Funny Pics 2021 & 2022

229119221_2124105751071382_8472224227231958434_n.jpg
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
Is that because the human formulation is being restricted? Or is the supply of the human formulation just not adequate?
Click to expand...
Actually I think it's mostly because they're brainwashed into dangerous delusion but either way, it was intended to be lighthearted.
Of course, we can get into a discussion around the efficacy of simultaneous vaccine avoidance and self-medication with ivermectin (or the supply thereof) but it wasn't the point of the joke and this probably isn't the thread for it.
 
Robert said:
Actually I think it's mostly because they're brainwashed into dangerous delusion but either way, it was intended to be lighthearted.
Of course, we can get into a discussion around the efficacy of self-medicating with ivermectin but this probably isn't the thread for it.
Click to expand...
I think that a "light hearted" post that seems to insinuate that ivermectin is exclusively a veterinary medication (I've seen similar over the top posts about it being only an injectable horse medicine) does nothing to quell the idea that the drug is being maliciously maligned by ignorant ideologues to people that know anything about the issue. To deliberately spread falsehoods about it just makes it look like attempts to suppress it which makes people (I'd say justifiably) suspicious. The same thing happened with Hydroxychloroquine which was identified as having antiviral effects in vitro, drastically reducing SARs virus replication in human lung cell cultures in association with free zinc ions back in 2005. The amount of time and energy that was wasted in testing Hcq in ways that it could not be expected to work based on it's known means of action was a cause of much suspicion - and no-one died from taking Hcq in human formulations which are plentiful. The only deaths we know of are from the couple who couldn't get legitimate human formulation of Hcq and decided to use fish tank cleaner that contained Hcq.
When people try to make a point about how wrong some people are by saying something that is egregiously wrong I don't think it helps anything.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
I think that a "light hearted" post that seems to insinuate that ivermectin is exclusively a veterinary medication
Click to expand...
The "insinuation" in the joke is that the people taking a medicine intended for sheep are the same people calling others sheep for taking a medicine.
That's the joke.
It's of course fine that you don't find it funny but it's your bias that is making you pedantically pick it apart whilst adding your own, imagined insinuations.
-EDIT-
And calling sheep worming tablets which contain a substance that can also be used by humans "medicine intended for sheep" is only "egregiously wrong" if the same bias allows you to ignore the fact that tablets intended for sheep are intended for sheep.
 
Last edited:
Robert said:
The "insinuation" in the joke is that the people taking a medicine intended for sheep are the same people calling others sheep for taking a medicine.
That's the joke.
It's of course fine that you don't find it funny but it's your bias that is making you pedantically pick it apart whilst adding your own, imagined insinuations.
-EDIT-
And calling sheep worming tablets which contain a substance that can also be used by humans "medicine intended for sheep" is only "egregiously wrong" if the same bias allows you to ignore the fact that tablets intended for sheep are intended for sheep.
Click to expand...
Ivermectin, itself, is not "intended for sheep". Ivermectin is routinely used in humans for a variety of condition. However, I have heard that even if you can get a prescription for it (many doctors won't prescribe but there are those that will) then many pharmacists will refuse to fill that prescription. That people cannot get human ivermectin then get it from other sources is as much an indictment of the pharmaceutical supply chain as it is of those who will source the exact same active molecule from alternate products. The formulation for sheep is a liquid formulation I believe, not a pill, but that's irrelevant as the active molecule, as I said, is the exact same molecule. Issues can occur with sheep "drenches" that contain mixtures of active agents.
However, if doctors and pharmacists would simply dispense readily available human formulations then they wouldn't be going after alternatives and there is no good reason not to because ivermectin is an extremely benign and safe medication. The worry is, I supose, that people who take ivermectin won't get a vaccine, but stopping them from getting ivermectin won't convince them to get a vaccine either - it will just make them trust the pharma industry (and government) even less, whereas if they are getting prescriptions and taking medication under a doctor's supervision then at least they are interacting with the medical system. Outside of whatever evidence for efficacy there is, the policy is stupid.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
Ivermectin, itself, is not "intended for sheep".
Click to expand...

The formulation was intended for sheep, and apparently contains some different ingredients to the human formulation.
That makes it medicine intended for sheep.
People taking that medicine had been calling other people sheep because they took a medicine. Drawing attention to that juxtaposition is a pretty obvious and straightforward joke.
It really is that simple.
Neither the joke nor I claimed Ivermectin itself is only intended for sheep. Ivermectin isn't even mentioned in the joke. Extrapolating from an assumption on your part from these supposed insinuations to make serious points about misinformation and Hydrochloroquine on a "joke" thread is really reaching.
 
Robert said:
The formulation was intended for sheep, and apparently contains some different ingredients to the human formulation.
That makes it medicine intended for sheep.
People taking that medicine had been calling other people sheep because they took a medicine. Drawing attention to that juxtaposition is a pretty obvious and straightforward joke.
It really is that simple.
Neither the joke nor I claimed Ivermectin itself is only intended for sheep. Ivermectin isn't even mentioned in the joke. Extrapolating from an assumption on your part from these supposed insinuations to make serious points about misinformation and Hydrochloroquine on a "joke" thread is really reaching.
Click to expand...
I get the word play. I just have to ignore too much context to make it work. That is, the less you know, the funnier it is. I understand how it works. I just can't unknow enough to make it funny.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
That is, the less you know, the funnier it is.
Click to expand...
Not quite, unless you've yet to post the context that destroys the humour. Nothing of note you posted was news to me but the joke still gave me a chuckle. I'd argue that opinion on the context comes into play as much as awareness of it. How strong that opinion is also plays a part in whether to simply ignore a joke one doesn't find funny, or speculate on a potentially offensive but entirely subjective hidden meaning.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top