News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Ivermectin shows that not all science is worth following. Parent comment

Re:Ivermectin shows that not all science is worth following by phonypc on Sunday October 24, 2021 @12:37PM (#28979505)
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

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Ivermectin shows that not all science is worth following by didjathinkmess on Sunday October 24, 2021 @12:54PM (#28979684)
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.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Ivermectin shows that not all science is worth following by phonypc on Sunday October 24, 2021 @01:56PM (#28980326)
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.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Ivermectin shows that not all science is worth following by penultimatebro on Sunday October 24, 2021 @01:12PM (#28979880)
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.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Ivermectin shows that not all science is worth following by phonypc on Sunday October 24, 2021 @01:50PM (#28980273)
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.
[ Parent | on HN ]