Ivermectin/ Covid Kit Thread

[lukdiver]

Interesting info on Ziverdo Kit, covers drug inter-reactions, etc.

ziverdo-kit 【20% OFF 】| @$8 #Buy ziverdo Online at USA - ziverdo-kit

Buy ziverdo-kit Tablets Online, ziverdo-kit ✅Treat to Covid-19 Treatment✈️ Fast Delivery Available In Usa, Uk, Australia, France

ziverdo-kit.com

 

[Voodoo]

I think that's likely true. However that does not, by itself, make ivermectin effective.

The obvious difference is that Ivermectin is also VERY safe. So the bar of effectiveness is pretty low. A small gain still makes it a worthwhile treatment.

 

[RebelYell]

The obvious difference is that Ivermectin is also VERY safe. So the bar of effectiveness is pretty low. A small gain still makes it a worthwhile treatment.

Absolutely. Which is why I said "Before any of you get mad at me :-), this does not mean that I won't take it - as I have said many times I see little downside in doing so, but it does appear that the positive evidence for its efficacy is increasingly limited" in my earlier post.

 

[the_shootist]

So the bar of effectiveness [of Ivermectin] is pretty low.

I'm not so sure how true this statement is. It's tough to know what propaganda is valid and what is bullshit to counter opposing arguments. Studies and surveys prove nothing as they can, and often are skewed to arrive at a specific outcome.

 

[Joe King]

A small gain still makes it a worthwhile treatment.

And to be fair, he did say that if he caught the coof that he'd use it.

The issue I see is that with a disease that the majority of people have a greater than 99% chance of survival, it can be difficult to say with absolute certainty that any particular treatment was what allowed any particular person to survive.

Most people, if they did nothing other than what they'd do to nurse a cold, (rest, chicken soup, etc) would have survived with or without doing anything else.

With the ivm, it has such small risk of using it and with so much anecdotal evidence that it can help, I fail to see the harm of trying it.
If nothing else, the pharmaceutical industry will just make that much more money.


If it were a disease like ebola with a very high death rate, it'd be a lot easier to definitively prove the effectiveness of a particular treatment.

 

[RebelYell]

You obviously misunderstand, probably on purpose. I'm not arguing with you.

But your response with Ivermectin is to cast doubt, xactly like billy boy and fausti would want their internet trolls to. That's trollworthy.

My response is to evaluate all the information I come across and try and arrive at the truth. In my view that is the only path that is worth treading. Your position appears to be something other than that.

If you fall into the trap of automatically believing, or disbelieving, everything anyone says then you are very easily manipulated. Just because Fauci is a corrupt, mass-murdering, criminal does not mean everything he says is a lie. It does mean that you should not trust anything he says. But if something he claims turns out to be true, then it is still true.

FWIW my position should be clear enough from all my other posts:
- the disease is not serious and none of the lockdown measures have been warranted
- we are being subjected to a psy-op of astonishing proportions, by a group of corrupt, mass-murdering criminals who are attempting to impose an authoritarian society upon us
- Fauci and Bill Gates are the front men for this group in this endeavor.
- this group manipulates statistics, promotes its own policies as solutions, and actively suppresses alternative solutions lying without compunction as necessary to make ther case; no-one should trust anything these people claim
- the vaccines do not work in any way; they provide effectively zero protection against fatality and appear to actually increase the risk of catching covid itself
- no-one should take the vaccine
- vaccine side-effects are being covered up. although to what extent is hard to know

Despite all that, it does NOT mean that we should not independently search for the truth. And it does NOT mean that we must automatically disagree with something just because Fauci said it. Ivermectin either works well, poorly or not at all. My guess is that it works but is only somewhat effective.

My opinion entirely. No argument. I could care less what you think. But I see where you're going with this, and you're sowing seeds of doubt.

Where do you think I'm going with this? I wasn't actually going anywhere.

I search for information from all parties on both sides of any argument because that's the only way to find the truth. In general I find that "fact checkers" are spewing horse-shit which actually helps confirm my contrary view, but in the case of ivermectin, for the second time, I have come across some information questioning its efficacy which seemed reasonable to me. I posted it here because I was interested in whether anyone could rebut it, or link to a rebuttal elsewhere.

I can question anything I want. You obviously don't like being questioned.

I'm very happy to be questioned. However I would like the questions to be based on the information I have posted. For example, tell me that the analyses are wrong for reasons x, y and z. Or tell me they don't matter, because the other studies prove the point.

If you just tell me that "anyone who questions ivermectin is a troll" and therefore you refuse to even look at the arguments they present, then it is you who are refusing to respond to questions, not me.

And FWIW - go and read a bunch of my messages here; I think you will come to the conclusion that you are incorrect about my motive.

TS.

 

[RebelYell]

Interesting comment. Wonder how much that affected old and infirm to just "give up" and helped them pass away by nothing more than suggestion and bad medical care...............

Indeed. Simply isolating the infirm was probably enough in many cases. Putting them on vents did the trick in many other cases. There are also serious questions being raised by whistleblowers in the UK at least that they were being administered fatal doses of euthanasia drugs and then recorded as covid deaths.

 

[ABC123]

Anyone know what the paste shelf life is? Had one in the fridge for over a year. Thinking of taking some since I cant find the paste over the counter anymore.

 

[lukdiver]

Conversation over on Surviliast 'Ivermectin Board' said should be stored at room temperature. Checking one of my boxes it says 'Sept. 2022' so I'd imagine your paste is still way within useful life/effectiveness. IF this craziness continues I'd recommend getting a 250/500ml bottle of liquid 1%. Its easy laying in a multi-year supply then and I find the liquid much more palatable. IF infected you'll go thru paste like crazy. Check post #743 on this link and there's a ton of info there.

Survivalist Forum

www.survivalistboards.com

 

[ABC123]

Yeah I'll probably just buy a bottle to be safe. They are just so expensive now. The bottles over the counter were 69. and 89. respectively.

 

[Goldbrix]

The problem with doctors in the trenches reporting stuff is that we know that that is not a reliable way to decide whether a treatment is good or not. No it's not completely useless, but it's not very good either - so we should attach a great deal more weight to trials. Doctors prescribed all sorts of useless treatments for centuries at a time based on their own observations.

I'm especially worried about trials with fraudulent data which show that Ivermectin works. Presumably these people wanted Ivermectin to work (which is why they created the fraudulent data to show that it did), so would not have designed trials designed to ensure failure (like some of the HCQ trials), but they still found that it didn't work all that well - otherwise why invent the data?

TRIALS? Trials ran by the businesses that are making all the profits from people's tax dollars ? Payola going to bureaucrats who become Business Execs in the cos. making Jab Juice. Business Execs. who become bureaucrats that regulate and award the "Research Money" to Big Pharma Co. ?
Naw, I trust them as much as I trust FAUCI and we all know he has a long record of lying. Now his motto is " More Boosters, More Boosters, More Boosters. Maybe another booster every three months".
I'll go with the those who speak from the Front Lines. Not some Graduated Medical Student, possibly Unlicensed, yet the government who employs him does not require Licenses to call him 'doctor" ( I won't capitalized it as it would show him some modicum of respect).
He Deserves to HANG and Slowly.

 

[Goldbrix]

Conversation over on Surviliast 'Ivermectin Board' said should be stored at room temperature. Checking one of my boxes it says 'Sept. 2022' so I'd imagine your paste is still way within useful life/effectiveness. IF this craziness continues I'd recommend getting a 250/500ml bottle of liquid 1%. Its easy laying in a multi-year supply then and I find the liquid much more palatable. IF infected you'll go thru paste like crazy. Check post #743 on this link and there's a ton of info there.

Survivalist Forum

www.survivalistboards.com

Yeah I'll probably just buy a bottle to be safe. They are just so expensive now. The bottles over the counter were 69. and 89. respectively.

I heard CUSTOMS is cracking down on medical supplies coming from overseas especially nations that allow Ivermectin .

 

[lukdiver]

Just seen the one report. I'm waiting to see if the poster above in this thread has his recent order (eMedsmart) arrive before ordering another dozen Ziverdo Kits. I've thrown $125 away before (for less) so no biggee if goes missing.

 

[AurumAg]

Just seen the one report. I'm waiting to see if the poster above in this thread has his recent order (eMedsmart) arrive before ordering another dozen Ziverdo Kits. I've thrown $125 away before (for less) so no biggee if goes missing.

I contacted emedsmart today, and I am hoping for some good news.

 

[lukdiver]

I've had one quick order and another that took over 3 weeks. At a certain point I just forgot it and it showed up then.
EDIT: enough messing about, I just ordered the dozen Ziverdo Kits. The Holidays are coming and putting together some Med Kits for friends/family. Going to be long Dark Winter so $132 cheap gamble.

 

[dacrunch]

I've had one quick order and another that took over 3 weeks. At a certain point I just forgot it and it showed up then.
EDIT: enough messing about, I just ordered the dozen Ziverdo Kits. The Holidays are coming and putting together some Med Kits for friends/family. Going to be long Dark Winter so $132 cheap gamble.

Then get jailed for "practicing medicine without a license"... (that I could get accused of for handing them out to family/ friends..., which I do).

Just like the employer in France who had a "self-service bin" of HCQ pills at his factory for those who wanted it way back at the beginning of this mess.

"No good deed goes unpunished."

 

[Joe King]

If you just tell me that "anyone who questions ivermectin is a troll"

Try not to be too hard on him. He says the same thing about those questioning flat Earth dogma.

 

[RebelYell]

Try not to be too hard on him. He says the same thing about those questioning flat Earth dogma.

I'm not being hard on him. He accused me of not liking being questioned. I don't think it's unreasonable for me to point out that the boot is on the other foot.

 

[Casey Jones]

Anyone know what the paste shelf life is? Had one in the fridge for over a year. Thinking of taking some since I cant find the paste over the counter anymore.

The cartons I have have their official Expiration Date on one end.

If your tube is out of the carton or a brand that's not stamped (I can't imagine) the dates run about 18 months.

With careful storage, probably good for 24.

Check your brand for storage advice. Durvet does NOT recommend refrigerated storage; room temperature, 50-70. Brief higher temperatures are permissible (such as a barn environment).

Do a search, both your brand and your type of compound. Gurgle blacks out such searches; try DDG or Yandex.

 

[Casey Jones]

Anyone getting side effects, all these supplements together?

I may be. Pains where I should not have pains. It started when I added Berberine to quercitin, NAC, vitamins, D hi-po supplements, calcium.

Looks like that's the straw that broke my system. I hope what's going on is temporary - I know I ain't gonna get real help in the Jab Centre, the former hospital.

 

[RebelYell]

Here is my e-mail to the guy who claimed to discover fraud in some of the ivermectin trials, and his response:

Hi [RebelYell]
This is a real concern and a legitimate issue, and in fact we can sometimes look at up to 300 statistical "tests" for some of the larger studies. If we just took the usual scientific definition of significance (a result "less than 1 in 20 likely to occur by chance") we would almost certainly call every study as fraud. This is a problem in non-fraudulent research too, if you design a trial for a drug with ten different possible definitions of "success", your chance of finding one even if the drug doesn't work is high. This problem is called "multiplicity" or "multiple comparisons".
There are a few ways to compensate for this but none are perfect. One way is to be strict, with something called the Bonferroni method where you essentially multiply your threshold by the number of tests you do, so if you don't want to over-call more than 1 in 20 studies in the example above you make the new threshold for accepting a finding as "less than 1 in 6000 likely to occur by chance". That corrects for the number of tests you do but does decrease your statistical power, so makes you more likely to miss a real finding. There are some other methods but that is the most common.
We still thought 1 in 20 was too high. Thankfully the quality of the frauds we found was low, so most of the ones we found with one issue had many, each at least 10,000 to 1 against. We actually didn't find many papers in a "grey area", virtually all were obviously fake on multiple tests or had no problems at all, there weren't really that many in between. That said, it might be that we only found the really obvious fakes because the good quality ones were undetectable. Because theses are often smallish studies the statistical power is likely to be low except for obvious fakery.
To be honest if somebody with good statistical knowledge decided to fake a trial, took their time, and was careful, I'm actually not very confident at all we'd be able to catch them.
Thankyou for taking the time to write.
Kyle

On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 7:57 AM [RebelYell] wrote:

Kyle, I read your articles on potential fraud in ivermectin studies with interest. It did occur to me that the probability calculations in your analyses might be slightly misleading in the sense that you search for unlikely patterns in the data and then note how unlikely it is for such a pattern to occur, but you seem to ignore the number of possible types of unlikeliness you might have found. So for example, let’s say you find a particular pattern which would only occur 1 time in 10,000 – but when you reviewed the data you were actually considering 10,000 possible anomalies. In that case, it would not be surprising that you found one such anomaly. I believe that when scientists do this when analyzing results of an experiment, it’s known as p-hacking and is a common problem with scientific research I don’t know how you would guard against this in your work because I suspect it would be very hard to know how many different types of data anomaly you were really searching for when you look for odd patterns, and perhaps the things you found were so unlikely that even this concern is not sufficient to alter your conclusion. And obviously in some of the studies you found clear evidence of fraud which was not dependent on this type of probability calculation. I’m just an interested layman, so perhaps my concern is not valid – but I would appreciate hearing your thoughts if you have the time to respond. Thanks

 

[Avalon]

Here is my e-mail to the guy who claimed to discover fraud in some of the ivermectin trials, and his response:

Hi [RebelYell]
This is a real concern and a legitimate issue, and in fact we can sometimes look at up to 300 statistical "tests" for some of the larger studies. If we just took the usual scientific definition of significance (a result "less than 1 in 20 likely to occur by chance") we would almost certainly call every study as fraud. This is a problem in non-fraudulent research too, if you design a trial for a drug with ten different possible definitions of "success", your chance of finding one even if the drug doesn't work is high. This problem is called "multiplicity" or "multiple comparisons".
There are a few ways to compensate for this but none are perfect. One way is to be strict, with something called the Bonferroni method where you essentially multiply your threshold by the number of tests you do, so if you don't want to over-call more than 1 in 20 studies in the example above you make the new threshold for accepting a finding as "less than 1 in 6000 likely to occur by chance". That corrects for the number of tests you do but does decrease your statistical power, so makes you more likely to miss a real finding. There are some other methods but that is the most common.
We still thought 1 in 20 was too high. Thankfully the quality of the frauds we found was low, so most of the ones we found with one issue had many, each at least 10,000 to 1 against. We actually didn't find many papers in a "grey area", virtually all were obviously fake on multiple tests or had no problems at all, there weren't really that many in between. That said, it might be that we only found the really obvious fakes because the good quality ones were undetectable. Because theses are often smallish studies the statistical power is likely to be low except for obvious fakery.
To be honest if somebody with good statistical knowledge decided to fake a trial, took their time, and was careful, I'm actually not very confident at all we'd be able to catch them.
Thankyou for taking the time to write.
Kyle

On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 7:57 AM [RebelYell] wrote:

Wow, nice follow up Rebel. There was a lot info in there but what I got out of it is test can be manipulated by the definition of success being altered and that carefully done fake testing is probably not caught. This why I trust the Doctors working out in the field with Ivermectin. So many have come forward and told of their personal experience with treating patients in the real world.

 

[AurumAg]

I contacted emedsmart today, and I am hoping for some good news.

"Your item is being processed by United States Customs."

I'm praying that this shipment makes it to my doorstep.

 

[dacrunch]

Anyone getting side effects, all these supplements together?

I may be. Pains where I should not have pains. It started when I added Berberine to quercitin, NAC, vitamins, D hi-po supplements, calcium.

Looks like that's the straw that broke my system. I hope what's going on is temporary - I know I ain't gonna get real help in the Jab Centre, the former hospital.

When I added NAC and Berberine to my wife's regimen, she got nauseous and a stomach ache.

Worse, she therefore decided that I was playing with fire as a witch doctor who doesn't know the interactions between all those substances and the potential negative effects of taking too much. And I think she stopped everything except the multivitamin and C...

Says I should bring it up with the GP. But I know that provax guy's attitude towards supplements, since he told the old lady neighbor to not take the multivitamins I bought her.

No choice of doctors around here. Practices overflowing and closed to new patients, in every field...

 

[dacrunch]

"Your item is being processed by United States Customs."

I'm praying that this shipment makes it to my doorstep.

I never got any notices past "shipped out of Delhi".

I used "tracked mail" with "Pr." before my name.
Not UPS or FEDEX.

 

[RebelYell]

Wow, nice follow up Rebel. There was a lot info in there but what I got out of it is test can be manipulated by the definition of success being altered and that carefully done fake testing is probably not caught.

I think there are three separate points here.

1. Trials which used statistical measures to determine success or failure are easily hacked.

The usual measure of success is obtaining a result which had a less than 5% chance of occurring by chance. So imagine you test a medicine to see whether it lowers cholesterol, and you will declare success if the results you get would only occur one time in twenty by chance. This seems fair enough, although of course there is still a 5% chance that a successful result occurred purely by chance and the drug didn't do anything at all.
Now imagine that you decide to also measure blood pressure, heart rate, pulse, and six other medical things that you hope the drug might affect. If you still use 5% as the threshold for claiming that the drug "works", you would be cheating because you are now looking at ten variables and the odds of at least one of them falling into that 5% range purely by chance is ~40% (1 - 0.95^10), so fully 4 out of 10 trials would show success even if the drug were doing nothing at all.

And note that fraud analysis is subject to exactly the same problem. If you find a data pattern in the study which would only occur naturally 1 time in 1,000, that is not really proof of fraud if your analysis actually looked for 500 potential types of data pattern.

2. There are (at least) two other ways of faking tests:

(a) Design the test to fail (or succeed) by testing the "wrong" thing. For example an ivermectin test which administers only a single, very small dose to patients who are already critically ill would be an example of a test designed to fail. This isn't exactly a "fake" test in the sense that it correctly proves that a single, very small dose of ivermectin does not materially improve outcomes for critically ill patients. However anybody who claims that such a test "shows that ivermectin doesn't work" is making a fraudulent claim.

(b) Falsifying the results. Literally making up the results of the experiment so they show what you want them to show. The "problem" with this is that humans are not intuitively very good at making up results which fit statistical norms. For example humans tend to create strings of results where "unusual" events are distributed fairly evenly throughout the data where you would in fact expect to see them more clumped togther. So fraud analysis can often reveal that the results were made up in this way.

3. Kyle then asserts that a scientist who was good at / familiar with statistics could likely fake trial results in a way which would be undetectable. This is no doubt true, except that most scientists operating in fields where statistical likelihood is determinative of a trial's success or failure (e.g. biology/medicine/psychiatry etc.) tend not to be especially good at maths, and statistics and probability are actually quite difficult subjects for non-mathematicians. So I'm skeptical that most authors would be able to pull this off.

This why I trust the Doctors working out in the field with Ivermectin. So many have come forward and told of their personal experience with treating patients in the real world.

Yes - but as I and one or two others have noted above - this is likely misleading as well. Almost everyone recovers from covid so a doctor would have to treat thousands of patients to get a statistcally significant result. How many doctors have treated that many? Let's say there were 100 such doctors in the US. If we are accepting a 5% result as statistically significant, then just by chance, 5 would think they had discovered an effective drug. Those five would come forward and make a lot of noise and would soon by joined by hundreds or thousands of doctors who have treated 100-200 patients and seen good results which are totally meaningless since one wouldn't expect any deaths in a group of that size anyway.

This is why good trials are so important.

FWIW what worries me most is not that some trials were fraudulent, it is that the people running those trials had to cheat to get the result they wanted. That presumably means that
- people who wanted ivermectin to succeed ran trials which were likely not "designed to fail" in the way that many of the early HCQ and more recent ivermectin trials were
- those trials did not result in the drug succeeding, or at least not the extent the authors hoped, which is why the authors had to falsify the data.

 

[dacrunch]

Now I'm going to have to stockpile ASPIRIN because it won't be without a prescription soon in France (and perhaps the EU)....
Clown world.

 

[AurumAg]

I never got any notices past "shipped out of Delhi".

I used "tracked mail" with "Pr." before my name.
Not UPS or FEDEX.

USPS sitting in US Customs in San Francisco.

So close!

Still praying...

 

[Avalon]

I think there are three separate points here.

1. Trials which used statistical measures to determine success or failure are easily hacked.

The usual measure of success is obtaining a result which had a less than 5% chance of occurring by chance. So imagine you test a medicine to see whether it lowers cholesterol, and you will declare success if the results you get would only occur one time in twenty by chance. This seems fair enough, although of course there is still a 5% chance that a successful result occurred purely by chance and the drug didn't do anything at all.
Now imagine that you decide to also measure blood pressure, heart rate, pulse, and six other medical things that you hope the drug might affect. If you still use 5% as the threshold for claiming that the drug "works", you would be cheating because you are now looking at ten variables and the odds of at least one of them falling into that 5% range purely by chance is ~40% (1 - 0.95^10), so fully 4 out of 10 trials would show success even if the drug were doing nothing at all.

And note that fraud analysis is subject to exactly the same problem. If you find a data pattern in the study which would only occur naturally 1 time in 1,000, that is not really proof of fraud if your analysis actually looked for 500 potential types of data pattern.

2. There are (at least) two other ways of faking tests:

(a) Design the test to fail (or succeed) by testing the "wrong" thing. For example an ivermectin test which administers only a single, very small dose to patients who are already critically ill would be an example of a test designed to fail. This isn't exactly a "fake" test in the sense that it correctly proves that a single, very small dose of ivermectin does not materially improve outcomes for critically ill patients. However anybody who claims that such a test "shows that ivermectin doesn't work" is making a fraudulent claim.

(b) Falsifying the results. Literally making up the results of the experiment so they show what you want them to show. The "problem" with this is that humans are not intuitively very good at making up results which fit statistical norms. For example humans tend to create strings of results where "unusual" events are distributed fairly evenly throughout the data where you would in fact expect to see them more clumped togther. So fraud analysis can often reveal that the results were made up in this way.

3. Kyle then asserts that a scientist who was good at / familiar with statistics could likely fake trial results in a way which would be undetectable. This is no doubt true, except that most scientists operating in fields where statistical likelihood is determinative of a trial's success or failure (e.g. biology/medicine/psychiatry etc.) tend not to be especially good at maths, and statistics and probability are actually quite difficult subjects for non-mathematicians. So I'm skeptical that most authors would be able to pull this off.


Yes - but as I and one or two others have noted above - this is likely misleading as well. Almost everyone recovers from covid so a doctor would have to treat thousands of patients to get a statistcally significant result. How many doctors have treated that many? Let's say there were 100 such doctors in the US. If we are accepting a 5% result as statistically significant, then just by chance, 5 would think they had discovered an effective drug. Those five would come forward and make a lot of noise and would soon by joined by hundreds or thousands of doctors who have treated 100-200 patients and seen good results which are totally meaningless since one wouldn't expect any deaths in a group of that size anyway.

This is why good trials are so important.

FWIW what worries me most is not that some trials were fraudulent, it is that the people running those trials had to cheat to get the result they wanted. That presumably means that
- people who wanted ivermectin to succeed ran trials which were likely not "designed to fail" in the way that many of the early HCQ and more recent ivermectin trials were
- those trials did not result in the drug succeeding, or at least not the extent the authors hoped, which is why the authors had to falsify the data.

So who do we trust? I use PubMed studies a lot. If the studies on Pubmed are correct there are other things that disrupt virus replication beside ivermectin. So now what

 

[Joe King]

Let's say there were 100 such doctors in the US. If we are accepting a 5% result as statistically significant, then just by chance, 5 would think they had discovered an effective drug. Those five would come forward and make a lot of noise and would soon by joined by hundreds or thousands of doctors who have treated 100-200 patients and seen good results which are totally meaningless since one wouldn't expect any deaths in a group of that size anyway.

If enough DR's all treat 100 patients with ivm, after awhile you'll end up with many thousands who have been treated with it.

Why can't we add all those patients together and see if they had better outcomes than an equal size group who were treated in the typical way?

USPS sitting in US Customs in San Francisco.

So close!

Drive over and see if they'll let ya pick it up. lol

 

[RebelYell]

If enough DR's all treat 100 patients with ivm, after awhile you'll end up with many thousands who have been treated with it.

Why can't we add all those patients together and see if they had better outcomes than an equal size group who were treated in the typical way?

Theoretically one could, but that's not what happens in practice. No-one is collecting the data, and there's no easy way to ensure one gets all the data either. One couldn't, for example, rely on doctors voluntarily submitting the data because there would almost certainly be a bias in which doctors chose to participate.

In practice, because only about 1 in 400 patients actually dies from covid what happens is that one ends up with thousands of doctors with dozens of patients who recovered and none who died, a much smaller number with a patient or two who died, and only a handful with several patients who died. The ones in the first, largest group and quite possibly the ones in the second group too all claim success. The ones in the final group are very few in number and probably stop using ivermectin and get drowned out even if they try to speak up.

 

[RebelYell]

It's also worth noting that there are other confounding factors which could render ivermectin sudies misleading.

What if, for example, a parasitic infection caused covid to be more likely to result in fatality? Then a trial run in a third world country where parasitic infections are common and which was not designed to compensate for this factor would likely find that ivermectin helped significantly with covid because the ivermectin kills the parasites, which in turn resulted in patients fighting off covid more successfully. In such a case, ivermectin would still prove of little or no benefit here in the US.

 

[Casey Jones]

When I added NAC and Berberine to my wife's regimen, she got nauseous and a stomach ache.

Worse, she therefore decided that I was playing with fire as a witch doctor who doesn't know the interactions between all those substances and the potential negative effects of taking too much. And I think she stopped everything except the multivitamin and C...

Says I should bring it up with the GP. But I know that provax guy's attitude towards supplements, since he told the old lady neighbor to not take the multivitamins I bought her.

No choice of doctors around here. Practices overflowing and closed to new patients, in every field...

Trial and error.

I can wait with the Berberine. I still have three months' worth of diabetes medicine. I'm also on a near-starvation diet...lost five pounds, the last two weeks. About 1100 calories a day...I'm hoping that if I can get back to my old military weight, 195 pounds, my blood sugar will be better in control and I can ease off the medicine. Berberine will help, I also hope.

I can wait until my Big Pharma pill supply works through.

 

[Casey Jones]

Now I'm going to have to stockpile ASPIRIN because it won't be without a prescription soon in France (and perhaps the EU)....
Clown world.

They'll make it to where you need to see a Jabbologist to get a scrip for a bandaid or cough drops.

Clown World doesn't begin to describe it. I just hope Clif High and others are right, and these people start falling dead...fast. That's the only way the rest of us may be able to survive.

 

[RebelYell]

Here's another example of a study (not ivermectin related) which is likely fraudulent although I haven't specifically checked this one: https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj-2021-068302

The headline conclusion is study shows masks reduce transmission by 53%. But this particular study almost certainly uses a fraudulent technique known as "cherry-picking". The authors have decided to run a meta-analysis of all known existing studies to investigate whether masks work. They claim to be concerned that some studies are not very good so they want to exclude those not so good studies so they set up criteria which will determine whether a study will be accepted or not. In this case their criteria exclude all but eight studies on mask effectiveness which then allows them to conclude that masks are 53% effective.

So what's wrong with that? Well nothing if the authors are completely honest and unbiased, but everything if the authors want, even unconsciously, to achieve a certain result. There were originally 72 studies which contained relevant information. Across all 72 studies there are a few which show that masks are effective, a bunch which show they make little or no difference, and a few which show that masks make things worse.

Now let's say that the authors genuinely come up with criteria purely by thinking about what makes a study useful and valid without any, even unconscious, consideration of what makes a study more likely to show that masks are effective. In that case it may be valid to discard some of the 72 studies although I think that even this is dubious and that it's likely better to accept any and all studies in order to maximize the amount of data you are examining and assume that any errors likely offset.

However this type of study is clearly open to manipulation. Let's say that our scientists want to achieve a particular result from their meta analysis. then they can easily do so by looking at all the studies and identifying the eight which are most supportive of the result they want. They then compare those eight studies to the other sixty-four and then test "reasonable sounding" criteria until they find criteria which specifically select the eight studies they want. Hey presto - your new study shows that masks are effective, even when the data and the original studies upon which it is based show no such thing.

 

[bulloncoins]

Has anyone here tried to use ivermectin to treat covid a failed at it? Does anyone here know anyone who has?

 

[lukdiver]

I'll look thru the Surviliast 'ivermectin' board but read several stories on there of guys who had rough ride despite treating with IVM. Final conclusion was I believe they didn't use the increased dose that iMask is calling for now?

Survivalist Forum

www.survivalistboards.com

 

[Avalon]

Here's another example of a study (not ivermectin related) which is likely fraudulent although I haven't specifically checked this one: https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj-2021-068302

The headline conclusion is study shows masks reduce transmission by 53%. But this particular study almost certainly uses a fraudulent technique known as "cherry-picking". The authors have decided to run a meta-analysis of all known existing studies to investigate whether masks work. They claim to be concerned that some studies are not very good so they want to exclude those not so good studies so they set up criteria which will determine whether a study will be accepted or not. In this case their criteria exclude all but eight studies on mask effectiveness which then allows them to conclude that masks are 53% effective.

So what's wrong with that? Well nothing if the authors are completely honest and unbiased, but everything if the authors want, even unconsciously, to achieve a certain result. There were originally 72 studies which contained relevant information. Across all 72 studies there are a few which show that masks are effective, a bunch which show they make little or no difference, and a few which show that masks make things worse.

Now let's say that the authors genuinely come up with criteria purely by thinking about what makes a study useful and valid without any, even unconscious, consideration of what makes a study more likely to show that masks are effective. In that case it may be valid to discard some of the 72 studies although I think that even this is dubious and that it's likely better to accept any and all studies in order to maximize the amount of data you are examining and assume that any errors likely offset.

However this type of study is clearly open to manipulation. Let's say that our scientists want to achieve a particular result from their meta analysis. then they can easily do so by looking at all the studies and identifying the eight which are most supportive of the result they want. They then compare those eight studies to the other sixty-four and then test "reasonable sounding" criteria until they find criteria which specifically select the eight studies they want. Hey presto - your new study shows that masks are effective, even when the data and the original studies upon which it is based show no such thing.

I don't know why this surprises me but it does. Its just one more layer to the lying, clown world we live in. Peoples lives depend on these studies.

 

[Avalon]

I'll look thru the Surviliast 'ivermectin' board but read several stories on there of guys who had rough ride despite treating with IVM. Final conclusion was I believe they didn't use the increased dose that iMask is calling for now?

Survivalist Forum

www.survivalistboards.com

did they start early and use entire protocol. Early intervention seems critical Ivermectin wont save everyone but it does seem to help

 

[Voodoo]

I don't know why this surprises me but it does. Its just one more layer to the lying, clown world we live in. Peoples lives depend on these studies.

This isn't really a surprise. Even un-biased "science" is done pretty poorly lately. They don't understand statistics well, they don't properly design the experiments, and some are clearly biased. There was a Harvard study that looked in general and found like 60-70% (yes I pulled this "stat" out of my .... memory). of the papers did not really measure what the authors believed.

Welcome — Statistics Done Wrong