Reminder as we go into the winter of death
- Thread starter TopSecretBoiler
- Start date
Nov. 2022 polling number are in.
Covid is over.
You'll hear it at the state of the union.
Covid is over.
You'll hear it at the state of the union.
New JAMA paper show Ivermectin blows the COVID vaccines out of the water
Whoops! How embarrassing! The CDC gave you bad advice. If you want to survive COVID, you should use the drug they said to avoid, and avoid the drug they said to use.
stevekirsch.substack.com
But Pfizer doesn't make an extra $31b in 2021 from Ivermectin. So you're wrong
Edit: Sorry for the novel. TL;DR - The study referenced in the article doesn't actually show that Ivermectin is more effective than vaccination at preventing death.New JAMA paper show Ivermectin blows the COVID vaccines out of the water
Whoops! How embarrassing! The CDC gave you bad advice. If you want to survive COVID, you should use the drug they said to avoid, and avoid the drug they said to use.
---------------
The author of this article suggests reading the study to see what it REALLY says. Well, I did. It clearly shows that Ivermectin was not effective at preventing severe illness, which was the study's stated conclusion. As is so often the case, someone has seen a data point (more of the control group died than did the Ivermectin group) and drawn a conclusion from it without considering whether that number is actually statistically significant -- in this case, it seems it's not -- or other relevant context. For instance, the study population were all over 50 with at least 1 co-morbidity. Is it possible that the people in the control group had, on average, more co-morbidities than did the Ivermectin group? There were, in fact, more people in the control group who were obese, more who had hypertension, and more who had chronic kidney or pulmonary disease. Some of the other co-morbidities go the other way. The point is that there are more variables in play than simply whether or not a patient received Ivermectin, so there will naturally be some variation in outcomes that are not attributable to the drug. The scientists in the study do their best to account for these other variables that can't actually be completely controlled. This article just looks at Ivermectin treatment as the only variable between the two groups.
Additionally, all participants in the study were already people who had mild to moderate cases (clinical stage 2 to 3), so, in the case of those vaccinated, it had already essentially failed to prevent them getting to this stage. So, you can't draw any conclusions about the effectiveness of the vaccine from any of this data, as it's based on a subset of people with breakthrough cases that have already reached a higher level of severity.
It's also worth noting that the two charts in the article about "effectiveness against death" are not actually in the study. The author has created them to try to support his conclusion by manipulating the data to say something it doesn't actually say. I could manipulate the data, too: of the control group, 12 of the 43 patients (28%) who progressed to severe illness had 2 vaccine doses. In the ivermectin group, 22 of the 52 patients (42%) who progressed to severe illness had 2 vaccine doses. Based on that, I guess I can conclude that, if you're vaccinated, taking Ivermectin makes it 50% more likely you'll get a severe illness. This is, of course, not actually supported by the data, but I can make it look like it is.
This author, a person with no expertise in medicine, infectious diseases, or immunology, yet who apparently thinks he understands the study better than the scientists who conducted and wrote it, either doesn't understand how scientific studies work or is lying about what this study actually says. To be clear, I am also not a scientist, so it's entirely possible that I may misunderstand something in the study. You shouldn't take my word for what it says (but you shouldn't take Steve Kirsch's, either) and should read it yourself. But, unlike the author of the article, I'm not arrogant enough to think I understand the study better than the actual researchers who did it and not cynical enough to think that the researchers lied right in their own, publicly available study where anyone could see it. I mean, how dumb would they have to be to think they could get away with that?
If, as the author suggests, the study states a conclusion that is in conflict with the data that was collected, I'm also curious what the motivation of these Malaysian scientists would be to lie about it. They don't work for the CDC, they don't work for Pfizer or Moderna or J&J. Would the Malaysian government silence them if they published a study that showed Ivermectin was effective (you know, like the US government would, apparently)? Or do they all, for some reason, want to support the American Democratic Party and so couldn't bring themselves to conclude that Trump was right all along? Is their research funding somehow tied to the need to support a pre-existing conclusion about Ivermectin? None of this makes sense.
It's just one study, but its results are clear. The data does not refute the stated conclusion, as the article author suggests it does.
Last edited:
Wow you really got into this. All I will say is that Ivermectin is an option that patients should have when their lives are on the line. I’m sure you’ve read and heard that this has not been an option for many. Pharmacies have refused to fill prescriptions issued by doctors specially California maybe other states. When life or death is on the line people should be able to have a fighting chance if all other options have run out.
I mean, I suppose, yes. It appears to have no clinical value, but if it provides a placebo effect that outweighs any side effects? Maybe that's ok. But, I don't think that's really how doctors are trained to work. Definitely outside my area!
Would the placebo effect work with reducing severity of a virus? Don't know enough to answer that, but it seems like it wouldn't. I know the mind is a powerful thing and the fact that there is a "placebo effect" means it is a possibility.
What are you talking about. 🤷♂️
Brandon beat COVID last July!!🤪🤪🤪.
(TIC of course)
🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡. Let’s go Brandon!!
I don't think so. But, my understanding of the placebo effect might suggest that, if one took Ivermectin believing it could work, then perhaps that belief might subconsciously bolster the immune system and help one defeat the virus. The placebo effect clearly exists, or they wouldn't have to give them to people during drug trial, but I don't know enough about it to say anything definitive.
However, I was just responding to the notion that people should have the option to take Ivermectin if they want to. If, as it appears, Ivermectin doesn't actually do anything with regards to Covid, then any positive outcomes from the placebo effect would seem to be its only use. So, presuming no significant side effects, perhaps there's something to be said for prescribing it to Covid patients under that justification.
Generally, though, I think people shouldn't be able to get particular drugs just because they want them or have heard that maybe they work. If they don't work, then doctors should not be obligated to prescribe them. While there's no reason you couldn't request a particular drug from your doctor (for instance, one particular blood pressure medication over another -- though this starts to get into drug advertising, which is a whole other issue), if you request something that doesn't work for the condition in question, the doctor should just say, "no, that drug doesn't treat this disease."
He will announce that Covid is over because internal polling for the Democrats is horrendous. It was never about the science. It’s always been about the political science.
Yep but I think it's too late. The only people that still support pResident potato are the cultists and low iq'd. Majority of America has already seen enough of this loser.
Lets hush this as Democrats have so many other issues they have hurt the American people with. They definitely don’t want to talk about people dying unless blaming Trump.
It amazes me that with the non stop Biden blunders, we forget one of his biggest.
The complete cluster fk of the Afghanistan withdrawal and it's consequences on the stability of the region and even the globe.
But let's change the subject from inflation, open borders, Ukraine and Hunter to abortion rulings.
Abortion will still be legal in half the Country. Not much will change.
589,289 as we approach 1 million total. There's always a tweet. Eat crap Joe.
If the blame would be laid on anyone it would be on those pushing people to not get vaccinated and not take the virus seriously.
You tell ‘em, Jared. One Reddit post after another. You’re changing the world, turning right wingers into brainwashed left wingers like you.
With all the reports on the vaccines that have come out lately which vaccine do you suggest I get? The J&J one that is only approved now for people who want the shot but aren’t eligible for the Pfizer or Moderna? Or the Moderna shot that is show increasingly severe side effects? Or the Pfizer with virtually zero efficacy after 3 months?
Right wing media says shelves are empty. When you go to the store and see that's not true, does it land at all that you're being manipulated or do you still go along with the lie? Just wondered how deep the propaganda has gone. When you can see with your own eyes, does it change anything?
Fortunately Indiana is one of a handful of states not experiencing these shortages. Your area doesn’t define a nation for whatever those eyes see.
So you went to a grocery store in Indiana that had stocked shelves and that’s all you needed to know to get upset with and blame right wing media for reporting that other stores in other parts of the country are hurting on inventory and now, baby formula. You don’t need to blame right wing media for Democrats being a failure. They’re just a failure.
Well since I go to the store and buy groceries every week I know that there are bare shelves. It's like a rotating shortage. One week there'll be no canned fruit. The next week the fruit shelves will be packed and there'll be no pasta sauce. The bottom line is that in my 70 years in America I've never experienced any empty shelves until this clown team took over. Spin it how you want but when it comes to shortages being propaganda you're simply full of shit.
The lefty cultists are always spinning things because their masters demand it. Blaming right wing media is easier and what the party demands of them. Incompetence is not to be discussed. Nothing is the fault of Democrats when it is. It’s the right wing media’s fault for reporting on Democrat failures.
Even babbling Biden has talked about the shortage of formula in his press conference. He acknowledges that there is a problem. The propaganda is DEEP real DEEP 🤣. What does this have to do with right wing media? Insert 🦶in 🤐
Nancy Pelosi is a member of the right wing media? Think (if you’re capable) before you post, dumb lib.
We’ll find out in November who America will blame for this fiasco.
I am sure it will be the “right wing media” who gets cut to ribbons, not the Democrats…
Similar threads
