Categories
Antivaccine nonsense Bad science Clinical trials Computers and social media Medicine Quackery

Ivermectin is the new hydroxychloroquine, take 3: Conspiracy theories and grift

As the drip-drip-drip of negative evidence for ivermectin against COVID-19 continues to roll in, conspiracy theorists are doubling down. Why? It’s always about the grift.

Categories
Bad science Clinical trials Medicine Politics Popular culture Quackery

Ivermectin is the new hydroxychloroquine, take 7: Are there positive studies that aren’t fraudulent?

Ivermectin is the new hydroxychloroquine, a drug repurposed for COVID-19 that almost certainly doesn’t work but is still being touted as a “miracle cure” by quacks, grifters, and political ideologues. Are the data supporting it all fraudulent and/or biased? The answer, increasingly, appears to be yes.

Categories
Antivaccine nonsense Bad science Medicine Skepticism/critical thinking

Why is Peter Doshi still an editor at The BMJ?

Peter Doshi is at least borderline antivaccine and has been casting doubt on vaccine efficacy since 2009. Earlier this month, he posted a badly flawed “analysis” casting doubt on the efficacy of the Moderna and Pfizer COVID-19 vaccines. Why does The BMJ still employ him?

Categories
Bad science Clinical trials Medicine Politics

Remdesivir: Gilead wins with unimpressive results announced by press release

On Wednesday, Dr. Anthony Fauci announced positive results for the antiviral drug remdesivir treating COVID-19. They were unimpressive and, suspiciously, announced by press release rather than scientific paper. It’s all very fishy, but one thing’s for sure. Gilead Sciences will make boatloads of money.

Categories
Clinical trials Medicine Skepticism/critical thinking

The Cochrane mask fiasco: Does EBM predispose to COVID contrarianism?

Earlier this month the Cochrane Collaborative was forced to walk back the conclusions of a review by Tom Jefferson et al that had been spun in the media as proving that “masks don’t work.” Tom Jefferson himself has been problematic about vaccines for a long time, but the rot goes deeper. What is it about the evidence-based medicine paradigm that results in misleading conclusions?