TriniTuner.com | Latest Event:
Moderator: 3ne2nr Mods
I highlighted one thing: the fanboy website of all things Ivermectin DOES NOT track all of the peer reviewed clinical studies. The few that exist don't support the website's position and even though mentioned, they are apparently glossed over.Redman wrote:Of course you didn't reference the deaths, you wouldn't-the numbers in the control group occured at an exponentially higher rate.
Exponentially more.people from the control group ended up on mechanical ventilation.
So you run here and plaster a headline,of of a study of 500 odd people in a Malaysian study,take the result of an aspect of the study and broad brush it.
You're ignoring the summation of the tests on the fan boy site, to cherry pick the studies that you agree with.Nothing new.
Of course ON THE SITE there are multiple linked peer reviewed studies that are in support of the use of ivermectin and several against.
So any one here can and should do some digging and come to their own conclusion.
adnj wrote:Omicron can infect you twice: Expert explains severity, reinfection symptoms by BA.2 sub-variant
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.livemi ... 85321.html
Some meme characters gigachad and soyjak. Just a new form of the me opinion good yours bad thing. Cant explain the soy thing proper if you dont get the numale thing.dogg wrote:Ripe Chenette wrote:Lol1642308275307.jpegdogg wrote:e2589h9ze2j81.jpg
Who is that person? what is a soy state?
micron subvariant BA.2 can cause severe disease, a new study said adding, “The genomic sequence of BA.2 is vastly different from BA.1, which suggests that their virological characteristics will also be different." This comes at a time when World Health Organisation (WHO) noted that even though the BA.2 is more transmissible than BA.1, there is no difference in severity. However, WHO had time and again suggested that Omicron may be milder than delta, but it is not mild.
How infectious is the Omicron subvariant BA.2?
The researchers said although BA.2 is considered as an Omicron variant, its genomic sequence is heavily different from BA.1. “And, this suggests that the virological characteristics of BA.2 are different from that of BA.1," the researchers from the University of Tokyo said in their study, which has been posted on the preprint repository BioRxiv, but it is yet to be peer-reviewed.
When the researchers infected hamsters with BA.2 and BA.1, the animals infected with BA.2 got sicker and had worse lung function.
"Our investigations using a hamster model showed that the pathogenicity of BA.2 is higher than that of BA.1," the authors noted.
Does Omicron subvariant BA.2 respond to vaccines?
Like BA.1, the BA.2 also appears to largely escape the immunity induced by COVID-19 vaccines. Plus, it is also resistant to the antibodies of people who had been infected with the earlier variants of SARS-CoV-2
Adding to that, the authors said, “BA.2 was almost completely resistant to some monoclonal antibody treatments used to treat COVID-19 infection."
"Together with a higher effective reproduction number and pronounced immune resistance of BA.2, it is evident that the spread of BA.2 can be a serious issue for global health in the near future," the authors said in the study.
ed360123 wrote:Redman wrote:You're ignoring the summation of the tests on the fan boy site, to cherry pick the studies that you agree with.Nothing new.
Of course ON THE SITE there are multiple linked peer reviewed studies that are in support of the use of ivermectin and several against.
So any one here can and should do some digging and come to their own conclusion.
The issue with just linking that site instead of the studies directly is that there are hundreds of studies on it. So no one on here can reasonably go through all of the studies and
1) Verify that the studies themselves were done properly.
2) That the website isn't misinterpreting the results of the studies it hosts (either deliberately or accidentally)
adnj wrote:I highlighted one thing: the fanboy website of all things Ivermectin DOES NOT track all of the peer reviewed clinical studies. The few that exist don't support the website's position and even though mentioned, they are apparently glossed over.Redman wrote:Of course you didn't reference the deaths, you wouldn't-the numbers in the control group occured at an exponentially higher rate.
Exponentially more.people from the control group ended up on mechanical ventilation.
So you run here and plaster a headline,of of a study of 500 odd people in a Malaysian study,take the result of an aspect of the study and broad brush it.
You're ignoring the summation of the tests on the fan boy site, to cherry pick the studies that you agree with.Nothing new.
Of course ON THE SITE there are multiple linked peer reviewed studies that are in support of the use of ivermectin and several against.
So any one here can and should do some digging and come to their own conclusion.
I don't have a problem with being proven wrong. I just don't see anything that would help me to believe that Ivermectin is an effective COVID treatment. And you haven't shown anything.
I saw this. Did you?Redman wrote:adnj wrote:I highlighted one thing: the fanboy website of all things Ivermectin DOES NOT track all of the peer reviewed clinical studies. The few that exist don't support the website's position and even though mentioned, they are apparently glossed over.Redman wrote:Of course you didn't reference the deaths, you wouldn't-the numbers in the control group occured at an exponentially higher rate.
Exponentially more.people from the control group ended up on mechanical ventilation.
So you run here and plaster a headline,of of a study of 500 odd people in a Malaysian study,take the result of an aspect of the study and broad brush it.
You're ignoring the summation of the tests on the fan boy site, to cherry pick the studies that you agree with.Nothing new.
Of course ON THE SITE there are multiple linked peer reviewed studies that are in support of the use of ivermectin and several against.
So any one here can and should do some digging and come to their own conclusion.
I don't have a problem with being proven wrong. I just don't see anything that would help me to believe that Ivermectin is an effective COVID treatment. And you haven't shown anything.
You brought a study that results in the ivermectin group having significant reductions in death and ventilation vs the control group that received standard hospital care.
You pelt out the headline because it lines up with your view.
You choose not to mention the 70% reduction in death experienced by those that recieved Ivermectin.
You complaining about the website glossing over negative studies ...while ignoring 70% reduction in death and 50%+ ventilations.
You right you see very little.
Ripe Chenette wrote:Some meme characters gigachad and soyjak. Just a new form of the me opinion good yours bad thing. Cant explain the soy thing proper if you dont get the numale thing.dogg wrote:Ripe Chenette wrote:Lol1642308275307.jpegdogg wrote:e2589h9ze2j81.jpg
Who is that person? what is a soy state?
Redman wrote:No need to talk to the authors-their position is clear.
As is yours.
More people died in the control group. 70% less people died in the Ivermectin group
More people needed mechanical ventilation in the control group.60% less from the Ivmn Group
More people in the control group admitted to ICU 25% less in the Ivmn Group
The study attributed ZERO (0.00) deaths to Ivermectin...but most of the 13 deaths in the study attributed to C19.
Severe disease is defined as hypoxia (low oxygen levels) requiring the use of supplemental oxygen to maintain oxygen saturation at 95% or higher.
Not admittance to ICU or HDU or any other metric of severity.
So in a High risk group,(average age 62 with co morbidities up the wazzoo, ) the benchmark is that 25% more people in the ivermectin group needed OXYGEN.
Lets agree to ignore the reduction in deaths,ICU admittance, and ventilation.
The drug dont work cuz more sick old people with C19 needed oxygen?
Less died,less needed life support in the form of Mech Vent, Less ICU...in the Ivmtn Group but it doesnt work.
Thats the stuff YOU peddle.
The study is a narrow small study-any conclusions are weak at best.
And it is YOU that come here posting a conclusion that is refuted by the data that YOU posted.
Dont blame the authors for your tootz.
redmanjp wrote:BA2 might be more severe as well as more contagious
https://www.livemint.com/science/health/stealth-omicron-can-cause-severe-illness-study-finds-2-factors-make-subvariant-ba-2-more-dangerous-11645180966927.htmlmicron subvariant BA.2 can cause severe disease, a new study said adding, “The genomic sequence of BA.2 is vastly different from BA.1, which suggests that their virological characteristics will also be different." This comes at a time when World Health Organisation (WHO) noted that even though the BA.2 is more transmissible than BA.1, there is no difference in severity. However, WHO had time and again suggested that Omicron may be milder than delta, but it is not mild.
How infectious is the Omicron subvariant BA.2?
The researchers said although BA.2 is considered as an Omicron variant, its genomic sequence is heavily different from BA.1. “And, this suggests that the virological characteristics of BA.2 are different from that of BA.1," the researchers from the University of Tokyo said in their study, which has been posted on the preprint repository BioRxiv, but it is yet to be peer-reviewed.
When the researchers infected hamsters with BA.2 and BA.1, the animals infected with BA.2 got sicker and had worse lung function.
"Our investigations using a hamster model showed that the pathogenicity of BA.2 is higher than that of BA.1," the authors noted.
Does Omicron subvariant BA.2 respond to vaccines?
Like BA.1, the BA.2 also appears to largely escape the immunity induced by COVID-19 vaccines. Plus, it is also resistant to the antibodies of people who had been infected with the earlier variants of SARS-CoV-2
Adding to that, the authors said, “BA.2 was almost completely resistant to some monoclonal antibody treatments used to treat COVID-19 infection."
"Together with a higher effective reproduction number and pronounced immune resistance of BA.2, it is evident that the spread of BA.2 can be a serious issue for global health in the near future," the authors said in the study.
Let me ask you a question, which of the studies on that website made you make up your mind on things?Redman wrote:ed360123 wrote:Redman wrote:You're ignoring the summation of the tests on the fan boy site, to cherry pick the studies that you agree with.Nothing new.
Of course ON THE SITE there are multiple linked peer reviewed studies that are in support of the use of ivermectin and several against.
So any one here can and should do some digging and come to their own conclusion.
The issue with just linking that site instead of the studies directly is that there are hundreds of studies on it. So no one on here can reasonably go through all of the studies and
1) Verify that the studies themselves were done properly.
2) That the website isn't misinterpreting the results of the studies it hosts (either deliberately or accidentally)
So having separate links here as opposed to on one website gives you the ability to do mor
As I've stated the site is just a easy way to get to the studies.
You get to see what who how where and why.
And as I've stated YOU make up your own mind based on whatever criteria you deem important.
drchaos wrote:redmanjp wrote:BA2 might be more severe as well as more contagious
https://www.livemint.com/science/health/stealth-omicron-can-cause-severe-illness-study-finds-2-factors-make-subvariant-ba-2-more-dangerous-11645180966927.htmlmicron subvariant BA.2 can cause severe disease, a new study said adding, “The genomic sequence of BA.2 is vastly different from BA.1, which suggests that their virological characteristics will also be different." This comes at a time when World Health Organisation (WHO) noted that even though the BA.2 is more transmissible than BA.1, there is no difference in severity. However, WHO had time and again suggested that Omicron may be milder than delta, but it is not mild.
How infectious is the Omicron subvariant BA.2?
The researchers said although BA.2 is considered as an Omicron variant, its genomic sequence is heavily different from BA.1. “And, this suggests that the virological characteristics of BA.2 are different from that of BA.1," the researchers from the University of Tokyo said in their study, which has been posted on the preprint repository BioRxiv, but it is yet to be peer-reviewed.
When the researchers infected hamsters with BA.2 and BA.1, the animals infected with BA.2 got sicker and had worse lung function.
"Our investigations using a hamster model showed that the pathogenicity of BA.2 is higher than that of BA.1," the authors noted.
Does Omicron subvariant BA.2 respond to vaccines?
Like BA.1, the BA.2 also appears to largely escape the immunity induced by COVID-19 vaccines. Plus, it is also resistant to the antibodies of people who had been infected with the earlier variants of SARS-CoV-2
Adding to that, the authors said, “BA.2 was almost completely resistant to some monoclonal antibody treatments used to treat COVID-19 infection."
"Together with a higher effective reproduction number and pronounced immune resistance of BA.2, it is evident that the spread of BA.2 can be a serious issue for global health in the near future," the authors said in the study.
The fear-mongering must continue ... How else will people blindly do as they are told?
adnj wrote:Redman wrote:No need to talk to the authors-their position is clear.
As is yours.
More people died in the control group. 70% less people died in the Ivermectin group
More people needed mechanical ventilation in the control group.60% less from the Ivmn Group
More people in the control group admitted to ICU 25% less in the Ivmn Group
The study attributed ZERO (0.00) deaths to Ivermectin...but most of the 13 deaths in the study attributed to C19.
Severe disease is defined as hypoxia (low oxygen levels) requiring the use of supplemental oxygen to maintain oxygen saturation at 95% or higher.
Not admittance to ICU or HDU or any other metric of severity.
So in a High risk group,(average age 62 with co morbidities up the wazzoo, ) the benchmark is that 25% more people in the ivermectin group needed OXYGEN.
Lets agree to ignore the reduction in deaths,ICU admittance, and ventilation.
The drug dont work cuz more sick old people with C19 needed oxygen?
Less died,less needed life support in the form of Mech Vent, Less ICU...in the Ivmtn Group but it doesnt work.
Thats the stuff YOU peddle.
The study is a narrow small study-any conclusions are weak at best.
And it is YOU that come here posting a conclusion that is refuted by the data that YOU posted.
Dont blame the authors for your tootz.
When you finish hard-typing your keyboard because you're angry at something that someone publishes that says that you're wrong now, and have been wrong all along, you may want to take a look at the part of the results summary that shows that what you are megaphoning has the least likely probability of study replication.
If that's not enough, just wait for the current Ivermectin studies to conclude and be published. Maybe Ivermectin will be shown to have significant efficacy at low risk and you'll be proven right all along. Or, maybe it won't.
Whatever the results, I will be okay with them. You? I'm not so sure.
Or you probably had a bad case of wormssMASH wrote:what led to the ivermectin use was observation of populations with a lot of ivermectin being less more resistant to covid infection.
what all those studies doing, is treating already infected persons.
what i have, is ivermectin use longggg time now, and my virus response was eye opening.
ivermectin to the worle.
ed360123 wrote:Let me ask you a question, which of the studies on that website made you make up your mind on things?Redman wrote:ed360123 wrote:Redman wrote:You're ignoring the summation of the tests on the fan boy site, to cherry pick the studies that you agree with.Nothing new.
Of course ON THE SITE there are multiple linked peer reviewed studies that are in support of the use of ivermectin and several against.
So any one here can and should do some digging and come to their own conclusion.
The issue with just linking that site instead of the studies directly is that there are hundreds of studies on it. So no one on here can reasonably go through all of the studies and
1) Verify that the studies themselves were done properly.
2) That the website isn't misinterpreting the results of the studies it hosts (either deliberately or accidentally)
So having separate links here as opposed to on one website gives you the ability to do mor
As I've stated the site is just a easy way to get to the studies.
You get to see what who how where and why.
And as I've stated YOU make up your own mind based on whatever criteria you deem important.
So then why are you linking me and others to that site if you think all studies are bunk then?Redman wrote:ed360123 wrote:Let me ask you a question, which of the studies on that website made you make up your mind on things?Redman wrote:ed360123 wrote:Redman wrote:You're ignoring the summation of the tests on the fan boy site, to cherry pick the studies that you agree with.Nothing new.
Of course ON THE SITE there are multiple linked peer reviewed studies that are in support of the use of ivermectin and several against.
So any one here can and should do some digging and come to their own conclusion.
The issue with just linking that site instead of the studies directly is that there are hundreds of studies on it. So no one on here can reasonably go through all of the studies and
1) Verify that the studies themselves were done properly.
2) That the website isn't misinterpreting the results of the studies it hosts (either deliberately or accidentally)
So having separate links here as opposed to on one website gives you the ability to do mor
As I've stated the site is just a easy way to get to the studies.
You get to see what who how where and why.
And as I've stated YOU make up your own mind based on whatever criteria you deem important.
NONE.
Studies say what whoever paid for them say. like this last one that adnj is in love with.
Like Pfizers trials
On the other side anyone can pick apart any study -based on what their agenda is.
Im vaxxed and I have Ivermectin - Im taking vitamins up the wazoo.
My goal is not to get the disease.
If I do, my goal is to minimize its impact on me.
Same for my son-vaxxed, wife and mother-all vaxxed.
So vaxxed,vitamined and trying to get as much exercise in.
Reduce odds of getting it and reduce its impact.
I got the ivermectin on the recc of a family member who is a seasoned frontline nurse in the US-their hospital was/maybe still is using the Ivermectin SUCCESSFULLY to manage the disease.
There are many qualified people that are providing information that you could find if youre interested.
Make up your own mind.
Or not.
Redman wrote:You should read slower ed.
You asked which study I used to make up my mind....the answer is NONE....my mind was made up by first hand, front line, hands on experience from someone I trust.
Same thing with the vaxx-frontline Doc says take it... I took it
The studies are informative but like everything else-can be manipulated.
If that qualifies as bunk in your mind then ok, you need to pick what you want to use and deal with it.
Whatever I posted would have been in response to your or others questions.
You said there are no studies-well the site links studies that were done world wide.
worms by me? since august, i find i putting up some weight...timelapse wrote:Or you probably had a bad case of wormssMASH wrote:what led to the ivermectin use was observation of populations with a lot of ivermectin being less more resistant to covid infection.
what all those studies doing, is treating already infected persons.
what i have, is ivermectin use longggg time now, and my virus response was eye opening.
ivermectin to the worle.
ed360123 wrote:Redman wrote:You should read slower ed.
You asked which study I used to make up my mind....the answer is NONE....my mind was made up by first hand, front line, hands on experience from someone I trust.
Same thing with the vaxx-frontline Doc says take it... I took it
The studies are informative but like everything else-can be manipulated.
If that qualifies as bunk in your mind then ok, you need to pick what you want to use and deal with it.
Whatever I posted would have been in response to your or others questions.
You said there are no studies-well the site links studies that were done world wide.
Saying:
"Studies say what whoever paid for them say."
and
"The studies are informative but like everything else-can be manipulated."
Are two different things, dude.
I am attempting to be straight up with you - so none of my forum bullshitt. I have read the entire study. I have seen the data you are quoting. I have read some of the rebuttals to the data.Redman wrote:ed360123 wrote:Redman wrote:You should read slower ed.
You asked which study I used to make up my mind....the answer is NONE....my mind was made up by first hand, front line, hands on experience from someone I trust.
Same thing with the vaxx-frontline Doc says take it... I took it
The studies are informative but like everything else-can be manipulated.
If that qualifies as bunk in your mind then ok, you need to pick what you want to use and deal with it.
Whatever I posted would have been in response to your or others questions.
You said there are no studies-well the site links studies that were done world wide.
Saying:
"Studies say what whoever paid for them say."
and
"The studies are informative but like everything else-can be manipulated."
Are two different things, dude.
Only if you want to be.pedantic.
Look at data ,get your info....pick your poison.
Monk BANzai wrote:De Dragon wrote:Monk BANzai wrote:Redman wrote:Monk BANzai wrote:Conversations Change with Context... I like this.... even for myself..that you can walk back from a certain position... doesn't make you "right all along" but context....Regarding the 4 o'clock analogy, Joe wasn't saying "he was right all along", he was saying that we need to be able to discuss things because nothing is set in stone. If anything Joe has always proved himself to be able to 'stand corrected' BECAUSE nothing is set in stone.
Rogan taking a beating tho
3 or so podcasts out of 2000+
Rumble counter offers with 100 million reasons to migrate- Great move...
PBD drooling for a Musk/Rogan JV....Bosss Concept...
Jordan Peterson thinks they would be lunatics to drop him, contrasts CNN being ignorant of what it takes to have 11M followers.
MSM being beaten by a non journalist.
White house says drop him for fake news...but stayed quiet when Biden,Fauci and CNN said vaccines stopped transmission and infection.
DESPITE KNOWING THAT THE VAX DONT WORK. LIKE THAT.
Their doc lied,admitted to it on JRE but that ain't fake.
All of a sudden the C19 fake news is pushed back because he used the N word.
Lines are being drawn.
Main Stream Media is fighting for it's life, no rules and no prisoners.
Take a reacharound dey.
yuh posting sense again Reddo. Stop it.
Clearly you haven't seen Noah's response to the racist podcasts from Joe Rogan, maybe your admiration might drop a tad.
I have. Admiration levels like Bodi. Unaffected. Whats you point exactly tho. I not like dem others in here who does pick sense from your muffler bearing. Spell it out. What. Is. Your. Point?
I can tell you mine. I was never and continue to NOT have a solid stance on the issues being discussed within this thread. If anything i am constantly learning....Difference with you is you does buy the whole Vene apartment complex in Felicity and then when Police/GEB/SORT/Immigration raid does say "BUH I DIDNT KNOW THE OWNER WAS......"
you are Chief cook and bottle washer when it comes to taking other ppls medicine...doh stop!! its entertaining to us!
ok that was reaching ...hahahahahhaahaha but i'll leave you to type some cryptic response...yuh have time tho....Smallies coming fast and furious these days...
Also this. I am 1000% in agreement with this. So do the math.
Keep not having a solid stance because the last thing needed is a Trini Uncle Tom.Return to “Ole talk and more Ole talk”
Users browsing this forum: pugboy and 46 guests
