Non-financial boards have been closed but will continue to be accessible in read-only form. If you're disappointed, we understand. Thank you for being an active participant in this community. We have more community features in development that we look forward to sharing soon.
The Atlantic published a short piece on the flaws common to many of the articles published on Ivermectin that have spread like wildfire through the moronosphere.https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/10/ivermect...The most important insight from the story is that there is little difference between the quality of scientific studies and publications regarding Ivermectin versus other key medical studies conducted in the last twenty years. As the story puts it, many of the studies were designed to be published but not to be read. In the publish or perish world of academia and commercial science and a shift from actual printed publications to online publications of dubious quality, more junk science is being published with most sophisticated scientic consumers blowing them off in the absence of more rigorous verification.Unfortunately, this junk science is still floating around online like intellectual space junk, ready to appear in the search results of anyone able to type a few buzzwords in a search engine and wanting to spin deeply flawed statistcal analyses of poorly structured clinical studies into the next wonder cure or diabolical conspiracy.This problem isn't unique to covid treatments and won't be going away.WTH
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |