61–70 of 93 posts
It's probably not a coincidence that the same people saying "Masks don't work and the proof is I can smell my farts when I wear them", "The virus is a hoax", "The vaccines have a tracking chip in them" are the same folks saying "ivermectin prevents and cures covid". I live in the Missouri Ozarks, near Branson, and I am surrounded by them. I've been following the use of ivermectin since around June 2020 and still have…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you explain what "truthful consensus" means in this situation? The article does not give me any hope that medical literature is "trying" anything.
Most researchers are interested in the truth. There are incentives for people to be lazy and fast, which leads to bad science, but most of the time they would rather be right. They'll even defend bad results, but out of self protection rather than outright intent to mislead. So there are plenty of problems, but of an entirely different character from the outright propaganda by non-scientists practicing ideological co…
No they are not. They are interested in having a source of income and a career first. Reaching the wrong conclusions can leave them without a job, or funding or stall their career advancement.
Modern academia does not select for truth.
People who castigate the medical and pharmaceutical industries for being corrupt and then wholeheartedly advocate for one treatment or another as "the solution" based on articles they found on the Internet from unknown sources aren't and were never operating from a place of logic - as though nobody on the Internet was ever maliciously motivated or trying to make a buck.
There's no point in a discussion based on "the evidence" with these individuals, except maybe to point out the cognitive dissonance at play.
Why take the biased article at its word? Luckily we have access to all of these studies and can do the research ourselves (thanks Internet!) https://ivmmeta.com/ The current count of medical studies that show Ivermectin being beneficial for treating or preventing COVID-19 is 64. Out of those 64, 44 of them are peer reviewed. Or we could throw the baby out with the bathwater because this article cherry picked a few of…
That website is such obvious bunk that I'm close to assuming anyone still linking it is literally a paid shill. They still have a copycat up in hcqmeta.com touting similar claims for hydroxychloroquine. And a dozen other drugs/vitamins. Here's a nice read on the subject: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1422044335076306947.html
Find anything amiss with any of actual 64 studies? Or are you content to just not move past the web site itself.
Why take the biased article at its word? Luckily we have access to all of these studies and can do the research ourselves (thanks Internet!) https://ivmmeta.com/ The current count of medical studies that show Ivermectin being beneficial for treating or preventing COVID-19 is 64. Out of those 64, 44 of them are peer reviewed. Or we could throw the baby out with the bathwater because this article cherry picked a few of…
How do we know that this article is biased and yours is not? Why should we trust this source and not the one linked above?
everything is like this.
The problem is that we have this utopian notion that somewhere there is an Unbiased Grand Truth that should be given to us in exchange for our attention. We assume and expect that we're being given the Gold Standard Truth when we read anything now.
And then we get upset when we peel the foil off and discover it wasn't even chocolate.
Why take the biased article at its word? Luckily we have access to all of these studies and can do the research ourselves (thanks Internet!) https://ivmmeta.com/ The current count of medical studies that show Ivermectin being beneficial for treating or preventing COVID-19 is 64. Out of those 64, 44 of them are peer reviewed. Or we could throw the baby out with the bathwater because this article cherry picked a few of…
How do we know that this article is biased and yours is not? Why should we trust this source and not the one linked above?
Another thing to consider: one is an article and one is a site which points to medical studies so it's difficult to compare the two. You can weave a biased narrative easily with one article. It's a lot more difficult to do that across 60+ studies.
Trust nothing, do your own research always.
It's probably not a coincidence that the same people saying "Masks don't work and the proof is I can smell my farts when I wear them", "The virus is a hoax", "The vaccines have a tracking chip in them" are the same folks saying "ivermectin prevents and cures covid". I live in the Missouri Ozarks, near Branson, and I am surrounded by them. I've been following the use of ivermectin since around June 2020 and still have…
Are we still just straight repeating govt propaganda to scare the general public? Did Colin Powell's death not make it extremely clear how inflated these totals are? Gen. Powell was 84 with Parkinson's and an incurable blood cell cancer (and fully vaccinated, btw). But sure, Covid "killed" him. Chalk up one more to help justify the lockdowns and eliminating your freedoms.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Curing serious disease? That’s rich.
What do you mean? Smallpox is extinct, diptheria, pertussus and polio are nearly extinct, and measles mumps and rubella would be nearly extinct if not for pockets of antivaxers creating a constant stream of outbreaks. Go look up how many diseases these people killed prior to the vaccines, and then a few years after. You are absolutely taking for granted what we've accomplished through the use of vaccines.
Also, because of their sheer ability to spread, MMR diseases can be big problems outside of the United States, though they are usually restricted to small pockets in the USA for exactly the reasons you mention. This is why we have to pay attention to community levels of vaccination, not just state or county-level. All outbreaks start local.
Why take the biased article at its word? Luckily we have access to all of these studies and can do the research ourselves (thanks Internet!) https://ivmmeta.com/ The current count of medical studies that show Ivermectin being beneficial for treating or preventing COVID-19 is 64. Out of those 64, 44 of them are peer reviewed. Or we could throw the baby out with the bathwater because this article cherry picked a few of…
That website is such obvious bunk that I'm close to assuming anyone still linking it is literally a paid shill. They still have a copycat up in hcqmeta.com touting similar claims for hydroxychloroquine. And a dozen other drugs/vitamins. Here's a nice read on the subject: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1422044335076306947.html
Why take the biased article at its word? Luckily we have access to all of these studies and can do the research ourselves (thanks Internet!) https://ivmmeta.com/ The current count of medical studies that show Ivermectin being beneficial for treating or preventing COVID-19 is 64. Out of those 64, 44 of them are peer reviewed. Or we could throw the baby out with the bathwater because this article cherry picked a few of…
Friend. “Peer reviewed” doesn’t mean what you think it does. Peer review isn’t something that indicates that a given claim is verified. Instead, it’s something that indicates that a given paper has reached the bare minimum for consideration. It’s generally a red flag when people use “peer reviewed” as a synonym for “true,” particularly when the paper is published in a relatively unknown journal, and an entire parade of red flags when people treat “not peer reviewed” as “almost as good as true.”
Regardless of your opinions on the use of various treatments for COVID-19, I strongly recommend that you read this article and take their methodology to heart. “Doing research” doesn’t mean poking around on scholar.google.com and reading extant studies. Sometimes “doing research” means actually running an experiment to verify that the effects claimed in a published paper are replicable. Sometimes “doing research”, as in this case, entails doing statistical analyses of publications looking for tells of shoddy methodology or even straightforward misrepresentation. Note: There’s some really fun tricks that people can use to detect bogus data — for example, when humans attempt to fabricate “random” data, typically the numbers they come up with don’t match an actual random distribution.
Anyway, I hope that helps.