Cont: Corona Virus Conspiracy Theories Part IV

[arthwollipot]

The perfect is the enemy of the good.

The tests miss some, so they're useless and should be avoided.

 

[Pixel42]

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

A single such trial is sufficient to draw a reliable conclusion if it is conducted correctly, i.e. rigorously, using the scientific method. Trials that aren't so conducted are worthless, even if there are a thousand of them.

 

[michaelsuede]

A single such trial is sufficient to draw a reliable conclusion if it is conducted correctly, i.e. rigorously, using the scientific method. Trials that aren't so conducted are worthless, even if there are a thousand of them.

Would this one fall under the "unreliable" classification?

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/ja...ferral&utm_campaign=ftm_links&utm_term=071521

Clearly our pharmaceutical overlords would never deceive us with a deceptive study to get a deadly drug approved, so this JAMA study must be wrong.

 

[Resume]

a completely survivable disease . . .

Dangerous disinformation.

 

[Resume]

I'm an athlete who plays competitive basketball and football. It's a safe bet that I am.

I'm Hollywood handsome and cowboy tough, a Green Beret and my girlfriend is prettier than yours. She doesn't live in Canada either.

 

[Resume]

Czech singer, Hana Horka is dead at the hands of anti-vaxxer lies:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60050996



Folk medicine kills folks.

FA/FO.

 

[Venom]

Why always, always go for the tenuous alternative when there's already a reasonable way of doing things?

99.999 percent of ya'll weren't "researching" ivermectin before COVID-19 and the associated kookery around it began. It's the same old pattern.

 

[abaddon]

No, it's just a waste of time. The tests are notoriously unreliable, and what's the point? My friend was sick with Delta and had moderate to severe symptoms, then tested negative with a regular PCR test. So he went to a clinic and tested positive by molecular PCR. The regular PCR tests are nearly as worthless as the rapid antigen tests.

Asymptomatic spread is, if not a myth entirely, vastly overrated. Even my cousin's Covidiot wife who demanded that I test negative before visiting last year has abandoned her position. Nobody cares in Florida anymore. It looks like nobody cares in England either, as they've abandoned all or most of their mandates. If you're symptomatic with any respiratory disease, stay home. If you're forced to go out in public, wear a real mask, like an N95 or N100 respirator.

The ******** pseudo-scientific scaremongering narrative about Covid is unraveling.

This is the kind of nonsense that annoys seven shades out of me. Harbouring such nonsense would normally just be a CT, but this can and will kill people stone dead. I have had my trips to ICU. It is not a happy place. Tippit seems to believe that is is all rainbows and lollipops.

 

[welshdean]

I'm an athlete who plays competitive basketball and football. It's a safe bet that I am.

I'm a playboy 'bunny-girl'.

Ah, the wonders and anonymity of the internet 'eh. You gotta love it!

edit: You continuously play musical chairs with the truth, why should anyone believe this BS.

 

[angrysoba]

I find it amusing you people don't believe 75 studies with tens of thousands of patients and over 700 authors.

There have been four published meta-reviews of ivermectin. Two found no effect. Two found significant benefit. No study found a negative impact.

Two with no statistical significance.
10 RCTs (n=1173) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34181716/
23 RCTs (n=3349) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC8420640/

Two with positive effect. 15 RCTs (n=2438) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC8248252/ 18 RCTs https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/ Of the two that found no "significant" effect, ivermectin still showed a positive benefit, and it became a significant benefit when studies with a high potential for bias were included. All of the metas focused on RCTs, ignoring a huge pile of epidemiological data showing a positive benefit.

As the author of ivmmeta notes, it is foolish to focus solely on RCTs when a huge body of epidemiological data exists showing a clear benefit.



The precautionary principle dictates that ivermectin should be made available and prescribed, even if it doesn't work at all. This is because the data indicates it might work, and given that it is far safer than any NSAID which people are taking fist fulls of, there is no risk in adding it to a treatment regimen.

The two meta-analyses you linked to that suggest a positive effect for ivermectin includes studies that have been found to be unreliable/fraudulent. Excluding those studies pretty much wipes out the positive effects of ivermectin for Covid, at least to any major outcomes such as death or serious illness.

In particular the Elgazzar studies are highly suspect, as is the Niaee study and the Lebanese study.

The Argentina prophylactic study by Carvallo has also been shown to be highly dubious, to put it mildly, and may never even have taken place (at least according to one hospital which says it was never part of the study).

You can listen to critiques of some of these studies here, if you are genuinely interested.

Also, I would be very careful about accepting Project Veritas or Joseph Mercola as sources. In fact, you shouldn't do it at all.

 

[Planigale]

Here's why.

Circled ones are approved medications for COVID.

[qimg]https://cdn.substack.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F12c2bfb7-7815-45bd-952a-475cbca3367c_558x615.png[/qimg]

Interesting that your chart does not include what is probably the most used drug for Covid-19. Steroids, e.g. dexamethasone or prednisolone. A cheap off patent repurposed drug shown to be effective in the same studies that showed e.g. hydroxychloroquine did not work. There are well run multicentre trials looking at repurposed drugs. Our own Darat was recruited to a trial of Ivermectin in mild Covid run by Oxford University. Ivermectin and dexamethasone are produced by big pharma. That the manufacturers of ivermectin do not promote it for covid should tell you something? Large well run trials do not show significant benefit from ivermectin. Small badly run probably fraudulent trials most of which have not actually been published in peer reviewed journals have shown (extremely dubious) benefits from ivermectin.

 

[Tippit]

Anecdote isn't evidence.
And all PCR tests are " molecular".

We know very well how accurate tests are, which is why we have statistic and lots of tests to make up for the lack of 100% accuracy.

You don't leave out a colonoscopy because the doctor might miss something.

I won’t get a colonoscopy, because I don’t trust either the accuracy of the test, what a positive colon cancer result would even mean, the doctor making a subsequent diagnosis, or the “treatment” that follows. I have zero trust of, and absolute cynicism for medical “science”, and It’s hard for me to even ponder how others don’t have the same cynicism.

People like you have so much unswerving faith in this thing called “science”, and yet have such little ability to spot ******** masquerading as science.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Cosmic Yak]

I'm a playboy 'bunny-girl'.

Ah, the wonders and anonymity of the internet 'eh. You gotta love it!

edit: You continuously play musical chairs with the truth, why should anyone believe this BS.

I seem to remember Tippit saying he was over 60 years old.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I have trust, not faith, in theories that get tested and found correct over and over.
And, maybe in the history of the humankind, no theory has been more quickly and throroughly than that the vaccines are efficacious and safe:
9.4 billion administered doses, with results closely monitored by health workers in every country on Earth.
And millions of unvaccinated getting hospitalized when the vaccinated are not.

You don't need faith to see the facts, but a lot of delusion to reject them.

 

[Planigale]

This letter was sent to the Senate recently covering a litany of malfeasance by the federal health services.

https://www.scribd.com/document/553669611/Letter-to-Senate-Detailing-NIH-NIAID-and-FDA-Malfeasance

Global COVID Summit – Declaration of Physicians
NIH, NIAID, FDA Malfeasance, Request for HHS OIG Investigation and Legislative Action

January 18, 2022

Senator Rand H. Paul
167 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Paul:

....

It has now come to light that the Pfizer vaccine trial [22] showed an elevated all-cause mortality in the vaccinated group, and that most of the placebo control group was subsequently inoculated with live vaccine after only four months of observation, making long term follow-up comparisons between the groups impossible. This is OUTRAGEOUS! Several large studies [23] have just come out showing the vaccines are associated with HIGHER infection rates and deaths!

I am interested what is this live SARS-CoV-2 vaccine you claim was used?

In general lumping multiple unrelated ideas in a single letter makes it seem like it comes from a conspiracy theorist.

It probably makes more sense and certainly allows the development of a more coherent argument if the letter just deals with one issue e.g. one letter on gain of function research and the origin of SARS-CoV-2. You start with this, but the significance is never made clear, particularly the relevance of research on the virus after it emerged as a global health issue?

The efficacy and safety of clinically used vaccines is a separate issue, and should be addressed in a separate letter.

Then the letter slides into the issue of whether medical practitioners should be advocating and using ivermectin as 'routine' treatment for Covid-19. This is actually a legitimate area of discussion. Certainly medical malpractice insurers are entitled to say that they will not cover treatment given that is not in line with recommended guidelines. Employers are able to say that treatment by their employers within their health care centres should follow recognised guidelines. Equally there is an element of professional independence to consider when in a situation where there is a lack of good quality evidence, treatment recommendations need to be developed in conjunction with your patient on the basis of limited evidence. This is an issue where a legislative approach may work, on the freedom of a practitioner to prescribe certain treatments. The senate cannot legislate that ivermectin works or that vaccines do not work any more than they can legislate that the earth is flat. These are objective facts not amenable to legislation. In the UK the policy is that ivermectin should only be prescribed for treatment of covid-19 as part of a clinical trial, I and every other doctor I know are happy with this policy. the way to find out what treatement work, and which do not is by recruiting as many people as possible into clinical trials.

Even if we assume ivermectin works, if it is used on a widespread basis for prevention as some advocate there is a significant risk that this would lead to ivermectin resistant virus strains, and the loss of efficacy for treating ill patients.

It is also worth thinking that if ivermectin did work, it would be comparatively easy for a drug company to tweak the molecule, make a more or equally effective version, do a rapid trial to show efficacy and get a patented drug that would make lots of money. The lack of trials of ivermectin analogues shows that big pharma knows that it doesn't work, if they knew it worked, they be busy making patentable versions. (Even a slow release tablet or injection would be patentable, or use patented technology.)

 

[Steve]

I seem to remember Tippit saying he was over 60 years old.

He certainly chose a grumpy old dude for his avatar . Reflective of reality? Who knows?

 

[catsmate]

Here's why.

Circled ones are approved medications for COVID.

[qimg]https://cdn.substack.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F12c2bfb7-7815-45bd-952a-475cbca3367c_558x615.png[/qimg]

Oh look, someone's quoting drivel from a scam "preprint' website with no peer review, again.

Meanwhile, the Cochrane review says:
Do not use ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 outside of randomised trials with appropriate ethical approval.

 

[catsmate]

You haven't posted the study yet.

One video from the "ApostolicConservatives" beats any number of studies

 

[catsmate]

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.

Still avoiding your burden of proof then?

 

[catsmate]

Thanks for the summary.

Thanks!
If you'd like some actual science in the subject, try Ivermectin Shows No Clear Benefit in the Treatment of Covid-19