Three Berries
Active member
Some people get well from Covid with it though along with HCQ and Zinc. Sometimes an antibiotic depending on severity..
-
ICMag and The Vault are running a NEW contest in October! You can check it here. Prizes are seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!
howmany people here dont trust the vaccine or covid
- Thread starter Bio boy
- Start date
Some people get well from Covid with it though along with HCQ and Zinc. Sometimes an antibiotic depending on severity..
Three Berries
Active member
I wonder where Pfizer makes their ivermectin?
Please do me a favor and post one.
I've only got google over here, and therefore, can't find anything conclusive.
A study proving ivermectin cures covid.
Thank you
Both so-called new medicines from Pfizer and Merck are 20 years old.Old molecules in a new jacket.
Three Berries
Active member
Using the built in Brave search engine here is the second hit for a search of Ivermectin and Covid.
https://c19ivermectin.com/
https://search.brave.com/search?q=ivermectin+and+covid&source=desktop
Pretty picture. Don’t mean shit though.
Three Berries
Active member
Sorry I read the article too.
Any supporting facts? Reviewed sources? Or was it just another article with no creditable sources?
Three Berries
Active member
WTF do you want? It's good enough for me. If you don't like it then specifically disprove the information instead of attacking the source and poster and let the world know. There are many other sources of information than what the MSM or google will give you. I suggest Telegram as a mostly uncensored source.
But if you only want censored news then you already have it all.
according to Retraction Watch, as many as 200 Covid-19 papers have been retracted since the start of the pandemic for a range of reasons: elementary calculation errors, researchers refusing to provide evidence that the studies were really conducted, or conclusions that aren’t supported by the data.
The problem is especially acute when it comes to studies looking into treatments for Covid-19. Early papers claiming to find stunning results for drug regimens like ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine earned tremendous attention and influence, only to later be retracted, often because substantial evidence suggested that the studies never actually happened or at least never happened as described.
One ivermectin study included in an influential meta-analysis that found great results for the drug turned out to be based on a data file where the same 11 patients were copied and pasted repeatedly to produce a more robust sample size of a few hundred. When BuzzFeed News followed up on another ivermectin study with huge results, a hospital where the research had reportedly been conducted said it had no record of such a study happening there.
As I wrote for Vox in September, the evidence for ivermectin is mixed and limited. Most careful analyses suggest it might have an effect but also that we don’t know enough to say for sure — certainly not enough to hail it as a miracle cure, as many have. Part of the reason the treatment rose to prominence is that early, high-profile studies of ivermectin showed positive results, sometimes huge ones. When other researchers peered under the hood, however, they realized those findings didn’t hold up or had no basis to begin with. But by then it was too late — for some, ivermectin had become an article of faith.
Jack Lawrence, a grad student in biomedical science at the University of London, kicked off a broad investigation into ivermectin research fraud when he got an assignment to look at a widely cited ivermectin study. That study, by professor of medicine Ahmed Elgazzar and others at Benha University in Egypt, found huge benefits for Covid-19 patients taking ivermectin.
Lawrence noticed something wrong immediately: The introduction was plagiarized from other papers. He then notified a colleague, Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz, an epidemiologist at the University of Wollongong in Australia. “Jack Lawrence emailed me about the Elgazzar study and said, ‘I know you think it’s low quality but are you aware that most of it’s plagiarized?’” Meyerowitz-Katz recalled. “And that started this whole thing.”
Data forensics experts found other problems with the Elgazzar paper: patients who died before the study started and yet were counted as enrolled; patient records duplicated; numbers that were too suspiciously clean to have occurred by chance.
The same group of researchers has also raised serious questions about a large randomized controlled trial in Iran that found positive results for ivermectin.
The problem? The data is “not consistent with a genuine randomised controlled trial,” Sheldrick argued in a detailed blog post laying out some of the suspicious inconsistencies. “This paper claims to describe a trial in which patients were randomly allocated to treatments. This is not true. Extreme differences are seen between groups across multiple variables such as oxygen level, blood pressure, and SARS-CoV-2 test results before they even got their first dose of medication.”
One simple but effective test for data fabrication is whether numbers have a typical distribution of “trailing digits” — for example, whether they end in “1” about as often as they end in “0.” Humans, when making up numbers, tend to cluster around certain end digits. The randomized control trial from Iran fails this test, with very pronounced digit clustering to a degree that can’t have occurred by chance, according to Sheldrick.
The problem is especially acute when it comes to studies looking into treatments for Covid-19. Early papers claiming to find stunning results for drug regimens like ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine earned tremendous attention and influence, only to later be retracted, often because substantial evidence suggested that the studies never actually happened or at least never happened as described.
One ivermectin study included in an influential meta-analysis that found great results for the drug turned out to be based on a data file where the same 11 patients were copied and pasted repeatedly to produce a more robust sample size of a few hundred. When BuzzFeed News followed up on another ivermectin study with huge results, a hospital where the research had reportedly been conducted said it had no record of such a study happening there.
As I wrote for Vox in September, the evidence for ivermectin is mixed and limited. Most careful analyses suggest it might have an effect but also that we don’t know enough to say for sure — certainly not enough to hail it as a miracle cure, as many have. Part of the reason the treatment rose to prominence is that early, high-profile studies of ivermectin showed positive results, sometimes huge ones. When other researchers peered under the hood, however, they realized those findings didn’t hold up or had no basis to begin with. But by then it was too late — for some, ivermectin had become an article of faith.
Jack Lawrence, a grad student in biomedical science at the University of London, kicked off a broad investigation into ivermectin research fraud when he got an assignment to look at a widely cited ivermectin study. That study, by professor of medicine Ahmed Elgazzar and others at Benha University in Egypt, found huge benefits for Covid-19 patients taking ivermectin.
Lawrence noticed something wrong immediately: The introduction was plagiarized from other papers. He then notified a colleague, Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz, an epidemiologist at the University of Wollongong in Australia. “Jack Lawrence emailed me about the Elgazzar study and said, ‘I know you think it’s low quality but are you aware that most of it’s plagiarized?’” Meyerowitz-Katz recalled. “And that started this whole thing.”
Data forensics experts found other problems with the Elgazzar paper: patients who died before the study started and yet were counted as enrolled; patient records duplicated; numbers that were too suspiciously clean to have occurred by chance.
The same group of researchers has also raised serious questions about a large randomized controlled trial in Iran that found positive results for ivermectin.
The problem? The data is “not consistent with a genuine randomised controlled trial,” Sheldrick argued in a detailed blog post laying out some of the suspicious inconsistencies. “This paper claims to describe a trial in which patients were randomly allocated to treatments. This is not true. Extreme differences are seen between groups across multiple variables such as oxygen level, blood pressure, and SARS-CoV-2 test results before they even got their first dose of medication.”
One simple but effective test for data fabrication is whether numbers have a typical distribution of “trailing digits” — for example, whether they end in “1” about as often as they end in “0.” Humans, when making up numbers, tend to cluster around certain end digits. The randomized control trial from Iran fails this test, with very pronounced digit clustering to a degree that can’t have occurred by chance, according to Sheldrick.
Switcher56
Comfortably numb!
sex and travel!
Same old can’t back up you’re shit and want me to argument. Back up what you present as the truth. You can’t. And you know you can’t.
Tippy jackson
New member
More people dropping dead from fentanyl in the states then anything else they can muster!
more people becoming homeless from weather warfare weapons used globally!
Better put on your seatbelt!
more people becoming homeless from weather warfare weapons used globally!
Better put on your seatbelt!
I think the term "fucked" is gonna be replaced by the term "spiked". The fools who let foochie and gates jab them, have been "spiked".
Good luck. Now go get your semi-annual booster spike.
Good luck. Now go get your semi-annual booster spike.
Three Berries
Active member
Dr Fraudci has always been in research, never a hands on medical practice.
Last edited:
Three Berries
Active member
There is plenty of supporting facts in that article.
not safe at all. i tore down about thirty yards of chain link fence like that many years ago...
Prove it.
interesting how when flu mutates every year "they" reformulate the flu jab. now that it has been "proven" that all virus variants can be handled by just another booster of the two year old jab, well that will save a lot of time and money if they do that for the flu going forward, eh?
