I think this Ivermectin debate has nothing to do with Ivermectin, but about big pharma attempting to usurp power via several government agencies who also want power as they are now being put in charge of things they were never designed for and are not well constituted to handle (things your doctor should be in charge of).

I think this Afghanistan withdrawal was intentionally botched in order to try to get American support for going back in, by sick-minded money-hungry monsters.

You have to listen to many people and then figure out who you trust and on what topics. The most trustworthy and intelligent voices are podcasters. But each has their failings and none should be held up on a pedestal. I trust Glenn Greenwald, but not on topics regarding Socialism. I trust Bret Weinstein, but I don't trust his judgement of other people (he seems far too forgiving and trusting of others) [I took the vaccine and don't take Ivermectin]. Those are just examples.

Claiming it is a central part of someone's identity, and article of faith, and that they can't be argued out of it, is dead wrong. It is the result of misinformation being spread by the news media, refusal to retract incorrect articles, clear bias and manipulation. If that behavior stopped, over a long period of time trust would be regained.

They are correct that it isn't just the US, it is all across the Anglosphere. Just today:

1. In NZ at newshub an article claimed not that the evidence supporting use of Ivermectin in cases of COVID-19 wasn't compelling but that there "is no evidence that supports the use of [Ivermectin] in the treatment of COVID-19." I know that's a lie because I have a folder of scores of research papers on this topic.

2. Fake news about a Hospital in Oklahoma backed up by Ivermectin overdose patients. Not retracted. Amplified by Rachel Maddow.

3. Same newshub (and other outlets) posted about a backlash against David Seymour. That's true, but they took an ideological position against David Seymour. They could have taken an inverse ideological position arguing that David was fighting against institutional racism on behalf of underrepresented people in need that happen to not be Maori... or better yet remained neutral. My stomach turns every time I see this government use race as the determining factor in who gets special treatment, instead of "poverty" or "low vaccine uptake" or any other property... I don't argue this point for myself (I'm highly privileged) but for countless underprivileged of other races like Indonesian or Malaysian or Palestinean who need help but get turned away because they aren't Maori.

That's just today. This shit has been going on for years now.

At this point, most people will never again trust the media for the rest of their lives.

AndOTP authenticator works great for me. I also wrote one that I use on an offline computer (TOTP is rfc6238) in case my phone dies or is unavailable for some reason.

My only gripe with my current usage of GrapheneOS is that sometimes when the notification bell goes off and I open the phone, the SMS was sent many minutes ago (up to an hour or so). I'm only presuming it's due to a lack of google services or something about GrapheneOS; but it might be the network operator.

They also clearly are Americans who seem to think this is an American issue. Ivermectin use for COVID-19 is worldwide and isn't aconsequence of "rejecting American Institutions" but was a desperate attempt by caregivers to keep their patients alive. They think they are seeing a pattern - that it works. But humans are easily fooled and see patterns everywhere, so we need better data. In the meantime, those doctors will continue to use ivermectin, and an upcoming Oxford study will get us some better data.

Might I also add that the evidence in support of Remdesivir is much much weaker than the evidence in support of Ivermectin, that the WHO recommends against Remdesivir, and yet in America it's widely used and nobody is bitching about it. Hypocrisy.

If you want to weigh in on the ongoing medical debate (this is not settled science), please at least read 10 or so relevant studies first. Far too much chatter by people who don't have not put in the requisite work.

SCIENTISTS ARE NOT BEST ADJUDICATORS, BETTER HYPOTHESIZERS: Bret and Heather are scientists and as such are not necessarily of the best mental positioning to adjudicate facts. How so? Scientists should form hypotheses and argue for them. Scientists must as a group take on and argue for multiple hypotheses, vigorously. The data will decide who wins. It is quite appropriate that Bret and Heather have taken up hypotheses in regards to Ivermectin and in regard to possible damage from the vaccines. That doesn't make these views "the final word" or even "stated as factual". I think Bret and Heather would agree and I think they try to make clear that their opinions are hypotheses.

As an example, Bret had a guest on who argued that the number of deaths associated with vaccinations was off the charts. Bret didn't agree but didn't counter-argue. The information was highly misleading. Last episode (on Odysee) they brought up a paper studying Israel where via vaccinations for every 3 people saved, 2 are lost. They weren't at all critical of the author's credentials, nor did they even seem to have read the paper yet, which was quite flawed. Mallen Baker's latest video goes into that a little bit. Mallen Baker is IMHO a very good adjudicator of facts.

I have a lot of respect for Bret and Heather and I think what they are doing is important. But it is also easy to be confused by them and to "follow" their beliefs as if they were clearly correct, when they are actually quite speculative beliefs.

All that being said, everyone communicates on social media now and scientists need to communicate just like the rest of us. If YouTube doesn't want to be the conduit for open communications, some other platform will be.

I raise my own sheep for food, heavily under-stocked so they can pick and choose what they want to eat (makes the meat taste much better than when they are forced to eat bitter stuff they don't want). I don't eat lamb, I let them mature to 2-3 years old first to develop a stronger taste which I prefer, but not so old that they get tough. Beef tastes bland to me now (unless it is charred and/or served with horseradish).

Soil tests show my soil is high in magnesium, low in phosphorus/sulfur, and normal for calcium/potassium, pH is low and I probably need to apply ag lime (nothing has been applied for at least 9 years).

What always mystifies me is why someone would buy one of these crappy >20 year old homes at $700,000 or more just because of it's location. I'd much rather live on a small farm with a brand new house at the same price.

That point being addressed, I would expect the elderly to have a lot more background adverse events, such as death. If we live 28835 days on average, 15 people in this vaccinated group are expected to die every day from non-vaccine causes, and heavily weighted towards the elderly. But I'm not even seeing death as a side-effect, and the number of adverse events among the elderly (who got the vaccine first and have had the lions share of vaccine administration) is actually less than among younger groups. This perplexes me and if anyone thinks they know the answer to this riddle, please share.

[Oh wait... there aren't as many elderly people. hits head]

https://www.medsafe.govt.nz/COVID-19/vaccine-report-overview...

Refer also to the Solomon Asch conformity experiment which occurred during a previous episode of cancel culture called "McCarthyism".

There are other theories. Some people have supposed that the motivations have to do with the money that big pharma would lose if they couldn't sell their vaccines because a safe and effective alternative was already available and proven, and therefore the conditions of the emergency use authorizations for the vaccines would become void. But nobody has any smoking gun evidence here that I'm aware of, it's just a plausible motivation.

Some people might believe so strongly that vaccines are the only possible savior of humanity that anything which detracts from the success of the vaccine campaign will be devastating, and so they do what they can to shut it down. Bret argues this is illogical if Ivermectin works because all forms of immunity work together to build herd immunity. But logic is unfortunately lost on far too many people.

More far fetched ideas include influence campaigns from foreign powers who aim to see America defeated. If they can influence the right people in the right way at the right time, they might be able to prolong the pandemic in America.

I'm sure there are even more hypotheses as to why such censorship is being attempted.