QUESTIONABLE SOURCE
A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency, and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact-checked on a per-article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources.
- Overall, we rate C19ic.com right biased and Questionable based on the promotion of pseudoscience, a complete lack of transparency, several failed facts, and frequent misrepresentation of scientific studies; however, we assign a Mixed factual rating because they also publish studies from credible research outlets.
Detailed Report
Questionable Reasoning: Poor Sourcing, Propaganda, Numerous Failed Fact Checks, Pseudoscience, Lack of Transparency
Bias Rating: RIGHT
Factual Reporting: MIXED
Country: Unknown
Media Type: Website
Traffic/Popularity: Minimal Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY
History
C19ic.com is part of the CovidAnalysis Network, a group of websites that publishes research studies on alternative treatments for Covid-19. According to their FAQ page, “We are Ph.D. researchers, scientists, people who hope to make a contribution, even if it is only very minor. You can find our research in journals like Science and Nature.”
Unfortunately, it is impossible to prove this as they lack transparency by not listing names, credentials, ownership, or funding.
They further state on the FAQ page, “We catalog 544 potential treatments, of which we currently analyze 37 of the most effective, promising, and widely used early treatments. Many treatments are helpful for late-stage patients; however, we currently focus on early treatment.”
The domain is registered in Canada, but we cannot determine where they are based due to a lack of transparency and restrictive privacy settings.
Finally, on December 27, 2020, Twitter suspended its account; as of this date, 2/21/2022, it remains suspended.
Funded by / Ownership
C19ic.com is part of the CovidAnalysis Network, lacking transparency as they do not disclose ownership. Further, they do not display advertising or solicit donations; therefore, it is unknown if they are funded by large corporate donors, alternative health providers/stores, or political activist groups.
Analysis
The CovidAnalysis Network consists of 29 websites, each with unique domain names. Each site is identical in that they publish studies related to an alternative treatment for Covid-19. They do not publish studies related to FDA-approved vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna.
For all web domains such as C19ic.com, they publish a summary of clinical trials or studies related to alternative treatments such as Ivermectin, Hydroxychloroquine, Vitamin D, Zinc, etc. Within the summary, they indicate if the study is negative or inconclusive and explain the study’s faults; however, when there is a positive result for an alternative treatment, they do not go into detail or criticize the research in the same manner. Data from the studies are compiled on meta-analysis pages for each treatment, with almost all alternative treatments having a favorable outcome in treating Covid, while those from peer-reviewed sources have poor or inconclusive outcomes.
Initially, the CovidAnalysis Network promoted Hydroxychloroquine as a beneficial treatment for Covid-19. At the time, they had a separate domain at HCQTrial.com that now redirects to hcqmeta.com. The meta page compiles and summarizes the data on HCQ as it relates to treatment for Covid, demonstrating a positive benefit in outcomes. However, there is no consensus on whether HCQ works in the treatment of Covid-19, with the FDA revoking emergency use authorization in June 2020.
Currently, the network promotes Ivermectin as a credible treatment. A recent study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found, “In this open-label randomized clinical trial of high-risk patients with COVID-19 in Malaysia, a 5-day course of oral ivermectin administered during the first week of illness did not reduce the risk of developing severe disease compared with standard of care alone. The study findings do not support the use of ivermectin for patients with COVID-19.”
The AMA study above contradicts their meta-analysis found at ivmmeta.com, which claims Ivermectin is highly effective in treating Covid-19. They state, “Statistically significant improvements are seen for mortality, ventilation, ICU admission, hospitalization, recovery, cases, and viral clearance.” The results of their meta-analysis may be misleading due to the inclusion of non-peer-reviewed studies and the bias of the data interpreter.
Bias
C19ic.com publishes studies related to Iota-carrageenan (Nasal Spray Prophylactic) and its efficacy in treating and preventing Covid-19. The website reports that Iota-carrageenan showed an “80% improvement.” Other studies have demonstrated that Iota-Carrageenan reduces symptoms and inhibits Covid-19.
The CovidAnalyisis Network generally promotes misinformation regarding alternative treatments for Covid-19 by cherry-picking and misrepresenting studies with favorable outcomes. In this way, they promote anti-vaccination propaganda without stating it for unknown reasons. According to a peer-reviewed study published in the PLOS One “our in vitro data on SARS-CoV-2 spike pseudotyped lentivirus and replication-competent SARS-CoV-2 suggest that administration of iota-carrageenan may be an effective and safe prophylaxis or treatment for SARS-CoV-2 infections.” In other words, it has been shown to be effective in the treatment of Covid-19. Other sources have also reviewed the CovidAnalysis Network and have concluded that it promotes misinformation. See our full review.
C19ic.com generally gives the impression of fairly publishing negative and positive studies; however, positive studies significantly outnumber negative, with many positive studies not being peer-reviewed and sometimes wholly misrepresented. This is a questionable, right-biased source that promotes pseudoscience and anti-vaccination propaganda.
Failed Fact Checks
Overall, we rate C19ic.com right biased and Questionable based on the promotion of pseudoscience, a complete lack of transparency, several failed facts, and frequent misrepresentation of scientific studies; however, we assign a Mixed factual rating because they also publish studies from credible research outlets. (D. Van Zandt (04/24/2022)
Source: https://c19ic.com/
Last Updated on May 15, 2023 by Media Bias Fact Check
Do you appreciate our work? Please consider one of the following ways to sustain us.
or
Left vs. Right Bias: How we rate the bias of media sources