- Overall, we rate the CovidAnalysis Network 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.
Questionable Reasoning: Poor Sourcing, Propaganda, Numerous Failed Fact Checks, Pseudoscience, Lack of Transparency
Bias Rating: RIGHT
Factual Reporting: MIXED
Media Type: Website
Traffic/Popularity: Medium Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY
Launched in 2020, the CovidAnalysis Network is a series 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 not possible to prove this as they lack transparency through not listing names, credentials, ownership, or funding.
They further state on the FAQ page that “We catalog 544 potential treatments, of which we currently analyze 37 of the most effective, promising, and widely used early treatments. There are also many treatments that 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 with strict privacy settings.
Finally, on December 27, 2020, Twitter suspended its account, and as of this date, 2/21/2022, it remains suspended.
Funded by / Ownership
The CovidAnalysis Network lacks 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 activist political groups.
The CovidAnalysis Network consists of 29 websites, each with unique domain names (see list below). 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 They do not publish studies related to FDA-approved vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna.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, they publish a summary of clinical trials or studies related to an alternative treatment 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 details 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 that claims Ivermectin is highly effective in the treatment of 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.
The CovidAnalysis Network promotes misinformation regarding alternative treatments for Covid-19 by cherry-picking and misrepresenting studies with favorable outcomes. In this way, they are promoting anti-vaccination propaganda without stating it for unknown reasons. Other sources have also reviewed the CovidAnalysis Network and have concluded that it promotes misinformation.
For example, media credibility rater Newsguard states they are a “network of websites misrepresenting research to promote hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin as proven Covid-19 treatments, despite clinical trials finding they are not effective.” Science-Based Medicine states, “A shadowy cabal of “scientists” @CovidAnalysis try to do science on a website.” Finally, IFCN medical fact checker Health Feedback has marked them for a failed fact check (see below.)
The CovidAnalysis Network generally gives the impression of fairly publishing both negative and positive studies; however, positive studies significantly outnumber negative, with many of the 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
- “massive international study” show a much lower COVID-19 mortality rate in countries where hydroxychloroquine was prescribed to patients? – Misleading
- the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention fraudulently add deaths from poisoning, trauma, and unintentional injury to its tally of COVID-19 deaths – False
- ivermectin reduces COVID-19 mortality by 81% – False
- Large country-randomized controlled trial in 2.7 billion people shows 79.1% lower death rate in COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine. – Flawed Reasoning
Overall, we rate the CovidAnalysis Network 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 02/21/2022)
Primary Source: https://c19early.com/
Related Network Sources:
Last Updated on May 22, 2023 by Media Bias Fact Check
Do you appreciate our work? Please consider one of the following ways to sustain us.