The vaccine

[aschen]

hilarious

[Steve Carlton]

Originally Posted by javadog

There are roughly 1,000,000 doctors in the US. Those sample sizes are pretty pointless.

You asked. I don't expect you to believe the answers you'd get, anyway. I've heard 96%. I believe it, and for me it's a compelling reason to get vaccinated.

[Sooner or later]

Originally Posted by Skillet83

I thought I have seen stupid before, but sir, you win the prize.

https://www.marketscreener.com/quote/stock/MERCK-CO-INC-13611/news/Merck-Ivermectin-Triple-Therapy-Protocol-for-COVID-19-Released-to-Australian-GPs-for-Infected-Elde-31142061/

https://thecotimes.com/zerohedge-gt-ivermectin-wins-in-india/

https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/new-study-links-ivermectin-large-reductions-covid-19-deaths

Review of the last link.

https://ebm.bmj.com/content/early/2021/08/19/bmjebm-2021-111791

The antiparasitic ivermectin has received particular attention as a potential treatment option for COVID-19. Understandably, there is high interest in repurposing an approved inexpensive drug, readily available as an oral formulation. However, Garegnani et al1 recently pointed out the proportion of misleading information on ivermectin for COVID-19 published in journals, on preprint servers and websites.

A relevant number of systematic reviews report the use of methodological tools such as assessing bias at study level with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool or grading the certainty of the evidence following the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, thus suggesting a putative high credibility. Indeed, some published findings seem impressive. A recent meta-analysis by Bryant et al found that ivermectin reduces the risk of death by an average of 62% (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.73) compared with no ivermectin in hospitalised patients.2

In our Cochrane Review,3 we assessed the identical set of trials. However, only 4 of the 15 trials included in Bryant’s meta-analysis on mortality met our predefined eligibility criteria, and our conclusion, incorporating careful grading of the certainty of evidence, reveals a less rosy picture. The bottom line demonstrates an important uncertainty whether ivermectin compared with placebo or standard of care reduces or increases mortality in moderately ill hospitalised patients (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.14 to 2.51; two studies) and mildly ill outpatients (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.05; two studies), due to serious risk of bias and imprecision. How do the different assessments come about? The answer lies partly in the baseline data of included studies. Bryant et al pooled heterogeneous patient populations, interventions, comparators and outcomes. In other words, they compare apples and oranges, serving a large bowl of a colourful fruit salad. Usually, pooling of heterogeneous studies increases imprecision of effects in meta-analyses. Why does this not apply to ivermectin? Its alleged effect is driven by studies where the effect size is extremely positive, which has influenced the conclusions in other reviews. One of these studies with a huge effect has now been retracted over ethical concern.4

Evidence syntheses must be pieces of the highest trustworthiness. However, reliability is at risk when researchers publish problematic trials or misuse established evidence assessment tools as a guise for quality of evidence synthesis in general, but especially during a pandemic, by trying to create pseudotrustworthiness for substances that cannot be considered effective and safe treatment options nor game changers, at this stage.

[javadog]

I’ve heard that same 96% number in three different polls.

That’s the first clue that it’s a bull**** number.

Reminds me of the 93% the number that got thrown around with respect to global warming.

Or the 17 intelligence community agencies that agreed….

[Steve Carlton]

You're right. It's 20%.

[javadog]

I have no idea what the number is. 20% doesn’t sound right, either.

[Steve Carlton]

Lol

[thor66]

Originally Posted by javadog

And I still have a little interest in dissecting your reply.

you are wigged out

[beepbeep]

Just like physics...statistics do not give a crap about god, Trump, republicans, reptile people or Q-Anon. Ignoring statistics means high probability of being on the wrong side of the stick.

[cabmandone]

^^^^
Deep thoughts by Jack Handy.

[island911]

Originally Posted by beepbeep

Just like physics...statistics do not give a crap about god, Trump, republicans, reptile people or Q-Anon. Ignoring statistics means high probability of being on the wrong side of the stick.

Here are some stat's

[Chocaholic]

I’ve asked many times, why do we not test for antibodies before giving the vaccine? That question still isn’t answered (officially) but this new massive study certainly confirms that the question deserves consideration.

Leaving it unanswered and continuing to force the jab on people only feeds skepticism and breeds distrust. You’d think the CDC and Federal gov would know that. Nope.

[javadog]

Here’s another article that will trigger the liberals but it’s worth a read for the rest of us:

https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=243400

[cabmandone]

I posted this over on the dark side and thought others here might like to read it. A lot of good points about the study out of Israel.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/08/having-sars-cov-2-once-confers-much-greater-immunity-vaccine-no-infection-parties

[black73]

Originally Posted by Chocaholic

I’ve asked many times, why do we not test for antibodies before giving the vaccine? That question still isn’t answered (officially) but this new massive study certainly confirms that the question deserves consideration.

Leaving it unanswered and continuing to force the jab on people only feeds skepticism and breeds distrust. You’d think the CDC and Federal gov would know that. Nope.

Yes, asking that question makes you smarter than every scientist in the world because, gee, they never thought to ask it. Nobel award on the way to you, sir.

Maybe it's not relevant.

[javadog]

It’s not that they never thought to ask it, is that they have a different agenda. I’m not sure your health is at the top of their list.

[cabmandone]

It's absolutely relevant based on the article I linked from sciencemag. It can help save doses for one thing.
“We continue to underestimate the importance of natural infection immunity … especially when [infection] is recent,” says Eric Topol, a physician-scientist at Scripps Research. “And when you bolster that with one dose of vaccine, you take it to levels you can’t possibly match with any vaccine in the world right now.”


Seems to me the question should be asked about natural antibodies because those with some level of natural protection could get additional protection from just one shot rather than using two doses.

[speeder]

Natural immunity might be great but it's not the way we are going to get to herd immunity in the U.S.

Or put another way, the death toll and amount of illness would be intolerable. A vaccine is the only way.

[Chocaholic]

Herd immunity. You do understand that is impossible, right? Do we have herd immunity yet to the flu? But it is the left’s dog whistle for those prone to virtue signaling.

All you’re doing is driving mutational changes to the virus...ensuring it’s longevity. Herd immunity is a buzz word of the uninformed. Vaccination without treatment is the virus’s best hope for long term survival.

[javadog]

Heard immunity is not gonna happen. We’re also never going to get rid of this thing, it’s in the animal population, too. I would focus on treatments instead of vaccines.