Misinformation flooding some of Alberta’s biggest online communities has become a major problem during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to three volunteer moderators of Edmonton communities on Reddit, a social media and news aggregator website.
If the scientists who have diplomas and PHDs put in a lot of time and effort to study ivermectin thought it was important enough then they must have had a reason to study its effects and the study that I mentioned seems to show that ivermectin in combination with doxycycline seems to have some benefit at treating covid-19. Maybe I’m missing something here… I’m open for discussion, but even you have to say that from all the studies that are done on ivermectin it seems to point to it being at least better than nothing for treating covid-19.
Is ivermectin really just a source of misinformation? You can see why an laymen that looks at the studies on ivermectin can conclude that ivermectin is effective against covid-19? And like I said why is it that there are not any ‘good’ studies on ivermectin to put the whole thing to sleep? Why is it that the good studies I could find on https://ivmmeta.com/ shows that ivermectin at least has some potential for treating covid-19?
This isn’t me spreading misinformation, I’m just curious why the studies on ivermectin seem to point to it being at least better than nothing for treating covid-19? Ok yes they are perhaps unreliable, yet they still show that ivermectin shows some promise against covid-19?
And if you have extraordinary claims you are the one who needs to provide extraordinary evidence. So don’t talk to us, just go prove it since it’s so obvious that an entire planets worth of humans fail to see it
It’s not so extrodinary. A new use can be found for a old drug. If anything it’s ordinary.
And he did back it up with the research article. If you want to refute it, you should provide a higher quality of evidence, like a newer article. Otherwise you have nothing substantial to say.
Seriously, go listen to that podcast. The questions I would have for you are - are you qualified to interpret any study done on any of this stuff? Are you an epidemiologist? A virologist? An anything-ist with the qualifications for understanding what’s garbage and what isn’t?
Then why are you wasting your time with it?
No layman should be looking at the studies and then spreading any part of them on social media. Not qualified.
No, you’re right, we listen to our medical professionals, who have informed us (and the media) what needs to be done to be safe.
If you get COVID-19, you don’t go to social media for some intellectualism. You go to the clinic, the doctor, the hospital, or whatever is provided by experts in your area.
I mention the podcast as it was a good one-off on the topic, by people who are qualified to discuss, on the topic of some of the ‘key’ Ivermectin ‘studies’ that are being referenced on social media that are making people do stupid shit like eat horse dewormer (first mention of this I’ve made to this point).
We shouldn’t believe anyone blindly. But this does not mean that random comments on social networks have similar credibility with papers published on Nature by PhDs and tenured professors.
People have finite time and energy to research knowledge and focusing. Wasting everybody’s time debunking falsehoods or reading unreliable sources or debating wacky theories is anti-intellectualism.
No one is suggesting that comments on social media are as credible as scientific papers. And nobody has to “waste time” debunking, its easy enough to ignore.
Essentially, it sounds like you want discussion of this topic to be banned.
If the scientists who have diplomas and PHDs put in a lot of time and effort to study ivermectin thought it was important enough then they must have had a reason to study its effects and the study that I mentioned seems to show that ivermectin in combination with doxycycline seems to have some benefit at treating covid-19. Maybe I’m missing something here… I’m open for discussion, but even you have to say that from all the studies that are done on ivermectin it seems to point to it being at least better than nothing for treating covid-19.
Is ivermectin really just a source of misinformation? You can see why an laymen that looks at the studies on ivermectin can conclude that ivermectin is effective against covid-19? And like I said why is it that there are not any ‘good’ studies on ivermectin to put the whole thing to sleep? Why is it that the good studies I could find on https://ivmmeta.com/ shows that ivermectin at least has some potential for treating covid-19?
This isn’t me spreading misinformation, I’m just curious why the studies on ivermectin seem to point to it being at least better than nothing for treating covid-19? Ok yes they are perhaps unreliable, yet they still show that ivermectin shows some promise against covid-19?
And if you have extraordinary claims you are the one who needs to provide extraordinary evidence. So don’t talk to us, just go prove it since it’s so obvious that an entire planets worth of humans fail to see it
It’s not so extrodinary. A new use can be found for a old drug. If anything it’s ordinary.
And he did back it up with the research article. If you want to refute it, you should provide a higher quality of evidence, like a newer article. Otherwise you have nothing substantial to say.
Seriously, go listen to that podcast. The questions I would have for you are - are you qualified to interpret any study done on any of this stuff? Are you an epidemiologist? A virologist? An anything-ist with the qualifications for understanding what’s garbage and what isn’t?
Then why are you wasting your time with it?
No layman should be looking at the studies and then spreading any part of them on social media. Not qualified.
Now thats just anti-intellectualism. We shouldnt blindly believe what so-called experts on the media are telling us.
No, you’re right, we listen to our medical professionals, who have informed us (and the media) what needs to be done to be safe.
If you get COVID-19, you don’t go to social media for some intellectualism. You go to the clinic, the doctor, the hospital, or whatever is provided by experts in your area.
I mention the podcast as it was a good one-off on the topic, by people who are qualified to discuss, on the topic of some of the ‘key’ Ivermectin ‘studies’ that are being referenced on social media that are making people do stupid shit like eat horse dewormer (first mention of this I’ve made to this point).
We shouldn’t believe anyone blindly. But this does not mean that random comments on social networks have similar credibility with papers published on Nature by PhDs and tenured professors.
People have finite time and energy to research knowledge and focusing. Wasting everybody’s time debunking falsehoods or reading unreliable sources or debating wacky theories is anti-intellectualism.
No one is suggesting that comments on social media are as credible as scientific papers. And nobody has to “waste time” debunking, its easy enough to ignore.
Essentially, it sounds like you want discussion of this topic to be banned.