Posted on 06/13/2022 12:29:35 PM PDT by know.your.why
Gold-standard trials are supposed to demonstrate safety and efficacy in such a way that the safety of the jabs can be quantified, and to demonstrate that the safety is not likely (to some level of confidence) to be due to random chance.
Pfauci's trials did not do that; they proved problems with the jabs.
For HCQ / Ivermectin, both drugs have had their safety profiles established long before COVID came along; the only thing left is efficacy.
Which has been demonstrated in both India and Africa. Not in trials, but in large scale administration.
And given a large enough dataset, gross efficacy can and has been demonstrated.
You appear to be either a paid troll, a paid, shill, or a cretin who seems to confuse the null hypothesis (as a methodology to remove false positives) and the idea that "if it hasn't been rigorously proven, it must be FALSE".
grey_whiskers wrote: “Gold-standard trials are supposed to demonstrate safety and efficacy in such a way that the safety of the jabs can be quantified, and to demonstrate that the safety is not likely (to some level of confidence) to be due to random chance.”
The question is gold-standard trials of HCL and ivermectin.
grey_whiskers wrote: “ trials did not do that; they proved problems with the jabs.”
All vaccines, all drugs, have side-effects. In this case, the side-effects of the vaccines are over-ridden by the effectiveness of the vaccines.
grey_whiskers wrote: “For HCQ / Ivermectin, both drugs have had their safety profiles established long before COVID came along; the only thing left is efficacy. Which has been demonstrated in both India and Africa. Not in trials, but in large scale administration.”
If Africa and India conclusively established the effectiveness of these treatments, then why hasn’t that effectiveness been replicated in a gold-standard trial.
grey_whiskers wrote: You appear to be either a paid troll, a paid, shill, or a cretin who seems to confuse the null hypothesis (as a methodology to remove false positives) and the idea that “if it hasn’t been rigorously proven, it must be FALSE”.”
You seem to be a paid troll or a paid shill for the anti-vaxxer conspiracy cult who has been unable to prove the effectiveness of HCL or ivermectin. Nor have you been able to prove that the vaccines have saved millions of lives.
Sauce for the Goose, Sauce for the Gander.
Sod off, Troll.
All vaccines, all drugs, have side-effects. In this case, the side-effects of the vaccines are over-ridden by the effectiveness of the vaccines.
Baldfaced lie. In Britain all-cause deaths among the jabbed are twice those among the unjabbed, for people under 60.
And there are any number of politicians (to say nothing of regular people) getting the Coof for the 2nd and 3rd time despite getting the jab.
Pfauci even led to the very definition of "vaccine" getting changed in the dictionary to cover up their piss-poor performance.
You know, cause I never heard of any other vaccines which the manufacturer wanted to give booster shots every 6 months for the rest of your life.
For the side effects, TOP KEK. Talk to Justin Bieber.
If Africa and India conclusively established the effectiveness of these treatments, then why hasn’t that effectiveness been replicated in a gold-standard trial.
Not enough money for Pfauci and Moderna as compared to the clot shots. (Which is where you started by the way).
You seem to be a paid troll or a paid shill for the anti-vaxxer conspiracy cult who has been unable to prove the effectiveness of HCL or ivermectin.
Reality has already proven it.
Nor have you been able to prove that the vaccines have saved millions of lives.
That was supposed to be YOUR job. You got so flustered you made a Freudian slip instead.
Troll.
BTTT.
P4L
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.