re: Is Ivermection effective for the common cold?

quote:

---

This double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study says Ivermectin is no different than placebo

---

Imagine being so dumb as to believe anything that is said in a study by the govt/pharma.

Not for a cold, but for viruses. I take it when I have a sore throat and it minimizes the symptoms

Protease inhibitor.

It is still better than therapeutic nihilism.

Take some zinc supplement.

quote:

---

Not for a cold, but for viruses.

---

incredible

quote:

---

Not for a cold, but for viruses.

---

the downvotes for Memphis response are beyond stupid.

quote:

---

I hate to break it to you but medical journals are compromised and have been for a long time.

---

This, right here, is why America is falling apart. Do you look a grizzled farmer of 40 years in the eye and tell him he's farming wrong? Would you have explained pitch recognition to Tony Gwynn? Would you bend the ear of the guy running your local water system to let him know the chemicals he's putting in the system are wrong?

No. No you wouldn't do any of those things. But because social media made vaccines and horse paste controversial to the point where people literally took sides like it were a football game, you get on here and CONFIDENTLY say American medical journals, publications where scientists put forth their own findings in order for those findings to be peer reviewed, all bullshite. Specialist doctors with decades of lab experiments under their belts, incredible educations from the world's top colleges, continuing education, hands-on treatment of true patients using tried and true scientific methods of deducing theories, are all dumber than you, in your opinion.

You aren't near as smart as you think you are, pal. How about we let the people who have dedicated their entire lives to certain subjects be the experts of those subjects?

quote:

---

This, right here, is why America is falling apart. Do you look a grizzled farmer of 40 years in the eye and tell him he's farming wrong? Would you have explained pitch recognition to Tony Gwynn? Would you bend the ear of the guy running your local water system to let him know the chemicals he's putting in the system are wrong? No. No you wouldn't do any of those things. But because social media made vaccines and horse paste controversial to the point where people literally took sides like it were a football game, you get on here and CONFIDENTLY say American medical journals, publications where scientists put forth their own findings in order for those findings to be peer reviewed, all bullshite. Specialist doctors with decades of lab experiments under their belts, incredible educations from the world's top colleges, continuing education, hands-on treatment of true patients using tried and true scientific methods of deducing theories, are all dumber than you, in your opinion. You aren't near as smart as you think you are, pal. How about we let the people who have dedicated their entire lives to certain subjects be the experts of those subjects?

---

quote:

---

mmmmmbeeer

---

Eta: It’s Christmas time, be nice Mushroom

quote:

---

you get on here and CONFIDENTLY say American medical journals, publications where scientists put forth their own findings in order for those findings to be peer reviewed, all bullshite.

---

Just fyi, ChatGPT agrees there are issues:

quote:

---

Medical journals have become increasingly compromised due to factors like corporate influence, financial conflicts of interest, and problems with the peer review process. Pharmaceutical companies often fund research, which can bias results in their favor. The rise of "pay-to-publish" journals, where researchers must pay high fees to have their work published, has led to a focus on quantity over quality. Predatory journals exploit this by accepting papers with little or no peer review, often for profit. Issues like data manipulation, bias in study selection, and slow responses to new findings further undermine trust in medical publishing.

---