Coronavirus - Doomsday

[TimHauck 2,624]

6 hours ago, jerryskids said:

Hero?  Also, some idiot retweeted a March 22 tweet of a June 21 convo where Bret is riffing about Ivermectin, without the context of the entire discussion, and this is some great gotcha?  This, from the guy whose comment to somebody who posts something from two weeks ago is "that's old news$#@!"   

To my knowledge, you still haven't shown where Ivermectin has been disproven effective as a prophylactic.  

I’m also not sure what you’re referring to about me calling something old news, I may have said something along those lines but only if there was already a discussion in the thread about it, or if you’re referring to “Fauci admitted the vaccine can cause myocarditis,” it is “old news” as that happened over 2 years ago.

[TimHauck 2,624]

Here's a good centrist take(s):

 

 

 

 

 

Study of 44 million people found 21 myocarditis deaths.  Yes, vaccine myocarditis can be serious, and myocarditis deaths have occurred but they are extremely rare, that doesn't mean every time a middle aged person "dies suddenly" that the vaccine killed them.

 

[lickin_starfish 1,893]

The new Coov Vacks is ready! Get your updated shots, Timmy!

[naomi 356]

 

[jerryskids 6,573]

On 9/16/2023 at 1:43 PM, TimHauck said:

Not sure why you’re attacking the messenger for sharing a direct quote from Weinstein, although that guy is not an idiot anyway, he points out when people make stupid statements about stats, which Bret often does.

How much more context do you need?

Question:  “if you were running the world, what would you do now?”

Weinstein: “Divide the world into borders that you can police…give some [ivermectin] to everybody coming in and say you gotta take this”

An anti-mandate, anti-lockdown dude says if he was running the world he’d police the borders and force everyone to take ivermectin.

Here’s a meta analysis showing no statistically significant difference for ivermectin as a prophylaxis:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10041226/
 

Yes more of the “negative” ivermectin trials have focused on treatment, but I assume you’re also acknowledging that ivermectin was never “proven” as a prophylaxis in the first place.

Apparently you don't understand context.  Repeating the same things without any additional info on the discussion before or after, or anything else about the talk, does not add context.  HTH.

Regarding your study, it's odd that there is a meta analysis of all of these studies we haven't otherwise discussed regarding ivermectin as a prophylactic.  But let's look at the some of the comments in it. 

Quote

 In the pooled analysis including cohort study, we noted significant reduction in COVID-19 positivity rate in the prophylaxis group compared with non-prophylaxis group (RR = 0.18 and CI = 0.13, 0.24) with homogenous findings between the studies (I2 = 9.5% and P = 0.331) [Figure 3].

...

Conclusion
Further evidence is needed for potential role in prophylaxis and treatment with ivermectin in COVID-19. Our Present analysis conclude that Ivermectin is not the ‘magical silver weapon’ against COVID-19 infections.

Limitations
Due to the paucity of studies, we included only a limited number of studies that are conducted in different countries and mostly in low-resources and health care systems that were overburdened. There was also evidence from the combined analysis including both non-RCT and RCT studies that did not observe significant differences between the prophylaxis and non-prophylaxis group, thus further studies would require validation in larger double blind RCTs.

As your article says, there is some evidence on the effectiveness, but they have determined that it isn't conclusive, and that more studies are required.  Which I'm presuming haven't been done, or else you would have posted it.

Is this your point?  Ivermectin may work but we haven't tested it?  Congrats I guess.   

[edjr 6,578]

jerryskids for POTS

[TimHauck 2,624]

7 hours ago, jerryskids said:

Apparently you don't understand context.  Repeating the same things without any additional info on the discussion before or after, or anything else about the talk, does not add context.  HTH.

Regarding your study, it's odd that there is a meta analysis of all of these studies we haven't otherwise discussed regarding ivermectin as a prophylactic.  But let's look at the some of the comments in it. 

As your article says, there is some evidence on the effectiveness, but they have determined that it isn't conclusive, and that more studies are required.  Which I'm presuming haven't been done, or else you would have posted it.

Is this your point?  Ivermectin may work but we haven't tested it?  Congrats I guess.   

Usually when people talk about missing context, they’re talking about like a 5-10 second quote being taken out of context.  That was a minute and forty seconds where both the question and answer were included.  The context was provided.

And holy sh1t, in literally the same post where you complain about missing context, you take out context from the study.  You deleted the prior two sentences where the results were not significant.  They were only significant in “cohort studies,” where there were only 3 to begin with, and at least one of them (Carvallo - which was why Weinstein claimed it was “nearly perfect” as a prophylaxis) was proven to be fraudulent. 

C’mon jerry, be better.

 

[jerryskids 6,573]

4 hours ago, TimHauck said:

Usually when people talk about missing context, they’re talking about like a 5-10 second quote being taken out of context.  That was a minute and forty seconds where both the question and answer were included.  The context was provided.

And holy sh1t, in literally the same post where you complain about missing context, you take out context from the study.  You deleted the prior two sentences where the results were not significant.  They were only significant in “cohort studies,” where there were only 3 to begin with, and at least one of them (Carvallo - which was why Weinstein claimed it was “nearly perfect” as a prophylaxis) was proven to be fraudulent. 

C’mon jerry, be better.

 

Here are the two sentences before that I "deleted," along with the one I included:

Quote

The pooled analysis involving the non-RCTs studies also did not observe significant reduction in the COVID-19 positivity rate in the prophylaxis group as compared with non-prophylaxis group (RR = 0.01 and CI = 0.00, 7.97) with significant heterogeneity between the studies (I2 = 95%, P < 0.001). In the combined analysis including both non-RCT and RCT studies also did not observe significant difference between prophylaxis and non-prophylaxis group (RR = 0.01 and CI = 0.10, 1.04) but there was considerable heterogeneity (I2 = 98.7%) [Figure 2]. In the pooled analysis including cohort study, we noted significant reduction in COVID-19 positivity rate in the prophylaxis group compared with non-prophylaxis group (RR = 0.18 and CI = 0.13, 0.24) with homogenous findings between the studies (I2 = 9.5% and P = 0.331) [Figure 3].

Regarding context, you are wrong of course.  That being said, I'm not "excusing" what he said, I merely asked for some context around the discussion group and the rest of the discussion.  

Regarding your meta-study, they are talking about three different studies.  The third, as I already pointed out, noted "significant reduction in positivity."  The first two didn't, but they also exhibited high heterogeneity.

From the internet:

Heterogeneity in meta-analysis refers to the variation in study outcomes between studies. StatsDirect calls statistics for measuring heterogentiy in meta-analysis 'non-combinability' statistics in order to help the user to interpret the results. Measuring the inconsistency of studies' results.

Also from the internet:

Don't do a meta-analysis if heterogeneity is too high – Not every systematic review needs a meta-analysis. Explore heterogeneity – This can be done by subgroup analysis or meta-regression.

So the authors included two studies with high variability in a meta-analysis, where such inclusion is not preferred.

Perhaps this all led to why their conclusions, which I included and you ignored, indicated that more study is required.  I asked if such studies were performed, and perhaps that is how we got here in this circular discussion.  I'm guessing they haven't.  So we still don't know.

Be better, Tim.

[TimHauck 2,624]

Sorry guess it was three sentences not two.

Here’s the one before your last excerpt:

In the pooled analysis, we observed non-significant less COVID-19 positivity rate in the prophylaxis group as compared with non-prophylaxis group (RR = 0.27 and CI = 0.05, 1.41) with significant heterogeneity (I2 = 97.1%, P < 0.001)

 

It wasn’t three different “studies,” it was 3 different groupings of studies, with only 1 of them finding a significant result.  And that was based on three studies, at least one of which was confirmed to be fraudulent (maybe more).

I didn’t ignore the authors’ conclusion, I stated the overall result was not statistically significant which is true.  “Needs further study” is pretty much the same thing as saying the results aren’t statistically significant…

And again, I’ve acknowledged that there is more data regarding ivermectin’s ineffectiveness as a treatment than a prophylaxis.  But the other part of the conclusion that you posted is that they said based on their analysis that “it’s not the magical silver weapon” like some such as Weinstein have claimed.

But because we know it doesn’t work to actually treat Covid, I’m not sure where the logic is that it could prevent it.  And even if it could, it’s still not a real alternative to the vaccine (getting back to the incredibly stupid “ivermectin could have invalidated the vaccines’ EUA!” argument) because you’d have to take it every day.

[lickin_starfish 1,893]

Get the new shot yet, Timmy? Why not? You scared?

[naomi 356]

 

[Ultra Max Power 214]

The misinformation coming from the Biden Administration and health officials is stunning.

[jerryskids 6,573]

1 hour ago, TimHauck said:

Sorry guess it was three sentences not two.

Here’s the one before your last excerpt:

In the pooled analysis, we observed non-significant less COVID-19 positivity rate in the prophylaxis group as compared with non-prophylaxis group (RR = 0.27 and CI = 0.05, 1.41) with significant heterogeneity (I2 = 97.1%, P < 0.001)

 

It wasn’t three different “studies,” it was 3 different groupings of studies, with only 1 of them finding a significant result.  And that was based on three studies, at least one of which was confirmed to be fraudulent (maybe more).

I didn’t ignore the authors’ conclusion, I stated the overall result was not statistically significant which is true.  “Needs further study” is pretty much the same thing as saying the results aren’t statistically significant…

And again, I’ve acknowledged that there is more data regarding ivermectin’s ineffectiveness as a treatment than a prophylaxis.  But the other part of the conclusion that you posted is that they said based on their analysis that “it’s not the magical silver weapon” like some such as Weinstein have claimed.

But because we know it doesn’t work to actually treat Covid, I’m not sure where the logic is that it could prevent it.  And even if it could, it’s still not a real alternative to the vaccine (getting back to the incredibly stupid “ivermectin could have invalidated the vaccines’ EUA!” argument) because you’d have to take it every day.

It's not a stretch to think prophylactics work by different mechanisms than cures do.  Otherwise you could just take the vax once you get a disease, for instance.

@Casual Observerposted an article recently which, while not a study, riffed on some possible mechanism by which ivermectin might work.  I believe their were some postulations in there.

[lickin_starfish 1,893]

https://media.greatawakening.win/post/4G8GnLEJjXWN.jpeg

[Hardcore troubadour 14,949]

On 12/30/2020 at 11:43 PM, Hardcore troubadour said:

The HQC thing to me was actually the height of TDS. I’m still betting it becomes a highly used therapeutic when the dust settles. That was the cherry on top for me as far as so much of this being political. The first indication of it was liberals and Harris/Biden calling Trump racist for shutting down travel. Shows you the one trick ponies they are. As if shutting down travel during a pandemic would never be the smartest, easiest thing to do. Especially from the areas where it was raging and originated. Biden should never be listened too about this stuff after that. Instead liberal morons put him in charge. 

Yeah, the Mayo Clinic now says HQC can be used to treat Covid patients.  It’ll kill ya! Side affects! Bleach! HT for the win. 

[Cdub100 3,841]

3 years later masks still don't work.

[lickin_starfish 1,893]

44 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Yeah, the Mayo Clinic now says HQC can be used to treat Covid patients.  It’ll kill ya! Side affects! Bleach! HT for the win. 

It's almost like they lied to us the whole time.

[Hardcore troubadour 14,949]

7 minutes ago, lickin_starfish said:

It's almost like they lied to us the whole time.

As soon as Trump mentioned it one of the most prescribed drugs in history, deemed a wonder drug by the WHO would now kill you. 

[lickin_starfish 1,893]

https://media.greatawakening.win/post/ykdD6Yoah3lL.jpeg

[GutterBoy 2,898]

23 hours ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Yeah, the Mayo Clinic now says HQC can be used to treat Covid patients.  It’ll kill ya! Side affects! Bleach! HT for the win. 

Saw this trending on twitter, was wondering who would be the first fool to post it here

So the truth is nothing was quietly admitted.  That page has had that text ever since the FDA approved it for emergency use.  From 2020: https://web.archive.org/web/20200522191750/https://www.mayoclinic.org/drugs-supplements/hydroxychloroquine-oral-route/description/drg-20064216

And in fact that Mayo Clinic states that HQC has been shown not to work: https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/expert-answers/coronavirus-drugs/faq-20485627

https://www.techarp.com/science/mayo-hydroxychloroquine-covid/

So congrats to you Tardcore, not only did you get duped by this misinformation, but you repeated it here for all to say, then you took it even further claiming a prized GC victory for you, because you predicted HQC would be a highly used therapeutic.

So not only are you dumb, but you're also a douche for beating your chest about it.

Biggest joke on this board.

 

[Strike 5,214]

If anyone is interested, the govt. is giving away Covid tests again.  You can get yours at https://www.covid.gov/tests

[Hardcore troubadour 14,949]

If anyone is interested, if you just put in HQC Mayo Clinic it will bring you to their updated web page, showing HQC can be used to treat Covid patients. 

[lickin_starfish 1,893]

Remember when the cops kicked those people out of restaurants in NYC for not showing their papers? Good times.

[KSB2424 3,148]

http://x.com/elonmusk/status/1706676593261785178?s=46&t=r0y3bJ1CDXchoYAztDxmqw

 

 

[GutterBoy 2,898]

20 minutes ago, KSB2424 said:

http://x.com/elonmusk/status/1706676593261785178?s=46&t=r0y3bJ1CDXchoYAztDxmqw

 

 

So Musk is now spreading misinformation on his own platform.  Wonderful.

[lickin_starfish 1,893]

Anyone using the word "misinformation" is a colossal dooshbag. My claim has already been fact checked as truth.

[Reality 3,100]

The "Long COVID" folks always cracked me up.

 

[nobody 2,567]

2 hours ago, Reality said:

The "Long COVID" folks always cracked me up.

 

Long covid was a good little scam for the true sh¡tbags that just wanted to ride that gravy train and stay away from work. 

"Ooooh, I'm tired.  It must be long covid, and not the fact that I binged Netflix until 2am last night, better see what covid pay is out there."

[Hawkeye21 2,382]

I'm not a guy that believes in the vax all that much but this is pure insanity, right?

https://x.com/naomirwolf/status/1706824476631933044?s=20

[Reality 3,100]

12 minutes ago, nobody said:

Long covid was a good little scam for the true sh¡tbags that just wanted to ride that gravy train and stay away from work. 

"Ooooh, I'm tired.  It must be long covid, and not the fact that I binged Netflix until 2am last night, better see what covid pay is out there."

[TBayXXXVII 2,485]

10 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

I'm not a guy that believes in the vax all that much but this is pure insanity, right?

https://x.com/naomirwolf/status/1706824476631933044?s=20

#BelieveAllWomen you misogynist.

[Hawkeye21 2,382]

https://x.com/kevinnbass/status/1707571051297742932?s=46&t=4Iq5cSgBUS77gR-9rz9UVg

[Reality 3,100]

1 hour ago, Hawkeye21 said:

https://x.com/kevinnbass/status/1707571051297742932?s=46&t=4Iq5cSgBUS77gR-9rz9UVg

Too little, too late.

[lod001 1,344]

3 hours ago, Reality said:

Too little, too late.

Smart people knew not to ever take one of these jabs. We knew what was coming.

[lickin_starfish 1,893]

https://media.patriots.win/post/Wbo5e4Dn3ISZ.jpeg

[lickin_starfish 1,893]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12585897/Ohio-high-school-student-17-collapses-dies-football-field-homecoming-pageant.html

[Baker Boy 1,688]

COVID vaccine poll finds more than half of adults are likely to say 'no thanks' to the vax

Meanwhile, 70% of Democrats say they'll get the new vaccine, the survey found
 

https://www.foxnews.com/health/covid-vaccine-poll-finds-more-than-half-adults-likely-say-no-thanks-vax

[BeachGuy23 642]

3 minutes ago, Baker Boy said:

COVID vaccine poll finds more than half of adults are likely to say 'no thanks' to the vax

Meanwhile, 70% of Democrats say they'll get the new vaccine, the survey found
 

https://www.foxnews.com/health/covid-vaccine-poll-finds-more-than-half-adults-likely-say-no-thanks-vax

The covid strains are so mild and less virulent now so everyone getting a vax isn't a big deal.  I'm not getting one for example and I got the original two jabs.

Not dead yet either.

You're welcome! 

[Baker Boy 1,688]

3 minutes ago, BeachGuy23 said:

The covid strains are so mild and less virulent now so everyone getting a vax isn't a big deal.  I'm not getting one for example and I got the original two jabs.

Not dead yet either.

You're welcome! 

I haven’t received any COVID jabs.

not dead yet either.

you’re welcome!

[BeachGuy23 642]

Just now, Baker Boy said:

I haven’t received any COVID jabs.

not dead yet either 

you’re welcome

Are there people ITT saying that if you didn't get the jab you'd be dead within a couple of years?

Cause reading this thread there are lots of folks saying we jabbies would start dropping dead like flies.