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

How to stay healthy and prevent risks and consequences on your health and public health. occupational disease, industrial risks (asbestos, air pollution, electromagnetic waves ...), company risk (workplace stress, overuse of drugs ...) and individual (tobacco, alcohol ...).
User avatar
GuyGadeboisTheBack
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 14821
Registration: 10/12/20, 20:52
Location: 04
x 4301

Re: Opinions about Ivermectin? Drug 99,8% effective in 48 hours against COVID-19?




by GuyGadeboisTheBack » 01/10/22, 13:42

Image
0 x
Robob
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 900
Registration: 12/04/13, 14:28
x 1235

Re: Opinions about Ivermectin? Drug 99,8% effective in 48 hours against COVID-19?




by Robob » 01/10/22, 16:57

izentrop wrote:
robob wrote:Before believing all the prolabos medics, read the study:
https://www.cureus.com/articles/111851- ... 2-subjects
You have to be competent for that and have confidence in the quality of the review.
I prefer to rely on the real specialists
scientists say there are too many gaps in the paper to draw conclusions about whether ivermectin had an effect...

several calculations for the COVID-19 outcomes were based on comparisons of much smaller sets of 283 people from each ivermectin use group, matched for age and certain health conditions such as as diabetes and asthma.

For example, the apparent 92% reduction in the risk of dying from any cause — not just COVID — among regular ivermectin users was based on the finding that 15 of 283 ivermectin nonusers died in during the study period, compared to 2 of 283 regular users....

As an observational study, the results cannot prove that ivermectin is the reason for the apparent reduction in risk of death from any cause or from COVID-19 in particular (here). But the study also lacks some kinds of data needed to support its conclusions, experts said.


You were quoting a tweet from Molimard that says ABSOLUTELY nonsense.
“Nice immortal time bias to trap gogos.”
Either this doctor is incapable of understanding a study, or he is lying, or both. No temporal bias in this study.

Now you criticize the scientific journal where the study appeared: ok. We know the process, it is impossible to place a study that contravenes the doxa in the most reputable journals. Normal since the $$$ are everywhere at the controller.

It then remains to take each other by the hand and check what the press says (in the hands of the same $$$), by checking what they say.

DEMONSTRATION:

The review on the study you quote above:

- She explains that the comparison groups are too small, citing 283 subjects per group: what a joke!
- The "without IVM" group is 45 people, the IVM group, 718! The "regular IVM user" group is the smallest with 113 people!
- As the groups are not balanced (risks), the study uses propensity score matching (PSM) to balance the study groups: this results in 283 matched subjects with small onions. : Mrgreen:
- Before this pairing, you will note that "COVID-19 infection rate was 49% lower for regular users (3,40%) compared to non-users (6,64%)". So out of 53 subjects: with the vaccine, it's roughly the opposite. : Cheesy:

As you can see, another big lame explanation of the $$$ media $$$ you read.

On the other hand, when the DREES or EPI-PHARE releases efficacy stats for the COVID vaccine with ridiculous novax groups compared to the vax, calculated approximately on INSEE population statistics based on 5-year-old referendums, without making any matching of propensity score, by adding in the novax unknown statuses in shambles, there, you find nothing to complain about!
Neither you, nor the teledoctors, nor the media, nor the supervisory bodies... Which is much more serious.
Image

Do not hesitate however to come and ask questions, if you begin (finally) to have doubts: I will be happy to try to answer them, to the extent of my very modest skills.
3 x
pedrodelavega
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 3791
Registration: 09/03/13, 21:02
x 1311

Re: Opinions about Ivermectin? Drug 99,8% effective in 48 hours against COVID-19?




by pedrodelavega » 03/10/22, 09:46

robob wrote:You were quoting a tweet from Molimard that says ABSOLUTELY nonsense.
“Nice immortal time bias to trap gogos.”
Either this doctor is incapable of understanding a study, or he is lying, or both. No temporal bias in this study.

Of course yes, DEMONSTRATION (sic):

1 x
User avatar
Remundo
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 15989
Registration: 15/10/07, 16:05
Location: Clermont Ferrand
x 5187

Re: Opinions about Ivermectin? Drug 99,8% effective in 48 hours against COVID-19?




by Remundo » 03/10/22, 10:00

I wonder if Izy is not a government lobbyist...

in any case he could get hired, he is very persevering and diligent.
0 x
Image
User avatar
GuyGadeboisTheBack
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 14821
Registration: 10/12/20, 20:52
Location: 04
x 4301

Re: Opinions about Ivermectin? Drug 99,8% effective in 48 hours against COVID-19?




by GuyGadeboisTheBack » 03/10/22, 12:37

pedrodelavega wrote:
robob wrote:You were quoting a tweet from Molimard that says ABSOLUTELY nonsense.
“Nice immortal time bias to trap gogos.”
Either this doctor is incapable of understanding a study, or he is lying, or both. No temporal bias in this study.

Of course yes, DEMONSTRATION (sic):

Of course not, since the article takes up the words of the abominable Mathieu Molimard the shabby. : roll:
0 x
Robob
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 900
Registration: 12/04/13, 14:28
x 1235

Re: Opinions about Ivermectin? Drug 99,8% effective in 48 hours against COVID-19?




by Robob » 03/10/22, 14:18

pedrodelavega wrote:
robob wrote:You were quoting a tweet from Molimard that says ABSOLUTELY nonsense.
“Nice immortal time bias to trap gogos.”
Either this doctor is incapable of understanding a study, or he is lying, or both. No temporal bias in this study.

Of course yes, DEMONSTRATION (sic):



Of course not :

the study:
https://www.cureus.com/articles/111851- ... 2-subjects

Mathieu Molimard. “If you caught Covid at two months, you are not in the group that was treated with ivermectin, since you did not have 180 mg, you are in the rejected group. »

Why assume that the person who catches covid at 2 months will stop the protocol? (Take the IVM every 15 days). At best, being positive or symptomatic, she will intensify the treatment by taking 10 to 15 mg per day or even more for 5 or 6 days. The study clearly states that it is the plurality tablets taken during the 5 months.

This can also be verified with figure 2 of the study “Impact of the use of ivermectin on the rates of infection during the whole, the first half and the second half of the program in non -users, regular users and irregular users":
There are 8325 regular users in the first half and second half:
First half: 121 cases/8325 = 1.45%
Second half: 162 cases/8325 = 1.95%

Those who caught covid in the first half are not excluded in the second.
And if in the first half those with less than 180mg were excluded, then there would be no one in the regular group on the first part. "To reach 180 mg, you have to hold out for at least three and a half months," notes Mathieu Molimard. (What a badger.)

Admitting Molimard's "error" that people who catch covid stop treatment:
- the group irregular contains ALL people who took less than 60mg of IVM over the 5 months. (see the study)
- It then contains all the people who would have caught the covid before 1.5 months: indeed, with 24mg every 15 days it is necessary to spend 3 weeks being regular to reach more than 60 mg.
- If you repeat the study, you will see that the "irregular" group (<60mg cumulative) has much better results than the group without. So even so, Molimard's phony excuse does not apply.
- The 70 patients in the middle were not excluded to skew the result: they are excluded because by taking the <000mg group and the >60mg group, we take the two extremes of all the people treated (treatment stopped or incomplete, complete treatment), which makes it possible to measure that the better the treatment is followed, the more effective it is.

The reality is that either Molimard did not understand the study, or he understood perfectly and is lying like a tooth-puller because he got too deep into these pro-lab doctor statements. : Mrgreen:

The other truth is that the journalists, if they were doing their job correctly, would have tried to understand the study, then in the doubt posed by Molimard's hazardous interpretation, contact the scientists who wrote the study to ask for explanation. In short, they don't understand anything and don't do their job.

The last truth is that you better try to start thinking with your own neurons rather than continuing to swallow all his bullshit for over 2 years.

I remain at your disposal for any clarification, if however a point seems obscure to you.Image
3 x
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538

Re: Opinions about Ivermectin? Drug 99,8% effective in 48 hours against COVID-19?




by Obamot » 03/10/22, 16:09

pedrodelavega wrote:To take just one example:
No, no, don't even try... Image
0 x
izentrop
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 13644
Registration: 17/03/14, 23:42
Location: picardie
x 1502
Contact :

Re: Opinions about Ivermectin? Drug 99,8% effective in 48 hours against COVID-19?




by izentrop » 03/10/22, 18:04

Remundo wrote:I wonder if Izy is not a government lobbyist...
in any case he could get hired, he is very persevering and diligent.
It's just a matter of logic. Rather, the government has an interest in making its decisions based on scientific consensus, and then I didn't get my check.

If like Trump or Putin, he took "fake news" into account, he would have to turn around every 4 mornings, each time a "debunk" would come to dismantle the theory... I tell you by the mess that would follow : Mrgreen:

It's happened before with Fessenheim and glyphosate, but hey, relying on voters isn't always the right way.
For Fessenheim, ecologists are beginning to understand their pain... for the Glypho, it still needs to mature in narrow minds. :o
0 x
User avatar
Macro
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6458
Registration: 04/12/08, 14:34
x 1610

Re: Opinions about Ivermectin? Drug 99,8% effective in 48 hours against COVID-19?




by Macro » 03/10/22, 18:39

In any case...Covid symptomatic since Saturday...With no other care than rest and paracetamol...and am still alive...
2 x
The only thing safe in the future. It is that there may chance that it conforms to our expectations ...
Robob
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 900
Registration: 12/04/13, 14:28
x 1235

Re: Opinions about Ivermectin? Drug 99,8% effective in 48 hours against COVID-19?




by Robob » 03/10/22, 20:07

Macro wrote:In any case...Covid symptomatic since Saturday...With no other care than rest and paracetamol...and am still alive...

You have to be careful with this virus: an acquaintance, nurse, 50 years old, no comorbidity, caught the virus 15 days ago. She stayed in bed for 4 days, with high fever during the 4 days and "like a bar on the lungs with difficulty in breathing", according to these words.

She is vaccinated 3 doses of course.

At the request of my wife who does not want to get angry with her girlfriend, I did not offer her my Ivermectin for pigs bought on Aliexpress for €9 for a box of 100 5mg tablets. : Mrgreen:
0 x

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Back to "Health and Prevention. Pollution, causes and effects of environmental risks "

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : Google [Bot] and 222 guests