There was an absurd rush to report that ivermectin is bad that resulted in a pretty bad breakdown of the fact checking process. A lot of semi-adjacent facts and statements got merged. A hospital is full and a hospital treated someone for overdose became all the hospitals are filled with overdose victims.

(I think eating horse paste is dumb, but that doesn't excuse rolling stone lying about the consequences of doing so.)

Eating horse paste is a desperate measure taken by people struggling to maintain dominion over their healthcare decisions. Most patients who've taken matters into their own hands and gone yay for the neigh would have much rather taken Ivermectin packaged for humans prescribed by their doctors. That choice has been stolen from patient and doctor alike via bureaucratic action.

The loss of individual bodily autonomy, doctor-patient relationships, and dominion over one's own healthcare is at stake and those won't be easy human rights usurpations to correct.

The truth is that virtually no human has ever had dominion over their healthcare decisions at any time in history. Having that dominion involves both freedom to choose and the understanding and information you need to choose well. Lewis and Clark taking mercury supplements to help with constipation is not them "having dominion over their healthcare decisions", it's them being woefully uninformed. Humanity never had "dominion over nature" until we could build shelters, control fire, cultivate crops, and tame animals -- advancing medicine and seeking the advice of experts is how we might start to attain such a dominion over personal healthcare. The people who demand Ivermectin, or who go for crystal healing or homeopathy, they don't have "dominion" over their own healthcare, they're just ignorant and have been infected with viral disinformation.

But upvoted for "yay for the neigh"

I appreciate your comment though I disagree with what seems to be your interpretation of dominion. Good lord I love this board, people actually converse. I upvoted you too, though I take issue with a couple of your points.

I don't believe anyone ever has or ever will have dominion over the outcome of their actions within any domain - regardless of power they may otherwise wield. The only certainty in life is uncertainty after all. So, I don't find the presence of uncertainty an acceptable lower bound. Additionally, believing our contemporary body of medical knowledge is complete to the point where we aren't currently making mistakes tantamount to mercury laxatives seems to me, dangerously hubristic.

Being able to make choices unconstrained by experts and authorities who believe your decisions are wrong, is the essence of freedom and the impetus propelling all forward progress. Free Inquiry demands we embrace others' self-determination and latitude in their decisions, respecting the near certain presence of unknown unknowns.

More average people now are reading scientific literature than ever before, which should be cause for rejoicing. Sadly, we seem to be ignoring that opportunity and abandoning all semblance of rational, data-driven science. Rather, we're corrupting Science with Religion, skepticism with faith, breaking into factions mutually recognized as heresies. The data are twisted to fit expectations, not dispassionately observed. We're twisting men of science into priests, models into dogma, literature into liturgy, and inquiry into inquisition. We're not going to notice the unknown unknowns until they've already sunk in their fangs and got a mouth full of buttcheek.

> A lot of semi-adjacent facts and statements got merged. A hospital is full and a hospital treated someone for overdose became all the hospitals are filled with overdose victims.

I thought they said gunshot victims weren't getting treated in some podunk tiny town of less than 10k residents, then they plagiarized a photo to add a racial element, using African Americans, then spread the story everywhere?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/rolling-stone-covid-19-deb...

The sources agree, look at the bullet point above the one you quoted.

• The Mississippi Poison Control Center has received an increasing number of calls from individuals with potential ivermectin exposure taken to treat or prevent COVID-19 infection.

• At least 70% of the recent calls have been related to ingestion of livestock or animal formulations of ivermectin purchased at livestock supply centers.

So, 70% of "calls from individuals with potential ivermectin exposure" were "related to ingestion of livestock or animal formulations of ivermectin", which is what the AP's correction says.

Ah, I see now. "the recent calls" refers only to calls about ivermectin, not ALL recent calls.

Still, the AP misunderstood as well, misreported it, and later issued a correction. Before the correction, it was syndicated by many news outlets like New York Times. I think most people are unaware of the important correction.