4 ms·

I suggest the real website. Posting NIH Pubmed links tends to be used to suggest the NIH has something to do with it, when this website is just a library catalo

I suggest the real website. Posting NIH Pubmed links tends to be used to suggest the NIH has something to do with it, when this website is just a library catalog of papers. This is a mirror maintained by a government agency. https://www.cureus.com/articles/82162-ivermectin-prophylaxis-used-for-covid-19-a-citywide-prospective-observational-study-of-223128-subjects-using-propensity-score-matching https://www.cureus.com/articles/82162-ivermectin-prophylaxis... or the DOI link: https://dx.doi.org/10.7759%2Fcureus.21272 https://dx.doi.org/10.7759%2Fcureus.21272

g42gregory 5y ago
The NIH reference makes it harder to shut down the thread.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- avs733 5y ago
  Just to be clear, this is the same concept the parent comment is referencing. Posting the link this way from an NIH aggregator seems designed to give the false appearance of NIH credibility to
a_bonobo 5y ago
Cureus is a bit of a weird journal, they have very fast peer review time instead relying officially on post-publication peer review Here's a weird case on a different paper in the same journal: http://retractionwatch.com/2015/11/02/sex-addiction-article-retracted-republished/ http://retractionwatch.com/2015/11/02/sex-addiction-article-... In this case, the two first authors Lucy Kerr and Flavio Cadegiani are (partially?) funded by Vitamedic, a company that makes Ivermectin. That's not mentioned in the Cureus paper. It is mentioned in some of their papers, like this one: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357313430_Ivermectin_Prophylaxis_Used_for_COVID-19_Reduces_COVID-19_Infection_and_Mortality_Rates_A_City-Wide_Prospective_Observational_Study_of_223128_Subjects_Using_Propensity_Score_Matching https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357313430_Ivermecti... They seem to be based in Brazil. Given that intestinal worms are still common in Brazil it may have been that people saw a health improvement in Covid-patients after Ivermectin got rid of the worms.
- nojokes 5y ago
  That you for this bit of information. There people did read suspicious.
tokai 5y ago
>suggest the NIH has something to do with it That is an absolutely egregious misunderstanding of what Pubmed is. Let us not take actions on the basis of misunderstandings by the clueless.
- avs733 5y ago
  You are assuming a lot of knowledge in a lot of people. Let’s not dismiss people making clarifications that may not be immediately obvious to all HN readers

g42gregory 5y ago

The NIH reference makes it harder to shut down the thread.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
avs733 5y ago
Just to be clear, this is the same concept the parent comment is referencing. Posting the link this way from an NIH aggregator seems designed to give the false appearance of NIH credibility to

a_bonobo 5y ago

Cureus is a bit of a weird journal, they have very fast peer review time instead relying officially on post-publication peer review Here's a weird case on a different paper in the same journal: http://retractionwatch.com/2015/11/02/sex-addiction-article-retracted-republished/ http://retractionwatch.com/2015/11/02/sex-addiction-article-... In this case, the two first authors Lucy Kerr and Flavio Cadegiani are (partially?) funded by Vitamedic, a company that makes Ivermectin. That's not mentioned in the Cureus paper. It is mentioned in some of their papers, like this one: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357313430_Ivermectin_Prophylaxis_Used_for_COVID-19_Reduces_COVID-19_Infection_and_Mortality_Rates_A_City-Wide_Prospective_Observational_Study_of_223128_Subjects_Using_Propensity_Score_Matching https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357313430_Ivermecti... They seem to be based in Brazil. Given that intestinal worms are still common in Brazil it may have been that people saw a health improvement in Covid-patients after Ivermectin got rid of the worms.

nojokes 5y ago
That you for this bit of information. There people did read suspicious.

tokai 5y ago

>suggest the NIH has something to do with it That is an absolutely egregious misunderstanding of what Pubmed is. Let us not take actions on the basis of misunderstandings by the clueless.

avs733 5y ago
You are assuming a lot of knowledge in a lot of people. Let’s not dismiss people making clarifications that may not be immediately obvious to all HN readers