nCoV public service announcement. (IMPORTANT)

If anything is still in trials it's ivermectin for use in covid treatment

I just can't understand Trump supporters.

They completely reject the two things proven to make a difference, masks and vaccines and start orgasming over snake oil and random drugs that don't have any effect.

It's like refusing to wear seatbelts and insisting chewing glass is how you protect against car crashes. 

Quote from: Masalang the Torpedo on February 01, 2022, 02:18:55 PM

If anything is still in trials it's ivermectin for use in covid treatment

I just can't understand Trump supporters.

They completely reject the two things proven to make a difference, masks and vaccines and start orgasming over snake oil and random drugs that don't have any effect.

It's like refusing to wear seatbelts and insisting chewing glass is how you protect against car crashes.

It's almost like there is a deliberate misinformation campaign being run...   I wonder who would do that sort of stuff?   

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/13/magazine/rt-sputnik-and-russias-new-theory-of-war.html

Quote from: JJA on February 01, 2022, 02:35:37 PM

Quote from: Masalang the Torpedo on February 01, 2022, 02:18:55 PM

If anything is still in trials it's ivermectin for use in covid treatment

I just can't understand Trump supporters.

They completely reject the two things proven to make a difference, masks and vaccines and start orgasming over snake oil and random drugs that don't have any effect.

It's like refusing to wear seatbelts and insisting chewing glass is how you protect against car crashes.

It's almost like there is a deliberate misinformation campaign being run...   I wonder who would do that sort of stuff?

I just don't understand how these people fall for it. It's a level of stupidity that I just can't fathom.

"Masks be stealing our precious oxygen molecules!"

Good lord.

They can't really all be that dumb, it's just cover for them not wanting to admit they are assholes and just don't care about other people.  WISHTOCOUGH is a perfect example.

some are that stupid.

many others are using the excuse to just not.

tehy'll cycle through talking points in hopes to overwhelm.

i've had a few discussions and after a few follow up questions it always boils down to "ok i don't know, but i just don't want to".

it's all excuses to justify being a shitty person.
they can't admit it to themselves
"i ain't got a racist bone in my body, but the confed flag isn't racist, it's about heritage."

Wife and four kids left behind. Tragic stupidity. 

https://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/-preventable-tragedy-fox-news-silent-after-guest-dies-of-covid-132125253959

some are that stupid.

many others are using the excuse to just not.

tehy'll cycle through talking points in hopes to overwhelm.

i've had a few discussions and after a few follow up questions it always boils down to "ok i don't know, but i just don't want to".

it's all excuses to justify being a shitty person.
they can't admit it to themselves
"i ain't got a racist bone in my body, but the confed flag isn't racist, it's about heritage."

This, mostly.

Some people just hate what the majority thinks is good.  They're rebels.

Again, where is the evidence for ivermectin working against covid?

the evidence it works in real life is found primarily in Africa, India, and Japan.

The evidence demonstrating how it works is found in the studies concerning Paxlovid and molnupiravir.

Quote from: WISHTOLAUGH on February 01, 2022, 09:59:10 AM

Quote from: boydster on February 01, 2022, 09:52:24 AM

Pfizer has been FDA approved for a while now. Moderna just got full FDA approval as well. I think you just made a whoopsie-doops.

Who made a whoopsie - doops?

You did, when you said they were still in the clinical trial phase. Did you forget already? You just have to scroll up a bit and you'll see it.

They are still in the clinical trial phase.

The definitions for that have also been rewritten to accommodate asshattery, which you, scg, and breadcrumb, thrive on.

Ivermectin looks pretty shit and the studies that have been done on it were of very low quality

A systematic review
https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/Fulltext/2022/02000/Meta_Analyses_Do_Not_Establish_Improved_Mortality.11.aspx

Quote

quality appraisal of all 20 meta-analyses using the AMSTAR-2 tool found that 15 had low or critically low quality.8,9 The 5 meta-analyses concluding that ivermectin was effective after article exclusions all had critically low quality2,44,46–48 (Table 1). Others have noted similar low quality in a large number of meta-analyses and recommended remediation by following best-practice guidelines for meta-analyses and using anonymized individual patient data (IPD) obtained directly from study authors.55–57 Using IPD would increase transparency, improve data quality, offset inadequate reporting within studies, allow for better subgroup analysis, allow for standardizing common measures, and avoid inclusion of studies with a high risk of bias.

In-depth assessment of “other” meta-analyses indicates that many were not transparent, had inadequate inclusion/exclusion criteria, and lacked proper risk of bias assessments, across study quality assessments and sensitivity analyses. The same failures occurred in many of these meta-analyses. The combination of including flawed studies and using inadequate meta-analysis techniques rendered many of their conclusions unreliable and useless for clinical decision making.

Unfortunately, inadequate and improperly conducted studies of this drug have added to confusion both inside and outside of the medical community. In an August 26, 2021 health advisory, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported a 24-fold increase in ivermectin prescriptions per week since the prepandemic period, indicating that a substantial number of physicians are prescribing this drug for COVID-19.58 In July 2021, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported a 5-fold increase in calls to US poison control centers related to ivermectin with increased emergency department visits for adverse effects.58 A more recent report from Oregon detailed 21 poison center calls with patients developing seizures, hypotension, confusion, and ataxia and 4 requiring intensive care unit admission after ivermectin ingestion. Seventeen of 21 patients had purchased veterinary formulations, only 3 had received prescriptions and 1 had an unknown source for their drug.59 These reports indicate that despite its absence from NIH COVID-19 treatment guidelines and lack of United States Food and Drug Administration approval, off-label use of ivermectin by lay people and physicians has continued throughout the pandemic.58 It is possible that inconclusive ivermectin studies and meta-analyses contributed to this activity.

Summarizing your STUPID (not even a study) article:

"We feel..."

In other words, they only criticize the other articles based on FEELINGS.

A five fold increase in calls to a poison control center might equal a total of FIVE calls, plus your stupid fucking article makes no mention of DEATH related to ivermectin.

Weak ass shit again, as usual.

Try this:
https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/Fulltext/2021/06000/Review_of_the_Emerging_Evidence_Demonstrating_the.4.aspx
"Conclusions:
Meta-analyses based on 18 randomized controlled treatment trials of ivermectin in COVID-19 have found large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance."
https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/Fulltext/2021/08000/Ivermectin_for_Prevention_and_Treatment_of.7.aspx
"Conclusions:
Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally."

Quote from: Masalang the Torpedo on February 01, 2022, 10:06:43 AM

Again, where is the evidence for ivermectin working against covid?

the evidence it works in real life is found primarily in Africa, India, and Japan.

The evidence demonstrating how it works is found in the studies concerning Paxlovid and molnupiravir.

Real life - yet any study based on it that produced anything positive were of extremely poor quality

What would you say if a vaccine came out and had very low numbers, biased, unblinded and omitted data?

You cant say Ivermectin works because another drug works because that drug has a similar action. Perhaps the other drug does work - but it was designed to work inside a human, against covid/viruses without being toxic or do harm to the person. Ivermectin has been shown to work 'in vitro'. Great. So does alcohol. You dont see people getting plastered to treat covid

Lets say for arguments sake, ivermectin works brilliantly. Why the hell would you want to take ivermectin indefinitely to catch that time where you eventually get the corona virus? You dont think that staying on ivermectin all the time comes with any drawbacks? Then you're an idiot.

Because if you only take ivermectin when symptoms appear and you get your positive test, a hell of a lot of damage could already be done. If you are 'scared' of mRNA vaccines 'spike' protein, well why do you want the full blown viral spike protein replicating out of control inside you. As opposed to a finite supply of an empty shell of one?

A vaccine is like a bullet proof vest. You get shot, it'll hurt, it could leave a bruise but for almost everyone wearing it, they'll be ok
Ivermectin or other treatments are like waiting to get shot and then putting a bandage over the wound. No gurantees. Lets ask the muppets on sorryantivaxxer.com how their z packs and ivermectin pills worked out for them. Oh wait.... Well maybe we can ask those they left behind


We have a vaccine. It works. It's safe. I had some cake a few days ago. Putting that in my body had a more negative effect on my body than a vaccine dose lol. At least the vaccine dose comes with the benefit of priming my immune system to give Mr Corone a swift kick up the arse the moment it comes knocking. What does junk food do? There's no one spitting the dummy about the sugar industry and the harm it's doing.

Quote from: Masalang the Torpedo on February 01, 2022, 10:52:50 AM

Ivermectin looks pretty shit and the studies that have been done on it were of very low quality

A systematic review
https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/Fulltext/2022/02000/Meta_Analyses_Do_Not_Establish_Improved_Mortality.11.aspx

Quote

quality appraisal of all 20 meta-analyses using the AMSTAR-2 tool found that 15 had low or critically low quality.8,9 The 5 meta-analyses concluding that ivermectin was effective after article exclusions all had critically low quality2,44,46–48 (Table 1). Others have noted similar low quality in a large number of meta-analyses and recommended remediation by following best-practice guidelines for meta-analyses and using anonymized individual patient data (IPD) obtained directly from study authors.55–57 Using IPD would increase transparency, improve data quality, offset inadequate reporting within studies, allow for better subgroup analysis, allow for standardizing common measures, and avoid inclusion of studies with a high risk of bias.

In-depth assessment of “other” meta-analyses indicates that many were not transparent, had inadequate inclusion/exclusion criteria, and lacked proper risk of bias assessments, across study quality assessments and sensitivity analyses. The same failures occurred in many of these meta-analyses. The combination of including flawed studies and using inadequate meta-analysis techniques rendered many of their conclusions unreliable and useless for clinical decision making.

Unfortunately, inadequate and improperly conducted studies of this drug have added to confusion both inside and outside of the medical community. In an August 26, 2021 health advisory, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported a 24-fold increase in ivermectin prescriptions per week since the prepandemic period, indicating that a substantial number of physicians are prescribing this drug for COVID-19.58 In July 2021, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported a 5-fold increase in calls to US poison control centers related to ivermectin with increased emergency department visits for adverse effects.58 A more recent report from Oregon detailed 21 poison center calls with patients developing seizures, hypotension, confusion, and ataxia and 4 requiring intensive care unit admission after ivermectin ingestion. Seventeen of 21 patients had purchased veterinary formulations, only 3 had received prescriptions and 1 had an unknown source for their drug.59 These reports indicate that despite its absence from NIH COVID-19 treatment guidelines and lack of United States Food and Drug Administration approval, off-label use of ivermectin by lay people and physicians has continued throughout the pandemic.58 It is possible that inconclusive ivermectin studies and meta-analyses contributed to this activity.

Summarizing your STUPID (not even a study) article:

Its a systematic review dumbarse. A study of studies. Are you normally this brainless?

You still show no evidence ivermectin works. And they have been touting this as a cure since mid 2020. It seems the best you come up with is

"Conclusions:
Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally."

How many qualifiers do you see in those weasel words LOL

And well, what has the impact been? We are still seeing massive numbers of sickness and death in the antivaxxers. Especially the rabid right winger antivaxxers in America who probably have their nuclear bunkers packed to the rafters with ivermectin. They are still dying.

The vaccine is still better, no matter what mental gymnastics you want to pull. 1 person in ICU in Canberra. Could you be confident to say that would still be the case if none of Canberra was vaccinated as opposed to ~99% of us?


Wherever you look. Unvaccinated people are dying at much greater magnitudes than vaccinated people. And you can bet the level of those in hosiptal that need intervention track the same rates. If you are fully vaccinated - you are unlikely to need medical intervention

https://ourworldindata.org/covid-deaths-by-vaccination

Enjoy your covid, arsehole. You deserve the worst of it 

Quote from: WISHTOLAUGH on February 02, 2022, 03:52:25 AM

Quote from: Masalang the Torpedo on February 01, 2022, 10:06:43 AM

Again, where is the evidence for ivermectin working against covid?

the evidence it works in real life is found primarily in Africa, India, and Japan.

The evidence demonstrating how it works is found in the studies concerning Paxlovid and molnupiravir.

Real life - yet any study based on it that produced anything positive were of extremely poor quality.

Bullshit.

You have two fucking articles (possibly) concerning any criticism of Ivermectin and BOTH ARTICLES are sheer lunacy.

The one which you gave here simply discussing META_ANALYSIS, and the authors are forced to write:

"WE FEEL..."

In others words, they got SHIT!!! And consequently, YOU GOT SHIT!!!

The other article is much the same, the author isn't even a fucking doctor, he is some fucked up MED STUDENT, and all it does is criticize META-ANALYSIS, saying he FEELS the data should be more INDIVIDUALIZED!!!

I provided two clear studies concerning the effectiveness of Ivermectin.

What would you say if a vaccine came out and had very low numbers, biased, unblinded and omitted data?

You cant say Ivermectin works because another drug works because that drug has a similar action. Perhaps the other drug does work - but it was designed to work inside a human, against covid/viruses without being toxic or do harm to the person. Ivermectin has been shown to work 'in vitro'. Great. So does alcohol. You dont see people getting plastered to treat covid .

Ivermectin has been shown IN VIVO in those studies, again, you got shit.

Lets say for arguments sake, ivermectin works brilliantly. Why the hell would you want to take ivermectin indefinitely to catch that time where you eventually get the corona virus? You dont think that staying on ivermectin all the time comes with any drawbacks? Then you're an idiot.

Nothing prevents you from getting the fucking virus, as you know, not even the vaccine.

Because if you only take ivermectin when symptoms appear and you get your positive test, a hell of a lot of damage could already be done. If you are 'scared' of mRNA vaccines 'spike' protein, well why do you want the full blown viral spike protein replicating out of control inside you. As opposed to a finite supply of an empty shell of one?

A vaccine is like a bullet proof vest. You get shot, it'll hurt, it could leave a bruise but for almost everyone wearing it, they'll be ok
Ivermectin or other treatments are like waiting to get shot and then putting a bandage over the wound. No gurantees. Lets ask the muppets on sorryantivaxxer.com how their z packs and ivermectin pills worked out for them. Oh wait.... Well maybe we can ask those they left behind


We have a vaccine. It works. It's safe. I had some cake a few days ago. Putting that in my body had a more negative effect on my body than a vaccine dose lol. At least the vaccine dose comes with the benefit of priming my immune system to give Mr Corone a swift kick up the arse the moment it comes knocking. What does junk food do? There's no one spitting the dummy about the sugar industry and the harm it's doing.

No one knows the long term effects of mRNA vaccine technology and that is a fact.

Safety and efficacy studies are ongoing and the numbers are changing everyday.

Your concern for any other entity is non-existent.

You are not alone in sharing that view on this forum, as there are many like minded bots here.

Ivermectin is a safe and highly effective treatment for Covid-19. Has been since 2020.

I will not let liars like you continue to post bullshit against it without a challenge.

https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/Fulltext/2021/06000/Review_of_the_Emerging_Evidence_Demonstrating_the.4.aspx

https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/Fulltext/2021/08000/Ivermectin_for_Prevention_and_Treatment_of.7.aspx

Its a systematic review dumbarse. A study of studies. Are you normally this brainless?

A systematic review (MERELY A FUCKING OPINION PIECE) you fucking moron.

Including the fucking words, "We feel..." In other words, they feel, not know, everything.

You still show no evidence ivermectin works. And they have been touting this as a cure since mid 2020. It seems the best you come up with is

Quote from: Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines

"Conclusions:
Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally."

How many qualifiers do you see in those weasel words LOL

And well, what has the impact been? We are still seeing massive numbers of sickness and death in the antivaxxers. Especially the rabid right winger antivaxxers in America who probably have their nuclear bunkers packed to the rafters with ivermectin. They are still dying.

The vaccine is still better, no matter what mental gymnastics you want to pull. 1 person in ICU in Canberra. Could you be confident to say that would still be the case if none of Canberra was vaccinated as opposed to ~99% of us?


Wherever you look. Unvaccinated people are dying at much greater magnitudes than vaccinated people. And you can bet the level of those in hosiptal that need intervention track the same rates. If you are fully vaccinated - you are unlikely to need medical intervention

https://ourworldindata.org/covid-deaths-by-vaccination

Enjoy your covid, arsehole. You deserve the worst of it 

Shifter, the studies I published clearly demonstrate its efficacy as a treatment.

You are the worst pusher of bullshit on this site and you will get your due justice eventually.

Believe that.

You seem awfully angry WISHTOCALMDOWN. You realise this is not the forum to go on your pathetic curse word laden tirades? You should probably edit your posts unless you want a holiday

You have yet to post evidence ivermectin works. Where is the study. Peer reviewed. Good numbers. Double blinded trails etc

We have those for vaccines. What do we have for ivermectin?

We have crappy quality, unblinded, biased anecdotes. Awesome dude. Bet your life on those when you get sick. Again and again because natural immunity doesn't mean jack for covid.

You seem awfully angry WISHTOCALMDOWN. You realise this is not the forum to go on your pathetic curse word laden tirades? You should probably edit your posts unless you want a holiday

Calling me an idiot and an asshole and you demand I calm down?

Nice try.

You have yet to post evidence ivermectin works. Where is the study. Peer reviewed. Good numbers. Double blinded trails etc

We have those for vaccines.

We have crappy quality, unblinded, biased anecdotes. Awesome dude. Bet your life on those when you get sick.

I have posted the scientific analysis for Ivermectin.

Both of the studies show clear evidence of IN VIVO effectiveness.

You posted some jerk off's feelings and opinion that meta-analysis of the data is not individualized enough. I got news for you.

All medical breakthroughs, including the ones regarding vaccines, rely on meta analysis and never have been broken down individually like the author claims it should be.

Again and again because natural immunity doesn't mean jack for covid.

LOL!

Quote from: Masalang the Torpedo on February 02, 2022, 05:08:26 AM

You seem awfully angry WISHTOCALMDOWN. You realise this is not the forum to go on your pathetic curse word laden tirades? You should probably edit your posts unless you want a holiday

Calling me an idiot and an asshole and you demand I calm down?

Nice try.

Quote from: Masalang the Torpedo on February 02, 2022, 05:08:26 AM

You have yet to post evidence ivermectin works. Where is the study. Peer reviewed. Good numbers. Double blinded trails etc

We have those for vaccines.

We have crappy quality, unblinded, biased anecdotes. Awesome dude. Bet your life on those when you get sick. Again and again because natural immunity doesn't mean jack for covid.

I have posted the scientific analysis for Ivermectin.

Both of the studies show clear evidence of IN VIVO effectiveness.

You posted some jerk off's feelings and opinion that meta-analysis of the data is not individualized enough. I got news for you.

All medical breakthroughs, including the ones regarding vaccines, rely on meta analysis and never have been broken down individually like the author claims it should be.

Nope. You still got nothing on ivermectin. It either works or it doesn't. If it works, the outcome should be repeatable. If it works, those that have taken it wouldn't succumb to covid.

It doesn't work.

Maybe if you take it at toxic doses? Well, you can be the guinea pig if you like. You're just a drifter no one will miss or notice if you're gone so go nuts and take well above the recommended dosage, go to a Trump rally, get yourself some covid goodness and report back your anecdote

Quote from: boydster on February 01, 2022, 12:52:18 PM

Quote from: WISHTOLAUGH on February 01, 2022, 09:59:10 AM

Quote from: boydster on February 01, 2022, 09:52:24 AM

Pfizer has been FDA approved for a while now. Moderna just got full FDA approval as well. I think you just made a whoopsie-doops.

Who made a whoopsie - doops?

You did, when you said they were still in the clinical trial phase. Did you forget already? You just have to scroll up a bit and you'll see it.

They are still in the clinical trial phase.

You've clearly been living under a rock. Both of those have full FDA approval. That is a bit beyond clinical trials.

Quote from: WISHTOLAUGH on February 02, 2022, 05:22:49 AM

Quote from: Masalang the Torpedo on February 02, 2022, 05:08:26 AM

You seem awfully angry WISHTOCALMDOWN. You realise this is not the forum to go on your pathetic curse word laden tirades? You should probably edit your posts unless you want a holiday

Calling me an idiot and an asshole and you demand I calm down?

Nice try.

Quote from: Masalang the Torpedo on February 02, 2022, 05:08:26 AM

You have yet to post evidence ivermectin works. Where is the study. Peer reviewed. Good numbers. Double blinded trails etc

We have those for vaccines.

We have crappy quality, unblinded, biased anecdotes. Awesome dude. Bet your life on those when you get sick. Again and again because natural immunity doesn't mean jack for covid.

I have posted the scientific analysis for Ivermectin.

Both of the studies show clear evidence of IN VIVO effectiveness.

You posted some jerk off's feelings and opinion that meta-analysis of the data is not individualized enough. I got news for you.

All medical breakthroughs, including the ones regarding vaccines, rely on meta analysis and never have been broken down individually like the author claims it should be.

Nope. You still got nothing on ivermectin. It either works or it doesn't. If it works, the outcome should be repeatable. If it works, those that have taken it wouldn't succumb to covid.

It doesn't work.

Maybe if you take it at toxic doses? Well, you can be the guinea pig if you like. You're just a drifter no one will miss or notice if you're gone so go nuts and take well above the recommended dosage, go to a Trump rally, get yourself some covid goodness and report back your anecdote

covid has a wide variety of ailments.
a wide variety of cures should be possible.

that said... these ailments are also driving dr crazy with trying to cure and support.
every day is 100,000 new patients is a House episode.
does everyone get a team of 5 specialized tv doctors?

so - the most convenient preventative measure is most economical to distribute - vax it up, mask it up.
quit your whining.

Nope. You still got nothing on ivermectin.

It works as evidenced by the studies.

It works as evidenced by its use in Africa, India, and Japan.

It either works or it doesn't.

It does.

If it works, the outcome should be repeatable.

It is.

If it works, those that have taken it wouldn't succumb to covid.

It doesn't work.

LMMFAO!!!

You got numbers of deaths attributable to covid after having received ivermectin to treat the covid?

How many? Probably the same amount that died from covid after having been vaxxed.

Maybe if you take it at toxic doses? Well, you can be the guinea pig if you like. You're just a drifter no one will miss or notice if you're gone so go nuts and take well above the recommended dosage, go to a Trump rally, get yourself some covid goodness and report back your anecdote

People succumb to death mainly because they are real fucking old or in really shitty health, whether they are vaxxed or not. Good thing is, they will still count it as covid death so they can keep funding the AI that generates the posts you provide.

Quote from: WISHTOLAUGH on February 02, 2022, 03:54:32 AM

Quote from: boydster on February 01, 2022, 12:52:18 PM

Quote from: WISHTOLAUGH on February 01, 2022, 09:59:10 AM

Quote from: boydster on February 01, 2022, 09:52:24 AM

Pfizer has been FDA approved for a while now. Moderna just got full FDA approval as well. I think you just made a whoopsie-doops.

Who made a whoopsie - doops?

You did, when you said they were still in the clinical trial phase. Did you forget already? You just have to scroll up a bit and you'll see it.

They are still in the clinical trial phase.

You've clearly been living under a rock. Both of those have full FDA approval. That is a bit beyond clinical trials.

No it isn't.

None of the data the FDA utilized in order to decide on even EUA has been released.

All other FDA approvals prior to these times required public release of the data used for intended approval prior to formal approval.

That hasn't happened.

The rules for approval, like the definition of vaccine, have also been changed in order to meet the desires of the feeble minded and weak.

You still cant publish a peer reviewed paper / research on ivermectin working against covid. If one existed, it should be global public health policy to prescribe ivermectin to people afflicted with the corone. But what do you know. It isn't. Despite being looked at since mid 2020, there is still nothing.

Vaccines however do have the studies. Do have peer reviewed research that is of the highest quality. Not shitty unblinded, small numbered, uncontrolled biased anecdotes. And despite your lies, have passed every clinical trial and approval.

Still waiting for your evidence lol. Like I said, you got nothing. Actually I stand corrected. You have a bunch of lies

WISHTOLAUGH is WISHTOLIE

https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-approves-first-covid-19-vaccine

Today, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the first COVID-19 vaccine. The vaccine has been known as the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, and will now be marketed as Comirnaty (koe-mir’-na-tee), for the prevention of COVID-19 disease in individuals 16 years of age and older. The vaccine also continues to be available under emergency use authorization (EUA), including for individuals 12 through 15 years of age and for the administration of a third dose in certain immunocompromised individuals.

“The FDA’s approval of this vaccine is a milestone as we continue to battle the COVID-19 pandemic. While this and other vaccines have met the FDA’s rigorous, scientific standards for emergency use authorization, as the first FDA-approved COVID-19 vaccine, the public can be very confident that this vaccine meets the high standards for safety, effectiveness, and manufacturing quality the FDA requires of an approved product,” said Acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, M.D. “While millions of people have already safely received COVID-19 vaccines, we recognize that for some, the FDA approval of a vaccine may now instill additional confidence to get vaccinated. Today’s milestone puts us one step closer to altering the course of this pandemic in the U.S.”

Since Dec. 11, 2020, the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine has been available under EUA in individuals 16 years of age and older, and the authorization was expanded to include those 12 through 15 years of age on May 10, 2021. EUAs can be used by the FDA during public health emergencies to provide access to medical products that may be effective in preventing, diagnosing, or treating a disease, provided that the FDA determines that the known and potential benefits of a product, when used to prevent, diagnose, or treat the disease, outweigh the known and potential risks of the product.

FDA-approved vaccines undergo the agency’s standard process for reviewing the quality, safety and effectiveness of medical products. For all vaccines, the FDA evaluates data and information included in the manufacturer’s submission of a biologics license application (BLA). A BLA is a comprehensive document that is submitted to the agency providing very specific requirements. For Comirnaty, the BLA builds on the extensive data and information previously submitted that supported the EUA, such as preclinical and clinical data and information, as well as details of the manufacturing process, vaccine testing results to ensure vaccine quality, and inspections of the sites where the vaccine is made. The agency conducts its own analyses of the information in the BLA to make sure the vaccine is safe and effective and meets the FDA’s standards for approval.

"ESSENTAILLY A PR RELEASE PON BEHALF OF BIG PHARMA."

When the FDA doesn't publish the data relied upon to issue an EUA or approval, the EUA and/or approval is not valid.

As soon as you can provide the data the FDA utilized to issue an EUA and/or approval of the Covid vaccines, let everyone here know.

Quote from: Masalang the Torpedo on February 02, 2022, 07:34:25 AM

"ESSENTAILLY A PR RELEASE PON BEHALF OF BIG PHARMA."

When the FDA doesn't publish the data relied upon to issue an EUA or approval, the EUA and/or approval is not valid.

As soon as you can provide the data the FDA utilized to issue an EUA and/or approval of the Covid vaccines, let everyone here know.

The vaccines are approved. Get over it. They are also much safer and more effective than ivermectin. I know facts hurt you but that's the truth

It's good you're an antivaxxer though. You are clearly a net negative to society which wont miss you if covid taps you on the shoulder in its daily culling exercise.

You still cant publish a peer reviewed paper / research on ivermectin working against covid. If one existed, it should be global public health policy to prescribe ivermectin to people afflicted with the corone. But what do you know. It isn't. Despite being looked at since mid 2020, there is still nothing.

Vaccines however do have the studies. Do have peer reviewed research that is of the highest quality. Not shitty unblinded, small numbered, uncontrolled biased anecdotes. And despite your lies, have passed every clinical trial and approval.

Still waiting for your evidence lol. Like I said, you got nothing. Actually I stand corrected. You have a bunch of lies

I provided links to two peer reviewed articles, right here, in this thread.

Here they are again , and this first study shows the results are repeatable.:
https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/Fulltext/2021/06000/Review_of_the_Emerging_Evidence_Demonstrating_the.4.aspx

"Therapeutic Advances:
A large majority of randomized and observational controlled trials of ivermectin are reporting repeated, large magnitude improvements in clinical outcomes. Numerous prophylaxis trials demonstrate that regular ivermectin use leads to large reductions in transmission.  Multiple, large “natural experiments” occurred in regions that initiated “ivermectin distribution” campaigns followed by tight, reproducible, temporally associated decreases in case counts and case fatality rates compared with nearby regions without such campaigns.

Conclusions:
Meta-analyses based on 18 randomized controlled treatment trials of ivermectin in COVID-19 have found large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance. Furthermore, results from numerous controlled prophylaxis trials report significantly reduced risks of contracting COVID-19 with the regular use of ivermectin. Finally, the many examples of ivermectin distribution campaigns leading to rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality indicate that an oral agent effective in all phases of COVID-19 has been identified."
Number two:
https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/Fulltext/2021/08000/Ivermectin_for_Prevention_and_Treatment_of.7.aspx
Therapeutic Advances:
"Meta-analysis of 15 trials found that ivermectin reduced risk of death compared with no ivermectin (average risk ratio 0.38, 95% confidence interval 0.19–0.73; n = 2438; I2 = 49%; moderate-certainty evidence). This result was confirmed in a trial sequential analysis using the same DerSimonian–Laird method that underpinned the unadjusted analysis. This was also robust against a trial sequential analysis using the Biggerstaff–Tweedie method. Low-certainty evidence found that ivermectin prophylaxis reduced COVID-19 infection by an average 86% (95% confidence interval 79%–91%). Secondary outcomes provided less certain evidence. Low-certainty evidence suggested that there may be no benefit with ivermectin for “need for mechanical ventilation,” whereas effect estimates for “improvement” and “deterioration” clearly favored ivermectin use. Severe adverse events were rare among treatment trials and evidence of no difference was assessed as low certainty. Evidence on other secondary outcomes was very low certainty.

Conclusions:
Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally."

Your problem with one was the use of the words, "moderate," "may," and "apparent."

Common words used in peer reviewed medical journals.

And they do not lend a negative connotation to the study: for instance, anything "moderately certain" in medicine is GOOD TO GO! In the case of this study, a 95 percent confidence rate is pretty damn good.

The word "may," is used in commercials for prescription medication ALL THE FUCKING TIME (i.e., "Such and such ,may reduce your chance of heart attack.") That is for approved medicines, which Ivermectin is, by the way.

And the word "apparent," means obviously visible. As in:

"It is apparent shifter doesn't know what the hell is going on."

Quote from: WISHTOLAUGH on February 02, 2022, 07:39:01 AM

Quote from: Masalang the Torpedo on February 02, 2022, 07:34:25 AM

"ESSENTAILLY A PR RELEASE PON BEHALF OF BIG PHARMA."

When the FDA doesn't publish the data relied upon to issue an EUA or approval, the EUA and/or approval is not valid.

As soon as you can provide the data the FDA utilized to issue an EUA and/or approval of the Covid vaccines, let everyone here know.

The vaccines are approved. Get over it. They are also much safer and more effective than ivermectin. I know facts hurt you but that's the truth

It's good you're an antivaxxer though. You are clearly a net negative to society which wont miss you if covid taps you on the shoulder in its daily culling exercise.

The MSM is reporting the vaccines are approved.

That doesn't they are approved by the required procedures or governing statutes. There is a lot of lawlessness occurring at very high levels of all governments worldwide, in case you have not noticed.

Of course, I understand you DGAF about shit like that, being the good DARPA bot you are, but I do.

And it will be addressed.

Soon.

LOL
https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/frontiers-removes-controversial-ivermectin-paper-pre-publication-68505

You want to show us a paper by the Kory moron?

This isn’t the first time that Kory and his colleagues at FLCCC have been accused of making unsubstantiated claims about ivermectin. In December, Kory gave a statement at a US Senate hearing on COVID-19 treatments in which he called ivermectin “effectively a ‘miracle drug’” that could obliterate disease transmission and prevent illness—claims that Associated Press fact-checkers labelled “False” at the time. Kory, who formerly oversaw critical care at the UW Health in Wisconsin, tells The Scientist that he now regrets using “miracle” and other hyperbolic terminology.

Later in December, FLCCC founder Paul Marik, the first author on the now-rejected Frontiers manuscript and a professor at Eastern Virginia Medical School, wrote a paper reviewing ivermectin that included references to debunked papers, including an observational study of ivermectin in COVID-19 patients led by now-discredited Surgisphere Corporation. That study, which had been posted on the preprint server SSRN, was taken down at the request of one of the authors back in May after concerns were raised about the provenance of the company’s data.

There have been a number of trials of ivermectin in COVID-19 patients, although they haven’t met all the criteria that scientists typically deem necessary to generate strong evidence—that is, being randomized, well-controlled trials with hundreds or thousands of patients and findings published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Quote from: Masalang the Torpedo on February 02, 2022, 07:34:25 AM

"ESSENTAILLY A PR RELEASE PON BEHALF OF BIG PHARMA."

When the FDA doesn't publish the data relied upon to issue an EUA or approval, the EUA and/or approval is not valid.

As soon as you can provide the data the FDA utilized to issue an EUA and/or approval of the Covid vaccines, let everyone here know.

Everyone needs to stop citing the fda.
The fda is corrupt and influenced by money and govt presure.

What you should cite is the 1B doses...

1B sample size.

Quote from: Masalang the Torpedo on February 02, 2022, 07:48:28 AM

Quote from: WISHTOLAUGH on February 02, 2022, 07:39:01 AM

Quote from: Masalang the Torpedo on February 02, 2022, 07:34:25 AM

"ESSENTAILLY A PR RELEASE PON BEHALF OF BIG PHARMA."

When the FDA doesn't publish the data relied upon to issue an EUA or approval, the EUA and/or approval is not valid.

As soon as you can provide the data the FDA utilized to issue an EUA and/or approval of the Covid vaccines, let everyone here know.

The vaccines are approved. Get over it. They are also much safer and more effective than ivermectin. I know facts hurt you but that's the truth

It's good you're an antivaxxer though. You are clearly a net negative to society which wont miss you if covid taps you on the shoulder in its daily culling exercise.

The MSM is reporting the vaccines are approved.

That doesn't they are approved by the required procedures or governing statutes. There is a lot of lawlessness occurring at very high levels of all governments worldwide, in case you have not noticed.

Of course, I understand you DGAF about shit like that, being the good DARPA bot you are, but I do.

And it will be addressed.

Soon.

The FDA says the vaccines are approved too

Action69: "They aren't approved REEEEEEEEEE"
All sane people: "Except, they are, it's really easy to find this info"
Action69: "I SAID REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!"