ICU NURSE: "You're being lied to about COVID."
(rumble.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (9)
sorted by:
Not much in the way of credentials. I could post a video of me reading the same script. Any reason why we should listen to her?
https://ivmmeta.com/
https://www.smh.com.au/national/examine-ivermectin-and-understanding-scientific-evidence-20210817-p58jd0.html
Problem 1: he says Cochran study is independent - it is receiving government funding - therefore it's not independent.
Problem 2: he says "oh those studies are low quality" the only thing low quality is that each study is small - but putting them together is a valid way to look at the data, a meta analysis.
Problem 3: he appeala to authority "Cochran is renowned for their work", "that's just some random website" well the random website doesn't need history, it shows all is sources done by real scientists/doctors
If that was the case no government funded study would ever produce results the government didn't want to hear. Here's a relevant example: https://www.smh.com.au/national/not-enough-evidence-key-taskforce-rejects-rollout-of-new-covid-19-drug-20210808-p58guv.html
Meta analyses are useful in their place and that place needs to trustworthy. A mystery web site that mixes in studies and pre-prints - none of which we are qualified to evaluate - is not a first rank source, but I do note that its first screen says this:
"While many treatments have some level of efficacy, they do not replace vaccines and other measures to avoid infection."