Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Now THIS here...is a member
|
Post by lz2112 on Feb 20, 2022 13:08:40 GMT -5
This study does not completely debunk Ivermectin as a treatment, as some of our more here suggest. The sample size is way to small, and as CBis alluded to, results from outside the studies original parameters, i.e. late stage complications, were not reported. Perhaps because those in the Ivermectin group did in fact show a sharp decrease in adverse outcomes, but the n in in the study makes the numbers statistically invalid. At least, that is something I've seen discussed. Perhaps Drs Fraud and Walt have better data (although that would be a first).
My biggest problem here is how Ivermectin is being discouraged. Another relevant point of criticism was that the study used ONLY ivermectin, while I've seen several virologists advise multiple ani-virals are best for combating virus like COVID. Finding the proper mix is in fact similar to designing a cancer chemo cocktail.
Question for Drs Fraud and Walt, is there anything in this study that would indicate Ivermectin is harmful?
|
|
|
Gator Bait!
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Administrator
|
Post by Walter on Feb 20, 2022 13:54:38 GMT -5
This study does not completely debunk Ivermectin as a treatment, as some of our more here suggest. The sample size is way to small, and as CBis alluded to, results from outside the studies original parameters, i.e. late stage complications, were not reported. Perhaps because those in the Ivermectin group did in fact show a sharp decrease in adverse outcomes, but the n in in the study makes the numbers statistically invalid. At least, that is something I've seen discussed. Perhaps Drs Fraud and Walt have better data (although that would be a first). My biggest problem here is how Ivermectin is being discouraged. Another relevant point of criticism was that the study used ONLY ivermectin, while I've seen several virologists advise multiple ani-virals are best for combating virus like COVID. Finding the proper mix is in fact similar to designing a cancer chemo cocktail. Question for Drs Fraud and Walt, is there anything in this study that would indicate Ivermectin is harmful? Here we go again. Suggesting JAMA is involved in a vast conspiracy to discourage a particular drug. I thought you said you never do that. To what end would the editors conspire to deny favorable results? The study was aimed at a precise area of treatment. Suggesting it was not a broad enough study does not invalidate the results. The small size is a factor, but not the scope. Suggesting a cocktail might work better does not invalidate the results either. If Ivermectin pushers want to study the cocktail version, fine. Do so. Oh, wait...they did, and falsified the results resulting in it being yanked from publication. See the problem here? You don't trust JAMA, but you are inclined to trust two guys on the internet looking for clickbait. Why? |
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Now THIS here...is a member
|
Post by lz2112 on Feb 20, 2022 15:42:08 GMT -5
This study does not completely debunk Ivermectin as a treatment, as some of our more here suggest. The sample size is way to small, and as CBis alluded to, results from outside the studies original parameters, i.e. late stage complications, were not reported. Perhaps because those in the Ivermectin group did in fact show a sharp decrease in adverse outcomes, but the n in in the study makes the numbers statistically invalid. At least, that is something I've seen discussed. Perhaps Drs Fraud and Walt have better data (although that would be a first). My biggest problem here is how Ivermectin is being discouraged. Another relevant point of criticism was that the study used ONLY ivermectin, while I've seen several virologists advise multiple ani-virals are best for combating virus like COVID. Finding the proper mix is in fact similar to designing a cancer chemo cocktail. Question for Drs Fraud and Walt, is there anything in this study that would indicate Ivermectin is harmful? Here we go again. Suggesting JAMA is involved in a vast conspiracy to discourage a particular drug. I thought you said you never do that. To what end would the editors conspire to deny favorable results? The study was aimed at a precise area of treatment. Suggesting it was not a broad enough study does not invalidate the results. The small size is a factor, but not the scope. Suggesting a cocktail might work better does not invalidate the results either. If Ivermectin pushers want to study the cocktail version, fine. Do so. Oh, wait...they did, and falsified the results resulting in it being yanked from publication. See the problem here? You don't trust JAMA, but you are inclined to trust two guys on the internet looking for clickbait. Why? [/quote] Show me where I even slightly implied a conspiracy. |
|
|
Gator Bait!
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Now THIS here...is a member
|
Post by lz2112 on Feb 20, 2022 16:03:14 GMT -5
This study does not completely debunk Ivermectin as a treatment, as some of our more here suggest. The sample size is way to small, and as CBis alluded to, results from outside the studies original parameters, i.e. late stage complications, were not reported. Perhaps because those in the Ivermectin group did in fact show a sharp decrease in adverse outcomes, but the n in in the study makes the numbers statistically invalid. At least, that is something I've seen discussed. Perhaps Drs Fraud and Walt have better data (although that would be a first). My biggest problem here is how Ivermectin is being discouraged. Another relevant point of criticism was that the study used ONLY ivermectin, while I've seen several virologists advise multiple ani-virals are best for combating virus like COVID. Finding the proper mix is in fact similar to designing a cancer chemo cocktail. Question for Drs Fraud and Walt, is there anything in this study that would indicate Ivermectin is harmful? Here we go again. Suggesting JAMA is involved in a vast conspiracy to discourage a particular drug. I thought you said you never do that. To what end would the editors conspire to deny favorable results? The study was aimed at a precise area of treatment. Suggesting it was not a broad enough study does not invalidate the results. The small size is a factor, but not the scope. Suggesting a cocktail might work better does not invalidate the results either. If Ivermectin pushers want to study the cocktail version, fine. Do so. Oh, wait...they did, and falsified the results resulting in it being yanked from publication. See the problem here? You don't trust JAMA, but you are inclined to trust two guys on the internet looking for clickbait. Why? How do you presume to know who I trust? I've posted John Campbell once, and calling him clickbait shows how disingenuous, (and horribly misinformed) you are. But you obviously know more than everyone else Herr Drs Fraud and Walt. I'm not advocating the use of Ivermectin beyond an option for clinicians to use. Is there anything in this study that justifies your contempt and demand that it not be used? Why are you so triggered by Ivermectin? |
|
|
Gator Bait!
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Administrator
|
Post by Walter on Feb 20, 2022 16:17:44 GMT -5
Here we go again. Suggesting JAMA is involved in a vast conspiracy to discourage a particular drug. I thought you said you never do that. To what end would the editors conspire to deny favorable results? The study was aimed at a precise area of treatment. Suggesting it was not a broad enough study does not invalidate the results. The small size is a factor, but not the scope. Suggesting a cocktail might work better does not invalidate the results either. If Ivermectin pushers want to study the cocktail version, fine. Do so. Oh, wait...they did, and falsified the results resulting in it being yanked from publication. See the problem here? You don't trust JAMA, but you are inclined to trust two guys on the internet looking for clickbait. Why? Show me where I even slightly implied a conspiracy. [/quote] "My biggest problem here is how Ivermectin is being discouraged..." |
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Now THIS here...is a member
|
Post by lz2112 on Feb 20, 2022 16:25:33 GMT -5
Show me where I even slightly implied a conspiracy. [/quote] You are connecting dots that don't even exist. Holy f-word, you are more deluded than I thought. |
|
|
Gator Bait!
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Administrator
|
Post by Walter on Feb 20, 2022 16:38:26 GMT -5
Show me where I even slightly implied a conspiracy. You are connecting dots that don't even exist. Holy f-word, you are more deluded than I thought. [/quote] They're your dots. Go ahead and explain what you meant by the comment. |
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Solid Member
|
Post by dilligaf on Feb 22, 2022 10:14:29 GMT -5
Attacking JAMA to try to save their internet gravy train isn't surprising. JAMA hiding the facts isnt surprising either. |
|
|
THANK GOD for President Donald J. Trump 47!!
NEVER FORGET ASHLI BABBITT !!
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Administrator
|
Post by Walter on Feb 22, 2022 10:36:42 GMT -5
JAMA hiding the facts isnt surprising either. LOL... |
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Solid Member
|
Post by dilligaf on Feb 22, 2022 12:48:38 GMT -5
Don't forget that JAMA is anti-freedom. LOL... |
|
|
THANK GOD for President Donald J. Trump 47!!
NEVER FORGET ASHLI BABBITT !!
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Godlike Member
|
Post by cbisbig on Feb 22, 2022 13:20:11 GMT -5
JAMA hiding the facts isnt surprising either. How can i forget, been thru a lot of drama with family members health issues the past 6-7 years, specifically the past 2-3. Learned shit about doctors (quacks) i never would have imagined. |
|
|
ROLL TIDE!
29 SEC Championships
18 National Championships
2015-16 Bowl Champion Douche
2020 Pandemic Bowl Champ
|
Make America Great Again !!!
Supreme Being-like Member
|
Post by Panama pfRedd on Feb 22, 2022 13:46:36 GMT -5
Don't forget that JAMA is anti-freedom. How can i forget, been thru a lot of drama with family members health issues the past 6-7 years, specifically the past 2-3. Learned shit about doctors (quacks) i never would have imagined. You should've known, considering we've been exposed to one here for years... |
|
................................  ................................ = Panama pfRedd - 2021 Regular Season Champion = ...............................  ................................
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Godlike Member
|
Post by cbisbig on Feb 22, 2022 13:57:43 GMT -5
How can i forget, been thru a lot of drama with family members health issues the past 6-7 years, specifically the past 2-3. Learned shit about doctors (quacks) i never would have imagined. You should've known, considering we've been exposed to one here for years... I just dont believe hes a ✌real✌ doctor Definitely no MD |
|
|
ROLL TIDE!
29 SEC Championships
18 National Championships
2015-16 Bowl Champion Douche
2020 Pandemic Bowl Champ
|
Make America Great Again !!!
Supreme Being-like Member
|
Post by Panama pfRedd on Feb 22, 2022 14:08:51 GMT -5
You should've known, considering we've been exposed to one here for years... I just dont believe hes a ✌real✌ doctor Definitely no MD Couldn't possibly be but definitely a quack in every way. |
|
................................ ................................ = Panama pfRedd - 2021 Regular Season Champion = ............................... ................................
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Administrator
|
Post by Walter on Feb 22, 2022 14:50:50 GMT -5
Don't forget that JAMA is anti-freedom. How can i forget, been thru a lot of drama with family members health issues the past 6-7 years, specifically the past 2-3. Learned shit about doctors (quacks) i never would have imagined. As have I. I learned, and I bet you learned, that just like in all professions, somebody in Med school had to be at the bottom of the class, and they're out there, walking the halls in lab coats. That's a long way from indicting the entire profession and their signature medical publication. |
|
