Posted on 09/01/2021 6:03:54 PM PDT by datura
Hey, Penny, remember the clip of the Nobel-winning physicist I sent you?
Well, he also said, if you can’t explain a topic in words of 1 syllable, you don’t really understand it yourself.
...there are several different versions of the quote; some say “to a class of reasonably intelligent freshmen”; then concluded that the top scientists in the world really couldn’t explain nuclear spin.
So tell you what. Pretend I’m a college freshman.
Let’s have a go with adjutants and mRNA jabs.
We’ll see how well you do with it.
PS Here’s another chocolate.
Ok so I looked in depth at your meta analysis study posted upthread, read the studies as well as the reviews and comments regarding the studies. I have summarized the findings of these studies for you. Studies with an asterisk are included in the https://ivmmeta.com/ meta analysis I posted, of 63 studies.
———-
Chachar et al (2020) Pakistan (n = 50) 12 mg, 12 mg at 12 h, and 12 mg at 24 h
Statistically there was no significant difference between case group who were given ivermectin along with symptomatic treatment and control group who were only given symptomatic treatment without ivermectin, being asymptomatic on day 7 at follow up. p-value (0.500)
Comment: “Small study. Risk of no recovery at day 7, 10.0% lower, RR 0.90, p = 0.50, treatment 9 of 25 (36.0%), control 10 of 25 (40.0%).”
Another comment: “The article states: “On October 20, 2020, the lead pharmacist observed that a labeling error had occurred between September 29 and October 15, 2020, resulting in all patients receiving ivermectin and none receiving placebo during this time frame. The study blind was not unmasked due to this error. The data and safety monitoring board recommended excluding these patients from the primary analysis but retaining them for sensitivity analysis. The protocol was amended to replace these patients to retain the originally calculated study power. The primary analysis population included patients who were analyzed according to their randomization group, but excluded patients recruited between September 29 and October 15, 2020, as well as patients who were randomized but later found to be in violation of selection criteria. Patients were analyzed according to the treatment they received in the as-treated population (sensitivity analysis).”
To me this is an error that should have stopped the study. It is my belief, and I suspect that of many others, that the editors erred allowing publication of this article.”
H. Robert Silverstein, MD | Preventive Medicine Center, Hartford
Another comment: “Their approach is fundamentally flawed. It is clear that all parameters were trending to favor ivermectin at the time they truncated their study. It is of concern that this issue was not highlighted by the reviewers.”
Binh Ngo, M.D.
Keck USC School of Medicine
Many more comments regarding flaws in this study at link.
*Krolewiecki et al (2020) Argentina (n = 45) 0.6 mg/kg (168 mg) once daily for 5 d
There was no difference in viral load reduction between groups but a significant difference in reduction was found in patients with higher median plasma IVM levels (72% IQR 59 – 77) versus untreated controls (42% IQR 31 – 73) (p=0·004). The mean ivermectin plasma concentration levels also showed a positive correlation with viral decay rate (r:0·47, p=0·02).
*Niaee et al (2020) Iran (n = 180) 4 doses: from 200 μg/kg single dose to 800 μg/kg over 5 d (preprint, not peer reviewed)
Conclusion: Ivermectin as an adjunct reduced the rate of mortality, low O2 duration, and duration of hospitalization in adult COVID 19 patients. The improvement of other clinical parameters showed that the ivermectin, with a wide margin of safety, had a high therapeutic effect on COVID-19.
*Podder et al (2020) Bangladesh (n = 62) Single dose: 200 μg/kg (14 mg) The mean recovery time after enrolment in the intervention arm was 5.31 ± 2.48 days vs. 6.33 ± 4.23 days in the control arm, p>0.05. Recovery time from enrollment, 16.1% lower, relative time 0.84, p = 0.34, treatment 32, control 30.
*Ahmed et al (2021) [32] Bangladesh (n = 48) 12 mg once daily for 5 d
A 5-day course of ivermectin resulted in an earlier clearance of the virus compared to placebo (p = 0.005), thus indicating that early intervention with this agent may limit viral replication within the host. In the 5-day ivermectin group, there was a significant drop in CRP and LDH by day 7, which are indicators of disease severity. It is noteworthy that the viral nucleic acid Ct value (indicator of viral load) dropped significantly compared to the placebo group on day 7 and day 14. In the absence of co-morbidity, a 5-day course of ivermectin treatment showed faster SARS-CoV-2 virus clearance compared to the placebo arm (9 vs 13 days; p = 0.02).
Beltrán-Gonzalez et al (2021) [33] Mexico (n = 73) Single dose: 12 mg if less than 80 kg; 18 mg if less than 80 kg (not peer reviewed)
During the month of August, the admission of patients requiring hospitalization mostly encompassed cases with severe respiratory failure, so we ended the recruitment process and analyzed the data that was available at the time. One hundred and six (106) patients with an average age of 53 yrs. (±16.9) were included, with a greater proportion of males (n=66, 62.2 %). Seventy-two percent (72%) (n= 76) had an associated comorbidity. Ninety percent (90 %) of patients were discharged due to improvement (n=96). The average duration of hospitalization was 6 days (IQR, 3 – 10). No difference in hospitalization duration was found between the treatment groups (Group1: 7 vs Group 2: 6 vs Group 3: 5, p=0.43) nor in respiratory deterioration or death (Group 1: 18 % vs Group 2: 22.2 % vs Group 3: 24.3 %, p =0.83).
Comments on study: The trial was stopped early and did not enroll enough subjects to meet its own initial power calculations. 2. Single dose ivermectin at this stage is not the recommended regimen. 3. Ivm arm had the highest d dimer (p 0.01) and I do not see any discussion of anticoagulant beyond thromboprophylaxis. 4. Absorbtion of ivm with food rises ~4 fold, was it given on an empty stomach or with food? 5. The authors write that this is the first trial of ivm vs placebo. There are already 5. More comments at study.
*Chaccour et al (2021) [34] Spain (n = 24) Single dose 400 μg/kg (28 mg)
The ivermectin group had non-statistically significant lower viral loads at day 4 (p = 0·24 for gene E; p = 0·18 for gene N) and day 7 (p = 0·16 for gene E; p = 0·18 for gene N) post treatment as well as lower IgG titers at day 21 post treatment (p = 0·24). Patients in the ivermectin group recovered earlier from hyposmia/anosmia (76 vs 158 patient-days; p<0.001).
Comments: symptom probability, 52.9% lower, RR 0.47, p<0.05, treatment 12, control 12, relative probability of symptoms at day 28, mixed effects logistic regression, data in supplementary appendix.
viral load, 94.6% lower, relative load 0.05, treatment 12, control 12, day 7 mid-recovery, data in supplementary appendix.
*Bukhari et al (2021) [35] Pakistan (n = 86) Single dose: 12 mg
There was early viral clearance in group B as compared to group A (p=0.001). No adverse reaction or derangements in laboratory parameters was noted in the intervention arm during the trial period.
Conclusion In the intervention arm, early viral clearance was observed and no side effects were documented. Therefore ivermectin is a potential addition to the standard care of treatment in COVID-19 patients.
*López-Medina et al (2021) [36] Colombia (n = 398) 300 μg/kg once daily for 5 d (84 mg)
This study should not be part of any meta analysis -
An open letter, signed by over 100 physicians, concluding this study is fatally flawed can be found at https://jamaletter.com
More discussion of the flaws here: https://c19ivermectin.com/lopezmedina.html
*Ravikirti et al (2021) [37] India (n = 115) 12 mg/d for 2 d
Conclusion There was no difference in the primary outcome i.e. negative RT-PCR status on day 6 of admission with the use of ivermectin. However, a significantly higher proportion of patients were discharged alive from the hospital when they received ivermectin.
————
This metanalysis is better, it does not include flawed studies.
Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19 (2021)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/
The invention belongs to the field of nano materials and biomedicine, and relates to a vaccine, in particular to development of 2019-nCoV coronavirus nuclear recombinant nano vaccine. The invention also comprises a preparation method of the vaccine and application of the vaccine in animal experiments. The new corona vaccine contains grap...
I'm just messing with ya.
https://patents.google.com/patent/CN112220919A/en
I did copy and paste that. Twice. Maybe three times.
First posted it http://www.bucksafa11.org/2021/09/02/well-that-wasnt-too-difficult/ where I did state it might be intended for the mice experiments but it wasn't real clear
There's a link to Reuters who fact checked and declared using words of a more serious nature... there is no grapheme oxide in the vaccine.
I'm a little concerned, though, regarding that law or rule about not saying nothin' bad about their vaccine.
I'm too young to disap
Are there no certified labs that have taken a vial of Pfizer and Moderna “vaccines” to test all the ingredients in these jabs?
Er no. It isn’t listed as she explained because it is their secret sauce that they don’t want to disclose and yet they do disclose in the China patent application. Can you not read?
And Fauci and Gates (along with others) own a patent on the Moderna jab so yes they are invested in its use!
And it is quite obvious you have an agenda as well. So far, I see you have a lot invested in trying to tear other people’s views down if they are suspicious of these “Vaccines”.
If you have no faith in the vaccine, then don’t take it. It’s very simple.
My objection is to the contention here among people who generally believe the same in terms of political philosophy, and are supposed to be working for the same things.
I suspect that the majority of people on this forum are older people, many of whom have health issues that may have caused them to appreciate and want the vaccine. There seems to be a lot of effort here to frighten and intimidate them, and I don’t like seeing that.
If your objection is to mandatory vaccination, then mount a movement, on philosophical principles, to counter that. But I don’t see much strategy in that direction taking place here.
The ‘anti-vaxers’ here are acting like our current crop of Liberal Democrats - they use ridicule and bullying to condemn and shut-down the ones who have chosen the vaccine; while the people who have chosen it have seemed generally reasonable.
There is no need to frighten and intimidate people into anything.
We don’t need you to ‘save’ us. You go your way, and we’ll go ours.
The Chicoms have been pretty successful with this germ warfare. They have about half the posts on FR fighting over it, instead of Biden.
I had to put that patent link back in my website. What kind of people are running this country, anyway???
An article from back in June of 2021 about deaths from the vaccines.
A four/five minute read if anyone wants to do so.
snip
The latest Yellow Card data up to June 9 shows that there have been 1,332 deaths reported after a COVID-19 vaccine.
This includes 421 after the Pfizer/BioNTech shot, 885 after Oxford/AstraZeneca, four after the Moderna vaccine, and 22 where the brand of vaccine is unspecified (here).
However, these deaths are not confirmed as being caused by the vaccine. Instead, they are suspected adverse reactions, and could well be coincidental.
“Many suspected ADRs reported on a Yellow Card do not have any relation to the vaccine or medicine and it is often coincidental that they both occurred around the same time”, the MHRA says in its report (here).
.
Good point.
No, you have it ass backwards.
Most of the people here know not to trust Faux-Xi given that the original virus was bioengineered; that he funded the Wuhan gain-of-function experiments; and that others involved in the funding rigged a fake "fact-check/deBOOOONKING" article in The Lancet that the virus did not start there; despite TWO Nobel Prize winners in virology saying the virus was bioengineered.
They then noted that the mRNA technology pushed, was never successfully tested in humans; that there were TREMENDOUS financial temptations for the companies involved, to use mRNA technology (Moderna admitted in their 2020 SEC filing that it was an experimental gene therapy and they were $1.74 billion in debt); and that the trials were incomplete, rushed (2 months followup) and mis-stated the relative risk reduction as absolute risk reduction; they noted the FDA suppressed knowledge given by the manufacturers of known risks of the jabs; and they noted that these jabs had more deaths reported to VAERS in its first year, than the total number of deaths of all other vaccines combined during their entire lifetime -- while the Swine Flu vaccine was pulled from the market after 25 or 50 deaths.
Then they noticed the falsification of trials of cheap, safe, oral medications which would both eliminate the EUA granted to the jabs, and threaten Big Pharma's profits.
Then they noticed the systematic persecution and deplatforming of Medical Doctors and Scientists who reported real-world risks of the drugs either through studies of patients or biomolecular study of the molecules involved.
Those who HAVE gotten the jab on FR -- including a number of self-proclaimed doctors -- have almost entirely been condescending pricks; a lot of the jabbed (though, to their credit, mostly NOT the self-proclaimed doctors) -- have been pushing for mandatory jabs.
“Er no. It isn’t listed as she explained because it is their secret sauce that they don’t want to disclose and yet they do disclose in the China patent application. Can you not read?”
Typical bs. Ingredients are listed. No secret sauce.
“Can you not read?”
Yep. The same source she is citing say all COVID is caused by GO. People caught it from the GO infused into the masks, PCR and antigen tests.
And to promote this BS.
Your source lists Wuhan as first 5g city. Actually, Wuzhen. But who cares about facts.
“Carrying a copy of it with me will save me a lot of wasted breath trying to explain to idiots why I won’t get injected. Thank you.”
According to the source for this article covid is caused by GO. GO which is embedded into masks, PCR and antigen tests.
‘Graphene oxide is a 2 dimensional crystal of graphite that is only 1 atom thick. It has great ability to carry other atoms or molecules due to its strength, and is reactive with many types of energy. (Electricity, radio, etc.) Great conductor of electrons.”
And according to the source of the article, GO makes people superconductors!
“Er no. It isn’t listed as she explained because it is their secret sauce that they don’t want to disclose and yet they do disclose in the China patent application. Can you not read?”
According to your source it is in the masks and COVID tests.
Why all this? Why not just dump it into the water systems?
You: Der, Jane. Why would you need to 'save' every post you make when they are already saved on your ping list.
Obviously you misread her post!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.