Just now, JohnSnowsHair said:

Florida, because its governor is a moron, had its highest wave of deaths late summer of this year.

You, because you're such a genius, ignore the fact that for most of the year, Florida had a much lower death rate than those geniuses running places like New York, Philadelphia, Michigan, California.  But I guess moronic people gravitate to morons.  That's why the geniuses are staying put in those states, but Florida has a growth rate higher than any state in the nation - because morons are flocking there.

Yah, really moronic to promote free choice and less government control.  After all, we can trust government reps to properly regulate us.  That moron De Santis, a decorated armed forces veteran and Harvard Law grad, whose popularity is through the roof, knows much less than you because, well, he's a moron.  You are the genius.

Just now, Procus said:

You, because you're such a genius, ignore the fact that for most of the year, Florida had a much lower death rate than those geniuses running places like New York, Philadelphia, Michigan, California.  But I guess moronic people gravitate to morons.  That's why the geniuses are staying put in those states, but Florida has a growth rate higher than any state in the nation - because morons are flocking there.

Yah, really moronic to promote free choice and less government control.  After all, we can trust government reps to properly regulate us.  That moron De Santis, a decorated armed forces veteran and Harvard Law grad, whose popularity is through the roof, knows much less than you because, well, he's a moron.  You are the genius.

What, are you Desantis' power bottom or something?

2 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

What, are you Desantis' power bottom or something?

More like De Santis has allowed me to live in freedom, and not cower in fear like the rest of you people.  And I'm doing just fine, thank you.

Just now, Procus said:

More like De Santis has allowed me to live in freedom, and not cower in fear like the rest of you people.  And I'm doing just fine, thank you.

Oh, so you're in an open relationship then? Very modern family of you.

10 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

It's not a meme. It's facts in graph form.

Florida, because its governor is a moron, had its highest wave of deaths late summer of this year.

Omicron may end up ending this pandemic by handing us off to an endemic phase that has a manageable illness. But that doesn't change the fact that right wing idiots whose hubris vastly exceeds their intellect killed thousands of Americans needlessly through reckless policies.

Democrats were almost certainly cautious to a fault in many cases. Republicans on the other hand seemed committed to commanding the tides to recede "cuz 'merica and freedumbs". 

This dude literally pretends to be a moderate and I'm here for it.   

1 minute ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

Oh, so you're in an open relationship then? Very modern family of you.

That's your best retort John?

1 minute ago, Kz! said:

This dude literally pretends to be a moderate and I'm here for it.   

What kills me is that he completely ignores the ishshow in places like NY, California, and of course, Philly, among other blue states and cities

After a year of abject failure in combating the virus, Biden says, that's it, we're done, but yeah, it's all the "right wing's" fault.  

32 minutes ago, Toastrel said:

What country do you want the US to be like? India? Egypt?

I want positive outcomes for sick people without regard to politics or corporate greed. 

20 hours ago, DEagle7 said:

Such nonsense. I was trained by the Illuminati thank you very much. Although I did do a brief fellowship with the church of Satan in my 4th year. 

The point I was trying to make is those doctors are controlled by Big Pharma, doctors do what they say, they're told what treatments they can apply and what treatments they can't apply, they do what they're told or risk losing their licenses to practice and/or jailtime.  

1 hour ago, Kz! said:

Phillyterp: "I'm going to just ignore the part of the researchers conclusion I don't like."

 

I didn’t ignore anything.  I posted every statistical conclusion from their study.  Literally EVERY single hypothesis they tested failed.  THAT’S what their study shows.  

Oh man, the brain trust of Kz, Procus, and EagleVA.. I am not high enough for this to be as entertaining as it COULD be, better work on that...

1 hour ago, Abracadabra said:

O.k., let us assume this study is questionable, at best. Do we need Ivermectin batting 1.000 in order to give it approval? 

I think there's over 20 nations which have approved Ivermectin for treating Covid. 

I didn't say the study is questionable.  The study is what it is.  The study shows that there was no statistically significant difference in outcomes when treating patients with Ivermectin.  So that's now five studies we have looked at in this thread that show Ivermectin doesn't provide an improved outcome over a placebo or Standard of Care. 

No, obviously Ivermectin doesn't need to be batting 1.000 in order for it to be used.  But if it's actually effective, one would expect that the MAJORITY of the time, it proves to be under a clinical trial setting when compared to placebo or standard of care.  So start posting studies that show that it's effective as compared to placebo or standard of care.   I've already posted 5 which show that it's not. 

So in the UK our numbers are now being slightly twisted in terms of hospitalisations.

3 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

I didn't say the study is questionable.  The study is what it is.  The study shows that there was no statistically significant difference in outcomes when treating patients with Ivermectin.  So that's now five studies we have looked at in this thread that show Ivermectin doesn't provide an improved outcome over a placebo or Standard of Care. 

No, obviously Ivermectin doesn't need to be batting 1.000 in order for it to be used.  But if it's actually effective, one would expect that the MAJORITY of the time, it proves to be under a clinical trial setting when compared to placebo or standard of care. 

That study compared two different treatments. It does not conclude Ivermectin is ineffective, only not more effective than the other.

Besides, my point is that there are positive studies supporting the use of Ivermectin, at least for emergency use. It's clear that it would do no more harm than the current options. 

 

42 minutes ago, EagleVA said:

The point I was trying to make is those doctors are controlled by Big Pharma, doctors do what they say, they're told what treatments they can apply and what treatments they can't apply, they do what they're told or risk losing their licenses to practice and/or jailtime.  

I can assure you I wouldn't get jail time for giving ivermectin to a patient. I'd lose the respect of all my colleagues, my wife and anyone I remotely respect professionally, but no jail time.

1 hour ago, Toastrel said:

Pentagon goes on offense vs GOP on vaccine mandates

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/587414-pentagon-goes-on-offense-vs-gop-on-vaccine-mandates

 

My guess is the anti-vax snowflakes would rather send the military to fight and have COVID sweep through the ranks.

If anything its you vaxers that are the Fing snowflakes. You all should have just stayed the F home for all of the whining and crying you do.

48 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

I didn't say the study is questionable.  The study is what it is.  The study shows that there was no statistically significant difference in outcomes when treating patients with Ivermectin.  So that's now five studies we have looked at in this thread that show Ivermectin doesn't provide an improved outcome over a placebo or Standard of Care. 

No, obviously Ivermectin doesn't need to be batting 1.000 in order for it to be used.  But if it's actually effective, one would expect that the MAJORITY of the time, it proves to be under a clinical trial setting when compared to placebo or standard of care.  So start posting studies that show that it's effective as compared to placebo or standard of care.   I've already posted 5 which show that it's not. 

There are several physicians, including one Ivy League trained physician, who have prescribed Ivermectin down here with positive outcomes.  Is it a placebo effect?  I don't know.  But the results were successful.

37 minutes ago, Abracadabra said:

That study compared two different treatments. It does not conclude Ivermectin is ineffective, only not more effective than the other.

Besides, my point is that there are positive studies supporting the use of Ivermectin, at least for emergency use. It's clear that it would do no more harm than the current options. 

 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34318930/

Quote

Main results: We found 14 studies with 1678 participants investigating ivermectin compared to no treatment, placebo, or standard of care. No study compared ivermectin to an intervention with proven efficacy. There were nine studies treating participants with moderate COVID-19 in inpatient settings and four treating mild COVID-19 cases in outpatient settings. One study investigated ivermectin for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Eight studies had an open-label design, six were double-blind and placebo-controlled. Of the 41 study results contributed by included studies, about one third were at overall high risk of bias.

Quote

Authors' conclusions: Based on the current very low- to low-certainty evidence, we are uncertain about the efficacy and safety of ivermectin used to treat or prevent COVID-19. The completed studies are small and few are considered high quality. Several studies are underway that may produce clearer answers in review updates. Overall, the reliable evidence available does not support the use ivermectin for treatment or prevention of COVID-19 outside of well-designed randomized trials.

 

6 hours ago, Dave Moss said:

Talk to a pediatrician.  They’ll tell you to get your kid vaccinated.  Have a nice day, guy.

No thanks. 

2 minutes ago, Procus said:

There are several physicians, including one Ivy League trained physician, who have prescribed Ivermectin down here with positive outcomes.  Is it a placebo effect?  I don't know.  But the results were successful.

If they were efficacious the results wouldn't be difficult to replicate in controlled studies. But they haven't been. 

23 minutes ago, lynched1 said:

If anything its you vaxers that are the Fing snowflakes. You all should have just stayed the F home for all of the whining and crying you do.

Says the drunk driving puss bag who is whining about the military needing to get shots.

This is you, tiny puss.

5 minutes ago, Procus said:

There are several physicians, including one Ivy League trained physician, who have prescribed Ivermectin down here with positive outcomes.  Is it a placebo effect?  I don't know.  But the results were successful.

That's great.  And so far we have looked at 5 studies in this thread that have shown Ivermectin makes no difference in patient outcomes.   In other words, the physicians you know could have prescribed that their patients drink a glass of apple juice every morning as the "treatment" and had the same "success". 

43 minutes ago, Abracadabra said:

That study compared two different treatments. It does not conclude Ivermectin is ineffective, only not more effective than the other.

Besides, my point is that there are positive studies supporting the use of Ivermectin, at least for emergency use. It's clear that it would do no more harm than the current options. 

 

In any clinical trial with a control group to test the efficacy of a drug, the control group is always given either a placebo or given the standard of care.  And that's what you are comparing to.  In this study, they chose the standard of care, which in India is HCQ + AZ.    We already have mountains of evidence that show HCQ provides no benefit as compared to placebos in treating COVID.     So yes, in effect they were comparing Ivermectin to a placebo pill.  And they found that there was no statistical significant difference in outcomes.  

"Besides, my point is that there are positive studies supporting the use of Ivermectin,"

So then post them.  Just like you asked of me when I said there were multiple studies that show it provides no benefit.  

1 hour ago, UK_EaglesFan89 said:

So in the UK our numbers are now being slightly twisted in terms of hospitalisations.

Explain

10 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

That's great.  And so far we have looked at 5 studies in this thread that have shown Ivermectin makes no difference in patient outcomes.   In other words, the physicians you know could have prescribed that their patients drink a glass of apple juice every morning as the "treatment" and had the same "success". 

Or not.  Let me ask you this, was Ivermectin administered as PART of a protocol in those studies, just standalone, or do you know?