No, that site is anonymous for a reason: the information presented hasn’t passed scientific review and relies on various methodological and analytic errors to show positive effects.
Do you think mentioning the site being anonymous gives any strength to your argument?
Have your links been peer reviewed by competent individuals who aren't toeing the line?
I wonder if https://mobile.twitter.com/alexandrosM has analyzed your links yet, I'll ask him. He's been debunking "long form"/poorly done "deep analysis" for awhile now - including people trying to show flaws in Ivermectin studies but where their methods are selective and showing bias; and then arrogant people like you jump in claiming they 100% know the truth.
