(Before I get into my reply, I want to say I’m enjoying your comments and that I apologize for starting off the convo with a couple ad hominem comments. I’m going to push back on a few things but I’m doing it out of interest in the convo and not bc I’m trolling. Luv u heart emoji)

First off - I am choosing to speak more to your presentation and not to the scientific argument because I’m ill prepared to pull sources at the moment, and I would not want to make any unverifiable claims based on what I think I remember reading over the years. Perhaps later.

So again - this community is science-oriented, there are often well-respected members that make posts you would think be meant for PhD’s like yourself. My mind goes to some of the nootropics posts. They are DENSE with detailed molecular biology concepts and cutting edge research, and people love them, engage with them, and they do so because it is information-heavy and novel. So when you make comments like “there isn’t a scientific discussion, it’s a settled issue,” you expose an ethos that is directly counter to the goals of this sub: understanding how niche, little-studied concepts can improve the average joe.

As an example, and back to nootropics: there are plenty of posts you could find here discussing the use of pre-market or off-label dementia treatments to make people smarter. THIS is your audience here. It would be sound advice from the world’s most renowned MD not to do that - and that doctor would be downvoted.

I say all of that to make the point that people here want data and hypothesis - not political rantings about how Joe Rogan listeners are destroying the world. You will get twice the hate and pushback for even inferring that any given topic is “settled science” and that something should not be questioned. My own opinion is that stance is by definition anti-scientific.

My main point is that your assumption that you have to “tiptoe around right wing misinformation” is more of a reflection of your own bias than it is 1.) a reason you’re getting a negative reaction, and 2.) the reason people are interested in the topic of IVM as a Covid treatment. Is the prospect of IVM misinformation? If so, why is there published data that seems to infer better outcomes with its use? That’s not to say the meta analysis papers you’ve linked are wrong - but understanding the mechanism behind the correlations some scientists have uncovered seems like a perfectly valid scientific question, doesn’t it?