So why are they asserting that hydroxychloroquine, which is made by Sanofi, and Ivermectin, which is made by Merck, are valid treatments for COVID? I mean you couldn’t have picked two medications that are more Big Pharma than those. Mere skepticism doesn’t drive that kind of idiocy. That’s driven by an overconfidence in an ability they do not actually possess. “Everyone in the CDC is wrong, but I’m not!”
Again, it’s not so much the skepticism, it’s their idiotic alternative suggestions. It’s not enough to cast doubt on what mainstream medical communities are recommending. To actually prove they’re wrong, you also have to suggest valid alternatives, and they fail rather spectacularly at that. The whole entire premise behind what they’re saying is the ugly cousin of the God of the gaps fallacy: “I don’t believe science provided by Big Pharma, therefore magic (which again is also attributed to Big Pharma)”
And again, I mean no disrespect to you directly, but it’s been my observation that lawyers are the hardest peddlers of this Ivermectin/hydroxychloroquine/anti-vaccine drivel. But regardless of their actual profession, the output is the same: they are cosplaying doctors and medical professionals in general. You cannot justify skepticism with make believe and demand respect for such positions.
Science basically works like a game of king of the hill. Something assumes the role of king, and everyone else has the absolute right to, within certain guidelines, knock it off and if they succeed, they’re the new “king” unless and until someone else knocks them off. Much as the Joe Bros want to believe it, Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine haven’t even come close to knocking off monoclonals. Vaccination has never come close to being knocked of by non-vaccination. You don’t win king of the hill by declaring yourself king from the bottom of the fucking hill.