undefined | Better HN

0 pointsimgabe4y ago0 comments

But it wasn’t a conspiracy theory. If you look at, for example, Scott Alexander’s analysis[1] there’s 26/30 studies showing an effect.

Now, if you’re a medical doctor like he is and you spend hours poring over the studies, you can eventually conclude that they’re all flawed in various ways, and there’s not really an effect.

If you’re a layperson and you see that there’s studies published in peer-reviewed journals, but the media is telling you you’re a stupid redneck who’s just a sucker for “conspiracy theories” you’re going to figure they’re just insulting and dismissing you, as they have been consistently doing for years. When those same outlets say the claims about Ivermectin are “baseless” you’re going to wonder why those 26/30 studies don’t constitute a “base” and maybe suspect that there is something else going on.

So, at the end of the day, it is really irresponsible of any media outlet to marginalize and dismiss people, who are trying their best to make sense of a confusing and stressful situation.

[1] https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/ivermectin-much-more-t...

0 comments

ceejayoz4y ago

> Now, if you’re a medical doctor like he is and you spend hours poring over the studies, you can eventually conclude that they’re all flawed in various ways, and there’s not really an effect.

Sure, and that's why governments around the world employ such people, in significant quantities, to do exactly that, and then tell the media what they've concluded, who help distribute that information to us laypeople.

Which is exactly what happened.

imgabeOP4y ago

That’s not what happened. The media’s responsibility was to accurately communicate that information. Instead what they did was “Lololol horsey drugs! You silly horse people” which was false, and caused the people they needed to convince to dismiss them.

ceejayoz4y ago

There were substantial numbers of substantive articles about ivermectin, human trials, potential and cautions, etc. For a good example, here's NPR discussing it with an even tone that doesn't match your assertions at all: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/09/19/1038369...

Or here's the NYT using pretty clear wording like "forms of the drug meant for horses": https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/30/health/covid-ivermectin-p...

There were also some less serious outlets discussing the fact that people were self-prescribing by going to veterinary sources without much context to them. These ones, due to the somewhat funny nature of the concept, tended to go more viral. Doesn't mean the more substantive articles didn't exist.

jmull4y ago

You have people advocating medical treatments against the advice of medical professionals. The arguments include using studies they have no basis to understand and which don't actually support their theory. Not that they care since they are just looking for points to superficially support their predetermined conclusion, which they formed listening to Joe Rogen or reading social media posts.

You don't want to call that a conspiracy theory, but then what should it be called?

And which media outlets have been calling people stupid rednecks? You have a grievance against "the media", but who exactly is that?

I'm really a lot more concerned with the irresponsibility of pushing ineffective medical treatments to a serious health hazard than I am with how gently "the media" tells people that their conspiracy theories are wrong.

mistermann4y ago

> I'm really a lot more concerned with the irresponsibility of pushing ineffective medical treatments to a serious health hazard than I am with how gently "the media" tells people that their conspiracy theories are wrong.

Perhaps you should be concerned with that which causes more harm. After all, a lack of concern for what is true is the fundamental flaw with conspiracy theorists is it not?

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsimgabe4y ago0 comments

But it wasn’t a conspiracy theory. If you look at, for example, Scott Alexander’s analysis[1] there’s 26/30 studies showing an effect.

Now, if you’re a medical doctor like he is and you spend hours poring over the studies, you can eventually conclude that they’re all flawed in various ways, and there’s not really an effect.

So, at the end of the day, it is really irresponsible of any media outlet to marginalize and dismiss people, who are trying their best to make sense of a confusing and stressful situation.

[1] https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/ivermectin-much-more-t...

0 comments

ceejayoz4y ago

> Now, if you’re a medical doctor like he is and you spend hours poring over the studies, you can eventually conclude that they’re all flawed in various ways, and there’s not really an effect.

Which is exactly what happened.

imgabeOP4y ago

ceejayoz4y ago

Or here's the NYT using pretty clear wording like "forms of the drug meant for horses": https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/30/health/covid-ivermectin-p...

jmull4y ago

You don't want to call that a conspiracy theory, but then what should it be called?

And which media outlets have been calling people stupid rednecks? You have a grievance against "the media", but who exactly is that?

mistermann4y ago

Perhaps you should be concerned with that which causes more harm. After all, a lack of concern for what is true is the fundamental flaw with conspiracy theorists is it not?

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse