Funny Pics
-
@jon-nyc said in Funny Pics:
@LuFins-Dad said in Funny Pics:
Over 200 peer reviewed and published COVID studies conducted by scientists with years of scholarship and thousands of hours of clinical experience have been retracted because they were discovered to be bullshit
, in fact.There are hundreds of others that haven’t been retracted but have been acknowledged to be bullshit.
PubMed shows 389,219 Covid papers in publication, I would assume another 50-100k are still in preprint. 3 to 5 in 10,000 isn’t a bad retraction rate given how fast the world was changing.
Just a reminder, a good number of those 389K still published are dealing with Ivermectin because some guy with nearly a decade in postgraduate studies and multiple degrees conducted research and published a peer reviewed paper that said Ivermectin was da bomb. Then some random guys on the internet said bullshit.
@LuFins-Dad said in Funny Pics:
Just a reminder, a good number of those 389K still published are dealing with Ivermectin because some guy with nearly a decade in postgraduate studies and multiple degrees conducted research and published a peer reviewed paper that said Ivermectin was da bomb. Then some random guys on the internet said bullshit.
I can’t say I’m an expert in the history here but I think that story is the other way around.
-
@LuFins-Dad said in Funny Pics:
Just a reminder, a good number of those 389K still published are dealing with Ivermectin because some guy with nearly a decade in postgraduate studies and multiple degrees conducted research and published a peer reviewed paper that said Ivermectin was da bomb. Then some random guys on the internet said bullshit.
I can’t say I’m an expert in the history here but I think that story is the other way around.
@jon-nyc said in Funny Pics:
@LuFins-Dad said in Funny Pics:
Just a reminder, a good number of those 389K still published are dealing with Ivermectin because some guy with nearly a decade in postgraduate studies and multiple degrees conducted research and published a peer reviewed paper that said Ivermectin was da bomb. Then some random guys on the internet said bullshit.
I can’t say I’m an expert in the history here but I think that story is the other way around.
You’re remembering the immediate aftermath and not the beginnings. There were originally multiple studies (flawed, yes) by scientists and doctors (many trained at schools in the US) supporting Ivermectin. That’s what kicked things off. And these studies were peer reviewed and published in some major journals.
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-58170809
I actually have a lot to say about rigorous scientific research, published studies, and how medicine in particular has devolved into a dangerous state of trust moreso than scientific inquiry, but this isn’t the thread for it and I have no time.
-
I posted on this perhaps a year or two ago but Scott Alexander did a deep dive into the ivermectin studies and came to the very reasonable conclusion that they showed efficacy in places like Egypt and Bangladesh precisely because it’s an effective dewormer and clearing up that comorbidity improved Covid outcomes. The same result didn’t obtain in the developed world.
Only non-witches get due process.
- Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
-
I posted on this perhaps a year or two ago but Scott Alexander did a deep dive into the ivermectin studies and came to the very reasonable conclusion that they showed efficacy in places like Egypt and Bangladesh precisely because it’s an effective dewormer and clearing up that comorbidity improved Covid outcomes. The same result didn’t obtain in the developed world.
@jon-nyc said in Funny Pics:
to the very reasonable conclusion that they showed efficacy in places like Egypt and Bangladesh precisely because it’s an effective dewormer and clearing up that comorbidity improved Covid outcomes
I didn't see that. Very interesting.
