- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 7/25/26 at 6:37 pm to SoFla Tideroller
Did he give up his regimen for ivermection? It would be interesting to know how much and how often he dosed.
Posted on 7/25/26 at 6:37 pm to onmymedicalgrind
quote:
The tweet in the OP is the definition of sensationalism meant to target the useful idiot.
So the purpose of the study and the reason for its publication is to get drugs that show promise in fighting cancer freed up for clinical trials. Promising results were published for promising drugs. And this guy says it's all sensationalism targeting useful idiots.
And then wonders why people won't read his posts.
As I said, an actual piece of shite human being. The medical profession will be better off when trash like this is taken to the curb. Or it dies off. Whichever comes first.
Posted on 7/25/26 at 6:38 pm to onmymedicalgrind
quote:
The tweet in the OP is the definition of sensationalism meant to target the useful idiot. It clearly worked.
Yep...
I just read the abstract provided in the link and the number of red flags presented are too numerous to list.
Posted on 7/25/26 at 6:42 pm to BoarEd
quote:
So the purpose of the study and the reason for its publication is to get drugs that show promise in fighting cancer freed up for clinical trials. Promising results were published for promising drugs. And this guy says it's all sensationalism targeting useful idiots.
Aren’t you convinced?
Posted on 7/25/26 at 6:42 pm to BoarEd
Horse paste for the win. Thy will never admit how many liberal loved ones with cancer have taken it
Posted on 7/25/26 at 6:43 pm to BoarEd
Do you see yourself switching evidential thresholds depending on which side of an institutional boundary the claim originates?
Posted on 7/25/26 at 6:44 pm to nealnan8
quote:
Yep
So you agree that the study targets useful idiots? I'm sure the International Institute of Anticancer Research would be enthralled with your opinions. The people working to cure cancer are now apparently "useful idiots."
Posted on 7/25/26 at 6:45 pm to TigerDoc
Do you agree that the study was peer reviewed and published?
Posted on 7/25/26 at 6:46 pm to BoarEd
Yes. My point is that's not the standard you would use for evaluating a claim from pharma, right?
Posted on 7/25/26 at 6:47 pm to BoarEd
quote:
84.4% of patients declared their cancer had COMPLETELY DISAPPEARED, SHRUNK, or STOPPED PROGRESSING after 6 months.
Did their scans verify what they declared?
Posted on 7/25/26 at 6:48 pm to TigerDoc
quote:
Yes
Ok then. It's interesting to me that you won't call your fellow medical professionals out when they say things like this information is targeting useful idiots.
You do a better job than most of the so-called doctors around here pretending to be objective, but you don't ever call out your own.
Posted on 7/25/26 at 6:49 pm to BoarEd
quote:
So the purpose of the study and the reason for its publication is to get drugs that show promise in fighting cancer freed up for clinical trials. Promising results were published for promising drugs. And this guy says it's all sensationalism targeting useful idiots.
Correct. The claim in the tweet you posted is sensationalism, meant to target the useful idiot. It worked on you because you either are too lazy or don’t have the aptitude to do what many others have done in this thread: look up and analyze the actual study . You just came across the tweet and ran to post it on TD. Just like a good little lad.
quote:
And then wonders why people won't read his posts.
You are so butthurt right now it’s hilarious. It’s not my fault you got duped.
quote:
As I said, an actual piece of shite human being. The medical profession will be better off when trash like this is taken to the curb. Or it dies off. Whichever comes first.
Posted on 7/25/26 at 6:52 pm to TigerDoc
quote:
Yes. My point is that's not the standard you would use for evaluating a claim from pharma, right?
Again, you are assuming these folks “evaluate claims.” They seek affirmation. Their algorithm gives it to them.
A study could be published in NEJM, JAMA, Lancet, Science, and Nature and they wouldn’t give it any credence….but this random journal with a 30% acceptance rate! Infallible!
Posted on 7/25/26 at 6:52 pm to BoarEd
I actually do criticize physicians when they overstate evidence or use dismissive rhetoric. Calling people "useful idiots" or ridiculing patients isn't how medicine ought to work, but that's a separate question from whether this particular study establishes ivermectin as an effective cancer treatment. Bad behavior by doctors doesn't make weak evidence become strong evidence any more than weak evidence excuses bad behavior by doctors. I try to keep those standards separate.
Posted on 7/25/26 at 6:54 pm to BoarEd
quote:
It's interesting to me that you won't call your fellow medical professionals out when they say things like this information is targeting useful idiots.
Now you can’t read. Not “this information,” this tweet. Surely the concept of “clickbait” titles or tweets isn’t foreign to you, no?
Posted on 7/25/26 at 6:55 pm to TigerDoc
I just wanted to get you on record on that. Saying that this study targets "useful idiots" in this case is saying that the medical journal who published it are a bunch of useful idiots. And then extending that to people who share that information with others online just establishes that person as an absolute piece of human shite.
As I said back on page 1, there is no reason to trust doctors at this point. Your fellow doctor is showing us why in real time.
As I said back on page 1, there is no reason to trust doctors at this point. Your fellow doctor is showing us why in real time.
This post was edited on 7/25/26 at 6:56 pm
Posted on 7/25/26 at 6:55 pm to onmymedicalgrind
I get that, but I'm speaking to lurkers and other participants as much as to the convinced posters. I think all of us (including physicians, skeptics of institutions, and ordinary citizens) are vulnerable to relaxing our standards when evidence supports what we already suspect. That's exactly why I'm interested in agreeing on standards before we decide whether this particular paper is persuasive.
Posted on 7/25/26 at 6:59 pm to TigerDoc
He's a doc frustrated at Hulscher overselling claims. I don't have any problem saying that calling people "useful idiots" is unhelpful. If that's what was meant, I disagree with it.
But I also don't think one doctor's rhetoric tells us whether this paper establishes an effective cancer treatment. Those are different questions.
Physicians can be dismissive when they shouldn't be, and a study can still be weak evidence. Both things can be true at the same time.
But I also don't think one doctor's rhetoric tells us whether this paper establishes an effective cancer treatment. Those are different questions.
Physicians can be dismissive when they shouldn't be, and a study can still be weak evidence. Both things can be true at the same time.
Posted on 7/25/26 at 7:01 pm to TigerDoc
quote:
He's a doc frustrated at Hulscher overselling claims.
He's an absolute frickin a-hole who acts exactly the same way every time a topic such as this comes up and every time this is proposed to you, you minimize it by saying he's simply frustrated.
frick that shite. The guy is a prick.
Page 4 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News