- 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
1
Posted on 8/30/22 at 1:54 pm to the808bass
quote:
Especially knowing what we know now.
You never encountered a Religious Zealot in your lifetime?
Posted on 8/30/22 at 1:55 pm to AUHighPlainsDrifter
quote:
Are you sure that is what it says?
quote:
in the last case do orthodox 95% confidence intervals stray above unity
Yep.
Posted on 8/30/22 at 2:06 pm to GumboPot
quote:
The FDA can only issue EAU status to medications if an alternative is not available.
That was the crutch. Having read literature about Ivermectin linked on from this very website,I believe the widespread use of Ivermectin could have produced "unforeseen" health benefits that would have shaken the medical industry to its core.
Posted on 8/30/22 at 2:11 pm to OBReb6
quote:
That isn't a peer-reviewed study, and it's not methodologically sound. We went over this when it was posted.
Elaborate please
Sure.
The study is published in a pay-to-publish 'journal' with false peer-review.
The study is a population-level observational study with limited ability to discern any characteristics that may have subjects self-select into either of the 2 study groups and arbitrary study start/stop dates (Jul 30...why? what happened July 29th?, when the program ostensibly started Jul 8/9).
The study didn't have an IRB until data collection was complete but claimed to have a protocol at the beginning of the study period which makes it not a prospective study as the authors claim.
The study protocol changed halfway through for no reason explained by the authors and conveniently sliced the non-intervention group n in half.
The study authors admitted they had no way to track adherence and this prophylaxis dose could have been unused by a significant proportion of the intervention group. The city of Itajaí recorded and posted how many subjects picked up subsequent dose series. Of the 140k initial ivermectin group only 80k returned for dose pack 2, and only 8k completed the 5-pack regimen recommended.
The study has numerous errors in the data presented in the tables - subgroup counts change with no explanation, and their exclusion criteria don't match up - e.g. no deaths under 30 occur before 'matching' but somehow 3 deaths under 30 occur after 'matching'.
The study used an opaque propensity score matching scheme that wasn't necessary and somehow reduced the intervention mortality n from 62 to 25, but left the non-intervention n preserved at 79.
The study matched interventions to the controls in order to fudge their numbers, when normally you do the opposite.
Finally, the first 2 authors listed on the study disclose that they are being or have been recently funded by the company that produces ivermectin (Vitamedic) and have a history of unethical work.
Posted on 8/30/22 at 2:11 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
Yep.
Are you simply ignoring the conclusions of removing both studies, "However, even when significantly diluted by exclusion of disputed trials, meta-analysis continues to show an improved mortality outcome. Moreover, additional data from the later trials are broadly consistent with the original findings"?
Posted on 8/30/22 at 2:12 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
because they don't work.
Wrong. I’m living proof it does.
Posted on 8/30/22 at 2:17 pm to AUHighPlainsDrifter
quote:
Are you simply ignoring the conclusions of removing both studies
No, I'm taking into account confidence intervals. As you do.
Posted on 8/30/22 at 2:20 pm to BamaAtl
Thanks for the response.
I hope you are willing to admit that external pressures really inhibit the ability to produce the proof you specifically are asking for to your acceptance. I had Covid a year ago, felt really bad the first day and then went on an ivermectin/hydroxychloriquine protocol and never had any other problems after that outside of losing my taste and smell.
I hope you are willing to admit that external pressures really inhibit the ability to produce the proof you specifically are asking for to your acceptance. I had Covid a year ago, felt really bad the first day and then went on an ivermectin/hydroxychloriquine protocol and never had any other problems after that outside of losing my taste and smell.
Posted on 8/30/22 at 2:21 pm to GumboPot
Everyone needs to read "The Real Anthony Fauci" by RFK and RFK Jr.
This post was edited on 8/30/22 at 2:21 pm
Posted on 8/30/22 at 2:21 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
Enlighten me. What peer-reviewed studies disprove my point?
Does real world data meet your criteria?
11 members of my family got together for Thanksgiving. Only 1 was vaxxed (J&J). Everyone had been on the the Vit C, Vit D, Zinc, daily regimen. A few also took Pepcid
All but one tested positive during the next few days
* 4 were elementary aged or younger - mild to no symptoms, no treatment
* 1 just continued daily regimen due to neg test
* 4 began ivermectin, and symptoms disappeared within 24 hours
* 1 vaxxed was the first to test positive, and displayed severe sinus infection symptoms for 5 days
* 1 went to the Dr and was given a Z-pack and cough meds. quarantined until a neg test, due to the severity of symptoms, and not wanting to pass the virus to the one adult who tested neg
Posted on 8/30/22 at 2:21 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
.because they don't work.
Bless your poor, retarded heart.
Guess that 2015 Nobel Prize in Medicine means Ivermectin is hOrSe pAsTe, right?
Posted on 8/30/22 at 2:34 pm to GumboPot
And trump
Posted on 8/30/22 at 2:36 pm to GumboPot
Yep, you are correct sir!
Posted on 8/30/22 at 2:40 pm to OBReb6
quote:
I hope you are willing to admit that external pressures really inhibit the ability to produce the proof you specifically are asking for to your acceptance.
The study you cited was from Brazil, which would love for ivermectin to be as good of a preventative measure as a vaccine. This narrative that we'd reject a valid treatment option because it's cheaper is absurd.
quote:
I had Covid a year ago, felt really bad the first day and then went on an ivermectin/hydroxychloriquine protocol and never had any other problems after that outside of losing my taste and smell.
That's great for you! Really glad you recovered. But your experience doesn't indicate that it was anything more than chance - that's why we do RCT's.
Posted on 8/30/22 at 2:40 pm to RobbBobb
quote:
Does real world data meet your criteria?
No, because the plural of anecdote has never been data.
Posted on 8/30/22 at 2:41 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
Enlighten me. What peer-reviewed studies disprove my point?
I'll counter with you showing a peer reviewed study including long term results that prove your point
Posted on 8/30/22 at 2:41 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
because they don't work.
Tell that to my 80 year old mom, that was saved by taking ivermectin for 5 days!!
She was on her deathbed with covid, in 5 days of taking ivermectin her recovery was nothing short of a miracle…….you dumb sheep liberal!!
This post was edited on 8/30/22 at 2:42 pm
Posted on 8/30/22 at 2:41 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
...because they don't work.
yes they do moron
Posted on 8/30/22 at 2:46 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
because they don't work.
So similar to the vaccines but with less side effects!
Page 5 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News