Perhaps. Or perhaps the study he previously cited was actually flawed. I don’t know.
Keep in mind, he’s simply saying that the study he previously cited was withdrawn. It doesn’t mean that IVM doesn’t work.
I think we’ve all seen enough anecdotal evidence to know that it works so long as it’s administered early. The doctor who prescribed it to me was convinced of as much, as are thousands of others.
Unfortunately, we live in a world where anecdotal evidence means jack shit in the public discourse. Everything is litigated in the public discourse based on so-called “scientific studies.” So the public arguments for or against anything can only be so strong as the studies which buttress them.
And yeah, data can be (and is) manipulated all the time, unfortunately.
One thing that normies don’t realize is that just because some asshole wears a lab coat and shows you a spreadsheet doesn’t mean he hasn’t fucked with the data somehow. Lies by omission seem to be the biggest culprit most of the time.
I work in internet marketing. I’ve done it for 15 years. We live and die by metrics. Believe me when I say, I can always find the “good” in any set of numbers..even if a marketing campaign is a failure. If I leave certain bad things out of the discussion or gloss over them, then focus on some other metric that is good or decent, I can spin a narrative. I’m not saying that I do this. I don’t. I do my best to be objective in my job and in my reporting. But over the years, I have seen people twist shit to meet certain ends. My point is that it’s not hard to do. And if you’re talking to a client who doesn’t really fully understand everything, it’s that much easier to sleight of hand some shit. Granted, those tricks only last for so long. If a client’s bottom line isn’t increasing, they will notice it at some point and then you’ll be fired.
I think that’s where we are right now. The public is starting to slowly notice the bullshit and no amount of massaging the numbers is going to convince “the client” that his “bottom line increased.”
This is classic shit I see all the time. Over the last month, I have operated more as a “cleaner” than anything else. Meaning, I dig into numbers and campaign metrics and show the client where the last group fucked them over and how. Then I clean it all up and set it right. Campbell is doing his best to objectively do essentially the same thing, though in a different arena. I don’t envy him. It’s not an easy job. What’s way easier is to be the one who sets up the campaign (or scientific study) correctly from the beginning, and then just be honest about whatever happens.
If there were less asshole fuckery in the world, we could concentrate more on improving things than correcting other people’s stupid bullshit. Just my two cents…
Indeed.
The problem with "scientific studies" is also that they are often no better than anecdotal evidence, and sometimes worse. Poorly designed studies, sometimes deliberately so, are used to obtain pre-defined results to satisfy the sponsors of the study or to obtain a positive result so that the paper stands a chance at publication (negative or inconclusive studies are rarely published). Statistical analyses are either poorly understood by researchers, or deliberately gamed to achieve the desired results.
Science, as it is currently practiced is horribly broken and has been for many years. That's not to say that scientific studies are not worthwhile. When done competently and without bias they are tremendously powerful, but definitely not infallible. These days, there is a quasi religion in the form of scientism, where "The Science" is always right, and anyone who disagrees with "The Science" is effectively a heretic. Prior to COVID this was most evident in climate science, but is present in most scientific disciplines to some extent.
I've looked at quite a bit of research on Ivermectin and I'm quite satisfied that it is a highly effective treatment with an excellent safety profile. Doctors in my country would be deregistered for prescribing it for COVID.
I agree with everything you said. Science, when practiced per the scientific method (which is inherently unbiased), is solid.
Problem is that it’s rarely practiced properly anymore..at the same time, the word “science” carries this assumption in the public’s mind that it is ALWAYS unbiased by nature…which it is so long as it’s practiced by the actual scientific method and numbers aren’t fucked with. But these people aren’t practicing science. They’re PR spin doctors in lab coats, which is NOT the same thing.
And it all gets convoluted so easily to the layman that he doesn’t know if he’s being lied to or not.
(post is archived)