5 ms·
This is wonderfully fun stuff to read: This is from ivmmeta.com, part of a sprawling empire of big professional-looking sites promoting unorthodox coronavirus
by DoreenMichele 5y ago
This is wonderfully fun stuff to read:
This is from ivmmeta.com, part of a sprawling empire of big professional-looking sites promoting unorthodox coronavirus treatments. I have no idea who runs it - they’ve very reasonably kept their identity secret - but my hat is off to them...Putting aside the question of accuracy and grading only on presentation and scale, this is the most impressive act of science communication I have ever seen.
I asked a few questions previously on HN about Ivermectin and got answers that killed my interest in the topic (because I don't think it is relevant). But this piece is a delight.
- Cthulhu_ 5y agoI want to know who's behind those sites, the fact that nobody knows who's behind them is shady. Or is having sites pushing meta-studies about anything normal and I just missed it?
- jack_pp 5y agoIs it so shady to mask your identity when so many people have been crucified for even hinting ivermectin might be beneficial?
- weeblewobble 5y agolike who?
- h3rsko 5y agoJoe rogan, aaron rodgers?
- weeblewobble 5y agoThose two guys seem to be doing just fine.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- user-the-name 5y agoThe paragraph you quoted is, alone, pretty much enough to dismiss this entire article outright. It shows such a reckless disregard for critical thinking that it is impossible to trust anything that comes after it. He sees a slick and well-presented site on a topic that is not only politically fraught, but well known to have a massive propaganda effort behind it, and he just completely refuses to even consider questioning it as a source? That is reckless beyond words.
- shkkmo 5y agoThe paragraph quoted is making a point about how to effectively present and communicate scientific topics, not ascribing dependability. Indeed, the entire article is a systematic rebuttal of ivmmeta's claims. Rebuttals are more convincing if you treat the topic in good faith rather than assuming fraud from the outset. I don't understand how you can see this as "reckless beyond words" when it seems like exactly the sort of systematic analysis that we need more of.
- BurningFrog 5y agoYou quoted this, but don't seem to have understood it: > Putting aside the question of accuracy and grading only on presentation and scale
- j-bos 5y agoHe uses the site as list of studies to review, and throughout the article lays out why the site itself is not a reliable source.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- mcphage 5y ago> It shows such a reckless disregard for critical thinking that it is impossible to trust anything that comes after it. I don't think that paragraph is as complimentary as you do.