Not all bad times follow weak men but bad times always follow weak men. And good times definitely create weak men.

The core problem is decadence leading to apathy. When people get decadent they stop caring about the world around them and they enable corrupt people to manipulate them and steal from them. Inevitably the elites get too greedy and, in their attempt to cling to their wealth, trash everything for everyone. You can point to specifics at different points in history but ultimately it distills down to this point.

Americans are thoroughly lost in bread and circuses. They've grown far too corpulent to muster a revolution even if they wanted to so they are easy pickings. Our government is overwhelmingly corrupt. We KNOW who the criminals are but no one can be bothered to imprison them so it keeps happening. We've been declining since the 1970s but we were so decadent that it's taken this long to notice. The bad times are almost here.

Occupy Wallstreet was an attempt at awakening, the elites knew exactly how to set the working class against one another and if you even try to point out how people are being manipulated regular people, supposedly class conscious people, start throwing out all sorts of thought-terminating cliches like "arguing in bad faith".

So long as people have the comfort of treating to their echo chamber to hide from the truth, everything will continue to get worse.

The US isn't really the only country in the world, and the countries where things have stayed bad for years are still worse off than countries who had good times and became corrupted. I would argue that the ones clinging to their wealth are economically more powerful than those who lack wealth, so the strict definition of strong and weak needs a lot of clarification here.

Maybe instead of strong men, we could go with heroes. Bad times creates heroes makes sense, a disaster is typically the only way to learn who is willing to put themselves at risk to help others. Good times create despots also works better, because then we aren't blaming people for pursuing happiness, we're identifying the people who reap rewards at others expense, which is only really possible when there are rewards to be had.

Bad is relative. The world population has exploded over the past hundred years which is usually a sign of prosperity and good times. While some parts of the world definitely are poor, they're still developing rapidly and the population seems to grow about as fast as the country develops, which makes any gains look smaller.

There's also the matter of influence. The US isn't the only country, but it is a huge influence on other countries. Many terrible leaders exist because the US put them there. Iran for example was a liberal democracy in the 1970s and the US ruined that. And that is just one of many examples. For these countries it's difficult for strong men to rise up and do anything because they're still being oppressed via the surplus of the weak men in other countries. This is a good argument for opposing globalization, as tying everyone's fates together is keeping these countries from manifesting their own prosperity.

I don't need to hear about "echo chambers" from a covid denier. 9_9

Oh look, one of those "arguing in bad faith" people.

Take your ad hominems elsewhere. Adults are talking.

I would argue that the biggest covid denier would have to be trump, who fought against what experts said should be done for the longest time while offering his own solutions which were not used to treat him once he caught it, and would have had a better chance of killing than curing him had they done so. I don't think it's possible to look at all the events that played out and continue to hold a false worldview, either a person would need to only listen to people who have something to gain by running a counter-narrative, or surround themselves with false information while ignoring anything that outright proves their information wrong. This isn't just about covid either, the same rules apply to everything from religion and cults to sciences which cannot be proven through testing for one reason or another. If people have a horse in the race, they are less likely to be objective. I work from home, and so I was basically unaffected by covid, I would assume that covid deniers were people who lived in rural areas or whose work involved things that could not be done from home, because in their view it was never going to be a problem for them specifically, which ignores the whole point of healthcare, which is to ensure the population on average stays healthy for the economy and not for the individual who may become ill. Like, people argued against masks, because they didn't understand the main point of the mask is to not spray spittle while talking to other people. It's why I think people took offense at the existence of flat-earthers, even a little bit of experimentation is enough to prove them wrong, and they either refuse to do it or ignore it once they have done it, if only because they would look like a fool if they accepted they were wrong.

He will literally never reply to this because he knows his pseudointellectual bullshit won't work against it, at least if he hasn't already blocked you like the coward he is.

I don't think so. We've had back and forth arguments for a while now.

Oof, I missed this reply so I'm late.

Trump spearheaded Operation Warp Speed. He clearly cared about Covid, but he was willing to pursue alternative solutions. And the data on these alternative solutions backed them up! The big anti-HCQ study that was fundamental in demonizing it ended up being retracted because it was an awful study, but by then the damage was done. HCQ and Ivermectin are available OTC in many, many countries, and have a track record of being very safe. Ivermectin for example is safer than aspirin. These drugs should be more readily available as they are for many equatorial countries.

Emergency authorization is only allowed if there are no alternative treatments. This is why HCQ and Ivermectin had to be demonized. Follow the money and you find what is really happening. If you ever watch Television, it's full of ads for medications. This isn't because they expect people to actually go beg their doctors for those mods. Those ads are bribes. Legacy media isn't going to report on bad things the Pharmaceutical companies are doing because then the bribes would stop rolling in.

So let's reiterate the facts:
* The infamous anti-HCQ Lancet study was retracted
* HCQ and Ivermectin are generally safe and OTC in many countries; that is to say even if they do not work the risk of making them available is minimal
* There is a strong financial incentive to demonize HCQ and Ivermectin
* Due to their interest, a LOT of studies were done as to the efficacy of these two drugs against Covid. Hundreds of studies using various methodologies. You may disagree with my conclusion of the studies but the existence of these studies is a concrete fact. You can look into them on your own.

If you want to talk about people with a horse in the race, there is no financial incentive to push HCQ or Ivermectin. None. They're old post-patent drugs. But as I noted there is a financial incentive to making them unavailable.

DOGE is uncovering more uncomfortable facts about our government. USAID was funding media outlets. Why? They were engaging in an elaborate scheme to manufacture "expert opinion" via NGOs and then promote those NGO led studies via the media. A lot of what the media reports on is bullshit and USAID was the path by which it was happening. And that includes the coverage of Covid.

If you want to talk about people not studying information objectively then you need to understand how thorough the propaganda is in society. This is not a conspiracy. Straight from the CIA himself, William Casey:
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false."
--https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Disinformation

I've studied history extensively, just as I've studied Covid and government response to it, which is why I look favorably to Howe's theory. It's a gross simplification, sure, but the beats have played out multiple times throughout history and I dare say I've managed to distill it and identify inflection points. Now would anyone care to hear my solutions? History tells me no.

Already went through all that before in past journals, the problems with some drugs is that if taken in doses that are effective on a disease they are not meant for, they might have a worse effect on the general public than not taking it at all. For example, the risk of heart failure was higher in studies, and the dosage still wasn't a cure, they'd need to up the dosage far higher. The country which tested high dosages was called out for it both by people who knew it would cause more deaths than save, and by people who thought it might work if it wasn't taken so far, but the second group wasn't aware there was a legitimate reason to test doses that high (because it was the one that should have definitely worked). If you recall the time Trump talked about injecting bleach, this is like that. It'd probably kill the virus, but it would also probably kill you, and the goal of medicine isn't to cure a disease at any cost, it's to ensure you live after that is done. We've been over this before, so lets continue.

Media outlets getting funding looked to be independent investigative journalists in countries outside the US. I think this is on par with cutting military funding in terms of the effect this would have on ocean based piracy. By ensuring journalists who look into government corruption have backing, it means governments globally would be under local scrutiny, and that's what the funding has cut. So, I expect global corruption scandals will start to spike. From the sounds of it you have specific examples of moments where these journalists said something, and have proof that what they said was used as expert opinion by the government, so it would be interesting to see examples. I don't want to read an opinion piece about what someone else said though, just the articles from the journalists and the government policies that reference them would be useful.

Yeah propaganda is everywhere. If it's something you personally don't deal with and doesn't exist in your day-to-day life, doesn't affect your income and doesn't affect your options, and somebody has made you care a lot about it, then it's probably propaganda. Childrens books, especially fables and anything by the the brothers Grimm. What we tend to mean when referring to propaganda is being made to believe something with the intent to take advantage of us. Like, propaganda to convince people to risk their lives in a war that, when given all the information, they likely would refuse to fight in. But there's also propaganda that's meant to guide society in a direction that is beneficial to many people regardless of how fake the story is, like how religions do. It's hard to motivate people to be hygenic when nobody knows germs exist, even if you know that washing clothes makes people less ill, but you can convince people white and clean clothing is something the gods want them to wear or they will suffer. Still, everything like that falls under the definition of propaganda, and by bunching it all together it becomes hard to separate things. I think my favorite piece of propaganda has to be Star Trek, because it presented a story of humanity that had ceased to be as divided as the era the show was made in, and made it look good enough that everyone wanted that to be real. We never got the chance to achieve it, but for a few decades it looked like we were almost there. It even got to the point people who opposed its messaging had forgotten what things used to be like and now opposed something else in the show. But yeah, propaganda in my opinion is bad when the whole of society is made worse off by believing it. Like, being lied to about the lifestyle of people in other nations, so that nobody wants to live somewhere cheaper with practically the same stuff they already have.

Usually when people post solutions to world problems, they are solutions that were tried in the past and would benefit from referencing those successes and the context of the era they were in, or they are solutions that were tried in the past and failed, and I waste an hour looking up all the times it failed before posting my favorite ones. The best ones are economic because they very clearly are felt by everyone and tend to get the most discussion about why they failed, anything else tends to be "oh, this noble lost favor because their dog didn't have proper dinner etiquette and so the plan floundered before it could begin", and it just sucks because there's definitely more to the story but so much garbage is hiding the events that it's clear nobody cared enough to dig into the truth of the matter at that point in time. Especially if religion becomes the excuse, because absolutely nobody does anything productive if it involves questioning religion in any way, took us centuries before autopsies became legal for that one. But yeah, economics affects everyone, so they tend to do more than just blame a trivial matter for the issues they had.

Actually, to make things easier, how about I define a problem, and you define the solution. Problem: AI will definitely follow a similar course that autopilot has and remove a lot of the work people used to have to do, this will not happen all at once in the same way autopilot didn't happen all at once, but it will reach a point where the only job left is equivalent to taking off and landing the plane. While laws might slow down corporations from doing this, consider first how taxi services were replaced by Uber, because Uber got people to do the work for them while skipping the red tape taxi companies have to deal with for their drivers, and now imagine corporations doing the same thing with employees, convincing them to use AI to phase themselves out. So, taking all that into account, solve this AI problem in such a way that citizens won't bend the rules in order to use AI to make their own work easier even if the citizens joined a union who won a fight to protect workers jobs from the same AI.

I disagree about dosages. Normal safe dosages are very effective, and the medications even show strong prophylactic and synergistic effects. It's really important to understand how a study can be manipulated: Early treatment is critical. Waiting until someone is at ventilator stage and then giving them the medication will be a failure because that's not how either one works. Not supplementing the medication with Vitamin D and Zinc also is an easy to way to produce a negative outcome. You'd have to read the literature and not merely take the word of pharma-paid media. Even still, the medication isn't a total panacea but it reduces the chance of severe effects. Kind of like how they eventually conceded the covid vaccine wasn't bulletproof and neither stops contracting nor spreading the disease.

Re autopilot: There's a lot to unpack there. Uber replacing taxis was largely a problem with taxis being a heavily regulated industry keeping out competition. The change to ubers hasn't been rosy as many uber contractors do not adequately factor in the cost of depreciation and Uber has been known to lure people in with sweetheart deals and then change the terms leaving them struggling.

In general, the market abhors efficiency. Individual companies benefit from streamlining their process but it means less money circulating through the economy overall due to less workers. We already address this with massive entitlement programs, but right now they are overly restrictive and encourage unproductive behaviors. A large chunk of this problem has already been well discussed: The welfare cliff. Universal Basic Income could fix this by being paid to those regardless of their employment and it won't punish people for working.

Universal Basic Income is my solution combined with a stronger emphasis on critical thinking education (as opposed to diploma mill education), but my understanding of history tells me this will not happen. Instead we'll see a conflict like the Russia-Ukraine one used as a means to cull large swaths of the population. If you look carefully the armed forces propaganda is ramping up to encourage people to enlist again. Though a bio-engineered plague is not out of the question either. That's why I consider it vitally important that people understand the tools of information warfare and how to seek out treatments that may be suppressed, or how to avoid getting swept up into a war designed to waste human lives.

I disagree with normal dosages being very effective, there were trials other countries did more safely, and the effects were not strong enough to fully kill off the virus. You have to remember that viruses adapt quickly due to high mutation rates, so even if there is a moderate effect, unless it's killed fast it will soon become resistant. How quickly it's killed off matters, and if only a portion is killed off then the whole endeavor is pointless. Higher doses do raise the odds of fatal heart problems, so the studies were done to determine how high they had to go in order to reach that minimum threshold where it's viable as a cure, but also isn't more likely to kill the patient than the virus would have. Think of it like a venn diagram, and if the two regions don't overlap then it's not a viable cure, even if it might work to kill the virus the patient still needs to survive with better odds than if they hadn't taken it. For the sake of argument, if the virus had a 100% fatality rate, then sure, it could be used as a cure because any lifelong health impacts would be a fair tradeoff. But it wasn't, half the arguments morons had about the vaccines was that the virus didn't have that high a fatality rate (at the time, similar to how the spanish flu was also initially not nearly as high a fatality rate as it later became when left unchecked). You don't want the medicine to be more fatal than the thing it cures, and for whatever reason it's really, really hard to communicate this to you and others.

"Uber replacing taxis was largely a problem with taxis being a heavily regulated industry", "Uber has been known to lure people in with sweetheart deals and then change the terms leaving them struggling". Yeah, what do you think the regulations were for? Other things that are regulated are consumer protections, to ensure taxi companies charge by a meter rather than changing prices for each trip. Restrictions on the number of licenses removes road traffic and congestion inside highly dense cities. Other regulations are for the condition the car is in, identification, which raises the standard that can be expected but also raises the price. Sure, you can get rid of all these regulations, including protection for the drivers to ensure Uber doesn't screw them over, but the end result will be that the law will have to step in once "workplace accidents" become a notable problem. Just because they get rid of the regulations doesn't mean they solved the reason those regulations exist, it just means they are out-competing taxi services in the time before the law started clamping down on these workarounds.

We already have something like a universal basic income in the form of subsidies. The US currently put several of them on pause, such as subsidies on exporting food to other countries, world hunger type stuff. In reality this is a subsidy to pay farmers to make food, without that food affecting food prices within the country itself. Anyways, now the farmers aren't getting paid and are still making excess food, so it's gonna rot and a lot of generational family farms are gonna go bankrupt. Like, I get that they're opposed to helping other people who aren't themselves and their friends, but you'd think the math for this one was grade-school level. Anyways, hopefully they sell up before going bankrupt because they can at least ensure it's not bought up by corporations. Maybe sell it to a local for a penny so they can buy it back once the current administration has successfully bankrupted all the other farms and got voted out again, to be replaced by someone who will put the subsidies back in place. Assuming it doesn't turn out that stopping the subsidies was an illegal move and it gets reversed before too many more people lose everything.

How does universal basic income on its own solve the problem people face at present, excessive food and housing costs? I wager that if UBI popped into existence prices would rise due to inflation, and these groups would overcompensate by raising rent and prices. Once everyone is unemployed all their expenses will essentially be food and housing. Utilities are energy production, and since automation handles everything reducing energy costs leads to economic growth, so free electricity would be the goal of most people with access to manufacturing. Prices could then be raised further so that less people can compete in the workforce by taking risks. If everything was free, then starting a new company would cost you nothing but your time, so if corporations own all the housing then they can make it so you can't do that, you have to be realistic, and get a regular job that will definitely barely pay enough for rent.

How does welfare and other entitlement programs solve the problem people face at present? In special cases, it works really well! The problem is that these programs have all sorts of qualifiers and checks on them, special providing contracts that make it more expensive than it needs to be. For the purpose of helping people, the programs work. That is a complete non-issue.

For the purpose of a healthy economy? That's where these programs struggle. Because they're only given to people under a certain income or other special circumstances, they disincentivize work, they disincentivize marriage. The companies providing these services get to skim quite a bit, overcharging the taxpayers.

To continue my thought, UBI isn't going to be any worse than existing programs; welfare programs already inflates the cost of goods thanks to government acting as an indiscriminate buyer. UBI instead would reward people for being more discriminate in purchasing these goods on their own. They will shop around to get better deals so this would make goods cheaper!

UBI also removes the overhead in determining who gets what services. By giving it to everyone, it can be a very lean operation like Old Age and Suvivor's Insurance (OASI). OASI actually is a great example because it works a lot like Basic Income, it just isn't universal. Giving it to everyone removes the disincentive to work.

So UBI would solve a lot of problems while not creating any new ones. It would extend to cover more people that might have fallen into the gaps, it reduces bloat from government oversight bureaucrats and government contractors, and it eliminates the work disincentive that welfare creates. We already have working models in practice like OASI.

Any fears of price inflation are misplaced, because prices already are inflated by government contractors providing services for welfare recipients.

UBI was such a great idea that Milton Friedman proposed it in the 1970s! Almost. Negative Income Tax is functionally very similar.

Ah I see the point you were making, having it be universal removes the red tape and hassle trying to get it. Yeah that's the main benefit for UBI, but until we get rent prices under control I'm arguing they'd just raise the prices until we're back at square one.

Are we super desperate for workers or are companies highly optimized and not really hiring? Like, I know that companies claim there's openings, but I also know a thousand people would apply for a single opening in a few jobs I went for at one time. And my mom had a company contact her a year after she had applied for work, which suggests that all companies keep a list of past applicants in case they need someone quick. The reason they want you to apply to 100+ jobs is because maybe someone else quit over work conditions and it'd save them the hassle of waiting for interviewees. Time is money and all that. And if this means you foot the cost of waiting, what do they care.

Don't assume everyone has to work nowadays. It's entirely possible to have a business of 700+ employees be less efficient than a business of 30 employees with enough automation and tech. Consider Steam, and how much money they earn on average. Would it be better for them to hire ten times the current workforce? How would that increase game sales? And maybe people can just work somewhere else, but realistically how many things do you interact with in a day? Infinite items? No? Then there's an inherent cap on how many people can work in an efficient economy, the excess are driven out of business.

To figure out the disincentives for marriage, ask anyone who isn't married why instead of relying on the news. People aren't getting married because it's an expense, same reason they aren't having kids, aren't buying homes, aren't starting family businesses, and are cutting back on food so they can pay for rent sometimes. Cities are expensive, densely populated, and just about the only way to be surrounded by people and options in life. Leave the city and you lose tons of conveniences. There'd be fewer reasons to not start a family, but you and your family would be locked out of city life for generations, perhaps. Welfare helps, but does it pay enough for a months rent in New York's cheapest apartments? Getting out of a hole is a lot harder with family pulling you down, so a lot of people just don't have kids, don't get married, and do whatever they can to get ahead.

In short, marriage disincentivizes the kinds of work the economy benefits from most. It encourages a stable career, but if you haven't noticed there's been a lot of layoffs over the last decade, especially of older people who were aiming to have their job their whole life, and they won't be getting most of the retirement benefits they were planning for. Better than contract workers though, they're a growing majority and don't get benefits usually.

So, how does welfare help? It allows people to survive through a time when not everyone needs to work, where minimum wage has fallen behind the average executive income in terms of growth. Like, if wages for employees went up at the same rate since the 1970s, a US worker on minimum wage would earn $17.36 per hour. That's almost a full ten dollars more. Would people be living on welfare if that's what the smallest wages were?

As for Ivermectin and HCQ, again, there were HUNDREDS of studies done. Some of them done in bad faith, intentionally designed for the study to fail, Like waiting until the patient was already on a ventilator. So yes you will have seen some studies that showed more harm than good. That doesn't mean there aren't dozens of studies that also show benefit. And if you sort through the successful studies and the unsuccessful ones you can devise a comprehensive treatment plan that is successful, because the problem isn't the medication but how it's used.

Here's some information so you can do your own research. Do not treat these links as primary sources but as link aggregators. You can click the studies to read the study yourself to evaluate if it looks reputable and if the abstract matches the aggregator's report.
105 linked Ivermectin studies: https://c19ivm.org/meta.html
419 linked HCQ studies: https://c19hcq.org/meta.html

I honestly haven't looked at this site in a while. The studies presented on a timeline is fascinating. Almost all of the 2023 studies are positive. All of the 2024 studies are positive. This could easily be attributed to better understanding the mechanisms of action, when to use the medication and what other medications to use as part of a comprehensive protocol. There were many negative studies in 2020, either done intentionally to make these drugs look bad or simply due to not understanding which drugs had a strong synergistic effect for an effective treatment.

Whatever you thought your stance was on these drugs before the science was NOT settled in 2021 and we have updated information. I encourage you to review the data to consider more modern studies.

To be fair there's people who will have a dislocated shoulder and refuse to go to the hospital for ages, the majority of people going there are the ones who had to go, so if the drug didn't help then that rules it out for its main use case.

I tried reading through those and they're pretty obtuse. Like, there's charts for influenza in there, which it labels, but for a person just skimming through it might look compelling. I'm still looking for a specific part where it A: shows Ivermectin versus control groups and B: shows the name of the study so I can check to make sure it's not one of the ones that was taken down. And I mean, taken down in court, these weren't silenced quietly, they were intentionally giving misleading information. Anyways, looked through that and of the half I read through all it talked about was studies to determine if other studies were following certain methods when doing peer review, and so on. If one of them actually talked about the effects then it was buried somewhere. Just because there's a lot of true information doesn't mean any of it states that ivermectin does anything as shown in a study. Like, the first part talks about what effects ivermectin has on viral proteins. That's probably accurate, but whether it works on covid isn't answered there. The following part is a graph with studies that I can't verify off-site, because unlike everything else that links to other sites with a reputation, those link to itself with data about those studies. I'm not about to read every one of those, but I read one and it contained nothing specific enough for me to know if they did the study correctly or not. And again, it's as clear as mud even if I could find the relevant information. Maybe you know which specific part of the document is relevant to bias and certainty. And since the proof seems to only be on the site itself, that means I also have to trust that all those reports haven't been taken back or removed due to being wrong. Like, I don't know why you felt this was a strong argument. I didn't even get to the HCQ one because it's probably the same thing, unreadable to anyone who doesn't know, and with information spread out so weirdly that you can't tell what's relevant and what's just an insistance that the other information is real.

Anyways, ivermectin's been around a long time and does have its uses, but from the sounds of it it's more of an anti-parasite drug.

I also reviewed data from other sites and generally the conclusion is that the effect is very small, if any, to the point studies found it to be alternatingly worse for patients, or better, than if they did nothing, but only in studies where there was a low certainty of the results due to not following the right procedures. For the ones that did, pretty much no effect was found. The methods used are the best indicator if something works, studies that fail to show their work are hard to trust because of this.

Anyways, if that's the best argument for it working, then I can see why most people don't believe it, it took an hour and I still didn't find the point it was trying to make, it just felt like it was trying hard to look legitimate without showing anything that might be too specific.

HCQ is an effective anti-parasite drug but it's also prescribed for arthritis. Medicines can do multiple things.

You have to read the studies to see that the medicines are part of a protocol. There are other medicines that are part of the protocol and refining that protocol has been what has contributed to the increased efficacy over the years. Trying to take only one medicine of the cocktail is like trying to bake a cake but leaving out the eggs, butter, and sugar.

You mention people going to the hospital because they're very ill, but prophylaxis is one of the studied mechanisms; both giving the drug to people at risk of exposure (healthcare workers) and people recently exposed, and the results are very favorable.

The studies are all linked. Click the name on the left of the chart and you can click source and read the raw study. Studies are generally written in a standardized form with the results front-loaded in the abstract and if you want to see how they came to those results you can read the rest. They're also named so you can find them though a search if you struggle with navigating the aggregator website. You can sample a few of the studies to see if the link aggregator is misrepresenting the studies and draw your own conclusion from the rest.

Now here is the most important takeaway from all of this: The media lies to you about everything. "Dangerous horse paste" is just one of many narratives they use to control you but there are so many other. If it's this hard to pierce through the propaganda on HCQ and Ivermectin, imagine how thoroughly they've managed to warp your brain around other topics. If you want another big one, look at the Oct 7 narrative. The legacy media won't stop talking about those poor hostages meanwhile Israel is committing a genocide.

Covid isn't even the main topic here, but just one facet of absolute media control of narrative. The media lies about everything just as much as they lied about covid, and that includes economics and other large aspects of government policy.

You're trying to drag other topics into this to make a point, but you didn't find the piece of information that proves the first argument either. I can both hold the opinion that the media presents narratives to guide the things people believe, and also the opinion that the studies opposing the use of Ivermectin specifically for covid show their work. I'll even present a counterpoint, there's tons of people who believed it would work, made their doctors prescribe it, and then went online to complain it didn't work. If you want to know why people generally don't believe it works, it's because of the ones who tried regardless of what everyone was told. I assume you're still going on about this because you yourself didn't get covid and follow it up by taking ivermectin. If you had, you'd have found the illness lingered for about as long as everyone else who had it, on average, and stopped posting this stuff.

A close comparison is that flat earthers who go to great lengths to find proof, like flying to Antarctica to see if the sun sets in a day, will have to accept they are wrong, but the ones watching online will find some reason not to believe. It's just how people are. Ivermectin has uses but it also has downsides, it's very easy to overdose on, and because of drug interactions it means there's a high risk of danger if everyone has to take it. Anyways, unless you can find any reputable trials in that list that prove the effectiveness outweighs the deaths that will occur, arguing this further will be a waste of time. I'm not spending another hour crawling through a maze of only dead ends.