[chrsig]

> It's great that this doctor can share his experience but why is he posting this on Reddit?

Because doctors are people, and they just wanted to get the experience off their chest without any personally identifying information being disclosed?

[hirako2000]

or it's simply a political post in disguise on reddit, like we can find all over forums since the pandemic became so political.

[chrsig]

Given the subreddit, I don't think there's much in the way of disguise happening.

I don't find the post itself to be political at all though. It's the recount of a doctor's recent experience being physically assaulted after refusing to treat an unvaccinated covid patient with ivermectin and vitamin-c, believing that the former may be actively harmful to their health, and the latter simply ineffective.

The post isn't political. It only seems political because the rejection of modern science is along a political line.

[timr]

> It's the recount of a doctor's recent experience being physically assaulted after refusing to treat an unvaccinated covid patient with ivermectin and vitamin-c, believing that the former may be actively harmful to their health, and the latter simply ineffective.

If this doctor believes that ivermectin is "harmful", the doctor was so poorly informed that medical fact was mixing up with something he saw on CNN. The assertion about effective dosage being lethal, in particular, was completely fictional -- I don't believe that it works, but the people advocating for it aren't talking about crazy doses.

Ivermectin is a very safe drug. It is given to millions of people a year to prevent parasitic infections. There is a large RCT underway to see if is an effective therapeutic for Covid-19. We should all hope that it works. This incessant political polarization of science has to stop.

Everything in this reads like a low-quality re-hash of click-bait headlines from the last year, several of which were completely debunked.

[_ofdw]

Just get vaccinated already.

[momdad420]

Except it hasn't been shown yet to be effective against Covid-19 yet. So why would they prescribe it? The irony is you're saying the doctor got it from CNN when antivaxxers have been screaming about ivermectin for months, without any proof it's effective.

>This incessant political polarization of science has to stop.

Lol. In comments to a post about a doctor venting about being assaulted for not giving into conspiracy theorists demands re: treatment, and people say he's making it "political". Anyone can doubt the veracity all they want, there's 1000 more stories just like this.

[timr]

> Except it hasn't been shown yet to be effective against Covid-19 yet. So why would they prescribe it? The irony is you're saying the doctor got it from CNN when antivaxxers have been screaming about ivermectin for months, without any proof it's effective.

Didn't I write that I don't believe it's effective? I'm not sure who you think you're arguing with, here.

The point is, this person made a specific claim -- that the "effective dose" would be so high as to be fatal. That claim is so laughable and baseless in fact that it calls into question the credibility of the entire story. No informed doctor would say such a thing. We simply don't know what the "effective dose" is (if any), but we know what other people are recommending as effective doses, and these are not toxic.

When "doctors" go on QAnon forums on reddit, and post things that sound like re-mixes of CNN headlines while making egregious mistakes of medicine, at the very least it should make you question their objectivity, if not the credibility of the claim.

[crawfordcomeaux]

The reason to prescribe it is to add another test subject to the study. The fact that there isn't a protocol for people to organize a public study of their own bodies suggests a patriarchal approach to medicine science.

People learn faster when they get to choose their own options.

[informationally]

Correct, how do we even know this guy is an actual doctor? Maybe he's some insane person that enjoys collecting internet points.

[chrsig]

You don't. You can either proceed to converse taking that they are on faith (and a consistent comment history over time), or not. You're not going to get satisfying confirmation one way or another.

A conversation centered around the identity of the person is much less interesting than a conversation about the contents of their post.

[mmcgaha]

The mention of Q is what makes me think it is fake. My whole family is conservative; I have a German friend who is way out in right field (I love her but she is coo coo for coco pops), and I work with folks who most would consider fringe right. Not a single one of them have ever mentioned Q in a positive manner. As far as I can tell Q is an internet hoax. Yes I know there are people online who say they follow Q, but I just don't know anyone and I only hear about it on the internet.

[grioghar]

As someone who has lost friends and family to QAnon, I find your statement ignorant and unhelpful. Your anecdotal experience isn’t even remotely reality. I really really wish it was.

Q is fake, but there’s a whole subset of seemingly rational people who are being sucked into the void of this cult.

I mean, look at the subreddit this was posted in.

[mmcgaha]

The last few years have caused me to be a skeptic. I cannot take anyone at face value any more because the world has become so polarized that it is like people are willing to type anything to make their point stronger. At this point if I do not have intimate knowledge on a subject, and what I do know doesn't match what I am being told, I should be skeptical.

So if you find what I have to say ignorant and unhelpful, so be it. My words are not here for you. If you truly have a life experience with Q then I am sorry to hear that but please understand I cannot blindly accept what you say (As I don't expect you to accept on faith what I say).

So maybe I am in the magic land where the Q never travels, or maybe this whole Q thing is blown out of proportion. I do not know but my ignorant anecdote may make someone else like me ask the same question of why they don't know any Q either.

[t-writescode]

if you read their comment history, you'll see they're a regular on Q stuff, and the subreddit it's on is QanonCasualties, so it's not weird for them to bring up Q at all.

[User23]

I think the point the person you’re replying to was making is that belief that there are believers in a QAnon conspiracy theory is actually itself a conspiracy theory. Through that lens r/QanonCasualties is itself a weirdo conspiracy sub.

[rebuilder]

We can’t know, but a cursory glance at the user’s post history shows that this isn’t some fly-by troll. They’ve been pretty consistent for a long time.

[informationally]

It's possible to send anonymous tips to reporters. It's not hard. All he's doing with this story is farming fake internet points on Reddit. Getting something off his chest is not changing the systemic causes that made the situation he's currently in. If anything, he's actually exasperating the issue by having chosen to take this to Reddit instead of some trusted media outlet.

[chrsig]

They're not obligated to do any of that, you know. And it's ok that they're not.

They didn't frame the post as something that should be bringing about any change. It's literally just a person sharing their story to get a sympathetic ear. Because sometimes humans need that to keep going.

[tsol]

This story has be reported many times, the Atlantic has a story about medical professionals leaving the profession recently

[Jcowell]

Why would they want to take it to a media outlet where it has an even greater chance of getting out ? Reddits fits a niche blog like culture that allows the out-letting of emotions. Stuff like this are exactly why blogs even exist in the first place.

[Bud]

Actually, we already know he's doing more than "farming fake internet points", don't we? Because the story has now been posted here.

Exacerbating, btw.

[jacquesc]

I've read this same story over and over in the trusted media outlets. Here's one of many: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2021-08-17/vaccinated-...