It’s the nature of science that as time goes by there’s more information. The fact that someone in this month (in December) argued for evidence of fraud changes nothing about there being the time where the from Scott’s perspective where the published meta-analysis suggested Ivermectin looked promising.
This thread is not about a specific position of Ivermectin being true but about there being censorship pressure to prevent people from not talking about treatments that are not part of the official treatment guidelines. Understanding that this pressure is there is key for being able to reason well about the information landscape.
Kelsey Piper has argued that it looks like there was out right fraud in a lot of the ivermectin studies; see also her recent appearance on the rationally speaking podcast, which updates this thread a bit.
It’s the nature of science that as time goes by there’s more information. The fact that someone in this month (in December) argued for evidence of fraud changes nothing about there being the time where the from Scott’s perspective where the published meta-analysis suggested Ivermectin looked promising.
This thread is not about a specific position of Ivermectin being true but about there being censorship pressure to prevent people from not talking about treatments that are not part of the official treatment guidelines. Understanding that this pressure is there is key for being able to reason well about the information landscape.