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

[sunnnysideup]

Honest question?

^"And with this, you've just demonstrated you don't understand the basis of evidence based medicine or statistics.

Doing 100s of tests, picking out the results that show a positive effect and combining them into one bizarre model, and ignoring the ones that don't is not robust evidence synthesis. I have explained this above in a huge amount of detail.

Incidentally, the null outcomes were things like viral load, fever, cough and some others, which IVNMETA carefully ignored despite the fact that they are clearly clinically relevant. The positive finding (which given the amount of tests, is likely to be spurious), was nausea."^

No, you've demonstrated that you don't understand the use of the English language. You said (in the context of a non-scientific informal discussion on a forum) there is "no robust evidence for ivermectin".

As I have repeatedly stated, I wouldn't have a problem if you had given the opinion that "an epidemiological analysis of the data does not currently give a robust conclusion that Ivermectin is beneficial" but you didn't say that. You said there is "no robust evidence for ivermectin".

There is plenty of good quality evidence that ivermectin has some positive benefit (including in the study that you quoted as showing null results).

You can backtrack all you like by claiming that you really meant by your throwaway generalisation was that the body of evidence as a whole didn't meet a set of epidemiological criteria (that you have not defined).

@ollyollyoxenfree

I also find it pretty telling that people like yourself, who are so convinced ivermectin is an effective treatment and is being deliberately supressed by some unknown body, are unable to give an explanation as to why this is the case *@IncredulousOne*

Good point. Dexamethasone is a med that's been around for ages and is now widely used to treat covid because there's good data showing it improves outcomes.

@IncredulousOne

There is no robust evidence for the use of ivermectin in treating ivermectin. You have failed again and again to demonstrate that this is untrue.

I haven't linked any studies that show positive findings saying they're null, so not sure what you're on about there.

dear lord I've repeated myself so many times to someone who just does not get it I've gone mad

there is no robust evidence for the use of ivermectin in treating COVID

I have explained many many many times why this is the case, I've carefully critiqued individual papers you keep copying and pasting (despite the fact you clearly haven't read/understood them), and explained the issues with various pseudo-science sources you link to the thread. I've explained the issues with meta-analysis, and how this can be limited, and what happens when the current body of work is robustly meta-analysed.

I think it's very obvious a dead end has been hit

@ollyollyoxenfree

These findings can be contrasted against two of the large RCTs findings null effects of ivermectin. For example- the Together trial:

jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2777389

Evidence was found for a protective effect of fluvoxamine which is excellent news, not sure why the anti-vax crowd have no interest in this. It truly is a bizarre state of affairs.

You referenced the Together trial as an example of null findings (see quote above). If you read the link, you will see that Ivermectin was shown to reduce time to clearance (10 days Vs 12 days) and that a higher % were clear of the virus by 21 days.

That is evidence of a positive effect of Ivermectin.

I really don't get why you can't just admit that your sweeping generalisation was inaccurate and be done with it.

I guess it just seems to be a standard debating tactic of yours as I've seen it from you before. You throw out inaccurate statements like they're facts, and then when you're challenged about it you try to change the meaning of what you actually said.

Honestly, I despair....

You referenced the Together trial as an example of null findings (see quote above). If you read the link, you will see that Ivermectin was shown to reduce time to clearance (10 days Vs 12 days) and that a higher % were clear of the virus by 21 days.

That is evidence of a positive effect of Ivermectin.

I genuinely find it shocking that you with no stats knowledge, after glancing at a manuscript for 5 minutes, are going against the conclusions drawn by the team of statisticians and epidemiologists who designed, ran, and analysed the results of the trial.

Among adults with mild COVID-19, a 5-day course of ivermectin, compared with placebo, did not significantly improve the time to resolution of symptoms. The findings do not support the use of ivermectin for treatment of mild COVID-19

You're also, again, revealing your lack of basic understanding of epidemiological design and statistics here. I suggest you take the 3 hours necessary to read the manuscript (and maybe so some extra reading) before deciding you disagree with the authors. Just because a number is lower than another this does not provide evidence against the null hypothesis (ie no effect of ivermectin).

@IncredulousOne

I guess it just seems to be a standard debating tactic of yours as I've seen it from you before. You throw out inaccurate statements like they're facts, and then when you're challenged about it you try to change the meaning of what you actually said.

Honestly, I despair....

As I said then, I'm saying now. There is no robust evidence to show efficacy of ivermectin in treating (or preventing) COVID.

There is nothing inaccurate about this statement, as I've explained to death, and it's a statement I've maintained since the beginning of this thread so no changing meaning either.

With each further post you make, it's becoming more and more obvious you don't understand the things you're linking to, which probably explains your confusion on this.

@ollyollyoxenfree

I also find it pretty telling that people like yourself, who are so convinced ivermectin is an effective treatment and is being deliberately supressed by some unknown body, are unable to give an explanation as to why this is the case *@IncredulousOne*

you also seem to be avoiding answering this ^

@ollyollyoxenfree

You referenced the Together trial as an example of null findings (see quote above). If you read the link, you will see that Ivermectin was shown to reduce time to clearance (10 days Vs 12 days) and that a higher % were clear of the virus by 21 days.

That is evidence of a positive effect of Ivermectin.

I genuinely find it shocking that you with no stats knowledge, after glancing at a manuscript for 5 minutes, are going against the conclusions drawn by the team of statisticians and epidemiologists who designed, ran, and analysed the results of the trial.

Among adults with mild COVID-19, a 5-day course of ivermectin, compared with placebo, did not significantly improve the time to resolution of symptoms. The findings do not support the use of ivermectin for treatment of mild COVID-19

You're also, again, revealing your lack of basic understanding of epidemiological design and statistics here. I suggest you take the 3 hours necessary to read the manuscript (and maybe so some extra reading) before deciding you disagree with the authors. Just because a number is lower than another this does not provide evidence against the null hypothesis (ie no effect of ivermectin).

So, despite showing that the Ivermectin group showed better outcomes, this proves the null hypothesis.

I also notice that you've failed to mention that this study (that you've selected as a paragon of high quality research demonstrating the null hypothesis) was so well conducted that for a period during the study they accidentally gave the Ivermectin to the placebo group?

It's right there in the paper.

And yet you hold this up as a shining example that demonstrates the null hypothesis.

Please excuse me if I continue to treat everything you say as horsesh!t

So, despite showing that the Ivermectin group showed better outcomes, this proves the null hypothesis.

This isn't what the paper shows. I don't think it's possible to debate with you when you're not able to understand this.

As I said, you're disagreeing with the statisticians who designed, ran and analysed the findings based on your misunderstanding that one number is lower than another.

And yet you hold this up as a shining example that demonstrates the null hypothesis.

never said that - you said it's a paper that shows a positive effect of ivermectin. I'm explaining, as the authors have done, that it does not.

I also notice that you've failed to mention that this study (that you've selected as a paragon of high quality research demonstrating the null hypothesis) was so well conducted that for a period during the study they accidentally gave the Ivermectin to the placebo group? It's right there in the paper.

I see someone's done a quick search on the pro-ivermectin misinformation groups.

The authors transparently explain this error and how it was dealt with in the methods section. These patients were excluded from the main analyses and replaced with new participants. Based on how they amended the analysis plan, you would not expect it to impact on the findings.

You may use big words @aboverubies7 but it’s such a shame you can’t put your brain to better use.

Show me where it says more people have died of having a covid vaccine than having COVID itself.

How would you even sensibly begin to correlate death being the cause of a covid vaccine?

@Staryflight445

You may use big words *@aboverubies7* but it’s such a shame you can’t put your brain to better use.

Show me where it says more people have died of having a covid vaccine than having COVID itself.

How would you even sensibly begin to correlate death being the cause of a covid vaccine?

There was a (promptly retracted) paper put out by an anti-vaxxer, published in a predatory journal, that made this claim using invalid methods. Unsurprisingly he's had several papers retracted - another was claiming that masks cause CO2 poisoning

The fact that it was retracted and numerous experts have explained the issues with methodology doesn't stop posters from repeating the misinformation though.

I'm not sure what the rationale would be in continuing to roll out a vaccine if it had been proven to kill more people than it saves though, would love to hear the reasons governments over the world would want to do this.

It’s nonsensical isn’t it. Can you imagine how exhausting it must be to be so paranoid about literally everything.
Goodness me.

@ollyollyoxenfree I just wanted to say thank you for your tireless and helpful responses here. In the face of persistent misinformation and argument you just keep patiently throwing out actual facts. I'm not a scientist, so I appreciate your explanations, which make a whole lot more sense than those arguing against you. Thanks for trying!

[quote Madhairday]@ollyollyoxenfree I just wanted to say thank you for your tireless and helpful responses here. In the face of persistent misinformation and argument you just keep patiently throwing out actual facts. I'm not a scientist, so I appreciate your explanations, which make a whole lot more sense than those arguing against you. Thanks for trying![/quote]
Seconded.

[quote Madhairday]@ollyollyoxenfree I just wanted to say thank you for your tireless and helpful responses here. In the face of persistent misinformation and argument you just keep patiently throwing out actual facts. I'm not a scientist, so I appreciate your explanations, which make a whole lot more sense than those arguing against you. Thanks for trying![/quote]
Third from me
Thanks

ollyollyoxenfree: Here's what you said when you linked to the paper with the flawed methodology, presenting it as demonstrating a null effect:

These findings can be contrasted against two of the large RCTs findings null effects of ivermectin. For example- the Together trial:

jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2777389

You just happened to neglect to mention the fact that they'd conducted this work soooo carefully that they gave Ivermectin to the placebo group. It seems ironic that in picking a paper to rebut papers which you criticise as flawed, you pick a paper which itself has an egregious flaw in its experimental execution.

When this flaw is highlighted to you, you claim:

"The authors transparently explain this error and how it was dealt with in the methods section. These patients were excluded from the main analyses and replaced with new participants. Based on how they amended the analysis plan, you would not expect it to impact on the findings"

To give them their due, they are upfront about having screwed up their trial. Their mitigation is the best they can do under the circumstances.

However, I don't know why you are claiming they were replaced with new participants? The flowchart in figure 1 of the paper clearly shows that they were not replaced.

So it is now plain for all to see that your careful analysis of this paper (that you wheeled out to allegedly demonstrate a null effect), is in fact horsesh!t.

Why pick this paper? Could you not find a paper without egregious flaws that did demonstrate your point? Or are you just be making stuff up on the hoof...

[quote AlixandraTheGreat]@aboverubies7

Have you read about the side effects of hydroxychloroquine? Just wondering.[/quote]
oh you mean the side effects that they propagated to denounce alternative treatments and discredit Trump's advocacy of it?

I have already discussed manipulated trial data, which is extremely common. Pfizer is spearheading this grift, and they are renowned as "habitual offenders" of unscrupulous lobbying, bribing physicians and quashing unfavourable trial results.

I have also mentioned that they intentionally failed to conduct
tests on HCQ and IVM and supplement it with vital concomitant drugs like zinc, doxycycline, azithromycin so they can plaster headlines disparaging it & thrust the jab in your face as the only solution

Seems that was far too spicy for the puppets sat on here, spouting their sanctioned talking points

@aboverubies7

AlixandraTheGreat
@aboverubies7

Have you read about the side effects of hydroxychloroquine? Just wondering.*
oh you mean the side effects that they propagated to denounce alternative treatments and discredit Trump's advocacy of it?

I have already discussed manipulated trial data, which is extremely common. Pfizer is spearheading this grift, and they are renowned as "habitual offenders" of unscrupulous lobbying, bribing physicians and quashing unfavourable trial results.

I have also mentioned that they intentionally failed to conduct
tests on HCQ and IVM and supplement it with vital concomitant drugs like zinc, doxycycline, azithromycin so they can plaster headlines disparaging it & thrust the jab in your face as the only solution

Seems that was far too spicy for the puppets sat on here, spouting their sanctioned talking points*

? Hydroxychloroquine has been used as a medicine for a long time - "they" didn't just make up side-effects to discredit Trump and alternative treatments in general. It's used for malaria (critical there), lupus, and rheumatoid arthritis, among other diseases. The side-effects of hydroxychloroquine are well-established.

I was more curious to know if you had researched this, given you seem so concerned about side-effects and Big Pharma?

@Finknottlesnewt

FACT CHECK.

Office of national statistics.

Number of deaths from Covid between Jan -July 21 of those not vaccinated. 38, 964.

Number of deaths from Covid from those who had had 2 doses. 458

Sunnysideup you are talking bollox. Sorry if that is blunt but the figures speak for themselves.

hahahah the clownery is staggering

Some of you were gleefully sharing the ONS stats.

"Deaths involving COVID-19"

Peculiar.

Show me where it delineates the deaths that were OF the virus and those WITH virus

An unvaccinated decedent killed by a car, suspected of being covid positive, would still be put down as a death & weaponised by the vaxxer cult

"Look, the unvaccinated are dying!"

Of what? No sensible person should presume that COVID took their life

these numbers are predicated on faulty mortality coding guidelines:

U07.1: covid positive but they neglect to factor in other co-morbidities, most deaths are attributed to an average of 3. Any mention of the virus on the certificate, they automatically rule it a covid death

U07.2: no diagnosis but certifying doctor "suspects" death is linked to covid

these numbers deserve scrutiny but many are in desperate need of vindication these days

Looking at this data, couldn't one infer that the deaths of 14, 265 people within 3 weeks of getting the 1st dose and the deaths of 11, 470 within 3 weeks of the 2nd dose were due to adverse vaccine reactions?

[quote Madhairday]@ollyollyoxenfree I just wanted to say thank you for your tireless and helpful responses here. In the face of persistent misinformation and argument you just keep patiently throwing out actual facts. I'm not a scientist, so I appreciate your explanations, which make a whole lot more sense than those arguing against you. Thanks for trying![/quote]
And a fourth.

[quote AlixandraTheGreat]**@aboverubies7

AlixandraTheGreat
@aboverubies7

Have you read about the side effects of hydroxychloroquine? Just wondering.*
oh you mean the side effects that they propagated to denounce alternative treatments and discredit Trump's advocacy of it?

I have already discussed manipulated trial data, which is extremely common. Pfizer is spearheading this grift, and they are renowned as "habitual offenders" of unscrupulous lobbying, bribing physicians and quashing unfavourable trial results.

I have also mentioned that they intentionally failed to conduct
tests on HCQ and IVM and supplement it with vital concomitant drugs like zinc, doxycycline, azithromycin so they can plaster headlines disparaging it & thrust the jab in your face as the only solution

Seems that was far too spicy for the puppets sat on here, spouting their sanctioned talking points*

? Hydroxychloroquine has been used as a medicine for a long time - "they" didn't just make up side-effects to discredit Trump and alternative treatments in general. It's used for malaria (critical there), lupus, and rheumatoid arthritis, among other diseases. The side-effects of hydroxychloroquine are well-established.

I was more curious to know if you had researched this, given you seem so concerned about side-effects and Big Pharma?[/quote]
When Trump hinted at distributing HCQ, they gave platforms to any jack or jill who would admonish him. The press amplified every piece of information to discredit the drug too and subsequently, bogus studies were released

www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2820%2931180-6/fulltext

then they had to eat their words. quiet retractions but the damage had already done.

We can go back and forth about side effects if you wish but I'm wondering what research you have undertaken to explore why Trump's advocacy for HCQ was derided when there is long-standing evidence that it can be effective?

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16115318/