Rolling Stone’s Ivermectin Lie Exposes Big Tech

CLAY: Buck, I talked about this a little bit yesterday, but I gotta get your reaction to this story as well. So, Rolling Stone published a story that ivermectin was causing — the use of ivermectin was causing — an Oklahoma hospital to have to refuse service to people who were gunshot victims, that there were massive lines in the emergency room and that, as a result of ivermectin, this hospital was basically having to shut down its emergency because they were overflowed with ivermectin patients.

Everyone jumps on board this report. It is ricocheting throughout Twitter. The Rachel Maddows of the world — literally Rachel Maddow herself — shared this story. The usual suspects all shared it. It’s based on one doctor. Well, finally somebody reaches out to the hospital itself. It turns out the doctor hadn’t been at the hospital in a couple of months, and they had had no issues whatsoever with ivermectin of any degree.

That means the story — the Rolling Stone story, Buck — was 100% fake news, to use a Trump phrase, and was not in any way based in factual legitimacy. It was 100% not true. Does Twitter do anything with it? Does anybody require that any of these tweets receive any kind of statement, as yours and my tweets often do? Anytime we say, “Hey, here’s the latest data,” they add, “Just click here for covid vaccination information.” Alex Berenson loses his ability to post on Twitter, yet this story trends everywhere, and there are no consequences for the people who spread 100% fake news.

BUCK: Two observations about this, Clay. I saw this story over the weekend as I was taking some vacation. Thank you for being at the helm yesterday so I couldn’t actually get a day off. One of them is that the people who run with this stuff don’t care when it’s fake. Meaning that this is just like Russia collusion. This is the media environment we’re in now. You show your side how much you hate the other side, and you take a cheap shot at them, and you are rewarded with more viewers, more money, more following. That’s how left-wing, corporate media works today. That’s the situation. Look at Rachel Maddow: $30 million she’s gonna get paid in her new contract —

CLAY: To not even work.

BUCK: — to not even really work, and after just lying about Russia collusion for four years to her audience. It didn’t matter. The point was she was feeding the loony left what they wanted, and they loved her for it. And it’s the same thing with this. Rolling Stone, they have no credibility to protect at the Rolling Stone. These journalistic enterprises aren’t serious in being unbiased about the facts. But there’s another part of this that I found really bothersome, and you’re seeing this all over the place now too.

Yeah, sure they want to do this. They’ll lie about it; they’ll feel good lying about it. But, “Oh, look at these rubes! Look at these fools who probably voted for Trump who are taking ivermectin and all of this stuff.” That’s not even enough for them. They’ll lie about it and then file pile on top of that. “They’re a danger to you, crazy lib sitting at home with your three masks on while you’re taking a shower — to you, people sitting in Santa Monica or Brooklyn who watch MSNBC.

“They’re taking up all the hospital beds for the gunshot victims and the car accident victims!” So it’s not even enough to lie about them being dumb by saying, “There’s all these overdoses happening.” They lie about them being an actual menace to public safety, Clay, because that’s really what the left-wing audience wants to hear now. It’s not even, “Oh, these people who won’t do what Fauci says are endangering themselves.” No, it has to be they’re endangering everybody, and they’ll lie to make people think that.

CLAY: And it is just wild to me, and I would think… Alex Berenson said he’s figuring out he’s legal responses here. But to me — and again, this is me thinking about it from a legal perspective — if Twitter is going to argue that they are trying to apply editorial fact-checking functions to their service, this is a wildly arbitrary and capricious policy that you can point to this story, ’cause, remember, there’s a big difference.

You and I every single day share a variety of opinions. It’s oftentimes very hard to prove that an opinion is wrong because it’s just that. It’s an opinion, as opposed to a fact, which you can prove whether or not a fact is wrong or right. This story that Rolling Stone published, the “facts” are lies. It is 100% not real. It’s fake news to use the Trump term.

And yet there’s no requirement that Rachel Maddow take it down. There’s no requirement that all these MSNBC employees, Buck, who otherwise are able to share stories… You know, for you and me and Alex Berenson, anybody who shares facts, like data out of Israel or data about the vaccine that makes people uncomfortable, we’re not allowed to do that. But they’re allowed to share a story that is 100% false.

BUCK: You remember when people were supposed to be all freaked out…? It’s almost like, Clay, there are propaganda loops that we’re all in here, because as I’m seeing this — and to your point about how this is fake news, it’s not only fake. It’s obviously fake.

CLAY: Demonstrably and provably false.

BUCK: But even beyond that, though, when someone hears this, it doesn’t ring true to any reasonable person. “Really? The hospitals are overflowing? There are thousands of them who are dying from not even…?” Remember, they’re not taking ivermectin and getting sick. They’re overdosing on… You know, it’s one thing if you want to try a drug that’s off label, but is FDA cleared or something, right? I mean, this would be like saying, “Oh, I think that Tylenol would be helpful for people that have it.” Like, I had a lot of back pain from covid for whatever reason. Okay. If I down a whole bottle of Tylenol, that’s on me. That’s not on Bayer or whoever the manufacturer of Tylenol, right?

CLAY: Good point. Also, has there ever been any hospital that isn’t able to treat gunshot victims? Have you ever heard of somebody showing up at a hospital with a gunshot wound, they say, “Hey, we can’t get to you right now?”

BUCK: But it doesn’t even sound plausible anymore!

CLAY: Yes.

BUCK: It’s not even just cherry-picking facts or not looking at data. It’s an obvious lie, but it was a delicious lie for the left, so they ran with it. It just reminds me of this back in the day when we had people talking about — remember this? — the potential benefits of hydroxychloroquine, right? And then there was a version of it. It was not hydroxychloroquine. It was a different kind of chloroquine that is used to clean fish tanks.

There was this whole thing about someone took fish tank cleaner, most people said, “If you can’t tell the difference between hydroxychloroquine and what’s used to clean a fish tank that’s on you.” But that also was a stupid lie. That wasn’t a thing that was really happening. People weren’t overdosing on chloroquine fish tank cleaner all over the country. But they keep doing this because it’s essential to them, Clay, to believe the people who disagree with them are so dumb that they don’t even have to be listened to or thought about.

CLAY: I think that’s exactly right. It’s like Mad Libs version of a story. If a story perfectly fits your version of the world, it’s kind of like the Jussie Smollett case, Buc. That was so perfect where if it actually happened, it’s like a fever dream of a left-winger, right? Somebody in a MAGA hat chased down a gay black man with a noose in Chicago and said, “Hey, we’re doing this to you because we’re big Trump supporters!”

It’s like, “Hey, wait a minute! Oklahoma, red state, ivermectin. Dumb red state people can’t even treat gunshot victims!” When you see all the fact patterns lining up and it would be like the fever dream of a political party to have it occur, your initial response — if you have a functional brain — should be skepticism, right? That’s just what it naturally should be, especially on the internet where you have to question whether anything is true or false. There’s just so much fake, falsehood out there.

BUCK: I think it’s like some level to, people like Rachel Maddow, not only is it professionally beneficial to her. I mean, not like she really needs the money anymore but, you know, even rich people like money. Sometimes they like it a whole lot more than they should. But it benefits her professionally. But, Clay, I also think there’s some joy that the liberal elites get over promoting stories like this that are such a thumb in the eye to regular folks who don’t buy into all the Fauci stuff.

It’s like kind of like saying, “Yeah, this is what we think of you that we’ll run with the story that’s so patently false, so obviously run true, so vicious about how we think you’re not smart,” right? That’s what they’re really pushing, and I think they kind of get a sick joy out of it, honestly. Because there’s no way that Rachel Maddow didn’t have a moment — and she’s not the only one but she’s the most prominent one – where she’s like, “Are people really dying in large numbers over ODing over ivermectin?”

CLAY: Are they just refusing to treat gunshot victims because of it? Even take away the ivermectin and just be like, “Wait a minute. Are there really people showing up at emergency rooms and bleeding out because they can’t get the doctors to ’em?” I think that’s probably unlikely.

BUCK: We’re not sure hearing from the families. We’re not hearing from the police about this. We’re not hearing anything from anybody involved except one random doctor. But, anyway, the dumber and more vicious the lie, the more a lot of Democrats take to it right away.