Hacker News Reader

Comment by kevin_b_er | Hacker News Reader

I suggest the real website. Posting NIH Pubmed links tends to be used to suggest the NIH has something to do with it, when this website is just a library catalog of papers. This is a mirror maintained by a government agency.

https://www.cureus.com/articles/82162-ivermectin-prophylaxis...

or the DOI link: https://dx.doi.org/10.7759%2Fcureus.21272

View on HN

Cureus is a bit of a weird journal, they have very fast peer review time instead relying officially on post-publication peer review

Here's a weird case on a different paper in the same journal: http://retractionwatch.com/2015/11/02/sex-addiction-article-...

In this case, the two first authors Lucy Kerr and Flavio Cadegiani are (partially?) funded by Vitamedic, a company that makes Ivermectin. That's not mentioned in the Cureus paper. It is mentioned in some of their papers, like this one: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357313430_Ivermecti...

They seem to be based in Brazil. Given that intestinal worms are still common in Brazil it may have been that people saw a health improvement in Covid-patients after Ivermectin got rid of the worms.

That you for this bit of information. There people did read suspicious.

The NIH reference makes it harder to shut down the thread.

Just to be clear, this is the same concept the parent comment is referencing.

Posting the link this way from an NIH aggregator seems designed to give the false appearance of NIH credibility to

>suggest the NIH has something to do with it

That is an absolutely egregious misunderstanding of what Pubmed is. Let us not take actions on the basis of misunderstandings by the clueless.

You are assuming a lot of knowledge in a lot of people. Let’s not dismiss people making clarifications that may not be immediately obvious to all HN readers

Reply on news.ycombinator.com