Cont: Corona Virus Conspiracy Theories Part IV

[Chris_Halkides]

category killer drug

Ivermectin is a "category killer" - this one drug can take out Nyquil, Alka Seltzer, Tamiflu, etc.. etc.. and not only that, it has serious potential for cancer treatment as well. The pharmaceutical industry is crapping their pants over it. After experiencing just how effective it is, I will NEVER be without some in my medicine cabinet.

Can you explain how it works regarding cancer? Does it also lower serum cholesterol?

 

[michaelsuede]

Well it hasn't convinced the medical establishment has it?

Show me a single study that you think is convincing?

Come on, it cannot be that hard unless you are afraid that the studies you are vaguely waving your hand towards are not that good.

The medical "establishment" approved remdesivir based on a single 1000 person RCT.

This is all you see when you search PubMed for it:

Remdesivir and Acute Renal Failure: A Potential Safety Signal From Disproportionality Analysis of the WHO Safety Database

Potential kidney damage associated with the use of remdesivir for COVID-19: analysis of a pharmacovigilance database

Rapid review of suspected adverse drug events due to remdesivir in the WHO database; findings and implications

Cardiac Events Potentially Associated to Remdesivir: An Analysis from the European Spontaneous Adverse Event Reporting System

etc.. etc.. etc..

Here's a nurse screaming that it's killing people:

https://rumble.com/vqbmof-nurses-kn...-dying-from-government-subsidized-hospit.html

Go take some.

It's FDA approved for COVID.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

gene therapy

arthwollipot,

Good question. I like the Novavax approach for this very reason.

BTW, when I got my booster (Moderna), I turned into a newt. It got better.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the strange case of ivermectin

Last year Derek Lowe wrote about ivermectin here. "Update: one of the more positive studies now appears to have fallen apart, and very badly, with strong evidence of faked data and poor controls. It appears that if this one is taken out, that some meta-analyses of ivermectin trials that have pointed towards possible benefit may no longer even do so. . ."

From a news story from last October: "The BBC can reveal that more than a third of 26 major trials of the drug [ivermectin] for use on Covid have serious errors or signs of potential fraud. None of the rest show convincing evidence of ivermectin's effectiveness."

 

[Andy_Ross]

The medical "establishment" approved remdesivir based on a single 1000 person RCT.

This is all you see when you search PubMed for it:

Remdesivir and Acute Renal Failure: A Potential Safety Signal From Disproportionality Analysis of the WHO Safety Database

Potential kidney damage associated with the use of remdesivir for COVID-19: analysis of a pharmacovigilance database

Rapid review of suspected adverse drug events due to remdesivir in the WHO database; findings and implications

Cardiac Events Potentially Associated to Remdesivir: An Analysis from the European Spontaneous Adverse Event Reporting System

etc.. etc.. etc..

Here's a nurse screaming that it's killing people:

https://rumble.com/vqbmof-nurses-kn...-dying-from-government-subsidized-hospit.html

Go take some.

It's FDA approved for COVID.

You haven't posted the study yet.

 

[michaelsuede]

You haven't posted the study yet.

Correct.

I posted 54 peer reviewed studies [10], with several more undergoing review, virtually all showing ivermectin to be highly effective at treating COVID-19. These published peer-reviewed studies encompass 18,768 patients, authored by over 538 scientists. There are a total of 73 published studies on ivermectin as it relates to the treatment of COVID-19 patients, encompassing 56,774 patients and 691 authors. There is evidence of a negative publication bias, and the probability that an ineffective treatment generated results as positive as the 73 studies is estimated to be 1 in 619 billion [10].

Along with my anecdote.

Believe me, don't believe me, don't really care. I know I'm never going to be without some after what it did for me.

 

[Norman Alexander]

[nonsense snipped]

Here's a nurse screaming that it's killing people:
https://rumble.com/vqbmof-nurses-kn...-dying-from-government-subsidized-hospit.html

Go take some.

It's FDA approved for COVID.

Here's a "nurse" who clearly doesn't understand anything about how hospitals work nor the progression of a pandemic as vaccinations take effect. I suspect she isn't a nurse at all. She is just a woman wearing what might be a nurse's blouse.

Disclosure: I work in a hospital. Nurses are NOT this dumb.

 

[angrysoba]

The medical "establishment" approved remdesivir based on a single 1000 person RCT.

This is all you see when you search PubMed for it:

Remdesivir and Acute Renal Failure: A Potential Safety Signal From Disproportionality Analysis of the WHO Safety Database

Potential kidney damage associated with the use of remdesivir for COVID-19: analysis of a pharmacovigilance database

Rapid review of suspected adverse drug events due to remdesivir in the WHO database; findings and implications

Cardiac Events Potentially Associated to Remdesivir: An Analysis from the European Spontaneous Adverse Event Reporting System

etc.. etc.. etc..

Here's a nurse screaming that it's killing people:

https://rumble.com/vqbmof-nurses-kn...-dying-from-government-subsidized-hospit.html

Go take some.

It's FDA approved for COVID.

I asked you about ivermectin. You are wriggling and squirming, like a wriggly, squirmy thing.

 

[michaelsuede]

I asked you about ivermectin. You are wriggling and squirming, like a wriggly, squirmy thing.

You want me to give a single study so you can nitpick it while ignoring the other 70 studies. You are smart enough to know that virtually every study on its own is underpowered or has some other minor issue with it.

When a drug is out of patent and being used off-label, these are the kinds of studies you get. Small localized studies that individual doctors or medical facilities can put together on their own without millions of dollars in funding for a clinical trial.

Each study is not proof of efficacy on its own. They become proof when they are taken in aggregate.

 

[Tippit]

The Therapeutic Goods Administration in Australia has just approved Novavax, which is a protein-based, ie, traditional, vaccine against COVID. This is not experimental, and it has nothing to do with mRNA or genes. It cannot be described in any way as "experimental gene therapy". It is a 100% traditional vaccine of the kind that we have been using to control illness for decades.

Tippit, would you get this vaccine if it were available to you? Childlike Empress, would you?

No. Even if the risk/benefit on its face made sense (it doesn't, since I have natural immunity for a disease with a tiny fractional IFR), and even if leaky respiratory viruses that don't confer sterilizing immunity existed (they don't), I still wouldn't take it, because I believe they're part of a larger softkill agenda to cull or make sterile a significant part of the global population. I don't trust the sellers, period, full stop. I avoid big pharma products the same way that I avoid GMO food, foods heavy in high fructose corn syrup and sugar, foods with toxic preservatives, foods which were fertilized with toxic organo-phosphates (glyphosate), proprietary pharmaceuticals with laundry lists of side-effects, and now, sadly, hospitals and doctors.

The last couple of years I've thrived by focusing on avoiding all of the pseudo-scientific ******** being sold by large corporations and what I don't need, and this philosophy has served me well.

 

[Tippit]

arthwollipot,

Good question. I like the Novavax approach for this very reason.

BTW, when I got my booster (Moderna), I turned into a newt. It got better.

The spike protein itself is cytotoxic, and Moderna has the highest dose. Who knows whether the lipid nanoparticles and the graphene oxide used to deliver the mRNA "vaccine" payloads are toxic, but since the GMO spike protein antigen is itself cytotoxic, it doesn't really matter whether the "vaccine" is mRNA, DNA, or cell culture.

 

[arthwollipot]

No.

Thank you for your honesty. Do you agree that your "experimental gene therapy" argument is invalidated now that there is a way for people to get vaccinated without using mRNA or DNA vaccines?

 

[angrysoba]

You want me to give a single study so you can nitpick it while ignoring the other 70 studies. You are smart enough to know that virtually every study on its own is underpowered or has some other minor issue with it.

When a drug is out of patent and being used off-label, these are the kinds of studies you get. Small localized studies that individual doctors or medical facilities can put together on their own without millions of dollars in funding for a clinical trial.

Each study is not proof of efficacy on its own. They become proof when they are taken in aggregate.

No they don't.

With meta-analyses you have GIGO.

You are pretty much accepting that all the studies you are referring to are small, underpowered or not very good.

In fact, most of them are worse than that with some of the larger ones appearing to be outright fraud. These larger studies are the ones that skew the meta-analyses to give a false sense that ivermectin is useful.

This is why you won't post any individual studies - you know they are all crap.

 

[Resume]

<dangerous disinfosnip>

There, better.

 

[michaelsuede]

No they don't.

With meta-analyses you have GIGO.

You are pretty much accepting that all the studies you are referring to are small, underpowered or not very good.

In fact, most of them are worse than that with some of the larger ones appearing to be outright fraud. These larger studies are the ones that skew the meta-analyses to give a false sense that ivermectin is useful.

This is why you won't post any individual studies - you know they are all crap.

So your argument is that meta-analysis are the least reliable and most biased studies?

Just want to be sure I understand what you're claiming here.

 

[Tippit]

Thank you for your honesty. Do you agree that your "experimental gene therapy" argument is invalidated now that there is a way for people to get vaccinated without using mRNA or DNA vaccines?

It depends on what your definition is. As far as I know, the spike protein that is produced by all of the "vaccines" is not identical to any of the wild virus spike antigens, so it is GMO regardless of how it's delivered. I presume the Novavax uses the same GMO spike. This may not make much difference, because the spike protein is toxic regardless of whether your ribosome's produce GMO spike in large quantities due to jabs, or whether you get a bad case of Covid. It is a micro-coagulant which causes cardiovascular issues.

 

[welshdean]

Arth, you can lead a horse to water mate...

 

[smartcooky]

Each study is not proof of efficacy on its own. They become proof when they are taken in aggregate.

GIGO - A meta-analysis of garbage is still garbage... that is what angrysoba is telling you.

A dog-turd from a poodle is just a dog turd. If you have 50 dog-turds from 50 different breeds of dog, at the end of the day, all you have is a big pile of dog-turds. You can polish those dog-turds all you like, it won't change what they are.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

error and fraud concerning ivermectin

Medicinal chemist and the author of the blog In The Pipeline, Derek Lowe wrote, "All in all, though, the most compelling reports of ivermectin's effects seem to come from the smallest and least controlled samples (all the way down to anecdotal results) while the larger and more well-controlled trials tend to produce equivocal evidence at best."

At VOX Kelsey Piper wrote, "When BuzzFeed News followed up on another ivermectin study with huge results, a hospital where the research had reportedly been conducted said it had no record of such a study happening there." The article continued, "Members of this research group have raised questions, too, about research published by Dr. Flavio Cadegiani on various Covid-19 treatments, including ivermectin and proxalutamide, that exhibited bizarre statistical patterns inconsistent with randomization." and "The University of Liverpool’s Hill conducted a meta-analysis that initially found positive results for ivermectin, only to conduct a re-analysis without studies that were later identified as suspect that found much worse results for ivermectin. “This has made me more wary about trusting results when you don’t have access to the raw data,” Hill told MedPage Today. “We took them on trust and that was a mistake.”"

 

[michaelsuede]

GIGO - A meta-analysis of garbage is still garbage... that is angrysoba is telling you.

A dog-turd from a poodle is just a dog turd. If you have 50 dog-turds from 50 different breeds of dog, at the end of the day, all you have is a big pile of dog-turds. You can polish those dog-turds all you like, it won't change what they are.

I see, so your argument is that out of the 538 authors who published peer reviewed papers on ivermectin's efficacy, the majority (>269?) didn't know how to actually determine if ivermectin was effective at treating COVID-19, and the peer-reviewers they used were similarly incompetent.

Correct?