it is clear from reading across the MSM that there is a very strong agenda that has nothing to do with critical thinking or any deep analysis on many aspects of the pandemic and the coronavirus. There are very good clinical studies (available through google scholar) that do discuss the antiviral aspects of invermectin.

I don't particularly think it is usable as a front link treatment for covid for the reasons that many of the journal articles make clear. Nevertheless, it makes no sense to demonize people for talking about it or using it. Nor does it make sense to continually, as Fuller notes, refer to it as a horse dewormer, it does have other actions as most drugs do. it is also FDA approved for use in people as far as i know which the vaccines until recently were not, though of course there was an emergency use permit for them to be used.

Most people do not realize the tremendous conflicts that are ongoing in the medical community about a great many conditions. Chronic fatigue syndrome (now called ME/CFS) is still being dismissed by some physicians despite decades of research showing the reality of it. Chronic Lyme is as well continually said to be non-existent despite scores of thousands of people suffering from it (as they do with long covid) and a great many journal papers revealing the rationale for its existence. As Ed Yong in the Atlantic made clear, gaslighting is rampant in the medical profession about a large number of medical conditions that people suffer from, often for decades.

The thing i have appreciated about Taibbi and Greenwald is their commitment to open discussion. A number of vaccine specialists made the point, strongly, early on that hiding or downplaying the potential risk of side effects from the vaccines (which they were clear would exist) would hurt badly in the long run; it would simply make people more suspicious of experts. using the term "vaccine" was itself problematical. What we have is what is known as a leaky vaccine, this is quite different than something like the smallpox vaccine for instance which does in fact confer immunity. Leaky vaccines do not. The use of the term "breakthrough infection" is as well inaccurate. Leaky vaccines do not stop infections, they just alter severity and death rates; the organisms continue to modulate their structure to work around them over time.

Both sides of the issue are distorting the truth for their own ends; neither is very rational. in other words both are wrong about a great many things. the levels of dehumanizing vitriol make plain that other issues are involved. it is not just about the science.

anyway, thank you Matt for your work; there are far too few people who are willing to reason on these complex issues.