Ivermectin: balance of evidence shows no benefit against Covid-19

JohnStarr

Executive Member
Joined
May 21, 2018
Messages
7,732
When the only tool you have in the toolbox is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Depends...do you know what tool the guy has? Unless you're just trying to be different in life and you use a screwdriver to drive a nail into something? :unsure:
You know...because people have to be different nowadays.
 

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
23,997
It slightly irks me when people say that they've "researched" a topic when they actually mean that they've learned about a topic by reading or watching videos or listening to podcasts. Doing research implies some kind of original contribution to man's understanding of the topic and usually culminates in some kind of thesis or journal publication or research monograph on the topic.

I see this a lot with people stating that they've been "researching" ivermectin, when what they actually mean is that they've been reading up on ivermectin, watching videos about it, etc.
That is why you might have noticed I put "research" between "quotation marks" very often when I post.

The slack way in which terminology is used is pretty pervasive even in respected scientific journals.
In a research institution, however, there is a distinction made between "research" as in undertaking original work, lab work etc, "research" done as in investigating the field by doing paper research into a field as a pre-cursor step before undertaking original research, and, "learning" about a subject or field.

So yes, most of us that are not in a specific field, whatever it is, are busy with a learning exercise, and, then we might move on to the second step which is "researching" a field with which we are now familiar.
Very few are able to move on to "real" research unless we are actively engaged in that field.

The only ones wanting to split hairs about anyone's "status" with regard to "research" are those with chips on their shoulders.
 
Last edited:

lumeer

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2018
Messages
2,832
That is why you might have noticed I put "research" between parenthesis very often when I post.

The slack way in which terminology is used is pretty pervasive even in respected scientific journals.
In a research institution, however, there is a distinction made between "research" as in undertaking original work, lab work etc, "research" done as in investigating the field by doing paper research into a field as a pre-cursor step before undertaking original research, and, "learning" about a subject or field.

So yes, most of us that are not in a specific field, whatever it is, are busy with a learning exercise, and, then we might move on to the second step which is "researching" a field with which we are now familiar.
Very few are able to move on to "real" research unless we are actively engaged in that field.

The only ones wanting to split hairs about anyone's "status" with regard to "research" are those with chips on their shoulders.
So we're all researchers then, just like we're all doctors, virologists, epidemiologists, etc.
 

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
23,997
So we're all researchers then, just like we're all doctors, virologists, epidemiologists, etc.
Only if it bothers you.
In this specific case, a "doctor" might know nothing about a novel virus, but he by the nature of his profession can hardly be labelled as "learning" about viruses etc. So his work in learning about a novel virus is more than just learning.

But, as I have pointed out many times, context is everything. It should not bother anyone unless you personally have an issue with others' possibly invading "your space".

And, frankly, this epidemic has made us some of us (specifically, myself) question just about everything any of our "experts" and professionals have had to say for themselves over and over again.

Our very own SA "epidemiologist" ruled that IF we all go into a hard lockdown the whole thing would be over in 42 days -------- Remind me again how many days this has now been going on for? ( 400+).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Swa

lumeer

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2018
Messages
2,832
Only if it bothers you.
In this specific case, a "doctor" might know nothing about a novel virus, but he by the nature of his profession can hardly be labelled as "learning" about viruses etc. So his work in learning about a novel virus is more than just learning.
A doctor learning something new is just that: learning, not research. A doctor would say that they are studying the topic, not that they are researching it.
But, as I have pointed out many times, context is everything. It should not bother anyone unless you personally have an issue with others' possibly invading "your space".
Calling learning "research" cheapens the activity of research.
And, frankly, this epidemic has made us question just about everything any of our "experts" and professionals have had to say for themselves over and over again.
Speak for yourself. Classical Dunning-Kruger effect. I like how you say "us" though, as though everyone sees things your way.
Our very own SA "epidemiologist" ruled that IF we all go into a hard lockdown the whole thing would be over in 42 days -------- Remind me again how many days this has now been going on for? ( 400+).
You are mischaracterising what was said.
 

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
23,997
A doctor learning something new is just that: learning, not research. A doctor would say that they are studying the topic, not that they are researching it.

Calling learning "research" cheapens the activity of research.

Speak for yourself. Classical Dunning-Kruger effect. I like how you say "us" though, as though everyone sees things your way.

You are mischaracterising what was said.
Have you or do you work in a research environment?
So you do have a chip on your shoulder? I will edit the word "us" to "some of us" to make you happy.
Will that make you happy?

And no I am not mischaracterizing anything. I am offering an opinion of what I interpreted was said at the time. And if you like, I will access the recordings I have (I thought this was a momentous moment in history, so I recorded the very first TV interviews with ALL the experts). I wanted to be able to first hand go back and check on what they all said.
 
Last edited:

Anthro

Expert Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2006
Messages
3,203

Lucas Buck

Executive Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2005
Messages
5,169

Interesting article:
On the frontpage of the health research site where his ivermectin research is published.

Caution: Preprints are preliminary reports of work that have not been certified by peer review. They should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information. https://www.medrxiv.org/
 
Last edited:

lumeer

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2018
Messages
2,832
Have you or do you work in a research environment?
So you do have a chip on your shoulder? I will edit the word "us" to "some of us" to make you happy.
Will that make you happy?

And no I am not mischaracterizing anything. I am offering an opinion of what I interpreted was said at the time. And if you like, I will access the recordings I have (I thought this was a momentous moment in history, so I recorded the very first TV interviews with ALL the experts). I wanted to be able to first hand go back and check on what they all said.
You're also a global warming denialist, because there, too, you did "research" in which you determined that the climate scientists are all wrong.
 

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
23,997
You're also a global warming denialist, because there, too, you did "research" in which you determined that the climate scientists are all wrong.
So do you or have you worked in a research organisation? Simple yes or no required .
 

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
23,997
You're also a global warming denialist, because there, too, you did "research" in which you determined that the climate scientists are all wrong.


Stick to the current debate!

I never expressed an opinion either way. I simply did what I normally do, and that is refuse to accept all the attempts to silence the alternative views expressed on that topic as well.
I also spent plenty of time highlighting the conflicting BS present in the so-called "Official stories" as well.
 

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
23,997
Like you I don't know if it will or won't.
And do you think we will ever know?
If so, how does anyone ever find out if a pre-print is peer-reviewed?
I would love to see an example if you do have one.
Then we can compare the pre-print with the final version to see what was changed.
 

Lucas Buck

Executive Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2005
Messages
5,169
And do you think we will ever know?
If so, how does anyone ever find out if a pre-print is peer-reviewed?
When you see those magical words "peer reviewed" when conducting an article search.

I would love to see an example if you do have one.
Then we can compare the pre-print with the final version to see what was changed.
...medRxiv provides a platform for researchers to share, comment, and receive feedback on their work prior to journal publication. medRxiv aims to improve the openness and accessibility of scientific findings, enhance collaboration among researchers, document provenance of ideas, and inform ongoing and planned research through more timely reporting of completed research. medRxiv is a non-profit community resource and is not linked to any one publisher or journal.
Articles on medRxiv are not certified by peer review, edited, or typeset before being posted online... No endorsement of a manuscript’s methods, assumptions, conclusions, or scientific quality by CSHL, Yale University, or BMJ is implied by its appearance in medRxiv. A manuscript may be submitted prior to, or concurrently with, submission to a journal but will not be posted if it has already been accepted for publication, published, or posted elsewhere.
Reading this, some research that is posted on the website may not yet meet the requirements for journal publication. So to answer your query into what may have changed. A little, a lot, none.
 
Last edited:

Swa

Honorary Master
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
29,787
You're also a global warming denialist, because there, too, you did "research" in which you determined that the climate scientists are all wrong.
It hasn't been called global warming for years. Even climate change isn't proven to be anthropological. Did you miss the previous post that as scientific awareness goes up so too does people's realisation that it is mostly politically and not science driven?
 

Swa

Honorary Master
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
29,787
When you see those magical words "peer reviewed" when conducting an article search.



Reading this, some research that is posted on the website may not yet meet the requirements for journal publication. So to answer your question. A little, a lot, none.
And here is the major misconception. People keep holding on to peer review as if it's this golden standard of correctness when passing or not passing peer review does not allude to that at all. Journals mostly use peer review to decide if something meets the standard for publication and not as a matter of correctness or trustworthiness.
 

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
23,997
When you see those magical words "peer reviewed" when conducting an article search.



Reading this, some research that is posted on the website may not yet meet the requirements for journal publication. So to answer your query into what may have changed. A little, a lot, none.
Thanks for posting what most of us have already read and know about how the site you referred to works.

It is not as if I or other's on this thread are new to the game of accessing and posting links to the site.
 
Top