I like how you responded with an apparent conciliatory tone, but didn't actually give up any of your ground.

Confirmation bias in action perhaps?

I thought some more about this and I think it makes sense at this time that people will react the same way you do. We live in an age where traditional authority sources have been dismantled to some extent, and in this authority-vacuum it's normal for people to gravitate towards an authority (such as your trust of the org). Also I think it's psychologically compelling to feel "right", and so not have to admit any fault, update your position, or surrender any ground. Both authority-seeking and feeling-right let people feel safe. These are hard times, and so it makes sense people will do that.

You're not unique in that, and I'm not having a go at you for that in particular...it was just surprising to me. That there can be so much data but people will won't see it, they'll filter it out. That's confbias defined, but still, it surprised me.

Anyway, about the articles on the linked sites.

> several of the sources are press releases

- Ignoring the first link (Sep 3) which is a link to a site-author's paper, but taking the first 10 articles on the IVM site (Aug 3, Santin - Aug 19, González-Paz) half are peer reviewed (5 articles), 2 are news articles and 3 are preprints.

- Randomly scrolling down to another set of 10 articles (Nov 17, 2020, Carvallo - Dec 4, 2020, Sumar), 7 are peer reviewed, 1 is a news article, and 2 are preprints.

- So while there are news articles, they're not frequent. And seem to be all related to treatment results. I could only find 1 press-release on that page, which seemed to be a Bulgarian pharma company touting its treatment (that was just ivermectin) and showing positive results.

- Aside from these research-related news articles and 1 press release, it's studies. Also, I could only find 1 (ONE) press release in the entire 170 sources listed.

Also the claimed "113 studies, 73 peer reviewed" seems supported by my random check.

> One table showed 2017 data from an unrelated study about the drug’s effects showing positive outcomes, but conveyed it in a way that appeared it related to COVID-19

- I think you are referring to: "Clinical features, demography and predictors of outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 infection in a tertiary care hospital in India - a cohort study. Retrospective 2017 hospitalized patients in India, showing lower mortality with ivermectin treatment in unadjusted results. No group details are provided and this result is subject to confounding by indication." And I think you misunderstand, the 2017 is Not a Year it is the number of patients in the cohort. And it is directly related to COVID. (I could find No Other references to 2017 on in the entire list of sources).

> and its relationship with hydroxychloroquine promotion undermines its credibility further

- What relationship? That they are presenting study evidence of HCQ as another treatment? If you want to try to discredit FLCCC by associating with HCQ as a treatment, then you better make sure HCQ as a treatment has been discredited. But it has not. That's a question many studies are looking at. And here are some results, "23% improvement in 44 randomly controlled trials (RCTs)" and "Meta analysis using the most serious outcome reported shows 64% [54‑72%] improvement for the 31 early treatment studies. Results are similar after exclusion based sensitivity analysis and after restriction to peer-reviewed studies. Restricting to the 8 RCTs shows 46% [16‑65%] improvement, and restricting to the 13 mortality results shows 75% [60‑84%] lower mortality."

- Promoting, or supporting (or talking about) a treatment that's effective, is credible, but suppressing that is not credible at all. But you think it's the other way 'round, right? :)

> It was interesting to see that in Peru and other instances of large-scale usage of ivermectin that there seemed to be positive outcomes, but the original authors of that study qualified that by stating there may be some correlation with masking and social distancing policies.

- There are multiple (I count 5) Peru studies, all are showing improvements (some showing significant improvement in 24 - 48 hours).

- I think the study you reference, is "Ivermectin for COVID-19 in Peru: 14-fold reduction in nationwide excess deaths, p=.002 for effect by state, then 13-fold increase after ivermectin use restricted" which states (contrary to what you say), that indeed the authors considered (not qualified) that the death reduction could be because of other factors (including social mobility), but that, "The possibility that varying compliance with social isolation mandates in the different states of Peru could account for varying impacts of the pandemic is discounted by Google community mobility data shown in Figure 3", and further that, "With potential confounding factors discounted, the remarkable natural experiment that unfolded with the authorization of IVM for COVID-19 in Peru on May 8, 2020 had a conclusive outcome". In other words, there was no other reasonable explanation for the 14-fold reduction in deaths post-IVM and 13-fold increase post-IVM-prohibition, than IVM itself.

> There is a trend in misinformation which relies upon a sort of Denial of Service attack against the world’s debunking capacity...

- Or a trend in science? If you manage a "DoS attack" against "the world's" "debunking capacity", by showing so much positive support, haven't you effectively shown a theory is well supported? I mean, it's a very biased and ungenerous way to state a notion, which could more accurately and generously be stated, "There was such a preponderance of evidence supporting the theory, that no other theories could be reasonably considered". Which is just science, is it not? Is that what you're railing against?

> ...and these FLACC sites feel like they’re using that approach.

- Maybe to you, but that must just be your confirmation bias in action. Because every one of these points you make, you've misinterpreted or deliberately misrepresented to make up a lie, a fake narrative, about this, which is not true at all, which is not supported by anything on that site.

- So it really seems, like you're the one, who's engaging in misinformation.

- But I don't think you know that's what you're doing. I believe, I choose to believe...it's just your confirmation bias. And the psychological and safety seeking factors I led this comment with.

- But by the way, it's not "FLCCC" running this "DDoS attack" against misinfo, they're just reporting the data in hundreds of studies. It's the data from the studies that are "DDoS"-ing the misinfo.

> I am sticking with health authorities on this, and struggle to believe that all of our health authorities colluding to produce WW2-style propaganda to suppress information about effective treatments.

- Well, I think about it like the GFC in 08/09. Wasn't it Wall Street's and Big Bank's fault? And did they pay for that? No. Why? Because money. Money led to a distortion of truth and responsibility. Is it really inconceivable that the same thing is happening here, is public health really so sacred (in the realities of human affairs) that it is immune from the corrupting power of money, to distort the truth? Isn't it at all possible that the big pharma companies have a vested interest in making billions from vaccines, and that profit is at risk from well-tolerated, out-of-patent, generic drugs that they could make hardly any money on?

> I have moved on from Snopes.com as of a few months ago, thank you for reminding me that was in my bio. No, I didn’t work on fact-checking during my tenure there, but yes, I have pent-up hostility towards misinformation and it’s purveyors. It’s insidious and deadly, and at a certain density it becomes nearly impossible to counter.

- Maybe you shouldn't have been part of the problem, there, then. :p ;) xx

Let me end it with the findings of collating those 113 studies, HCQ: "400,000 patients, 64% improvement in 31 early treatment trials.", and IVM: "26,000 patients, 86% improvement in 31 prophylaxis trials."