[fortytwo79]

Here's my problem with that. Twitter, Facebook, and Snopes likely don't have physicians, virologists, and epidemiologists on their staff. So who are they to determine truth or harmfulness of those doctors' positions? Snopes (and most of the media) largely attacked the unrelated views of one of the doctors. And yeah, she sounds like an odd duck. But that doesn't change the fact that FB and TWTR took it down for being "harmful," which they are not qualified to judge. Also, I find Snopes aggravating, because of stuff like this. They said they couldn't find evidence the doctor treated 200+ patients with COVID, thereby implying the doctor was lying. But lack of evidence isn't evidence of a lack of truth. Plus, that's clinical data. Wouldn't it be illegal for Snopes to have access to that without patient consent?

[ghthor]

It's all dogma and authoritarianism masquerading as science and reason. It's a dangerous time for free thought right now.

[AstralStorm]

You do not have to be a qualified doctor to check the sources. You do have to be thorough in checking the consensus and recommendations of major health organisations and verify scientific papers, a lot of which is published in the open on for instance PubMed, big name journals etc.

This one was easy - the claim was not backed by any amount of previously published research.

It is legal and easy to check for a registered trial. Something this big and cheap and likely to have major consequences should have been pre-registered. (Literally deadly consequences.)

And even if it were, it should be reproduced first before being followed by general public.

Most importantly article claims that it is unnecessary to wear masks, while the trial did not involve masks at all.