3 ms·
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 tout
by phonypc 5y ago
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 https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1422044335076306947.html
- didjathinkmess 5y agoOkay 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 5y agoA 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 5y agoThere 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 5y agoNo, 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.