INSIGHTS | 9. Academia & Ivermectin
WARNING: This article is less about Ivermectin and more about Academic & Research Fraud. I am simply using this article published June 16, 2022, in Frontiers in Medicine as a case study.
For two years there has been tremendous controversy regarding the use of Ivermectin to treat COVID-19. The side in favor of the using Ivermectin are doctors who take care of patients who are sick, ranging from family doctors to some of the most prolific critical care and lung specialists in the world.
The side opposed to using Ivermectin are the usual suspects: NIH, FDA, Merck, and their collection of labs and minions that push drugs in which they have vested interest.
Those who understand how Ivermectin works, and the nature of acute illness, know that Ivermectin has a real and measurable impact on the outcome of those who are sick. Those who insist on the argument that Ivermectin is merely a horse dewormer, know nothing. These are bad-faith, straw man arguments that do not address illness and living organisms.
It used to be the case (and to a large extent, still is) that to really understand the value of a research article, one would have to scrutinize the Methods and Supplementary Materials. These are favorite places to bury information that would otherwise contradict the narrative the authors would like to push...or simply present inconvenient realities that they cannot resolve.
Now, it has become much easier to mislead the reader. With this article I want to demonstrate the ways in which 'Scientists' and 'Peer-Reviewed Publications' will lie to the public without a second thought.
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Remnant | MD to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.