Thanks for the great podcast Chris. I have a question though: Which ivermectin meta-analysis are you referring to? With all the noise out there, I don't really have time to dig deep into this, but in a cursory search I've found a number of meta-analyses that are positive, one that is negative, and another that is inconclusive. I am not professionally trained in medicine or virology, but I am a chemist who is familiar with research literature...
Though it may be correct, I the article seems highly biased to me, with the big headline "Flawed ivermectin preprint..." and little mention of other ivermectin studies that have yielded results.
This gets to me. The fact of the matter is that the high-profile journals Nature and Science journals are far from objective reporters of scientific research. Take a look at their editorials. Those journals have abandoned the objectivity required by true scientific research. And then they have the nerve to tell people to "trust the science". Talk to Dave Collum if you want a quality rant on this subject.
Back to the point though, I wonder what you think about this website:
Again, I neither have time to really go into the details, nor am I a doctor or virologist. However, I do have many years of experience in analyzing data. I can tell you, if the data presented there is accurate, I'd bet all the money I have on ivermectin's side.
Thanks for the great podcast Chris. I have a question though: Which ivermectin meta-analysis are you referring to? With all the noise out there, I don't really have time to dig deep into this, but in a cursory search I've found a number of meta-analyses that are positive, one that is negative, and another that is inconclusive. I am not professionally trained in medicine or virology, but I am a chemist who is familiar with research literature...
Positive:
https://academic.oup.com/ofid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ofid/ofab358/6316214
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34145166/
https://swprs.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/andrew_hill_ivermectin_slides_december_2020.pdf
Negative
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34181716/
Uncertain:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34318930/
I saw the article in Nature that describes the flaws of the Egyptian research : https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02081-w
Though it may be correct, I the article seems highly biased to me, with the big headline "Flawed ivermectin preprint..." and little mention of other ivermectin studies that have yielded results.
This gets to me. The fact of the matter is that the high-profile journals Nature and Science journals are far from objective reporters of scientific research. Take a look at their editorials. Those journals have abandoned the objectivity required by true scientific research. And then they have the nerve to tell people to "trust the science". Talk to Dave Collum if you want a quality rant on this subject.
Back to the point though, I wonder what you think about this website:
https://ivmmeta.com/
Again, I neither have time to really go into the details, nor am I a doctor or virologist. However, I do have many years of experience in analyzing data. I can tell you, if the data presented there is accurate, I'd bet all the money I have on ivermectin's side.