Why is the media still lying about Ivermectin?

You can get it from India. Their largest state of 241 million people declared they are Covid free with only 5% vaccinated. They passed out Ivermectin.

 

Listed as one of the safest drugs to take by the FDA. Used extensively in other countries successfully for Covid with none of the hysterical proclamations of danger. Over the counter medication in other countries.

By the way, first created for humans, not horses.

 

Your response to an outright internationally reported lie is “so what”. If you don’t want something quoted back to you I suggest not posting it on an open forum. You are welcome to call me a liar without evidence, it doesn’t help your cause though.

I did not lie. I quoted you. But say I did lie. Why would you not just say “so what” and make an intellectual argument? LOL

The problem is I’ve presented evidence it’s widespread and intentional. Even showing the CDC as a source of misinformation on the issue. You offer unsubstantiated opinions only. It’s all you have. That and fallacious arguments.

More fallacy. If you loved facts and evidence you would provide some. I presented evidence of widespread lying and disinformation on the subject. You have provided nothing but unsubstantiated opinion.

More appeal to the stone fallacy. It’s clear because you say “so what” and dismiss it as minuscule when global news outlets and even the CDC are active participants.

I understand you and many others do not want to face facts. All I do is present facts and evidence that destroys your false narratives. None of you can EVER present any empirical evidence, only unsubstantiated opinions. It’s funny but sad at the same time. You would think at some point you would realize your opinions are based on no evidence whatsoever.

I’m not the one going around calling posters liars, etc. I’m just producing evidence that clearly is irrefutable.

It’s not limited. I’ve clearly demonstrated that. It’s continuous because even the CDC has not come clean on the issue.

YES. Based on distrust that is CAUSED by the continuing stream of misinformation and disinformation from authority/government. You just agreed with me without even realizing it.

If you will look around the forum a bit you will see even the most conspiratorial and least conspiratorial trust what I post on Covid—because it is known to be from a reliable source. I haven’t misled anyone—I understand honesty matters when lives are on the line. It’s not a “so what” thing with me. On matters of science generally and Covid specifically, I offer verifiable evidence, not unsubstantiated opinions. That’s why both the least informed conspiracy theorist and the most educated professionals here can and do trust what I say.

 

Repeating your lie even though my post explained this - my response to the quantity and examples in the OP was "so what" in terms of it proving the premise "why is the media still lying".

You lied and you are lying again. I even clarified it in the post above!

And the idiotic "LOL" used as the stone fallacy as you avoid what I posted.

That isn't a problem and you haven't. The OP is what the quote was referring to, how does this confuse you?

CDC? Where?

Noise, try not to project. I wasn't even commenting on the so called lies until you baited me in with one of your skilful antagonistic posts.

Another lie. I provided a video that addressed the strongly implied reason for the so called lies! As for providing instances of media lies about ivermectin, they go both ways, are not widespread and are not really something I entered this thread to comment on. It's only your supercilious and antagonistic baiting that has resulted in this pointless exchange.

I suppose you have learned a new phrase and want to wear it out. Noise. You lied, you said it was clear and I asked you to clarify. No fallacy there.

It's miniscule but that doesn't equate to your lie. I even explained what the phrase was referring to and twice you have reinterpreted it dishonestly.

Then you understand nothing. Once again this supercilious "understanding" that makes a bullshit claim.

Listen to yourself! I don't have false narratives and your antagonistic tendencies surface yet again. Everyone is wrong but good old you huh?

And yet you make claims about me that are lies, based on a phrase "so what" - explained in my previous post and that you have ignored with the "stone fallacy" - then you reiterate the same lies about me.

Well no. You are making claims about me that are bullshit based on your seemingly antagonistic comprehension.

Stone fallacy. I just explained the meaning of "so what" and you ignored it and reposted the same lies. Regardless of what you think you have proven with references to networked versions of the lies, you now make some crazy claim that is ongoing because the CDC aren't coming clean about something?

Point me to your reference on CDC lies, I can't find it - not doubting it, just where is it?

I fully realized it and only to some extent and you just agreed with me that the root of it is general mistrust. The reasons behind it don't always lie in the conspiracy nut having much knowledge on the matter but just wanting to be "in the know" or reading other crap with stunning gullibility. Do you seriously think all conspiracy theorists are clued up on things?

Nor with me! "So what" as in, that level of proof is not sufficient to prove the premise.

Oh, did I hurt your feelings and you needed to tell me how smart you are? I don't doubt any of that. Go back to read your opening post to me. It was needlessly arrogant and confrontational. Perhaps diplomacy is not one of your skills.

 

What lie? Quoting you with the quote function is lying? You have never spoken out about lying by media which is the thread topic. You excuse the lies even after I’ve shown they are not isolated or rare.

You have not clarified. You still have not shown any concern about the lies presented and documented by the OP or myself.

There is no appeal to the stone fallacy when an argument is presented. I pointed out your inconsistency in caring about my quoting you saying “so what” to an internationally distributed lie. You say “so what” when multiple international media outlets lie, but when I post your own words back to you, you think I’m lying. It’s funny, so I laughed.

I have presented evidence your claim the OP is “debatable” and insignificant is false. When you reject that evidence you have a problem. You could present evidence counter to mine, but since there isn’t any you can’t and won’t.

I described clearly how the CDC misrepresented cases of Ivermectin poisoning.

So since you were not commenting on the lies which are the theme of the OP you were off topic? Where is your evidence the lies outlined by the OP and myself are insignificant?

Strongly implied? Are you serious? I have shown the lies are widespread. Even the CDC has sensationalized the very small numbers of “poisonings” reported.

So again, are you saying you entered the thread to post off topic content? Because those lies are the subject of the OP.

No. I routinely call posters out for appeal to the stone fallacy. You seem particularly enamored with using it.

It is not minuscule. As I showed you. You offer no counter evidence and no evidence to back your opinion it’s minuscule. I pointed to numerous international news sources. You provided unsubstantiated opinion.

But you continue to deny the fact the lies pointed out by the OP are common and widespread. You claim the lies are not common and insignificant. But of course you offer no evidence—just opinion.

If the narrative that lies about Ivermectin are rare and insignificant is true, why can’t you provide some evidence for your claim? We claim it is not rare and provide evidence of its global dissemination as evidence. Just support your opinion with some evidence. Why is that seemingly impossible for you to do? Is it because no such evidence exists?

When you can show some evidence you are opposed to media lies you may be able to refute the “so what” comment. When you can show some evidence these lies are rare and insignificant maybe you can walk back the “so what” comment. But until you do, it stands—and my quoting you is not a lie. Sorry.

At this point, I have not called your posts bullshit. I have not called them stupid. I have not called you a liar. Who is being antagonistic in a sane world? All I have done is presented evidence the lies are not rare or insignificant and pointed out your lack of knowledge and lack of evidence presented on the subject.

No “stone fallacy” when I presented evidence. Appeal to the stone fallacy is quite the opposite.

The CDC has issued health alerts warning if the “dangers” of Ivermectin poisoning. The actual data shows what I posted. About the same adverse effects as from vaccination in the same period.

I shouldn’t have to reiterate this. If you had the knowledge to claim these lies snd misrepresentations of Ivermectin are rare and inconsequential you should already know all about this. The fact you have to ask me about it shows your claim these lies and misrepresentations are rare is not based on evidence.

I’ve been telling you from the beginning conspiracy here is based on mistrust. You have completely ignored what I’ve said. I have never claimed conspiracy theorists are clued up on all the technicalities. I’ve only pointed out the conspiracy is rooted in the mistrust caused by constant lying by authority. I posted a quite nice list of those lies that you ignored.

You say “so what” to a demonstrated globally circulated lie but you can’t offer ANY evidence of your claim the lies are rare and insignificant. None. Why? If you are correct, why not post some of the evidence?

My intelligence is irrelevant. What matters is my content is based on evidence.

My opening post to you was in response to you calling doctors who are informed about past evidence of antiviral activity of Ivermectin “so called” doctors. You denigrated physicians who use off label Ivermectin when you obviously didn’t realize it’s very common and acceptable. On hydroxychloroquine they were going off the demonstrated ability of it to act as a zinc ionophore. It didn’t pan out but off label use of hydroxychloroquine wasn’t evil either. Everything we tried early on was “off label”. Even killing a bunch of Covid patients by intubation when unnecessary early on was the same thing. (Of course that didn’t make the news in a sensational global media blitz, did it? And I’ll bet you didn’t post about them being “so called” doctors either) Doctors flying by the seat of their pants out of necessity—sometimes being correct and sometimes incorrect.

As I said, diplomacy isn’t my top priority at this point when responding to people who are not opposed to media, politicians, and bureaucratic public health officials lying.

 

Officials are lying because there is billions of dollars to be made in this. I'm just curious as to when these left-wing types became so pro billionaire. So pro big pharma.

Pfizer is developing a drug that you take orally that may eliminate the need for a vaccine. I've heard that it's just ivermectin that they're going to charge a lot of money for. And I bet the left will tout this as some miracle even if it's chemically identical so ivermectin.

You can't really get upset at lemmings for following.

 

It is odd how pre-Covid retailers like Wal Mart and Amazon were evil but now the trillions transferred to them during the pandemic by government giving them monopoly is a-ok. A certain demographic went from supposedly anti fascist to pro fascist almost overnight. Big pharmaceutical was evil to them. Not anymore! Wealth inequality was evil—not anymore!

The Phizer drug is actually a combination of a drug developed for SARS1 and an old HIV drug now only used in small doses because it’s not well tolerated (bad side effects). The HIV drug is added to the SARS1 drug to increase the effects of the SARS1 drug without having to increase the dose. Clever, but not something I’m aware anyone tried with Ivermectin, but that’s another subject. It is not “rebranded” ivermectin, but it is a protease inhibitor, blocking the same main viral protease of SARS-CoV-2 that we had hoped Ivermectin would have more effect on.

I don’t have a problem with lemmings going over a cliff. I DO have a problem when lemming lie to try and convince others to jump off the cliff with them. Or even worse, physically force others to jump off the cliff against their will. Yes, then I have a problem!

 

And you repeat the lie yet again. I've clarified it many times and you still say this crap.

The words "so what" referred to the OP attempt at proving that media still lies. His examples were not substantial at all. Hence so what! Not "so what" at the lies ffs!

And what is this? Your attempt at comedy? You want me to prove my assertion that the lies are rare and not significant (ONLY in the quantity of them!) by posting some examples? You cannot prove a negative - the biggest logical fallacy by far. The average person in the street has probably never even heard of this. You seem to think your activity here has some world changing effect.

The overall volume of information being output compared to the supposed lies about this unproven drug show it to be miniscule. What have you come up with - half a dozen examples? So What!

Where is the CDC reference?

 

Where are your references?

I have not asked you to prove a negative. You could post anything that is evidence in opposition to my posted evidence. Why can’t you? Don’t be shy. You are so sure you are correct but you can’t provide ANY evidence to base your opinion on? That does not seem like someone who loves evidence to me. Shouldn’t you base your opinions on something?

So you really are uninformed on the CDC. OK.


https://emergency.cdc.gov/han/2021/pdf/CDC_HAN_449.pdf

They say around 90,000 prescriptions are written a week and then give these two horror stories. God knows how many people have taken veterinary formulations. I need around 100 doses of equine paste formula a year and several liters of topical ruminant formulas and I can’t even find enough. It’s all being used by people for Covid. And that plus 90,000 prescriptions a week and we have a handful of actual poisonings.

The advisory says:

Then you look at the actual data and it’s laughable. Most of the calls were not followed up. Many more were minor symptoms. Probably 100 or so total people in the whole country over a 9 month period even went to an ER for symptoms. And a couple maybe died. As I said, about like the adverse reactions to vaccination over the same period. Scary stuff!

https://piper.filecamp.com/uniq/ZO3aGrYGXdIUhiJ7.pdf



And the media prints garbage like this.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.y...d-horse-de-wormer-side-effects-125314974.html

Of course Joe is not a horse of course of course. That’s why he took a prescription of Ivermectin FDA approved for human use.


Even the FDA has to go the horse route instead of just presenting facts.




The lies and misinformation about Ivermectin are not rare or insignificant. They are everywhere.

 

I don't need references to say the media lies are not rife.

Yes you have, you asked me to support my claim:

"you can’t offer ANY evidence of your claim the lies are rare and insignificant"

I'm reasonably happy with your content - see below though. It doesn't however prove my claim to dispute it. Namely that the lies are rare and not significant (ONLY in the quantity of them!).

The quantity of evidence you provide based against total content from all media outlets. If you cannot see that this is miniscule and that the average Joe doesn't even read any of it then you really are in denial.

Bolding in red mine.

Now you explain how your posts are "offering a theory". Explain how you have offered an answer that he is "pretty sure" on regarding WHY.

Isn't that the point of information exchange? I'm uninformed as to YOUR version of it.

But accurate. People were taking a drug not fit for purpose. The numbers quoted were correct, as were the cases. You could quite easily offer the valid argument that the CDC are advising against its use and that these incidents, minor as you point out (in general) can all be avoided. Show me specifically "the lies".

The dose required to have any effect equates to the dose given for a horse.
Six Reasons Why Not to Steal Your Pet’s Ivermectin to Prevent or Treat COVID-19 - Worms & Germs Blog (wormsandgermsblog.com)"
"Your dog’s heartworm preventative is a low dose treatment.

1. • To get the levels used in the aforementioned in vitro study, a person would require a dose of about 3500 ug/kg. Heartworm prevention in dogs is dosed at about 6 ug/kg.
   • So, my dog Merlin gets one 272 ug chewable a month. To get 3500 ug/kg, I’d need 965 tablets per dose. If I had a small dog, I’d need even more of his supply.
   • If I wanted to self-treat for Strongyloides stercoralis (not sure why I would, but let’s pretend), I’d need 52 of my dog’s chewables – per day."

But people ARE using the animal version of the drug. And that screen print is deceptive in its conclusion. The FDA twitter comment is here:

U.S. FDA on Twitter: "You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y'all. Stop it. https://t.co/TWb75xYEY4" / Twitter

Quite clearly it gives a link that gives a full update and a reason for posting that picture!
"Certain animal formulations of ivermectin such as pour-on, injectable, paste, and "drench," are approved in the U.S. to treat or prevent parasites in animals. For humans, ivermectin tablets are approved at very specific doses to treat some parasitic worms, and there are topical (on the skin) formulations for head lice and skin conditions like rosacea.

However, the FDA has received multiple reports of patients who have required medical attention, including hospitalization, after self-medicating with ivermectin intended for livestock."

Your examples are miniscule and are not lies.

 

Ok. We agree. You are posting unsubstantiated opinion, not based on any evidence.

Well you can’t. Perhaps you should consider not taking positions that are not supported by evidence. May save you embarrassment in the future.

The average Joe doesn’t read Newsweek, the Guardian, or local news? The average Joe doesn’t read yahoo news? The average Joe doesn’t see FDA on Twitter or see CDC health alerts? Then why is the stuff published and why do advertisers pay news outlets for advertising? I’ve never heard the claim the average Joe doesn’t consume news media.

I already have. The lies are to keep people like you from accessing a broad spectrum of knowledge on the subject. It keeps you from knowing 20% of prescriptions are off label—much higher in pediatrics. It keeps many from even knowing Ivermectin is one of the most important drugs for humans ever discovered—up there with penicillin. It keeps people from searching and finding information on how ivermectin has been studied for decades as an anti viral in humans. It keeps ya’ll ignorant of facts. It keeps people from understanding Ivermectin uses the same mode of action as new drugs like the Phizer anti viral. An on and on and on.

My version? I’ve just presented facts. We can’t have information exchange because I’m the only one presenting evidence. Your unsubstantiated opinion isn’t information.

Where is the health alert for adverse vaccine reactions? Where is the health alert for poisoning from ingesting disinfectant? Just in Minnesota alone in 2020, 170 more people died preventable deaths from ingesting one type of poisonous disinfectant than in 2019. And I’ll bet you didn’t know that. There aren’t a plethora of news stories or publicized health alerts or publicized tweets from the FDA.

Gotta love pet bloggers for a source of information. Does the above information make you think we should give up on ivermectin or do some research on how to make lower doses effective? That is what Phizer is doing with their re-purposed SARS1 and HIV drugs. They are using one protease inhibitor that has terrible side effects in very low doses to increase the effect of another protease inhibitor without having to increase the dose. But all you have to see is some math from a pet blogger and you have no more curiosity about the issue. That is why misinformation is used. To suppress knowledge and critical thought.

Of course people are using veterinary formulations. I specifically stated that. Likely millions of doses. And yet poisonings are about as common as adverse effects of vaccination. Yet one is sensationalized while the other is suppressed. And you never question why.

My examples are not minuscule. I’ve listed only a very small sample. You are welcome to present evidence the average Joe doesn’t see yahoo news or Newsweek or FDA tweets. I would love to see such evidence. But I doubt we will because your opinions seem to be just that—opinions—nothing more.

And yes, misrepresenting the facts is lying. Even when the CDC does it. You are going to have to accept the fact some people care about full disclosure and honesty.

 

YOU are posting examples as detailed above, that are not lies. YOU are asking me to prove a negative - it is not possible for me to give examples proving that the lies are not ongoing to any significant degree because by its nature they are not there. YOU know this, we agree on that. Unfortunately you cannot back down here because you think you are very important on this forum, so don't want to concede and think it makes you lose face.

Correct, I can't post examples of things that are not there. Ie. Prove a negative!

Well in this case from the two poor examples you just quoted you should heed your own advice.

I don't get embarrassed - if I need correcting I tend to view it as a means to learn something.

Sure, but these so called lies aren't as rife as you claim and having the news on doesn't equate to memorizing it.

You tell me, prove it. Then you prove the negative and show me how he takes in everything.

Wow, did you ever go on the strawman path. I am referring to the miniscule coverage of "the lies" about ivermectin.

Me neither. Strawman noted.

Facts? Like Phizer being called Pfizer? Do stop making out that you are doing some sort of noble service here. And it so, so remains to be seen as to the importance of this drug.

Well no, no you didn't. You presented a series of announcements that were factual then made some odd conclusion that the amounted to lies. You posted the FDA twitter picture but omitted to put the link in, just below it giving the reason for the post. Certainly not even close to lies by the FDA.

Sure we can, I'm the one showing you your evidence is not as good as you claim!

Your version of facts are not facts. I don't need to substantiate a CONCLUSION that the lies are not rife and significant, that is proving a negative. I merely need to point it out. YOU need to prove it - and so far, as with the OP, failing miserably.

Where are the adverse reactions not advised during vaccine? I don't know about you, but I received a full list verbally and numerous handouts. What more is there to publicize if these reactions all fall within tolerable parameters.

Now I do - I shall file it in things to think about next time I buy some.

So to summarize, your claim is that the FDA doesn't usually do stuff, so the fact it did with ivermectin is proof they lie? Wow! We also have a rather big example of the "if I ran the zoo" fallacy.

Gotta love people who dismiss sources without checking their validity. He is a veterinary surgeon.

"Worms & Germs Blog is an educational website coordinated by Drs. Scott Weese and Maureen Anderson of the Ontario Veterinary College‘s Centre for Public Health and Zoonoses. The site was initial set up with the help of funding from City of Hamilton Public Health."

You are making that judgement on one website source. You are referencing only calls logged to their system, you are not factoring in 53% (left hand side), where people are vomiting and getting diarrhea for example.

Well one was not lying and the other showed you omitting a major part of their posting. You have a rather poor inflated idea of your contributions.

Neither being lies.

Addressed above. I welcome you proving the negative.

You mean like leaving off a link that details why the FDA made the tweet!

I have a major leaning towards that, but given the insanity and distortion from conspiracy nutters - keeping some things low key is not a bad thing.

 

Not lies? It’s not a lie that hospitals are turning away patients because they are having to deal with Ivermectin patients instead? Really? Where is your evidence?

It’s not a lie Joe Rogan took horse wormer? Where is your evidence?

It’s not a lie Ivermectin is only a veterinary drug as is insinuated by many examples? Where is your evidence?

It’s not misrepresentation to put up a health alert for nationwide poisonings amounting to a couple handfuls when other poisonings are ignored? Where is your evidence?

It’s not a lie fir the FDA and CDC to portray Ivermectin as dangerous when we give it by the truckload to illiterate tribesmen all over Africa and Asia to administer themselves? Where is your evidence?

Oh, that’s right. All we have is your opinion.

No I’m not important here. The content I post has value because it’s based on evidence. The evidence is clear misinformation (not necessarily lies) and disinformation (lies) about Ivermectin are rampant.

I’ll let you hang a while longer. At some point I will share with you what kind of evidence you would have if you were correct. It amusing watching you fall back on the overused excuse of proving a negative though.

What poor examples?

I’ll accept that even though you have yet to show any evidence of that either.

So called lies? Where is your counter evidence they are not lies? Who is talking about memorizing the news?

Sure. Here’s the yahoo take on the OP.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/financ...-oklahoma-doctor-warns-against-194819429.html
Here is statistics on media showing yahoo’s rank as fourth largest online source of news.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/381569/leading-news-and-media-sites-usa-by-share-of-visits/
No media outlet puts out content the average Joe won’t read.

If it’s a strawman it’s wearing your clothes and it’s stuffed with your straw.

Please provide some evidence for your claim about Joe.

Funny. You made the claim. It’s your strawman. I quoted it for you above.

Thanks for the spellcheck. My mistake.

Don’t care to actually address what I wrote? The only service I’m providing is information. Just because you don’t value correct and complete information doesn’t mean others undervalue it. I’m not concerned with the importance of the drug. I’m concerned that misinformation about it and ivermectin lead people to believe there are no similarities between them when they are both protease inhibitors. I’ve had to correct chemists here that were unaware of the similarities even though both inhibit the main viral protease of SARS-CoV-2 in vitro. The point is even highly educated people fall for disinformation when it shows up in the media.

No I presented facts. The health alert is not factual because it omits almost all the relevant data from the alert and only reports the statistically insignificant portion of the data.

The FDA tweet is misleading because it leads with inaccurate information even though the fine print includes correct information.

No, you are posting your unsubstantiated opinions.

You have not been asked to prove a negative. You are using this old tired debating trick of conflating existence with scarcity.

YOU have repeatedly made a definitive claim you can not support with evidence.
The burden of proof is on you because it’s your claim.

Where are the health alerts for vaccine poisonings/deaths comparable to the one I posted from the CDC for ivermectin use? Can you link to one? Again you have no evidence.

I would rather you think about it next time you drink some (assuming you aren’t a teetotaler, you can correct me if I’ve assumed incorrectly).
The damage comes from ingesting, not buying.

No. You don’t even have your alphabet agencies straight. I’ve pointed out the CDC misrepresents data on ivermectin poisonings. Omitting relevant data is unacceptable in public health.

I’ll compromise here. I’ll retract my appeal to the stone fallacy (even though I DID address the content directly if we can agree to not appeal to the authority of a veterinarian.

I see you don’t want to address my comments on the content of the blog.

One website source? No. I’ve cited the CDC, poison control, news media outlets etc.

What source would you like to use if not the association of poison control centers? Are you upset the CDC used them as their source? You aren’t concerned the CDC only selected and reported PART of the poison control data. But you complain when I post the entirety of the data set. Hmmmm.

Are you also suggesting we use unconfirmed data that can’t even be collected or analyzed? I’ll bet you have no idea where that kind of data comes from. Prove me wrong.

So you condone lies of omission. That’s your right, but it doesn’t make the lie disappear. The CDC most certainly lied by omitting the majority of relevant data from the report.

The other I posted the tweet as it appears and explained why it is misleading. I never claimed the FDA tweet was a lie. But you know this.

I listed two lies. One a fabrication, the other a lie of omission. Then I listed a misrepresentation for good measure. Oh, and don’t forget all the media outlets that I listed that ran variations of the lie from the OP.

There is no need to prove a negative. You just need to provide evidence the average Joe doesn’t consume the media I’ve listed. You made the claim and the burden of proof is on you. I can support my claims. You need to start providing something besides opinion to support yours.

I’ve not disputed why they made the tweet. I pointed out they misrepresented the facts. I’m addressing the tweet—which I posted and explained why the tweet is misleading.

What do you mean keep things low key? The dishonesty is driving conspiracy.

 

Nope. And certainly not rife and continuing to any extent.

Crap journalism.
Fact-checking misinformation about Oklahoma hospitals and ivermectin - CNNPolitics

Strawman . YOU are not posting lies.

That is from the OP! From the original report on Yahoo:
"What is Ivermectin?
According to the World Health Organization (WHO), ivermectin is a broad spectrum antiparasitic agent, included in the WHO's essential medicines list for several parasitic diseases.
It is used in the treatment of onchocerciasis (river blindness), strongyloidiasis and other diseases caused by soil transmitted helminthiasis. It is also used to treat scabies.
Ivermectin is often used in the US to treat or prevent parasites in animals, according to the FDA, and is commonly used as a dewormer for horses."

So the crux of this claim is that Yahoo assumed he used the animal version as many are doing - but on the page it says quite specifically that it is NOT exclusively to treat animals. Rogan claims he got a physician to prescribe him ivermectin to treat covid-19 - of course he is telling the truth!

No omission and no lie. The full article that you insist the average Joe reads! has a quite complete detailed reference to ivermectin.

Where is your evidence media have lied in saying this! Your example says in response to reports of people using the animal version!

You ignore 53% of the pie chart - involving toxic exposure not followed and minimal side effects. No lie here.

It is not a lie at all as detailed and arm waved away. The CDC did not lie in any way and the FDA tweet does not have some "fine print" it has a clear link detailing exactly why the tweet was made.

That's ALL I am seeing from you! You give examples that are useless and only your interpretation - then your indignant response insinuating "how dare you say my interpretation is wrong"!

Not lies, okay.

Only from conspiracy theorists elevating its usefulness - and you it seems.

It's mildly irritating watching you deny that you request me to prove your negative.

Already addressed CDC and FDA.

Poor journalism, not rife, not significant or ongoing. Not disinformation, ivermectin has not been shown to be fit for this purpose.

There is quite a substantial and broad amount of news on Yahoo, what the hell ARE you suggesting? That an average person ingests it all?

Addressed above.

Strawman - repeat: There is quite a substantial and broad amount of news on Yahoo, what the hell ARE you suggesting? That an average person ingests it all?

"I’ve never heard the claim the average Joe doesn’t consume news media."

Strawman, show me where I made that claim! As for the other strawman - already addressed. 68 millions use twitter, how many do you reckon have the FDA feed pop up? Then how many pay attention to it being networked without bothering to read the link? YOU have the burden of proof to determine that they only look at the pretty picture!

Sigh. We're back to you once again creating a negative for me to prove. Are you suggesting that he reads every piece of news and ingests it ?

Irrelevant to the OP.

Pfizer’s new trial drug is not ivermectin in disguise - Full Fact

Bullshit. The tweet contains a link and it is NOT fine print. You are misleading here.

I am posting a conclusion based on the absence of that which you say is rife. Neither of your examples is a lie. The ones in the OP are poor journalism.

Denial. Yes I have.

???

Incorrect. I have repeatedly responded to you making a disproven claim - evidence to support YOUR lack of proof in the matter requires proving a negative.

Bullshit.

Strawman. This is YOUR claim for the reasons behind "the lies".

There was no omission.

I addressed this and you arm waved it away with your OPINION on what they released.

Certainly not. I am suggesting you use the 53% on the left of the pie chart.

Comprehension fail. I am pointing out YOUR omission and do not condone it.

"I’m weary of you misquoting me. It looks to be intentional."

"Even the FDA has to go the horse route instead of just presenting facts." Followed by massive picture and NO hotlink. "The lies and misinformation about Ivermectin are not rare or insignificant. They are everywhere."

Looks like that is exactly what you are claiming. If not, it's off topic!

Once again we have this counter claim that an average person must read everything that you think they should. Effectively that is what you MUST be claiming. I am simply using logic to determine that most people do not ingest every single piece of news, not even close. YOU are strongly implying that they are. Burden of proof? Get out of it.

You have "supported" your claims with your own spin on them. Your own interpretation on them. Then when somebody doesn't agree, you get all indignant and start making up strawmen.

And I've told you why it wasn't. Your picture was misleading, since it didn't have the damn link in.

I mean in a pandemic where the chance of death from the disease is significant compared to that of the vaccine, highlighting reactions that are documented at the point of the vaccine will further fuel nutty conspiracies!

Incorrect. Conspiracy theories are mainly dishonest in their own right, as are their proponents. Most of the dishonesty is being driven by these crazy antivaxxers. Many conspiracy theories, misquote, cherry pick, uninformedly interpret and lie - many are created JUST because they go against mainstream.

 

I’m getting bored with your lack of evidence so just a few points to wrap up.

1) Telling a complete fabrication and then following with something true does not negate the fabrication. It’s as logical as me saying the atmosphere is not comprised of a nitrogen component but is composed of an oxygen component and then claiming my statement is true in entirety. Your justification fails.

2) Lies of omission are lies.

3) When the media (multiple multi-National outlets) tell a whopper like the example in the OP and then try and excuse it by calling it “bad journalism”, I laugh. Why? Because if they aren’t lying, the only other option is they are ALL morons who are gullible and bad at their jobs. I guess if you prefer to think of journalist and editors as fools that are incompetent across the board instead of liars—it’s a free country. LOL

4) I have never asked you to prove a negative. I’ve only asked you to provide opinions you can back up with evidence. If your claims CANNOT be backed by evidence they are merely unsubstantiated opinion and not of any further interest to me.

5) I have NEVER claimed Pfizer’s new drug is Ivermectin in disguise. I clearly pointed out they are both old drugs that are protease inhibitors of the main SARS-CoV-2 virus. Fact.

6) You are upset I didn’t link to Twitter and don’t think a screenshot of the actual tweet is sufficient. Where are your links to support ANYTHING you’ve opined about?

As I said, I’m bored with someone who thinks fabrications are poor journalism, omission of relevant data is not a lie of omission, and repeated unsubstantiated and untrue claims by media are rare and insignificant.

As is my custom when I’ve presented evidence to support my posts and the poster I’m conversing with can’t, I’m giving you the last word. I’m confident I’ve supported my posts with sufficient evidence so that third parties can benefit. You can present evidence, fallacy, or more unsubstantiated opinion. Take care and have a good evening.

 

Ahhh good, we're wrapping up are we. This whole exchange was a complete waste of time - initiated by you needlessly baiting me, ignoring my 100% valid post and going off topic.

You haven't provided any examples of this.

Your two main ones with the provided pictures are not examples of this. You omitted significant detail in the FDA claim and enlarged the picture!

I've always regarded the news media as less than fully competent. Hanlon's razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity".

Now kindly go back and watch the first minute or so of the video I first posted. Tell me about the media lies here, because this is where they suggest HCQ( and later on Ivermectin) actually work! Poor journalism in the opposite direction.

Consistently you are asking me to prove the LACK of something by offering evidence. This is proving a negative. I believe you are doing everything but admit this.

I have never claimed you claimed it.

No, I am not "upset". You left off a vital piece of the tweet, namely the link under the picture that pointed out that the FDA had received reports of misuse with the animal version of the drug. Not a lie and no omission, only by you!

Fabrications do not equate to poor journalism(though certainly some do this) - you are claiming it is deliberate by implication!

You haven't provided any examples of this.

On this subject of "lies about ivermectin", yes they are. Is that you doing your generalized strawman again?

Poor evidence.

Can't, because to prove the lack of lies in the media is a negative and that requires no proof, only a conclusion based on YOUR lack of proof.

Your confidence is misplaced.

You too. Consider one thing: in your first post to somebody, is it acceptable to suggest they have a puppet-master simply because you think they don't know what you think you know?

 

The Story Of The Decade — Is This Mass Murder By Media And Government?
https://humansarefree.com/2021/09/i...cade-mass-murder-by-media-and-government.html
(excerpt)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“The data is overwhelming… There is no medication that has been proven to be more effective than Ivermectin for the treatment of Sars-Covid-19… can save 60,000 lives per week.” — Dr Paul Marik

 

No, they have a treatment for this problem....before you even get sick. It is called vaccination. It will cost nothing out of pocket. It has been researched and tested. IT WORKS!!!

 

You mean the made up bulltwang prised from a conspiracy site so whacked out it makes flat earthers look sane?

 

A person that treats himself has a fool for a patient.

 

How many Americans are dead from the vax?

In mid July CDC said 11,900 plus over 1k fetus.

Since then, total censorship. A guest on RAV said it is over 50k.

How can anyone call something "safe" when CDC admitted 11,900 were dead from it in mid July?

 

Misinformed hogwash.

 

What do you think of this info?

https://www.c19vaxreactions.com/real-video-stories.html
https://1000covidstories.com/
https://vernoncoleman.org/articles/how-many-people-are-vaccines-killing
https://thecovidblog.com/?s=blood+clots
https://thecovidblog.com/category/vaccine-deaths/
https://thecovidblog.com/category/vaccine-adverse-effects/
https://t.me/s/covidvaccineinjuries
https://healthimpactnews.com/2021/c...ons-to-get-the-shot-and-their-message-to-you/

 

Still hogwash. But it was on the internet so it must be true.

 

There is a chance, without checking, that that many may have died of the virus in spite of being vaccinated but then we know the vaccine is only 95% effective and the anti vaccine people can still infect that unfortunate 5%. That number cannot possibly be deaths caused by the vaccine as the suspected cases are well documented and none yet proven. The non vaccinated still outnumber the vaccinated in the hospitals 9-1.