| Omicron 11:01 - Nov 30 with 28330 views | RonaldStump |
Well, well.well .. the symptoms of the 'new variant' have, so far, only happened in vaccinated people and they have the same complications as severe vaccine reactions.
Didn't see that one coming did we
How convenient... we don't have to blame the vaccines anymore!!
Awake yet? .........surely you are |  |
| |  |
| Omicron on 17:31 - Nov 30 with 1535 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Omicron on 17:06 - Nov 30 by Professor |
I told you last week. You reposted a link from a site owned by Russia Today. The story came from a site with links to Chinese state media.
HCQ has been proven to have little or no effect.
In some cases detrimental. It’s not widely used for malaria because of its frequent side effects as much as it being ineffective That you are still banging the drum then you are so far down the conspiracy hole you are beyond redemption.
Now that is not the case for ivermectin where there may be a small benefit. We still await a good large RCT which suggests to me it’s pretty ineffective. That dexamethasone worked was picked up very quickly. Of course the world’s highest mortality rates are in countries that though HCQ and IVN were a miracle cure. Problem is you don’t know poop from chocolate |
You demonstrate classic circular reasoning.
HCQ gets banned by WHO based on 4 crap studies, one of which was withdrawn, poor countries using HCQ stop using it based on the WHO and their mortality shhots through the roof because they can't afford anything and that proves that HCQ doesn't work.
You are absolutely correct HCQ doesn't work when it is banned from use.
Just like Ivermectin doesn't work for the general public when it is only allowed to be used in Clinical studies.
It is called suppression and it works very well. [Post edited 2 Dec 2021 11:59]
| | | |
| Omicron on 19:45 - Dec 1 with 1418 views | Catullus |
| Omicron on 17:31 - Nov 30 by A_Fans_Dad |
You demonstrate classic circular reasoning.
HCQ gets banned by WHO based on 4 crap studies, one of which was withdrawn, poor countries using HCQ stop using it based on the WHO and their mortality shhots through the roof because they can't afford anything and that proves that HCQ doesn't work.
You are absolutely correct HCQ doesn't work when it is banned from use.
Just like Ivermectin doesn't work for the general public when it is only allowed to be used in Clinical studies.
It is called suppression and it works very well. [Post edited 2 Dec 2021 11:59]
|
What you say about Ivermectin is absolutely circular reasoning. Its in clinical studies to see if it's safe, if it's not safe it can't be given to the general public.
The FDA say it's not to be used,
https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-should-not-use-ivermectin
Interesting that you say the vaccines aren't safe for various reasons, none of which you seem to apply to treatments you agree with.
I thought testing needed to be long term? You apparently believe in giving an untested or clinically unproven drug to the general public. In which case why are you against vaccines that have been tested and passed as safe? vaccines that are effective and have recently been declared as effective against this new variant too. That's Oxford Uni saying that though so you'll probably decry it. | |
| |
| Omicron on 20:12 - Dec 1 with 1405 views | GoldenBear |
Very early indications are that it maybe highly transmissible, but symptoms are mild, guess it's because it's a B strain. Also no hospitalisation has been recorded.
I do wish the MSM, would calm down, people are worried enough as it is, they caused more damage than enough, time to stop with this scare mongering. |  | | |
| Omicron on 10:26 - Dec 2 with 1343 views | Professor |
| Omicron on 17:31 - Nov 30 by A_Fans_Dad |
You demonstrate classic circular reasoning.
HCQ gets banned by WHO based on 4 crap studies, one of which was withdrawn, poor countries using HCQ stop using it based on the WHO and their mortality shhots through the roof because they can't afford anything and that proves that HCQ doesn't work.
You are absolutely correct HCQ doesn't work when it is banned from use.
Just like Ivermectin doesn't work for the general public when it is only allowed to be used in Clinical studies.
It is called suppression and it works very well. [Post edited 2 Dec 2021 11:59]
|
It's not banned . Not recommended and rightly so as that';s what the BEST evidence suggests. There is no suppression, only in the minds of those who have been hoodwinked by god knows who.
You really have the gall, the nerve to call studies like RECOVERY crap. What experience, qualifications, knowledge and leadership have you to suggest Peter Horby and Martin Landray are liars and suppressing the truth? God help you, You are complete fool and a narcissist to rival Johnson. | | | |
| Omicron on 10:28 - Dec 2 with 1341 views | Professor |
| Omicron on 19:45 - Dec 1 by Catullus |
What you say about Ivermectin is absolutely circular reasoning. Its in clinical studies to see if it's safe, if it's not safe it can't be given to the general public.
The FDA say it's not to be used,
https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-should-not-use-ivermectin
Interesting that you say the vaccines aren't safe for various reasons, none of which you seem to apply to treatments you agree with.
I thought testing needed to be long term? You apparently believe in giving an untested or clinically unproven drug to the general public. In which case why are you against vaccines that have been tested and passed as safe? vaccines that are effective and have recently been declared as effective against this new variant too. That's Oxford Uni saying that though so you'll probably decry it. |
Contradictions of an idiot who so far up the conspiracist/Russian agenda he can no longer think rationally. | | | |
| Omicron on 10:31 - Dec 2 with 1339 views | Flynnidine_Zidownes |
| Omicron on 20:12 - Dec 1 by GoldenBear |
Very early indications are that it maybe highly transmissible, but symptoms are mild, guess it's because it's a B strain. Also no hospitalisation has been recorded.
I do wish the MSM, would calm down, people are worried enough as it is, they caused more damage than enough, time to stop with this scare mongering. |
If anything we should be celebrating this new variant if it’s true symptoms are mild and people aren’t being hospitalised. | | | |
| Omicron on 11:20 - Dec 2 with 1308 views | Scotia |
| Omicron on 20:12 - Dec 1 by GoldenBear |
Very early indications are that it maybe highly transmissible, but symptoms are mild, guess it's because it's a B strain. Also no hospitalisation has been recorded.
I do wish the MSM, would calm down, people are worried enough as it is, they caused more damage than enough, time to stop with this scare mongering. |
The Delta variant is B lineage too. Plenty of hospitalisations have been recorded, mostly in the unvaccinated although most of South Africa is unvaccinated.
It's too ealry to say if it's scaremongering or not. I suspect it's not unfortunatley. | | | |
| Omicron on 11:21 - Dec 2 with 1308 views | controversial_jack |
| Omicron on 10:31 - Dec 2 by Flynnidine_Zidownes |
If anything we should be celebrating this new variant if it’s true symptoms are mild and people aren’t being hospitalised. |
That's not certain yet. There hasn't been enough cases in S Africa yet and hospitalisations haven't been reflected in those numbers yet. Time will tell when case numbers shoot up.
S Africa has different demographics to the UK. They have a younger fitter population than we have here so will be more able to fight it off. It's too early to tell right now, which is why many govts are being cautious. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Omicron on 11:42 - Dec 2 with 1293 views | Catullus |
| Omicron on 11:21 - Dec 2 by controversial_jack |
That's not certain yet. There hasn't been enough cases in S Africa yet and hospitalisations haven't been reflected in those numbers yet. Time will tell when case numbers shoot up.
S Africa has different demographics to the UK. They have a younger fitter population than we have here so will be more able to fight it off. It's too early to tell right now, which is why many govts are being cautious. |
The latest news there isn't very rassuring,
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/emerging-picture-from-south-africa-suggests
Only 24% are vaccinated in SA and they have a younger population in general. We'll have to see how the data stacks up.
We won't know very much though until it has a strong presence in Europe and starts on older populations. | |
| |
| Omicron on 12:05 - Dec 2 with 1278 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Omicron on 19:45 - Dec 1 by Catullus |
What you say about Ivermectin is absolutely circular reasoning. Its in clinical studies to see if it's safe, if it's not safe it can't be given to the general public.
The FDA say it's not to be used,
https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-should-not-use-ivermectin
Interesting that you say the vaccines aren't safe for various reasons, none of which you seem to apply to treatments you agree with.
I thought testing needed to be long term? You apparently believe in giving an untested or clinically unproven drug to the general public. In which case why are you against vaccines that have been tested and passed as safe? vaccines that are effective and have recently been declared as effective against this new variant too. That's Oxford Uni saying that though so you'll probably decry it. |
Both HCQ and Ivermectin have been in use as Human Medicine for decades, so your "You apparently believe in giving an untested or clinically unproven drug to the general public." is complete BS.
Ivermectin has no less than 67 studies for COVID and HCQ 298.
I have watched lots of videos of Doctors saying how both of them work and have saved 1000s of lives.
So I am going to believe them over a Clinical study designed to fail by severely overdosing already critically ill patients, so why don't you? | | | |
| Omicron on 12:43 - Dec 2 with 1253 views | Professor |
| Omicron on 12:05 - Dec 2 by A_Fans_Dad |
Both HCQ and Ivermectin have been in use as Human Medicine for decades, so your "You apparently believe in giving an untested or clinically unproven drug to the general public." is complete BS.
Ivermectin has no less than 67 studies for COVID and HCQ 298.
I have watched lots of videos of Doctors saying how both of them work and have saved 1000s of lives.
So I am going to believe them over a Clinical study designed to fail by severely overdosing already critically ill patients, so why don't you? |
Neither are used as front line-anti virals. Both are anti-parasitic, and ivermectin's use is primarily for onchocerciasis.
500 poor studies may show the same erroneous data. Analysis of RCTs does not show any effect of HCQ. You can bang on all you want, these are considered well-designed trails but world leading clinicians and epidemiologists. Not some halfwit down the pub or crackpot on the internet. | | | |
| Omicron on 15:27 - Dec 2 with 1199 views | Professor |
| Omicron on 12:05 - Dec 2 by A_Fans_Dad |
Both HCQ and Ivermectin have been in use as Human Medicine for decades, so your "You apparently believe in giving an untested or clinically unproven drug to the general public." is complete BS.
Ivermectin has no less than 67 studies for COVID and HCQ 298.
I have watched lots of videos of Doctors saying how both of them work and have saved 1000s of lives.
So I am going to believe them over a Clinical study designed to fail by severely overdosing already critically ill patients, so why don't you? |
I watched a video where a giant spaceship blew up a planet. And other where people could move around dimensions.
A video on the internet means Porthcawl | | | |
| Omicron on 15:52 - Dec 2 with 1178 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Omicron on 15:27 - Dec 2 by Professor |
I watched a video where a giant spaceship blew up a planet. And other where people could move around dimensions.
A video on the internet means Porthcawl |
Calling reputable Doctors liars again.
They are on the front line you have never treated a COVID patient in your life.
Who to believe? | | | |
| Omicron on 16:31 - Dec 2 with 1170 views | raynor94 |
| Omicron on 15:52 - Dec 2 by A_Fans_Dad |
Calling reputable Doctors liars again.
They are on the front line you have never treated a COVID patient in your life.
Who to believe? |
What qualifications do you actually possess in the medical field? |  |
| |
| Omicron on 16:35 - Dec 2 with 1166 views | Professor |
| Omicron on 16:31 - Dec 2 by raynor94 |
What qualifications do you actually possess in the medical field? |
Porthcawl. | | | |
| Omicron on 16:37 - Dec 2 with 1163 views | Professor |
| Omicron on 15:52 - Dec 2 by A_Fans_Dad |
Calling reputable Doctors liars again.
They are on the front line you have never treated a COVID patient in your life.
Who to believe? |
Well some may be. But you have posted the words of many charlatans too. | | | |
| Omicron on 16:41 - Dec 2 with 1158 views | Catullus |
| Omicron on 12:05 - Dec 2 by A_Fans_Dad |
Both HCQ and Ivermectin have been in use as Human Medicine for decades, so your "You apparently believe in giving an untested or clinically unproven drug to the general public." is complete BS.
Ivermectin has no less than 67 studies for COVID and HCQ 298.
I have watched lots of videos of Doctors saying how both of them work and have saved 1000s of lives.
So I am going to believe them over a Clinical study designed to fail by severely overdosing already critically ill patients, so why don't you? |
They have been used to treat other medical issues. You can't give people medicines for conditions they haven't tested it for. Call yourself a scientist?
Those studies you mention, haven't they been rubbished by real experts?
Where did you watch these videos? On you tube channels run by conspiracy websits and people looking to make money? | |
| |
| Omicron on 17:22 - Dec 2 with 1137 views | Professor |
| Omicron on 16:41 - Dec 2 by Catullus |
They have been used to treat other medical issues. You can't give people medicines for conditions they haven't tested it for. Call yourself a scientist?
Those studies you mention, haven't they been rubbished by real experts?
Where did you watch these videos? On you tube channels run by conspiracy websits and people looking to make money? |
The bigger issue is that he is falling for opinions, not the evidence base. Modern medicine (human and veterinary) is bases treatments on evidence. A key tool is a systematic review of all the material available. It adds more weight to trials that are fully controlled (a randomised control trial or RCT) and with bigger numbers to have more statistical power. Most that show effects of HCQ or ivermectin are observational studies , where groups are not matched to age, sex etc and controls are absent or much smaller than the treatments. These can be useful, but an RCT with groups of day 1000’patients is more useful than we treated 10 and 10% died whereas 33% of the untreated died. Now the untreated group is 3. You see my point……
The evidence is extremely strong that HCQ is ineffective. The argument of dose is BS. Respiratory infections require high doses of drugs to reach an effective concentration in the lungs. My PhD was on a respiratory pathogen which effects those with cystic fibrosis. Almost impossible to get high enough antimicrobial concentrations in the lungs to treat. This is why properly designed studies used higher doses. Which are within the guidelines for use. Now anyone can say that’s wrong. But those behind the trial are clinical professors. Not someone making a video on You Tube.
The misinformation is boiling my blood | | | |
| Omicron on 17:30 - Dec 2 with 1132 views | raynor94 |
| Omicron on 16:35 - Dec 2 by Professor |
Porthcawl. |
Thought as much | |
| |
| Omicron on 17:30 - Dec 2 with 1130 views | Gwyn737 |
| Omicron on 17:22 - Dec 2 by Professor |
The bigger issue is that he is falling for opinions, not the evidence base. Modern medicine (human and veterinary) is bases treatments on evidence. A key tool is a systematic review of all the material available. It adds more weight to trials that are fully controlled (a randomised control trial or RCT) and with bigger numbers to have more statistical power. Most that show effects of HCQ or ivermectin are observational studies , where groups are not matched to age, sex etc and controls are absent or much smaller than the treatments. These can be useful, but an RCT with groups of day 1000’patients is more useful than we treated 10 and 10% died whereas 33% of the untreated died. Now the untreated group is 3. You see my point……
The evidence is extremely strong that HCQ is ineffective. The argument of dose is BS. Respiratory infections require high doses of drugs to reach an effective concentration in the lungs. My PhD was on a respiratory pathogen which effects those with cystic fibrosis. Almost impossible to get high enough antimicrobial concentrations in the lungs to treat. This is why properly designed studies used higher doses. Which are within the guidelines for use. Now anyone can say that’s wrong. But those behind the trial are clinical professors. Not someone making a video on You Tube.
The misinformation is boiling my blood |
That’s all very well, but I want to see what Dr. Gillian McKeith has to say about it 😉 | | | |
| Omicron on 17:53 - Dec 2 with 1114 views | Gwyn737 |
Awwww, I thought that was a Gillian McKeith link for a minute 🤣 | | | |
| Omicron on 17:57 - Dec 2 with 1110 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Omicron on 16:41 - Dec 2 by Catullus |
They have been used to treat other medical issues. You can't give people medicines for conditions they haven't tested it for. Call yourself a scientist?
Those studies you mention, haven't they been rubbished by real experts?
Where did you watch these videos? On you tube channels run by conspiracy websits and people looking to make money? |
How many times do I have to say it they have been tested for COVID.
No, I do not call myself a scientist.
The only people rubbishing those studies are people involved in the Bodies suppressing them or in the pharma industries.
The videos are made by and for Doctors who share their experiences on symposiums, conferences, zoom meetings and pod casts.
There were also a couple of them who were made famous by the press for saving so many lives, although the press refused to say what with.
I even posted one of them on here. | | | |
| Omicron on 08:36 - Dec 3 with 1044 views | Scotia |
| Omicron on 17:57 - Dec 2 by A_Fans_Dad |
How many times do I have to say it they have been tested for COVID.
No, I do not call myself a scientist.
The only people rubbishing those studies are people involved in the Bodies suppressing them or in the pharma industries.
The videos are made by and for Doctors who share their experiences on symposiums, conferences, zoom meetings and pod casts.
There were also a couple of them who were made famous by the press for saving so many lives, although the press refused to say what with.
I even posted one of them on here. |
The one that you posted on here only included HCQ as an afterthought when interviewed by the US right wing media.
His original published treatment regime (that he co-autheored) made no mention of HCQ.
He seemed to be a bit of a media whore to be honest.
Here's a link to the PDF copy of the paper.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/epub/10.1080/14787210.2020.1808462?needAccess=tr
Feel free to cary out a serch for Hydroxychlorquine or anything associated. There are 0 results.
He didn't use it. He didn't use it because it doesn't work. [Post edited 3 Dec 2021 8:41]
| | | |
| Omicron on 09:49 - Dec 3 with 1023 views | Catullus |
| Omicron on 17:22 - Dec 2 by Professor |
The bigger issue is that he is falling for opinions, not the evidence base. Modern medicine (human and veterinary) is bases treatments on evidence. A key tool is a systematic review of all the material available. It adds more weight to trials that are fully controlled (a randomised control trial or RCT) and with bigger numbers to have more statistical power. Most that show effects of HCQ or ivermectin are observational studies , where groups are not matched to age, sex etc and controls are absent or much smaller than the treatments. These can be useful, but an RCT with groups of day 1000’patients is more useful than we treated 10 and 10% died whereas 33% of the untreated died. Now the untreated group is 3. You see my point……
The evidence is extremely strong that HCQ is ineffective. The argument of dose is BS. Respiratory infections require high doses of drugs to reach an effective concentration in the lungs. My PhD was on a respiratory pathogen which effects those with cystic fibrosis. Almost impossible to get high enough antimicrobial concentrations in the lungs to treat. This is why properly designed studies used higher doses. Which are within the guidelines for use. Now anyone can say that’s wrong. But those behind the trial are clinical professors. Not someone making a video on You Tube.
The misinformation is boiling my blood |
I took part in a medical trial myself, Prof. They had a vetting process whereby I had to read all the info and sign every page. It told me everything, the size of the trial, data protection, it was double blind.
I still don't know if I got the real stuff or the placebo but I got better!
PS, nothing to do with Covid, it was for NASH. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
