| Most reliable information.Covid-19 23:34 - May 20 with 19870 views | RonaldStump |
So who is providing the most reliable information?
The so called 'Conspiracy Theorists' or the Government (Sage) and their modelling.
Since March 2020 there clearly only one winner here.
Congratulations the so called 'Consiracy Theorists'
Prove me wrong. |  |
| |  |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 20:53 - Jul 3 with 753 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 20:39 - Jul 3 by Scotia |
That's me convinced.
Ivermectin will save the world.
So will HCQ.
Stop vaccinating people.
Malone obviously invented mRNA vaccines.
Nobody dies of covid anyway.
The virus was made by China anyway.
Climate change isn't happening because an accountant told me.
Who needs science anyway. |
Do you know what a mortality result for 22 studies of 96% improvement for Prophylaxis, 81% for Early treatment and 61% for Late treatment means?
Obviously where you come from it means the drug doesn't work.
Keep going with the wind up, I am less and less impressed by your intellect every time we have these debates. | | | |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 21:05 - Jul 3 with 738 views | Professor |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 20:48 - Jul 3 by A_Fans_Dad |
The number of patients in the studies is quoted, very few people can afford the time or money to carry out an Oxford Recovery type study and the longer the study the more people are dying in the real world.
The 18,391, 14,554, 7,611, 5,316 and 7,690 are not exactly "small" by anybody's standards.
I haven't actually seen any study where no effect was the result.
I have seen one meta study where the Conclusion does not appear to match the Data table though.
Perhaps you could advise me?
When the data table says for all cause Mortality the Control group had 6 Deaths and the Ivermectin Group had 2 Deaths with an RR of 0.37 does that sound like
"For all cause mortality there was no improvement over the control group"? |
I put four up earlier
They are mixed in that either they say there is no effect of Ivermectin or it’s unclear. Most of the studies are simply not good enough. That’s not a criticism- most when you look at the study say ‘May’ have an effect or that the findings are not conclusive due to the lack of statistical power. Personally I think Ivermectin which is safe may have a marginal effect and work for some patients.
But is clearly less effective than corticosteroids and the IL-6 inhibitors. Unlike those it is acting as an antiviral rather than treating disease. It is at least as good as remesdevir and cheaper. But is only going to help in a few cases. Vaccination is preferable as more effective -
It is clearly working. Hopefully newer drugs in the pipeline will have more efficacy. None of HCQ, azithromycin, zinc or vitamin D will make any real difference.
HCQs side effects are a much greater risk than the others. It really should be binned. | | | |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 19:49 - Jul 4 with 689 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 21:05 - Jul 3 by Professor |
I put four up earlier
They are mixed in that either they say there is no effect of Ivermectin or it’s unclear. Most of the studies are simply not good enough. That’s not a criticism- most when you look at the study say ‘May’ have an effect or that the findings are not conclusive due to the lack of statistical power. Personally I think Ivermectin which is safe may have a marginal effect and work for some patients.
But is clearly less effective than corticosteroids and the IL-6 inhibitors. Unlike those it is acting as an antiviral rather than treating disease. It is at least as good as remesdevir and cheaper. But is only going to help in a few cases. Vaccination is preferable as more effective -
It is clearly working. Hopefully newer drugs in the pipeline will have more efficacy. None of HCQ, azithromycin, zinc or vitamin D will make any real difference.
HCQs side effects are a much greater risk than the others. It really should be binned. |
You didn't read the studies and their details did you?
The first one by the BMJ, Control mortality 130/1000 ,Ivermectin -103 which I assume means 27/1000.
The second study Ivermectin (OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.57, p = 0.005), and tocilizumab (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.90, p = 0.012) were associated with reduced mortality rate in critically ill patients.
3rd study also by BMJ, Control 65/1000 Ivermectin -52 & -50 which again I assume means 13/1000 or 15/1000.
4th study is the one that I asked you about elsewhere where the conclusion does not match the data.
They state "IVM did not reduce all-cause mortality vs. controls (RR 0.37, 95%CI 0.12 to 1.13, very low QoE)"
What does RR 0.37 mean?
The actual data from the pdf
All Cause Mortality Control = 6/100 and Ivermectin = 2 /100 RR = 0.37.
4 Different studies all saying Ivermectin Mortality rates are lower than the control, most by a considreable margin.
So the reasoning behind their analysis was not based on any of the results was it?
It was purely based on the quality of the studies.
Perhaps you can pick the holes in their mortality data values that can explain their conclusions.
Just like the HCQ 3 deaths is not less than 6 deaths draws the conclusion that HCQ doesn't work. [Post edited 5 Jul 2021 15:00]
| | | |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 16:44 - Jul 23 with 582 views | A_Fans_Dad |
And then lied about it.
"“It is double what it was yesterday and so it definitely is incorrect,” the spokeswoman said. “We checked our stats internally and it’s only 6,000. So someone doing an update misrepresented that or made a mistake, in other words.”"
Except they reported it was over 9000 last week.
No shame at all. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
