There's a very large difference in that COVID science was weeks to months old and extremely urgent, which caused a lot of wacky behaviors due to organizations panicking.
Climate science has been churning for decades. Would disagreeing conclusions be laughed off at first? Sure, probably. When most disagreement has been junk science by quacks, it's natural to reflexively make that assumption of new disagreement. But there's ample time and space for new studies to be analyzed, expanded on, replicated.
But as COVID science got clearer, the spreaders of fake news (“vaccines prevent virus” “masks work” “kids are endangered”) didn’t bear any responsibility nor suffer any consequences.
Same as with climate science. When predictions turn wrong (glaciers still existing in 2020, Great Barrier Reef recovering) everyone just moves on to new fear-mongering.
What kind of consequences do you want those people to suffer?
Surely you aren't going to argue the the vaccines did more harm than good?
Or that wearing a mask caused someone personal harm?
Or that trying to keep kids safe was a bad idea? My wife personally took care of many sick covid kids. They had all kinds of weird ailments no one was used to pre-pandemic.
Not sure why you are citing glaciers still existing as something to stand on, they are clearly and measurably disappearing.
At the very least they should lose their jobs/positions, never again be in position of power or consequential decision making, and the institutions that promoted them, should internally review their policies so the lies don’t happen again.
I was shocked, as was my Doctor wife, that the government appeared to deliberately withhold firstline treatment options, and non-vaccine therapeutics
Her response, "What is the standard of care for Covid patients first presenting?"
There were none for years, the Govt conspired with BigTech to characterize doctors like Zelenko (RIP) and McCullough as loony quacks when they came up with their own protocols for treatment.
Yet, later on the govt did come out with protocols that strangely, mimicked Zelenko & McCullough's material.
> Yet, later on the govt did come out with protocols that strangely, mimicked Zelenko & McCullough's material.
No no no this is disinformation! A protocol which includes *checks notes* Pfizermectin is totally different than a protocol which includes ivermectin. You can't compare the two!
There haven't been any high-quality studies (consistent with evidence-based medicine criteria) which show ivermectin to be clinically effective as an early COVID-19 treatment. If you know of such a study then could you please provide a citation?
If by "Pfizermectin" you are referring to Paxlovid, that is not accurate. There are significant biochemical and pharmacokinetic differences between the molecules.
on Ivermectin the evidence is over the place. Many of the foreign studies definitely show benefit. Many of the other studies don't. It is a real trainwreck. Consequently, I think it is safe to say that this is up in the air.
However, the McCullough protocol [1], and the closely related Zelenko protocols were not only about Ivermectin, HCQ, or Zinc, but instead cocktails of drugs with proven efficacy, and an overall approach to treatment prior to hospitalization.
Referencing the late 2020 publication:
Sanitization
Masks
hand washing / hand sanitizer
Fresh air / Air circulation
Negative pressure air isolation
Supplements:
Zinc with hydroxychloroquine
Vitamin D & Vitamin C
Antivirals / Antibiotics
Quercetin
Favipiravir
Azithromycin
Doxycycline
Mono-Clonal antibodies
bamlanivimab (MAB)
casirivimab and imdevimab (MABs)
If the evidence for ivermectin is really "all over the place" then could you please provide a citation? I'm only asking for a single high-quality RCT. Any one will do. The single link you provided is not that.
Climate science has been churning for decades. Would disagreeing conclusions be laughed off at first? Sure, probably. When most disagreement has been junk science by quacks, it's natural to reflexively make that assumption of new disagreement. But there's ample time and space for new studies to be analyzed, expanded on, replicated.