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

[Hacky McAxe]

Covered in table 2 of the Roman review. The review only counts viral clearance from 5 - 28 days. Probably because a 3 day clearance is too fast for the drug to take effect so clearance is probably immune related, and 14 days isn't an early clearance. So 7 days is the only viable data there.

They also noticed that there were large bias issues with the research.

If you read the other research you'll see that an early viral clearance is around 10 days from symptoms.

Wait. I forgot to add something.

I don't want your money. It'll probably be monopoly money anyway.

 

[Greenmachine121]

my recommendation is to read the post and see for yourself, i have just proven that they lied that ivermectin doesn't work

edit: someone else proved it, i copied it and proved it on the kennel

No it should not be used for this purpose you are clearly off your head

 

[Rodzilla]

Covered in table 2 of the Roman review. The review only counts viral clearance from 5 - 28 days. Probably because a 3 day clearance is too fast for the drug to take effect so clearance is probably immune related, and 14 days isn't an early clearance. So 7 days is the only viable data there.

They also noticed that there were large bias issues with the research.

If you read the other research you'll see that an early viral clearance is around 10 days from symptoms.

this is complete bullshit and once again you will try to lie to cover it up, they didn't only count clearance from 5-28 days, they counted only 4-7 days

the 4th day is counted despite only counting viral clearance from 5 days onwards?

 

[Hacky McAxe]

this is complete bullshit and once again you will try to lie to cover it up, they didn't only count clearance from 5-28 days, they counted only 4-7 days

the 4th day is counted despite only counting viral clearance from 5 days onwards?

If only you actually read the study and looked at the table I told you to look at

 

[Rodzilla]

You don't know the difference between counting figures wrong and a typo?

One effects the results. One does not.

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

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

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

 

[Rodzilla]

If only you actually read the study and looked at the table I told you to look at

View attachment 30179

they counted 4-7 days, so 4th day is outside their range, meaning they didn't only count 5-28

 

[Hacky McAxe]

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

No it didn't because that's not the results. Those are reference stables.

Not that it would matter because the difference is still negligible.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

they counted 4-7 days, so 4th day is outside their range, meaning they didn't only count 5-28

Which why they list issues with the research. Read the whole thing. They can't ascertain the absolute effect on early viral clearance which makes the research "very poor quality" and generally methodologically flawed.

 

[Rodzilla]

No it didn't because that's not the results. Those are reference stables.

Not that it would matter because the difference is still negligible.

those are the initial results, they presented it as 16 deaths to 15 deaths and thats how they got their conclusion that it doesnt make a difference

the 11% increase and 63% decrease is negligible?, complete bullshit

 

[Hacky McAxe]

those are the initial results, they presented it as 16 deaths to 15 deaths and thats how they got their conclusion that it doesnt make a difference

the 11% increase and 63% decrease is negligible?, complete bullshit

Yes. Do you understand what those 11% and 63% figures are?

Not that this is what I'm saying is negligible. I'm saying that several flaws including a very greatly methodologically flawed study with results of only 9-22 sample is negligible. It's well within margin of error.

 

[Rodzilla]

ok hacky mcaxe so explain why the ravkirti result is accepted, they simply tested them all on day 6, so they counted 0-6 days but basically 0-5 days when they are meant to only count 5-28 days?, they simply wanted to pick their way through to say that ivermectin doesnt work

you should stfu, do not pass go and do not collect $200

 

[Rodzilla]

Yes. Do you understand what those 11% and 63% figures are?

Not that this is what I'm saying is negligible. I'm saying that several flaws including a very greatly methodologically flawed study with results of only 9-22 sample is negligible. It's well within margin of error.

so you agree with them that 63% reduction is not a reduction?

it wasn't flawed when they concluded ivermectin doesn't work

 

[Hacky McAxe]

so you agree with them that 63% reduction is not a reduction?

it wasn't flawed when they concluded ivermectin doesn't work

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.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

ok hacky mcaxe so explain why the ravkirti result is accepted, they simply tested them all on day 6, so they counted 0-6 days but basically 0-5 days when they are meant to only count 5-28 days?, they simply wanted to pick their way through to say that ivermectin doesnt work

you should stfu, do not pass go and do not collect $200

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

 

[Rodzilla]

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.

wtf how can 11% hetero be good, that is pretty much full gay?

im not even looking at the heterosexual number whatever it is called ffs, once again you are lying, are you talking about the 66% on the first mistaken test and the 16% number on the corrected test?, first time i noticed it actually but thats for teaching me something

the 11% increase is the 1.11 rr result, an 11% increase in death for ivermectin when the niaee study was counted wrong, the 63% decrease is the 0.37 rr when the figures were corrected

 

[Rodzilla]

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

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

 

[Rodzilla]

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

 

[steeliz]

Incorrect that they still get royalties, hence the bolded section bud

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

Still invented by Big Pharma.

 

[steeliz]

he literally highlighted for you which part you got wrong and you still got confused, go to a doctor and ask for a brain scan

The part where Big Pharma invented it?

Yeah he was wrong.

Go to an English Teacher and get some comprehension lessons.

 

[Rodzilla]

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