In this case, it's design. Increasing social injustice is the whole point, because that ensures increased political power for those who campaign on social justice.

It elicited the desired feelings and therefore it was completely true.

"We are resigning and our reasons have been shared privately with X group. "

But since the goal of the whole exercise is to generate publicity and drama, the above was an unacceptable approach and the approach actually taken was highly effective.

But I don't think that Scott has done more than offer a suggestion as to how the studies might be flawed; no matter how compelling the suggestion, it isn't evidence. Otherwise you're just consuming more nicely-dressed garbage, which is even more dangerous because you get to feel superior to those consuming the normal garbage.

What would constitute good evidence for the worms theory is, you know, a study actually studying that. Otherwise the theory is just assuming that a lot of the people benefited by Ivermectin do have worms, when that hasn't even been measured.

You seem to be confused about the concept of consent.

> Pfizer’s drug has protease inhibitor activity like ivermectin, but they are a very different kettle of fish on a variety of levels

and

> Dr Walter explained that PF-07321332 is a “direct acting antiviral drug”, while ivermectin “has multiple mechanisms of action on animal and human cells as well as some serendipitous antiviral activity”.

This sounds much more like "yes, but" to me than "false". And indeed, the rating given is not "false" but "Missing context". The headline is certainly accurate (ivermectin is not the same drug as Pfizermectin) but also fake news in that it is a strawman; no one has claimed that they are literally the same drug.

The interesting claim, if clearly stated, is "The mechanism of action of Pfizermectin for treating COVID-19 is as a protease inhibitor. Ivermectin is, among other antiparisitic effects which are usually more interesting, also a protease inhibitor." That claim is validated by the evidence given in the fact-check.

Moreover it's worth calling out a known lie in the fact-check (which is included entirely gratuitously as it doesn't have anything to do with the headline or the verdict or even my "interesting claim" above): "some of [the mechanisms of action of Ivermectin] could have unwanted, even dangerous side effects." Ivermectin is on the WHO list of essential medicines and is considered extremely safe, with just one known complication related to a particular parasitic infection IIRC. I can only imagine that the reporter, having not gotten any definitive proof for the desired 'false' verdict from Dr Walter, pushed and prodded until eliciting this absurd and false but politically expedient statement.

TFA found that more reliable studies found it was helpful than not. You are the one who is anti-science.

But that is literally what this article is, and Scott admits as much! He says that he chose worms as the most "trollish" possible response, despite a lack of any strong evidence at all that worms are the answer.

No, now we're admitting that it was based on lies. That information has been around for a long time; if not quite all the way to the first allegations, at least very soon thereafter. It's the same deal with the lab leak. The information showing the lab leak hypothesis is at least plausible (if unprovable) was available in May 2020, but it was only this year that various actors got around to admitting the plausibility. We didn't "learn" anything this year that changed the underlying facts in either case; it's just that the facts became morally permissible to report.

You can keep competing with the B and C players if you want but don't give that advice to others.