[didjathinkmess]

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 the worst studies to shape a narrative.

[fmstack]

I absolutely 100% registered for an account here just so I could respond to this random comment.

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when the paper is published in a relatively unknown journal, and an entire parade of red flags when people treat “not peer reviewed” as “almost as good as true.”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.

[didjathinkmess]

Interesting how this peer review argument comes out selectively and not when something like Surgisphere happens and their bogus findings are immediately passed off as the ultimate truth.

I see that towards the end of your comment that you're inferring the page has issues with the statistical calculations. Here's the easy solution to get past that and get us talking about what matters: disregard whatever problems you have with the page and look at the actual studies. I think it's absolutely preposterous that people are disregarding life saving research based on which web site serves as a vehicle to get them to it. Read through a few of the studies as I have, and let's have a conversation around the most promising.

[ivraatiems]

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?

[h2odragon]

They're both biased, and both will be using any facts they mention in a way that's best for their narrative.

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.

[didjathinkmess]

That's up to the reader to judge. I always advise doing your own research. For example look at the history of the Atlantic, which political side do they align with, have they ever said anything unbiased about Ivermectin, etc.

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.

[readflaggedcomm]

Because it links to the individual studies.

[phonypc]

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

[didjathinkmess]

Okay cool, pretend the page's only purpose is a collection of links to medical studies.

Find anything amiss with any of actual 64 studies? Or are you content to just not move past the web site itself.

[phonypc]

A collection of links to studies would be harmless. The site purports to compile data from said studies in a meaningful and complete manner. It very much does not.

There are also issues with some of the studies themselves, but that's a separate issue.

[penultimatebro]

There you have it... if one dares to post anything that conflicts with the official narrative, you are a paid shill. Even if that post is literal science like the comment above which is a collection of studies on Ivermectin.

[phonypc]

No, I'm (me, singular) close to assuming that people who link to an anonymous, mangled cherry-picking of incongruous study endpoints is a paid shill.