Butcher Bob wrote: ↑Tue Oct 12, 2021 5:57 pm
Not editorialising?
You read the fukking title, right?...
Ivermectin: How false science created a Covid 'miracle' drug
It's called a headline. It sums up the article which is about a group of research scientists who claim many Ivermectin studies are suspect.
Butcher Bob wrote: ↑Tue Oct 12, 2021 5:57 pm
What is the source of
"The BBC can reveal that more than a third of 26 major trials of the drug for use on Covid have serious errors or signs of potential fraud."? I don't see a reference in the article for this meta analysis.
There are multiple sources in the story. Did you not read it?
Butcher Bob wrote: ↑Tue Oct 12, 2021 5:57 pm
The more I research this info, the more fishy the BBC and their sources seem to be. If you know of data that supports their anti-Ivermectin claims, I'd like to see it. But as it stands, they appear to be talking shit.
The BBC is not "talking shit". If anyone is "talking shit" it is those quoted in the article – you know,
the sources.
The BBC chose to interview those people. It chose to publish the story. But it didn't choose the words that those people were quoted as saying.
You guys seem to have a fundamental ignorance of how the press works. You just quoted a Washington Post article headlined: "Biden’s plan to vaccinate the world won’t work. Here’s a better one."
Do you think the Washington Post is saying that? Or is it the person who wrote the article (which happens to be an opinion piece)? Have you figured out the difference between an opinion piece and a news report yet? I know it's hard for you Fox News guys to tell the difference considering how much they blur the lines, but the BBC and Washington Post are reputable news organisations that abide by codes of ethics and strict editorial guidelines.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidelines/
If "Dr" Campbell has a problem with a BBC article, then maybe he should simply contact them and ask to be interviewed on his opposing views. As is his right. That's how the media works.