Vaccine or not?

[Rasputin_Vol]

The anonymous meta-analysis that’s convincing people to use ivermectin

We here at Ars have been asked—by email, in the comments, and via our feedback form—to check out c19ivermectin.com, which purports to provide evidence ivermectin is an effective therapy.

So we have. And we're suggesting you don't, because it's not a reliable source of information.

Fact checker...

 

[615vols]

The anonymous meta-analysis that’s convincing people to use ivermectin

We here at Ars have been asked—by email, in the comments, and via our feedback form—to check out c19ivermectin.com, which purports to provide evidence ivermectin is an effective therapy.

So we have. And we're suggesting you don't, because it's not a reliable source of information.

Yeah, it’s not one of those reliable sources like tik tok.

 

[Orange_Vol1321]

Where do you read your information, the radio?

The problem is they aren't actually doing true journalism. They will/are lying to fit their narrative. While they just want to print a story saying this is untrue, they look the other way and don't want to dig and find out (fact check)how many vaccinated are dying.

Going to leave this here so you don't miss it. Can you send it to the "fact checkers?"

Ivermectin for COVID-19: real-time analysis of all 119 studies

 

[Orange_Vol1321]

The anonymous meta-analysis that’s convincing people to use ivermectin

We here at Ars have been asked—by email, in the comments, and via our feedback form—to check out c19ivermectin.com, which purports to provide evidence ivermectin is an effective therapy.

So we have. And we're suggesting you don't, because it's not a reliable source of information.

LMAO

Should be called, "we don't like that it's working so it's untrue."

 

[Orange_Vol1321]

Yeah, it’s not one of those reliable sources like tik tok.

I didn't click it, figured it would take me to a Bett Midler tik tok video.

 

[Orangeslice13]

The problem is they aren't actually doing true journalism. They will/are lying to fit their narrative. While they just want to print a story saying this is untrue, they look the other way and don't want to dig and find out (fact check)how many vaccinated are dying.

Going to leave this here so you don't miss it. Can you send it to the "fact checkers?"

Ivermectin for COVID-19: real-time analysis of all 119 studies

From your source
(I clicked on 3 at random and read)
“Semi-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.”

“Secondary outcomes provided less certain evidence. Low-certainty evidence suggested that there may be no benefit with ivermectin.”


“It’s possible”. “We believe that it may…” that’s some real certainty from a bunch of flawed studies that are getting destroyed on peer review. I just don’t understand the cult like fascination with a drug that’s suspect at best when you have a monoclonal antibody treatment that is absolutely beyond any shadow of a doubt working.
The big ivermectin study that everyone was so excited about is due to release it’s findings any day and all the crackpots on podcast that were talking about it have suddenly gone quite. Because the information leaking out says it doesn’t work.

how about we spend some more energy on the treatment that we know actually works.

 

[Orangeslice13]

LMAO

Should be called, "we don't like that it's working so it's untrue."

Dude.
I wish it worked. I had great hopes for plaquenil too. That doesn’t work either.

 

[Weezer]

Received my third COVID shot today, the booster. Recommended for those of us immunosuppressed. I'll let you know if I sprout a third eye or keel over dead.

Just a FYI, I have had a reaction to the shot. Had one after the second one too. Fever, chills, shivers, and body aches. If it's like last time, it'll last a few days. Just sharing in the spirit of honesty.

No third eye thus far, and I'm still alive, I think.

 

[Orangeslice13]

Fact checker...

As opposed to sheep that just believe everything they hope is true?

 

[luthervol]

Just a FYI, I have had a reaction to the shot. Had one after the second one too. Fever, chills, shivers, and body aches. If it's like last time, it'll last a few days. Just sharing in the spirit of honesty.

No third eye thus far, and I'm still alive, I think.

Hope it doesn't effect your judgement.....wait a minute, on second thought..........

JK - Hope the reactions pass quickly and you're back to "normal" soon.

 

[Orangeslice13]

@Rasputin_Vol
It does appear that there all real long term safety issues with prolonged exposure to Ivermectin so you shouldn’t take it prophylactically. But as a treatment cycle of 5-7 days it’s probably safe. I see no reason you shouldn’t be allowed to take it for Covid if you want.

 

[ENGRVOL]

Ivermectin for COVID-19: real-time analysis of all 119 studies

Someone at my church brought this up a few weeks ago and this website is a perfect example of some of the shady stuff being used to prop up ivermectin. First this meta-analysis lumps studies that have entirely different study design (RCT, observational) and primary outcomes (clearance of viral cultures, symptom resolution, etc) which is a something a big red flag. In addition it picks and choses which results to use. For example a study from Ahmed that is listed on that site found no statistical benefit using ivermectin for symptoms (fever, cough, SOB, etc) and actually slightly longer hospitalization for those taking ivermectin and doxycycline compared to no treatment though not statistically significant. However it reported 100% of patients were afebrile in the ivermectin group by 7 days compared to 3 who still had a fever in the placebo group. They ignore other symptoms such as cough for which more people in the ivermectin group had after 7 days than placebo but decide to use fever as a marker of symptom resolution. You can see for yourself by reading the study and looking at what ivmmeta.com uses for analysis (though this study has a lot of problems with its data reporting and should be excluded from any analysis).

A five-day course of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 may reduce the duration of illness (nih.gov)



They do this for many many other studies which is maddening. In addition they still include trials that have been retracted and report meta-analyses that include other studies that have been retracted.

I bet the people who run this site could make Coach Pruitt or Dooley seem like world class coaches by their statistical chicanery.

 

[peaygolf]

 

[Weezer]

Hope it doesn't effect your judgement.....wait a minute, on second thought..........

JK - Hope the reactions pass quickly and you're back to "normal" soon.

Even a feverish me makes more sense than you or Joe Biden.

 

[Orange_Vol1321]

From your source
(I clicked on 3 at random and read)
“Semi-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.”

“Secondary outcomes provided less certain evidence. Low-certainty evidence suggested that there may be no benefit with ivermectin.”


“It’s possible”. “We believe that it may…” that’s some real certainty from a bunch of flawed studies that are getting destroyed on peer review. I just don’t understand the cult like fascination with a drug that’s suspect at best when you have a monoclonal antibody treatment that is absolutely beyond any shadow of a doubt working.
The big ivermectin study that everyone was so excited about is due to release it’s findings any day and all the crackpots on podcast that were talking about it have suddenly gone quite. Because the information leaking out says it doesn’t work.

how about we spend some more energy on the treatment that we know actually works.

The experimental shot isn't a treatment. If you think that I have beach property in Arkansas to sell you.

 

[Orange_Vol1321]

Someone at my church brought this up a few weeks ago and this website is a perfect example of some of the shady stuff being used to prop up ivermectin. First this meta-analysis lumps studies that have entirely different study design (RCT, observational) and primary outcomes (clearance of viral cultures, symptom resolution, etc) which is a something a big red flag. In addition it picks and choses which results to use. For example a study from Ahmed that is listed on that site found no statistical benefit using ivermectin for symptoms (fever, cough, SOB, etc) and actually slightly longer hospitalization for those taking ivermectin and doxycycline compared to no treatment though not statistically significant. However it reported 100% of patients were afebrile in the ivermectin group by 7 days compared to 3 who still had a fever in the placebo group. They ignore other symptoms such as cough for which more people in the ivermectin group had after 7 days than placebo but decide to use fever as a marker of symptom resolution. You can see for yourself by reading the study and looking at what ivmmeta.com uses for analysis (though this study has a lot of problems with its data reporting and should be excluded from any analysis).

A five-day course of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 may reduce the duration of illness (nih.gov)

View attachment 396386

They do this for many many other studies which is maddening. In addition they still include trials that have been retracted and report meta-analyses that include other studies that have been retracted.

I bet the people who run this site could make Coach Pruitt or Dooley seem like world class coaches by their statistical chicanery.

There's shady stuff being propped up for the jab.

According to the government's official AHRQ report, they concluded that less than 1% of vaccine adverse events get reported to VAERS?Yea this is 2011 data but just shows adverse reactions or deaths are under reported. Add in the narrative push for the jab from people in charge and I would dare say a lot is being covered up.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

Wtf are you talking about? We’ve beat the immunity conversation to death.
Natural immunity is irrelevant to those who have never had Covid or the vaccine.
Natural immunity does not have as many reinfections as vaccine has break through. So what. If I had Covid already I’d want to see a study on the effects of the vaccine on people who already had Covid to make that decision. Natural immunity be those vaccinated but had never had Covid is once again irrelevant.
Does natural immunity provide immunity? Apparently not as we have people who had Covid and are getting it again.
If the vaccine helps me get to natural immunity easier then so be it. That’s not an argument I’ve made.

Not that you’ve moved the goalposts all over the damn place I’m not sure if your bull **** questions have been answered.
It’s getting late so your meds might be wearing off

So what???????? Seriously? I think that is pretty germane and pretty f'ing central to this entire debacle.

WE (you and I and VN) have beat it to death. The mainstream media still ignores it. Find me one mainstream media reference that discusses while telling you to 'get the shot'.

You should re-read your post with the idea of goalpoast mobility. You moved them in just 4 paragraphs from Knoxville to Mars.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

Maybe you need to reread my OP. I said it’s interesting that they make a special caveat for why the vaccinated are in there but not the unvaxed; it’s because “a majority are immuno-compromised”; no ****. That’s a majority of everyone who winds up in the hospital. How many overtly healthy individuals wound up in the hospital 12 months ago prior to a vaccine? Probably the same number who wind up on there today. And yes I have a problem with how they present that information in a snippet because an overwhelming number of people are going to conclude that the unvaccinated must be as healthy as a horse because Vanderbilt didn’t tell us they’re immuno-compromised like they did for the vaccinated. The data can be and is massaged and presented (from both sides) to say what they want to say. When total numbers are minuscule talk in % or show a massive spike on a graph with a Y axis on a small scale range. When the % is terribly low given a population or demographic throw total numbers out there that are large. When the true statistics don’t workout present an anecdotal, heart-string story. It’s become an embarrassing political game across the board.

Edit: Mad4Vols has posted another TikTok story. These nurses sure looked stressed, exhausted and overworked while they’re taking the time to make social media stories at and after work.

But hey, at least the administration is getting rid of the extra dead weight in those departments that refuse to take the shots.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

The anonymous meta-analysis that’s convincing people to use ivermectin

We here at Ars have been asked—by email, in the comments, and via our feedback form—to check out c19ivermectin.com, which purports to provide evidence ivermectin is an effective therapy.

So we have. And we're suggesting you don't, because it's not a reliable source of information.

unlike TikTok.

 

[OHvol40]

But seriously, please get vaccinated. Covid causes brain damage. One guy had it so bad he thought he won the 2020 election by 20 million votes!

 

[Vol Main]

The problem is they aren't actually doing true journalism. They will/are lying to fit their narrative. While they just want to print a story saying this is untrue, they look the other way and don't want to dig and find out (fact check)how many vaccinated are dying.

Going to leave this here so you don't miss it. Can you send it to the "fact checkers?"

Ivermectin for COVID-19: real-time analysis of all 119 studies

Who is "they?" One problem with having a lot of information available is that some of it will be sketchy. Some of it could be an outright pack of lies, presenting one side of an issue with extreme prejudice. A reader needs to have a context or background of information in his own brain in order to assess what he is reading. We are all supposed to learn methods for truth testing in high school. People are also supposed to have interests about the world which spurs them to read. But some people skate through high school and do not do much reading, ever. A lot of people never develop context for truth testing what they read. For those folks, it either reinforces what they already feel, in which case they accept it, or it doesn't, in which case they discredit and filter it.

 

[Vol Main]

Just a FYI, I have had a reaction to the shot. Had one after the second one too. Fever, chills, shivers, and body aches. If it's like last time, it'll last a few days. Just sharing in the spirit of honesty.

No third eye thus far, and I'm still alive, I think.

It's the third eye that worries me. Good luck.

 

[Orangeslice13]

The experimental shot isn't a treatment. If you think that I have beach property in Arkansas to sell you.

You’re a ****ing idiot if you have a problem with monoclonal antibody treatment but not ivermectin.

 

[Orangeslice13]

So what???????? Seriously? I think that is pretty germane and pretty f'ing central to this entire debacle.

WE (you and I and VN) have beat it to death. The mainstream media still ignores it. Find me one mainstream media reference that discusses while telling you to 'get the shot'.

You should re-read your post with the idea of goalpoast mobility. You moved them in just 4 paragraphs from Knoxville to Mars.

It absolutely is “so what” to compare natural immunity to the vaccinated. It’s not relevant for any decision making.
-if you’ve never had Covid it’s not relevant to your decision
-if you’ve had Covid and are still considering the vaccine it’s not relevant how the vaccine works on people who never had Covid.

It’s straight up bull **** distraction.

 

[UT_VOLS13]

C.D.C. Panel Will Meet on Who Gets Pfizer Vaccine Booster (msn.com)