- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Study: Ivermectin doesn't work.
Posted on 2/19/22 at 8:32 pm to smh4wg
Posted on 2/19/22 at 8:32 pm to smh4wg
quote:
5% less effective against severe disease than standard of care.
It's also not effective when used on dead people.
Almost like using it by itself when they're about to die anyway isn't the claim being made by its proponents, and you're attacking a straw man for corporate press narrative purposes.
0
Posted on 2/19/22 at 9:49 pm to smh4wg
it is fake
Posted on 2/19/22 at 9:56 pm to Jake88
quote:
If the results were positive, you'd be all over this study.
Read the study moron, the Ivermecting group had a reduced mortality rate. The media just took an extrapolation of a conclussion that has nothing to do with if Ivermecting reduces deaths or not.
This post was edited on 2/19/22 at 9:57 pm
Posted on 2/19/22 at 10:01 pm to smh4wg
Study: COVID isn't real
Posted on 2/19/22 at 10:03 pm to smh4wg
You are drawing the wrong conclusions.
It didn't say it doesn't work, it said it doesn't prevent the progression into serious disease.
It doesn't answer the question whether it shortens the course or reduces symptom severity in mild to moderate disease.
It didn't say it doesn't work, it said it doesn't prevent the progression into serious disease.
It doesn't answer the question whether it shortens the course or reduces symptom severity in mild to moderate disease.
Posted on 2/19/22 at 10:04 pm to smh4wg
It’s what they want u too believe.
Posted on 2/19/22 at 10:07 pm to imjustafatkid
It's not, it showed reduced mortality.
And it wasn't even blinded.
And it wasn't even blinded.
Posted on 2/19/22 at 10:07 pm to smh4wg
quote:
I see they only used ivermectin. No zinc, d3, pepcid, or anything else, just ivermectin alone.
No one has claimed that Ivermectin works by itself. All reports claimed Ivermectin With Zinc works. IF they did not use zinc with IVermectin, then the study is worthless.
Why can't these people conduct a proper Ivermectin study?
A 5th grade science class could do it correctly with minimal supervision.
Posted on 2/19/22 at 10:42 pm to smh4wg
JAMA 
Posted on 2/19/22 at 10:46 pm to obdobd918
Now has anyone's eyes been opened. They want you dead.
Just because they are making a ton of money on your death doesn't mean the primary purpose is the money.
Nope??? Nobody???
Figures hard to open the eyes of illogical people.
Just because they are making a ton of money on your death doesn't mean the primary purpose is the money.
Nope??? Nobody???
Figures hard to open the eyes of illogical people.
Posted on 2/19/22 at 11:19 pm to the808bass
quote:
Member since Oct 2012
93794 posts
Posted on 2/19/22 at 2:23 pm to NC_Tigah
She’s going to make you feel stupid for even arguing with her
Why waste time? She's nobody. We know a fair study has not been conducted and we know why. Money. People like her belong in prison for murder.
Posted on 2/19/22 at 11:39 pm to smh4wg
Deaths and ventilation were reduced by over 2.5x, I would say that is pretty promising
Posted on 2/20/22 at 9:02 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Your chances would improve by about 6300% Link?
CDC published study shows 5300%, so mine could have been slightly high
quote:So 53.2 times the risk of death - that’s 5320% more likely to die. That number moves around from month to month and variant to variant, so my 6300% doesn’t quite match that study because it was older data that I remembered.
During October–November, unvaccinated persons had 13.9 and 53.2 times the risks for infection and COVID-19–associated death, respectively, compared with fully vaccinated persons who received booster doses
Posted on 2/20/22 at 9:06 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Link?
The three largest such studies on the matter found a 52x, 46x and 43x increased risk of mortality in the unvaccinated vs vaccinated.
So while his number is high, it’s not terribly far off.
Posted on 2/20/22 at 9:06 am to Penrod
Lol. You’re a high functioning moron.
Posted on 2/20/22 at 9:08 am to lsu480
quote:
Deaths and ventilation were reduced by over 2.5x, I would say that is pretty promising
But the number isn’t statistically significant based on their data set. That means that result is likely driven by chance alone.
It’s the whole point of running statistical analysis of study data sets.
This post was edited on 2/20/22 at 9:09 am
Posted on 2/20/22 at 9:09 am to doc baklava
quote:
it said it doesn't prevent the progression into serious disease.
Meanwhile, the study’s definition of “serious disease” wouldn’t get you checked into the hospital.
Posted on 2/20/22 at 9:10 am to Roger Klarvin
quote:
That means that result is likely driven by chance alone.
No, that’s not what it means. It means it could be driven by chance.
Posted on 2/20/22 at 9:18 am to LChama
quote:
Got me basically symptom free after 3rd dose.
Waiting a few days and doing nothing has the same effect.
Posted on 2/20/22 at 10:36 am to FlexDawg
quote:
FlexDawg
There's a reason that "meta-analysis" is on some guy's blog and isn't published in a peer-reviewed journal.
Almost all of the included studies have issues. E.g. the n's are very low, the drug is studied in combination with others that we know would improve outcomes, they don't track adherence, etc etc etc.
This isn't proof of anything except whoever put this together did a poor job.
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News