Originally Posted by ribka
what dodgy ivermectin studies?



So just so we all understand the original covid vax prevented you from contracting and spreading covid?


that is true according to you.


lol pathological liar





Originally Posted by DBT
Originally Posted by Hastings
Originally Posted by DBT
Originally Posted by Hastings
Originally Posted by Raeford
Originally Posted by DBT
Do you know how randomized, 'double blind' experiments work?

There lies your answer.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2801827

I'll use you lots words and be done.
"you believe what you wish as will I"

No ill will here etc
I'm out, have a good life!
JAMA did that study. They have proven to be not trustworthy. Big Pharma, WHO, CDC, FAUCI INC., WEF, BIDEN, U.S. Government likewise.

Figures lie when liars figure.


Being caught in a kind of Grand Conspiracy Mindset, you guys simply dismiss anything and everything that doesn't fit your mental image of the world.

You have it backwards; it is those who push Ivermectin against all evidence who engage dishonestly;


''The health authorities in the US, UK and EU have found there is insufficient evidence for using the drug against Covid, but thousands of supporters, many of them anti-vaccine activists, have continued to vigorously campaign for its use.

Campaigners for the drug point to a number of scientific studies and often claim this evidence is being ignored or covered up. But a review by a group of independent scientists has cast serious doubt on that body of research.

The BBC can reveal that more than a third of 26 major trials of the drug for use on Covid have serious errors or signs of potential fraud. None of the rest show convincing evidence of ivermectin's effectiveness.

Dr Kyle Sheldrick, one of the group investigating the studies, said they had not found "a single clinical trial" claiming to show that ivermectin prevented Covid deaths that did not contain "either obvious signs of fabrication or errors so critical they invalidate the study".

Major problems included:

The same patient data being used multiple times for supposedly different people
Evidence that selection of patients for test groups was not random
Numbers unlikely to occur naturally
Percentages calculated incorrectly
Local health bodies unaware of the studies
The scientists in the group - Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz, Dr James Heathers, Dr Nick Brown and Dr Sheldrick - each have a track record of exposing dodgy science. They've been working together remotely on an informal and voluntary basis during the pandemic.

They formed a group looking deeper into ivermectin studies after biomedical student Jack Lawrence spotted problems with an influential study from Egypt. Among other issues, it contained patients who turned out to have died before the trial started. It has now been retracted by the journal that published it.

The group of independent scientists examined virtually every randomised controlled trial (RCT) on ivermectin and Covid - in theory the highest quality evidence - including all the key studies regularly cited by the drug's promoters.

RCTs involve people being randomly chosen to receive either the drug which is being tested or a placebo - a dummy drug with no active properties.''


''Out of a total of 26 studies examined, there was evidence in five that the data may have been faked - for example they contained virtually impossible numbers or rows of identical patients copied and pasted.

In a further five there were major red flags - for example, numbers didn't add up, percentages were calculated incorrectly or local health bodies weren't aware they had taken place.

On top of these flawed trials, there were 14 authors of studies who failed to send data back. The independent scientists have flagged this as a possible indicator of fraud.

The sample of research papers examined by the independent group also contains some high-quality studies from around the world. But the major problems were all in the studies making big claims for ivermectin - in fact, the bigger the claim in terms of lives saved or infections prevented, the greater the concerns suggesting it might be faked or invalid, the researchers discovered.''

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-58170809


Well, I guess that settles it. None of the folks that compiled all that information had any reason to lie.

Or did they?

Remember, figures lie when liars figure.


The thing with science is that you can check the methodology and test the results. As the results show up in multiple randomized trials, the likelyhood of everyone lying is absurd.

You don't like the results, so dismiss the studies without consideration.

Just as you dismiss the fact that dodgy practices were uncovered in the Ivermectin studies.

Believe whatever you like, but don't pretend that you have evidence on your side.

Poor little Ribka - willfully dumb as fuck.


Originally Posted by mauserand9mm
Originally Posted by mauserand9mm
Originally Posted by Raspy
Whatever you said...everyone knows you are a lying jerk.

That's a bold assertion. Point out where you think I lied.

Well?