Claim: Pfizer sponsors many mainstream TV shows (with the implication being that can lead to bad things)

Status
Not open for further replies.

deirdre

Senior Member.
leads me to believe that it may be more a case of low quality research rather than using low blow tactics to besmirch someone.

oh no. it was low blow tactics to besmirch someone, i'm just saying that i dont think PFizer ordered it. i think CNN wanted to do that all on their own.
 

Rory

Senior Member.
I tend to agree with that - especially because they so vehemently persisted. But what about Snopes, NPR, Rolling Stone, and Pfizer themselves? Different reasons for different organisations? Some besmirching, some lazy journalism, some a mixture? I guess it could be that.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
I tend to agree with that - especially because they so vehemently persisted. But what about Snopes, NPR, Rolling Stone, and Pfizer themselves? Different reasons for different organisations? Some besmirching, some lazy journalism, some a mixture? I guess it could be that.
i personally think it's all besmirching. birds of a feather and all.
 

Rory

Senior Member.
To be honest, I know nothing about NPR or Rolling Stone's agenda or politics so I can't comment on that.

I did look at the facebook of the writer of the Snopes article though and, judging by that and the article itself, I'd say "low quality research".

Maybe they're so overwhelmed with all the debunks they have to do they're losing out on quality control?

Maybe Snopes should acquire metabunk. Or vice versa. :)
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Maybe Snopes should acquire metabunk.
snopes was accused of plagiarizing a while back. basically just copying other people's work. they copied one of our threads from MB here (with no citation) ..years before the article i read..they even used my snippets/screen grabs with circles drawn... but i never sourced my info (to protect the ladies privacy). but they really had no idea if i was telling the truth as i didnt source it, but they reprinted it all anyway.

so yea maybe bad research.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
"Ivermectin is a horse dewormer" stands for "Ivermectin is not a Covid cure", both technically true.
Rory disagrees with this. Here are my sources:
Article:
This paper looks in depth at the events surrounding ivermectin’s passage from being a huge success in Animal Health into its widespread use in humans, a development which has led many to describe it as a “wonder” drug.

Ivermectin was a livestock dewormer when it was first marketed, and has continued to be.

The statement is not the full answer to the question, "what is Ivermectin?", but it is part of it.

And it's not harmful. If a doctor prescribes Ivermectin to treat Rosacea, and the patient asks, "isn't that the horse dewormer", the doctor says, "it's also effective against rosacea, and you'll get human-sized pills that have been tested on humans in climical trials".
Article:
KENILWORTH, N.J., Feb. 4, 2021 – Merck (NYSE: MRK), known as MSD outside the United States and Canada, today affirmed its position regarding use of ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic. Company scientists continue to carefully examine the findings of all available and emerging studies of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 for evidence of efficacy and safety. It is important to note that, to-date, our analysis has identified:

  • No scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against COVID-19 from pre-clinical studies;
  • No meaningful evidence for clinical activity or clinical efficacy in patients with COVID-19 disease, and;
  • A concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies.
We do not believe that the data available support the safety and efficacy of ivermectin beyond the doses and populations indicated in the regulatory agency-approved prescribing information.

No serious (European or North American) health authority or body of experts says (or has ever said) that Ivermectin can prevent or cure Covid. The statement is true.


Health reporting is serious because if you do it irresponsibly, people die. People die when you promote snake oil (or give snake oil promoters a platform). People die when you suggest that health authorities suppress cures for nefarious reasons. People die when you suggest something's wrong with vaccinations. It's harmful.

Article:

Definition of besmirch

transitive verb
: to cause harm or damage to the purity, luster, or beauty of (something) :

There is purity, luster, or beauty in irresponsible health reporting. It can't be besmirched.
It can only be called out for what it is.

Prove me wrong, please, if you disagree.

--------

Saying "Rogan takes horse dewormer" is derogatory. It means, "Rogan takes something as a Covid cure that isn't one, and that's ridiculous". It communicates two facts and an opinion in a kind of shorthand, which is very effective on TV. That's why CNN and others keep doing it.
 
Last edited:

Mendel

Senior Member.
I believe it was put together to try to make the point that a certain percentage of the mainstream media, being financially supported by Pfizer, will be less likely/unlikely to be unbiased in its reporting of certain things - particularly Covid treatments that aren't made by Pfizer. I guess the idea is that it helps explain the peculiar 'crusade' CNN recently embarked upon when repeatedly criticising Joe Rogan's use of so-called "livestock dewormer" Ivermectin - conveniently neglecting the fact that it's also an inexpensive Nobel Prize-winning human antiviral drug that "has been used safely by hundreds of millions of people to treat river blindness and lymphatic filariasis" and that would hit Pfizer's profits if shown effective in treating Covid-19 (time will tell on that).
1) Ivermectin is not a Covid treatment.

2) The Nobel prize was awarded for the discovery of Ivermectin's antiparasitic (deworming) properties, not its antiviral properties.
Article:
The Nobel Assembly at Karolinska Institutet has today decided to award the 2015 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine
with one half jointly to
William C. Campbell and Satoshi Ōmura
for their discoveries concerning a novel therapy against infections caused by roundworm parasites

[...]

Diseases caused by parasites have plagued humankind for millennia and constitute a major global health problem. In particular, parasitic diseases affect the world’s poorest populations and represent a huge barrier to improving human health and wellbeing. This year’s Nobel Laureates have developed therapies that have revolutionized the treatment of some of the most devastating parasitic diseases.

I believe except for Rosacea, all human uses for Ivermectin have been anti-parasitic.
 

FatPhil

Senior Member.
"Ivermectin is a horse dewormer" stands for "Ivermectin is not a Covid cure", both technically true. "
Rory disagrees with this. Here are my sources:

"Ian McKellen is a pantomime dame" stands for "Ian McKellen is not joining the Fast & Furious franchise", both technically true.

I disagree wth that statement in the same way I disagree with yours. The disagreement is with "stands for", obviously. They have specifically selected the property that makes the drug look the most inappropriate, which I consider disingenuous.
 

Mauro

Senior Member
Can I propose a compromise? "Ivermectin is a horse dewormer" is a disparaging term for a drug which, when used to treat COVID in humans, deserves to be disparaged?
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Rogan didn't take a horse dewormer. to deworm a horse requires a specific dosage. hence the FDA specific warning.

Some people also seem to be under the impression Rogan has claimed 1. people should buy horse meds over the internet and 2. Ivermectin is a cure for Covid.

when used to treat COVID in humans, deserves to be disparaged?
i dont think it deserves to be mocked. i think that backfires.

The more a person is attacked, (attacked is different from disagreement) the more emotional their thinking becomes.

They are still conducting [many] clinical trials. and some well respected names and also very large studies (later redacted though) showed it might help. I dont think it is the public's fault scientists keep printing pre-prints publicly or that "journals" and Journals keep printing papers that later need to be redacted.

Article:
A set of findings by Monash University’s Biomedicine Discovery Institute (BDI) and the Peter Doherty Institute of Infection and Immunity (Doherty Institute), both in Australia, suggest that the drug can quickly prevent the replication of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes Covid-19.

However, experts have since said that there is not enough evidence to prove the clinical efficacy of ivermectin for treating Covid.




and one online guy recently told me that if you do actually have parasitic worms (that can last in your body for 30 years apparently) :

The "best" clinical Ivermectin studies had to be retracted for fraud; I've learned in this context that a site called retractionwatch exists.

Ivermectin works well as a dewormer; people who go barefoot a lot can have worms, and that infection can easily be undiagnosed; if you weaken the patient's immune system, the worm infection can then kill them. Part of severe Covid is an autoimmune reaction (cytokine storm) that is treated by weakening the patient's immune system with corticosteroids. At this point, the worm-infected patient dies from the worm infection.

If you have these kinds of patients (in a poor, hot country) in your study (and don't control for the worm infection), Ivermectin obviously boosts the observed survival rate substantially.
Content from External Source

I personally consider podcasters dispensing any kind of medical advice reprehensible. But playground bullying tactics not only backfire ..often at large scale.., but are a missed opportunity to share sober information to readers.
 

Mauro

Senior Member
i dont think it deserves to be mocked. i think that backfires.
I agree, it surely can, and surely it's not a polite way of speaking. Then you know, it's sometimes hard to hear things such as "people wearing masks are involved in satanic activities" and then never let a "horse dewormer" slip through.


Immagine.png
Just the first example I found (links to Google Maps)

But you're reason! It's a disparaging term and it should not be used.
 
Last edited:

Rory

Senior Member.
Saying "Rogan takes horse dewormer" is derogatory. It means, "Rogan takes something as a Covid cure that isn't one, and that's ridiculous". It communicates two facts and an opinion in a kind of shorthand, which is very effective on TV. That's why CNN and others keep doing it.
Prove me wrong, please, if you disagree.

I can't prove you wrong, I can only say "that's your interpretation, and it's an interpretation that myself and others feel is a faulty leap in logic and disagree with."

I believe except for Rosacea, all human uses for Ivermectin have been anti-parasitic.

You're right that in the second bolded part I should have written "anti-parasitic" - as I have done elsewhere - and that writing "anti-viral" - even though Ivermectin does have anti-viral properties - was a mis-typing. I would change that to what it should have been if I could, but unfortunately the edit window has closed.

For the first bolded part, that was me saying what others were saying.

I guess the bottom line is that CNN is supposed to be a news network, and that news ought to do its best to be trusted - especially in these days of Trumpism and "fake news". But when they resort to tactics like this - and it isn't just their labelling choice, but the "whole picture" - then it's not difficult to see why they lose respect and trust.

You're right, of course, that they are free to do whatever they feel like - but there will be consequences to that, and one of the consequences will be that they lose credibility in the eyes of some and perhaps begin to appear as more of a joke than a news network, much like FOX.

If that's what they want, cool for them. But if they'd like something different they'd be better off sticking with the facts and losing the agenda and the bias - in my opinion (and interpretation).
 
Last edited:

Mendel

Senior Member.
If that's what they want, cool for them. But if they'd like something different they'd be better off sticking with the facts and losing the agenda and the bias - in my opinion (and interpretation).
News reporting has always provided opinion along with facts.
Integrity in news reporting means that the facts need to be true, and that the recipients can distinguish them from opinions.

I have no trouble doing that when cnn says "Joe Rogan takes horse dewormer", because I recognize that "horse dewormer" stands for Ivermectin (fact) which Joe Rogan takes (fact) which is not a Covid cure (fact) and hence ridiculous (opinion).

Can any of you honestly say "I thought Joe was taking the feed store version when I heard cnn", or are you arguing on behalf of someone who does not exist?

(Also, opinions don't equal bias.)
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Can any of you honestly say "I thought Joe was taking the feed store version when I heard cnn"
i'm not sure if it was CNN specifically when i first heard about Joe Rogan, but yes i assumed he got his meds without a prescription.

News reporting has always provided opinion along with facts.

i do believe you if youre claiming news was always biased or "opinion journalism" in Germany, but that's not the case in America.

Local news is still opinion free. Very occasionally they do express their grief, but only for large casualty events like 911 or the SH shooting. Most tragedies they don't, like when they report "20 people were shot in Chicago this weekend" they don't add personal or activist statements.

CNN used to be actual news, but when cable news went 24/7 they couldnt compete with the other stations that joined them (in being 24/7), and slowly over the years they had to change their formula from straight news to sensationalism too.

Now that you reminded me of all that, i guess we can blame CNN for the current state of news as they were the ones with the (sarcasm warning) "bright idea" of news 24/7.
 

Rory

Senior Member.
Can any of you honestly say "I thought Joe was taking the feed store version when I heard cnn", or are you arguing on behalf of someone who does not exist?

I didn't think of that necessarily, I just thought "why are they calling it a horse dewormer?" Then later when I heard Rogan tell Sanjay Gupta that he had a human dose prescribed by a doctor I thought "ah well, that's different then."

So I suppose, unconsciously, I had assumed that he was taking some dubious version, yes.

I have no trouble doing that when cnn says "Joe Rogan takes horse dewormer", because I recognize that "horse dewormer" stands for Ivermectin (fact) which Joe Rogan takes (fact) which is not a Covid cure (fact) and hence ridiculous (opinion).

I think the crux here is that you're not yet recognizing that this was your personal perception or interpretation, that you seem to think "that's exactly how it was."
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
I think the crux here is that you're not yet recognizing that this was your personal perception or interpretation, that you seem to think "that's exactly how it was."
I think that this is exactly cnn's intended meaning.
They're not alone in referring to Ivermectin in any form as "horse dewormer".
 

Rory

Senior Member.
I think that this is exactly cnn's intended meaning.

Right. Your personal perception. But as we've seen here - and as a few quick online searches show - many other people (including Rogan himself) perceived CNN's intention and meaning quite differently.

What their true intention was, and the reasons for choosing that course of action, however, I guess we'll never know. But I think of the possible reasons, including (but not limited to):

1. Besmirching Rogan
2. The usual TV sensationalism
3. Seeking attention/ratings/clicks
4. Low quality research and journalism
5. Attempting to communicate the message that Ivermectin isn't a treatment for Covid
6. Pressure from/support for Pfizer

your idea (#5) is pretty low on the list. Certainly, I'd rate any of the top 4 - or a combination of them - many times more likely.

Among media sites reporting on the kerfuffle, I thought Outkick.com had an interesting take:

CNN needs a bad guy, a target to amass a following. Insert Joe Rogan.

CNN doubled down as a direction, not an excuse. For the first time since Donald Trump, CNN has found a sufficient boogeyman. Donald Trump drew viewers to CNN with his criticism of the network. Similarly, each time Rogan responds to CNN on his podcast, he sends his large following to click on CNN’s video clips.

Rogan’s listeners laugh at the foolishness of CNN’s statement. Meanwhile, CNN appreciates the attention.

https://www.outkick.com/cnn-defends-lie-about-joe-rogan-by-saying-rogan-had-his-feelings-hurt/
Content from External Source

The LA Times also has a nice summary of the story, which doesn't seem particularly opinionated or biased:

https://www.latimes.com/entertainme...15/joe-rogan-covid-19-treatment-don-lemon-cnn

Anyway, aside from the question of why CNN chose that particular tack - as Mendel points out, others did also (two wrongs don't make a right) - I'm still wondering who changed Rogan's skin colour, and why? And why did they put all their focus on Ivermectin and pretty much completely ignore all the other non-recommended substances he used to treat himself?

(Answer, I suppose, is because Ivermectin was already in the news and contained a nice prepackaged dramatic hookline with which to draw people in.)
 
Last edited:

NoParty

Senior Member.
1. Besmirching Rogan
He seems to go out of his way to be an attention/ratings whore and eminently besmirchable.
2. The usual TV sensationalism
What is sensational about citing/refuting stupid public COVID behavior by a well-known celebrity?
3. Seeking attention/ratings/clicks
See item 2. Why exactly is reporting COVID info during a pandemic supposed to avoid attention...?
4. Low quality research and journalism
As was made clear in post #53, they got the facts right...some can argue that mocking stupid behavior is counterproductive, and sometimes it is. But that doesn't make it "low quality research."
5. Attempting to communicate the message that Ivermectin isn't a treatment for Covid
Again, seems like they have a responsibility, as a news source, to point this out.
6. Pressure from/support for Pfizer
Where again is actual evidence of this?!?
Seriously? Outkick.com?!? A sleazy right-wing site for people who think Fox News is too moderate?
God help us if this passes for a source on Metabunk in 2021.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/outkick/
 

Rory

Senior Member.
Good choice avoiding the 7 points I made, and instead going for the insult. Speaks volumes.

I didn't avoid them, I was busy doing something else, and honestly figured they were too low quality to deal with. But since you explicitly request it I will take a look.

1. The list is a list of "potential reasons why CNN chose the tack they did". The points don't need explaining, but they can be added to or re-ordered. Your justification for #1, therefore, is irrelevant - it's not an argument about whether it's right or wrong to take that approach, it's simply a speculation of why (hence why I asked if you'd read the thread).

2. "Sensationalism" is repeatedly labelling an incredibly safe and award-winning human anti-parisitic drug as a "dangerous livestock dewormer".

3. You asked: "Why exactly is reporting COVID info during a pandemic supposed to avoid attention...?" - which, I'll be honest, I dont really understand. I don't think anyone said "reporting covid info is supposed to avoid attention". Is there a typo somewhere?

And, in any case, it's sensationalism that attracts attention/ratings/views/clicks - as TV is wont to do - as well as embroiling with a well-followed personality.

4. You said: "As was made clear in post #53, they got the facts right."

Number one, it wasn't made clear in post #53 - far from it - and, number two, they didn't get the facts right. Ivermectin is a human drug, it's safe when dosed correctly, and Joe Rogan took a human dose prescribed by a human doctor.

Also, again, this list is speculation as to why they did what they did. It's not saying "this is what happened for sure". And it's for others to add to and/or rank as they please. Sorry if that wasn't made clear.

5. As above.

6. I never said there was any evidence for this - I actually said "we'll probably never know" - but, again, it's a list of speculative reasons that people can rank as they choose in terms of what they feel most likely or probable. That this one is near the bottom of my list shows how I feel about it.

Hopefully it's understood by now what the list represents.

7. Outkick represents what some humans were saying about the issue, in response to Mendel wondering if I was arguing on behalf of someone who didn't exist.

Hopefully that clarifies, helps, and sooths. :)
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
3. You asked: "Why exactly is reporting COVID info during a pandemic supposed to avoid attention...?" - which, I'll be honest, I dont really understand. I don't think anyone said "reporting covid info is supposed to avoid attention". Is there a typo somewhere?
he's saying they want to draw attention to [their] covid [mis]information.
 

Rory

Senior Member.
Good choice avoiding the points outkick made in Rory's quote, and instead going for the insult.

Yes, I was thinking this also: I'm not familiar with Outkick, and it may well be that they're generally reprehensible - but that article seemed fine and useful in my opinion, so I'll take it on its author's words and not on the past history of either him or other people associated with the publication.

Also, I just realised a much better explanation of the intent of that list would be to compare it to Mick's lists of probable objects in UAP videos: he'll always include aliens and advanced Chinese/Russian technology, but it doesn't mean he's arguing for them, or suggesting there's evidence for them, or trying to persuade people that there's merit in them. He's saying "it's not impossible and though I place them at the bottom of my list others can place them higher if they like".
 
Last edited:

NoParty

Senior Member.
Yes, I was thinking this also: I'm not familiar with Outkick, and it may well be that they're generally reprehensible - but that article seemed fine and useful in my opinion, so I'll take it on its author's words and not on the past history of either him or other people associated with the publication.

Also, I just realised a much better explanation of the intent of that list would be to compare it to Mick's lists of probable objects in UAP videos: he'll always include aliens and advanced Chinese/Russian technology, but it doesn't mean he's arguing for them, or suggesting there's evidence for them, or trying to persuade people that there's merit in them. He's saying "it's not impossible and though I place them at the bottom of my list others can place them higher if they like".
Sorry, I'm just mystified as to why you seem to be trying to drag this site into the gutter with ridiculous threads that would be more at home on some right-wing conspiracy site.
Using a site (Outkick.com) known for "a lack of transparency and generally one-sided sensationalized reporting" to justify whining about what you claim is CNN's "sensationalized" reporting would be amusing...but you're serious.
[Own stock in a company that makes Ivermectin?]
 
Last edited:

Rory

Senior Member.
Can any of you honestly say "I thought Joe was taking the feed store version when I heard cnn", or are you arguing on behalf of someone who does not exist?

More who felt CNN were off-base:

1637262131126.png

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/10/joe-rogan-cnn-horse-dewormer-covid

But I just came across that by accident; what I actually wanted to post was this:

1637262306911.png

Those are the top results that come up when searching for "CNN Ivermectin dangerous".

I just think it's interesting that they managed to call it what it actually is - as well as reporting correctly on when people did buy animal versions - until Rogan got involved.
 

NoParty

Senior Member.
More who felt CNN were off-base:

1637262131126.png

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/10/joe-rogan-cnn-horse-dewormer-covid

But I just came across that by accident; what I actually wanted to post was this:

1637262306911.png

Those are the top results that come up when searching for "CNN Ivermectin dangerous".

I just think it's interesting that they managed to call it what it actually is - as well as reporting correctly on when people did buy animal versions - until Rogan got involved.
Let's take a look at Exhibit A [Wemple]:
*On Sept. 1, CNN host Erin Burnett said: “Controversial podcast host Joe Rogan, who’s railed against vaccine requirements, says he has covid and took a drug intended for livestock.” She articulated similar descriptions two additional times before interviewing a doctor and noting that the drug is prescribed for people as well.
*The same day, CNN host Anderson Cooper said, “One of those drugs he mentioned, ivermectin, is something more often used to deworm horses.”

Yes, Wemple is mildly critical of CNN. But it's pretty weak sauce: Though kind of mildly objecting, Wemple admits that CNN's Burnett told the audience that it's also used for people (though, importantly, not for COVID). Then basically the same milquetoast for Anderson: Somehow "more often used to deworm horses" is unfair? Inaccurate?
Well not really.

I do agree with Wemple that CNN went too far by saying that
"...Rogan had been haunting the aisles of Tractor Supply."
Of course, folks on this site don't need to have a straw man explained to them.
CNN never said any such thing, but if Wemple's axe to grind is to make a mountain out of this little molehill, he can resort to exaggerating what CNN actually said...
and now he can be proud of himself.

I think CNN could have done a slightly better job of warning their viewers NOT
be be a Joe Rogan, while, more quietly, pointing out that the drug does have
human benefits completely separate from what Rogan was going for. But FCS...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/10/21/joe-rogan-cnn-ivermectin-statement-gupta/
 

NoParty

Senior Member.
This would seem to confirm that Spotify makes a lot more money on Rogan's
deadly misinformation than on Neil Young's music. If Spotify would blow off
health concerns by "a group of doctors, scientists and healthcare professionals"
it's little surprise that they'll put profits before the concerns of a 76 year-old rocker.
Good on Reprise Records for sacrificing some cash to back Young.
https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-60149951
 

dressic

New Member
"Ivermectin is a horse dewormer" stands for "Ivermectin is not a Covid cure", both technically true.

There's a new peer reviewed ivermectin study out just this month that looks promising:

"...In a citywide ivermectin program with prophylactic, optional ivermectin use for COVID-19, ivermectin was associated with significantly reduced COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and death rates from COVID-19."

https://www.cureus.com/articles/821...3128-subjects-using-propensity-score-matching
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
There's a new peer reviewed ivermectin study out just this month that looks promising:

"...In a citywide ivermectin program with prophylactic, optional ivermectin use for COVID-19, ivermectin was associated with significantly reduced COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and death rates from COVID-19."

https://www.cureus.com/articles/821...3128-subjects-using-propensity-score-matching
my thoughts on this
- at this point, one study by itself means nothing
- can the deworming action of Ivermectin explain the effect? Brazil is not exactly a first-world country; they may profit from Ivermectin, but if you don't have worms, you won't
- how peer-reviewed is Cureus really?

On this last point:
Article:
The Cureus peer review philosophy is “peer review not peer reject.”

Article:
Nevertheless, unlike nearly all other journals, Cureus emphasizes post publication review
[...]

John R. Adler, Jr., M.D. says:
[Founder, CEO, Editor-in-Chief of Cureus]
However, the Cureus model skirts this issue to some extent by virtue of the fact our journal is willing to publish all credible/plausible medical science that is presented in good faith, and then only AFTER publication sort out what is quality/important via our SIQ crowd sourcing tool, i.e. by design peer rejection is not a big part of our review process.

This means you can't really rely on their peer review: they say it's peer-reviewed, but it really isn't. They'll publish anything that looks good at first glance.
You need to read the comments on the study; I did, and there are several red flags mentioned in those.

Some words on the business model of Cureus:

A typical medical journal, as would be indexed in Medline (Cureus isn't) would have a specialty, and a staff of editors and reviewers who are authorities in that field, and whose reputation rides on their journal. They'd select only papers that are good and relevant, and due to limited space in a quarterly journal, reject a lot.

Cureus has no specialty. They publish everything, and they charge most new authors a $245 "editing fee", and it's unclear what that does. They crowd-source their peer review by emailing review requests to a large number of people, expect a fast turnaround, and so these reviews vary greatly in quality. Few papers are rejected: I've seen a number that says about half, but I haven't found anyone who said they got rejected after paying the fee. Once the paper has undergone this sham review where nothing gets rejected, they publish it, and then try to sell you advertising for the paper you just published.
Cureus also has no proper "impact factor", which is a rating that shows the reputation of a journal. For an academic, a publication in a journal without an impact factor does not add to your reputation.
Unlike a traditional journal, Cureus isn't after reputation, they're after money, via publishing as many papers as cheaply as possible, because their revenue source are the authors.

Not surprisingly, retraction watch shows instances of faked peer reviews, and of brazen copy&paste plagiarism that made it through their "peer review":
Article:
Elkhouly, a medical resident at St. Francis Medical Center, in Trenton, N.J., has lost five papers from the journal Cureus over a rather curious (ahem) domestic arrangement. According to the journal, Elkhouly used his unnamed wife as a peer reviewer on the articles, [..]

The journal Cureus is retracting three articles by a mashup of authors from Pakistan and the United States for plagiarism,

Two faked reviewer accounts (co-opting the names of well known neurosurgeons) seemed to have been created by the submitting author due to their similarity in name and comments.

Other journals sometimes have retractions, too, but Cureus having to retract for these reasons shows serious problems in their review process.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
Observation study... Yawn.
The biggest methodical problem, from the first few paragraphs, is that the treatment group is entirely self-selected. Everyone in the city could go and get Ivermectin for free, and those people who never did are probably not concerned about their health or about Covid, and probably won't wear masks or do distancing—and that easily explains their worse outcomes.

The study is rubbish.
 

FatPhil

Senior Member.
There's a new peer reviewed ivermectin study out just this month that looks promising:

"...In a citywide ivermectin program with prophylactic, optional ivermectin use for COVID-19, ivermectin was associated with significantly reduced COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and death rates from COVID-19."

https://www.cureus.com/articles/821...3128-subjects-using-propensity-score-matching

Cureus don't do "peer review" in the way that people normally understand "peer review". They'll publish anything that's laid out and spelt correctly, and then let the readers give it a score. It's more like IMDB or Rate My Poo than it is something using traditional academic *pre-publication* peer review. Were all the scores given to the papers made completely public, and were there an information-theoretically sound clique-aware aggregation of the scores[*] rather than mere averaging, then it might have some merit. But it doesn't do that. I give this "journal" a thumbs down.

[* If 10 people always give the same types of paper the same high scores, then you know that if most of them have given a new paper a high score that the rest of them probably will too - there's very little information content in the subsequent inevitable high scores.]
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
It's more like IMDB or Rate My Poo than it is something using traditional academic *pre-publication* peer review.
You can have all your friends come and upvote your paper, too!
(Provided they're willing to give Cureus their email address.)
 

Rory

Senior Member.
Maybe a new thread with a claim and debunk about the Ivermectin study (this thread is about Pfizer's sponsorship of TV shows).

Also maybe without statements like "this study is rubbish!" or "Ivermectin is dangerous snake oil!" but reasoned analysis instead. ;)
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
Also maybe without statements like "this study is rubbish!" or "Ivermectin is dangerous snake oil!" but reasoned analysis instead
you seem to have overlooked the reasoned analysis in the post that had the "rubbish" conclusion.
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
This thread has run its course. Please start a new thread or go to an existing thread if you wish to continue.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top