Little to no research? Did you bother looking? I found quite a few on Google scholar. Here's one: https://www.kumc.edu/about/news/news-archive/jama-ivermectin-study.html
Do you mean little to no research that comes to the conclusion that you want?
effingjoe
joined 1 year ago
You didn't read that article, did you? It doesn't support your stance.
NDAs are pretty standard practice in corporate environments, and they don't automatically mean there's something nefarious going on.
Uh, sources? Specifically about the forced resignation.
You suspiciously left out all the context of the discussion. I can only imagine why you'd do this. Haha
Horse dewormer was mentioned because that's what the maga cultists were using, because (sane) doctors wouldn't prescribe it to humans for a coronavirus.
You agree that Ivermectin isn't for coronavirus, right? Right?
That was the data we had at the time, yes. New data can mean new stances, and that's okay. But notice the order of operations there; new data, then new stance. Not the other way around.
People posting pro horse-medicine posts on social media aren't ever going to be doing anything close to "science".
And this romantic concept of "questioning is the heart and soul of science" is just a banal platitude. Rigorous testing and record keeping is the heart and soul of science. Latching on to conspiracy theories is not even tangentially related to science.
Saying those things before having any data to back them up was indeed anti-science.
How do you know it's not a "demon whispering this in your ear"?
I don't mind those so much-- for me it's more annoying when they assume their instance/platform is the only one; for example, "How do you cross post" or "should we implement so-and-so feature?" without mentioning the platform being discussed. It's simple enough to determine what instance/platform the user is from, but it's still a little annoying.
I don't how it will affect your overall stance, but the "Yelling fire in a crowded theater" (aka, "clear and present danger") test, which comes from Schenck v. United States, was overturned in 1979 with the case Brandenburg v. Ohio, which gave us the "Imminent Lawless Action" test, instead. This test requires:
- intent to speak, and
- imminence of lawlessness, and
- likelihood of lawlessness
Yelling fire in a crowded theater is only illegal if it meets that test-- all three requirements-- on a case by case basis.
Any corporation is going to make non employees sign an NDA before showing them internal information. This is not a red flag in and of itself.