4 ms·

Oh? It only links to dozens of peer-reviewed journals and studies. Totally suspect. Can't win all the jab religion followers, it seems ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

• oezi 5y ago
  Well the authors could start by giving their names instead of running an anonymous page online. Then they could actually use a methodology that makes sense.
  • docmars 5y ago
    And what of the methodologies presented in the individual studies? Are they not sufficient? Who are you, or anyone, to assume the curator / scientist / reporter who put this together is acting with negative intent when it presents a positive outlook for the use of other treatments that have manifested in good outcomes and healing? Don't get me wrong, it's good to be skeptical, just not selectively.
    • oezi 5y ago
      Don't get me wrong Doc. Neither you nor I nor a random dude with a web-site has the capacity to make statements that might lead people to make medical decisions. Leave that to doctors and governments please. It is good to be skeptical, but also important to trust the right people.
      • pjkundert 5y ago
        You mean, the doctors who are making such decisions, getting good results, and getting their medical licenses revoked?
        • docmars 5y ago
          So much this. It's all too real, and happening at an alarming pace. I've stopped counting the reports and interviews from doctors and medical workers who have bravely shared their stories and fears around this.
        • oezi 5y ago
          If doctors go off-label they better be damn sure it works.
      • LMYahooTFY 5y ago
        Why do you keep bringing up the irrelevant "random web site". It's a link page for studies. Why won't you address the studies?
  • spurgu 5y ago
    And get harrassed? One of the benefits of the internet is (/was) that you can share data/information anonymously.