| Most reliable information.Covid-19 23:34 - May 20 with 20226 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 19:57 - Jul 2 with 898 views | onehunglow |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 18:51 - Jul 1 by Scotia |
Do you seriously think finding an extra contributory reference, to make 3 out of 194 is "Schooling" me.
Let's be honest. You had no idea Malone did not invent mRNA vaccines, as he and you explicitly and directly claimed, until I told you.
You've had 24 hours and still can't come up with any supporting evidence that he did.
In the 24 hours you've linked a wiki article on the development of mRNA vaccine development and he's not mentioned once in the main body of the entry. Not once.
He's referenced in a paper a diagram used in the article is derived from. 3 times out ot 194.
That's it. You'd think the inventor of the most important vaccine in recent history would be a little more high profile?
Dame Sarah Gilbert got a standing ovation on centre court for heavens sake.
And that is schooling me?
Let's face it. You are just continuing to make a complete fool of yourself. [Post edited 1 Jul 2021 18:57]
|
Those who think they are schooling anyone on here need to go back to school-the Juniors as they need to grow up again. | |
| |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 23:15 - Jul 2 with 874 views | DJack |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 19:47 - Jul 2 by A_Fans_Dad |
OK, here is a question for all you nay sayers.
I would like an honest answer please.
If you found yourself, or a loved one in the position of those unfortunate enough to have had both Vaccines and have caught the Indian variant and end up in hospital with your Oxygen sats dropping below 80% and the doctor says you have a choice.
A. go on a ventilator.
B. take Ivermectin.
Which would you choose? |
Many an atheist has turned to prayer as they arrive at deaths door. So do you have an actual valid point? |  |
| It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan |
| |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 23:23 - Jul 2 with 868 views | DJack |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 19:47 - Jul 2 by A_Fans_Dad |
OK, here is a question for all you nay sayers.
I would like an honest answer please.
If you found yourself, or a loved one in the position of those unfortunate enough to have had both Vaccines and have caught the Indian variant and end up in hospital with your Oxygen sats dropping below 80% and the doctor says you have a choice.
A. go on a ventilator.
B. take Ivermectin.
Which would you choose? |
Are you going to comment on Scotias or Profs previous posts...or are you going to pretend that they dont exist? | |
| It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan |
| |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 05:05 - Jul 3 with 842 views | Jack123 |
I get the impression that the vaxxed walk around as if they are invincible, I was in a supermarket the other day, and someone sneezed near me, they looked at me, and I faked panic stepped back, and said keep back, he said it's ok I have been double vaxxed, I said I will step back even further then.
I can't see me ever taking it, I have taken someone over the bay for their jab, and let's just say I didn't pick up any good vibes from the place. Very bad to be honest. |  |
| |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 07:04 - Jul 3 with 828 views | Scotia |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 19:47 - Jul 2 by A_Fans_Dad |
OK, here is a question for all you nay sayers.
I would like an honest answer please.
If you found yourself, or a loved one in the position of those unfortunate enough to have had both Vaccines and have caught the Indian variant and end up in hospital with your Oxygen sats dropping below 80% and the doctor says you have a choice.
A. go on a ventilator.
B. take Ivermectin.
Which would you choose? |
A ventilator if needed. Absolutely 100% no doubt in my mind.
That would change if any treatment was proven to be better, but in that case Dr's would recommend it as the preferred method of treatment.
I trust the overwhelming majority of Dr's in the world who study how to treat Covid. Not a tiny minority of seemingly dodgy qualified Dr's who seem to share information via right wing social media.
If ivermectin is being discussed on a football forum in a tiny European country. I'm pretty certain the wider medical community are aware of it's ability to treat covid or its limitations. | | | |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 07:08 - Jul 3 with 827 views | Scotia |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 05:05 - Jul 3 by Jack123 |
I get the impression that the vaxxed walk around as if they are invincible, I was in a supermarket the other day, and someone sneezed near me, they looked at me, and I faked panic stepped back, and said keep back, he said it's ok I have been double vaxxed, I said I will step back even further then.
I can't see me ever taking it, I have taken someone over the bay for their jab, and let's just say I didn't pick up any good vibes from the place. Very bad to be honest. |
When I went there I thought it was an eery place.
Seeing it set up as an empty hospital is crazy.
Thank god it has never been needed as an actual hospital. It would have been a lot worse then. | | | |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 07:10 - Jul 3 with 824 views | Scotia |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 19:57 - Jul 2 by onehunglow |
Those who think they are schooling anyone on here need to go back to school-the Juniors as they need to grow up again. |
Apologies ohl down arrow pressed by mistake. | | | |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 10:18 - Jul 3 with 785 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 07:04 - Jul 3 by Scotia |
A ventilator if needed. Absolutely 100% no doubt in my mind.
That would change if any treatment was proven to be better, but in that case Dr's would recommend it as the preferred method of treatment.
I trust the overwhelming majority of Dr's in the world who study how to treat Covid. Not a tiny minority of seemingly dodgy qualified Dr's who seem to share information via right wing social media.
If ivermectin is being discussed on a football forum in a tiny European country. I'm pretty certain the wider medical community are aware of it's ability to treat covid or its limitations. |
Which just goes to show how poor your logical choices are.
The odds of getting off the Ventilator before dying are bad.
The odds of getting off the ventilator without crippling Lung and system damage is even worse, especially if you are on there months as many have been.
The point is you could take the Ivermectin and if it didn't show immediate improvements in your condition you can still take your chances with the Ventilator.
But you would rather go straight to choice A.
Enough said about that.
"I'm pretty certain the wider medical community are aware of it's ability to treat covid or its limitations"
They are, 1000s of them, but not in the suppressed western world.
It is so bad that the WHO is still trying to suppress it's use in India because they are showing that it works and it can't be kept quiet much longer.
You do understand that in states where it is not sanctioned they can't prescribe it without a court order?
If you had watched that Video of the UK doctor prescribing it for his 84 year Aunt and saving her life you would know that he had to do so because the physician treating her in hospital couldn't, but she did administer it. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 10:24 - Jul 3 with 778 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 23:23 - Jul 2 by DJack |
Are you going to comment on Scotias or Profs previous posts...or are you going to pretend that they dont exist? |
They don't need answering because they don't say anything they haven't already said. | | | |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 11:40 - Jul 3 with 769 views | Scotia |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 10:24 - Jul 3 by A_Fans_Dad |
They don't need answering because they don't say anything they haven't already said. |
And still haven't been answered. They never are. | | | |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 11:52 - Jul 3 with 758 views | Scotia |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 10:18 - Jul 3 by A_Fans_Dad |
Which just goes to show how poor your logical choices are.
The odds of getting off the Ventilator before dying are bad.
The odds of getting off the ventilator without crippling Lung and system damage is even worse, especially if you are on there months as many have been.
The point is you could take the Ivermectin and if it didn't show immediate improvements in your condition you can still take your chances with the Ventilator.
But you would rather go straight to choice A.
Enough said about that.
"I'm pretty certain the wider medical community are aware of it's ability to treat covid or its limitations"
They are, 1000s of them, but not in the suppressed western world.
It is so bad that the WHO is still trying to suppress it's use in India because they are showing that it works and it can't be kept quiet much longer.
You do understand that in states where it is not sanctioned they can't prescribe it without a court order?
If you had watched that Video of the UK doctor prescribing it for his 84 year Aunt and saving her life you would know that he had to do so because the physician treating her in hospital couldn't, but she did administer it. |
I know plenty of Dr's and scientists in the western world. None of them are suppressed by anyone. Conspiracy nonsense.
They are at the cutting edge of clinical developments, far more so than any amount of Google searches will put the layman.
They don't put anyone on a ventilator if they don't need to, there isn't time to see if a drug works.
I did see the video of the Dr. He's a bang average gp now practicing natural remedies. I'm not attacking his character but I'll trust a relative specialist over his opinion. The story doesn't ring true.
I also don't believe that physician treating his aunt would suppress this wonder drug if it was a miracle cure. Their primary objective is to preserve life. | | | |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 12:04 - Jul 3 with 750 views | JACKMANANDBOY |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 11:52 - Jul 3 by Scotia |
I know plenty of Dr's and scientists in the western world. None of them are suppressed by anyone. Conspiracy nonsense.
They are at the cutting edge of clinical developments, far more so than any amount of Google searches will put the layman.
They don't put anyone on a ventilator if they don't need to, there isn't time to see if a drug works.
I did see the video of the Dr. He's a bang average gp now practicing natural remedies. I'm not attacking his character but I'll trust a relative specialist over his opinion. The story doesn't ring true.
I also don't believe that physician treating his aunt would suppress this wonder drug if it was a miracle cure. Their primary objective is to preserve life. |
I think that there is room for debate and discussion. I have a friend who is a retired GP. She has interesting views including the fact that later in her professional life she avoided prescribing new drugs, in her experience it usually takes at least 5 years to start to understand the side effects. She also says alternative approaches are worth a try as sometimes she has seen them really help. |  |
| |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 12:43 - Jul 3 with 729 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 11:52 - Jul 3 by Scotia |
I know plenty of Dr's and scientists in the western world. None of them are suppressed by anyone. Conspiracy nonsense.
They are at the cutting edge of clinical developments, far more so than any amount of Google searches will put the layman.
They don't put anyone on a ventilator if they don't need to, there isn't time to see if a drug works.
I did see the video of the Dr. He's a bang average gp now practicing natural remedies. I'm not attacking his character but I'll trust a relative specialist over his opinion. The story doesn't ring true.
I also don't believe that physician treating his aunt would suppress this wonder drug if it was a miracle cure. Their primary objective is to preserve life. |
Which part about "they are not allowed to prescribe it" don't you understand?
Which part about promoting it gets you attacked from all sides don't you understand?
Which part of Varon video of all the MSM cutting the actual medical protocol out of the 1000 odd interview report don't you understand.
What part of the Fox women having to leave Fox News to be able to talk about the actual drugs don't you understand?
Which ppart of the WHO telling Indian doctors not to use it don't you understand.
You seem to have a bit of a problem identifying how "suppression" works. | | | |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 13:07 - Jul 3 with 718 views | Scotia |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 12:43 - Jul 3 by A_Fans_Dad |
Which part about "they are not allowed to prescribe it" don't you understand?
Which part about promoting it gets you attacked from all sides don't you understand?
Which part of Varon video of all the MSM cutting the actual medical protocol out of the 1000 odd interview report don't you understand.
What part of the Fox women having to leave Fox News to be able to talk about the actual drugs don't you understand?
Which ppart of the WHO telling Indian doctors not to use it don't you understand.
You seem to have a bit of a problem identifying how "suppression" works. |
They aren't allowed to prescribe it because clinical studies haven't shown it to work.
I don't believe anyone promoting a treatment likely to work gets you attacked from all sides. See the first sentence.
Dr Varon didn't mention ivermectin once in his co-authored paper on MATH+ Not once, open it as a pdf and search for it. I did. He censored it himself for some reason? I wonder why?
The WHO tell Dr's not in India not to use it because its not proven to work in a clinical trial.
It's being trialled by Oxford uni now. Let's see what happens. I hope it works, I really do. | | | |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 13:17 - Jul 3 with 716 views | Professor |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 13:07 - Jul 3 by Scotia |
They aren't allowed to prescribe it because clinical studies haven't shown it to work.
I don't believe anyone promoting a treatment likely to work gets you attacked from all sides. See the first sentence.
Dr Varon didn't mention ivermectin once in his co-authored paper on MATH+ Not once, open it as a pdf and search for it. I did. He censored it himself for some reason? I wonder why?
The WHO tell Dr's not in India not to use it because its not proven to work in a clinical trial.
It's being trialled by Oxford uni now. Let's see what happens. I hope it works, I really do. |
There is nothing that stops any doctor prescribing ‘ off label’ if they consider it necessary for the patients well being.WHO or anyone else cannot stop this . Few doctors will go against recommendations, but they can. More common with vets- ‘the cascade’ for non licensed use is clearly defined | | | |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 14:14 - Jul 3 with 687 views | A_Fans_Dad |
Not proven in clinical trial?
Only 60 of them, 31 randomized controlled trials.
You do not know what you are talking about. | | | |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 14:22 - Jul 3 with 689 views | Professor |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 14:14 - Jul 3 by A_Fans_Dad |
Not proven in clinical trial?
Only 60 of them, 31 randomized controlled trials.
You do not know what you are talking about. |
And plenty of clinical trials where it has not. At least it’s not associated with adverse outcomes like HCQ | | | |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 14:30 - Jul 3 with 688 views | felixstowe_jack |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 14:14 - Jul 3 by A_Fans_Dad |
Not proven in clinical trial?
Only 60 of them, 31 randomized controlled trials.
You do not know what you are talking about. |
I think 95% of people would prefer the tried and tested vaccines rather than dubious claims of a wonder drug if it was that good it would have sailed through clinical trials | |
| |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 15:37 - Jul 3 with 672 views | Scotia |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 14:14 - Jul 3 by A_Fans_Dad |
Not proven in clinical trial?
Only 60 of them, 31 randomized controlled trials.
You do not know what you are talking about. |
As I understand though they are small scale pilot studies, many of the more successful ones have only demonstrated a reduction in viral load and small improvement in symptoms.
Many of which are published in widely available journals so not exactly suppressed.
Neither was Dr Varon when speaking to the UK media.
I was referring to a large scale trial.
Any trials that show the vaccines in current use don't work? | | | |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 17:47 - Jul 3 with 645 views | felixstowe_jack |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 15:37 - Jul 3 by Scotia |
As I understand though they are small scale pilot studies, many of the more successful ones have only demonstrated a reduction in viral load and small improvement in symptoms.
Many of which are published in widely available journals so not exactly suppressed.
Neither was Dr Varon when speaking to the UK media.
I was referring to a large scale trial.
Any trials that show the vaccines in current use don't work? |
No this time in January we were having 50,000 cases a day and 1,000 deaths a day.
Current situation 25,000 cases a day and 20 deaths a day.
Seems a pretty obvious solution most of the extremely vulnerable have has both doses so very few hospitalisations, severe cases or deaths.
Most of the new cases are in the under 25s and school children who are not vaccinated yet.
Just need to get all adults to have their first doses and then fully vaccinated. Then possibly the over 16s who are likely to start 6th form colleges in September. | |
| |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 18:48 - Jul 3 with 634 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 15:37 - Jul 3 by Scotia |
As I understand though they are small scale pilot studies, many of the more successful ones have only demonstrated a reduction in viral load and small improvement in symptoms.
Many of which are published in widely available journals so not exactly suppressed.
Neither was Dr Varon when speaking to the UK media.
I was referring to a large scale trial.
Any trials that show the vaccines in current use don't work? |
Ivermectin studies
________Studies Prophylaxis Early treatment Late treatment Patients Authors
All studies 60 85% [75‑91%] 76% [59‑86%] 46% [29‑59%] 18,931 549
With exclusions 51 87% [75‑93%] 78% [69‑84%] 54% [33‑68%] 14,554 495
Peer-reviewed 35 88% [70‑95%] 77% [62‑86%] 42% [19‑58%] 7,611 357
Randomized Controlled Trials 31 83% [39‑95%] 69% [57‑77%] 40% [11‑60%] 5,316 340
Mortality results 22 96% [42‑100%] 81% [46‑93%] 61% [38‑76%] 7,690 205 [Post edited 3 Jul 2021 18:52]
| | | |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 20:31 - Jul 3 with 606 views | Professor |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 18:48 - Jul 3 by A_Fans_Dad |
Ivermectin studies
________Studies Prophylaxis Early treatment Late treatment Patients Authors
All studies 60 85% [75‑91%] 76% [59‑86%] 46% [29‑59%] 18,931 549
With exclusions 51 87% [75‑93%] 78% [69‑84%] 54% [33‑68%] 14,554 495
Peer-reviewed 35 88% [70‑95%] 77% [62‑86%] 42% [19‑58%] 7,611 357
Randomized Controlled Trials 31 83% [39‑95%] 69% [57‑77%] 40% [11‑60%] 5,316 340
Mortality results 22 96% [42‑100%] 81% [46‑93%] 61% [38‑76%] 7,690 205 [Post edited 3 Jul 2021 18:52]
|
Wonderful. No doubt straight off a website
Let’s consider this with a critical eye. Many of these are small. Some have poor selection criteria (inherent bias). Relatively few meet the criteria that would allow them to be included in a systematic review. Are the equally large number of studies where no effect included? Many are in journals of less than stringent review. This is why systematic analysis is still pretty inconclusive. Although are that HCQ is a waste of time.
We need studies like the Oxford one which will allow a more definitive conclusion. Just figures without the context are just that . Figures without meaning | | | |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 20:39 - Jul 3 with 601 views | Scotia |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 18:48 - Jul 3 by A_Fans_Dad |
Ivermectin studies
________Studies Prophylaxis Early treatment Late treatment Patients Authors
All studies 60 85% [75‑91%] 76% [59‑86%] 46% [29‑59%] 18,931 549
With exclusions 51 87% [75‑93%] 78% [69‑84%] 54% [33‑68%] 14,554 495
Peer-reviewed 35 88% [70‑95%] 77% [62‑86%] 42% [19‑58%] 7,611 357
Randomized Controlled Trials 31 83% [39‑95%] 69% [57‑77%] 40% [11‑60%] 5,316 340
Mortality results 22 96% [42‑100%] 81% [46‑93%] 61% [38‑76%] 7,690 205 [Post edited 3 Jul 2021 18:52]
|
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. | | | |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 20:48 - Jul 3 with 598 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 20:31 - Jul 3 by Professor |
Wonderful. No doubt straight off a website
Let’s consider this with a critical eye. Many of these are small. Some have poor selection criteria (inherent bias). Relatively few meet the criteria that would allow them to be included in a systematic review. Are the equally large number of studies where no effect included? Many are in journals of less than stringent review. This is why systematic analysis is still pretty inconclusive. Although are that HCQ is a waste of time.
We need studies like the Oxford one which will allow a more definitive conclusion. Just figures without the context are just that . Figures without meaning |
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"? | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
