Fact check doesn't like ivermectin
(web.archive.org)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (34)
sorted by:
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.