Page 19 | Why are all the Covid conspiracy theory’s coming true?

Chunkymenrock · 23/09/2021 07:29

Droite · 23/09/2021 09:07

Are you denying that the Covid patient on GMB just happened to be an actor with experience of playing a medical casualty on his CV?

Are actors with a medical casualty character on their CV immune from Covid, then?

riveted1 · 23/09/2021 09:19

@IncredulousOne you seem to ignoring the points in my post that the man is
a) a double amputee so high risk of COVID in the first place - seems like an odd choice of stooge when people can cry "but underlying condition!", and
b) still posting on SM about his long term lung damage from COVID

You think he's still being paid by the government to continue the charade?

riveted1 · 23/09/2021 09:21

@Suzi888

YANBU “Get vaccinated, so we can get back to normal”.

I’m still waiting…..

Apologies from the pandemic for not conforming to your schedule

Ylvamoon · 23/09/2021 09:29

My chip hasn't been activated.... can anyone help?

levaing this thread and enjoy my almost back to normal life

IncredulousOne · 23/09/2021 10:01

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

IncredulousOne · 23/09/2021 10:37

I'm genuinely confused as to why that last message was deleted...

NearlyAlwaysInsane · 23/09/2021 10:57

@IncredulousOne

I'm genuinely confused as to why that last message was deleted...

Erm, cos the conspiracy theories are coming true?

IncredulousOne · 23/09/2021 11:19

Well, it would be deeply ironic if the comment I made about "vaccine adverse reactions being swept under the carpet" ... was censored!

Geamhradh · 23/09/2021 11:36

@IncredulousOne

Well, it would be deeply ironic if the comment I made about "vaccine adverse reactions being swept under the carpet" ... was censored!

That was on another thread where you peddle your agenda wasn't it? You do seem to get deleted quite a lot though, don't you. It must be the pharmaceutical companies hacking HQ.

ollyollyoxenfree · 23/09/2021 12:24

@IncredulousOne

Well, it would be deeply ironic if the comment I made about "vaccine adverse reactions being swept under the carpet" ... was censored!

There's huge numbers of threads and comments about adverse reactions relating to the vaccines.

I'd suggest your posts are deleted because they're breaking the (pretty lax given what is allowed to stay up) guidelines on spreading nonsense and misinformation

ollyollyoxenfree · 23/09/2021 12:45

You also seem to have gone very quiet after I replied to your posts where you accused me of being a "dimwit" () and talking "horseshit" after I explained there is no rationale for giving people ivermectin to treat or prevent COVID @IncredulousOne

ollyollyoxenfree · 23/09/2021 12:48

As I said, there is currently no good evidence for prescribing this outside the setting of controlled clinical trials, where it can be evaluated. People who claim it's use is being blocked by scary big pharma seem to conveniently forget there are currently well-powered, well-designed trials currently underway designed to work out if it is effective. As the protocols have been pre-registered and published in the public domain, they will hopefully be robust to the issues impacting most of the ivermectin literature.

ElectricDeChocobo · 23/09/2021 12:53

@IncredulousOne

Well, it would be deeply ironic if the comment I made about "vaccine adverse reactions being swept under the carpet" ... was censored!

More like your repeated accusation that a real person is faking his illness.

ollyollyoxenfree · 23/09/2021 12:56

Yes - and a CV person at that.

IncredulousOne · 23/09/2021 13:11

@ollyollyoxenfree

You also seem to have gone very quiet after I replied to your posts where you accused me of being a "dimwit" (

) and talking "horseshit" after I explained there is no rationale for giving people ivermectin to treat or prevent COVID *@IncredulousOne*

We've done this on other threads - but since you've brought it up, I'll finish it off here. You said there was "no robust evidence for ivermectin".

I gave a link (ivmmeta.com/) to a metastudy of 64 independently peer-reviewed published papers - 53 of which showed a positive benefit. I pointed out that despite the fact you might not like what they said, independently peer-reviewed studies were robust evidence.

You highlighted that one of the papers has since been withdrawn, as if you somehow think that invalidates the entire meta-study. (The withdrawl of this paper is actually been addressed at the link I provided if you had bothered to look).

You also quoted the Cochrane study which didn't show a benefit.

Now, I could start pointing out flaws in the papers evaluated by the Cochrane study, but I don't need to because (as I pointed out in my original reply) just because you don't like the results of the 53 studies which did show a benefit doesn't make them invalid.

You could legitimately have claimed "the evidence for/against ivermectin is currently inconclusive" (which would have been a bit of a strecth, but within the bounds of fair comment which I would not have taken issue with), but in fact you said "there is no robust evidence for ivermectin". (A statement which was - and remains - horsesh!t)

ollyollyoxenfree · 23/09/2021 13:18

Nope I didn't mention the Cochrane review - that was another poster pointing out the issues in your post.

If you'd bothered to read my reply you'd see I already responded to your claims about the fraudulent ivemeta site. There are a huge amount of issues immediately obviously to anyone who works in this area. Happy to go into details (again) if you want me to.

The two large RCTs that were pushing effect estimates in a positive effect have been found to be fraudulent and have subsequently been retracted. Even before this, it was clear there were numerous issues with their methodology.

As I have said, there is no robust evidence for efficacy of ivermectin in treating COVID. You have still yet to provide anything that shows this isn't the case @IncredulousOne

ollyollyoxenfree · 23/09/2021 13:24

And I said before - I have explained on many threads why a specific study is low quality and therefore cannot be used to infer causality.

If you're happy to take the 3 hours necessary to read a paper rather than just copying and pasting excerpts from the misinformation groups like FLCCC/BIRD/AFD who are pushing it, I'd have a little more respect for your posts.

This involves checking it's methods, assessing for ROB and doing basic checks like making sure the numbers in tables add up (something that many of these studies seem to have issues with ). If you actually take the time to do this and want to discuss a specific study, I'd be happy to discuss.

IncredulousOne · 23/09/2021 13:49

@ollyollyoxenfree

And I said before - I have explained on many threads why a specific study is low quality and therefore cannot be used to infer causality.

If you're happy to take the 3 hours necessary to read a paper rather than just copying and pasting excerpts from the misinformation groups like FLCCC/BIRD/AFD who are pushing it, I'd have a little more respect for your posts.

This involves checking it's methods, assessing for ROB and doing basic checks like making sure the numbers in tables add up (something that many of these studies seem to have issues with ). If you actually take the time to do this and want to discuss a specific study, I'd be happy to discuss.

Yes, that is a single study, whose withdrawl has been well publicised. The meta-analysis I referenced has addressed the withdrawl of this study. There are 52 other studies

When we're discussing peer-reviewed papers published in scientific literature, these published papers have already been peer reviewed (i.e. by experts in the field). So it's really down to you to have to prove why you think not only the authors but also the peer-reviewers are wrong.

Once you've done that, we can have a discussion.

andyoldlabour · 23/09/2021 14:05

Ivermectin poisoning.

www.irishtimes.com/news/health/one-person-hospitalised-after-taking-ivermectin-for-covid-19-in-ireland-1.4680059

ollyollyoxenfree · 23/09/2021 14:10

Yes, that is a single study, whose withdrawl has been well publicised. The meta-analysis I referenced has addressed the withdrawl of this study. There are 52 other studiesWhen we're discussing peer-reviewed papers published in scientific literature, these published papers have already been peer reviewed (i.e. by experts in the field). So it's really down to you to have to prove why you think not only the authors but also the peer-reviewers are wrong.Once you've done that, we can have a discussion.

You just don't get it do you @IncredulousOne?

To start with - you're not referencing a meta-analysis (we can come onto that), you're referencing the nonsense website ivnmeta. As I have explained repeatedly, there are huge issues with this website which are immediately obvious to anyone who works in the area.

Not least is that the author has cherry picked any outcome from all published studies (often repeating outcomes from a single study) that are positive, ignoring any null outcomes. This is immediately obvious when you construct a funnel plot.

I'm afraid you don't understand that a website which - on the surface looks slick - is fraught with issues designed to trick susceptible people like yourself.

This ignores the fact the most of the included studies are rife with issues. As I have repeatedly typed - pick any study - actually take the three hours necessary to read it and we can discuss the issues.

knittingaddict · 23/09/2021 14:12

They probably aren't the only one andyoldlabour.

It's amazing to me that the same people who refuse to have a vaccine, which is very safe, would take an untried and potentially dangerous drug which hasn't yet been shown to do anything to prevent or cure covid. The logic totally escapes me. Can someone tell me why?

ollyollyoxenfree · 23/09/2021 14:17

@knittingaddict

They probably aren't the only one andyoldlabour.

It's amazing to me that the same people who refuse to have a vaccine, which is very safe, would take an untried and potentially dangerous drug which hasn't yet been shown to do anything to prevent or cure covid. The logic totally escapes me. Can someone tell me why?

Slick and targeted campaigns by anti-vaxxer groups like America's Frontline Doctors, FLCCC and BIRD.

I can understand how someone could get sucked into it as these people are very good at what they do and know how to package psuedoscience as something looking like fact.

MissConductUS · 23/09/2021 14:21

@Chunkymenrock

Why are all these people using an apostrophe for plurals?

It's a neurological side effect of the vaccine.

MissConductUS · 23/09/2021 14:29

I had my Pfizer booster jab on Tuesday and expect a complete loss of my punctuation skills at any moment.