The science is only more reliable than non-science, not reliable in any absolute sense. And scientists are as fond of superstition as anybody.
Masks were described as useless for countering COVID transmission because of what turned out to be superstition around "airborne transmission", itself finally traced to a result that properly only applied to tuberculosis.
Belief in ivermectin efficacy was a similarly widespread superstition among mostly non-scientists.
We have generally had much better results from science. Science was finally obliged to abandon its "airborne transmission" model by people who knew better publicizing correct information. But most ivermectin fans still cling to it.
> The science is only more reliable than non-science, not reliable in any absolute sense.
What "the" science?
The scientific method is proven to be a very good way to make predictions about the world based on observations. The body of scientific work built up is immeasurably valuable and incredibly good at predicting things.
Some random corporation or politician or person claiming to have The Science on their side, and that anybody who disagrees or questions them is a heretic and an unbeliever? That's not reliable and it's not science.
"The science" as a body of received knowledge refined from the rough consensus of a moment among working scientists is something distinct from the practice of actually doing science. The latter mostly interests those doing it, and mostly frustrates everybody else with its apparent wishy-washy attitude toward questions of public policy.
There isn't a "wishy-washy attitude", there is respect for the fact that the questions of public policy can't be answered by the consensus or lack thereof.
Only politicians and policy advocating 'scientists' cough Fauci cough are confident enough to make proclamations about the state of science. To their credit, no one seems able to hold them accountable when they falsely declare consensus and silence the voices in opposition
"Superstition" does a disservice to the fact that many scientists internationally were reporting on efficacy with ivermectin.
Meanwhile the information coming from "reputable" sources in the world have proven to be less than accurate if not complete misrepresentation
Edit:
There is no such thing as 'the science'. There is science. Which is testing and questioning to determine facts. Anything more must be "trust in the science of..." some actual thing. And that actual thing is not public policy.
We have sufficient evidence that the CDC and NIH are interested in appeasing their corporate sponsors and otherwise believe themselves to be beyond reproach
Many scientists (and... others) internationally were publishing claims of efficacy that collapsed under light scrutiny. The small handful that did not collapse showed a very small effect that could be accounted for by decreased parasite load.
Reputable sources said, correctly, that there was no good evidence that ivermectin worked against COVID. Later, they were able to say they had good evidence it did not work, a stronger statement. They could not honestly say that, early on, and did not; but we all know that almost everything doesn't work. So, anything claimed to work deserves skeptical scrutiny.
Biochemically, it would not have been surprising if ivermectin helped some. But "not surprising if" is a very, very long way from "does". Reputable sources made, in the end, the correct call. Meanwhile, people draining the ivermectin supply did themselves no good, but made it harder for those afflicted with parasites to get needed treatment. Those using ivermectin instead of getting vaccinated made themselves carriers, contributing to spread and mortality.
I don't find this to be likely or relevant. Commercially available and otc worldwide, generics.
It does have an impact by reducing parasitic load and inflammation. This can be seen in countries with high rates of parasitic infection.
Reputable sources in the US hammered the one sized solution that runs contrary to immunization history and theory.
Vaccination does not 'stop the spread' which is an absurd point to make at this stage. That is absolutely evident from case counts across the US as vaccinations increased.
What has been clinically demonstrated is that vaccinated people who get COVID anyway shed virus for a shorter period. And, also (this is important), don't die. We will all catch it, sooner or later, likely as not from our pet. Some of us might be so lucky as not to notice.
In fact, ivermectin supplies really were depleted for quite some time.
Ho, you might want to get up to date on those studies.
Boosted and vaccinated are carrying viral loads longer than unvaccinated as of Omicron
And more importantly, it would seem that all deaths in recent studies of the later omicron variants were in the boosted and eligible for booster cohorts.
You have to think that this type of news does add ammo for climate science deniers, covid vaccine skeptics, and ivermectin/hcq proponents to make the case consensus science != absolute science.
Regardless, I do think most people agree that all science should have the opportunity to be subjected to earnest and thoughtful scrutiny, and it shouldn't be a career ending endeavor to do so.
One problem the amount of press and hype that these type of research receive in the mass media (same thing for the "cancer cure breakthrough"), likely promoted by researchers and labs looking for funding, and which generally amount to nothing. The general public may forget about a specific claim, but they don't forget the number of false or misleading headlines they've read over the years.
Add to that a blatant case of forgery like this on a high priority subject, and you have the recipe for antivaxx, covid denialism and overall decline of the trust in science.
The blatant case of forgery described in the article. Manipulating images to make something that do no exist appear real is as blatant and as forgery as they come.
