The Ivermectin discussion

According to this statement in Oklahoma, USA they have changed course allowing doctors to use their training and expertise to prescribe off label medicines like Ivermectin to treat Covid patients.

https://www.oag.ok.gov/articles/attorney-general-oconnor-assures-oklahoma-physicians-are-not-prohibited-prescribing-label

Your summary here is a bit skewed though and leaves out the history of this admittedly very very long thread.

The lack of credibility actually goes the other way. Why? Because Pradesh and what they did there has been brought up many many times in this thread already. Pretty much entirely by the same user over and over again.

And many of us - myself included - very much did "make a case and argument" each time. Over and over again.

What the single user has done in response to this is to pretty much ignore all of those concerns and rebuttals. Instead (s)he will simply leave the thread for a few days or longer. Then suddenly return with another link that does little more than mention Pradesh again. The link will contain no new data or information. It will simply be a link to some blog opinion piece of someone simply mentioning Pradesh again.

Worse the user has been asked multiple questions directly on the subject and has often simply dodged or ignored them entirely. Random example go look at post 1211 on the thread and then consider the users response to it. It was a sarky, dismissive non answer ending in a "I am not answering your question go look it up yourself" style cop out which is so common from that corner. But when someone here calls it "bollocks" you jump up and down? When the user refuses to answer questions with badly spelt cop out lines like "I am not hear to indulge your silliness" you say nothing? Check post 1189 as another great example here. The user is simply refusing over and over to answer the question asked and keeps throwing out dodge links that has no information on the questions asked. Evidence of this behavior right there in black and white.

The user has dodged that direct question multiple times from multiple users. How does this stack their "credibility" in your opinion then?

When you read post 1223 for example you see the user dodged the question by entirely changing the subject to another area entirely. Worse they then cited an article cherry picked to a particular time that looked good. But as PintOfView pointed out very well - the article came before a big spike in cases in that area too.

Again - lets check how credibility has been stacking over time here shall we?

So - take a look at the link above posted by that user just now then if you do not believe me. What is the actual content of the link? Very little. It is a personal opinion piece that does nothing more than merely mention - once again - that a "pack" of drugs was distributed. This has all been dealt with multiple times in the thread already.

Further consider what the user said while presenting that link. The claim was that "which according to some never happened or if it did never included Ivermectin". I have just gone back over the last 15 pages of this thread while constructing this post for you. I am really struggling to find any posts that fit that description? We have questioned many things on this thread related to Pradesh. But I am struggling deeply to find anyone who has claimed the program there either A) did not happen or B) did not contain Ivermectin at all? Am I missing something or is the user in question simply packing the straw in the strawman here??? Again - where does the credibility lie therefore???

As has been posted on this thread many times - including by me - Pradesh is not uninteresting. They did a lot of interesting things in response to the virus. It included things like door to door contact tracing and testing and distribution of masks as well as the home treatment kits. And also isolation of infected households.

The issue however is that _ this _ is specifically a thread about Ivermectin. And when an area implements a raft of measures - medical and procedural and so forth - then it is simply a nonsense to pick one tiny thing out of that collection of decisions and act like there is evidence that the efficacy of their approach has anything to do with that one tiny thing. As interesting as Pradesh is overall - pointing at it as some kind of evidence that Ivermectin is efficacious against Covid is simply a lay man error from someone who does not appear to have the first inkling of understanding - or a wish to gain any - of the processes and procedures of epidemiology.

So yes credibility would be a nice thing to see here. But not from the corner you suggest. The user has been dealt with multiple times over and over and I do not think someone getting frustrated and finally just shouting "bollocks" at him means they have lacked or lost any credibility in that moment.

I would suggest you read my own post 1099 on the thread too. Then return to me and tell me exactly which user(s) have established credibility in their approach here?