Comments (13)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
CanadianRighty 9 points ago +9 / -0

What is the purpose of your link? To discredit Ivermectin by showing Google promoted "fact checks"? Does the fact that Japan hasn't stopped using vaccines since allowing the use of Ivermectin somehow demonstrate that it doesn't work? Circular logic.

Here is a link to a series of 67 studies, which clearly demonstrates Ivermectin does work exceedingly well:


I wonder if you're open enough to study the vast and detailed information so easily available to you, or if you have a boycott on material that doesn't align with the MSM/Government narrative, and your existing bias.

tuchodi -7 points ago +3 / -10


It doesn't bother you that the authors of that web site are anonymous?

"Different websites (such as https://ivmmeta.com/, https://c19ivermectin.com/, https://tratamientotemprano.org/estudios-ivermectina/, among others) have conducted meta-analyses with ivermectin studies, showing unpublished colourful forest plots which rapidly gained public acknowledgement and were disseminated via social media, without following any methodological or report guidelines. These websites do not include protocol registration with methods, search strategies, inclusion criteria, quality assessment of the included studies nor the certainty of the evidence of the pooled estimates. "


CanadianRighty 8 points ago +8 / -0

You didn't answer my questions, but I'll answer yours:

No it doesn't bother me- doctors and scientists who question the established narrative are routinely targeted for reprisal. The website doesn't generate ad revenue, and they list studies for many other treatments and drugs. Further I'll also point out this from their site:

"Vaccines and treatments are both extremely valuable and complementary. All practical, effective, and safe means should be used. Elimination of COVID-19 is a race against viral evolution. No treatment, vaccine, or intervention is 100% available and effective for all current and future variants. Denying the efficacy of any method increases the risk of COVID-19 becoming endemic; and increases mortality, morbidity, and collateral damage."

Regardless I'm not interested in the aggregator, I'm interested in the data (67 studies including 46 peer reviewed).

Instead of shooting the messenger why not discredit those studies?

I see your old link from 6 months ago questioning the websites practices, so I'll counter with this:


"There is nothing the enemies of ivermectin will not stoop to including calling ivermectin "horse dewormer,” making it unavailable at pharmacies, failing to report Uttar Pradesh, publishing bias, biased newspaper reporting, and "fake" randomized trials. The "fake" randomized trial has been weaponized by ivermectin's opponents. There isn't the slightest doubt that behind the scenes our government health care agencies, drug companies, and others have conspired to make ivermectin appear ineffective in Lopez-Medina, Together, ACTIV-6 and COVID-OUT. "

I'll close by asking you this- doesn't it bother you that people are being prevented from receiving treatment by pharmacists that was prescribed by their doctor?

tuchodi -6 points ago +3 / -9

You have no expertise in infectious diseases and public health but you're perfectly willing to believe anonymous people on the Internet while ignoring the advice of the best minds in the field.

doesn't it bother you that people are being prevented from receiving treatment by pharmacists that was prescribed by their doctor?

Who are the infectious disease / public health experts prescribing this? There are none, just a random smattering of medical outliers relying on an unaccredited meta analysis that doesn't meet accepted standards.

CanadianRighty 9 points ago +9 / -0

You have no expertise in infectious diseases, yet you’re perfectly willing to ignore and discredit the vast array of studies completed by leaders in their field that contradict your position.

Instead of reviewing those detailed peer reviewed studies you dismiss them out of hand, and attack the site that compiles them.

It seems you are in favour of the government inserting itself between the doctor patient relationship in contravention of established norms.

The only reason more doctors don’t prescribe medical interventions as is routine practice with all other disease, is because they are fired or reprimanded for doing so.

Why is it that monoclonal antibodies still aren’t routinely used in most of Canada, yet have also been proven to improve outcomes?

Why is it that the government doesn’t promote healthy living as it’s widely known that obesity only second to age in being the greatest risk factor to covid?