Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Terms like “low quality” are your opinion. In fact, it’s not your opinion, it was spoon fed to you by critics of IVM, usually with ulterior motives.
No it's not an opinion. There is a big difference between lets say an ecological study and an RCT.
Quote:
I’ll repeat again, totaling all studies on IVM, 60+, over 50,000 people, and around 70% of them show positive results for IVM.
You are repeating the same misinformation that many Ivermectinistas continue to repeat without even reading the actual studies from that site. How about you pick the best high quality study that you think shows clear cut evidence that Ivermectin is of significant benefit in treating COVID and we can dive into the actual study and discuss it? Deal?
No it's not an opinion. There is a big difference between lets say an ecological study and an RCT.
You are repeating the same misinformation that many Ivermectinistas continue to repeat without even reading the actual studies from that site. How about you pick the best high quality study that you think shows clear cut evidence that Ivermectin is of significant benefit in treating COVID and we can dive into the actual study and discuss it? Deal?
The best study on IVM was out of Egypt and it was retracted. Elgazzar was never allowed to defend the accusations of data manipulation which I found rather spurious. I’m not happy how that retraction was done.
There are few RCT and Peer Reviewed studies out of India, Bangladesh, and Mexico I could link. But I know you immediately will pounce on the size. Some with less than 100 people.
Taken individually your points have merit but not when we include all the studies together. Unless there is a worldwide conspiracy to promote IVM why would so many studies out of so many different countries produce the same results?
The best study on IVM was out of Egypt and it was retracted. Elgazzar was never allowed to defend the accusations of data manipulation which I found rather spurious. I’m not happy how that retraction was done.
There are few RCT and Peer Reviewed studies out of India, Bangladesh, and Mexico I could link. But I know you immediately will pounce on the size. Some with less than 100 people.
Taken individually your points have merit but not when we include all the studies together. Unless there is a worldwide conspiracy to promote IVM why would so many studies out of so many different countries produce the same results?
Wasn't there also a major clinical trial underway sponsored by Temple University, then mysteriously stopped mid-stream? No one reports why - we can likely speculate.
Despite the intense efforts of the rabid anti-vaxx population, we are making progress. As of today (Oct 28):
~418 million administered doses of vaccine
~80% of the 18 and over population has had at least one jab
~97% of the 65 and over population has had at least one jab.
Despite the intense efforts of the rabid anti-vaxx population, we are making progress. As of today (Oct 28):
~418 million administered doses of vaccine
~80% of the 18 and over population has had at least one jab
~97% of the 65 and over population has had at least one jab.
Data is from CDC website.
And all those people can still get and pass Covid. UK data says vaxxed die at the same rate as the unvaxxed.
What do your shots do again?
Edit: I hope serger is not responding to me. I'm never going to see it. I'll bet it's inaccurate and rude though...
Last edited by logiatype; 10-28-2021 at 08:16 PM..
Wasn't there also a major clinical trial underway sponsored by Temple University, then mysteriously stopped mid-stream? No one reports why - we can likely speculate.
As I understand, their results are expected at the end of this year. Do you have an article on their methodology, or this stoppage?
I wouldn't be surprised results to be delayed to not interfere with vaccinations.
Some of these studies are intentionally rigged, giving only a single dose of IVM in the trials. It would be like giving 1 dose of antibiotics, and concluding they don't work.
I'm fairly certain IVM will be vindicated as effective, but only after the gov hits their vaccination targets and rolls out some expensive and dangerous drugs like Merck's Molnupiravir.
When IVM is vindicated, mark my words, the people here will not bat an eyelash. The narrative will be: new data came in, and medical community updated their recommendations, as should happen!
Despite the intense efforts of the rabid anti-vaxx population, we are making progress. As of today (Oct 28):
~418 million administered doses of vaccine
~80% of the 18 and over population has had at least one jab
~97% of the 65 and over population has had at least one jab.
Data is from CDC website.
The intense effort of rabid anti-vaxx? It's more like the intense efforts of the rabid, fasco-vaxxers who are forcing people to choose between their jobs, normal life and getting the vax. You squeeze people enough, they will get the vax. And no care in the world if they suffer bad outcomes.
Disgusting. I don't want to share a country with people like you.
The best study on IVM was out of Egypt and it was retracted. Elgazzar was never allowed to defend the accusations of data manipulation which I found rather spurious. I’m not happy how that retraction was done.
That study was straight up plagiarized, not to mention there were MANY things wrong with it. Any one with half a brain could see that study was pretty much made up. Of course he didn't defend it because he copied a large portion of it and made up numbers https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZFK...jkqrU7L1l/view
Quote:
There are few RCT and Peer Reviewed studies out of India, Bangladesh, and Mexico I could link. But I know you immediately will pounce on the size. Some with less than 100 people.
Are you sure these are RCT's? Lets see them
Quote:
Taken individually your points have merit but not when we include all the studies together. Unless there is a worldwide conspiracy to promote IVM why would so many studies out of so many different countries produce the same results?
That's what a Systematic Review and a Meta-Analysis is for. The current Meta-Analysis that are available show NO benefit of using Ivermectin for COVID.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
