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

[izentrop]

The biggest fraud is pfizer and gilead...
No interest in defrauding for a drug in the public domain but that the lobbyists cannot tell...

baseless arguments of authority, while the C19 sites... touted by Raoult, are proven to be rubbish.

[Obamot]

it's been proven to be bullshit.

Proved how? And there's no one to tell us that it would be worth combining these "cheapest" elements to increase their effectiveness tenfold (I've added specific ones):
— take care of your food bowl (48%),
— go to the Sun (45%),
— doing physical exercise (40%),
— vitamin A (40%)
— vitamin B12,
— vitamin C (22%, catalyst, antioxidant, etc.), l
— has vitamin D (37%)
— vitamin F (Omega-3),
— ambrosia,
— curcumin (38%),
— magnesium,
— selenium,
— sleep well (29%),
— zinc (28%),
— probiotics (24%),
— reduce slow and/or industrial sugars (and other addictions)

...and this since a single element alone will never be enough, it's a bioavailable biochemical set that counts... Do you know a big asshole who plays the scientist and who doesn't dream? Do you know who I'm thinking of? It seems that there is an Ax...

[Janic]

izMentrop wrote:

it's been proven to be bullshit.

obamot

Proved how? And there's no one to tell us that it would be worth combining these "cheapest" elements to increase their effectiveness tenfold (I've added specific ones):

as soon as this mentally retarded person speaks of proofs, it is necessary to understand, lack of proofs precisely, he reverses everything!
For him the Nazis were the good guys and the resisters, like the Jews and others who did not conform to their criteria, the bad guys.
And so, for him, only the nice, deadly synthetic chemicals have grace in his eyes as a member of his afis zetetic sect. That's the con...con...con...ditioned

[Christophe]

The biggest fraud is pfizer and gilead...
No interest in defrauding for a drug in the public domain but that the lobbyists cannot tell...

baseless arguments of authority, while the C19 sites... touted by Raoult, are proven to be rubbish.

Proved by whom? Your lobby friends?

[Janic]

15/02/23, 09:48

Proved by whom? Your lobby friends?

not even, it self-references! that is to say the level of mental attack...the pov'!

[Obamot]

Izentrop is an industrial lobby on its own, does everything (gratos??) alone: ​​Nuke, pharma, immunology, P4 lab, gene tests, armaments, medicine, diplomacy, vaccinations, scientific research, driving in Ax or VE, Bolshevik mainstreams, pipolitics, fact- Belgian checking translated from Russian, nutrition, self-assessment of scientific figures, pharmacovigilance, nail biting, review of scientific magazines, specialist in (Julien) walnut bread ^{in your mouth}, Unclog the puppies... EVERYTHING

Absolutely EVERYTHING...its copied/pasted from 'Current wife' are to be cut ^whistle Zizi

[reinoso]

Izentrop is an industrial lobby on its own, does everything (gratos??) alone: ​​Nuke, pharma, immunology, P4 lab, gene tests, armaments, medicine, diplomacy, vaccinations, scientific research, driving in Ax or VE, Bolshevik mainstreams, pipolitics, fact- Belgian checking translated from Russian, nutrition, self-assessment of scientific figures, pharmacovigilance, nail biting, review of scientific magazines, specialist in (Julien) walnut bread ^{in your mouth}, Unclog the puppies... EVERYTHING

Absolutely EVERYTHING...its copied/pasted from 'Current wife' are to be cut ^whistle Zizi

Absolutely EVERYTHING ... yes yes
Everything everything everything You will know everything about the zizi (pierre peret)

[Christophe]

The Exni Zizi, they make a pair (dec...) !

ps: watch out the odious character returns on Friday...

[Janic]

nice, nice, we'll be able to laugh with this funny!

[izentrop]

The biggest fraud is pfizer and gilead...
No interest in defrauding for a drug in the public domain but that the lobbyists cannot tell...

baseless arguments of authority, while the C19 sites... touted by Raoult, are proven to be rubbish.

Proved by whom? Your lobby friends?

them for example https://www.sciencepresse.qc.ca/actuali ... ite-fiable
It's up to you to prove that these are "lobbies" as you sing so well

The first question any fact-checker should ask themselves when faced with any site they didn't know existed before is, "who is behind this site?" In other words, what is the source of this information. This can often be found by an “About Us” or “About Us” button.

Unfortunately, here, no info other than: “We are PhD researchers, scientists, people who hope to make a contribution”. No name is given, no affiliation, no mailing address. However, having a doctorate (PhD) is not a guarantee of reliability (just like the fact of not having one does not mean that a site is not credible). Such a site could for example be managed by a doctoral student in electrical engineering or sociology, which would be to his credit, but hardly relevant here.

The authors themselves ask the question "why should we trust CovidAnalysis?" But they don't answer it: we provide “analysis, but all the sources are public and you can easily check everything”. The problem is that few people have the time to read all of these studies, let alone the time and energy to decode them and check whether the results have been summarized correctly.

Are there people, preferably experts, who have already gone through the COVIDAnalysis lists and come to relevant conclusions? After a quick Google search, I actually found it.

NewsGuard is a small American company that has made it its mission since 2018 to analyze sites deemed questionable. She published a long article in September analyzing the content and sources behind the CovidAnalysis network. Their first conclusion is the same as ours: site ownership is indeed opaque.

But above all, the NewsGuard team analyzed the indications attached to certain studies (positive, negative): it turns out that these indications "regularly distort the conclusions of clinical studies which had concluded that hydroxychloroquine did not provide any benefit to patients " . Among other examples, a study from the University of Minnesota is described as being "positive" for HCQ, when the study says the opposite (HCQ had no more effect than placebo) . Joined on this subject by NewsGuard, one of the authors of this study, David Boulware, declared that CovidAnalysis had even attributed to him comments that he had never made.

NewsGuard also notes that in several places the site “omitted negative information about studies that purported to show benefit for hydroxychloroquine” and that conversely, of all studies on HCQ “that are labeled 'positive', none have been peer reviewed, nor are they based on randomized clinical trials”.

NewsGuard Conclusion: The COVIDAnalysis Network Misrepresents Study Conclusions or Picks Those That Suit It “To Promote Hydroxychloroquine as a Treatment for COVID-19.”

I also found a few other sources that have analyzed the content of CovidAnalysis, though none with such depth. For example, in August 2020, American oncologist David Gorski, who blogs Science Based Medicine, called one of the three sites, HCQTrial, "pseudoscience, obvious to anyone with expertise in epidemiology and/or in clinical trials”. Biologist Carl T. Bergstrom denounced the "fraudulent" way in which this same site published a so-called "international" study (the anonymous authors claim that countries which used HCQ had fewer deaths, but do not take into account the number of infections, omit without justification countries like Brazil, etc.).

Pure and hard conspiracy the way you and your gang like it