Matt Taibbi: “Why Has "Ivermectin" Become a Dirty Word?”
re: Sebastian Rushworth MD: “62% reduction in the relative risk of dying among covid patients treated with Ivermectin”
re: Ivermectin: Can a Drug Be "Right-Wing"?
Mainstream researchers and doctors talking about Ivermectin are either afraid to speak out, aor getting canceled by the Big Tech intellectual thugs at Google/Facebook/Twitter.
Matt Taibbi is one of the few reasonably objective media voices left.
Why Has "Ivermectin" Become a Dirty Word?
by Matt Taibbi, June 18 2021
At the worst moment, Internet censorship has driven scientific debate itself underground.
One of the challenges of the pandemic period is the degree to which science has become intertwined with politics. Arguments about the efficacy of mask use or ventilators, or the viability of repurposed drugs like hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin, or even the pandemic’s origins, were quashed from the jump in the American commercial press, which committed itself to a regime of simplified insta-takes made opposite to Donald Trump’s comments. With a few exceptions, Internet censors generally tracked with this conventional wisdom, which had the effect of moving conspiracy theories and real scientific debates alike far underground.
A consequence is that issues like the ivermectin question have ended up in the same public bucket as debates over foreign misinformation, hate speech, and even incitement. The same Republican Senator YouTube suspended for making statements in support of ivermectin, Ron Johnson, has also been denounced in the press for failing to call the January 6th riots an insurrection, resulting in headlines that blend the two putative offenses.
“You have these ideas about the need to censor hate speech, calls for violence, and falsity,” Kory says, “and they’ve put science on the same shelf.”
WIND: it’s frightening to watch this play out. And not just because the players involved are de facto killers by suppressing the search for the best possible treatments.