Fox News Climate Deniers Recommending Horse De-Worming Products for Covid

August 23, 2021

A 40 year war on science has taken a toll.

Fox News Kills.

Below, Ivermectin ads on Facebook.


In another clear example of Facebook’s problem with medical misinformation, a Motherboard review of the platform’s ad library has found a number of recent ads clearly advocating for the use of ivermectin in human beings. Ivermectin, an anti-parasitic commonly used in veterinary medicine and to treat some illnesses in humans, has exploded into the news recently as a likely-bogus treatment and preventative for COVID-19, promoted by a small army of contrarian podcasters and a group of fringe physicians, the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance. Facebook’s Groups are also full of people seeking advice on ivermectin, discussing the ways they’re using it on themselves or their children. 

On their children.


20 Responses to “Fox News Climate Deniers Recommending Horse De-Worming Products for Covid”

  1. neilrieck Says:

    These people are getting dumber and dumber 😦

  2. J4Zonian Says:

    How is this not a prosecutable offense?

  3. J4Zonian Says:

    I have long thought that there should be a Designers’ Punishment Law, mandating that all those involved in creating and selling ineffective, dangerous, or annoying products be forced to use them every day as long as those products are being used by anyone.

    I’m torn between wishing for that and simply accepting that people in the red states are gonna say and do what they say and do, while the rest of us should use strictly local media or even just text and email trees to warn each other against all these self-destructive delusionary practices. This won’t help at all with climate denial or anti-renewable fanaticism, which everyone suffers from, but a combination of mass incarceration (one of their favorite tactics) for DP and allowing conservatives the freedom they’re obsessed with might even overcome their census manipulation, gerrymandering, and voter suppression by the 2022 elections.

      • J4Zonian Says:

        Jan. 9,202
        “@Twitter has sent >5000 of my Followers to the Gulag in the past 28 days. It’s worse than Pearl Harbour [sic] or 9-11. I face death by 100,000 more cuts.” Patrick Moore, mass felony murderer and fraudster

        Moore has worked for the mining industry, the logging industry, PVC manufacturers, the nuclear industry, and in defense of biotechnology. [and of course for the fossil fuel industry]

        Patrick Moore has listed himself with a “Ph.D. in Ecology, Institute of Resource Ecology, University of British Columbia” in his profile at EcoSense and at the Heartland Institute, among others. However, Moore’s thesis at UBC was submitted for a Doctor of Philosophy in the Faculty of Forestry. UBC confirmed by email that Dr. Moore received his Ph.D. from the Faculty of Forestry in 1974. When asked if that degree would be best described as in ecology or forestry, UBC replied: “It would be safer to say Forestry.”

        “…frequently portrays himself as a founder or co-founder of Greenpeace, and many news outlets have repeated this characterization. Although Mr. Moore played a significant role in Greenpeace Canada for several years, he did not found Greenpeace.”

        According to an article in the Honolulu Advertiser, “Moore contended that global warming and the melting of glaciers is positive because it creates more arable land and the use of forest products drives up demand for wood and spurs the planting of more trees. He added that any realistic plan to reduce reliance on fossil fuels and the emission of so-called greenhouse gases should include increased use of nuclear energy.”

        “We do not know if we are a small or large part of the present global warming. It is not possible through science to determine an exact answer to this question.

        “There’s so much ice the polar bears can’t get at the seals.”

        “As I have stated publicly on many occasions, there is no definitive scientific proof, through real-world observation, that carbon dioxide is responsible for any of the slight warming of the global climate that has occurred during the past 300 years, since the peak of the Little Ice Age,”

        “The fact is fossil fuels are 100 percent organic as in the scientific definition of organic. Organic chemistry is the chemistry of carbon. Organic used in food is a marketing term. Nothing to do with science. Produced with solar energy, 100%, they are a product of life fossil fuels. They are not some evil demon sent here from hell. They produce the two most important foods for life when they’re burnt: CO2 and water and they are the largest storage battery of energy on this planet. 
        So I say celebrate CO2. It is the most life-giving substance along with water on this planet and it’s doing the world a lot of good.”

        “The word consensus, when used in a sentence with science, is false because consensus is a political and social work and that is a different arena than science.” 

        “I didn’t say CO2 emissions were not affecting climate change. I said that it is an insignificant effect. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but it is in the atmosphere at four one hundredths of a percent. How can we something in the atmosphere that is invisible, tasteless, odorless, colorless at 0.04% be the most powerful agent in the universe at this point in time? Obviously the climate changed dramatically throughout history with nothing to do with CO2.”

        Pompous little twit. You don’t have a plan to grow food for 8 billion people without fossil fuels, or get food into the cities. Horses? if fossil fuels were banned every tree in the world would be cut down for fuel for cooking and heating. Your would bring about mass death.

        “…the whole climate crisis, as they call it, is not only fake news, it’s fake science. There is no climate crisis”

        Moore claimed ocean acidification was “total fabrication”: [110]
        “This is a total fabrication. There’s no possibility that increased CO2 could cause any problem with the alkalinity or acidity of the oceans,”
        Later in the program, he claimed increased CO2 concentrations are greening the Earth…

        “During the past 150 million years CO2 had steadily declined to such a low level that plants were seriously threatened with starvation during the peak of the last glacial cycle. Thankfully, our emissions have inadvertently reversed that trend, bringing a balance back to the global carbon cycle. All of this can be verified yet the narrative of “climate catastrophe”, which has no basis in science, is hollered from the rooftops around the world.”

        And there are lots moore. The guy is just another bizarrely inconsistent repulsive liar for hire by anyone with a nature-destroying or right wing agenda.

      • rhymeswithgoalie Says:

        Please note that Roundup® = glyphosate + surfactant

        I would drink standalone glyphosate (for a major charitable donation), but a surfactant will definitely give you a queasy stomach.

      • rhymeswithgoalie Says:

        With regard to the Bayer glyphosate court case, I really hate hate hate toxicology by jury. While acknowledging that corporate-funded researchers can spin results, that doesn’t mean that a group of jurors is a substitute for technical and statistical expertise in assessing health risks of a substance.

        One major example from the past was jurors deciding that the Dow-Corning silicone implants caused systemic illnesses despite the fact that it occurred at the same rate as in the rest of the population. The company should have been sued for the breakages of the implants only (and the cost of removing as-yet-unbroken implants).

        Meanwhile, seeing as we can’t trust profit-oriented organizations, can we just crank up the regulatory penalties for established violations of health/pollution/whatever rules so that they aren’t ignored as a “cost of doing business”?

        • J4Zonian Says:

          Because of the revolving door, captured agencies, captured government, just general corruption of the oligarchic duopoly, and other factors, normal approval procedures and all are totally frgoked. It’s not that we can’t trust for-profit organizations…well, actually, I guess that’s exactly it, it’s just that we have to acknowledge that all organizations concerned are for-profit organizations now: corporations, corporate-owned government, non-profits (API, eg. CEI, Heartland, Heritage Foundation…), military, religion…

          Actually, I think the response by jurors is hardly ever harsh enough. We need a corporate death penalty. Organizations committing either egregious violations, like Monsanto, Exxon, Enron, all the organizations involved in the Deepwater Horizon disaster… or repeated violations, like… Monsanto, Exxon, Enron, all the corporations involved in the Deepwater Horizon disaster… should be ended–charter revoked and all assets seized–and every officer prosecuted, all assets seized, prevented from ever holding a position of responsibility again. Maybe the only place that can do this is the Hague, but I doubt they can do it either, since the US doesn’t acknowledge the ICC’s jurisdiction and has a big military with nukes to prevent it.

          It means the only recourse is peaceful revolution. When is that scheduled for, again?

          • dumboldguy Says:

            “It means the only recourse is peaceful revolution. When is that scheduled for, again?”

            I’m surprised you asked that, since most Crockers (including you) know the answer. It is scheduled for far to late to avoid disaster for the planet and a series of major death events for the human race.

          • rhymeswithgoalie Says:

            Actually, I think the response by jurors is hardly ever harsh enough.

            I’m fine with gigantic penalties for misbehavior, but juries shouldn’t be tasked with coming up with medical/scientific conclusions because they aren’t remotely qualified. You might as well ask people to vote for whether X causes cancer.

        • J4Zonian Says:

          But juries do have to decide on science. And we do have to vote on what causes cancer. And whether climate catastrophe is real.

          I agree it’s the worst possible system, except for almost all the others. A nice eco-socialist democracy would be good, but we ain’t got one a those yet. We need to educate people so they’ll know the difference between science and cow meds, and to be educated better they’ll have to know enough science to vote for politicians who know the difference. It’s a quandary. Has to be done all at once, in tiny amounts, really fast.

  4. Gingerbaker Says:

    The use of ivermectin in the treatment of covid is not entirely nuts. It has demonstrated antiviral activity in vitro, and quite a few clinical trials have demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of covid.

    This is NOT to say that the clinical evidence is strong, but it merits more investigation.

    A recent meta analysis of its utility in the treatment of covid was pretty positive. However, that meta analysis has been retracted, because one of the papers it used was retracted. It remains to be seen what the revised meta analysis will say when it is republished.

    • rhymeswithgoalie Says:

      You pushed my button!

      NEVER NEVER NEVER PAY ATTENTION TO TREATMENTS BECAUSE THEY WORK IN VITRO. Successful drugs have to negotiate your digestive tract, have to avoid being broken down by or poisoning your organs, and have to make it into the target tissues. In vitro studies tell you the absolute minimum about potential functionality of a drug.

      Some rules of thumb about medical research:
      – ignore testimonials*
      – ignore in vitro studies
      – ignore single studies
      – put little weight on studies based on self-reported** outcomes
      *In fact, if the best “evidence” for taking something is testimonials, run, do not walk, in the opposite direction.
      **Humans are notoriously bad at assessing improvements when they know researchers are paying close attention to their answers.

      • Gingerbaker Says:

        And that is why I also provided links to human clinical studies.

        • rhymeswithgoalie Says:

          Well, skip any reference to in vitro studies next time, please.

          • Gingerbaker Says:

            No thank you – they provide a rationale for clinical studies. They are important.

        • rhymeswithgoalie Says:

          No thank you – they provide a rationale for clinical studies. They are important.

          At best they provide a rationale for animal trials.

          Only 5 in 5,000 drugs that enter preclinical testing progress to human testing. One of these 5 drugs that are tested in people is approved. The chance for a new drug to actually make it to market is thus only 1 in 5,000. Not very good odds.

          Using in vitro results when talking about plausible treatments is naive at best and commonly part of fraudulent hype.

          • Gingerbaker Says:

            At best? They are the crucial first step for any further trial. There has to be a biological basis for for further trials. And not only must there be in vitro efficacy, there must be a biochemical rationale for supposing the compound would work in humans and this was elucidated in the first two sentences of my first link.

            And ivermectin is already approved for animal use. As an antihelminth. It is quite surprising that it also has antiviral activity, which is why it is important that it’s in vitro antiviral activity has been documented.

            I understand that you have a bugaboo about people who would propose human trials based solely upon some in vitro efficacy. But you have jumped a cog when you try to chastise me for even mentioning the in vitro antiviral efficacy of ivermectin and propose to muzzle my future use of the topic. You go way too far there.

            I spent the first eight years of my professional life doing pure biomedical and biochemical research which involved mostly in vitro biochemical assays, and then spent nearly two decades speaking to medical professionals about human clinical studies. I understand the processes leading to a New Drug Application pretty well. Likely at least as well as you do. And in vitro assays are a critical part of the process and worth talking about all on their own.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: