Ivermectin Reviews? Drug 99,8% effective in 48 hours against COVID-19?

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

Rather, propose admissible counter-arguments.

To close the loop, the CHU of Bordeaux is a CHU in the service and bought by "Big Pharma" and your Molimard as well as the other tench have received bribes. Anything they can say is not only suspicious, but inadmissible as conflicts of interest undermine them. I know you don't care and always have, the uniform being more important than function and honesty.

sante-pollution-prevention / les-cons-du-coronavirus-t16359-730.html? # p395295

[izentrop]

Inadmissible, it is pay for effective work, there is no reason to call it a "bribe"

CHU Bordeaux (but there are others):
MSD: 728 euros in 537 and I added 2 pages only!

Sponsors of the IHU Mediterranée Infection:
Hologic (Material donation): 14 euros in 796 and basta.

Source:
https://www.transparence.sante.gouv.fr/ ... ution=e3s1

If the IHU offered such an efficient service, it would be better sponsored.
Instead, they traffic and multiply bogus studies to reach a maximum and are surprised to be dereferenced from the start by the CNRS and INSERM, just that

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

You don't care about the world! The IHU makes big profits, is autonomous and works perfectly, unlike the CHUs of Bordeaux and Nantes, which are dragging the devil by the tail. It's not good to reverse things... you're really rotten to the core!

Ps: Delisted due to power struggles and jealousy.

[izentrop]

The IHU makes big profits, is autonomous and works perfectly

Yes this is it
That's why he takes report after report

CNRS and Inserm withdrew very early

https://www.igas.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/rappor ... ome_1_.pdf

[Robob]

Here we understood, does not prevent that there are still irreducible...

Neither you nor the corrupt Molimard have read the study.

2 groups of IVM users: the regular group includes people who have taken more than 180 mg of IVM. The irregular group is less than 60mg.
The protocol is 0.2 mg/kg/day of IVM over 2 days every 15 days.
That is between 10 and 15 mg per day, therefore 20 to 30 over 2 days spaced 15 days apart for 150 days (5 months). This makes over 5 months (study from 07/2020 to 12/2020) between 200 and 300 mg of IVM depending on the weight of the person.
180mg mini, represents well anyone who has taken these pills regularly during the 5 months.

The group at - 60mg allows you to see if the more IVM you take the better it works (this is the case: see the study).

Obviously the people excluded are not those who have not yet reached 180mg, but those who at the end of 5 months had taken more than 60 mg and less than 180 mg over the total duration of the study.

"Ivermectin users were divided according to the cumulative dose of ivermectin taken.

The analysis focused on data from participants who used up to 60 mg (10 tablets) of ivermectin and those who used more than 180 mg (more than 30 tablets). Grouping users in this way represented greater certainty of regularity and irregularity, respectively. These groups were compared to non-users in a three-group comparative analysis.

Before believing all the prolabos medics, read the study:
https://www.cureus.com/articles/111851- ... 2-subjects

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

The IHU makes big profits, is autonomous and works perfectly

Yes this is it
That's why he takes report after report

CNRS and Inserm withdrew very early

https://www.igas.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/rappor ... ome_1_.pdf

You reverse things again. Raoult withdrew from the scientific council because he found it corrupt and marred by many conflicts of interest. What you've been doing from the beginning is to pass rotten people off as virtuous (INSERM, CNRS, ANSM, etc, etc. <<< I'm always talking about leaders, from the top, not researchers) and beat up a guy worldwide recognized and integrated. So indeed, the reports follow one another, we fire red balls at the IHU, we defame Raoult permanently on all the media (at the orders), we are given a monstrous presentation of the guy, his methods, his establishment and in the end... nothing... a verbal reprimand! It's a sinister farce that you've supported and maintained for two years. You are as stupid as you are revolting because you refuse ANY document that goes against the policy of those you defend.

You will not read it, but others may, in any case, what you have advanced on the management of the IHU has been undermined. No need to be "sponsored" by despicable labs repeatedly condemned to pay billions of dollars in fines for their criminal abuses:
https://gomet.net/start-up-ihu/
https://gomet.net/lihu-mediterranee-inf ... -rapporte/

Ps: @Robob: Izy (on absolutely ALL subjects) reads NOTHING of what we post, nothing of what he posts (except the Touites, it's short and there are images and titles of articles where the word "science" appears) but knows what it is all about.

[pedrodelavega]

pass for the virtuous of the rotten (INSERM, CNRS, ANSM, etc, etc <<< I always speak of the leaders, of the top, not of the researchers)

There are many of these "researchers" and probably very competent, much more competent than all of us put together.
They probably have families, friends, loved ones, lots of people around who have been affected by the covid (themselves probably)...
Anyway, you got the reasoning I think.

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

pass for the virtuous of the rotten (INSERM, CNRS, ANSM, etc, etc <<< I always speak of the leaders, of the top, not of the researchers)

There are many of these "researchers" and probably very competent, much more competent than all of us put together.
They probably have families, friends, loved ones, lots of people around who have been affected by the covid (themselves probably)...
Anyway, you got the reasoning I think.

I don't see why you are lecturing me, the sentence you used is unambiguous, even if some of the researchers have conflicts of interest. But it is far from being the majority who are struggling with increasingly meager budgets and increasingly dilapidated laboratories.

[pedrodelavega]

pass for the virtuous of the rotten (INSERM, CNRS, ANSM, etc, etc <<< I always speak of the leaders, of the top, not of the researchers)

There are many of these "researchers" and probably very competent, much more competent than all of us put together.
They probably have families, friends, loved ones, lots of people around who have been affected by the covid (themselves probably)...
Anyway, you got the reasoning I think.

I don't see why you're lecturing me, the sentence you used is unambiguous.

For you those the leaders / the top of these bodies who are rotten not the researchers.
That's right?

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

There are many of these "researchers" and probably very competent, much more competent than all of us put together.
They probably have families, friends, loved ones, lots of people around who have been affected by the covid (themselves probably)...
Anyway, you got the reasoning I think.

I don't see why you're lecturing me, the sentence you used is unambiguous.

For you those the leaders / the top of these bodies who are rotten not the researchers.
That's right?

It is unambiguous.