Yep same guy is quoted by media gaslighting the ivermectin for covid science.
https://codeblue.galencentre.org/2021/0 ... -concerns/I had email exchange with a science journalist saying "no evidence" of ivermectin for covid. She argued to me that you have to throw out ALL the positive studies because of a few meta analyses of a dozen or so of these that show that
some of these studies are "low certainty."
Made no difference that the overwhelming balance of studies done show clearly positive results, doesn't even matter that their own critical meta-analyses show a benefit in the data tables! Doesn't matter that there are maybe thousands of doctors who actually used it and it worked for them.
Did no good, she accused me of ignoring evidence, didn't care that the preponderance of evidence overwhelmingly supports it. Same thing here, the frustrating thing is that from my armchair we could get down to brass tacks as Dr. Marik says:
"The meta-analysis and systematic review published in Critical Care Medicine in 2021 stated 'IV vitamin C monotherapy was associated with a significant reduction in overall mortality.' A national cohort published earlier this year concluded that IV vitamin C for 5 days decreased mortality in hospitalized sepsis patients. I recommend your source examine this and other research on the data before making false allegations on social media. Such claims are harmful and do not add to the public discourse."
If we have a situation where there is let's say "conflicting science" will we ever have these journalists actually physically look and see if it works for patients and objectively write about it? Huh, never seems to happen, why is that?