[FRIAM] The case for and the case against Covid vaccinations

[uǝlƃ ☤>$]

The only way to find out is to follow the citations and actually read them. From an early FAQ:

https://web.archive.org/web/20210104121608/https://c19ivermectin.com/faq.html
'Who is @CovidAnalysis?
We are PhD researchers, scientists, people who hope to make a contribution, even if it is only very minor. You can find our research in journals like Science and Nature. For examples of why we can't be more specific search for "raoult death threats" or "simone gold fired".'

On the one hand, it's good to avoid fallacious arguments from authority. But on the other hand, that FAQ and the fact that they've registered DOZENS of websites (e.g. c19hcq.com, c19early.com, ...) indicates that they are ridiculously WELL FUNDED, not merely domain name costs and hosting fees, but the technical effort to put it all in place ... or they simply have way too much time on their hands. Transparency is a thing.

If I were to make a snap judgment, I'd say you cannot trust any of their summaries or analyses. But you might be able to use their many many websites as indices to look at the actual research. But *why* would you do that? Why are you searching the dark corners of the internet when *reputable*, transparently and ethically sourced data is available?


On 6/17/21 10:18 PM, Pieter Steenekamp wrote:
> I don't know if this web site is reliable. How can I find out? 
> 
> https://c19ivermectin.com/ <https://c19ivermectin.com/>
> 
> They claim :
> 
> 85% improvement in 14 prophylaxis trials RR 0.15 (0.09-0.25) when using Ivermectin for Covid-19
> 
> They link to a database of all ivermectin Covid-19 studies. They claim 60 trials, 549 scientists, 18931 patients, 31 randomised controlled trials.
> It's going to take reasonable amount of time and effort to verify their results


-- 
☤>$ uǝlƃ