I am not a professional, but this looks like a very good study and I trust its results. I think I am pretty convinced that Ivermectin alone is not effective at treating Covid. I still have hope that it is effective in preventing it. We need more studies on that.
> It's by far the surest way to regime change Russia
Ah, Ok. Another country to bring democracy and freedom to. I really thought that by this time we have learned our lesson - but I guess not - God help us.
The title of the article is "The social network for doctors is full of vaccine disinformation".
Given examples of such "disinformation" in my opinion are valid concerns:
"Covid-19 vaccines have already killed over 4,000 adults who’ve received the vaccine" - there is a strong signal that it might be true.
"Articles about vaccines or masks have hundreds of comments, many that are factually inaccurate and often based on conspiracy theories" - lab leak conspiracy has been considered a conspiracy theory for a year or more so I am not sure what they call conspiracy theory now.
So instead of talking about risk analysis, mainstream media just proclaims all negative vaccine comments to be "disinformation".
This is another illustration of loss of trust to important institutions in our society - I hope we are hitting the bottom and will rebound, but not so sure.
Pretty sad what is going on with social media and MSM censoring a critical speech and discussions that can save lives. This is just plain authoritarianism.
> Sure, but how is Q more trusted than, say, the FBI, even if the FBI is hardly to be trusted at all?
Yep, it is all screwed up - we need to work on establishing new sources of information because many old ones pretty much discredited themselves (maybe they can be cleaned up but I doubt it). Political journalism is hard to find these days - but there are some brave people like GG and MT that are trying to do that outside of media corporations and I think it is a way to go for now.
Well, when I look at mainstream media saying for 3 years that Trump "is a Russian agent", that Trump is conspiracy theorist saying that Obama admin spied on his campaign - I by being a "critical thinker" compare it to IG report and comments in Senate hearings and make a decision of how adjust my trust ratings for sources. At some point rating of some sources is going to be too low to even consider them, and some will be Ok-ish. That's how I will know what "conspiracy theories" to consider. They might end up not being "conspiracy theories" altogether (like conspiracy theory that Iraq does not have WMD).
I also wonder what the cost of this study was.