Covid-19 Treatment Studies

[ArcticFox]

Metadata analysis of multiple treatment modalities for Covid-19.  Includes hard links to studies included in the analysis.  Of the 799 studies, 561 present results comparing with a control group, 497 are treatment studies, 64 analyze outcomes based on serum levels, and 47 are meta analyses.

https://c19early.com/

 

[Jeffr2]

Scam site. Sad some fall for this.

 

https://www.scamdoc.com/view/535335

[ArcticFox]

1 hour ago, Jeffr2 said:

Scam site. Sad some fall for this.

 

https://www.scamdoc.com/view/535335

I don't know what or who is running 'scamdoc<dot>com'.

However I do know who is running Google Safe Browsing Checker
Google!
Google Safe Browsing Checker finds no issues with this site.

 

 

And here is additional info from another "scam" searching site. 
The primary issue being the site is relatively new.
Link below graphic with full report. 


https://www.scamvoid.net/check/c19early.com/

If anyone has used a tool like VirusTotal which uses multiple virus engines to test the integrity of a file, you often get one or two "hits" that go counter to the majority. 
Same here.  Run this through multiple "web site checkers" and your may get an one-off here or there.  
Bottom line - Google Safe Browsing gives it a green.
 

Edited August 9, 2021 by ArcticFox

[ArcticFox]

54 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

Scam site. Sad some fall for this.

 

https://www.scamdoc.com/view/535335

I ran Aseannow.com through your scam detector.
It gives it a 'mediocre' rating.  Full report below graphic.

 

https://www.scamdoc.com/view/633168
 

However, Google Safe Browsing Checker gives Aseannow.com a green light too.

 

 

Edited August 9, 2021 by ArcticFox

[Jeffr2]

Your link has not been peer reviewed and talks about drugs that have been proven to be ineffective against covid. In some cases, dangerous.

 

Sad some fall for this.

[partington]

More nonsense from you. This "study" includes results which are not statistically significant, that is they do not prove what they claim to and are therefore meaningless.  

 

ALL reputable meta-analyses automatically exclude not statistically significant studies, because the definition of a study that is not significant statistically is that it has proved nothing.

 

This is not science. This is emotionally motivated lobbying, and is interesting only for the light it sheds on human psychology rather than disease treatment.

[Jeffr2]

23 hours ago, partington said:

More nonsense from you. This "study" includes results which are not statistically significant, that is they do not prove what they claim to and are therefore meaningless.  

 

ALL reputable meta-analyses automatically exclude not statistically significant studies, because the definition of a study that is not significant statistically is that it has proved nothing.

 

This is not science. This is emotionally motivated lobbying, and is interesting only for the light it sheds on human psychology rather than disease treatment.

Well put.