OK, the headline itself shows the bias in this article. No study, however large or well-conducted, ever "proves" anything. The study may support a hypothesis, but there may be further studies that get different results. No reputable scientist or researcher would ever claim that a single study constitutes proof. This is obvious to me, and I'm not even a scientist.
While I cannot vouch for the validity of the study, taking a look at your comment history I don't see you regularly calling out hyperbole in headlines. There is very much a difference between a reporter reporting on something where they often use headlines with hyperbole to grab attention and the actual underlying data. Unlike most articles written this one actually includes a easy link right to the study.
It seems quite disingenuous to associate a reporter writing a headline to grab attention to the actual scientist who conducted the study as if they endorsed such headlines. Looking at the article I don't see that this was written by the underlying scientist who conducted the study so you cannot act like they support this headline. The abstract of their study does not even hint that they believe this proves anything.
If by any chance it turns out that someone restricted treatment that they knew would have probably saved 10s or 100s of thousands of lives, will we treat them as a kind of war criminals, or will we make up excuses and use heavy censoring to save the narrative?
7 comments
[ 3.7 ms ] story [ 25.8 ms ] threadhttps://www.cureus.com/articles/82162-ivermectin-prophylaxis...
It seems quite disingenuous to associate a reporter writing a headline to grab attention to the actual scientist who conducted the study as if they endorsed such headlines. Looking at the article I don't see that this was written by the underlying scientist who conducted the study so you cannot act like they support this headline. The abstract of their study does not even hint that they believe this proves anything.
If by any chance it turns out that someone restricted treatment that they knew would have probably saved 10s or 100s of thousands of lives, will we treat them as a kind of war criminals, or will we make up excuses and use heavy censoring to save the narrative?