How awful was Ivermectin?

It does. I have posted the numbers. I have posted the vaccination rates. I have extrapolated the data accordingly. It matches exactly what I have said.

And yes. Old people (especially with comorbidities) are the ones at real risk. Thankfully it has become nothing but a cold at this point.

 

Every time you have posted data, those who are better at analyzing data have shown that the data are actually saying the opposite of what you think they are saying. Yet you still insist that you are right and the multiple people with degrees and jobs in statistics and data analysis are the ones who are confused about what the data means.

 

Ok looks like we will have yet another Covid related thread that will go to 1000 pages with a couple of stupid posters posting disinformation and a half dozen other posters dutifully yet fecklessly refuting them at every turn in perpetuity.

 

QFT.

 

Oh, you meam like "shut down for 2 weeks, and it'll ride right past...".

Yeah, he nailed that one.

And it only cost us >7.5 TRILLION DOLLARS!

 

He was responding to a post suggesting he ought to be banned for being dismissive and arrogant, not proposing that such posters be banned for that.

 

Interesting observation: the thread sites one case of anecdotal evidence...as evidence that what the case stood for, is quackery. Lol!

If you dont see the irony there...

 

He made a generic statement about arrogance and dismissivness from one side. Nothing more. Both sides here have their members that aren't interested in discussion just shouting down the other side.

 

No it is not. The data shows exactly what I have been saying. High risk groups are the elderly and those with certain comorbidities. Especially elderly with comorbidities.

A one size fits all approach with a new drug and technology and pushing it on an entire population instead of those at real risk has caused generational damage. We did this ignoring basic medicine and science no less.

There is no doubt a lot of people got stuck in the tunnel vision for a while. We literally made it most impossible for doctors to practice medicine properly as the idiots in public health created a toxic environment that was the antithesis of medicine and science. False complainants led to many quietly allowing the media and public health to grow the disaster they did. Now we know how wrong we were.

It is going to take a long time to fix the mess created.

 

If the data shows exactly what you are saying, why is it that everyone with training in statistics disagrees with you? What is it in their training that is causing them to miss something that you are able to easily see with your lack of training in statistics?

The rare times when you do actually post the data you think supports your claims, it always ends up showing something different than what you believe it says.

I think a part of my frustration with your posts on this topic is that when you do post data, I put some time and effort digging into it to see what it says. I don't get the impression that you have put nearly as much time into your data as I have. Based on your lack of understanding of what is in the datasets you post, I'm not even convinced you have opened them up before posting them, just got the link from someone else and took their word for it about what was in there.

 

It is not. The problem is the statistics being used by you and others misses the bigger issue. This is not a one size fits all issue. And we missed on this reality by ignoring basic medicine and science. Just because in the early days the studies of a new drug showed age adjusted death rates lower does not mean the drug should be used across an entire population. Especially with seroprevalence clearly far higher than what the narrative being pushed was.

These drugs should have never been authorized for young healthy people. When it is all said I think we will say they should have never been authorized at all and we should have focuses on treatment. The cover up is palpable imo. I could be wrong. But knowing we absolutely ignored basic medicine and science…there is a reason to cover up if they can. Unfortunately I think it will be easy to cover up as we will never be able to say was it Covid/The Shot/Covid and/or The Shot. Brilliant move by pharma and government if you ask me. Terrible for public health and medicine.

 

The recent data you have posted shows the same story, at every age, the vaccines are dramatically reducing death rates. The recommendations aren't based on the early days of a new drug. They are constantly being updated with new data on a drug that is several years old and has been received by millions of people.

In case you missed it, we are in 2023.

 

All data ever produced shows the vaccine, regardless of age or comorbidities, lowers the risk of a serious case, thus reducing hospital visits and morgue stays. This is true for even those who have already caught COVID. Hybrid immunity is best, as shown by this recent study that just came out in Feb, 2023. The question is, why wouldn't anyone want to lower his/her risk of a serious case of COVID with the vaccine, regardless of past infection status?

 

What's funny about this post? Who would rate this as funny?

oh... nevermind. Absolutely pathetic.

in before this one gets a funny rating