The vaccine

[sugarwood]

Originally Posted by Skillet83

Wikipedia cannot mention the peer-reviewed meta-analyses by Dr. Tess Lawrie

Wikipedia is not allowed to publish the recent meta-analysis on Ivermectin authored by Dr. Andrew Hill.

"

That's not how Wikipedia works.
You kinda miss the entire point of Wikipedia.

[sugarwood]

Originally Posted by Sooner or later

Ineffective
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2777389

Huge faulty study
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02081-w

Ineffective
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2021/03/ivermectin-doesnt-speed-recovery-mild-covid-19-study-shows

Ineffective
https://bmcinfectdis.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12879-021-06348-5

Ivermectin?
It's been debunked.
Get a new miracle voodoo cure.
Maybe dried banana peels are the hidden secret illegal cure!

[island911]

S-wood could get a job with the Lancet -

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2820%2931180-6/fulltext

^^ the crow they had to eat for publishing an anti-(HCQ) treatment paper.

Anyone who believes that there are no politics pushing Vaccine over treatments is a blind fool.

Those who demand "debunked /is ineffective" are useful idiots pushing propaganda.

[island911]

If this China Virus disease is SOooooo bad that Emergency use vaccine MUST be used, and then is only ~90% effective... then WHY NOT have people try prophylactic /preventative treatments?

This angry response, that so of you have against prophylactics, only highlights your susceptibility to propaganda. ...outs your void of critical thinking. (stupid)

[Sooner or later]

Originally Posted by island911

S-wood could get a job with the Lancet -

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2820%2931180-6/fulltext

^^ the crow they had to eat for publishing an anti-(HCQ) treatment paper.

Anyone who believes that there are no politics pushing Vaccine over treatments is a blind fool.

Those who demand "debunked /is ineffective" are useful idiots pushing propaganda.

This is the statement from the authors of the study and why they asked for it to be retracted. Data couldn't be confirmed through a 3rd party peer review that the authors of the study put in place.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31324-6/fulltext

After publication of our Lancet Article,1 several concerns were raised with respect to the veracity of the data and analyses conducted by Surgisphere Corporation and its founder and our co-author, Sapan Desai, in our publication. We launched an independent third-party peer review of Surgisphere with the consent of Sapan Desai to evaluate the origination of the database elements, to confirm the completeness of the database, and to replicate the analyses presented in the paper.
Our independent peer reviewers informed us that Surgisphere would not transfer the full dataset, client contracts, and the full ISO audit report to their servers for analysis as such transfer would violate client agreements and confidentiality requirements. As such, our reviewers were not able to conduct an independent and private peer review and therefore notified us of their withdrawal from the peer-review process.

We always aspire to perform our research in accordance with the highest ethical and professional guidelines. We can never forget the responsibility we have as researchers to scrupulously ensure that we rely on data sources that adhere to our high standards. Based on this development, we can no longer vouch for the veracity of the primary data sources. Due to this unfortunate development, the authors request that the paper be retracted.
We all entered this collaboration to contribute in good faith and at a time of great need during the COVID-19 pandemic. We deeply apologise to you, the editors, and the journal readership for any embarrassment or inconvenience that this may have caused.

[island911]

Of course they are going to try to minimize damage. Spin.

The point remains - it was a hit-piece against treatment.

[Sooner or later]

They used data from an outside party that couldn't be verified.

[island911]

oh, is that all they did? - it was a hit-piece against treatment.

[Sooner or later]

It should have been pulled, and it was.

It proves that retractions are not all one sided.

[sugarwood]

[thor66]

Originally Posted by sugarwood

This is legit scary

Is that tobra or iLand?

[upsscott]

Hilarious.

[dafischer]

^^^Trifecta!

[speeder]

Any of the right wingers here ever take a logic class in college? Even an introductory course? Just curious/asking for a friend...thanks.

[island911]

You didn't? - yeah, that fits.

https://www.npr.org/2021/08/21/1030046222/rev-jesse-jackson-hospitalized-covid-19

[island911]

Last that I checked there is a widening gap between CV infections (up) and death (up less proportionately)

Yet we see so many vaccinated going to the hospital. -that's pretty harsh. Most vaccines have the recipient asymptomatic when exposed to the chicken pox, mumps...

Anyway, being that most people who get CV survive CV, it must make it tough to discern what is moving the survival rate - is it this vaccine that still hospitalizes people, or is it better treatments of those in hospital.

I suppose that there is a good argument for getting the vax (even if inert - not saying it is) as it will have the medical industrial complex working that much harder to keep you alive, else they have that much more egg on their face.

So weird to have so many vaccinated land in the hospital with CV.

[Steve Carlton]

You don't have a clue, do you.

[island911]

Originally Posted by Steve Carlton

You don't have a clue, do you.

You're a frustrated dope, aren't you.

Seriously, why so emotional that you have to post nothing but ad hominem?

If you have a disagreement or a contribution, state it or move on.

[upsscott]

Originally Posted by island911

Last that I checked there is a widening gap between CV infections (up) and death (up less proportionately)

Yet we see so many vaccinated going to the hospital. -that's pretty harsh. Most vaccines have the recipient asymptomatic when exposed to the chicken pox, mumps...

Anyway, being that most people who get CV survive CV, it must make it tough to discern what is moving the survival rate - is it this vaccine that still hospitalizes people, or is it better treatments of those in hospital.

I suppose that there is a good argument for getting the vax (even if inert - not saying it is) as it will have the medical industrial complex working that much harder to keep you alive, else they have that much more egg on their face.

So weird to have so many vaccinated land in the hospital with CV.

Huh?

[Steve Carlton]

Originally Posted by island911

You're a frustrated dope, aren't you.

Seriously, why so emotional that you have to post nothing but ad hominem?

If you have a disagreement or a contribution, state it or move on.

I've been providing links to document what I state. I have politely asked you questions about why you believe what you state and to provide proof. You have not. Honestly, I think you're an idiot. Full of false conspiracy theories. You think what you say is fact just because you say it. I'm pretty sure most here can tell you're full of crap. There's some ad hominem for you. If you have some time, check into psychological projection.