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

[izentrop]

We are the vast majority of health professionals and sensible people (CIS) who accept the scientifically established evidence from several randomized studies, evaluated by specialists and which are consensus for the vast majority of world reference agencies.

most of which are at the ankle with BP which sprinkles them generously ...

What you will never understand is that a well-done study has enough locks that the funder has no influence on the results of the study.

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

We are the vast majority of health professionals and sensible people (CIS) who accept the scientifically established evidence from several randomized studies, evaluated by specialists and which are consensus for the vast majority of world reference agencies.

most of which are at the ankle with BP which sprinkles them generously ...

What you will never understand is that a well-done study has enough locks that the funder has no influence on the results of the study.

What you refuse to understand despite all the evidence that has been balanced here is that randomized studies are no better than observational studies and that it is easy to pay them when behind there are "sponsors" who want a result going in their direction. You're clogged with emery or too proud (or stupid) to change your outlook on a world that has exploded.

[Obamot]

What you will never understand is that a well-done study has enough locks that the funder has no influence on the results of the study.

So it's so “safe” that it is really stupid to be interested in the links of interest, eh Einstein?

How is Care Bears?

[Janic]

What you will never understand is that a well-done study has enough locks that the funder has no influence on the results of the study.

even as LANCET and others claim that most studies are biased; but you naively believe that they are not. An old saying goes "that"we do not bite the breast that nourishes you "

[ABC2019]

most of which are at the ankle with BP which sprinkles them generously ...

What you will never understand is that a well-done study has enough locks that the funder has no influence on the results of the study.

What you refuse to understand despite all the evidence that has been thrown in here is that randomized studies are no better than observational

This is wrong, there are situations where observational studies are enough, and others where they are not enough, but randomized studies cannot give worse results than observational studies. It is impossible for an effective drug to show no effect in a randomized study, while the reverse is true, one can have the impression of an effect when there is none because of a bias. of the study.

This is why a result negative in a randomized study is much more meaningful than a result positive in a non-randomized study.

It is, moreover, general in all experience - an absence of effect is much more significant than an observed effect. The reason is that for a bias to remove an effect, it must have exactly the opposite effect to compensate for it, no more and no less. And that is very improbable. While a bias can cause a positive effect to appear when there isn't, and that doesn't require a special bias value, so it's much more likely.

A concrete example ; experience Michelson and Morleyfound an ABSENCE of effect of the movement of the Earth on the speed of light - the interference fringes were not moving. This is a very powerful result which has been confirmed by all the experiments and which has led to the theory of Relativity.

Conversely, the result on superluminal neutrinos. was not very solid, because it was not an "absence of effect", it was just measuring a distance D, a time T, and doing the division D / T to compare to vs. Any error on D or T could give a result greater than c. And indeed it was, there was a faulty component. But it would have been extremely unlikely that an error would give, for example, "exactly c" if the actual speed had not been c.

Likewise, a randomized negative result is much more unlikely to arrive "by mistake" than a non-randomized positive result.

[izentrop]

As long as Guy, Obamo, Janic, will not know the difference between a scientifically established fact and an opinion, we will have subjects which will turn in a loop, without interest.

[ABC2019]

What you will never understand is that a well-done study has enough locks that the funder has no influence on the results of the study.

even as LANCET and others claim that most studies are biased; but you naively believe that they are not. An old saying goes "that"we do not bite the breast that nourishes you "

the biased studies we are talking about are precisely of this type: they give positive results but not reproducible (because of various biases). But it never happens that a study does not show an effect when there is one that could be statistically measured if it existed.

[Janic]

the biased studies we are talking about are precisely of this type: they give positive results but not reproducible (because of various biases). But it never happens that a study does not show an effect when there is one that could be statistically measured if it existed.

It is blabal when you want to apply a specific study to a product compared to itself where there is always a percentage of non-compliance. But this is not valid when we compare one product to another like a car compared to a boat. However, the studies made by the A (car manufacturers) on the H (boat builders) have no value because they are precisely not reproducible. in the same way that a heart specialist, cannot apply his specific criteria to corns on the feet, nor vice versa. hence all your phony fakenews.

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

As long as Guy, Obamo, Janic, will not know the difference between a scientifically established fact <<< By whom ??? The labs that order false studies, your zetetic sites where it only brings back what they want us to swallow, your crystal mold? and an opinion <<< A notice of what? Deportation, taxation, death?, we will have subjects that will run in a loop, without interest <<< That you have largely contributed to making people go around in circles since the start of the pandemic by always repeating the same nonsense.

Pfffffff ....

[Obamot]

As long as Guy, Obamo, Janic, will not know the difference between a scientifically established fact and an opinion, we will have subjects which will turn in a loop, without interest.

By what fact “scientifically established”Do you speak, you who lacks discernment relatively in a lot of fields?

Because glyphosate is not one of the organophosphates, as you said a little while ago?

Now pro glyphosates lobbyists become terrorists !!

"Doctors diagnose organophosphate poisoning."

Glyphosate is not one of them [...]
health-pollution-prevention / glyphosate-an-ecological-effective-non-cancerogenic-non-endocrine-disrupting-herbicide-t16264-360.html? hilit = glyphosate # p408493

Or when you said “that in Chernobyl nature would regain its rights ”. human-natural-disasters / chernobyl-nature-already-regaining-its-rights-t14571.html # p300379
Bein is going to live in Prypiat, not far from the power station ... you're part of nature, aren't you?

My mother always said to turn her tongue ten times in her mouth before speaking

You should have listened to your mother ....