Vaccine theory

[Real McCoy]

Is anyone still doubting this wackshin push after the above post

[rkt.india]

4 minutes ago, Real McCoy said:

Is anyone still doubting this wackshin push after the above post

mRNA technology is new, so, it's adverse maybe unknown but adenovirus vaccines and whole virion Vaccines are made using tried and tested techniques. So they maybe more reliable when it comes to adverse effects.

[Jimmy Cliff]

 

 

Ok.

[Jimmy Cliff]

 

 

 

 

[coffee_rules]

Vaccinated are safe, but they cause the same amount of harm as much as unvaccinated. Mask up and get vaccinated people

 

 

[Jimmy Cliff]

Hello Frands, Booster le lo

 

 

 

[Jimmy Cliff]

 

 

15 years to slow the spread . 

[Jimmy Cliff]

 

 

Just another layer added to the Swiss Cheese Model .

 

[BacktoCricaddict]

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/jul/16/huge-study-supporting-ivermectin-as-covid-treatment-withdrawn-over-ethical-concerns\

 

Huge study supporting ivermectin as Covid treatment withdrawn over ethical concerns

The preprint endorsing ivermectin as a coronavirus therapy has been widely cited, but independent researchers find glaring discrepancies in the data

 

It appeared that the authors had run entire paragraphs from press releases and websites about ivermectin and Covid-19 through a thesaurus to change key words. “Humorously, this led to them changing ‘severe acute respiratory syndrome’ to ‘extreme intense respiratory syndrome’ on one occasion,” Lawrence said.

The data also looked suspicious to Lawrence, with the raw data apparently contradicting the study protocol on several occasions.

“The authors claimed to have done the study only on 18-80 year olds, but at least three patients in the dataset were under 18,” Lawrence said.

“The authors claimed they conducted the study between the 8th of June and 20th of September 2020, however most of the patients who died were admitted into hospital and died before the 8th of June according to the raw data. The data was also terribly formatted, and includes one patient who left hospital on the non-existent date of 31/06/2020.”

There were other concerns.

 

“In their paper, the authors claim that four out of 100 patients died in their standard treatment group for mild and moderate Covid-19,” Lawrence said. “According to the original data, the number was 0, the same as the ivermectin treatment group. In their ivermectin treatment group for severe Covid-19, the authors claim two patients died, but the number in their raw data is four.”

Lawrence and the Guardian sent Elgazzar a comprehensive list of questions about the data, but did not receive a reply. The university’s press office also did not respond.

Lawrence contacted an Australian chronic disease epidemiologist from the University of Wollongong, Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz, and a data analyst affiliated with Linnaeus University in Sweden who reviews scientific papers for errors, Nick Brown, for help analysing the data and study results more thoroughly.

Brown created a comprehensive document uncovering numerous data errors, discrepancies and concerns, which he provided to the Guardian. According to his findings the authors had clearly repeated data between patients.

“The main error is that at least 79 of the patient records are obvious clones of other records,” Brown told the Guardian. “It’s certainly the hardest to explain away as innocent error, especially since the clones aren’t even pure copies. There are signs that they have tried to change one or two fields to make them look more natural.”

Other studies on ivermectin are still under way. In the UK, the University of Oxford is testing whether giving people with Covid-19 ivermectin prevents them ending up in hospital.

The Elgazzar study was one of the the largest and most promising showing the drug may help Covid patients, and has often been cited by proponents of the drug as evidence of its effectiveness. This is despite a peer-reviewed paper published in the journal Clinical Infectious

 

Diseases in June finding ivermectin is “not a viable option to treat COVID-19 patients”.

 

Meyerowitz-Katz told the Guardian that “this is one of the biggest ivermectin studies out there”, and it appeared to him the data was “just totally faked”. This was concerning because two meta-analyses of ivermectin for treating Covid-19 had included the Elgazzar study in the results. A meta-analysis is a statistical analysis that combines the results of multiple scientific studies to determine what the overall scientific literature has found about a treatment or intervention.

 

“Because the Elgazzar study is so large, and so massively positive – showing a 90% reduction in mortality – it hugely skews the evidence in favour of ivermectin,” Meyerowitz-Katz said.

 

“If you remove this one study from the scientific literature, suddenly there are very few positive randomised control trials of ivermectin for Covid-19. Indeed, if you get rid of just this research, most meta-analyses that have found positive results would have their conclusions entirely reversed.”

 

Kyle Sheldrick, a Sydney doctor and researcher, also independently raised concerns about the paper. He found numbers the authors provided for several standard deviations – a measure of variation in a group of data points – mentioned in tables in the paper were “mathematically impossible” given the range of numbers provided in the same table.

 

Sheldrick said the completeness of data was further evidence suggesting possible fabrication, noting that in real-world conditions, this was almost impossible. He also identified the duplication of patient deaths and data.

 

Ivermectin has gained momentum throughout Latin America and India, largely based on evidence from preprint studies. In March, the World Health Organization warned against the use of ivermectin outside well designed clinical trials.

 

The conservative Australian MP Craig Kelly, who has also promoted the use of the anti-malarial drug hydroxychloroquine to treat Covid-19 – despite World Health Organization advice that clinical trials show it does not prevent illness or death from the virus – has been among those promoting ivermectin. Several Indian media outlets ran stories on Kelly in the past week after he asked Uttar Pradesh to loan the state’s chief minister, Adityanath, to Australia to release ivermectin. After this story was initially published, Kelly contacted the Guardian to say he disagreed that there was no evidence that hydroxychloroquine worked, and that he stood by his views.

 

Lawrence said what started out as a simple university assignment had led to a comprehensive investigation into an apparent scientific fraud at a time when “there is a whole ivermectin hype … dominated by a mix of right-wing figures, anti-vaxxers and outright conspiracists”.

 

“Although science trends towards self-correction, something is clearly broken in a system that can allow a study as full of problems as the Elgazzar paper to run unchallenged for seven months,” he said.

 

“Thousands of highly educated scientists, doctors, pharmacists, and at least four major medicines regulators missed a fraud so apparent that it might as well have come with a flashing neon sign. That this all happened amid an ongoing global health crisis of epic proportions is all the more terrifying.”

 

[Jimmy Cliff]

 

.

[Real McCoy]

6 hours ago, Jimmy Cliff said:

 

.

bak2koweedadict iz sprezzin mizinfoa anliyn buh endrotucin reddherrin lyek irevcementin. uwy iz tvitface nawt blaccin ze poastah

[Jimmy Cliff]

1 minute ago, Real McCoy said:

bak2koweedadict iz sprezzin mizinfoa anliyn buh endrotucin reddherrin lyek irevcementin. uwy iz tvitface nawt blaccin ze poastah

 

Man you gotta stop channeling your inner Klaus Shwab .

[Real McCoy]

Just now, Jimmy Cliff said:

 

Man you gotta stop channeling your inner Klaus Shwab .

izza runeveh dren. ic kant stahp itz. izaa suooopaspredda getudha choppa gooo

 

[BacktoCricaddict]

[Real McCoy]

@Jimmy Cliff id donno psyans. iffyu vaan moar enfuh juu mast reez ze meeniglus imuj poastud ubuv

[Jimmy Cliff]

[BacktoCricaddict]

On 8/2/2021 at 9:46 AM, Jimmy Cliff said:

 

Have you considered the possibility that their data could actually be crap?  This is why we approach every situation case-by-case and not view them through specific lenses.  In the case of ivermectin, my needle moved in the positive direction when I read the meta-review and saw that there was a real chance that it is helpful.  But now, it has come out that one of the studies used in the meta-review has serious fraud issues.  There was no way for anyone to know that until someone dug deeper.  Now, I am still hopeful that ivermectin is effective, but dialing back my expectations.  This is how science works - push/pull, tug-of-war, data come in, they are vetted, and finally the preponderance of evidence points in a specific direction. 

 

To play the David/Goliath card every time David's data are shot down is disingenuous.    

Edited August 5, 2021 by BacktoCricaddict

[Real McCoy]

2 hours ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

 

Have you considered the possibility that their data could actually be crap?  This is why we approach every situation case-by-case and not view them through specific lenses.  In the case of ivermectin, my needle moved in the positive direction when I read the meta-review and saw that there was a real chance that it is helpful.  But now, it has come out that one of the studies used in the meta-review has serious fraud issues.  There was no way for anyone to know that until someone dug deeper.  Now, I am still hopeful that ivermectin is effective, but dialing back my expectations.  This is how science works - push/pull, tug-of-war, data come in, they are vetted, and finally the preponderance of evidence points in a specific direction. 

 

To play the David/Goliath card every time David's data are shot down is disingenuous.    

I could ask you the same question. Have you considered the data you post all the time to be crap. Don't be smug that you have some authority as though you're something special.

[coffee_rules]

1 hour ago, Real McCoy said:

I could ask you the same question. Have you considered the data you post all the time to be crap. Don't be smug that you have some authority as though you're something special.

He comes from that field of work, hence more credible. I use internet papers and see how data gets manipulated by field studies, but agree that Science is the only field that changes opinions based on facts based on a common min factor . Peer review is critical. I hate the peer reviews in humanities which is mostly agenda based in academia 

[Real McCoy]

7 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

He comes from that field of work, hence more credible. I use internet papers and see how data gets manipulated by field studies, but agree that Science is the only field that changes opinions based on facts based on a common min factor . Peer review is critical. I hate the peer reviews in humanities which is mostly agenda based in academia 

I take it with a big bag of salt that he has any on field expertise. color me skeptical. even if he works in that field, lot of medical field experts are paid by the same elites. This guy gave an article from sciencemag.org and I quickly found out that it is funded by the rockerfeller foundation. Do you know of another field known as science writers. Basically these are not scientists but just write articles about science. so don't give me this "he is credible" BS. He is on record saying that he is here to badger this forum with "data" which I think is made up. He can't silence the doubters with made up bar charts and other stuff

Edited August 5, 2021 by Real McCoy