14-07-2022, 05:32 PM
(14-07-2022, 02:42 PM)harm_less Wrote: Take Medscape information with high scepticism. They are largely funded by pharmaceutical companies and are criticised by doctors. The article dismissing zinc as a treatment confuses its use to be a treatment rather than an immune system improving supplement and comes as no surprise when zinc is a nickle and dime health product which if identified as useful poses a conflict with pharmaceutical 'cures'.
"Take Medscape information with high scepticism". There's no harm about being sceptical about anything, but Medscape is a great deal better than most of the sources referred to on here and has a high rating on MediaBias/FactCheck (https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/medscape) with no failed fact checks in the last 5 years.
"They are largely funded by pharmaceutical companies and are criticised by doctors". Like Wikipedia is a well-researched evidence-based resource? I think not. It's a good place for basic information and has a lot better referencing and content than it used to, but it is still essentially user-moderated.
Having said that, yes, it mentions criticism from doctors in 2016 - 6 years ago which seems to be from just 2 people. And yes, I'm aware that a few years ago doctors were also criticisng it for being too pop-culturish. But I think since then it has swung back. If you are a doctor you would read it in conjunction with your background knowledge. For laymen it is a great deal better than most sites.
Receiving funding from pharmaceutical companies is not a huge issue so long as the conflict of interest is stated. Funding does not always have to influence content, and even if it does, again, those who know the subject will read accordingly. If publishing had to be free of conflict of interest and/or pharmaceutical company funding, then nothing would ever happen and we would still be back in the 19th century.
"The article dismissing zinc as a treatment confuses its use to be a treatment rather than an immune system improving supplement and comes as no surprise when zinc is a nickle and dime health product which if identified as useful poses a conflict with pharmaceutical 'cures'." The study was about people taking zinc as a general supplement or as a treatment and simply measured their covid outcome. Your use of the words "immune system improving supplement" is bordering on the misinformation we so often see in advertising for "health" products, as though everyone's immune system needs boosting. Zinc is important for immune system health and deficiency is clearly a problem but, like many supplements pushed within the "natural health" sector, it's just an unnecessary expense for people who don't need it.