Ivermectin is the new hydroxychloroquine, a drug repurposed for COVID-19 that almost certainly doesn’t work but is still being touted as a “miracle cure” by quacks, grifters, and political ideologues. Are the data supporting it all fraudulent and/or biased? The answer, increasingly, appears to be yes.
A month after a BMJ article linking the Great Barrington Declaration to the right wing think tank AIER, the two are attacking the authors of the BMJ piece and denying any payment or even connection. Why?
A longtime favorite technique of antivaxxers has been to do bad ecological studies to imply that vaccines cause harm. Why is a Harvard investigator inadvertently using the ecological fallacy the same way antivaxxers used to do before COVID-19?
Antivaxxers have long appealed to “natural immunity” as being somehow inherently superior to vaccine-induced immunity, which is apparently “artificial”. This is a trope that comes from alternative medicine concepts about purity and contamination that is now endangering us in the age of the pandemic.
The disinformation epidemic about COVID-19 has pushed state medical boards to consider disciplining physicians who promote COVID-19 disinformation. How would that work? What are the obstacles? Is it even possible? It should be, but it will be messy and complicated.
