Rudy Giuliani, the former mayor of New York and legal advisor of Donald Trump, is already facing a billion-dollar lawsuit for defamation. He also had his license to practice law revoked by the New York Bar Association for spreading lies about the 2020 election. I therefore can imagine that he needs some cheering up and could do with some good news.

Well, Rudy, here it is!

Giuliani has been given a very special award.

In recognition of his truly outstanding achievements in dishonesty and his contribution to disinformation, Rudy Giuliani is the winner of the Center for Inquiry’s first Full of Bull Award!

A rogue’s gallery of celebrity hucksters was drawn up who best represent the threat posed by the wholesale rejection of reality. Calling out these infamous purveyors of flimflam and nonsense, the Center for Inquiry asked the public to vote for who was the worst offender.

It could not have been an easy choice, but now the voters have spoken: 41.7 percent of voters chose Giuliani over these other superspreaders of the infodemic:

Why Giuliani? He really gave his all to rise above the field over the past year as a dedicated champion of bogus COVID-19 cures at the peak of a global pandemic and chief spreader of the highly dangerous Big Lie about the 2020 election. “America’s Mayor” no more, Giuliani has slid to the fringes of conspiracy theories and quack medicine, truly embodying what it takes to be an all-around Full of Bull champion.

At the time of reporting, no reaction of the awardee was available. Yet, we can be confident that Rudy will treasure the award above all other distinctions and that he will display it prominently in his office. The Center for Inquiry wants to thank everyone for voting and for being a part of the reality-based community, it intends to remain committed to taking on bull artists of all stripes.

37 Responses to A new honour for Rudy Giuliani: the ‘Full of Bull Award’

  • Wow and prince charles wasn’t even a contender? and the BLM groups that destroyed cities in the US under the guise of peaceful protests while unabashedly gathering during lockdown not even considered….Seems a very political choice not very emperical.

    • Judging from the Center for Inquiry’s name they are American and Prince Charles probably isn’t even on their radar.

      However, from this side of the Pond, where we watch US news and politics with the sort of fascinated horror that you might otherwise reserve for a particularly venomous snake trapped safely the other side of a piece of glass, only with more amusement, Giuliani seems a deserving candidate.

    • @Chris

      … BLM groups …

      Apparently, you fail to understand what this FoBA is about. Protests from BLM groups (the vast majority of which were quite peaceful BTW) happened for a good reason – so these protests, even the more violent ones, were not based on lies and Bull.

      Now the deadly domestic terrorism from January 6th incited by one Donald T. on the other hand WAS based on lies and Bull – the very same Bull that ultimately earned Giuliani the award. (Which raises the question why #45 wasn’t nominated – perhaps he was too obvious a choice, having adopted BS as his life philosophy.)

      • @Richard

        Were you directly affected by the rampant wonton violence that occured under the pretense of peaceful BLM protests last summer. Werer any of your family harmed, as were hundreds of innocent others? Was your business livelyhood and dreams destroyed by these random acts of violence? I hope not.

        How you can say any violence, destruction, happened for “good reason” shows you to be out of touch , ignorant and rather callus.

        Now the government is adding insult to injury by foregoing prosecution of many of the perpetrators.

        Virtue signaling by a sideliner is a bad look especially among those innocents directly impacted by violence.

  • No professor…I’m not.

    I can back up my claim.

    If you check the data…you’ll find that I am spot on with the claims I made statistically (pandemic) comparing the UK to Mexico.

    • you’ll find that I am spot on with the claims I made statistically (pandemic) comparing the UK to Mexico.

      No, you are not spot on – far from it, in fact. You can’t simply compare two different countries with completely different populations, different climates, different cultures, different pandemic stages, different virus types etcetera, and then point to one thing to support your claims that Mexico somehow managed Covid-19 effectively without vaccination. If you insist on comparing Mexico and the UK, you have to take a lot of things into account:
      – Population make-up: the UK has relatively more elderly (= susceptible, frail) people than Mexico.
      – Virus variant: the very contagious delta variant is dominant in the UK, but still relatively rare in Mexico.
      – Climate: Mexico’s warmer climate reduces infection rates, as people tend to spend less time indoors than in the UK.
      – Testing and reporting infrastructure: the UK has a better testing and reporting infrastructure, which means that in Mexico, more cases go unnoticed or unregistered.
      – And there are numerous other things that may influence infection and death rates.

      Specifically about Ivermectin:
      – As you already mentioned, Mexican statistics show an overall lower infection rate. Which of course can’t be explained by the use of Ivermectin, because it does not prevent infections, but is claimed to treat already existing infections.
      – And IIRC, Mexico did trials with Ivermectin in just one state. Which means that this medicine can’t be responsible for the relatively low overall death rate either.

      All this means that you are committing several fallacies such as non-sequitur, false causality, cherry picking and oversimplifying things, all in order to promote a treatment that in reality has not been shown to work so far.

      • @Richard Rasker

        In spite of witnessing many head to head comparisons here at this website over the last year, I would agree that such comparisons do not completely account for such variables you mention, and I have always held that view.

        Then we can forget about the comparison to the UK, if that suits your argument. We can just evaluate the date from Mexico on what is shows. You can poo-poo the statistics if you please.

        It reveals that a country with no National Health are system, and with very low vaccine rates had excellent results eradicating the virus in a metropolitan area of 22 million persons.
        This occurred only after the government began issuing Ivermectin doses to patients that tested positive for the virus.
        The truth is that had the entire country of Mexico got onboard with the same program, the results would have even been more profound.

        “hospitalizations were down as much as 76%”

        Say Richard, that is slightly better than the Janssen efficacy rates…. lol.
        BTW – Janssen happens to be the brand of vaccine that this “anti-vaxer” got jabbed with.

        • @Listener
          Sorry, but you are still making claims for which I can find no evidence. Also, you are still conflating correlation with causation.
          Both cases and deaths appear to be in decline, in Mexico City as well as in the rest of the country. Which of course is good news – but Ivermectin cannot have anything to do with this, because it simply cannot be responsible for a decline in the number of infections, simply because it is given to people who are already infected.
          And if it were effective for preventing serious disease and death, this should be visible as a sudden drop in de Case Fatality Rate (CFR). When I look at the various statistics for Mexico ( ), I see no such drop.
          What I do see, is that Mexico appears to have a CFR of 10%, which is pretty horrible. So no, they most certainly do not have an effective treatment for Covid-19, quite contrary to what you claim.

          If Mexico City does somewhat better than the rest of the country, that is probably because it is far easier to distribute vaccines in this metropolitan area compared to the rest of the country. Also, vaccines will have a far greater impact in this densely populated area than in rural areas.

          There is, however, no good evidence whatsoever that Ivermectin has helped Mexicans in any way.

    • @ Listener – you are overlooking one vital fact however.
      Mexico is doing hardly any Covid-19 testing as a matter of policy – taking a lead from the Donald Trump playbook.
      Low testing rates = low prevalence rates.

      It helps if you get your facts straight.
      It has got nothing whatever to do with (ineffective) ivermectin.

      There are numerous studies that have clearly demonstrated that ivermectin has no worthwhile anti-viral efficacy in vivo – the studies that demonstrated it did were done in vitro and at concentrations x 10 times the normal human dose that would be required to achieve sufficient plasma concentrations.
      There are many things that will kill Covid-19 in vitro – including bleach, a flamethrower, a Colt 45 and a howitzer – but most of these are not very practical in vivo.

      Ivermectin is just another iteration of HCQ – for people who can’t interpret studies or who like grasping at straws.
      Or those who hedge their bets by insisting that it must be backed up with Azithromycin, zinc, and a bunch of other stuff none of which (apart from steroids) has been shown to be any more effective than placebo.

      Cranks and charlatans only.

      • @ john harris

        Dear johnny

        A 76% plunge in death rates is the same regardless of the sample size is twenty-thousand or one hundred-thousand patients. Please refer again to your distant math education.

        We’re talking about a very very large population in Mexico metro area…. 22 million people. Go ahead, make the test population as low as you like…. johnny.

        In vetro studies are not the final word. These studies are done when researchers want to protect the health of a sample population. When patients are desperate because there is not other remedy, they get desperate and will try things that normally they would not, especially if the side effects are low risk. Ivermectin is one such remedy. Why look to in-vitro studies when we have millions of in-vivo cases to study ?

        Not to mention Ivermectin is inexpensive for very poor individuals, and poor countries…. too inexpensive for pharma to make any money from it.

        • @Listener

          A 76% plunge in death rates …

          You have mentioned this number several times now, but never provided a source for this claim. Even worse, you presented this as a literal quote: “hospitalizations were down as much as 76%” – but this quote is nowhere to be found on the Internet.

          All I can see in the official data is a plunge in registered infection rates, followed by a matching plunge in death rates. Which means that Ivermectin couldn’t have had anything to do with that.

          Now, before reiterating your so far unsupported claims, please provide links to the following data:
          1. A graph or a data set showing the development of infections in Mexico City
          2. A graph or a data set showing the development of deaths in Mexico City
          3. Evidence showing when large-scale administration of Ivermectin happened
          4. Clear evidence that from the date in #3 onward, the death rate (#2) dropped precipitously, but the infection rate (#1) did not. In other words: show me that the Infection Fatality Rate dropped by 76% within days after they started using Ivermectin.

          In other words: come up with independently verifiable data instead of just the same vacuous claims all over again.

          And to make it abundantly clear: even if #4 is satisfied (which I am pretty certain that you will not be able to show), you still only have demonstrated correlation, not causation. There can be lots of other good reasons why a large-scale intervention with Ivermectin caused a drop in IFR without Ivermectin itself being instrumental – e.g. the fact that interventions of this kind often mean that people all of a sudden receive health care where they previously did not.

          And while you’re at it, please also explain
          5. Why, if Ivermectin is as effective as claimed, virtually all countries who tried it have stopped administering it by now, even in places where infection and death rates are still high.
          Please don’t insult our intelligence by coming up with conspiracies from Big Pharma or the likes to explain why a hugely successful treatment would be abandoned after only a few months of trying.

        • @ Listener

          You are missing the point totally – if you can’t rely on the stats – you can’t rely on the stats – period!
          You can’t just extrapolate from a small unreliable unrepresentative number to get a larger number and claim that this represents anything meaningful – especially when there is huge political pressure to get a particular result.

          You are as always using motivated reasoning.

          Where are all these “millions of in vivo” cases that have been studied? So far the trials done on real patients have been small, poorly done and very unimpressive. The evidence for ivermectin is simply not there – people such as yourself are seeing data that is simply NOT there.
          There are now a couple of large trials starting that should settle the matter one way or another – but as of now the data is not in. It’s all wishful thinking.

          Of course individuals will get desperate and try anything – like the people who tried bleach after Trump’s mad press briefing – that doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. Scientists and doctors are supposed to be above such knee jerk responses – aas should anyone with half a brain. Trying “anything” regardless of how useless it may be is bad practice, bad science, bad medicine – and a waste of precious resources at a time when these are scarce.
          The focus needs to be on treatments that we know work

          You also miss the obvious here as well – if millions of people start swallowing ivermectin in a random fashion then there will be plenty of claims that it works like there have been for Mexico and India (all quite demonstrably false) but since they will all have been done in an uncontrolled and unscientific fashion there will be no meaningful data to study – just millions of anecdotes. That’s what these pro-ivermectin doctors are doing -they just “know” it works so they don’t “need” to do studies – but their arrogance and unscientific approach means that there is zero data to establish whether they are right or not. Current data strongly suggests they are not.

          Your arguments that drug companies won’t make money rings hollow – dexamethasone has been incorporated into standard therapy in spite of the fact that it as cheap as chips – because it was shown to work well.
          All your arguments are half-baked knee-jerk reflexive slogans without any substance whatever – you don’t even think them through.
          Even Merck which makes Ivermectin has come out strongly against using it blind against Covid.

          • @john harris

            John. every time I supply a source here to support a claim with evidence, it’s either disregarded as an unreliable source… or just plain wrong.

            I will say this. There are many Nation States supporting the use of Ivermectin. There are thousands of well educated MD’s supporting the use, and prescribing Ivermectin. they god convinced somehow that its effective against covid-19 virus.

            Beyond that, you won’t convince me, neither will I convince you, good-day

          • Listener

            John. every time I supply a source here to support a claim with evidence, it’s either disregarded as an unreliable source… or just plain wrong.

            Looking back through the thread, all I can see are unevidenced claims from you. No links. And each claim has been patiently deconstructed. With evidence. Which you then claim, without evidence, to be wrong.

        • Listener. Big Pharma doesn’t make any money from lockdowns either, yet they’re used.

          A big new meta-analysis and systemic review on the use of ivermectin has just been published. Why not have a look at it?

          And what does it conclude?

          “In comparison to standard of care or placebo, #ivermectin did not reduce all-cause mortality, length of stay or viral clearance in RCTs in COVID-19 patients with mostly mild disease… Ivermectin is not a viable option to treat COVID-19 patients.”

          Sorry to piss on your chips, Listener.

          • I only take it seriously Lenny for those that could have lived, but will end up scared for life or dead because they’ve been told there is no other sanctioned treatment other than the $3000 Remdesivir… which really doesn’t work that well at all.

            I already had covid-19 and recovered, along with hundreds of millions of others. I also already got vaxed in February. Beyond that, I keep a supply of Ivermectin handy just in case the “vaccine” doesn’t keep me from another virus bout. I’m not concerned for myself.
            Lenny, I’m living life good, traveling and enjoying everyday…. not cooped-up inside, hiding from a virus… lol.
            I relocated from a state with extreme lockdowns, to a State that is opposed lock-downs. Lockdowns have not been proven to be effective…. If you didn’t know that, you heard it here.

            Biig pharma does benefit from new drugs as opposed to off-patient drugs. Furthermore, they benefit from vaccines that are only approved for emergency use…. especially since they have no responsibility for any health related damages. Lenny, the amount of RCT’s that are NOT sponsored by big pharma are few and far between. The outcomes of any such studies done by ANY pharma in which they are a sponsor can be suspect and in question…. (in case you didn’t know that ). Furthermore, any older drugs that are studied and paid for by the pharma industry for new indications… like Ivermectin that are in competition with new drugs, or would prevent or inhibit a Emergency Use Authorization…. are also suspect.

          • I only take it seriously Lenny for those that could have lived, but will end up scared for life or dead because they’ve been told there is no other sanctioned treatment other than the $3000 Remdesivir… which really doesn’t work that well at all.

            Ever heard of dexamethasone? £5 per patient? Shown to work in (presumably Big Pharma-sponsored) trials? An older drug repurposed?

            Your arguments are beyond hollow, Listener.

          • … nothing new then.

  • Honest- Ape

    First of all, you are the one that needs to have your mouth harnessed…not me.

    Any special treatment towards any person based on skin color race or nationality is racist and wrong…and you making jest of ithe situation, and using the words tou choose makes you racist.

    I’ve never seen Honest- Ape post previously I suspect you are a regular here with another moniker. And judging by your sarcastic tone.. my guess is your true moniker here is Lenny.

    • Projecting again, Listener?

      I post under only the one name. Why would I need to use another one to continue to mock your inanities?

  • Listener,

    Come now, what is this business about harnessing mouths and accusations of racism? Why would you try to shut up your fellow conservative? Like you said, conservatives in general are NOT politically correct. Of all people, a fellow conservative like you should understand that sometimes political in-correctness may seem like racism, as long as you say you are not racist you are fine! Allow me to quote one of the greatest conservatives of all times and the most politically in-correct person currently roaming the swamps of Palm Beach, FL: ‘I am the least racist person there is anywhere in the world’.

    By the way, good detective work there Sherlock! Honest-Ape is the only screenname I post with and please don’t go around accusing other people for what I posted. I am an honest-to-God conservative. I believe in science, and I think vaccines are safe and are our only way out of this pandemic, except when science come in the way of my religious beliefs and/or my deep-seated biases and fallacies.

  • No not chopsticks, but rather clubs , firebombs and guns. You really have no idea of the number of individual small business and associated livelyhoods, dreams that were senselessly ruined by the blm protests. Sitting their in your chair probably smoking your pipe and joking about the devastation , striff and hardship the acts of violence caused in places like Portland, Seattle, Minniapolis is a bit disgusting. As a small independent business owner myself I have nothing but empathy for those who through no fault of their own lost everything even loved ones. Go ahead and mock away just realized how insensitive the look is to luddites like myself. You probably don’t know one person personally impacted by the violence caused by the blm riots. . I suggest the site stay less politcal because it affects the overall mission of the site itself turning away viewership and causing distrust in those claiming to be purveyors of the truth.

    • I suggest this site post more RWNJ political content so they can attract more viewers and compete with the likes of the federalist, fox news etc.

    • @chris
      Yes, we want all small businesses burnt down – especially yours – with the ashes ploughed under, and the violent, uneducated and unwashed hordes taking over the world!(*)

      No, of course I don’t condone violence, you idiot! And I certainly don’t like you putting words in my mouth that I never said – I very explicitly said that those PROTESTS happened for very good reasons, and I also said that the vast majority of those protests were completely peaceful. You are just repeating the extreme right (not to say racist) talking points that try putting the blame for any and all violence with BLM in particular, and black people in general – making it look as of YOU are the victim of severe injustice, not the black people who suffer structural injustice up to this day.

      Your ill-informed comments also conveniently overlooked the fact that a significant number of violent incidents were NOT started or perpetrated by protestors but by police – I distinctly recall several occasions where non-violent protests were ‘handled’ by the police with pepper spray, batons and flash grenades, one such occasion because the narcissistic psychopath-in-chief wanted to show off his religious hypocrisy by holding a bible upside down in front of a church. The very same narcissistic psychopath-in-chief who on more than one occasion asked his army commander to deploy deadly military force to end the protests. To his credit, this commander minced no words telling his boss to go #$&@! himself, and refused to even remotely consider any military intervention.

      Anyway, and once again, your dumb whining here is off-topic (as is my response to that, for that matter). This thread is about the people who caused untold damage to the US by spreading lies and BS. So let’s keep it at that, shall we?

      *: FYI: I am the owner of a small business too.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Subscribe via email

Enter your email address to receive notifications of new blog posts by email.

Recent Comments

Note that comments can be edited for up to five minutes after they are first submitted but you must tick the box: “Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.”

The most recent comments from all posts can be seen here.