One view: The Vaccinater Logic – “It’s the Best We Have to End the Pandemic”
The Psychology of Vaccination
This is a special episode of Remarkable People that involves not one but nine remarkable people talking about the COVID-19 vaccine.
They are experts in the fields of such as psychology, history, decision sciences, and human behavior. They agreed to participate in this special project in order to help combat the corona virus.
I asked them to assume that we figured out the development, manufacturing, and logistics of vaccination. Then I posed one question: how do we ensure as many people as possible get vaccinated?
Alternative view: Ivermectin Anti-viralists: “There Are More and Better Ways to Combat Infection and Death From SARS-CoV-2”, and one of them is ivermectin. A report in defense of ivermectin, while not against vaccination.
Does popularity on YouTube make a claim false? The writer then says this:
“Ivermectin is approved in the US in tablet form to treat parasitic worms as well as a topical solution to treat external parasites. The drug is also available for animals.”
Interesting, and true as far as I am aware. The writer could have also mentioned that the discoverers of Ivermectin won a Nobel prize, that it has been in use for 40 years, is on the WHO’s list of essential medicines, and is used safely by 3.7 billion people world-wide [1]. The writer then says this:
“The US Food and Drug Administration and the National Institutes of Health have said the drug is not approved for the prevention or treatment of Covid-19. According to the FDA, side effects for the drug include skin rash, nausea and vomiting.”
Firstly, let’s deal with the second sentence. What the FDA actually say is that these are some of the side effects “which may be associated with ivermectin” [4]. Secondly, most medicines have side-effects and the existence of side-effects do not disqualify a medicine from approval. Finally, the risk of death seems to me to be quite a bit worse than skin rash, nausea and vomiting, even if those side effects always occur (which according to the FDA they don’t).
However the first sentence about the FDA is the core of the writer’s effort to discredit Ivermectin, but in fact is simply a statement of the current position of the FDA. Furthermore, what the FDA actually say is that Ivermectin’s “benefits and safety for these purposes have not been established” [4]. The real story here – which the writer seems uninterested in – is that the experts who testified at the senate hearing believe that the benefits and safety of Ivermectin have been established and they want the authorities such as NIH and FDA to urgently review the evidence that exists. Instead, the writer follows her misleading comments about the FDA with the following:
“Dr Amesh Adalja, an infectious disease expert at Johns Hopkins University, said most of the research around ivermectin at the moment is made up of anecdotes and studies that are not the gold standard in terms of how to use ivermectin. “We need to get much more data before we can say this is a definitive treatment,” he said. “We would like to see more data before I recommend it to my patients.””
The question here is this. Why should what Dr Amesh Adalja apparently says be given more credence than the experts who testified at the Senate Hearing? Furthermore, what Dr Adalja says doesn’t actually make the central claim false.
At this point, the writer decides it is time to provide details of studies:
“In June, Australian researchers published the findings of a study that found ivermectin inhibited the replication of Sars-CoV-2 in a laboratory setting, which is not the same as testing the drug on humans or animals.”
In terms of the actual evidence of efficacy and safety, there are numerous more recent and more compelling items of evidence which the writer could have given as examples. To be fair to the author – because of the influence of articles like hers – the evidence in favour of Ivermectin is more difficult to find than it should be, but it isn’t impossible to find if you are prepared to make the effort. Sky News Australia managed to do that when they reported on the findings of world-renowned Professor Thomas Borody back in August [6].
The remainder of the article is focused on apparent concerns that people would self-medicate and would deplete supplies of the medicine putting those who needed it for non-Covid conditions at risk. These are certainly topics worth consideration, but surely the overriding question here is whether Ivermectin is a treatment that could significantly reduce hospitalisation and save many lives.
What is wrong here?
What is wrong here? That is the sixty-four thousand dollar question – as they saying goes.
For one thing, the writer obviously has an agenda to discredit Ivermectin as a treatment for Covid-19. I think it is clear from reading this article that Dupuy’s mind was made up before she wrote the first word. The question is why. I think the immediate cause is that Dupuy is immersed in a narrative that treatments like Ivermectin are fake news and misinformation, but I think the ultimate causes are many and complex and here I suggest some possibilities.
A secondary question is why the NZ Herald chose to publish this article dismissing Ivermectin, rather than an article about the research that has been done on Ivermectin. Here again I think the answer is that the staff at the NZ Herald are all immersed in the same narrative as Dupuy. Furthermore, somehow we have gotten to the point where there is a high price to be paid by either individuals or organisations for stepping outside of the mainstream narrative – and few are brave enough to do that.
One question we might ask is why more members of the public don’t see through articles like the one I have analysed here. For one thing, the article pulls out all the stops when it comes to devious tricks of persuasion, and I think most people can be forgiven for succumbing to those tactics because most people don’t expect journalists in well respected publications to be trying to mislead them. I’ve no doubt that Dupuy writes well and is intelligent, but unfortunately when such a person chooses to suspend their objectivity and critical thinking skills they may end up using their talents in support of a false narrative. The problem is made much worse because this kind of article is the only kind of article being seen by many people – including the members of the mainstream media themselves. If more objective articles existed, articles like this would not even make it to print.
We are told many people are dying or are at risk of dying, and that hospitals are at extreme risk of being overwhelmed – if these claims are true then authorities should be taking potential treatments seriously. If new vaccines have been developed with such speed, why isn’t the potential re-purposing of existing drugs like Ivermectin being given equal urgency? We should all be very concerned that the mainstream media seem to be discrediting and silencing discussion about potential treatments – treatments that could save countless lives and reduce the economic damage and other harms being done by lockdown measures.
Ivermectin and Covid-19: debunking the debunkers
It is my sincere desire to provide readers of this site with the best unbiased information available, and a forum where it can be discussed openly, as our Founders intended. But it is not easy nor inexpensive to do so, especially when those who wish to prevent us from making the truth known, attack us without mercy on all fronts on a daily basis. So each time you visit the site, I would ask that you consider the value that you receive and have received from The Burning Platform and the community of which you are a vital part. I can't do it all alone, and I need your help and support to keep it alive. Please consider contributing an amount commensurate to the value that you receive from this site and community, or even by becoming a sustaining supporter through periodic contributions. [Burning Platform LLC - PO Box 1520 Kulpsville, PA 19443] or Paypal
-----------------------------------------------------
To donate via Stripe, click here.
-----------------------------------------------------
Use promo code ILMF2, and save up to 66% on all MyPillow purchases. (The Burning Platform benefits when you use this promo code.)
If your kid dies from the vax they don’t want to hear about it.
https://www.icandecide.org/ican_press/pfizer-and-moderna-fail-to-follow-up-on-reports-of-children-dying-from-their-covid-vaccines/
If your kid dies from the vax you should be prosecuted for allowing your kid to be vaxed.
There is no longer any excuse for ignorance of the dangers.
” … Dupuy’s mind was made up before she wrote the first word.”
Bingo! That pretty much sums up the psychology of every Shit Shot loving asshole.
“Dr Amesh Adalja, an infectious disease expert at Johns Hopkins University”
Notorious exam cheats, those streetsh*tters.
When the Truth Commissions are finally established I’d like to hear the pleadings of “only following instructions” from Mainstream media writers, before they are rightfully hacked to death, and their bodies burned in ditches which are then covered without memorials.
And of course, rather than using whatever leverage he has to throw sand in the gears of the regime’s vaccinate-everyone scheme (like tying a ban on vaccine mandates to lifting the debt ceiling) Mitch Fucking McConnell is playing his old grade-school theater routine. “We didn’t raise the debt ceiling. It was those bad old democrats over there!” Who gives a fuck about that, Turtle? While you’re playing the same games as always, the commies are establishing a biomedical security state and social credit system.
He’s in on it.
yup
We know ivermectin works and any discussion that says no is wrong.
Not sure what this article says unless I’m supposed to click a link. NZ and Dupuy come from out of the blue.