Covid-19 related debates (argue in this thread only)

[Rodzilla]

The part where Big Pharma invented it?

Yeah he was wrong.

Go to an English Teacher and get some comprehension lessons.

no the other part

btw i don't even think big pharma was around back then, its probably medium pharma that invented it

 

[Rodzilla]

btw im not going to let hacky get away with the unsatisfactory responses and bullshit in the last page, im still waiting for him

 

[Hacky McAxe]

thats not what these reviews say, this one says it shows ivermectin doesnt work

That's not what it says. It doesn't say it doesn't work. It infers it's likely not to work based on results.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

i have a feeling that mcaxe is doing something else while he is doing this with me and we arent getting the best version of him

he is not focused

This is true. I'm busy working and during the occasionl break I'm doing many things.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

not implying hacky is doing drugs, i mean he is doing 5 screens and im the number 5 importance

he is all over the place talking about heterogenety for no reason because the corrected study shows 16%, so that is apparently good, he should have no problem with that part, he is talking about them only counting 5-28 days and has no explanation for why the study of 0-6 days was then counted

lets just focus on what my problem is, they made a mistake compiling the report, it incorrectly said that ivermectin increases death by 11%, they concluded that ivermectin doesn't decrease deaths, then they corrected the error, ivermectin now apparently decreases deaths by 63%, but the original conclusion remains that ivermectin doesn't decrease deaths

Nope. Small sample size, flawed methodology, results negligible.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

btw im not going to let hacky get away with the unsatisfactory responses and bullshit in the last page, im still waiting for him

I'm not your science teacher. If you want to actually learn, go to Uni. You're not going to learn by ready research papers and ignoring the conclusions of those that ran the study.

 

[Rodzilla]

This is true. I'm busy working and during the occasionl break I'm doing many things.

yeah but its like im debating with a fucking mental patient here, improve your performance

I didn't say they counted incorrectly. I said that they mixed up the titles of the tables. The one labelled "ivermectin" was the control group, and vice versa. A simple error that was fixed in repeat. They didn't recount or change the results in any way.

how can they possibly mix up the titles of the tables and it doesn't change the results?, give me an example how that could work because i think it is literally impossible

This is why I asked you if you knew what the 11% and 63% figures meant and it seems like you don't.

They are heterogeneity percentages. They represent how similar the studies are in results. 11% is good. It means that they're similar. 63% is bad. It means that one study it so flawed that it has skewed the results. In this case, it's the study you're spruiking.

i don't understand how you thought i was talking about heterogeneity percentages, the actual heterogeneity percentages are 66% for the faulty report and 16% for the corrected, this is a bizarre post and doesn't the 16% mean its good now?

The saddest part about this is that you're not realising that you're actually proving why these reviews all say, "insufficient evidence"

That's not what it says. It doesn't say it doesn't work. It infers it's likely not to work based on results.

here is what it says "Compared with the standard of care or placebo, IVM did not reduce all-cause mortality, LOS, or viral clearance in RCTs in patients with mostly mild COVID-19. IVM did not have an effect on AEs or SAEs and is not a viable option to treat patients with COVID-19"

i don't see any insufficient evidence, and the reason we are talking about it in the first place is you brought it up to meet my challenge of showing something that says ivermectin doesn't work

 

[Rodzilla]

actually no its not literally impossible to switch the title of the tables and it doesn't effect the result, if the result was identical, like 4/55 and 4/55 then switching the tables won't effect the result, i think its malicious for hacky to imply that it didn't have any effect here

 

[DinkumDog]

Since @Rodzilla thinks he's dealing with 'mental patients', 'retards' and those who need 'brain scans', I'm going to submit my brain for an audit.
I've just made a booking with a highly credible firm: https://www.cyberninjas.com - if there's fraud, they'll find it!

 

[JayBee]

They don't have the name copyrighted????

Still invented by Big Pharma.

The name does not matter as much. Yes the brand holds weight, but there’s a reason it’s called a patent cliff - it loses a tremendous amount of value (sometimes 60-70%+).

In some instances, the company that owns the branded product will no longer manufacturer post patent, due to huge lose in value. For example, Pfizer own the brand Xanax. But not long after it was off patent, they discontinued the drug here in Australia, due to it being very generisized, but also potentially due to the upscheduling.


Generics are generally named after the raw ingredient or a derivative of it. So Xanax - Alprozolam, Viagra - Sildenafil etc.

 

[Greenmachine121]

this effected the results though

the report before the correction

Ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials | medRxiv

View attachment 30177

View attachment 30178

after they corrected it the conclusion stayed exactly the same despite the reduction from 1.11 to 0.37

View attachment 30180
View attachment 30181

im not sure what you are trying to argue, that the mistake didnt make a difference in the result (it was 1.11 to 0.37 when they corrected) it or that 0.37 is not a reduction in mortality and they are correct to keep the conclusion?

you are probably just full of shit and will say anything

IVM IS NOT A VIABLE OPTION TO TREAT COVID 19 PATIENTS

Do you read what you post ?

 

[Greenmachine121]

Keep Trolling trolling trolling
Cmon
Keep Trolling trolling trolling
Yeah !

 

[steeliz]

The name does not matter as much. Yes the brand holds weight, but there’s a reason it’s called a patent cliff - it loses a tremendous amount of value (sometimes 60-70%+).

In some instances, the company that owns the branded product will no longer manufacturer post patent, due to huge lose in value. For example, Pfizer own the brand Xanax. But not long after it was off patent, they discontinued the drug here in Australia, due to it being very generisized, but also potentially due to the upscheduling.


Generics are generally named after the raw ingredient or a derivative of it. So Xanax - Alprozolam, Viagra - Sildenafil etc.

Still invented by Big Pharma.

 

[steeliz]

no the other part

btw i don't even think big pharma was around back then, its probably medium pharma that invented it

The other part where he is wrong?

Big Pharma has been around a lot longer than that.

 

[Rodzilla]

IVM IS NOT A VIABLE OPTION TO TREAT COVID 19 PATIENTS

Do you read what you post ?

oh boy read it again and understand my point next time, they based the conclusion on the original results but that was wrong because the niaee study was counted wrong, then they corrected it but kept the original conclusion, look at picture 1 and picture 2 and see the differences

oh do you think that a reduction in deaths of 63% is not good enough to make it viable?

 

[Rodzilla]

hacky mcaxe has no response and is reduced to cheerleading from the sideline

 

[Rodzilla]

ok here is the situation again, maybe i havent made the situation clear because there are some crazy people out there who need everything spelled out

this is the original mistake, niaee study here is counted wrong, they attribute 11 deaths to ivermectin and 4 to control when it should be the other way around

View attachment 30177

View attachment 30178

after they correct it you see it changes the total to 9/425 compared to 22/365 or 63% less risk of death they should then change their conclusion but it remains the same, anyone who doesn't have a problem is saying that 63% reduction is not a reduction

View attachment 30180
View attachment 30181

 

[Hacky McAxe]

hacky mcaxe has no response and is reduced to cheerleading from the sideline

Nah. I explained the flaws infinitum and you doubled down claiming you were right, proved that you don't understand what you're talking about, claimed that you know more than the experts and the world authorities. Everyone sees the problem. Everyone sees that you are wrong... Except for one person. You.

And my response was, "you can't help the helpless"

It's obvious that you live in a strange delusional world and no one can help you. So I'm not going to try.

 

[Rodzilla]

Nah. I explained the flaws infinitum and you doubled down claiming you were right, proved that you don't understand what you're talking about, claimed that you know more than the experts and the world authorities. Everyone sees the problem. Everyone sees that you are wrong... Except for one person. You.

And my response was, "you can't help the helpless"

It's obvious that you live in a strange delusional world and no one can help you. So I'm not going to try.

no you need to explain to me how you made that claim that they got the tables wrong but it didn't effect the result

seriously, demonstrate how that is possible

 

[Rodzilla]

you were completely wrong, you brought up the hetero shit for no reason, complaining that i didn't understand what it meant

i wasn't even talking about that, it was crystal clear i was talking about 63% reduction in deaths, if you followed my argument you would understand

then when it is crystal clear i was talking about 63% reduction in deaths, you avoid that