re: Ivermectin for Cancer Study Peer Reviewed and Published

Sister in Law used ivermectin and radiation.

Cancer free at this time.

quote:

---

This is a lie.

---

Then link us to something that is not a tweet by the authors that shows that it has been peer reviewed.

Also maybe explain why, if you had a cohort of patients participating in a study to see if ivermectin cures cancer, you would not actually look at whether tests show they still have cancer, but instead would just ask them to self report about it.

quote:

---

Then link us to something that is not a tweet by the authors that shows that it has been peer reviewed.

---

The only things that this journal don't peer review are invited pieces. All original research submitted is peer reviewed.



Now quit frickin lying.

quote:

---

Cancer is caused by protists.

---

LINK?

lol I’m actually so happy for these morons to suffer the consequences of their delusions and misinformation.

Funny thing is that mrna technology is curing cancers thought to be a death sentence only a couple years go (see pancreatic cancer). Probably Trump’s greatest contribution to humanity.

More to come. But the faster we move these ivermectin guys off the voter rolls so to speak, the better!

quote:

---

Now quit frickin lying.

---

I didn't say it wasn't peer reviewed, I asked you to support your claim that this article was peer reviewed.

When you asked AI to help you, it said that all articles this journal publishes are peer reviewed "when appropriate." It didn't say the article you linked to was peer reviewed.

It does appear it was peer reviewed though, which you could have figured out if you were able to find the actual article.

And then the journal published a note to the effect that the study wasn't proposed as showing that ivermectin cures cancer but as a basis to do actual clinical studies to determine whether it does. You can read that here:
Expression of Concern

The note also says the study (which I'm sure you read) only got published because it noted up front the limitations of self-reported results.

That note also says that the study participants were "provider screened." If they were working with the providers, it makes no sense not to actually consult the medical records, or even just survey the providers, about whether patients' cancer actually improved.

Then the journal says it is going to do this:

quote:

---

he journal is initiating a formal Post-Publication Data Integrity and Ethical Oversight Audit. This investigation will evaluate the mandatory Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval or exemption documentation, the de-identified, source-verified clinical records confirming the baseline cancer diagnoses of the 197 initial participants and the objective medical documentation supporting the reported anatomical regressions.

---

That is, it's going to look at the actual medical records of these patients, which is again how you would actually tell if ivermectin cures cancer.

Not by asking patients "do you feel better, like the cancer is gone?"

Ivermectin isn't harmful and has lots of beneficial uses; believing things because you wish they were true or because it would own the libs without any good proof actually is very harmful.

quote:

---

I need to start monetizing all of these accurate predictions I make. I'll reiterate:

---

Did you read my post? I didn’t discredit anything. I haven’t read the study so I don’t have an opinion on it.

Bc it seems like you are a believer, I assume you did read it. Surely you aren’t just going to take the word of a random tweet, no? That would be lazy.

quote:

---

(which I'm sure you read)

---

quote:

---

Yeah, AI is still going to try to parrot the bullshite like that it isn't even safe to take. Because the entirety of the medical profession is behind this bullshite narrative while knowing full well it's actually perfectly safe

---

There’s no profit in a cheap effective cure. The cancer treatment industry is worth billions and that’s why they’ll fight this tooth and nail.