undefined | Better HN

story

0 pointsceejayoz4y ago0 comments

> 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.

0 comments

imgabe4y 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.

ceejayozOP4y 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.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

imgabe4y ago

ceejayozOP4y 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...

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse