You're saying that 10's of thousands of people have NOT died due to the vax, correct?
General Study: Ivermectin doesn’t do jackshit in the treatment of Covid
- Thread starter MMAPlaywright
- Start date
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
100% are dead with out.
With a po2 40 and a PCO2 of 90 and tachypneic at 35, Should I just sit there and watch them guppy until they die?
What you missed out on the ventilator conversation is two distinct phenotypes of ventilation perfusion compromise in covid. You've only memorized that there are a portion that risk baro trauma following ardsnet protocols. You've forgotten that there's a whole other that are proper ARDS.
And in both cases you're dead without the vent. It's just two different ventilator strategies.
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
Correct.
There is not evidence for that right now.
This is actually probably the only thing I would entertain so far in this thread.
Could I imagine that we would continue pushing a vaccine that killed 20,000 in 2.5 billion injections?
Yeah. That's 0.000008% chance of death. I could see that taking a long time to be confirmed.
On the other hand I've paid attention to your previous post on this topic with references to things like this:
so come correct with something new besides VAERS
i'll have to read the study, but that's a pathetic excuse for journalism...even for the LA Times.
Not a double negative. It’s a statement that it doesn’t do jackshit. “Jackshit” is a very low threshold, but a tad more than zero. Ivermectin purported benefits don’t rise to the level of jackshit.
WTF am I wasting my time trying to explain this to a 90 year old?
Because you respect your very, very, very, very, very.....very elders.
I was under the influence when I typed that. I had taken MDMA mixed with fentanyl and heroin.
sounds like covid to me
Lol, that's not true!
I posted in the coronavirus thread this week about a woman who refused ventilator in the ICU, demanded her treatment for her husband, and he WALKED out in 3 days!
A hospital record!
That happened this week!
The treatment guidelines are designed for death, and handed down by bureaucrats.
Even Dr.Drizzy's chiming in with a 180.
View: https://youtu.be/lijS4CuMRH0
For the record,
@sparkuri has probably never run the numbers of Eudravigilence on the vaccines himself.He however posted a link to a questionable source claiming to have run em, and he even quoted that source incorrectly on here by claiming the total amount of adverse effects (so mild included) as serious cases, when in fact serious cases are a distinct and different number.
He can't read my post so it's just for info for anyone taking his numbers into account.
Stylin on em.
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
The key at this point is keeping patients out of the hospital by starting treatment early in disease progression. If vaccination rates are going to remain subpar (which is a certainty due to the insanity that they have somehow become politicized and public health statements get bastardized by narratives), then earlier treatment needs to be the focus.
Monoclonal antibodies (mAb) are severely underutilized right now. Early studies looked at their efficacy in progressive stages of disease, where they didn’t fare so well. When studies looked at their ability to prevent that disease progression and keep people out of the hospital, they performed tremendously. The Lilly product was pulled from its EUA (emergency use authorization) but the Regeneron and GlaxoSmithKline options are faring very well against the currently most common variants, including Delta. Due to the guardrails of my position, I can’t get into some of the confidential details about what is to come, but I can say that there will be new presentations of the mAbs which will make administration and site of care more efficient. Also, with the emerging variants that will inevitably make up a higher percentage of cases in the coming months/year, there will be further differentiation within the available mAbs as far as efficacy, but the good news is there will be at least one option that shows efficacy against the next few which are most likely to emerge (at least in the US. There will continue to be variability in rates/variant globally).
Monoclonal antibodies (mAb) are severely underutilized right now. Early studies looked at their efficacy in progressive stages of disease, where they didn’t fare so well. When studies looked at their ability to prevent that disease progression and keep people out of the hospital, they performed tremendously. The Lilly product was pulled from its EUA (emergency use authorization) but the Regeneron and GlaxoSmithKline options are faring very well against the currently most common variants, including Delta. Due to the guardrails of my position, I can’t get into some of the confidential details about what is to come, but I can say that there will be new presentations of the mAbs which will make administration and site of care more efficient. Also, with the emerging variants that will inevitably make up a higher percentage of cases in the coming months/year, there will be further differentiation within the available mAbs as far as efficacy, but the good news is there will be at least one option that shows efficacy against the next few which are most likely to emerge (at least in the US. There will continue to be variability in rates/variant globally).
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
Does that lady have a meta-analysis?
If she's an expert at studies review and guideline creation, does she have a review printed that has proper inclusion and exclusion criteria to help cut through "the noise" referenced?
Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines - PubMed
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...
She is Theresa Lawrie
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines - PubMed
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...pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
She is Theresa Lawrie
That's a reasonably well put together meta-analysis. Probably the most convincing compilation so far.
I wonder what the analysis looks like if you drop the three or four most risk bias studies.
I'm on the go but will have to pull up those higher quality studies she's references.
"You can hide anything under a meta-analysis" is a known axiom, but they exist for a reason.
M
member 1013
Guest
Have u doe?!?For the record,
He however posted a link to a questionable source claiming to have run em, and he even quoted that source incorrectly on here by claiming the total amount of adverse effects (so mild included) as serious cases, when in fact serious cases are a distinct and different number.
He can't read my post so it's just for info for anyone taking his numbers into account.
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
The future in so much of medicine is synthetic antibodies and mRNA vaccines.
100 years from now they're going to look back at the drugs I give that are not targeted and it will be thought of like leeches.
Hard "R"?
Yes, about two months ago for one vaccine (the one I was going to get).
But it's a lot of work and you have to take it with a grain of salt as well since none of the data is vetted, and only about half is actually reported by medical personnel.
And ofc the numbers are ever-changing, so two months ago doesn't mean much now.
