Twitter is not a source. Ever. If you post about a study, link to the actual study and not some asshole spouting off about the study, invoking every politically charged buzzphrase he can muster and screaming about genocide trials.
If you want to evaluate research, you have to do it with a dispassionate distance. You have to set aside preconceived notions and simply look at what the methodology and data actually show. ClinicalTrials.gov is not showing any reported results. All we have is a poster from a French drug company. I have no actual data on the authors, when or where the poster was presented, links to actual data (rather than the sanitized conclusions a poster format requires), etc.
It's probably also noteworthy that this is for post-exposure prophylaxis, not pre-exposure prophylaxis or for treatment of a confirmed case of the Virus Which Cannot Be Named. The TOGETHER and ACTIV-6 trials both showed no benefit for treatment.
But doesn't Big Pharma use peer review to filter out contrary evidence to the narrative? I mean, if we only went with peer reviewed studies, then we would reach the conclusion that the vaccine actually saved lives and that Ivermectin did not help. All the peer reviewed research (and there is a lot of it) all basically backs up what the MSM has been saying.
Read it? Nah, ain't nobody got time for that. But I'll vaguely reference it in a post about how it is proof that Covid came from a lab (the toddler said so).
Twitter is not a source. Ever. If you post about a study, link to the actual study and not some asshole spouting off about the study, invoking every politically charged buzzphrase he can muster and screaming about genocide trials.
If you want to evaluate research, you have to do it with a dispassionate distance. You have to set aside preconceived notions and simply look at what the methodology and data actually show. ClinicalTrials.gov is not showing any reported results. All we have is a poster from a French drug company. I have no actual data on the authors, when or where the poster was presented, links to actual data (rather than the sanitized conclusions a poster format requires), etc.
It's probably also noteworthy that this is for post-exposure prophylaxis, not pre-exposure prophylaxis or for treatment of a confirmed case of the Virus Which Cannot Be Named. The TOGETHER and ACTIV-6 trials both showed no benefit for treatment.
Link to the ClinicalTrials.gov listing here.
Link to the poster (this is not yet published or peer-reviewed) here.
For me, I'll wait to see a full write-up and some proper peer-review before passing judgement. Downvote away.
But doesn't Big Pharma use peer review to filter out contrary evidence to the narrative? I mean, if we only went with peer reviewed studies, then we would reach the conclusion that the vaccine actually saved lives and that Ivermectin did not help. All the peer reviewed research (and there is a lot of it) all basically backs up what the MSM has been saying.
My cousin Daryl did an ivermectin study with six chickens and a toddler, want to read it?
Read it? Nah, ain't nobody got time for that. But I'll vaguely reference it in a post about how it is proof that Covid came from a lab (the toddler said so).