I don't speak Chitwallese or Fraud, so all I saw was "blah blah blah blah". Can someone translate it? Is he talking about how sexy boys are again?By all accounts we can say this now with a high level of certainty -- what it does is it keeps the virus from replicating.

So, early on, it's great and can slow down or outright stop the virus from spreading. If you're in the hospital already, like many of the anti-Ivermectin 'studies' used to discredit it, then it serves no purpose. The virus has already replicated and spread all over your body.

I say it's fairly obvious they knew what they were doing when they cherry picked the time to administer it and declare it useless, because they all picked later stage patients who were already in rough shape.

Yeah it’s like testing whether seatbelts help prevent injury by putting them on people after car crashes, seeing that this doesn’t make any difference, then trying to stop people from using seatbelts ever

/endthread

But hey, this guy with a youtube video trumps everything!




Lmfao rent free. Imagine thinking of someone all day every day.

i did post this yesterday , but if it rustles a vaxcel who cares

Actually if they administered it early on to elderly or high risk patients already in hospitals or nursing homes for other problems, they could have saved a lot of grandmas. Lots of people were exposed to covid in hospitals.

Did anyone actually go to Chitstain's link? I don't see the ivermectin studies. It's just a link to their site?

Nothing he said actually addressed the specific study relevant to this thread. The one showing Ivermectin to be an effective covid prophylactic. Maybe you can show us why it's illegitimate, instead of just blindly agreeing with his inane ramblings? Or are you a disingenuous cuck aswell?Yeah I clicked it. It's broken. A lot like his mind.

And if you're going to promulgate Big Pharma conspiracies and make the ludicrous accusations that millions of doctors and scientists are intentionally withholding treatment because of some evil conspiracy, then take the time to digest the argument I made without childishly dismissing at as 'rambling'.


You see, I've become very disinclined and unenthused with debate on these topics around here, since we've been repeatedly offered junk science articles with bad methodology, obvious errors, poor design published in predatory journals that deserve retraction. Just within the last fortnight I shredded the two claims the spike protein was getting into the nucleus and the vaccine was inducing reverse transcription. On top of that, the insufferable rudeness and childish tribalism of the pureblood crowd just compounds the frustration. And the mentality that you're some sort of special non-conformist clique (utterly oblivious to the fact this is exactly what loser goth kids whom no one likes behave like too) and this completes the trifecta of futility.
Ah, but I can. I'm just losing patience with the purebloods seizing upon badly-designed studies from the fringe, predatory journals to vindicate their pretensions. I'm going to reiterate what BOLA said plus a bit more.


There's a flaw in the propensity matching; since they created a propensity score for mortality but did not exclude people who were on Ivermectin already, but theycontrolledfor it. Which is nonsensical given the voluntary prophylactic application, it's a very strange trial design and this should be caught in peer review; as long as someone with proper scientific competency can read it.


Furthermore, the biggest red flag is that this is not an RCT-Randomized Control Trial. There's no randomization, no pre-registration, no blinding, no concealment of group allocation, mismatching of groups who received/didn't receive Ivermectin etc. Taken together it won't pass review in an actual quality journal which holds the authors to standards for statistics and study types. Also, as BOLA suggested, it's in a region with prolific parasitical infections so of course an anti-parasitical drug will help with outcomes since they won't have to fight off both Covid and parasites. That's a confounding variable.


Also worth noting is that there is a significant conflict of interest with one of the groups the authors are affiliated with; connections to pharmacies and doctors selling Ivermectin and online consultations etc.



In conclusion, I have to reiterate my suggestion to give it up with the conspiratorial thinking. It makes you subject to extreme confirmation bias and you end up falling for stuff like this. FYI, I'm not even an expert in this stuff. I majored in biochemistry and cell biology, but my Masters and PhD are on rather different topics.

fck off chit stain boy

I think you missed the point and just want to make light of my light reading comment, without any real definition as to what light reading actually is for me.

Please, continue.

Yep, and here's how the rest of thread will play out, just like the others:


"But you go....you go doody on the walls, LOL."

fck off chit stain boi

While you smearing chit on walls is relevant, you also left out the criticism thatthe link you used to base your entire argument is broken.

So, when NYrapist says, "/thread!!!!!" he didn't even bother to fuking read the post, else he'd have clicked your link, saw it was broken and realized you actually made no point whatsoever.

4,000,000,000 doses given to humans since it was approved by FDA.....but it's for horses.

Your ability at creating large amounts of text and finding any possible support for your pre-determined conclusion should serve you very well in academia.

Have you taken an equally hard look at the study done to support the mRNA treatments?

- results were not even "controlled" for study participants previously infected [pre-existing naturally acquired immunity]

- higher fatality in the treated vs. non-treated groups

- blind was broken [per whistle blower]

- control group was discarded/treated with injections

- more Severe Adverse Events than perhaps any prior treatment or vaccine for a drug that is/was still on the market

Reported negative health events w/less than 3 months use:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...mFHaOceEw/editRemdesvir = more likely to dieGee, sort of like the scientists who believed that the virus most likely escaped from a lab, but then had a change of heart and got fat grants from Fauci?



Trust the science. We paid good money for that chit.

Th study that Dr. Campbell specifically referenced, regarding the results, there is essentially ZERO chance they were random, meaning there was a 1/10,000 chance that the results were arrived at by chance.

Funny how they demand responses and explanations and then respond with that. And not a single person calls them out for it. Instead you have morons like umop3pisdn calling out us. This is the "new" misc, and it's sad.

Moron case in point. We've already seen the studies showing Ivermectin is meh at best.





And just lol at this:

Then actually link them, rapey. Show me the study where it was administered early and in proper dosage and then did nothing.

Oh well since you demanded it and didn't resort to chit smearing accusations, here you go:

https://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showt...post1657978643











































































































****g0t.

Suppressing and trivializing Ivermectin...
Suppressing and trivializing anyone asking completely reasonable questions about vaccine efficacy and testing...
Trying to force and mandate shots that they profit hand-over-fist cash with, with no legal repercussions if anything were to go wrong...

Best case scenario it was mass murder through greedy negligence. They suppressed medicine that works to force experimental injections that were unproven to line their pockets. But in reality it was an intentional culling from psychopathic eugenicists hellbent on depopulation.

Nah.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...ticle/2789362?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/zachary...h=406f261d434b

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/...oblems/620473/

.
.
.
.
.

How much do you want to bet that every study that you find that says Ivermectin doesn't work, did not use a high enough dosing. For example, the first study says .4mg/kg. For a 200lb person that is only 36mg. The recommended dose for covid is 100mg every 12 hours.

Does this retard even believe the nonsense it types?

Ask for a link showing the study where ivermectin was administered early and in proper doses and was shown to be ineffective.

This absolute imbecile can not and will not do it. Gets xis entire world view from headlines on CNN and known liars like Bodhy.

Within the first week of infection seems pretty early.

Cheap
No sides
No reason not to try it

I don’t really know or care about ivermectin’s use in relation to COViD. But what I *do* know is someone posted a study about ivermectin’s use as a prophylactic, and you posted a bunch of stuff about its use as a *treatment*. Without knowing anything else, I know from the about your are either completely retarded or your are duplicitous.

Yeah. And most of the studies that say it doesn't work focus on the fact that it doesn't reduce the viral load, which is correct, it doesn't. What it does is reduce the inflammatory response to the virus, which is what is actually putting people in the hospital.

Even here in CA the doctors know it's effective. My mom, who can't take the shot (she wouldn't even if she could) has had a standing order for ivermectin with her doctor in case she starts having any symptoms.

The only people and organizations that say it doesn't work have $$$ or power to lose.

"The only people and organizations that say it doesn't work have $$$ to lose."

Who funds the FDA, bro?

Maybe try referencing a non corrupt source for once.