Local Covid Anti-Vaxxers vs Studies Spammers

[Kenjo]

Well seeing as how the patients who have been treated with it, the results speak for themselves

That's...not how science works. Placebo's are also a thing.

If placebos are a thing and they do actually have an effect then that means even if Ivermectin is just Placebo then it would still help.

Controls / placebo

[timelapse]

Well seeing as how the patients who have been treated with it, the results speak for themselves

What if they really just had worms?

[SMc]

Ill just leave this here-

"The BBC can reveal that more than a third of 26 major trials of the drug for use on Covid have serious errors or signs of potential fraud. None of the rest show convincing evidence of ivermectin's effectiveness.

Dr Kyle Sheldrick, one of the group investigating the studies, said they had not found "a single clinical trial" claiming to show that ivermectin prevented Covid deaths that did not contain "either obvious signs of fabrication or errors so critical they invalidate the study

Major problems included:

The same patient data being used multiple times for supposedly different people
Evidence that selection of patients for test groups was not random
Numbers unlikely to occur naturally
Percentages calculated incorrectly
Local health bodies unaware of the studies".

for those who can read see the entire article here https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-58170809

[aaron17]

Ent BBC is like CNN?

[teems1]

Ent BBC is like CNN?

No. BBC has a slightly left bias, but nowhere near as obvious as CNN.

[Ben_spanna]

So we giving away 10,000 Aztra Zeneca vaccines because our people tooo fiking dotish, wait and see, when we reach 4000 deaths and more then they will be begging for the vaccine and wish they has listened earlier.

[sMASH]

Thats a load of crap. Clinical administration has shown practical applications of easing of symptoms.

Also, thank you for the spell check. You are now as useful as Clippy in Microsoft office

You cannot cite one international organization that sanctions the use of ivermectrin for for COVID-19 treatment outside of a clinical study.

If you could, you would. You can't.

Ivermectin's usefulness isn't with TREATing covid, patients.
Its usefulness is with preventing infections.

The places that have high ivermectin use already established, also had lower rates of covid.
That is with data collected, not studies specifically for ivemenctin/covid.




There is a study being conducted In the UK for invemextin, hydroxychloroquine, and some other treatments.

But the study isn't using covid as prophylactic. Its testing it as a treatment for already infected persons.



And when the results are published, u will get results thet covid has little effect on covid...

The system setting up to not validate the ivermectin and covid.

[sMASH]

Isn't India claiming that ivermectin is why their death rate is so low?

There needs to be proper analysis done there as it coincides with the tail end of the delta peak us increases in vaccination.

The officials arntr claiming that, but the people on the ground operating with ivermectin. Certain communities in Africa with high ivermectin use, also had the same results.
High ivermectin presence, lower covid infection rates.

[Ben_spanna]

Isn't India claiming that ivermectin is why their death rate is so low?

There needs to be proper analysis done there as it coincides with the tail end of the delta peak us increases in vaccination.

The officials arntr claiming that, but the people on the ground operating with ivermectin. Certain communities in Africa with high ivermectin use, also had the same results.
High ivermectin presence, lower covid infection rates.

The only thing taking ivermectin will do is make sure you dont get mad cow disease!
You stupid morons!

[sMASH]

What if the microchips are in the Ivermectin?

LOL

It will literally get sheit out.

[sMASH]

As I said the correlation is worthy of more investigation.


Of course the reality is that the UP experience was matched in Goa with similarities in the results.
And Mexico.

Off patent meds don't make money for anyone.

Merck makes Ivermectin.
Merck currently doesn't make a Covid-19 vaccine.
Merck currently has advised AGAINST using Ivermectin for Covid-19

It doesn't want to get sued if things don't go right....
Its too cheap to make much money from so don't need to push it.
Cya... For a low profit product.

[sMASH]

Isn't India claiming that ivermectin is why their death rate is so low?

There needs to be proper analysis done there as it coincides with the tail end of the delta peak us increases in vaccination.

The officials arntr claiming that, but the people on the ground operating with ivermectin. Certain communities in Africa with high ivermectin use, also had the same results.
High ivermectin presence, lower covid infection rates.

The only thing taking ivermectin will do is make sure you dont get mad cow disease!
You stupid morons!

Another benefit. Wundermedizin

[Penguin]

Thats a load of crap. Clinical administration has shown practical applications of easing of symptoms.

Also, thank you for the spell check. You are now as useful as Clippy in Microsoft office

You cannot cite one international organization that sanctions the use of ivermectrin for for COVID-19 treatment outside of a clinical study.

If you could, you would. You can't.

Ivermectin's usefulness isn't with TREATing covid, patients.
Its usefulness is with preventing infections.

The places that have high ivermectin use already established, also had lower rates of covid.
That is with data collected, not studies specifically for ivemenctin/covid.




There is a study being conducted In the UK for invemextin, hydroxychloroquine, and some other treatments.

But the study isn't using covid as prophylactic. Its testing it as a treatment for already infected persons.



And when the results are published, u will get results thet covid has little effect on covid...

The system setting up to not validate the ivermectin and covid.

How does ivermectin prevent Covid? Or do you mean serious Covid? I'm curious as to what mechanism would this work?

[aaron17]

'Pharmaceutical giant Merck will help manufacture Johnson & Johnson's COVID-19 vaccine' Not sure this was true.

https://www.npr.org/sections/coronaviru ... 19-vaccine

As I said the correlation is worthy of more investigation.


Of course the reality is that the UP experience was matched in Goa with similarities in the results.
And Mexico.

Off patent meds don't make money for anyone.

Merck makes Ivermectin.
Merck currently doesn't make a Covid-19 vaccine.
Merck currently has advised AGAINST using Ivermectin for Covid-19

It doesn't want to get sued if things don't go right....
Its too cheap to make much money from so don't need to push it.
Cya... For a low profit product.

[sucre251]

Ivermectin: How false science created a Covid 'miracle' drug
The BBC can reveal that more than a third of 26 major trials of the drug for use on Covid have serious errors or signs of potential fraud. None of the rest show convincing evidence of ivermectin's effectiveness.

Dr Kyle Sheldrick, one of the group investigating the studies, said they had not found "a single clinical trial" claiming to show that ivermectin prevented Covid deaths that did not contain "either obvious signs of fabrication or errors so critical they invalidate the study".
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-58170809

But our usual brilliant Trinituner suspects here keep pushing their false ideas from Facebook. Time and time again, it is explained that ivermectin as a treatment for covid-19 has always been fraud. Do our brilliant conspiracy scientists here ever read these things? No, it's not pushed on their Facebook groups. We've even had persons here who have no clue about organic or biochemistry claim that a new drug is the same as ivermectin despite looking at the vastly different molecular structures and functional groups in front their faces. Then there's our most arrogant internet doctor who knows what all the other doctors in the world don't know.

It would be amusing if this kind of misinformation wasn't deadly and hasn't taken several hundred people's lives in real life. Every 3rd post or so at r/HermanCainAward is littered with garbage of using horse paste and then dying adamantly stupid and senselessly to the very end.

[aaron17]

FLCCC has this : Summary of evidence in ivermectin. I have no idea why both sides cannot do a debate on this... to see if this is true or false. Take the doc. with a grain of salt. I was hearing FLCCC needs to do a double blind placebo trial which was regarded by opposing people.

https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-cont ... -FINAL.pdf

[Redman]

FLCCC has this : Summary of evidence in ivermectin. I have no idea why both sides cannot do a debate on this... to see if this is true or false. Take the doc. with a grain of salt. I was hearing FLCCC needs to do a double blind placebo trial which was regarded by opposing people.

https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-cont ... -FINAL.pdf

Well apparently thinking for yourself is a bad thing.
My website betterer than yours is apparently a thing.

but in the real world

Uttar Pradesh with friggin 240M people has better stats than we do. Mostly unvaxxed.
With millions of kits distributed and ZERO deaths attributed to the Ivermectin usage.

As with the youtube video below is a concise synopsis ...think for yourself, or not.

https://www.thedesertreview.com/opinion ... 2647b.html

Perhaps it is also time to ask why exactly Dr. Tess Lawrie’s peer-reviewed meta-analysis was given an Altimetric score of 26,697, making it number eight out of some 18 million publications.

https://hopepressworks.org/f/ivermectin ... cited-ever

This rank is far better than the top 1%, which would only need a ranking of 180,000 for it to rank in the top 1%. It would only need 18,000 for it to rank in the top .1%. Ranking in the top .001% would mean #180. Therefore, at number eight, it is 8/180 of the top .001% or roughly the top 4.4% of the top .001%. This article ranks in the top 5% of the top .001%!

In other words, only seven articles in the world out of those 18 million are ranked higher.

This peer-reviewed paper is one of the most cited of medical references of all time – period. That should alert any reader – immediately - to its historical significance. Dr. Tess Lawrie is a 30-year veteran WHO evidence synthesis expert. Her conclusion is every bit as meaningful as the article's rank. Here are those words,

“Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using Ivermectin. Using Ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that Ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.”

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34145166/

Maybe it is time to ask why Dr. Pierre Kory’s peer-reviewed narrative review of Ivermectin ranks #38 out of the same 18 million publications.

He concludes, “Finally, the many examples of Ivermectin distribution campaigns leading to rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality reduction indicate that an oral agent effective in all phases of COVID-19 has been identified.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/

If Dr. Lawrie’s paper is ranked in the top 5% of the top .001% of all such published medical articles of all time, then Dr. Kory’s is not far behind. His is 38/180 of the top .001% or the top 21% of the top .001%

Thus, both articles would rank in the rarified atmosphere of nearly one in a million.

Therefore, the reader must now ask why two magnificent independent reviews from two different continents, coming to the same conclusion, are both ignored by our world’s medical leaders?

[sMASH]

Thats a load of crap. Clinical administration has shown practical applications of easing of symptoms.

Also, thank you for the spell check. You are now as useful as Clippy in Microsoft office

You cannot cite one international organization that sanctions the use of ivermectrin for for COVID-19 treatment outside of a clinical study.

If you could, you would. You can't.

Ivermectin's usefulness isn't with TREATing covid, patients.
Its usefulness is with preventing infections.

The places that have high ivermectin use already established, also had lower rates of covid.
That is with data collected, not studies specifically for ivemenctin/covid.




There is a study being conducted In the UK for invemextin, hydroxychloroquine, and some other treatments.

But the study isn't using covid as prophylactic. Its testing it as a treatment for already infected persons.



And when the results are published, u will get results thet covid has little effect on covid...

The system setting up to not validate the ivermectin and covid.

How does ivermectin prevent Covid? Or do you mean serious Covid? I'm curious as to what mechanism would this work?

It coats the virus cells and covers the spikes, so they don't get to infect other cells.

There was some observations saying that it helped in Early stages of infection. I assume the virus would still be replicating and it help to prevent further infection. But the main utility is to already have the ivermectin in ur system when the virus enters.

Its to Prevent infection by the virus, not to treat with the disease after infection.

[sMASH]

Ivermectin is not a substitute for vaccination.


But it's very cheap and very safe thst there should not be any pushbsck against its usage.

If the goal is the well being of people, then ivermectin should be encouraged or at least not be blocked.

But if thr goal is just to stick people with vaccine then I can see why it's demonized. As non sick people can't be pressured into taking the jab.

[ed360123]

Ivermectin is not a substitute for vaccination.


But it's very cheap and very safe thst there should not be any pushbsck against its usage.

If the goal is the well being of people, then ivermectin should be encouraged or at least not be blocked.

But if thr goal is just to stick people with vaccine then I can see why it's demonized. As non sick people can't be pressured into taking the jab.

There's push back against it because there's no evidence it works. Same with hydroxychloroquine.

[aaron17]

Ivermectin is not a substitute for vaccination.


But it's very cheap and very safe thst there should not be any pushbsck against its usage.

If the goal is the well being of people, then ivermectin should be encouraged or at least not be blocked.

But if thr goal is just to stick people with vaccine then I can see why it's demonized. As non sick people can't be pressured into taking the jab.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnVAVDpTwEk

[ruffneck_12]

y'all know the virus has a really high survival rate even without the vax right

I know more people who had covid and are now normal than have died

and the people I know who had bad reactions were very unhealthy.

We shut down the whole world for 1%. But we wont take steps to live a healthier lifestyle.

[ed360123]

FLCCC has this : Summary of evidence in ivermectin. I have no idea why both sides cannot do a debate on this... to see if this is true or false. Take the doc. with a grain of salt. I was hearing FLCCC needs to do a double blind placebo trial which was regarded by opposing people.

https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-cont ... -FINAL.pdf

So I took a look at some of the sources the PDF links to, and:

The Mexico City and Peru study it links to are both preprints and therefore not peer-reviewed.

The Argentinan one it links to is not an actual clinical study.

The Uttar Pradesh one links to the Gateway Pundit. A website Wikipedia describes as:
"an American far-right fake news website.
...known for publishing falsehoods, hoaxes, and conspiracy theories."

Please actually read these things before you send them.

[Dohplaydat]

y'all know the virus has a really high survival rate even without the vax right

I know more people who had covid and are now normal than have died

and the people I know who had bad reactions were very unhealthy.

We shut down the whole world for 1%. But we wont take steps to live a healthier lifestyle.

I used to think like that in 2020, but what you don't get is that all these unhealthy people could have lived 10,20, even 30 years longer.

And then this doesn't even consider the real issue which is hospitalizations, covid is bad not because of its mortality rate, but because of how contagious is it. This is why lockdowns worked, it slowed the spread.

Why was flattening this curve important? Because it wreaked havoc on hospitals, not only overwhelming staff, but getting them sick, resulting in pushing back and canceling hundreds of surgeries, and other urgent matters. People in the US died from appendicitis because they couldn't get treatment during covid outbreaks.

So it's not just about living healthier, that is all well and good. But telling people that won't change anything right now, which means covid is a PROBLEM.

[Dohplaydat]

Interesting vid on Ivermectin. I'm still not fully convinced, but I will await further studies.

[PariaMan]

Where I work 2 guys died. One overweight one with kidney problems which was made worst by covid . He died covid free from kidney problems

Another guy in his 30s no underlying conditions a former footballer got covid he recovered but his lungs is now permanently damaged. Unvaccinated as well

You may survive but be permanently damaged

This virus is serious once you are given the ok by your doctor please get vaccinated as soon as possible

[timelapse]

I am Anti-Mectin.Let the retardedness begin

[sMASH]

y'all know the virus has a really high survival rate even without the vax right

I know more people who had covid and are now normal than have died

and the people I know who had bad reactions were very unhealthy.

We shut down the whole world for 1%. But we wont take steps to live a healthier lifestyle.

Wahhhhhhhhh. Shut tha front door!

[sMASH]

I am Anti-Mectin.Let the retardedness begin

Uncle mectin checking u tonight?

[sMASH]

Ivermectin is not a substitute for vaccination.


But it's very cheap and very safe thst there should not be any pushbsck against its usage.

If the goal is the well being of people, then ivermectin should be encouraged or at least not be blocked.

But if thr goal is just to stick people with vaccine then I can see why it's demonized. As non sick people can't be pressured into taking the jab.

There's push back against it because there's no evidence it works. Same with hydroxychloroquine.

Hydroxy chloroquine is a dangerous one. Doctors hadda be on hand and monitor closely.

Ivermectin, thst is nothing. As said before, if it doesn't work, the most u get is to be worm proof.

If ur substituting for thr vaccine, then no, thst not good. But to keep people from using it JUST because it no one studied its effectiveness, that ludicrous.

If that's the case then u hadda ban everyting from. Trevor sayers.

U can't ban sumting just because it does it do what it says.


It has no negative effect from using it prophylactly.




And just like the vaccines, as people use it u can get more data to show how much infections happens in those populations compared to thr norm.