| Most reliable information.Covid-19 23:34 - May 20 with 19871 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 17:34 - Jun 1 with 1161 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 17:00 - Jun 1 by Professor |
Absolute rubbish.
Record new cases-6th May
Deaths 18th May
Get your facts right. That's a peak of mid May not in April
Get a better source. like this: https://coronavirus.jhu.edu
Pharmaceutical R & D is far higher for cancer, cardiovascular disease, metabolic disease and immune disorders (such as autoimmunity and allergy) than infectious disease. There are abut six times as many cancer clinical trials than those around infection.
Look into the costs for some drugs used over many months or years-there are many that cost the NHS in excess of £10k per patient per year. These are discounted too-look at some of the profit margins in the US-even on things like insulin we pay £10-100 per month for are charged up to 10 times that amount.
Vaccines are cheap (full dose of any for COVID used in the UK are under £50) and as they become more effective lose that repeat business. There are no real human vaccine companies, just part of larger companies with big and mixed portfolios. The only reason AZ are making a vaccine was the wisdom of the government's vaccine task force in forging a production agreement to allow UK production capacity.
You are the naive one. If vaccines were a money spinner then we would have a lot more vaccine preventable disease as there would be more investment. |
I am not sure when the 6th of the month became the middle of the month and not the 15th, some 9 days later, but hey, you are the Scientist, me I am just a lowly Engineer.
John Hopkins, so let's take their results of 6th of May, or even Worldindata's 9th of May, that makes it an even more remarkable turn around for those other states and India in total. A 60% reduction in 3 weeks. Especially considering their population and lack of Vaccinations.
But not as spectacular as Dheli's 92% reduction and Uttar Pradesh's 84% in that period
Of course not all states started or are even now are using Ivermectin, as I have already pointed out Tamil Nadu cases trebled from April 20th contributing the overall total.
Well as there is no money in Vaccine development what did AZ sell that allowed them to pay their CEO an obscene £18Million bonus?
How did those others become Billionaires almost overnight?
Perhaps you would like to argue this data.
https://theecologist.org/2021/may/24/coronavirus-vaccine-billionaires
You are still avoiding what to do with all those that have and will get COVID in the rest of the world until they are vaccinated. [Post edited 1 Jun 2021 17:42]
| | | |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 17:45 - Jun 1 with 1144 views | Professor |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 17:34 - Jun 1 by A_Fans_Dad |
I am not sure when the 6th of the month became the middle of the month and not the 15th, some 9 days later, but hey, you are the Scientist, me I am just a lowly Engineer.
John Hopkins, so let's take their results of 6th of May, or even Worldindata's 9th of May, that makes it an even more remarkable turn around for those other states and India in total. A 60% reduction in 3 weeks. Especially considering their population and lack of Vaccinations.
But not as spectacular as Dheli's 92% reduction and Uttar Pradesh's 84% in that period
Of course not all states started or are even now are using Ivermectin, as I have already pointed out Tamil Nadu cases trebled from April 20th contributing the overall total.
Well as there is no money in Vaccine development what did AZ sell that allowed them to pay their CEO an obscene £18Million bonus?
How did those others become Billionaires almost overnight?
Perhaps you would like to argue this data.
https://theecologist.org/2021/may/24/coronavirus-vaccine-billionaires
You are still avoiding what to do with all those that have and will get COVID in the rest of the world until they are vaccinated. [Post edited 1 Jun 2021 17:42]
|
Neither is April though, and 18th is pretty close to the middle for mortality. So stop moving the goalposts when you have been schooled in data accuracy.
Perhaps if you look at AZ's continued 10% increase in revenue each year (remember they only make one vaccine) will tell you something. The vaccine is high profile but not high profit. Unwell middle aged westerners are the source of profit. 25 billion is a big wedge.
As for the BioNtech and moderna-good luck to them, they developed a novel class of vaccine in record time. Pfizer, of course are relatively big players in vaccines, though make more from other sectors.
Let's get us vaccinated then get that capacity to the rest of the world. And stop idiocy leading to vaccine hesitancy and doses thrown away like in Malawi. | | | |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 17:57 - Jun 1 with 1127 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 17:10 - Jun 1 by Professor |
Like you then with your gloves and goggles along with a mask.
Let's get this straight. The only significant viral disease managed by therapeutics is HIV. That took about 10 years to develop new classes of drugs that are expensive and need life long therapy. Their cost is several hundred fold over an effective vaccine.
In contrast there are many largely controlled by vaccination from Hepatitis B, to Yellow Fever and Japanese Encephalitis to measles, mumps and rubella.
Vaccines work. Vaccines make adults. |
Yes, just like my gloves and goggles along with a mask, I listen when a World top Pandemic expert tells me what is needed.
What you mean the Anti-virals that nice Dr Fauci withheld while they tried to develop those Vaccines that didn't work, just google it.
You keep pretending that I have said or am saying Vaccines don't work or that I am anti vax, perhaps you can find me a quote where I did.
I have not said normal "Vaccines don't work" except HIV & SARS 1 of course.
But Vaccinating everybody every year plus boosters is not how all those previous vaccines worked is it?
Even the Flu jab is less than half the population and doesn't work "effectively" every year.
Or if you are going somewhere where a Desease is prevalent you get vaccinated for it. | | | |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 17:58 - Jun 1 with 1126 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 17:12 - Jun 1 by Professor |
And actually, if you want to cause disruption target agriculture with a biological attack. No one would pick a coronavirus. |
You appear to be unaware that the CCP military were involved in COVID research. | | | |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 18:18 - Jun 1 with 1125 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 17:18 - Jun 1 by Scotia |
Do you ever re-read the complete contradictory drivel you post?
So you seriously think that China went to the immense bother and risked world war 3 by genetically engineering a deadly virus.
The problem is that virus is actually easily treated. So should really have made little difference to the world apart from probably very stiff economic sanctions for the Chinese.
But Western media and governments haven't bothered to use any of these treatments and just shut down economies and lives for over a year?
Also this conspiracy and subsequent ignorance of available treatments hasn't been noticed by almost the entire western medical profession?
Stay away from the Internet you are putting your health at risk and more worryingly, potentially influencing people on here. |
"But Western media and governments haven't bothered to use any of these treatments and just shut down economies and lives for over a year? "
Thank you for confirming that you are totally unaware of what is going on.
Thousands of doctors and scientists are, all of whom you and prof say are lying, cheating, incompetent sharks or something.
I assume you are also unaware of the Crime against Humanity case that has been brought before the Hague?
Keep burying your head in the sand, until life catches up with you. | | | |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 18:21 - Jun 1 with 1122 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 17:45 - Jun 1 by Professor |
Neither is April though, and 18th is pretty close to the middle for mortality. So stop moving the goalposts when you have been schooled in data accuracy.
Perhaps if you look at AZ's continued 10% increase in revenue each year (remember they only make one vaccine) will tell you something. The vaccine is high profile but not high profit. Unwell middle aged westerners are the source of profit. 25 billion is a big wedge.
As for the BioNtech and moderna-good luck to them, they developed a novel class of vaccine in record time. Pfizer, of course are relatively big players in vaccines, though make more from other sectors.
Let's get us vaccinated then get that capacity to the rest of the world. And stop idiocy leading to vaccine hesitancy and doses thrown away like in Malawi. |
So you do know that the 6th is not "the middle of the month" after all.
I haven't changed any goalposts, you did.
Did AZ give him an £18Million bonus last year and the year before?
Perhaps you should write letters to these media sites that tell all these lies about this stuff. [Post edited 1 Jun 2021 18:27]
| | | |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 18:56 - Jun 1 with 1111 views | Professor |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 17:57 - Jun 1 by A_Fans_Dad |
Yes, just like my gloves and goggles along with a mask, I listen when a World top Pandemic expert tells me what is needed.
What you mean the Anti-virals that nice Dr Fauci withheld while they tried to develop those Vaccines that didn't work, just google it.
You keep pretending that I have said or am saying Vaccines don't work or that I am anti vax, perhaps you can find me a quote where I did.
I have not said normal "Vaccines don't work" except HIV & SARS 1 of course.
But Vaccinating everybody every year plus boosters is not how all those previous vaccines worked is it?
Even the Flu jab is less than half the population and doesn't work "effectively" every year.
Or if you are going somewhere where a Desease is prevalent you get vaccinated for it. |
But again-that's a contradiction over your reply to Scotia. Calling people sheep when that's what you did.
You mean like remdesivir which are hardly a burning success-may be worse than Ivermectin, but works better for SARS and MERS. Well the vaccines are clearly working-no UK deaths reported today.
Military involvement-you mean like DSTL at Porton? Work with some nasty bugs there!
You certainly would not weaponise something of moderate pathogenicity and transmissiblity like this-which is why the deliberate leak is laughable, though an accidental leak is a possibility.
As far as vaccines-you don't take into account that needle delivery may not be the only option-nasal delivery would be easier and potentially elicit local immunity too- we don't give IBV by needle.
As far as flu-well it's a bad comparison as you have been told several times. SARS CoV2-one basic antigenic type with a handful of significant variants. Even with antibody evasion, T cell immunity if solid. relatively low rate of mutation.
Influenza A has 131 different antigenic types, plus B and a few C serotypes, almost inifinite variants with fast mutation rate. Makes Covid vaccines easier to produce and deal with any future variant. We may only need boosters for a couple of years with additional doses in the face of outbreaks.
So let's be a bit positive that vaccination offers a longer term solution. Then we can get back to dealing with all the other infectious diseases that kill millions annually-perhaps finally with a vaccine R & D budget. We can but hope. | | | |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 19:06 - Jun 1 with 1103 views | Professor |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 18:21 - Jun 1 by A_Fans_Dad |
So you do know that the 6th is not "the middle of the month" after all.
I haven't changed any goalposts, you did.
Did AZ give him an £18Million bonus last year and the year before?
Perhaps you should write letters to these media sites that tell all these lies about this stuff. [Post edited 1 Jun 2021 18:27]
|
Inaccuracy again. He got 15.4 million USD, 15.3 million in 2019, 14.8 in 2018 and 13 million in 2017
Seems pretty consistent with the company's 10% revenue rises and pretty similar to CEO salaries in the sector (17.9 million for Pfizer's CEO in 2019). Financial details are pretty open for listed companies. Do I agree with such salaries?-certainly not, but is the sectors.
But don't let that worry you. Remember bad data=bad conclusions | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 19:26 - Jun 1 with 1095 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 18:56 - Jun 1 by Professor |
But again-that's a contradiction over your reply to Scotia. Calling people sheep when that's what you did.
You mean like remdesivir which are hardly a burning success-may be worse than Ivermectin, but works better for SARS and MERS. Well the vaccines are clearly working-no UK deaths reported today.
Military involvement-you mean like DSTL at Porton? Work with some nasty bugs there!
You certainly would not weaponise something of moderate pathogenicity and transmissiblity like this-which is why the deliberate leak is laughable, though an accidental leak is a possibility.
As far as vaccines-you don't take into account that needle delivery may not be the only option-nasal delivery would be easier and potentially elicit local immunity too- we don't give IBV by needle.
As far as flu-well it's a bad comparison as you have been told several times. SARS CoV2-one basic antigenic type with a handful of significant variants. Even with antibody evasion, T cell immunity if solid. relatively low rate of mutation.
Influenza A has 131 different antigenic types, plus B and a few C serotypes, almost inifinite variants with fast mutation rate. Makes Covid vaccines easier to produce and deal with any future variant. We may only need boosters for a couple of years with additional doses in the face of outbreaks.
So let's be a bit positive that vaccination offers a longer term solution. Then we can get back to dealing with all the other infectious diseases that kill millions annually-perhaps finally with a vaccine R & D budget. We can but hope. |
You still haven't answered or made any comment about the Ivermectin studies showing it works even for very ill patients.
But that is OK, because it is what I expected.
I just wanted to make sure that it got posted on this Forum to counteract your and scotia's continuous assertion that no medication works.
Do you know of Byram Bridle the viral immunologist and associate professor at University of Guelph?
Or Pediatric rheumatologist J. Patrick Whelan? | | | |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 19:35 - Jun 1 with 1095 views | Professor |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 19:26 - Jun 1 by A_Fans_Dad |
You still haven't answered or made any comment about the Ivermectin studies showing it works even for very ill patients.
But that is OK, because it is what I expected.
I just wanted to make sure that it got posted on this Forum to counteract your and scotia's continuous assertion that no medication works.
Do you know of Byram Bridle the viral immunologist and associate professor at University of Guelph?
Or Pediatric rheumatologist J. Patrick Whelan? |
Having been to Guelph for an immunology meeting and met Dr Bridle, his focus is on cancer vaccines (yes they are a thing) and they other is a rheumatologist-so not exactly experts in virology.
Nice guy though. Guelph is a bloody miserable hole though.
I have answered you ad nauseam. The FDA, EMA and MHRA recommendation is not use use Ivermectin due to lack of reliable data. For the fiftieth time, the jury is out, but knock yourself out with cow wormer if you think it will help. | | | |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 19:36 - Jun 1 with 1092 views | onehunglow |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 19:35 - Jun 1 by Professor |
Having been to Guelph for an immunology meeting and met Dr Bridle, his focus is on cancer vaccines (yes they are a thing) and they other is a rheumatologist-so not exactly experts in virology.
Nice guy though. Guelph is a bloody miserable hole though.
I have answered you ad nauseam. The FDA, EMA and MHRA recommendation is not use use Ivermectin due to lack of reliable data. For the fiftieth time, the jury is out, but knock yourself out with cow wormer if you think it will help. |
You re rather like Albert Schweitzer ,Prof. | |
| |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 08:31 - Jun 2 with 1045 views | Scotia |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 18:18 - Jun 1 by A_Fans_Dad |
"But Western media and governments haven't bothered to use any of these treatments and just shut down economies and lives for over a year? "
Thank you for confirming that you are totally unaware of what is going on.
Thousands of doctors and scientists are, all of whom you and prof say are lying, cheating, incompetent sharks or something.
I assume you are also unaware of the Crime against Humanity case that has been brought before the Hague?
Keep burying your head in the sand, until life catches up with you. |
You've replied to a very small part of that post and deliberately out of context.
If there are thousands of of Dr's and scientists backing your point why haven't you provided evidence that can't be so easily discredited or at the very least questioned? So far all you have managed to provide are quotes from cranks. If my head is in the sand provide something of substance to pull it out. So far across a range of subjects there has been nothing other than cranks, liars and cheats.
Dalgleish is a very right wing Cancer Doctor, you've also quoted an Aussie gastroenterologist amongst many others. Not a respected virologist in sight.
Even if there are thousands of Dr's and scientists supporting the use of these drugs, there are about 10 million Dr's worldwide are 99.9% of these Dr's ignoring the findings of their peers and allowing their ignorance to kill people? Are they all part of this absurd conspiracy? Do you think they don't know about Ivermectin? Where are the whistle-blowers?
If you developed Cancer would you want to forego treatment suggested by an oncologist in favour of a virologist treating you with some so called wonder drug they had discovered?
Branches of medicine and science are very distinct from each other, you are very easily led and impressed when you want to be. I really don't think it's me who life needs to catch up with, I live in reality and not right wing US websites. | | | |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 15:56 - Jun 2 with 992 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 08:31 - Jun 2 by Scotia |
You've replied to a very small part of that post and deliberately out of context.
If there are thousands of of Dr's and scientists backing your point why haven't you provided evidence that can't be so easily discredited or at the very least questioned? So far all you have managed to provide are quotes from cranks. If my head is in the sand provide something of substance to pull it out. So far across a range of subjects there has been nothing other than cranks, liars and cheats.
Dalgleish is a very right wing Cancer Doctor, you've also quoted an Aussie gastroenterologist amongst many others. Not a respected virologist in sight.
Even if there are thousands of Dr's and scientists supporting the use of these drugs, there are about 10 million Dr's worldwide are 99.9% of these Dr's ignoring the findings of their peers and allowing their ignorance to kill people? Are they all part of this absurd conspiracy? Do you think they don't know about Ivermectin? Where are the whistle-blowers?
If you developed Cancer would you want to forego treatment suggested by an oncologist in favour of a virologist treating you with some so called wonder drug they had discovered?
Branches of medicine and science are very distinct from each other, you are very easily led and impressed when you want to be. I really don't think it's me who life needs to catch up with, I live in reality and not right wing US websites. |
Well I ignored the rest of your comments because they just showed how ignorant you are of what has been going on for the 9 months.
It started with HCQ, the WHO, FDA, CDC and NHS virtually banned the the use of HCQ based on very bad studies that were designed to fail.
They then moved on to Ivermectin, saying that it should only be used in Clinical studies.
It may have escaped your notice that ordinary doctors and hospitals cannot afford the cost of Clinical studies.
As well as that they leave themselves open to malpractice.
In the USA State Governers have banned the use of both drugs on top of the CDC & FDA recommendtaions.
Families have had to take Hospitals to court to get Ivermectin administered to their loved ones on death's door.
https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20210506/covid-patient-in-coma-gets-ivermectin-a
https://yated.com/right-to-try-wins-in-court-again/
In Australia the states have done the same banning the use of the drugs with massive fines for anyone breaking the rules.
If you used other websites than this and read what is reported by other people you might just learn something about what is actually going on.
Now I have twice mentioned the Mexico city study, which both you & prof have shown no interest in at all.
I wonder why that would be?
So I am going to put the details here anyway so that others can see just how out of touch you both are.
The Mayor of Mexico city was aware of how well the Chaipal district were doing and decided that they would try the same method as they needed a last resort.
They used a modified Track & trace changed to Track & Treat, with Ivermectin of course.
They monitored a total of 231627 patients noting Age, Illness severity and Co-morbidity and used Hospitalisation as their target.
Here are the results.
Ivermectin Control Risk Ratio Improvement
Age Group
30 and younger 35/24754 (0.14%) 305/48261 (0.63) 0.22 0.78%
30 to 40 50/16211 (031%) 378/33481 (1.13%) 0.27 0.73%
40-50 73/15544 (0.47%) 438/31273 (1.4%) 0.34 0.66%
50-60 71/11870 (0.6%) 404/24024 (1.68%) 0.36 0.64%
60-70 51/5884 (0.87%) 231/11714 (1.97%) 0.44 0.56%
70 and older 34/2804 (1.21%) 152/5807 (2.62%) 0.46 0.54%
Total 314/77067 (0.41%) 1908/154560 (1.23%) 0.33 0.67%
and
Ivermectin Control Risk Ratio Improvement
Symptoms
Mild 37/14458 (0.26%) 113/16580 (0.68%) 0.38 0.62%
Moderate 170/42466 (0.4%) 936/72103 (1.3%) 0.31 0.69%
Severe 107/20143 (0.53%) 724/36334 (1.99%) 0.27 0.73%
Total 314/77067 (0.41%) 1773/125017 (1.42%) 0.29 0.71%
Comorbities
No Comorbities 158/53235 (0.3%) 1108/106265 (1.04%) 0.28 0.72%
Moderate 44/10814 (0.41%) 265/21239 (1.25%) 0.33 0.67%
Severe 112/13018 (0.86%) 535/27056 (1.98%) 0.44 0.56%
Total 314/77067 (0.41%) 1908/154560 (1.23%) 0.33 0.67%
As anyone can see Ivermectin worked to keep 67% of them out of hospital.
It was not of course a full clinical study, that was not it's purpose. It's purpose was to proof of concept and it's worth for use in the rest of the State and Mexico. [Post edited 2 Jun 2021 15:57]
| | | |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 16:56 - Jun 2 with 981 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 08:31 - Jun 2 by Scotia |
You've replied to a very small part of that post and deliberately out of context.
If there are thousands of of Dr's and scientists backing your point why haven't you provided evidence that can't be so easily discredited or at the very least questioned? So far all you have managed to provide are quotes from cranks. If my head is in the sand provide something of substance to pull it out. So far across a range of subjects there has been nothing other than cranks, liars and cheats.
Dalgleish is a very right wing Cancer Doctor, you've also quoted an Aussie gastroenterologist amongst many others. Not a respected virologist in sight.
Even if there are thousands of Dr's and scientists supporting the use of these drugs, there are about 10 million Dr's worldwide are 99.9% of these Dr's ignoring the findings of their peers and allowing their ignorance to kill people? Are they all part of this absurd conspiracy? Do you think they don't know about Ivermectin? Where are the whistle-blowers?
If you developed Cancer would you want to forego treatment suggested by an oncologist in favour of a virologist treating you with some so called wonder drug they had discovered?
Branches of medicine and science are very distinct from each other, you are very easily led and impressed when you want to be. I really don't think it's me who life needs to catch up with, I live in reality and not right wing US websites. |
Rd your remarks on the origin of covid.
Educate yourself and read these 3 articles and the studies they reference.
https://redstate.com/scotthounsell/2021/05/24/is-fauci-the-mastermind-behind-the
https://redstate.com/scotthounsell/2021/05/25/is-dr-fauci-the-mastermind-behind-
https://redstate.com/scotthounsell/2021/05/26/is-fauci-the-mastermind-behind-the | | | |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 19:51 - Jun 2 with 967 views | Scotia |
That merely references a methodology. It contains no proof whatsoever. The guy who compiled the article is an ex chairman of the California republican party, who worked in real estate?
Guess what though, it attempts to justify an anti - fauci "Trumpian conspiracy theory".
Give up for crying out loud. | | | |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 20:04 - Jun 2 with 964 views | Scotia |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 15:56 - Jun 2 by A_Fans_Dad |
Well I ignored the rest of your comments because they just showed how ignorant you are of what has been going on for the 9 months.
It started with HCQ, the WHO, FDA, CDC and NHS virtually banned the the use of HCQ based on very bad studies that were designed to fail.
They then moved on to Ivermectin, saying that it should only be used in Clinical studies.
It may have escaped your notice that ordinary doctors and hospitals cannot afford the cost of Clinical studies.
As well as that they leave themselves open to malpractice.
In the USA State Governers have banned the use of both drugs on top of the CDC & FDA recommendtaions.
Families have had to take Hospitals to court to get Ivermectin administered to their loved ones on death's door.
https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20210506/covid-patient-in-coma-gets-ivermectin-a
https://yated.com/right-to-try-wins-in-court-again/
In Australia the states have done the same banning the use of the drugs with massive fines for anyone breaking the rules.
If you used other websites than this and read what is reported by other people you might just learn something about what is actually going on.
Now I have twice mentioned the Mexico city study, which both you & prof have shown no interest in at all.
I wonder why that would be?
So I am going to put the details here anyway so that others can see just how out of touch you both are.
The Mayor of Mexico city was aware of how well the Chaipal district were doing and decided that they would try the same method as they needed a last resort.
They used a modified Track & trace changed to Track & Treat, with Ivermectin of course.
They monitored a total of 231627 patients noting Age, Illness severity and Co-morbidity and used Hospitalisation as their target.
Here are the results.
Ivermectin Control Risk Ratio Improvement
Age Group
30 and younger 35/24754 (0.14%) 305/48261 (0.63) 0.22 0.78%
30 to 40 50/16211 (031%) 378/33481 (1.13%) 0.27 0.73%
40-50 73/15544 (0.47%) 438/31273 (1.4%) 0.34 0.66%
50-60 71/11870 (0.6%) 404/24024 (1.68%) 0.36 0.64%
60-70 51/5884 (0.87%) 231/11714 (1.97%) 0.44 0.56%
70 and older 34/2804 (1.21%) 152/5807 (2.62%) 0.46 0.54%
Total 314/77067 (0.41%) 1908/154560 (1.23%) 0.33 0.67%
and
Ivermectin Control Risk Ratio Improvement
Symptoms
Mild 37/14458 (0.26%) 113/16580 (0.68%) 0.38 0.62%
Moderate 170/42466 (0.4%) 936/72103 (1.3%) 0.31 0.69%
Severe 107/20143 (0.53%) 724/36334 (1.99%) 0.27 0.73%
Total 314/77067 (0.41%) 1773/125017 (1.42%) 0.29 0.71%
Comorbities
No Comorbities 158/53235 (0.3%) 1108/106265 (1.04%) 0.28 0.72%
Moderate 44/10814 (0.41%) 265/21239 (1.25%) 0.33 0.67%
Severe 112/13018 (0.86%) 535/27056 (1.98%) 0.44 0.56%
Total 314/77067 (0.41%) 1908/154560 (1.23%) 0.33 0.67%
As anyone can see Ivermectin worked to keep 67% of them out of hospital.
It was not of course a full clinical study, that was not it's purpose. It's purpose was to proof of concept and it's worth for use in the rest of the State and Mexico. [Post edited 2 Jun 2021 15:57]
|
You ignored them because you can't address them and you haven't here either.
It's being going on for more than 9 months, you've been peddling this nonsense for over a year. For some reason the entire medical community have ignored these wonder drugs. They've ignored them because that is the correct thing to do.
I don't expect ordinary Dr's and hospitals to undertake their own trials. I do know that they have as much access to Google and your crazy links as you. Believe it or not they want to save lives. If there was the slightest inkling that these drugs worked someone in the civilised world would be using them and the results would be clear.
Nobody is ignoring any potential treatment, its how we discovered that steroids improved survival rates.
HCQ, Ivermectin, Doxycycline and vitamin D are not new to science. They just don't work. | | | |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 20:30 - Jun 2 with 956 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 20:04 - Jun 2 by Scotia |
You ignored them because you can't address them and you haven't here either.
It's being going on for more than 9 months, you've been peddling this nonsense for over a year. For some reason the entire medical community have ignored these wonder drugs. They've ignored them because that is the correct thing to do.
I don't expect ordinary Dr's and hospitals to undertake their own trials. I do know that they have as much access to Google and your crazy links as you. Believe it or not they want to save lives. If there was the slightest inkling that these drugs worked someone in the civilised world would be using them and the results would be clear.
Nobody is ignoring any potential treatment, its how we discovered that steroids improved survival rates.
HCQ, Ivermectin, Doxycycline and vitamin D are not new to science. They just don't work. |
I give you the results that show that Ivermectin is being used because the data shows it works and your only response is it doesn't work.
OK, just like climate & green energy all you do is repeat the same old crap regardless of what data is put in front of you. | | | |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 20:36 - Jun 2 with 953 views | Gwyn737 |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 20:30 - Jun 2 by A_Fans_Dad |
I give you the results that show that Ivermectin is being used because the data shows it works and your only response is it doesn't work.
OK, just like climate & green energy all you do is repeat the same old crap regardless of what data is put in front of you. |
Can you show me the results for HCQ? | | | |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 20:36 - Jun 2 with 954 views | Scotia |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 20:30 - Jun 2 by A_Fans_Dad |
I give you the results that show that Ivermectin is being used because the data shows it works and your only response is it doesn't work.
OK, just like climate & green energy all you do is repeat the same old crap regardless of what data is put in front of you. |
And that's proof is it?
You've pasted some figures they could be from anywhere. In that context they mean nothing.
There is also plenty of information that says it shows nothing more than marginal benefit. That tends to be written by relevant experts in peer reviewed journals.
Like climate and green energy you believe what you read on bonkers websites because you want to. | | | |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 22:03 - Jun 2 with 938 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 20:36 - Jun 2 by Scotia |
And that's proof is it?
You've pasted some figures they could be from anywhere. In that context they mean nothing.
There is also plenty of information that says it shows nothing more than marginal benefit. That tends to be written by relevant experts in peer reviewed journals.
Like climate and green energy you believe what you read on bonkers websites because you want to. |
You quote "plenty of information that says it shows marginal benefit" and "written by relevant experts in peer reviewed journals"
Ok, show me them, come on provide the links to all these expert reviews and clinical studies that show it.
I have already linked to studies that show that it works and you just flap your jaws.
Educate me, it can't be hard the way you talk, there must be loads of them to choose from. | | | |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 08:28 - Jun 3 with 916 views | Scotia |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 22:03 - Jun 2 by A_Fans_Dad |
You quote "plenty of information that says it shows marginal benefit" and "written by relevant experts in peer reviewed journals"
Ok, show me them, come on provide the links to all these expert reviews and clinical studies that show it.
I have already linked to studies that show that it works and you just flap your jaws.
Educate me, it can't be hard the way you talk, there must be loads of them to choose from. |
"I have already linked to studies that show that it works and you just flap your jaws"
I think a particularly pertinent article is this.
https://ebm.bmj.com/content/early/2021/05/26/bmjebm-2021-111678
It highlights the dangers of these rabbit hole websites and pseudo clinical trials you find. Most importantly it highlights why 99.9% medical professionals around the world are not using these so called "cures"
Carry on posting your incorrect, preconceived and misunderstood ideas about renewables and climate, it can be amusing, although the same applies to them too.
Posting this stuff about covid is endangering people's lives. It is endangering people's lives on here.
You've been conned by the US right, and are putting your life at risk, although you can't see it. Don't take others with you.
I seriously question if you should be allowed to continue to contribute to this debate. | | | |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 11:03 - Jun 3 with 896 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 08:28 - Jun 3 by Scotia |
"I have already linked to studies that show that it works and you just flap your jaws"
I think a particularly pertinent article is this.
https://ebm.bmj.com/content/early/2021/05/26/bmjebm-2021-111678
It highlights the dangers of these rabbit hole websites and pseudo clinical trials you find. Most importantly it highlights why 99.9% medical professionals around the world are not using these so called "cures"
Carry on posting your incorrect, preconceived and misunderstood ideas about renewables and climate, it can be amusing, although the same applies to them too.
Posting this stuff about covid is endangering people's lives. It is endangering people's lives on here.
You've been conned by the US right, and are putting your life at risk, although you can't see it. Don't take others with you.
I seriously question if you should be allowed to continue to contribute to this debate. |
Nothing but opinion.
You must do better.
This is one of it's references.
https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1003501
Quote from above "ivermectin (OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.57, p = 0.005)"
The authors also quote "It included 110 studies (78 published and 38 unpublished) with 40 randomised clinical trials and 70 observational studies. Based on observa-tional data, they found that high-dose intravenous immunoglob-ulin, ivermectin and tocilizumab were associated with reduced mortality rate in critically ill patients." | | | |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 11:37 - Jun 3 with 885 views | Scotia |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 11:03 - Jun 3 by A_Fans_Dad |
Nothing but opinion.
You must do better.
This is one of it's references.
https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1003501
Quote from above "ivermectin (OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.57, p = 0.005)"
The authors also quote "It included 110 studies (78 published and 38 unpublished) with 40 randomised clinical trials and 70 observational studies. Based on observa-tional data, they found that high-dose intravenous immunoglob-ulin, ivermectin and tocilizumab were associated with reduced mortality rate in critically ill patients." |
An opinion published in the British Medical Journal considering the vast quantity of work undertaken on Ivermectin and addressing it's limitations. In a very similar way to the Prof.
Doesn't this "trump" any opinion published on pre-print servers, blogs and social media? Earlier in this thread you published an "opinion" of Scott Hounsell, related to the origins of the Coronavirus that causes Covid. Lets look at his Linekdin profile:-
"I have been fortunate to have a diverse amount of experience in my career. I've worked in the Real Estate Industry for a decade and have spent nearly the last decade working in politics and running my own firm, The Del Cielo Group. Recently, I graduated from The George Washington University School of Business."
Compare this to one of the authors of the article I linked:-
"Physical Therapist (Universidad de Buenos Aires). Respiratory and critical care specialist (Sociedad Argentina de Terapia Intensiva). MSc (c) in Clinical Effectiveness, Health Technology Assessment and Economic Evaluations. Research Fellow on Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis at Instituto Universitario Hospital Italiano Cochrane Associate Centre."
As far as I'm concerned I'd rather consider the professional opinion of a Respiratory and Critical Care Specialist than a recently graduated Estate Agent when discussing a respiratory virus.
That's a nice quote. You missed out the next sentence. I'll add for the purpose of completeness.
"the overall certainty of the evidence was very low in all outcomes and reduced the ability for recommendation."
Also that refers to critically ill patients, you seem to think Ivermectin can be used as a prophylaxis. Oh and we know that Tocilizumab works and we use it, Dr's want to save lives.
And you want me to pull my head out of the sand?
You're doing a very good job of trying to avoid addressing any points in this thread. | | | |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 11:37 - Jun 3 with 884 views | Professor |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 11:03 - Jun 3 by A_Fans_Dad |
Nothing but opinion.
You must do better.
This is one of it's references.
https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1003501
Quote from above "ivermectin (OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.57, p = 0.005)"
The authors also quote "It included 110 studies (78 published and 38 unpublished) with 40 randomised clinical trials and 70 observational studies. Based on observa-tional data, they found that high-dose intravenous immunoglob-ulin, ivermectin and tocilizumab were associated with reduced mortality rate in critically ill patients." |
You are shooting yourself in the foot a bit there. They actually state this "For ICU-based critically ill patients, corticosteroids reduced mortality from RCT evidence; high-dose IVIG, ivermectin, and tocilizumab may be associated with reduced mortality when including observational data.", but crucially say that the reliance on observational data is a weakness of the review. This supports the idea that we cannot definitively say Ivermectin is effective without controlled studeies. More recent systematic reviews re-iterate potential but the need for far better data
As a therapeutic
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/fcp.12644
Prophylaxis
https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n949.lon
These, and most other publications, are pretty clear that whilst ivermectin MAY work to lower (not prevent or cure) disease, there is still an absence of RCT data to confirm this
Secondly some of the observational studies have translated into RCT data where sadly IVIG (or convalescent plasma) was not shown to have an effect. The benefits of redmesivir are also pretty marginal and is a costly drug.
Finally they are very damning of HCQ -no benefit and issues around side effects.
Are you prepared to admit HCQ has no value and may be dangerous?
As I said the jury is still out over ivermectin. The good news is at worst it won't cause the problems HCQ does. | | | |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 12:25 - Jun 3 with 857 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 11:37 - Jun 3 by Professor |
You are shooting yourself in the foot a bit there. They actually state this "For ICU-based critically ill patients, corticosteroids reduced mortality from RCT evidence; high-dose IVIG, ivermectin, and tocilizumab may be associated with reduced mortality when including observational data.", but crucially say that the reliance on observational data is a weakness of the review. This supports the idea that we cannot definitively say Ivermectin is effective without controlled studeies. More recent systematic reviews re-iterate potential but the need for far better data
As a therapeutic
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/fcp.12644
Prophylaxis
https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n949.lon
These, and most other publications, are pretty clear that whilst ivermectin MAY work to lower (not prevent or cure) disease, there is still an absence of RCT data to confirm this
Secondly some of the observational studies have translated into RCT data where sadly IVIG (or convalescent plasma) was not shown to have an effect. The benefits of redmesivir are also pretty marginal and is a costly drug.
Finally they are very damning of HCQ -no benefit and issues around side effects.
Are you prepared to admit HCQ has no value and may be dangerous?
As I said the jury is still out over ivermectin. The good news is at worst it won't cause the problems HCQ does. |
HCQ, no, because it is based on those 3 studies that I have pointed out numerous times that were designed not only to fail but were dangerous to the patients as well, using 6 times the recommended maximum dose and without Zinc.
Which you fail to acknowledge and never will. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
