking and they are bad enough wearing for a few minutes while sanding; I don't think anyone would wear them all day no matter what the perceived risk was.
Lets not pretend that N95 masks stop airborne viruses.
viruses are as small as air molecules so if you can still breath with a mask you also breath in viruses. it might stop you from catching bacteria but that's not what covid was
N2 has a molecular weight of 28 u. Infulenza has a molecular weight of around 3.9 x 10^6 u. You are 5 orders of magnitude off.
N2 has an effective diameter of around 364 pm. Influenza has a diameter of somewhere between 10,000 pm and 120,000 pm.
The problem isn't that viruses are close to the size of air molecules, because that is flat out false. The problem is that they are much smaller (0.12 μm) than the PM 2.5 standard (2.5 μm) that masks are rated by.
fake news
never admit you were wrong
Wasnt Ivermectin supposed to be a prophylactic - not a treatment?
Of course Fact Check is touting this - Ivermectin was never supposed to be treatment for Covid patients, was supposed to be a preventative prophylactic. They're technically correct, but completely missed the point.
I barely even understand the drug and even I knew this much.
You have to watch the language very carefully with these "fact-checkers." When they say "not effective for covid patients," you can't just take that at face value. They're being very specific about what "covid patient" means to them. If they say it doesn't help "those suffering from the disease," they again mean something very specific by that. It's a nested game of covering their asses. The casual reader is going to assume good faith, and that their meaning is simple and is what it looks like. But no, they're always lawyering these things so that there's some wiggle room for technical correctness, even if what they're saying colloquially is not reasonably true.
If that drug was so ineffective then why was the establishment going so out of their way to claim that?
no ivermectin kills parasites. covid hardly ever kills anyone, less than 1%. when it does it's because the person is unhealthy with comorbidities, often parasites. So if one gets ivermectin before they get covid or shortly after it can save them.
So while ivermectin wasn't fully responsible for curing covid, it still handled part of health problems that helped covid kill someone. If that were the case, why was this information withheld?
really they just wanted people to get the vaccine.
This is the smart person rationalization for naively believing the drug companies' lies.
The huge amount of evidence shows ivermectin works if taken before or immediately after being exposed and they need some way to explain why they believed the propaganda that it didn't work at all.
So in their mind it's "the 3rd world is full of dirty, parasite-infected people and stupid researchers too dumb to know that" vs "it only works early because it's a weak protease inhibitor and the drug companies lied to me and I fell for it like a rube". There's way more evidence of the latter, but the former means they don't have to admit fault. And nobody wants to admit they were wrong - take dekachin for example.
people in first world have just as many parasites if not more because everyone has a cat or dog that shits, or knows someone that does. don't knee jerk take it as an insult
Generic drugs aren’t the ones with billion dollar influence peddling and marketing campaigns …
The guy who discovered it is a strong advocate for it, as are some doctors who swear by it, but that's about it.
hmmm this is being denied here now? well know ivermectin is great