4 ms·

Your breathless attempt to parrot Hanity on HN isn’t well received because it’s unscientific. You issued cultural criticism, which is welcome, but it isn’t abou

Your breathless attempt to parrot Hanity on HN isn’t well received because it’s unscientific. You issued cultural criticism, which is welcome, but it isn’t about facts or figures. If you had linked to an NIH study about Ivermectin and showed that the authors of the paper made an error in their statistical analysis that may have been better received. Do your own research. Pro-tip: that involves turning off the TV, radio, social media, and YouTube. It usually starts with reading dozens of peer-reviewed articles and being open to wherever the findings may lead you. The site you referenced contains a lot of hogwash that doesn’t pass muster, like non peer-reviewed studies, press releases, data from 2017 about parasite treatments, etc. It’s styled to appear convincing, but it appears to me to be the work of bloodthirsty trolls. Here’s a decent assessment of what is going on with Ivermectin right now: lots of people getting sick from it, and nobody getting cured of COVID-19 from it. Because it’s an anti-parasite drug, not an anti-viral. Ever consider you’re getting played? https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/ivermectin-dewormer-republicans-rand-paul-b1911392.html https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/ivermectin-dewormer-rep...

foolzcrow 5y ago
This is not true. Ivermectin has over 8 studies and they all came back positive. They want us injected so badly that no lie is off the table. Why are you all starting a civil war with them?
graderjs 5y ago
Plenty of breaths in here for me. You got to work on your reading. Or your breathing? Slow down, take it one step at a time. Your hysterical association with Hannity to try to dismiss shows your bias-- just because you associate an idea with someone you try to discredit does not mean the idea itself is discredited. Maybe you need to read the science. I linked. Hilarious that your critique doesn't even relate to what I said. Because, "unscientific?" hahah--so I guess, thank you for volunteering to refute the 350 trials in the two links? This is great. " If you had linked to an NIH study about Ivermectin and showed that the authors of the paper made an error in their statistical analysis that may have been better received." This is so hilarious. That's exactly what is on that page. Study after study, examined and collated. It shows you didn't even click through to the links, or if you did, you didn't bother to give them the time of day? Or you're being deliberately deceptive, or are so convinced of your righteousness (or blinded by the prevailing dogma, or just don't care?) that you're lying about it? Who even does that? The links are right there, anyone can see you're lying. It's like you don't even care about this truth. This is perfect, it perfectly encapsulates the state of the discourse. Thank you, truly, for exposing yourself so vulnerably and totally. This is brilliant, really brilliant. And if this was satire, well done--I mean, this was great satire. Really nailed the irrational rejections of science. Perfect. Down pat. But if not satire, then, man, you--haha--self-righteously launch into this tirade decrying all the things you yourself are doing! What can this be, except projection? Brilliant, beautiful, pre-emptive projection. "Do your own research." Apart from everything else that's abusive about this--I mean--it's so offensive and abusive of you to assume someone hasn't done so, simply because their conclusions are different to yours? And when they've linked research? Is that the strongest rebuttal you can come up with? And when it's totally false. So, "do your own research"--This is exactly what I think you know you need to be doing! And I think, deep down you must fear that. That's why you're exposing yourself with all these criticisms you're trying to level at me, is exactly what you're doing! Haha, this is perfect! It exactly mimics what I thought is going on in the discourse at this time. The level of irrationality, and the weakness of refutation speaks at the cultish adoration of the prevailing dogma. You're just parroting the orthodox, from the media as well, while decrying the media and telling people to turn it off. This is hilarious! And you can't even engage with dissent--scientific dissent--so you're just lying about what you pretend you're dismissing. " Pro-tip: that involves turning off the TV, radio, social media, and YouTube. It usually starts with reading dozens of peer-reviewed articles and being open to wherever the findings may lead you. The site you referenced contains a lot of hogwash that doesn’t pass muster, like non peer-reviewed studies, press releases, data from 2017 about parasite treatments, etc. It’s styled to appear convincing, but it appears to me to be the work of bloodthirsty trolls." This is so hilarious, every study, with publication links, commentary, and the results are collated. You're misrepresenting this site because you can't deal with one of these studies that challenges the dogma you seem to believe, and actually refute it. Perfect confirmation bias. Love you so much for showing how it works in practice--the machinery of delusion and confirmation bias, how you have to invent all this claptrap just to avoid seeing something that's in front of your face but that goes against what you've been told--probably on the TV, radio, social media and YouTube, no less, right? That site is literally paper after paper. Hundreds of peer reviewed articles. Turn off the TV, etc, is a pro-tip but one you need to take. Hmm, but I guess the biggest give away is how you compulsively react that because I have this view, I must be doing all these "bad" things (that you clearly are doing yourself), when in fact I'm doing the exact opposite here of what you say I'm doing, and it seems you are the one who has done the things you condemn. This is such perfect projective confirmation bias, I'm honestly confused--why would you do this?--unless you don't realize what you're doing. And I think that's fair, these are confusing times. It's hard, I get that. But I can't--I just can't ignore how hilarious and perfect, your airquotes "rebuttal" is. That you so much for epitomizing the state of the discourse in this amazingly un-selfaware set of accusations that seem to perfectly describe how you must have arrived at this dogma. I mean you must consider everyday you're getting played, right? That's why you live with such blinders on, because that truth must be unbearable to face, isn't it? I feel sorry for you if you're sincere here, but that doesn't excuse you being so dismissive of someone else's good-faith sincerity here. You need to work on yourself, you know--be more open-minded--and think critically about things. Otherwise you're just helping those bloodthirsty trolls you pretend you're against--and whoever else benefits from people not really thinking about these things. I'm sorry to be so harsh, but you know, you did say all that shit, with your really unjustified attempt to, you know, not even look at what I'm saying, but pretend you were addressing it. I mean that's not cool. But anyway, hope you learn better for next time. Have a good one! :P ;) xx edit: OMG, and you're at Snopes.com--the fact checkers!--this can't get better. This perfectly encapsulates the discourse, but you have the face to say all this, when you have this moral responsibility to truth, and this is how you act?! Oh, man. You're doing a bad thing there, I hope you take some responsibility for that and start doing some good with the position you have. But, man, maybe you don't have a choice right? Maybe the bosses don't let you? But, man, you should quit. If that's what passes for truth there, you should quit. That's irresponsible, and dangerous, to so many people. That you hold this position, while thinking like this, lying about the source, and you're whole job is about truth for people. That's wrong. Fuck, I mean...maybe you just--maybe you saw that and this is how you deal with it. By just drowning it in delusion and throwing your pent-up self-reflected hostility at anyone who challenges the dogma and reminds you of the lie you're living. Man, I get it, it must be tough, but...you should make a change. I hope you do something better in future, dude. Wow. Please. Cya 'round.
- reilly3000 5y ago
  I’m glad I’ve seemed to give you a good laugh :) For the record I am for any and all options that can help fight off COVID-19 so long as the trade offs are reasonable and the evidence is sound. I did look at your sources briefly, then spent more time with them after your response. FWIW I didn’t find what I saw particularly convincing. The WHO article is recommending use only in trials, the meta-analyses I clicked on were published as opinion pieces, several of the sources are press releases, and its relationship with hydroxychloroquine promotion undermines its credibility further. One table showed 2017 data from an unrelated study about the drug’s effects showing positive outcomes, but conveyed it in a way that appeared it related to COVID-19. It was interesting to see that in Peru and other instances of large-scale usage of ivermectin that there seemed to be positive outcomes, but the original authors of that study qualified that by stating there may be some correlation with masking and social distancing policies. There is a trend in misinformation which relies upon a sort of Denial of Service attack against the world’s debunking capacity, and these FLACC sites feel like they’re using that approach. I genuinely hope that you’re right about this drug being viable. I am sticking with health authorities on this, and struggle to believe that all of our health authorities colluding to produce WW2-style propaganda to suppress information about effective treatments. I have moved on from Snopes.com as of a few months ago, thank you for reminding me that was in my bio. No, I didn’t work on fact-checking during my tenure there, but yes, I have pent-up hostility towards misinformation and it’s purveyors. It’s insidious and deadly, and at a certain density it becomes nearly impossible to counter.
  - graderjs 5y ago
    I like how you responded with an apparent conciliatory tone, but didn't actually give up any of your ground. Confirmation bias in action perhaps? I thought some more about this and I think it makes sense at this time that people will react the same way you do. We live in an age where traditional authority sources have been dismantled to some extent, and in this authority-vacuum it's normal for people to gravitate towards an authority (such as your trust of the org). Also I think it's psychologically compelling to feel "right", and so not have to admit any fault, update your position, or surrender any ground. Both authority-seeking and feeling-right let people feel safe. These are hard times, and so it makes sense people will do that. You're not unique in that, and I'm not having a go at you for that in particular...it was just surprising to me. That there can be so much data but people will won't see it, they'll filter it out. That's confbias defined, but still, it surprised me. Anyway, about the articles on the linked sites. > several of the sources are press releases - Ignoring the first link (Sep 3) which is a link to a site-author's paper, but taking the first 10 articles on the IVM site (Aug 3, Santin - Aug 19, González-Paz) half are peer reviewed (5 articles), 2 are news articles and 3 are preprints. - Randomly scrolling down to another set of 10 articles (Nov 17, 2020, Carvallo - Dec 4, 2020, Sumar), 7 are peer reviewed, 1 is a news article, and 2 are preprints. - So while there are news articles, they're not frequent. And seem to be all related to treatment results. I could only find 1 press-release on that page, which seemed to be a Bulgarian pharma company touting its treatment (that was just ivermectin) and showing positive results. - Aside from these research-related news articles and 1 press release, it's studies. Also, I could only find 1 (ONE) press release in the entire 170 sources listed. Also the claimed "113 studies, 73 peer reviewed" seems supported by my random check. > One table showed 2017 data from an unrelated study about the drug’s effects showing positive outcomes, but conveyed it in a way that appeared it related to COVID-19 - I think you are referring to: "Clinical features, demography and predictors of outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 infection in a tertiary care hospital in India - a cohort study. Retrospective 2017 hospitalized patients in India, showing lower mortality with ivermectin treatment in unadjusted results. No group details are provided and this result is subject to confounding by indication." And I think you misunderstand, the 2017 is Not a Year it is the number of patients in the cohort. And it is directly related to COVID. (I could find No Other references to 2017 on in the entire list of sources). > and its relationship with hydroxychloroquine promotion undermines its credibility further - What relationship? That they are presenting study evidence of HCQ as another treatment? If you want to try to discredit FLCCC by associating with HCQ as a treatment, then you better make sure HCQ as a treatment has been discredited. But it has not. That's a question many studies are looking at. And here are some results, "23% improvement in 44 randomly controlled trials (RCTs)" and "Meta analysis using the most serious outcome reported shows 64% [54‑72%] improvement for the 31 early treatment studies. Results are similar after exclusion based sensitivity analysis and after restriction to peer-reviewed studies. Restricting to the 8 RCTs shows 46% [16‑65%] improvement, and restricting to the 13 mortality results shows 75% [60‑84%] lower mortality." - Promoting, or supporting (or talking about) a treatment that's effective, is credible, but suppressing that is not credible at all. But you think it's the other way 'round, right? :) > It was interesting to see that in Peru and other instances of large-scale usage of ivermectin that there seemed to be positive outcomes, but the original authors of that study qualified that by stating there may be some correlation with masking and social distancing policies. - There are multiple (I count 5) Peru studies, all are showing improvements (some showing significant improvement in 24 - 48 hours). - I think the study you reference, is "Ivermectin for COVID-19 in Peru: 14-fold reduction in nationwide excess deaths, p=.002 for effect by state, then 13-fold increase after ivermectin use restricted" which states (contrary to what you say), that indeed the authors considered (not qualified) that the death reduction could be because of other factors (including social mobility), but that, "The possibility that varying compliance with social isolation mandates in the different states of Peru could account for varying impacts of the pandemic is discounted by Google community mobility data shown in Figure 3", and further that, "With potential confounding factors discounted, the remarkable natural experiment that unfolded with the authorization of IVM for COVID-19 in Peru on May 8, 2020 had a conclusive outcome". In other words, there was no other reasonable explanation for the 14-fold reduction in deaths post-IVM and 13-fold increase post-IVM-prohibition, than IVM itself. > There is a trend in misinformation which relies upon a sort of Denial of Service attack against the world’s debunking capacity... - Or a trend in science? If you manage a "DoS attack" against "the world's" "debunking capacity", by showing so much positive support, haven't you effectively shown a theory is well supported? I mean, it's a very biased and ungenerous way to state a notion, which could more accurately and generously be stated, "There was such a preponderance of evidence supporting the theory, that no other theories could be reasonably considered". Which is just science, is it not? Is that what you're railing against? > ...and these FLACC sites feel like they’re using that approach. - Maybe to you, but that must just be your confirmation bias in action. Because every one of these points you make, you've misinterpreted or deliberately misrepresented to make up a lie, a fake narrative, about this, which is not true at all, which is not supported by anything on that site. - So it really seems, like you're the one, who's engaging in misinformation. - But I don't think you know that's what you're doing. I believe, I choose to believe...it's just your confirmation bias. And the psychological and safety seeking factors I led this comment with. - But by the way, it's not "FLCCC" running this "DDoS attack" against misinfo, they're just reporting the data in hundreds of studies. It's the data from the studies that are "DDoS"-ing the misinfo. > I am sticking with health authorities on this, and struggle to believe that all of our health authorities colluding to produce WW2-style propaganda to suppress information about effective treatments. - Well, I think about it like the GFC in 08/09. Wasn't it Wall Street's and Big Bank's fault? And did they pay for that? No. Why? Because money. Money led to a distortion of truth and responsibility. Is it really inconceivable that the same thing is happening here, is public health really so sacred (in the realities of human affairs) that it is immune from the corrupting power of money, to distort the truth? Isn't it at all possible that the big pharma companies have a vested interest in making billions from vaccines, and that profit is at risk from well-tolerated, out-of-patent, generic drugs that they could make hardly any money on? > I have moved on from Snopes.com as of a few months ago, thank you for reminding me that was in my bio. No, I didn’t work on fact-checking during my tenure there, but yes, I have pent-up hostility towards misinformation and it’s purveyors. It’s insidious and deadly, and at a certain density it becomes nearly impossible to counter. - Maybe you shouldn't have been part of the problem, there, then. :p ;) xx Let me end it with the findings of collating those 113 studies, HCQ: "400,000 patients, 64% improvement in 31 early treatment trials.", and IVM: "26,000 patients, 86% improvement in 31 prophylaxis trials."

foolzcrow 5y ago

This is not true. Ivermectin has over 8 studies and they all came back positive. They want us injected so badly that no lie is off the table. Why are you all starting a civil war with them?

graderjs 5y ago

Plenty of breaths in here for me. You got to work on your reading. Or your breathing? Slow down, take it one step at a time. Your hysterical association with Hannity to try to dismiss shows your bias-- just because you associate an idea with someone you try to discredit does not mean the idea itself is discredited. Maybe you need to read the science. I linked. Hilarious that your critique doesn't even relate to what I said. Because, "unscientific?" hahah--so I guess, thank you for volunteering to refute the 350 trials in the two links? This is great. " If you had linked to an NIH study about Ivermectin and showed that the authors of the paper made an error in their statistical analysis that may have been better received." This is so hilarious. That's exactly what is on that page. Study after study, examined and collated. It shows you didn't even click through to the links, or if you did, you didn't bother to give them the time of day? Or you're being deliberately deceptive, or are so convinced of your righteousness (or blinded by the prevailing dogma, or just don't care?) that you're lying about it? Who even does that? The links are right there, anyone can see you're lying. It's like you don't even care about this truth. This is perfect, it perfectly encapsulates the state of the discourse. Thank you, truly, for exposing yourself so vulnerably and totally. This is brilliant, really brilliant. And if this was satire, well done--I mean, this was great satire. Really nailed the irrational rejections of science. Perfect. Down pat. But if not satire, then, man, you--haha--self-righteously launch into this tirade decrying all the things you yourself are doing! What can this be, except projection? Brilliant, beautiful, pre-emptive projection. "Do your own research." Apart from everything else that's abusive about this--I mean--it's so offensive and abusive of you to assume someone hasn't done so, simply because their conclusions are different to yours? And when they've linked research? Is that the strongest rebuttal you can come up with? And when it's totally false. So, "do your own research"--This is exactly what I think you know you need to be doing! And I think, deep down you must fear that. That's why you're exposing yourself with all these criticisms you're trying to level at me, is exactly what you're doing! Haha, this is perfect! It exactly mimics what I thought is going on in the discourse at this time. The level of irrationality, and the weakness of refutation speaks at the cultish adoration of the prevailing dogma. You're just parroting the orthodox, from the media as well, while decrying the media and telling people to turn it off. This is hilarious! And you can't even engage with dissent--scientific dissent--so you're just lying about what you pretend you're dismissing. " Pro-tip: that involves turning off the TV, radio, social media, and YouTube. It usually starts with reading dozens of peer-reviewed articles and being open to wherever the findings may lead you. The site you referenced contains a lot of hogwash that doesn’t pass muster, like non peer-reviewed studies, press releases, data from 2017 about parasite treatments, etc. It’s styled to appear convincing, but it appears to me to be the work of bloodthirsty trolls." This is so hilarious, every study, with publication links, commentary, and the results are collated. You're misrepresenting this site because you can't deal with one of these studies that challenges the dogma you seem to believe, and actually refute it. Perfect confirmation bias. Love you so much for showing how it works in practice--the machinery of delusion and confirmation bias, how you have to invent all this claptrap just to avoid seeing something that's in front of your face but that goes against what you've been told--probably on the TV, radio, social media and YouTube, no less, right? That site is literally paper after paper. Hundreds of peer reviewed articles. Turn off the TV, etc, is a pro-tip but one you need to take. Hmm, but I guess the biggest give away is how you compulsively react that because I have this view, I must be doing all these "bad" things (that you clearly are doing yourself), when in fact I'm doing the exact opposite here of what you say I'm doing, and it seems you are the one who has done the things you condemn. This is such perfect projective confirmation bias, I'm honestly confused--why would you do this?--unless you don't realize what you're doing. And I think that's fair, these are confusing times. It's hard, I get that. But I can't--I just can't ignore how hilarious and perfect, your airquotes "rebuttal" is. That you so much for epitomizing the state of the discourse in this amazingly un-selfaware set of accusations that seem to perfectly describe how you must have arrived at this dogma. I mean you must consider everyday you're getting played, right? That's why you live with such blinders on, because that truth must be unbearable to face, isn't it? I feel sorry for you if you're sincere here, but that doesn't excuse you being so dismissive of someone else's good-faith sincerity here. You need to work on yourself, you know--be more open-minded--and think critically about things. Otherwise you're just helping those bloodthirsty trolls you pretend you're against--and whoever else benefits from people not really thinking about these things. I'm sorry to be so harsh, but you know, you did say all that shit, with your really unjustified attempt to, you know, not even look at what I'm saying, but pretend you were addressing it. I mean that's not cool. But anyway, hope you learn better for next time. Have a good one! :P ;) xx edit: OMG, and you're at Snopes.com--the fact checkers!--this can't get better. This perfectly encapsulates the discourse, but you have the face to say all this, when you have this moral responsibility to truth, and this is how you act?! Oh, man. You're doing a bad thing there, I hope you take some responsibility for that and start doing some good with the position you have. But, man, maybe you don't have a choice right? Maybe the bosses don't let you? But, man, you should quit. If that's what passes for truth there, you should quit. That's irresponsible, and dangerous, to so many people. That you hold this position, while thinking like this, lying about the source, and you're whole job is about truth for people. That's wrong. Fuck, I mean...maybe you just--maybe you saw that and this is how you deal with it. By just drowning it in delusion and throwing your pent-up self-reflected hostility at anyone who challenges the dogma and reminds you of the lie you're living. Man, I get it, it must be tough, but...you should make a change. I hope you do something better in future, dude. Wow. Please. Cya 'round.

reilly3000 5y ago
I’m glad I’ve seemed to give you a good laugh :) For the record I am for any and all options that can help fight off COVID-19 so long as the trade offs are reasonable and the evidence is sound. I did look at your sources briefly, then spent more time with them after your response. FWIW I didn’t find what I saw particularly convincing. The WHO article is recommending use only in trials, the meta-analyses I clicked on were published as opinion pieces, several of the sources are press releases, and its relationship with hydroxychloroquine promotion undermines its credibility further. One table showed 2017 data from an unrelated study about the drug’s effects showing positive outcomes, but conveyed it in a way that appeared it related to COVID-19. It was interesting to see that in Peru and other instances of large-scale usage of ivermectin that there seemed to be positive outcomes, but the original authors of that study qualified that by stating there may be some correlation with masking and social distancing policies. There is a trend in misinformation which relies upon a sort of Denial of Service attack against the world’s debunking capacity, and these FLACC sites feel like they’re using that approach. I genuinely hope that you’re right about this drug being viable. I am sticking with health authorities on this, and struggle to believe that all of our health authorities colluding to produce WW2-style propaganda to suppress information about effective treatments. I have moved on from Snopes.com as of a few months ago, thank you for reminding me that was in my bio. No, I didn’t work on fact-checking during my tenure there, but yes, I have pent-up hostility towards misinformation and it’s purveyors. It’s insidious and deadly, and at a certain density it becomes nearly impossible to counter.
- graderjs 5y ago
  I like how you responded with an apparent conciliatory tone, but didn't actually give up any of your ground. Confirmation bias in action perhaps? I thought some more about this and I think it makes sense at this time that people will react the same way you do. We live in an age where traditional authority sources have been dismantled to some extent, and in this authority-vacuum it's normal for people to gravitate towards an authority (such as your trust of the org). Also I think it's psychologically compelling to feel "right", and so not have to admit any fault, update your position, or surrender any ground. Both authority-seeking and feeling-right let people feel safe. These are hard times, and so it makes sense people will do that. You're not unique in that, and I'm not having a go at you for that in particular...it was just surprising to me. That there can be so much data but people will won't see it, they'll filter it out. That's confbias defined, but still, it surprised me. Anyway, about the articles on the linked sites. > several of the sources are press releases - Ignoring the first link (Sep 3) which is a link to a site-author's paper, but taking the first 10 articles on the IVM site (Aug 3, Santin - Aug 19, González-Paz) half are peer reviewed (5 articles), 2 are news articles and 3 are preprints. - Randomly scrolling down to another set of 10 articles (Nov 17, 2020, Carvallo - Dec 4, 2020, Sumar), 7 are peer reviewed, 1 is a news article, and 2 are preprints. - So while there are news articles, they're not frequent. And seem to be all related to treatment results. I could only find 1 press-release on that page, which seemed to be a Bulgarian pharma company touting its treatment (that was just ivermectin) and showing positive results. - Aside from these research-related news articles and 1 press release, it's studies. Also, I could only find 1 (ONE) press release in the entire 170 sources listed. Also the claimed "113 studies, 73 peer reviewed" seems supported by my random check. > One table showed 2017 data from an unrelated study about the drug’s effects showing positive outcomes, but conveyed it in a way that appeared it related to COVID-19 - I think you are referring to: "Clinical features, demography and predictors of outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 infection in a tertiary care hospital in India - a cohort study. Retrospective 2017 hospitalized patients in India, showing lower mortality with ivermectin treatment in unadjusted results. No group details are provided and this result is subject to confounding by indication." And I think you misunderstand, the 2017 is Not a Year it is the number of patients in the cohort. And it is directly related to COVID. (I could find No Other references to 2017 on in the entire list of sources). > and its relationship with hydroxychloroquine promotion undermines its credibility further - What relationship? That they are presenting study evidence of HCQ as another treatment? If you want to try to discredit FLCCC by associating with HCQ as a treatment, then you better make sure HCQ as a treatment has been discredited. But it has not. That's a question many studies are looking at. And here are some results, "23% improvement in 44 randomly controlled trials (RCTs)" and "Meta analysis using the most serious outcome reported shows 64% [54‑72%] improvement for the 31 early treatment studies. Results are similar after exclusion based sensitivity analysis and after restriction to peer-reviewed studies. Restricting to the 8 RCTs shows 46% [16‑65%] improvement, and restricting to the 13 mortality results shows 75% [60‑84%] lower mortality." - Promoting, or supporting (or talking about) a treatment that's effective, is credible, but suppressing that is not credible at all. But you think it's the other way 'round, right? :) > It was interesting to see that in Peru and other instances of large-scale usage of ivermectin that there seemed to be positive outcomes, but the original authors of that study qualified that by stating there may be some correlation with masking and social distancing policies. - There are multiple (I count 5) Peru studies, all are showing improvements (some showing significant improvement in 24 - 48 hours). - I think the study you reference, is "Ivermectin for COVID-19 in Peru: 14-fold reduction in nationwide excess deaths, p=.002 for effect by state, then 13-fold increase after ivermectin use restricted" which states (contrary to what you say), that indeed the authors considered (not qualified) that the death reduction could be because of other factors (including social mobility), but that, "The possibility that varying compliance with social isolation mandates in the different states of Peru could account for varying impacts of the pandemic is discounted by Google community mobility data shown in Figure 3", and further that, "With potential confounding factors discounted, the remarkable natural experiment that unfolded with the authorization of IVM for COVID-19 in Peru on May 8, 2020 had a conclusive outcome". In other words, there was no other reasonable explanation for the 14-fold reduction in deaths post-IVM and 13-fold increase post-IVM-prohibition, than IVM itself. > There is a trend in misinformation which relies upon a sort of Denial of Service attack against the world’s debunking capacity... - Or a trend in science? If you manage a "DoS attack" against "the world's" "debunking capacity", by showing so much positive support, haven't you effectively shown a theory is well supported? I mean, it's a very biased and ungenerous way to state a notion, which could more accurately and generously be stated, "There was such a preponderance of evidence supporting the theory, that no other theories could be reasonably considered". Which is just science, is it not? Is that what you're railing against? > ...and these FLACC sites feel like they’re using that approach. - Maybe to you, but that must just be your confirmation bias in action. Because every one of these points you make, you've misinterpreted or deliberately misrepresented to make up a lie, a fake narrative, about this, which is not true at all, which is not supported by anything on that site. - So it really seems, like you're the one, who's engaging in misinformation. - But I don't think you know that's what you're doing. I believe, I choose to believe...it's just your confirmation bias. And the psychological and safety seeking factors I led this comment with. - But by the way, it's not "FLCCC" running this "DDoS attack" against misinfo, they're just reporting the data in hundreds of studies. It's the data from the studies that are "DDoS"-ing the misinfo. > I am sticking with health authorities on this, and struggle to believe that all of our health authorities colluding to produce WW2-style propaganda to suppress information about effective treatments. - Well, I think about it like the GFC in 08/09. Wasn't it Wall Street's and Big Bank's fault? And did they pay for that? No. Why? Because money. Money led to a distortion of truth and responsibility. Is it really inconceivable that the same thing is happening here, is public health really so sacred (in the realities of human affairs) that it is immune from the corrupting power of money, to distort the truth? Isn't it at all possible that the big pharma companies have a vested interest in making billions from vaccines, and that profit is at risk from well-tolerated, out-of-patent, generic drugs that they could make hardly any money on? > I have moved on from Snopes.com as of a few months ago, thank you for reminding me that was in my bio. No, I didn’t work on fact-checking during my tenure there, but yes, I have pent-up hostility towards misinformation and it’s purveyors. It’s insidious and deadly, and at a certain density it becomes nearly impossible to counter. - Maybe you shouldn't have been part of the problem, there, then. :p ;) xx Let me end it with the findings of collating those 113 studies, HCQ: "400,000 patients, 64% improvement in 31 early treatment trials.", and IVM: "26,000 patients, 86% improvement in 31 prophylaxis trials."