The Coronavirus thread

Quote: AZDuffman

I know I have told you I disowned the Steelers literally the minute I heard they signed Vick.

Why would you not think I like animals?

Quote: Mission146

Fair enough. Never suggested you don’t like animals, just didn’t expect you’d be vehemently opposed to testing meds on animals. I’m against hair spray and other cosmetics, but testing meds doesn’t bother me.

Quote: AZDuffman

It was not valid testing meds, it was letting puppies die a painful, disgusting death for no good reason.

Quote: terapined

I personally know animal lovers
A good friend is an animal lover
When dog lovers claim they are animal lovers
She asks if they eat meat

Quote: Mission146

Thanks for clearing that up. I didn't know anything about it. I'd have just been surprised if you were against all animal testing; your posts often ring of pragmatism above all else.

Quote: petroglyph

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/10/nih-admits-funding-risky-virus-research-in-wuhan

Quote: rxwine

Quote: petroglyph

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/10/nih-admits-funding-risky-virus-research-in-wuhan

AFAIC, they can investigate and remove or prosecute anyone for wrongdoing as necessary.

Quote: fleaswatter

If by some chance your statement: "they can investigate and remove or prosecute anyone for wrongdoing as necessary" somehow refers to the flip-flopping fear mongering fascist Fauci, the chance that the corrupt bidumb DOJ, FBI or the democrat controlled congress will do anything is ZERO.

Quote:

I work on a small team of researchers who do what one might call “forensic peer review.” In the standard process for scientific publishing, peer reviewers take a manuscript mostly at face value: They ensure that the study makes sense as it’s described. We do something else: We check everything, and try to ferret out any potential biases in reported patterns of digits, statistical impossibilities, inconsistencies between what researchers said they’d do and what they actually did, and plagiarized sentences or paragraphs. And we often find fatal flaws hidden behind a veil of two-dollar words and statistical jargon.

The ivermectin literature has been no exception. Over the past six months, we’ve examined about 30 studies of the drug’s use for treating or preventing COVID-19, focusing on randomized studies, or nonrandomized ones that have been influential, with at least 100 participants. We’ve reached out directly to the authors of these studies to discuss our findings, sometimes engaging in lengthy back-and-forths; when appropriate, we’ve sent messages to the journals in which studies have been published. In our opinion, a bare minimum of five ivermectin papers are either misconceived, inaccurate, or otherwise based on studies that cannot exist as described. One study has already been withdrawn on the basis of our work; the other four very much should be.