>>13464099>You'd deny everything anyway. Why bother?>>13464147>I already know you are full of shit>>13464250>It's not that I reject opposing point of view, I just reject your kind of view and your methods.>>13464555>You're going to decide what is "high quality" so I'm not going to post any links.The only person who seems to have prematurely made up their mind is you.
>Also, I could ask the same thing. Why don't you cite any high quality neutral scientific resources that mention the study?See
>>13462417>>>13464555>Hint: the FLCCC is nothing of that.By whose standards? I can only assume your own because you haven't shared any links or sources, and you are thus the only opinion to draw upon. Your uncited sources are higher quality than the FLCCC paper? Prove it then, post the sources. The truth supports itself, and will certainly tear apart their analysis without a shadow of doubt, right?
You can't be bothered to link a single shred of evidence, yet you claim you have researched the topic exhaustively on both sides (
>>13464147), a time-consuming endeavor. You can't be bothered to argue with "my kind", but you have time and energy to make a "high quality" reply (
>>13463268) in a /sci/ ivermectin thread and subsequently continue on a string of replies with someone you don't respect or value. You're empirically bothered, but you have nothing to show for it.
