ThumbsUp

These aren't studies from McMaster University. They are just journal articles that you can find at anywhere. Nor is the first one a study. It's a meta-analysis. The problem with most meta-analyses on ivermectin is that they don't have high quality studies to review and those that are high quality generally say it's the same effectiveness as a placebo.

Thedude86

I get what you’re saying, but a lot of studies will have a funding or conflict of interest section or will admit some kind of bias. Every single study that I’ve looked at or someone has posted ALL have some kind of funding and/or conflict of interest listed. I haven’t seen even one that doesn’t. On the other hand, a vast majority of studies that show Ivermectin works don’t say anything about funding, conflicts of interest, or bias. I’ll admit you can probably find fault with any study, but so far it’s significantly easier to find fault in the funded studies.

Also, before 2020, anytime someone had a certain health issue that didn’t have too many known cures… doctors and patients were willing to try all options as long as others showed success, but any “official” clinical trial didn’t exist yet. Especially if it had virtually no side effects. Ivermectin or any of the other Covid drugs are the first drugs that people aren’t willing to try that has shown so much success and safety shown around the world. If you were about to die anyway… would you not at least try it? Every doctor that’s used it all advocate for it. And the worst side effect is maybe a headache, and even that is extremely rare.

I can’t imagine anyone on their death bed given Ivermectin as an option and then saying, “naw doc. I’m good bruh. FDA hasn’t approved it for Covid yet.”

Thedude86

Thats why I said they reported them. But what’s the difference? Why would McMaster post them on their website? Are they willingly putting out false information they don’t believe in and then posting conflicting information?

That’s no different than if the NIH said pubmed is fake news even though the NIH manages pubmed and the print version is located at their headquarters.

Maybe McMaster and the NIH could have 2 libraries. One with fake conspiracy theories and another with all of their funded research.

Also, there are no high quality studies that show Ivermectin is as useful as placebo. I’m still waiting on someone to provide such a study that also shows 100% of the data collected without hiding certain findings.

I can’t believe how many people honestly believe that all the doctors around the world that’s successfully used Ivermectin all think it’s purely by luck. Worldwide it’s probably in the millions now. There are thousands of doctors just in the U.S. Outside of most of Europe most countries are significantly more open to Ivermectin than the U.S. Millions of doctors just got lucky? Purely a coincidence? I literally have a better chance at winning the powerball and mega millions together than for those stats to be purely by chance.

ThumbsUp

It's the same as any other library. You won't find those in print at the NIH either. Scientific journals largely aren't in print and haven't been for many years, save for a few broad ones like Nature.

Thedude86

When they were in print they were located there. Are you saying that now since everything is online… the NIH has decided to allow fake news? According to them, pubmed is the most used research tool of all physicians. Are you saying the NIH is willfully allowing false reports for doctors to research? They also don’t accept every study or journal. A board has to decide the authenticity and accuracy. If they decline it, that report can reapply in 2 years. Why would the board accept something they thought was fake? How are doctors supposed to know which reports are false and which are true?

You guys are grasping at straws. You’re are literally trying every angle to pretend the NIH or this university doesn’t believe Ivermectin works even though they are both posting such articles are their own websites. Why would either one of them post something they think is false? How is a doctor researching the topic supposed to know it’s false? The CDC could put “Ivermectin works in humans for Covid 19” on its homepage and you guys would be like, “well they forgot a period in one of their sentences at the bottom of their page so therefore the headline is invalid.”

ThumbsUp

You went to college, correct? That's an honest question because the things you say make it sound like you've never been to a library at a University. They aren't in the information policing business. They just publish the content from the journal database to which they subscribe. Pubmed itself is a journal database. It's like google scholar. Just a database of articles from journals, books, etc. They are not supporting or refuting it.

Here's one of the articles you posted in one of Harvard's Libraries:
https://hollis.harvard.edu/permalink...ous_2464146356

Here's also a book on Philosophy and South Park:
https://hollis.harvard.edu/permalink...ous_2464146356

Thedude86

I get what you’re saying. I already understood those particular studies weren’t done by McMaster. That’s why I said they reported the studies.

I also don’t think most general college libraries have an official review board that authors have to submit their fiction and non fiction books to see if their accurate. So I can maybe see your argument as far as McMaster University goes. Maybe they let some conspiracy theories in every once in awhile. But I would think when it comes to medical research they would be a little more picky being that doctors can use that as a reference.

Regardless, the NIH does have a review board for pubmed. They don’t accept just anything… “An external panel of independent experts assesses the journal’s scientific, editorial, and technical quality, and the NLM Library Operations Division makes the final decision. This process was implemented in 2014 following the approval of the PMC National Advisory Committee because of a significant increase in journals applying to participate. Rejected journals can reapply after two years“

Are their selected experts letting in false information?

ThumbsUp

Pubmed does not police what the journals themselves publish as articles, just like every other journal search engine. That is up to the journals themselves. Don't take it from me though, read their disclaimer:

Disclaimer

This disclaimer relates to PubMed, PubMed Central (PMC), and Bookshelf. These three resources are scientific literature databases offered to the public by the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM). NLM is not a publisher, but rather collects, indexes, and archives scientific literature published by other organizations. The presence of any article, book, or document in these databases does not imply an endorsement of, or concurrence with, the contents by NLM, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), or the U.S. Federal Government.

Please see more below about our content and how our databases relate to you.
---------

Once publications are selected for inclusion in a database, NLM does not review, evaluate, or judge the quality of individual articles and relies on the scientific publishing process to identify and address problems through published comments, corrections, and retractions (or, as in the case of preprints, withdrawal notices). The publisher is responsible for maintaining the currency of the scientific record and depositing all relevant updates to the appropriate NLM database.

Thedude86

Ok. Point given to you. I’ll accept defeat lol

Regardless, whether it’s published on pubmed or any other website every study that says Ivermectin doesn’t work hides at least some of the data or they give up after only 3 days as in the study posted earlier. Every single study that provides 100% of the data all show a significant benefit with Ivermectin. I still can’t wrap my head around why people would assume organizations that never see patients are more trustworthy than millions of doctors that actually have seen patients. All with success. Guess I should start playing the lottery more often.

TransWorld

So I am waiting for someone to claim those physicians should learn from someone who really knows something about science or medicine.

in 3, 2, 1…