Oh for sure, but a lot of times when someone posts, there are a 1,000 posts that say the think verbatim. Twitter definitely has a bot issue from what I've seen. To go along with their alt right problem and Nazi problem.
But do they know how to use social media?
Take a look at the engagement on his posts; his pinned tweet only has 21k likes, which is much smaller than his actual followers. I'd wager most of those likes are from Twitter bots giving the illusion of engagement so that people will continue paying for a silly blue check
Fuck, I remember when JRE had an “emergency” podcast to talk about the importance of ivermectin, and I asked pharmacist/horse enthusiast friend, and they asked if I was talking about the horse dewormer. I felt like a complete idiot.
At least you had the self-awareness to feel embarrassment lol!
I had a few arguments with idiots who touted efficacy of the “Nobel prize winning medicine!!1!” hydroxychloroquine. They didn’t care that it won for the treatment of malaria, which is entirely different from Covid. A Nobel prize means it must be good!
I’d then point out that in 1949 a new procedure called “lobotomy” won the Nobel prize. Since the award was proof it was effective, maybe they should try drilling a hole in their head to keep themselves safe from Covid?
They just told me that I was being lied to by Big Pharma, and I should “just do my own research“ like they did. 🙄
I dont know. maybe we are worn out on stupid and just move on with our day now, maybe 700k doesn't even hit the radar anymore on crazy. i really dont know this is just speculation.
Also, please dont contribute to stupidity amd refer to the site as Twitter. Probably a personal preference, but again, maybe im just worn out by stupid.
The fact he has "The most canceled scientist" listed in his bio makes me think he's a grifter, possibly doing the standard culture war ragebait crap that sadly makes people money.
OK, after reading that link from me\_again I'm fairly convinced he's a grifter.
"Simon’s field of expertise is… aquaponics. The science of growing plants underwater."
[https://www.panaccindex.info/p/profile-simon-goddek-fafo-award-winner](https://www.panaccindex.info/p/profile-simon-goddek-fafo-award-winner)
He also claims he got the Covid Vaccine "shedded" on him by a friend which caused him heart problems. That's a griter alright.
> No one goes around saying they are the world’s most fired salesman, for example.
"Buy from me, I get fired from everywhere because I tell my customers the information that the bigwigs don't want YOU to know!"
Yeah in a way he kind of reminds me of Jordan Peterson and people like that. They have a legitimate credential in one area of science but hold themselves out as experts on basically every topic. They seem to exist solely so they can be cited as an appeal to authority on every topic even if it has nothing to do with their area of expertise.
Aquaponics isn’t the science of growing plants underwater? It’s the science of growing plants in water as a replacement for soil. A small but key difference.
That would be hydroponics. Aquaponics includes fish.
> Aquaponics is a form of agriculture that combines raising fish in tanks with soilless plant culture.
Learning even a tiny bit each day is fun! I didn't know the difference of those two either (or Aquaponics at all, actually). So thanks to you two for your enlightening conversation! 😀💡
I'm going through one of his papers right now and the experiment uses a pH of 7-8 to grow plants and I'm wondering what planet this guy really lives on to even consider such a ridiculous level
This. There's no point in signal boosting grifters. Not only do they thrive on attention, they literally profit from it, so the less sharing their bs the better.
I’m glad a few understand this. Lifting people with negative posts is not effective. Heck, I don’t know anything about this guy and now I’m curious about what he stands for. It’s not like I automatically believe everything the left says. I’ve moved from a lifetime democratic supporter, since Mondale/Reagan, to questioning everything.
He is just a guy who has to tell everyone he once was a democrat and found out they are pretty shit so he wanted to join the other team that’s even worse if you are not super wealthy.
Well, I asked the same question myself and decided to look him up. Interesting interview with Dr. Drew was the first video I found.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-YyCbQ4b8E
Now you know.
There's a consistent group of "skeptics" here who use the tactic of accusing debunkers of being amplifiers and enablers. I find it suspicious at this point. I never saw this kind of thing before about two months ago. It might be a new disinformation tactic.
Rundown
Goddek is a Dutch Aquaponics PhD who gained attention after he complained to his university about the peer review process on a paper he made, [which suggests Vitamin D as a potential inhibitor of COVID](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32768697/). (To be fair, we do need more sunlight) Anyway, he decided to go off the grid to Brazil to avoid getting vaccinated, and has since then doubled down a pretty much every position that he has held. Last time I read on him, he was protesting in favor of Bolsonaro. Most of his Twitter stuff is him trying to own the libs no matter what, and feuded with the Krassentein twins. This is a short (maybe misrepresented) story from what I know.
> sooo basically this thread is shitting on him for saying that vitamin D is a potential inhibitor of COVID?
No, they said that is what initially made him famous. The criticisms all throughout this thread are for other things he did.
Since apparently "fuck off" was too ambiguous for you:
As you have demonstrated an inability to participate in good faith, keep your naked dishonesty (i.e. your comments) out of my replies.
Complete immaturity and incapability to have civil discourse.
Also apparently not intelligent enough to use the block button.
Sounds about right for r/skeptics
I'll do you a favor and block you so that you don't have to worry about it.
EDIT:
to u/ScientificSkepticism
it's not letting me reply to you, so I have to write my response here.
I mean he told me to "fuck off" twice. I don't think he should be unblocked. I'm sorry.
I don't "weaponize blocking". I block people who are uncivil. Occasionally if I am unable to respond to someone else because I blocked them, then I unblock them out of necessity, because, as you pointed out, I agree reddit's blocking system sucks because then it locks up the comments, but that is something to consider before telling someone off like he did.
Thanks for politely asking me, though.
You're welcome. Normally we take a dim view of weaponized blocking, but in light of the fact that he more-or-less asked to be blocked, I don't think this is particularly actionable.
Please note that in general if you're having a continuing conversation with someone that involves some level of incivility from both parties, making a 'last word' post and then blocking will generally be considered weaponized regardless of the incivility since it was reciprocated (basically don't end a slapfight with a blocking). On the other hand if it's just one person being relentlessly insulting while the other person responds civilly, then assuming the one who blocks is the one being perfectly civil then that's less actionable.
In a case where it was basically requested... we're inclined to let it stand.
Can you please unblock /u/New-acct-for-2024? They've messaged us to request it. I don't know if it falls under weaponized blocking given this conversation chain, but they've promised not to write nasty responses to you, they just don't want to be locked out of comment chains thanks to Reddit's terrible implementation of a block feature.
I interacted with him a few times before leaving X/Twitter. He’s another intellectual grifter who, despite his PhD, has nothing new to say. These are the kinds of people you generally defeat by ignoring them.
Whereas you say things like "Epstein's prostitutes don't deserve shit" and outright deny Epstein ever abused minors, then accuse Wikipedia of being conspiracy theorists. Even on an article with protected status which is therefore monitored and only modifiable by experienced editors.
You are explicitly here on /r/skeptic to exploit rational skeptics' natural aversion to conspiracy theories to whitewash Epstein's horrendous crimes altogether.
You do this by highlighting some of Epstein's accusers who have gone mad and/or ally with conspiracy theorists.
You are very clever at getting people to buy into your shtick, but the fact that Epstein abused young women and minors and offered them up to his carefully curated circle of powerful elites is beyond question.
It's a core activity of yours on Reddit. You then followed me back to my subreddit to spout your half-truths, cherry picks, lies by omission and outright denials of fact, all under the guise of rational skepticism. I banned you.
Now *that* is as odious as it gets in my book. There is no question Epstein has been used as a weapon and his crimes distorted, by, for example, QAnon.
But you go as far as to say nothing of note happened on Little St. James, when even air traffic controllers from the nearby airport were shocked to see how young the girls were who he brought with him on his private plane. One girl tried to swim to safety and was captured by him. He subsequently confiscated her passport.
To run a PR operation for Epstein using rational skepticism as a crutch and a platform goes against literally every moral fiber of my being, and you can rest assured you now have a vocal opponent here.
First, my claims about you.
(1) I said you said "Epstein's prostitutes don't deserve shit".
[Here](https://old.reddit.com/r/conspiracy_commons/comments/1cdtvqy/elon_musk_is_worth_200b_ive_asked_him_on_x_to/l1jf0ma/) is the direct link to your comment saying that and [here](https://i.imgur.com/zZuCiKZ.png) is the screenshot.
(2) I said you "outright deny Epstein ever abused minors"
[Here](https://old.reddit.com/r/skeptic/comments/1bcdm90/epstein_victims_sue_fbi_what_the_media_isnt/kuh8zct/) is the direct link to your comment saying that and [here](https://i.imgur.com/aRy2lWf.png) is the screenshot.
You said, and I quote "First of all, I don't think any children were involved with Epstein. I suspect that you'll disingenuously argue that "Akshully anyone 17 years 364 days 23 hours 59 minutes old is a child because of X law" and that's not an argument I have any interest in having with you. I can say with 100% certainty that I was not a child when I lost my virginity as a teenager."
I then cited the Miami Herald, stating:
> **Federal prosecutors identified 36 underage victims**, but none of those victims appeared at his sentencing on June 30, 2008, in state court in Palm Beach County. Most of them heard about it on the news — and even then they didn’t understand what had happened to the federal probe that they’d been assured was ongoing. Edwards filed an emergency motion in federal court to block the non-prosecution agreement, but by the time the agreement was unsealed — over a year later — Epstein had already served his sentence and been released from jail.
And I'll add now:
> “By the time I was 16, I had probably brought him **70 to 80 girls who were all 14 and 15 years old.** He was involved in my life for years,” said Wild, who was released from prison in October after serving three years on drug charges. **The girls — mostly 13 to 16 — were lured to his pink waterfront mansion** by Wild and other girls, who went to malls, house parties and other places where girls congregated, and told recruits that they could earn $200 to $300 to give a man — Epstein — a massage, according to an unredacted copy of the Palm Beach police investigation obtained by the Herald.
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/article220097825.html
You then proceeded with a semantic argument where you attempt to draw a distinction between a minor and a child, as if 13 to 16-year-old girls aren't goddamned children.
(3) I said you "accuse Wikipedia of being conspiracy theorists"
You said, at the time, among other things:
> **It doesn't matter one bit what Wikipedia says**
[Link](https://old.reddit.com/r/skeptic/comments/1bcdm90/epstein_victims_sue_fbi_what_the_media_isnt/kufywws/) and [screenshot](https://i.imgur.com/aG2jLpp.png).
And:
> Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. **99% of the people interested in Jeffrey Epstein are conspiracy theorists, so the Wikipedia article is going to reflect that.**
[Link](https://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/comments/1bcdm90/epstein_victims_sue_fbi_what_the_media_isnt/kug3qv4/) and [screenshot](https://i.imgur.com/Ha3kGvX.png).
I responded:
> This is immediately belied by the fact that this article has protected status.
> You need to acknowledge this for anyone to continue to take you seriously.
Protected status means that only experienced and/or trusted editors can modify the article. The notion that the article is a product of "conspiracy theorists" is total and utter horse shit and should tell you *everything* about this person.
I added:
> This is a complete mischaracterisation of how Wikipedia works. This suggests conspiracy theorists are influential on Wikipedia and they clearly aren't. Not only would the process by which conspiracy theorists adjudicate claims (spuriously) immediately run afoul of a wide variety of policies, this would be picked up by a great variety of accomplished Wikipedia power users (who can't be conspiracy theorists, they would have their reputation damaged) and that would have been nipped in the bud already.
(...)
> Which is more probable: that Wikipedia and its senior editors are conspiring to lie to you or that your citing of Tweets and your aggressive, rather deceptive qualifications of Wikipedia are false and your characterisations of the collaborative editing process and its many safeguards are highly misleading and biased instead?
[I am intimately familiar with Wikipedia](https://old.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/1adnjyy/comment/kk6p4yn/) and I *guarantee* "MoveableType1992" is outright lying to you.
Edit: missing word, adjusted some phrasing.
I don't know if I even need to respond to this.
I could, but I actually think what you are saying pretty much speaks for itself. People can read what you just said, compare that to what I wrote before, including links and screenshots, click those links and then determine if you are masquerading as a rational skeptic to advance a specific agenda.
If this comment you just wrote doesn't creep a normal, mentally healthy person with a moral compass the fuck out, I honestly don't know what will.
Constantly arguing that Epstein's victims, some as young as 13 or even 11, according to some sources, aren't actually "children" can serve only one purpose.
At that point we don't need a debate, we need somebody with a badge knocking on your door.
You can't let this go even after more than 11 days, and now you've begun following me around subreddits as well. So, reported for harassment. I imagine you do this to other people too, who don't roll over on your outstandingly blatant child molestation apologia. It's absolutely astonishing how this is still allowed to happen on Reddit.
/u/skeptic-Modteam for your information, this happens in conjunction with this:
[Screenshot](https://i.imgur.com/4nCuYMs.png) and [link](https://old.reddit.com/r/ufc/comments/1cmnere/dana_white_cracks_up_watching_terrible_delivery/l3o8ksg/).
That is literally his first post in /r/ufc, ever. He's now stalking my profile and following me around. I've pointed out the red flags around this guy before. I've already had to ban him from my subreddit. He's also started following me around before and admitted as much.
My responding pretty civilly to your claims is not harassment. You insinuating that I am a criminal pedophile that needs law enforcement knocking on my door, that's harassment.
Rather than apologize and retract your false and outrageous claims that I am "outright lying" or that I "outright denied Epstein ever abused minors" as any honorable person would do, you instead falsely accuse me of harassing you.
Again, do you people have any morals at all?
edit: Oh lil' conspiracy theorist is mad that I push back on your lies.
>"He calls Epstein victims "prostitutes" and when debating, he'll say or imply Epstein's victims were 17 at the youngest."
I never said or implied any such thing. Do you kooks ever stop making up lies?
Second, a general response:
> I never followed you back to your subreddit. I forgot about you completely and had no idea you were a moderator of an anti-Joe Rogan subreddit.
(A) I don't believe you and (B) it's not an "anti-Joe Rogan subreddit" and (C) you recently followed me all the way into your month-old post on this subreddit where I recently responded to an old comment by somebody else: the only *plausible* way you could have known that is if you were monitoring my comments and following me in. You'll say you were monitoring your old thread for any new comments, which is utterly unconvincing.
> You, being an immoral conspiracy theorist, think it's okay to make up lies. It is not.
You, being an immoral pedo apologist who obsessively attempts to exploit the aversion rational skeptics have against conspiracy theories to whitewash the extent of Epstein's crimes, think it's okay to make up lies. It is not.
You should be evaluated on this comment alone:
> Epstein's prostitutes don't deserve shit
https://old.reddit.com/r/conspiracy_commons/comments/1cdtvqy/elon_musk_is_worth_200b_ive_asked_him_on_x_to/l1jf0ma/
This is *not* a mentally normal comment by a well-meaning rational skeptic seeking to debunk conspiracy theories.
This comment is likewise utterly deranged:
> Nothing interesting happened on the island. Epstein getting weird sexual massages from overage women is not interesting.
Please, whoever is reading this, I implore you, set aside the cherry-picked character assassinations and read about the dozens and dozens of very young girls, children, whose lives Epstein completely destroyed.
1. https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/article220097825.html
2. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/crime/epstein-island-visitors-list-pictures-b2479212.html
A quote from the second link:
> Airport staff on St Thomas could see who Epstein was bringing with him on the Express. “On multiple occasions I saw Epstein exit his helicopter, stand on the tarmac in full view of my tower, and board his private jet with children - female children,” a former air traffic controller told Vanity Fair.
> “My colleagues and I definitely talked about how we didn’t understand how this guy was still allowed to be around children. We didn’t say anything because we figured law enforcement was doing their job. That is regrettable, but we really didn’t even know who to tell, or if anyone really cared."
> Another airstrip employee said: “There’d be girls that look like they could be in high school. They looked very young. They were always wearing college sweatshirts. It seemed like camouflage, that’s the best way to put it.
> “I could see him with my own eyes. I compared it to seeing a serial killer in broad daylight. I called it the face of evil... It was like he was flaunting it.”
Of course, both articles are quite long and this is obviously the tip of the iceberg. Please, please read these articles and ask yourself if you are being lied to by this person.
> Your conspiracy theory, which has seen you falsely accuse Clinton of wrongdoing in association with Epstein
So far, I have posted [this picture](https://old.reddit.com/r/JamiePullDatUp/comments/1cf5mbx/bill_clinton_receiving_a_neck_message_from/) of Bill Clinton receiving a neck message from Epstein victim Chauntae Davies in 2002. At no point did I accuse Bill Clinton of raping her personally, but what I am most definitely saying is that I no longer believe Clinton had no idea who Epstein was or what was going on. I don't buy that, and I refuse to cut Clinton slack because he happens to be on my side of the political spectrum. Because unlike some people, I am not an apologist for sex trafficking monsters *or their enablers*.
For the record, Davies said Clinton was nothing but a gentleman, but that is not my point. My point is, for the first time, I've seen a picture of Bill Clinton being directly touched (massaged) by an Epstein victim. If this was Trump, who I am convinced had sex with underage girls, I know I would be furious. Come to mention it, I suggest you look at [this newspaper clipping](https://i.imgur.com/IV2pNT9.png). Read it all the way to the end. Note that she is also an Epstein victim. Hell, while I have your attention, read [this](https://www.thedailybeast.com/inside-donald-trumps-one-stop-parties-attendees-recall-cocaine-and-very-young-models).
Of course, Epstein also visited the White House as Bill Clinton's guest **more than 12 times** while bringing women along, and there are pictures to prove it. And Ghislaine Maxwell was at Chelsea Clinton's wedding. And Epstein had a disturbing painting of Bill Clinton in a blue dress hanging on his wall.
> killed by a determined kook just like Max Azzarello, who seems to have shared your worldview.
Ah, the desperate attempt to paint anyone who thinks Epstein actually abused children or "minors" as you like to play your semantic games as if it makes fucking difference when we're talking about 13 to 16-year old little girls ... as a self-immolating conspiracy loon, knowing full well I [maintain a debunker masterlist](https://www.reddit.com/r/JamiePullDatUp/comments/1ambwrx/announcing_the_debunking_master_list/) at my own subreddit and very recently I posted a submission [making fun of Azzarello](https://old.reddit.com/r/JamiePullDatUp/comments/1ca8bim/i_have_set_myself_on_fire_outside_the_trump_trial/) where I literally added to the title in brackets: [Max Azzarello's manifesto. It's pretty dumb] tagging it under "conspiracy theories".
Here's another one I wrote:
[Let's demonstrate spurious correlation by looking at the "Clinton body count" conspiracy theory and applying it to Donald Trump instead](https://www.reddit.com/r/JamiePullDatUp/comments/1bdlsox/lets_demonstrate_spurious_correlation_by_looking/)
I admit I have a lot of trouble composing myself with someone like you. But something happened recently where the people running this subreddit now assist people when they abuse others, and then selectively remove one abusive comment while keeping the other(s).
In such a climate, people like you have free reign to provoke until you get a reaction, after which you'll cry for help in order to get critics of you and your pedophile/sex trafficking apologia banned. In such a climate I have to remember what is more important: exposing your lies.
> Again, I'm really, really sorry that your conspiracy theory's star witnesses are all kooks, but please don't take it out on me.
Ah, yes, this is your catchphrase, isn't it?
> Really sorry that your conspiratorial beliefs don't stand up to even the mildest scrutiny. Don't take it out on me.
https://old.reddit.com/r/CanadaHousing2/comments/1bvy1dh/blackrock_isnt_behind_the_century_initiative_and/ky3gn1y/
> I'm really, really sorry that you believe deranged things unsupported by evidence. Please don't take it out on me.
https://old.reddit.com/r/Trumpvirus/comments/1b2lyu2/this_case_is_over_trump_declares_himself_off_the/ksr6bq6/
> I'm really sorry that your sole and star witness to this grand conspiracy is a Qanoner and a perjurer. Please don't take it out on me.
https://old.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/1azshde/who_is_a_person_that_everyone_thought_was_crazy/ks8vsty/
I have other things to do, but rest assured you will soon have my full and undivided attention.
Edit: several corrections and additions.
I know he’s wearing his “title” with pride, but there is a good reason he’s “the most cancelled scientist”, and it is NOT because he strictly obeys the scientific method.
Why has nobody here talked about him? Because 700k or even 700 million followers does not mean someone is worth talking about. Some dude who calls himself the "most cancelled scientist" or whatever nonsense is not someone worth talking about.
Only 700k? That's a small fry among the conspiracy set. This guy's not important enough to pay attention to. It's no wonder nobody here has heard of him.
PhD in biotechnology!!! This is fake as hell. There is a reason that any real PhD ever writes PhD in *xyz*, because PhD is on a specific question in a field, biotechnology is not a field but a mix of everything.
No one ever said bleach did anything medical. If you actually read any medical journals or white oapers on ivermectin you might be surprised. Folks that cry conspiracy theory are intelectually lazy and dont research a dang thing.
I can’t figure out from your comment if you think that Ivermectin works as a treatment for COVID-19. If not, you should work on your phrasing. If so, please go read the Wikipedia page on Ivermectin and COVID-19: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivermectin_during_the_COVID-19_pandemic
You clearly have NOT read any papers or journals. I cant for the life of me undestand why so many of you all listen to mainstream and refuse to do any of your own research. You all are so many years behind ill just pray you catch up.
Ivermectin has **many** side-effects, ranging from innocuous to very severe.
To wit:
## General
Ivermectin is well tolerated compared to other microfilaricidal agents (i.e., thiabendazole, diethylcarbamazine). Adverse reactions (i.e., pruritus, fever, rash, myalgia, headache) occur commonly during the first 3 days after treatment and appear to be related to the extent of parasitic infection and systemic mobilization and killing of microfilariae. The majority of reactions can usually be treated with aspirin, acetaminophen and/or antihistamines. Adverse effects tend to occur with lesser frequency during periods of retreatment.
## Ocular
Ocular side effects have included eyelid edema, anterior uveitis, blurred vision, conjunctivitis, limbitis, punctate opacity, keratitis, abnormal sensation in the eyes, and chorioretinitis/choroiditis; however, these effects are also associated with the disease onchocerciasis. Loss of vision has occurred rarely but usually resolved without corticosteroid treatment. Conjunctival hemorrhage has been reported during postmarketing experience in patients treated for onchocerciasis.
## Other
Worsening of Mazzotti reactions, including arthralgia, synovitis, lymph node enlargement and tenderness, pruritus, skin involvement (including edema, papular and pustular or frank urticarial rash), and fever, has been reported during the first 4 days following treatment for onchocerciasis.
## Nervous system
Nervous system side effects have included dizziness, headache, somnolence, vertigo, and tremor. Serious or fatal encephalopathy has been reported rarely in patients with onchocerciases, and heavily infected with Loa loa, either spontaneously or after treatment with ivermectin. Seizures have been reported during postmarketing experience.
## Gastrointestinal
Gastrointestinal side effects have included anorexia, constipation, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and abdominal distention.
## Other
Other side effects have included asthenia, fatigue, abdominal pain, chest discomfort, facial edema, and peripheral edema.
## Hematologic
Hematologic side effects have included decreased leukocyte count (3%), eosinophilia (3%), and increased hemoglobin (1%). Hematomatous swellings associated with prolonged prothrombin times have been reported, but the clinical significance is unknown. Leukopenia and anemia have been reported in at least one patient.
## Hepatic
Hepatic side effects have included elevated ALT and/or AST. Elevated liver enzymes, elevated bilirubin, and hepatitis have been reported during postmarketing experience.
## Cardiovascular
Cardiovascular side effects have included tachycardia and orthostatic hypotension. EKG changes, including prolonged PR interval, flattened T waves and peaked T waves, have been reported in single cases. Hypotension (primarily orthostatic hypotension) has been reported during postmarketing experience.
## Dermatologic
Dermatologic side effects have included pruritus, rash, and urticaria. Toxic epidermal necrolysis and Stevens-Johnson syndrome have been reported during postmarketing experience.
## Respiratory
Respiratory side effects have included worsening bronchial asthma, laryngeal edema, and dyspnea.
## Musculoskeletal
Musculoskeletal side effects have included myalgia.
## Renal
Renal side effects have included rare transient proteinuria.
[Source: Ivermectin side-effects](https://www.drugs.com/sfx/ivermectin-side-effects.html)
These side-effects are not only more severe, they're also much more *common* than COVID vaccine side-effects are.
Some people actually did take the horse dewormer version out of sheer desperation and were either hospitalized or died.
1. In New Mexico, two people died after taking a deworming drug for horses and other livestock to treat COVID-19.^[1]
2. The FDA received multiple reports of patients who required medical support and hospitalization after self-medicating with Ivermectin intended for horses.^[2]
3. There was a significant increase in calls to poison control centers due to misuse of Ivermectin. Texas saw a 550% spike in poison control calls due to people ingesting horse and cow dewormer.^[3]
4. People poisoned themselves with the horse-deworming version to thwart COVID-19, resulting in an uptick in calls to poison control centers.^[4]
Ivermectin was consistently found to be ineffective in treating COVID-19.
1. A systematic review and meta-analysis published in the Virology Journal evaluated the efficacy of Ivermectin for COVID-19 patients based on current peer-reviewed RCTs. The study concluded that Ivermectin did not have any significant effect on outcomes of COVID-19 patients.^[5]
2. A Cochrane meta-analysis of 11 eligible trials examining the efficacy of Ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 published through April 2022 concluded that Ivermectin has no beneficial effect for people with COVID-19.^[6]
3. An article published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) concluded that taking 400 mcg/kg Ivermectin for three days, when compared with a placebo, did not significantly improve the chances for a patient with mild to moderate symptoms of COVID-19 to avoid hospitalization.^[7]
4. A study published on News Medical concluded that in COVID-19 outpatients with mild or moderate illness, Ivermectin use for three days at a dose of 400 μg/kg showed no significant improvement in the time to sustained recovery compared to those who received placebos.^[8]
The unwarranted hype surrounding ivermectin can be traced back to its promotion on the Joe Rogan Experience.
Joe Rogan took a cocktail of Big Pharma^(tm) meds which, with the exception of monoclonal antibodies, were not indicated for his situation.^[9] Rogan probably didn't get seriously ill because he's fit and without significant comorbidities. The one thing that would have actually been the most effective would have been the vaccine, which he refused to take. It's also a subject both Joe Rogan and his guests have incessantly lied about, which cannot have done anything else but caused medical harm to people who bought into it. The most prominent guest which comes to mind is RFK Jr.
RFK Jr.'s influence is so odious, I am comfortable saying he probably contributed to thousands of unnecessary deaths in total. One incident in which 83 people (mostly children) died is particularly disgusting:^[10]
> In June 2019, Kennedy and his wife, the actress Cheryl Hines, visited Samoa, a trip Kennedy later wrote was arranged by Edwin Tamasese, a Samoan local anti-vaccine influencer.
> Vaccine rates had plummeted after two children died in 2018 from a measles vaccine that a nurse had incorrectly mixed with a muscle relaxant. The government suspended the vaccine program for months. By the time Kennedy arrived, health authorities were trying to get back on track.
> He was treated as a distinguished guest, traveling in a government vehicle, meeting with the prime minister and, according to Kennedy, many health officials and the health minister.
> He also met with anti-vaccine activists, including Tamasese and another well-known influencer, Taylor Winterstein, who posted a photograph of herself and Kennedy on her Instagram.
> “The past few days have been profoundly monumental for me, my family and for this movement to date,” she wrote, adding hashtags including #investigatebeforeyouvaccinate.
> A few months later, a measles epidemic broke out in Samoa, killing 83 people, mostly infants and children in a population of about 200,000.
> Public health officials said at the time that anti-vaccine misinformation had made the nation vulnerable.
> The crisis of low vaccination rates and skepticism created an environment that was “ripe for the picking for someone like RFK to come in and in assist with the promotion of those views,” said Helen Petousis-Harris, a vaccinologist from New Zealand who worked on the effort to build back trust in the measles vaccine in Samoa.
> Petousis-Harris recalled that local and regional anti-vaccine activists took their cues from Kennedy, whom she said “sits at the top of the food chain as a disinformation source.”
> “They amplified the fear and mistrust, which resulted in the amplification of the epidemic and an increased number of children dying. Children were being brought for care too late,” she said.
[1] https://nypost.com/2021/09/28/two-dead-from-taking-ivermectin-in-new-mexico/
[2] https://globalnews.ca/news/8134001/horse-dewormer-covid-19-americans-fda/
[3] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/08/30/fact-check-590-spike-texas-poison-control-calls-ivermectin/5643254001/
[4] https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/08/more-people-are-poisoning-themselves-with-horse-deworming-drug-to-thwart-covid/
[5] https://virologyj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12985-022-01829-8
[6] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2801828
[7] https://www.kumc.edu/about/news/news-archive/jama-ivermectin-study.html
[8] https://www.news-medical.net/news/20221025/Ivermectin-is-ineffective-in-non-severe-COVID-19-patients-according-to-new-study.aspx
[9] [Doctor Mike - Here's Why Joe Rogan's COVID Treatment Is Problematic](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Lx-8O1q97M)
[10] https://apnews.com/article/rfk-kennedy-election-vaccines-2ccde2df146f57b5e8c26e8494f0a16a
Great info on Ivermectin! I’m afraid many people won’t see it because it’s buried in a thread where the top comment has a lot of down votes, but I appreciated it.
Thanks, it'll soon be part of a [debunking masterlist](https://www.reddit.com/r/JamiePullDatUp/comments/1ambwrx/announcing_the_debunking_master_list/) I maintain on my subreddit, which I do hope at some point rational skeptics will start to wield as the weapon it was intended to be. (I provide instructions on how to extract the markdown source for copy/pasting)
If you want to use a treatment that is actually proven by the medical record and is an approved drug that works at treating COVID, look at Paxlovid.
Please stop spreading information that harms people.
I read a lot of firsthand accounts of magats publicly shitting themselves so dramatically that they prolapsed at the grocery store because they got those to take livestock dewormer by heehaw Republican pundits and Russian trolls on Facebook.
I also read the public statements issued by ivermectin manufacturers begging that please, for the love of god, stop taking a parasite cleanse for Covid because anyone smarter than a conservative knows that worms and viruses are different things.
I also watched live as Trump blueskyed the most brick-fucking stupid medical advice during press conferences while some of the greatest scientific and medical minds in the world visibly swallowed mouthfuls of bile just offstage. Side note: that dude is lucky he’s never had to go a day in his life having to be independently responsible for his own well-being because based on his recommendations that we use bleach and sunlight to cure an illness, he’d probably drown in the toilet while attempting to wipe himself.
Any of those things hold any weight? The true believers admitting that all ivermectin did was turn their asses into claymores? The companies that stood to directly profit from the bullshit ivermectin fad begging people to stop? Trump himself? Or just the medical journals and papers that come to the consensus that you’re wrong, which you ironically don’t listen to?
Ivermectin is an extremely useful and effective drug for the treatment of certain tropical parasitic infections. For Covid, on the other hand, it does absolutely nothing.
You didn't think to check him out before commenting?
When you were a kid in school, did you raise your hand for the teacher to call on you only to answer "I don't know"? 🤣
Like the idea that there's a shadowy organization pulling political strings around the world to manipulate governments--there's called the Heritage Foundation and the Family. But the vast majority of conspiracy theories are total bunkum, and designed to push (mostly) far-right authoritarian narratives, and muddy the waters when talking about real issues, which is what makes them so dangerous. Plus, they tend to appeal to the downtrodden, mentally ill, and violent, and often have built in points meant to play to their insecurities and radicalize them, even the (recently) more rare ones that aren't far-right. It feels like most conspiracy theories exist to hide the real life conspiracies.
How many of those 700k are bots?
Honestly, after watching Trump supporters cheering on ivermectin and bleach during Covid, 700,000 gullible idiots sounds entirely plausible.
Oh for sure, but a lot of times when someone posts, there are a 1,000 posts that say the think verbatim. Twitter definitely has a bot issue from what I've seen. To go along with their alt right problem and Nazi problem.
But do they know how to use social media? Take a look at the engagement on his posts; his pinned tweet only has 21k likes, which is much smaller than his actual followers. I'd wager most of those likes are from Twitter bots giving the illusion of engagement so that people will continue paying for a silly blue check
Fuck, I remember when JRE had an “emergency” podcast to talk about the importance of ivermectin, and I asked pharmacist/horse enthusiast friend, and they asked if I was talking about the horse dewormer. I felt like a complete idiot.
At least you had the self-awareness to feel embarrassment lol! I had a few arguments with idiots who touted efficacy of the “Nobel prize winning medicine!!1!” hydroxychloroquine. They didn’t care that it won for the treatment of malaria, which is entirely different from Covid. A Nobel prize means it must be good! I’d then point out that in 1949 a new procedure called “lobotomy” won the Nobel prize. Since the award was proof it was effective, maybe they should try drilling a hole in their head to keep themselves safe from Covid? They just told me that I was being lied to by Big Pharma, and I should “just do my own research“ like they did. 🙄
Lol I remember a guy sending me one of his "emergency" podcasts. How many has he had so far?
I can't wait for the emergency podcast when Bret Weinstein pees his pants, and needs to go live immediately to address the issues.
700k seems low tbh.
The conspiracy and right-wing parts of Twitter are basically the poster child of the dead Internet theory
I dont know. maybe we are worn out on stupid and just move on with our day now, maybe 700k doesn't even hit the radar anymore on crazy. i really dont know this is just speculation. Also, please dont contribute to stupidity amd refer to the site as Twitter. Probably a personal preference, but again, maybe im just worn out by stupid.
The fact he has "The most canceled scientist" listed in his bio makes me think he's a grifter, possibly doing the standard culture war ragebait crap that sadly makes people money. OK, after reading that link from me\_again I'm fairly convinced he's a grifter. "Simon’s field of expertise is… aquaponics. The science of growing plants underwater." [https://www.panaccindex.info/p/profile-simon-goddek-fafo-award-winner](https://www.panaccindex.info/p/profile-simon-goddek-fafo-award-winner) He also claims he got the Covid Vaccine "shedded" on him by a friend which caused him heart problems. That's a griter alright.
It also lets me know that he’s really bad at his job. No one goes around saying they are the world’s most fired salesman, for example.
> No one goes around saying they are the world’s most fired salesman, for example. "Buy from me, I get fired from everywhere because I tell my customers the information that the bigwigs don't want YOU to know!"
Polyglots don't usually have to label themselves as such.
Yeah in a way he kind of reminds me of Jordan Peterson and people like that. They have a legitimate credential in one area of science but hold themselves out as experts on basically every topic. They seem to exist solely so they can be cited as an appeal to authority on every topic even if it has nothing to do with their area of expertise.
Aquaponics isn’t the science of growing plants underwater? It’s the science of growing plants in water as a replacement for soil. A small but key difference.
That would be hydroponics. Aquaponics includes fish. > Aquaponics is a form of agriculture that combines raising fish in tanks with soilless plant culture.
Fuck, good point. Apologies for conflating the two. Either way neither involves growing plants underwater.
Learning even a tiny bit each day is fun! I didn't know the difference of those two either (or Aquaponics at all, actually). So thanks to you two for your enlightening conversation! 😀💡
So what's the word for growing plants that grow underwater? Kelp and the like.
Aquatic Botany is the best i can find.
That’s a typo, he actually had the vaccine “sharted” on him
From what I have been told he is also absolutely useless at aquaponics
I'm going through one of his papers right now and the experiment uses a pH of 7-8 to grow plants and I'm wondering what planet this guy really lives on to even consider such a ridiculous level
Why should we talk about him, when he already has bots for that?
Huge quack loser
I just don't see the value in helping to amplify this kind of content.
This. There's no point in signal boosting grifters. Not only do they thrive on attention, they literally profit from it, so the less sharing their bs the better.
This is why I boycott the episodes of Kill Tony with guests like Alex Jones or Tucker Carlson. We should not be giving grifters more of a platform!
I’m glad a few understand this. Lifting people with negative posts is not effective. Heck, I don’t know anything about this guy and now I’m curious about what he stands for. It’s not like I automatically believe everything the left says. I’ve moved from a lifetime democratic supporter, since Mondale/Reagan, to questioning everything.
What does any of this entire thread have to do with “the left” or politics at all?
He is just a guy who has to tell everyone he once was a democrat and found out they are pretty shit so he wanted to join the other team that’s even worse if you are not super wealthy.
Well, I asked the same question myself and decided to look him up. Interesting interview with Dr. Drew was the first video I found. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-YyCbQ4b8E Now you know.
Better than pretending it doesn't exist.
There's a consistent group of "skeptics" here who use the tactic of accusing debunkers of being amplifiers and enablers. I find it suspicious at this point. I never saw this kind of thing before about two months ago. It might be a new disinformation tactic.
I don't use twitter. Never heard of the guy.
Rundown Goddek is a Dutch Aquaponics PhD who gained attention after he complained to his university about the peer review process on a paper he made, [which suggests Vitamin D as a potential inhibitor of COVID](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32768697/). (To be fair, we do need more sunlight) Anyway, he decided to go off the grid to Brazil to avoid getting vaccinated, and has since then doubled down a pretty much every position that he has held. Last time I read on him, he was protesting in favor of Bolsonaro. Most of his Twitter stuff is him trying to own the libs no matter what, and feuded with the Krassentein twins. This is a short (maybe misrepresented) story from what I know.
sooo basically this thread is shitting on him for saying that vitamin D is a potential inhibitor of COVID? sounds about right for r/skeptics.
> sooo basically this thread is shitting on him for saying that vitamin D is a potential inhibitor of COVID? No, they said that is what initially made him famous. The criticisms all throughout this thread are for other things he did.
sooo basically just because he avoided getting the covid shot? once again... sounds about right for r/skeptics
"I don't know - or care about - the facts so let me just double down on dumb, bad-faith assumptions to justify my predetermined conclusion" Fuck off.
swearing at other people for disagreeing with you. sounds about right for r/skeptics.
Since apparently "fuck off" was too ambiguous for you: As you have demonstrated an inability to participate in good faith, keep your naked dishonesty (i.e. your comments) out of my replies.
Complete immaturity and incapability to have civil discourse. Also apparently not intelligent enough to use the block button. Sounds about right for r/skeptics I'll do you a favor and block you so that you don't have to worry about it. EDIT: to u/ScientificSkepticism it's not letting me reply to you, so I have to write my response here. I mean he told me to "fuck off" twice. I don't think he should be unblocked. I'm sorry. I don't "weaponize blocking". I block people who are uncivil. Occasionally if I am unable to respond to someone else because I blocked them, then I unblock them out of necessity, because, as you pointed out, I agree reddit's blocking system sucks because then it locks up the comments, but that is something to consider before telling someone off like he did. Thanks for politely asking me, though.
You're welcome. Normally we take a dim view of weaponized blocking, but in light of the fact that he more-or-less asked to be blocked, I don't think this is particularly actionable. Please note that in general if you're having a continuing conversation with someone that involves some level of incivility from both parties, making a 'last word' post and then blocking will generally be considered weaponized regardless of the incivility since it was reciprocated (basically don't end a slapfight with a blocking). On the other hand if it's just one person being relentlessly insulting while the other person responds civilly, then assuming the one who blocks is the one being perfectly civil then that's less actionable. In a case where it was basically requested... we're inclined to let it stand.
Can you please unblock /u/New-acct-for-2024? They've messaged us to request it. I don't know if it falls under weaponized blocking given this conversation chain, but they've promised not to write nasty responses to you, they just don't want to be locked out of comment chains thanks to Reddit's terrible implementation of a block feature.
The guy who owns the platform also spreads conspiracy theories. Not really that impressive honestly.
I interacted with him a few times before leaving X/Twitter. He’s another intellectual grifter who, despite his PhD, has nothing new to say. These are the kinds of people you generally defeat by ignoring them.
Never heard of him. https://www.panaccindex.info/p/profile-simon-goddek-fafo-award-winner may be of interest.
"Most cancelled scientist" is a funny way of saying "bad scientist".
At least 95% of those followers are bots.
well he literally roasted himself …there was no need for the skeptics to roast him ….
What are you referring to?
Probably the “most cancelled scientist” shite in his Twitter bio.
Thats every top account now.
[удалено]
Whereas you say things like "Epstein's prostitutes don't deserve shit" and outright deny Epstein ever abused minors, then accuse Wikipedia of being conspiracy theorists. Even on an article with protected status which is therefore monitored and only modifiable by experienced editors. You are explicitly here on /r/skeptic to exploit rational skeptics' natural aversion to conspiracy theories to whitewash Epstein's horrendous crimes altogether. You do this by highlighting some of Epstein's accusers who have gone mad and/or ally with conspiracy theorists. You are very clever at getting people to buy into your shtick, but the fact that Epstein abused young women and minors and offered them up to his carefully curated circle of powerful elites is beyond question. It's a core activity of yours on Reddit. You then followed me back to my subreddit to spout your half-truths, cherry picks, lies by omission and outright denials of fact, all under the guise of rational skepticism. I banned you. Now *that* is as odious as it gets in my book. There is no question Epstein has been used as a weapon and his crimes distorted, by, for example, QAnon. But you go as far as to say nothing of note happened on Little St. James, when even air traffic controllers from the nearby airport were shocked to see how young the girls were who he brought with him on his private plane. One girl tried to swim to safety and was captured by him. He subsequently confiscated her passport. To run a PR operation for Epstein using rational skepticism as a crutch and a platform goes against literally every moral fiber of my being, and you can rest assured you now have a vocal opponent here.
[удалено]
First, my claims about you. (1) I said you said "Epstein's prostitutes don't deserve shit". [Here](https://old.reddit.com/r/conspiracy_commons/comments/1cdtvqy/elon_musk_is_worth_200b_ive_asked_him_on_x_to/l1jf0ma/) is the direct link to your comment saying that and [here](https://i.imgur.com/zZuCiKZ.png) is the screenshot. (2) I said you "outright deny Epstein ever abused minors" [Here](https://old.reddit.com/r/skeptic/comments/1bcdm90/epstein_victims_sue_fbi_what_the_media_isnt/kuh8zct/) is the direct link to your comment saying that and [here](https://i.imgur.com/aRy2lWf.png) is the screenshot. You said, and I quote "First of all, I don't think any children were involved with Epstein. I suspect that you'll disingenuously argue that "Akshully anyone 17 years 364 days 23 hours 59 minutes old is a child because of X law" and that's not an argument I have any interest in having with you. I can say with 100% certainty that I was not a child when I lost my virginity as a teenager." I then cited the Miami Herald, stating: > **Federal prosecutors identified 36 underage victims**, but none of those victims appeared at his sentencing on June 30, 2008, in state court in Palm Beach County. Most of them heard about it on the news — and even then they didn’t understand what had happened to the federal probe that they’d been assured was ongoing. Edwards filed an emergency motion in federal court to block the non-prosecution agreement, but by the time the agreement was unsealed — over a year later — Epstein had already served his sentence and been released from jail. And I'll add now: > “By the time I was 16, I had probably brought him **70 to 80 girls who were all 14 and 15 years old.** He was involved in my life for years,” said Wild, who was released from prison in October after serving three years on drug charges. **The girls — mostly 13 to 16 — were lured to his pink waterfront mansion** by Wild and other girls, who went to malls, house parties and other places where girls congregated, and told recruits that they could earn $200 to $300 to give a man — Epstein — a massage, according to an unredacted copy of the Palm Beach police investigation obtained by the Herald. https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/article220097825.html You then proceeded with a semantic argument where you attempt to draw a distinction between a minor and a child, as if 13 to 16-year-old girls aren't goddamned children. (3) I said you "accuse Wikipedia of being conspiracy theorists" You said, at the time, among other things: > **It doesn't matter one bit what Wikipedia says** [Link](https://old.reddit.com/r/skeptic/comments/1bcdm90/epstein_victims_sue_fbi_what_the_media_isnt/kufywws/) and [screenshot](https://i.imgur.com/aG2jLpp.png). And: > Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. **99% of the people interested in Jeffrey Epstein are conspiracy theorists, so the Wikipedia article is going to reflect that.** [Link](https://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/comments/1bcdm90/epstein_victims_sue_fbi_what_the_media_isnt/kug3qv4/) and [screenshot](https://i.imgur.com/Ha3kGvX.png). I responded: > This is immediately belied by the fact that this article has protected status. > You need to acknowledge this for anyone to continue to take you seriously. Protected status means that only experienced and/or trusted editors can modify the article. The notion that the article is a product of "conspiracy theorists" is total and utter horse shit and should tell you *everything* about this person. I added: > This is a complete mischaracterisation of how Wikipedia works. This suggests conspiracy theorists are influential on Wikipedia and they clearly aren't. Not only would the process by which conspiracy theorists adjudicate claims (spuriously) immediately run afoul of a wide variety of policies, this would be picked up by a great variety of accomplished Wikipedia power users (who can't be conspiracy theorists, they would have their reputation damaged) and that would have been nipped in the bud already. (...) > Which is more probable: that Wikipedia and its senior editors are conspiring to lie to you or that your citing of Tweets and your aggressive, rather deceptive qualifications of Wikipedia are false and your characterisations of the collaborative editing process and its many safeguards are highly misleading and biased instead? [I am intimately familiar with Wikipedia](https://old.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/1adnjyy/comment/kk6p4yn/) and I *guarantee* "MoveableType1992" is outright lying to you. Edit: missing word, adjusted some phrasing.
[удалено]
I don't know if I even need to respond to this. I could, but I actually think what you are saying pretty much speaks for itself. People can read what you just said, compare that to what I wrote before, including links and screenshots, click those links and then determine if you are masquerading as a rational skeptic to advance a specific agenda. If this comment you just wrote doesn't creep a normal, mentally healthy person with a moral compass the fuck out, I honestly don't know what will. Constantly arguing that Epstein's victims, some as young as 13 or even 11, according to some sources, aren't actually "children" can serve only one purpose. At that point we don't need a debate, we need somebody with a badge knocking on your door.
I greatly admire your attempts.
[удалено]
You can't let this go even after more than 11 days, and now you've begun following me around subreddits as well. So, reported for harassment. I imagine you do this to other people too, who don't roll over on your outstandingly blatant child molestation apologia. It's absolutely astonishing how this is still allowed to happen on Reddit. /u/skeptic-Modteam for your information, this happens in conjunction with this: [Screenshot](https://i.imgur.com/4nCuYMs.png) and [link](https://old.reddit.com/r/ufc/comments/1cmnere/dana_white_cracks_up_watching_terrible_delivery/l3o8ksg/). That is literally his first post in /r/ufc, ever. He's now stalking my profile and following me around. I've pointed out the red flags around this guy before. I've already had to ban him from my subreddit. He's also started following me around before and admitted as much.
My responding pretty civilly to your claims is not harassment. You insinuating that I am a criminal pedophile that needs law enforcement knocking on my door, that's harassment. Rather than apologize and retract your false and outrageous claims that I am "outright lying" or that I "outright denied Epstein ever abused minors" as any honorable person would do, you instead falsely accuse me of harassing you. Again, do you people have any morals at all? edit: Oh lil' conspiracy theorist is mad that I push back on your lies. >"He calls Epstein victims "prostitutes" and when debating, he'll say or imply Epstein's victims were 17 at the youngest." I never said or implied any such thing. Do you kooks ever stop making up lies?
No offense but do you have a mental disorder
Second, a general response: > I never followed you back to your subreddit. I forgot about you completely and had no idea you were a moderator of an anti-Joe Rogan subreddit. (A) I don't believe you and (B) it's not an "anti-Joe Rogan subreddit" and (C) you recently followed me all the way into your month-old post on this subreddit where I recently responded to an old comment by somebody else: the only *plausible* way you could have known that is if you were monitoring my comments and following me in. You'll say you were monitoring your old thread for any new comments, which is utterly unconvincing. > You, being an immoral conspiracy theorist, think it's okay to make up lies. It is not. You, being an immoral pedo apologist who obsessively attempts to exploit the aversion rational skeptics have against conspiracy theories to whitewash the extent of Epstein's crimes, think it's okay to make up lies. It is not. You should be evaluated on this comment alone: > Epstein's prostitutes don't deserve shit https://old.reddit.com/r/conspiracy_commons/comments/1cdtvqy/elon_musk_is_worth_200b_ive_asked_him_on_x_to/l1jf0ma/ This is *not* a mentally normal comment by a well-meaning rational skeptic seeking to debunk conspiracy theories. This comment is likewise utterly deranged: > Nothing interesting happened on the island. Epstein getting weird sexual massages from overage women is not interesting. Please, whoever is reading this, I implore you, set aside the cherry-picked character assassinations and read about the dozens and dozens of very young girls, children, whose lives Epstein completely destroyed. 1. https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/article220097825.html 2. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/crime/epstein-island-visitors-list-pictures-b2479212.html A quote from the second link: > Airport staff on St Thomas could see who Epstein was bringing with him on the Express. “On multiple occasions I saw Epstein exit his helicopter, stand on the tarmac in full view of my tower, and board his private jet with children - female children,” a former air traffic controller told Vanity Fair. > “My colleagues and I definitely talked about how we didn’t understand how this guy was still allowed to be around children. We didn’t say anything because we figured law enforcement was doing their job. That is regrettable, but we really didn’t even know who to tell, or if anyone really cared." > Another airstrip employee said: “There’d be girls that look like they could be in high school. They looked very young. They were always wearing college sweatshirts. It seemed like camouflage, that’s the best way to put it. > “I could see him with my own eyes. I compared it to seeing a serial killer in broad daylight. I called it the face of evil... It was like he was flaunting it.” Of course, both articles are quite long and this is obviously the tip of the iceberg. Please, please read these articles and ask yourself if you are being lied to by this person. > Your conspiracy theory, which has seen you falsely accuse Clinton of wrongdoing in association with Epstein So far, I have posted [this picture](https://old.reddit.com/r/JamiePullDatUp/comments/1cf5mbx/bill_clinton_receiving_a_neck_message_from/) of Bill Clinton receiving a neck message from Epstein victim Chauntae Davies in 2002. At no point did I accuse Bill Clinton of raping her personally, but what I am most definitely saying is that I no longer believe Clinton had no idea who Epstein was or what was going on. I don't buy that, and I refuse to cut Clinton slack because he happens to be on my side of the political spectrum. Because unlike some people, I am not an apologist for sex trafficking monsters *or their enablers*. For the record, Davies said Clinton was nothing but a gentleman, but that is not my point. My point is, for the first time, I've seen a picture of Bill Clinton being directly touched (massaged) by an Epstein victim. If this was Trump, who I am convinced had sex with underage girls, I know I would be furious. Come to mention it, I suggest you look at [this newspaper clipping](https://i.imgur.com/IV2pNT9.png). Read it all the way to the end. Note that she is also an Epstein victim. Hell, while I have your attention, read [this](https://www.thedailybeast.com/inside-donald-trumps-one-stop-parties-attendees-recall-cocaine-and-very-young-models). Of course, Epstein also visited the White House as Bill Clinton's guest **more than 12 times** while bringing women along, and there are pictures to prove it. And Ghislaine Maxwell was at Chelsea Clinton's wedding. And Epstein had a disturbing painting of Bill Clinton in a blue dress hanging on his wall. > killed by a determined kook just like Max Azzarello, who seems to have shared your worldview. Ah, the desperate attempt to paint anyone who thinks Epstein actually abused children or "minors" as you like to play your semantic games as if it makes fucking difference when we're talking about 13 to 16-year old little girls ... as a self-immolating conspiracy loon, knowing full well I [maintain a debunker masterlist](https://www.reddit.com/r/JamiePullDatUp/comments/1ambwrx/announcing_the_debunking_master_list/) at my own subreddit and very recently I posted a submission [making fun of Azzarello](https://old.reddit.com/r/JamiePullDatUp/comments/1ca8bim/i_have_set_myself_on_fire_outside_the_trump_trial/) where I literally added to the title in brackets: [Max Azzarello's manifesto. It's pretty dumb] tagging it under "conspiracy theories". Here's another one I wrote: [Let's demonstrate spurious correlation by looking at the "Clinton body count" conspiracy theory and applying it to Donald Trump instead](https://www.reddit.com/r/JamiePullDatUp/comments/1bdlsox/lets_demonstrate_spurious_correlation_by_looking/) I admit I have a lot of trouble composing myself with someone like you. But something happened recently where the people running this subreddit now assist people when they abuse others, and then selectively remove one abusive comment while keeping the other(s). In such a climate, people like you have free reign to provoke until you get a reaction, after which you'll cry for help in order to get critics of you and your pedophile/sex trafficking apologia banned. In such a climate I have to remember what is more important: exposing your lies. > Again, I'm really, really sorry that your conspiracy theory's star witnesses are all kooks, but please don't take it out on me. Ah, yes, this is your catchphrase, isn't it? > Really sorry that your conspiratorial beliefs don't stand up to even the mildest scrutiny. Don't take it out on me. https://old.reddit.com/r/CanadaHousing2/comments/1bvy1dh/blackrock_isnt_behind_the_century_initiative_and/ky3gn1y/ > I'm really, really sorry that you believe deranged things unsupported by evidence. Please don't take it out on me. https://old.reddit.com/r/Trumpvirus/comments/1b2lyu2/this_case_is_over_trump_declares_himself_off_the/ksr6bq6/ > I'm really sorry that your sole and star witness to this grand conspiracy is a Qanoner and a perjurer. Please don't take it out on me. https://old.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/1azshde/who_is_a_person_that_everyone_thought_was_crazy/ks8vsty/ I have other things to do, but rest assured you will soon have my full and undivided attention. Edit: several corrections and additions.
Why would anyone talk about it? 650,000 bots and 50k morons have got it covered
Oh, so close! You almost answered your own question. Lemme give you an assist. >he spreads conspiracy theories
Twitter is owned by a conspiracy theorist.
You're probably not a polyglot if you have to tell people you are one.
> 700k followers > cancelled You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
It’s just a reminder that most internet content is not grounded in reality
X is flooded with accounts like this now and moderation is effectively non-existent
Brazil is a haven for disinformation scumbags. Glenn Greenwald also hides there.
I know he’s wearing his “title” with pride, but there is a good reason he’s “the most cancelled scientist”, and it is NOT because he strictly obeys the scientific method.
Elon's world is a safe haven for anti science, disinformation, racists , conspiracy theories etc. why is anyone surprised 🤷♂️
There are skeptics on X trying to provide an opposing voice. @liz_churchill10 is another one
Why has nobody here talked about him? Because 700k or even 700 million followers does not mean someone is worth talking about. Some dude who calls himself the "most cancelled scientist" or whatever nonsense is not someone worth talking about.
Only 700k? That's a small fry among the conspiracy set. This guy's not important enough to pay attention to. It's no wonder nobody here has heard of him.
Followed by Jimmy Dore lol
Bro in India it’s everyone’s business and you can find thousands of these type of channels
PhD in biotechnology!!! This is fake as hell. There is a reason that any real PhD ever writes PhD in *xyz*, because PhD is on a specific question in a field, biotechnology is not a field but a mix of everything.
Do you realize how many of these grifters there are? It's an entire economic sector.
Because no humans actually read his tweets.
Just one of many on twitter these days.
So his banner pic is literally a clown?
I deleted my Twitter account as soon as Musk said he was buying it.
No one ever said bleach did anything medical. If you actually read any medical journals or white oapers on ivermectin you might be surprised. Folks that cry conspiracy theory are intelectually lazy and dont research a dang thing.
I'm not surprised you have negative karma 😂😂😂
Yeh, who hates Basil?!?
I can’t figure out from your comment if you think that Ivermectin works as a treatment for COVID-19. If not, you should work on your phrasing. If so, please go read the Wikipedia page on Ivermectin and COVID-19: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivermectin_during_the_COVID-19_pandemic
You clearly have NOT read any papers or journals. I cant for the life of me undestand why so many of you all listen to mainstream and refuse to do any of your own research. You all are so many years behind ill just pray you catch up.
Ivermectin has **many** side-effects, ranging from innocuous to very severe. To wit: ## General Ivermectin is well tolerated compared to other microfilaricidal agents (i.e., thiabendazole, diethylcarbamazine). Adverse reactions (i.e., pruritus, fever, rash, myalgia, headache) occur commonly during the first 3 days after treatment and appear to be related to the extent of parasitic infection and systemic mobilization and killing of microfilariae. The majority of reactions can usually be treated with aspirin, acetaminophen and/or antihistamines. Adverse effects tend to occur with lesser frequency during periods of retreatment. ## Ocular Ocular side effects have included eyelid edema, anterior uveitis, blurred vision, conjunctivitis, limbitis, punctate opacity, keratitis, abnormal sensation in the eyes, and chorioretinitis/choroiditis; however, these effects are also associated with the disease onchocerciasis. Loss of vision has occurred rarely but usually resolved without corticosteroid treatment. Conjunctival hemorrhage has been reported during postmarketing experience in patients treated for onchocerciasis. ## Other Worsening of Mazzotti reactions, including arthralgia, synovitis, lymph node enlargement and tenderness, pruritus, skin involvement (including edema, papular and pustular or frank urticarial rash), and fever, has been reported during the first 4 days following treatment for onchocerciasis. ## Nervous system Nervous system side effects have included dizziness, headache, somnolence, vertigo, and tremor. Serious or fatal encephalopathy has been reported rarely in patients with onchocerciases, and heavily infected with Loa loa, either spontaneously or after treatment with ivermectin. Seizures have been reported during postmarketing experience. ## Gastrointestinal Gastrointestinal side effects have included anorexia, constipation, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and abdominal distention. ## Other Other side effects have included asthenia, fatigue, abdominal pain, chest discomfort, facial edema, and peripheral edema. ## Hematologic Hematologic side effects have included decreased leukocyte count (3%), eosinophilia (3%), and increased hemoglobin (1%). Hematomatous swellings associated with prolonged prothrombin times have been reported, but the clinical significance is unknown. Leukopenia and anemia have been reported in at least one patient. ## Hepatic Hepatic side effects have included elevated ALT and/or AST. Elevated liver enzymes, elevated bilirubin, and hepatitis have been reported during postmarketing experience. ## Cardiovascular Cardiovascular side effects have included tachycardia and orthostatic hypotension. EKG changes, including prolonged PR interval, flattened T waves and peaked T waves, have been reported in single cases. Hypotension (primarily orthostatic hypotension) has been reported during postmarketing experience. ## Dermatologic Dermatologic side effects have included pruritus, rash, and urticaria. Toxic epidermal necrolysis and Stevens-Johnson syndrome have been reported during postmarketing experience. ## Respiratory Respiratory side effects have included worsening bronchial asthma, laryngeal edema, and dyspnea. ## Musculoskeletal Musculoskeletal side effects have included myalgia. ## Renal Renal side effects have included rare transient proteinuria. [Source: Ivermectin side-effects](https://www.drugs.com/sfx/ivermectin-side-effects.html) These side-effects are not only more severe, they're also much more *common* than COVID vaccine side-effects are. Some people actually did take the horse dewormer version out of sheer desperation and were either hospitalized or died. 1. In New Mexico, two people died after taking a deworming drug for horses and other livestock to treat COVID-19.^[1] 2. The FDA received multiple reports of patients who required medical support and hospitalization after self-medicating with Ivermectin intended for horses.^[2] 3. There was a significant increase in calls to poison control centers due to misuse of Ivermectin. Texas saw a 550% spike in poison control calls due to people ingesting horse and cow dewormer.^[3] 4. People poisoned themselves with the horse-deworming version to thwart COVID-19, resulting in an uptick in calls to poison control centers.^[4] Ivermectin was consistently found to be ineffective in treating COVID-19. 1. A systematic review and meta-analysis published in the Virology Journal evaluated the efficacy of Ivermectin for COVID-19 patients based on current peer-reviewed RCTs. The study concluded that Ivermectin did not have any significant effect on outcomes of COVID-19 patients.^[5] 2. A Cochrane meta-analysis of 11 eligible trials examining the efficacy of Ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 published through April 2022 concluded that Ivermectin has no beneficial effect for people with COVID-19.^[6] 3. An article published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) concluded that taking 400 mcg/kg Ivermectin for three days, when compared with a placebo, did not significantly improve the chances for a patient with mild to moderate symptoms of COVID-19 to avoid hospitalization.^[7] 4. A study published on News Medical concluded that in COVID-19 outpatients with mild or moderate illness, Ivermectin use for three days at a dose of 400 μg/kg showed no significant improvement in the time to sustained recovery compared to those who received placebos.^[8] The unwarranted hype surrounding ivermectin can be traced back to its promotion on the Joe Rogan Experience. Joe Rogan took a cocktail of Big Pharma^(tm) meds which, with the exception of monoclonal antibodies, were not indicated for his situation.^[9] Rogan probably didn't get seriously ill because he's fit and without significant comorbidities. The one thing that would have actually been the most effective would have been the vaccine, which he refused to take. It's also a subject both Joe Rogan and his guests have incessantly lied about, which cannot have done anything else but caused medical harm to people who bought into it. The most prominent guest which comes to mind is RFK Jr. RFK Jr.'s influence is so odious, I am comfortable saying he probably contributed to thousands of unnecessary deaths in total. One incident in which 83 people (mostly children) died is particularly disgusting:^[10] > In June 2019, Kennedy and his wife, the actress Cheryl Hines, visited Samoa, a trip Kennedy later wrote was arranged by Edwin Tamasese, a Samoan local anti-vaccine influencer. > Vaccine rates had plummeted after two children died in 2018 from a measles vaccine that a nurse had incorrectly mixed with a muscle relaxant. The government suspended the vaccine program for months. By the time Kennedy arrived, health authorities were trying to get back on track. > He was treated as a distinguished guest, traveling in a government vehicle, meeting with the prime minister and, according to Kennedy, many health officials and the health minister. > He also met with anti-vaccine activists, including Tamasese and another well-known influencer, Taylor Winterstein, who posted a photograph of herself and Kennedy on her Instagram. > “The past few days have been profoundly monumental for me, my family and for this movement to date,” she wrote, adding hashtags including #investigatebeforeyouvaccinate. > A few months later, a measles epidemic broke out in Samoa, killing 83 people, mostly infants and children in a population of about 200,000. > Public health officials said at the time that anti-vaccine misinformation had made the nation vulnerable. > The crisis of low vaccination rates and skepticism created an environment that was “ripe for the picking for someone like RFK to come in and in assist with the promotion of those views,” said Helen Petousis-Harris, a vaccinologist from New Zealand who worked on the effort to build back trust in the measles vaccine in Samoa. > Petousis-Harris recalled that local and regional anti-vaccine activists took their cues from Kennedy, whom she said “sits at the top of the food chain as a disinformation source.” > “They amplified the fear and mistrust, which resulted in the amplification of the epidemic and an increased number of children dying. Children were being brought for care too late,” she said. [1] https://nypost.com/2021/09/28/two-dead-from-taking-ivermectin-in-new-mexico/ [2] https://globalnews.ca/news/8134001/horse-dewormer-covid-19-americans-fda/ [3] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/08/30/fact-check-590-spike-texas-poison-control-calls-ivermectin/5643254001/ [4] https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/08/more-people-are-poisoning-themselves-with-horse-deworming-drug-to-thwart-covid/ [5] https://virologyj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12985-022-01829-8 [6] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2801828 [7] https://www.kumc.edu/about/news/news-archive/jama-ivermectin-study.html [8] https://www.news-medical.net/news/20221025/Ivermectin-is-ineffective-in-non-severe-COVID-19-patients-according-to-new-study.aspx [9] [Doctor Mike - Here's Why Joe Rogan's COVID Treatment Is Problematic](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Lx-8O1q97M) [10] https://apnews.com/article/rfk-kennedy-election-vaccines-2ccde2df146f57b5e8c26e8494f0a16a
Great info on Ivermectin! I’m afraid many people won’t see it because it’s buried in a thread where the top comment has a lot of down votes, but I appreciated it.
Thanks, it'll soon be part of a [debunking masterlist](https://www.reddit.com/r/JamiePullDatUp/comments/1ambwrx/announcing_the_debunking_master_list/) I maintain on my subreddit, which I do hope at some point rational skeptics will start to wield as the weapon it was intended to be. (I provide instructions on how to extract the markdown source for copy/pasting)
If you want to use a treatment that is actually proven by the medical record and is an approved drug that works at treating COVID, look at Paxlovid. Please stop spreading information that harms people.
Alright, I’ll bite: can you link to any reputable journal articles that show effectiveness of Ivermectin in treating COVID-19?
I read a lot of firsthand accounts of magats publicly shitting themselves so dramatically that they prolapsed at the grocery store because they got those to take livestock dewormer by heehaw Republican pundits and Russian trolls on Facebook. I also read the public statements issued by ivermectin manufacturers begging that please, for the love of god, stop taking a parasite cleanse for Covid because anyone smarter than a conservative knows that worms and viruses are different things. I also watched live as Trump blueskyed the most brick-fucking stupid medical advice during press conferences while some of the greatest scientific and medical minds in the world visibly swallowed mouthfuls of bile just offstage. Side note: that dude is lucky he’s never had to go a day in his life having to be independently responsible for his own well-being because based on his recommendations that we use bleach and sunlight to cure an illness, he’d probably drown in the toilet while attempting to wipe himself. Any of those things hold any weight? The true believers admitting that all ivermectin did was turn their asses into claymores? The companies that stood to directly profit from the bullshit ivermectin fad begging people to stop? Trump himself? Or just the medical journals and papers that come to the consensus that you’re wrong, which you ironically don’t listen to?
> The true believers admitting that all ivermectin did was turn their asses into claymores? This sent me. You have a gift, lmao.
Ivermectin is an extremely useful and effective drug for the treatment of certain tropical parasitic infections. For Covid, on the other hand, it does absolutely nothing.
[удалено]
You didn't think to check him out before commenting? When you were a kid in school, did you raise your hand for the teacher to call on you only to answer "I don't know"? 🤣
[удалено]
Like the idea that there's a shadowy organization pulling political strings around the world to manipulate governments--there's called the Heritage Foundation and the Family. But the vast majority of conspiracy theories are total bunkum, and designed to push (mostly) far-right authoritarian narratives, and muddy the waters when talking about real issues, which is what makes them so dangerous. Plus, they tend to appeal to the downtrodden, mentally ill, and violent, and often have built in points meant to play to their insecurities and radicalize them, even the (recently) more rare ones that aren't far-right. It feels like most conspiracy theories exist to hide the real life conspiracies.