Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor-Greene (R-Fantasyland) said that the horse de-worming medicine Ivermectin that the nutjobs are pushing as a covid treatment, won the Nobel Peace Prize.
Surely she could take a little more care when making stuff up and at least say that it won the prize for medicine, though even then the prize is given to people and not products. We are entitled to expect better lies from our elected representatives. These people really have contempt for their followers.
Show some respect, Marjorie!
And even if it (instead of the two researchers who discovered the active compound in Ivermectin) had won the prize it would still be an ‘argument from authority’-fallacy since that price would not have been awarded for the ability to deal with viruses but for the ability to deal with roundworm parasites (as is the headline of 2015 of why these two got half of the prize).
They let me down every year, but if the Nobel Peace Prize folks weren’t such shills for big pharma, they would’ve finally given it to Brawndo, the thirst mutilator. It’s got electrolytes.
That’s nothing. Hydroxychloroquine is the current record-holder in the 100-yard dash.
Empty-G just likes to hear herself talk and make the news.
Ivan Pavlov won a Nobel prize in medicine, therefore to treat COVID you should ring a bell before you eat.
She says her husband took ivermectin when he had COVID-19, but also received Regeneron monoclonal antibodies. One of those two is know to be effective.
Ivermectin: How false science created a Covid ‘miracle’ drug
@1 Who Cares: I don’t think it is “argument from authority”. The 2015 Nobel prize in medicine winner William Campbell has made it clear that he does not endorse the use of ivermectin for COVID-19. The notion that since ivermectin treats parasitic worms it must also work on a virus is clearly mistaken, but I am not sure I could pinpoint which fallacy/ies are at play. Perhaps the fallacy of the single cause.
Not at all surprising:
Conservative media viewing correlates with intention to use ivermectin
@Reginald Selkirk(#6):
She uses the prestige of the prize and that you can only get it if a whole group of important people think you did something groundbreaking as an argument of why Ivermectin works against viruses.
@8: But everyone involved including the prize winner and the Nobel committee is not stating a case for ivermectin use for COVID. Which means she is committing a fallacy, but not ‘argument from authority’, since authority is not making that argument. There are plenty of fallacies to go around.
@Reginald Selkirk(#9):
Ah yes. Now I see what you meant.
On “argument from authority” — Whilst teh nutcase is recognised here as not being either trustworthy nor an “authority” on ivermectin (or anything else), they do have a position perhaps historically considered as an “authority” (albeit I presume most readers here would say, especially in teh nutcase’s case, “authoritarian”). So… does “argument from authority” presuppose one is an “authority” on the subject, or just an (alleged-)”authority” ?
Ye Pffftt! of All Knowledge says the former, “a form of argument in which the opinion of an authority on a topic is used as evidence to support an argument”, which throws in another wrinkle… quoting. (Is the quote correct, and in-context? Was it ever superseded, withdrawn, etc.?)
The nutcase’s claim might be closer to an “appeal to false authority”, with the false authority being teh nutcase themself ?