[gorwell]

Ask yourself: why does the big photo only show the veterinary version? Why do so many headlines classify it as horse paste medicine? They are fully aware most people only read the headlines or above the fold. They bury mention of human dosage to have plausible deniability, knowing most people won't ever see it.

As for Merck, they are creating a new, patented version for Covid use. They want ivermectin discredited because anyone can make it. This is how that industry operates.

[nkozyra]

> Why do so many headlines classify it as horse paste medicine?

Because, convinced in the absence of evidence, some people are acquiring it by the path of least resistance, which is farm-related retailers.

Some ask their doctors. Some of those doctors say sure because it's relatively safe. Others say no because they point out there's scant evidence it's effective.

The worst part is people are taking this in lieu of a vaccine because they're so convinced that it's ineffective or gene therapy or experimental and dangerous, etc. We're not dealing with data based reasoning. It's an emotional response rooted to some degree in American partisanship.

[gorwell]

If that was the concern the headlines would say: "Don't confuse horse ivermectin with prescribed ivermectin!"

That would be the PSA and approach. But it's not about warning people or any kind of concern about those who foolishly take a horse sized dose. It's about shaming them and pushing the interests of the pharma industry.

[nkozyra]

People are taking unsubstantiated therapeutics/prophylactics in response to a single YouTube comment but refusing to take the vaccine for ... reasons.

I don't agree that this is shaming but perhaps some is in order.