Cont: Corona Virus Conspiracy Theories Part IV

[Foster Zygote]

Except, those aren't valid criteria for the likelihood of the conspiracy.

I'd love to read your alternative explanation for why an overwhelming scientific consensus is wrong while you are right.

Seriously, Tpiipt, you need to address this gaping head wound in your chosen version of reality if you ever want your arguments to be perceived as anything more than braying, knee-jerk contrarianism.

Possibility 1: You're smarter than all of them.

Possibility 2: They're all in on it.

Possibility 3: [fill in the blank]

 

[Steve]

I'd love to read your alternative explanation for why an overwhelming scientific consensus is wrong while you are right.

Seriously, Tpiipt, you need to address this gaping head wound in your chosen version of reality if you ever want your arguments to be perceived as anything more than braying, knee-jerk contrarianism.

Possibility 1: You're smarter than all of them.

Possibility 2: They're all in on it.

Possibility 3: [fill in the blank]

In the end it is always profit.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

I'd love to read your alternative explanation for why an overwhelming scientific consensus is wrong while you are right.

Seriously, Tpiipt, you need to address this gaping head wound in your chosen version of reality if you ever want your arguments to be perceived as anything more than braying, knee-jerk contrarianism.

Possibility 1: You're smarter than all of them.

Possibility 2: They're all in on it.

Possibility 3: [fill in the blank]

OOOHHH, now you've done it!

 

[Foster Zygote]

OOOHHH, now you've done it!

What? I got all the right letters.

 

[abaddon]

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

The irony in this post.

Here I am posting messages on my iphone via tapatalk to a worldwide network to tell you that science is all baloney

It's surreal.

 

[michaelsuede]

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.

No. Those studies were removed from the Krory paper. Effect remains.

https://journals.lww.com/americanth...0/Ivermectin,_A_Reanalysis_of_the_Data.9.aspx

 

[carlitos]

......Not only am I stronger, fitter, and healthier than you,.....

I'm an athlete who plays competitive basketball and football. .....

Incessant virtue signaling, and shaming everyone .......

 

[michaelsuede]

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.)

So basically you want hospital administrators and bureaucrats, who are not your doctor, deciding what FDA approved drugs you are allowed to have.

That's not how medicine has worked around the world since allopathic medicine became a thing.

There is far less risk of ivermectin creating mutant strains of virus than these experimental vaccines. ivermectin is given around the world in massive amounts to deal with parasitic infections, no mutant virus have come out of those areas from it.

Paxlovid is essentially an ivermectin knock off. It takes advantage of some of the same mechanisms of action, but it's not as good as ivermectin. Ivermectin has more mechanisms of action than paxlovid does. Paxlovid is FDA approved for COVID because it's not off-patent and they can sell it risk free under an EUA for $700 a course.

 

[Foster Zygote]

The irony in this post.


It's surreal.

What have the Romans... I mean, what has medical science ever done for us?

answer

 

[Hans]

What have the Romans... I mean, what has medical science ever done for us?

answer

Everything is fake. In the end the type of conspiracy T believes in is world-wide and involves most of humanity pitted against him...and he is beating these evil billions left, right and center.

Hilarious

 

[crescent]

No. Those studies were removed from the Krory paper. Effect remains.

https://journals.lww.com/americanth...0/Ivermectin,_A_Reanalysis_of_the_Data.9.aspx

No. One paper was removed (Elgazzar). Singular, one. Not "Those" which would imply that all the suspect papers were removed in the reanalysis.

You cite a lot of papers and make claims about them but leave it to use to scroll through to confirm that - and we keep finding that many of the papers don't have the conclusions that you claim they do. You are Gish Galloping.

 

[michaelsuede]

No. One paper was removed (Elgazzar). Singular, one. Not "Those" which would imply that all the suspect papers were removed in the reanalysis.

You cite a lot of papers and make claims about them but leave it to use to scroll through to confirm that - and we keep finding that many of the papers don't have the conclusions that you claim they do. You are Gish Galloping.

The Kory paper provides analysis of different end points that do not have either of those papers in them.

It's worth noting that Bryant responded to the claims about Elgazzar. Sounds like it was a smear campaign to get the paper pulled.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC8415517/

They found a positive effect remained, even after the removal of Elgazzar.

 

[hecd2]

That's not how medicine has worked around the world since allopathic medicine became a thing.

What's allopathic medicine? Do you mean medicine?

There is far less risk of ivermectin creating mutant strains of virus than these experimental vaccines. ivermectin is given around the world in massive amounts to deal with parasitic infections, no mutant virus have come out of those areas from it.

Could that be because ivermectin has no antiviral property whatsoever in vivo and therefore does not confer a selective advantage to virus mutations that avoid it, because it provides nothing to avoid.

Paxlovid is essentially an ivermectin knock off.

In what way exactly? Certainly not structurally, they are nothing like each other. Not by primary mechanism of action. They are nothing like each other. You are spreading lies.

 

[Steve]

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

So never under any circumstances do you use substances developed and recommended by medical science. No soap or antibacterial substances to remove bacteria from your skin. Never clean your teeth with any agents developed to fight bacteria in the mouth. Never use a topical or oral antibiotic. Never a pain reliever of any type. You are indeed the perfect example of a human being, the Übermensch displaying perfect health to the world

Anyway, you have a strange and uninformed opinion of colonoscopies.

I will and do get colonoscopies on a regular basis. The removal of those actual real little polyps (I have seen them) that were responsible for my father's death is likely to prolong my life by a measurable degree. My colonoscopies involve no "tests". Mine are real medical procedures that produce actual positive results.

 

[Steve]

Everything is fake. In the end the type of conspiracy T believes in is world-wide and involves most of humanity pitted against him...and he is beating these evil billions left, right and center.

Hilarious

Well he must be winning. He has managed to live to whatever age he currently claims to be without any use or application of anything ever developed by medical science.

 

[michaelsuede]

What's allopathic medicine? Do you mean medicine?
Could that be because ivermectin has no antiviral property whatsoever in vivo and therefore does not confer a selective advantage to virus mutations that avoid it, because it provides nothing to avoid.
In what way exactly? Certainly not structurally, they are nothing like each other. Not by primary mechanism of action. They are nothing like each other. You are spreading lies.

allopathic medicine = modern western medicine

Mouse models say it works in vivo. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC8010049/

75 published studies with over 700 authors say it works in vivo against COVID.

IVM mechanisms of action: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC8688140/

IVM has one action out of many that is similar to paxlovid. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33746908/

Binding Interactions of Selected Drugs with SARS-CoV-2 Mpro...
This was followed by ivermectin, which also showed high binding affinity (MolDock score -114.860) and protein–ligand interactions (MolDock score
-126.234). It formed three H-bonds with Asn151, Asp153 and Asn2033 amino acid residues present at the predicted active site of the protein.

IVMs mechanisms of action do not display any behavior indicative of a mutagen.

 

[Tippit]

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.

Lol. Ivermectin is demoted because it’s out of patent, and dirt cheap to produce. That’s why pharma is pushing patentable protease inhibitors. It’s odd how pseudo-skeptics are the least skeptical of those with the most to gain.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[sackett]

Yep. ALL about you.

Oh relax.

Hey, look what relaxing did for me! Suddenly I can benchpress 375 lbs (if the purty girls are watching, & they always are) and my car is a 2023 Lamborghini and all the big investors hang on my least little word and I know all the cool celebs (I just take a message and get back to 'em; sometimes) and God says I'll never croak no matter what and

I I I I MEEEEE!

Thank you, thank you, you're a great crowd. Sure, I despise you, but what else wouldja 'spect?

 

[Tippit]

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.)

Or, having a viable Covid treatment would invalidate the Emergency Use Authorization for the experimental gene therapies, which is dependent on the idea that there are no viable treatments for Covid, and would put hundreds of billions of dollars in “vaccine” revenue at risk…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[varwoche]

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

I am Odysseus, son of Laërtes. Just ask the Cyclops what a bad ass dude I be.