Jump to content

Haha, Atlantic article about “amnesty” for everyone who was wrong about COVID, the jabs, killing grandma, insisting we listen to the experts!


gazoo
 Share

Recommended Posts

meta-analysis

met·a-a·nal·y·sis

 (mĕt′ə-ə-năl′ĭ-sĭs)
n.
The process or technique of synthesizing research results by using various statisticalmethods to retrieve, select, and combine results from previous separate but related studies.

 
 
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The big Hill et al meta-analysis he cited to?

 

Literally retracted as it relied on studies that were likely fraudulent. In an update, Hill and crew write:

 

“These instances suggest that the data available to the support the use of ivermectin for COVID-19 are not reliable. In July 2021, after the potentially fraudulent studies were identified, we retracted our published meta-analysis and began working on an updated analysis assessing the effects of stratifying by trial quality on the overall results. Clinical trials evaluating ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 had been identified by systematic searching of 8 databases. An in-depth evaluation of study quality was conducted, in addition to the standard Cochrane RoB 2 and CONSORT checklist [7]. First, we evaluated trials based on the effectiveness of their randomization process by comparing baseline characteristics across treatment arms using the chi-square test. Second, randomization dates were checked to ensure that patients were randomized into the treatment arms on similar dates. Third, checks were conducted to evaluate if recruitment to treatment arms was balanced at each investigational center. Furthermore, we analyzed patient-level databases, where available, to check for any evidence of duplicate participants and unexpected homogeneity or heterogeneity. From this, a meta-analysis was conducted with subgroups of clinical trials at different risk of bias levels.“

https://academic.oup.com/ofid/article/9/2/ofab645/6509922

https://academic.oup.com/ofid/article/8/11/ofab358/6316214


I guarantee Gazoo got that list from another website, and copy and pasted it. He thinks simply by having a large number, that means it must be right. But many of those early studies showed insane biases and/or were legitimately fraudulent. They have not held up to scientific scrutiny

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, gazoo said:

meta-analysis

met·a-a·nal·y·sis

 (mĕt′ə-ə-năl′ĭ-sĭs)
n.
The process or technique of synthesizing research results by using various statisticalmethods to retrieve, select, and combine results from previous separate but related studies.

 
 
 

Not-being-dumb

 

 

Not presenting a whole **** ton of studies where the second one argued against everything you're saying in it's conclusion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Monarch said:

The big Hill et al meta-analysis he cited to?

 

Literally retracted as it relied on studies that were likely fraudulent. In an update, Hill and crew write:

 

“These instances suggest that the data available to the support the use of ivermectin for COVID-19 are not reliable. In July 2021, after the potentially fraudulent studies were identified, we retracted our published meta-analysis and began working on an updated analysis assessing the effects of stratifying by trial quality on the overall results. Clinical trials evaluating ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 had been identified by systematic searching of 8 databases. An in-depth evaluation of study quality was conducted, in addition to the standard Cochrane RoB 2 and CONSORT checklist [7]. First, we evaluated trials based on the effectiveness of their randomization process by comparing baseline characteristics across treatment arms using the chi-square test. Second, randomization dates were checked to ensure that patients were randomized into the treatment arms on similar dates. Third, checks were conducted to evaluate if recruitment to treatment arms was balanced at each investigational center. Furthermore, we analyzed patient-level databases, where available, to check for any evidence of duplicate participants and unexpected homogeneity or heterogeneity. From this, a meta-analysis was conducted with subgroups of clinical trials at different risk of bias levels.“

https://academic.oup.com/ofid/article/9/2/ofab645/6509922

https://academic.oup.com/ofid/article/8/11/ofab358/6316214


I guarantee Gazoo got that list from another website, and copy and pasted it. He thinks simply by having a large number, that means it must be right. But many of those early studies showed insane biases and/or were legitimately fraudulent. They have not held up to scientific scrutiny

This is hysterical you don’t know what a meta analysis is.  You are beclowning yourself and don’t even realize if.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, gazoo said:

This is hysterical you don’t know what a meta analysis is.  You are beclowning yourself and don’t even realize if.

Are you dense? One of the studies you cited to, which was a meta-analysis, literally had to be retracted because the studies it relied on showing positive results from ivermectin were literally fraudulent.

 

this is the same with several of the other studies on your list, not to mention that many of the things on your list don’t actually agree with your conclusion. Man…c’mon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, The Monarch said:

Are you dense? One of the studies you cited to, which was a meta-analysis, literally had to be retracted because the studies it relied on showing positive results from ivermectin were literally fraudulent.

 

this is the same with several of the other studies on your list, not to mention that many of the things on your list don’t actually agree with your conclusion. Man…c’mon.

You are allowing yourself to be fooled by BS on the internet that is put up there exactly for people like you, often funded by the pharmaceutical companies to trick you into avoiding or taking certain things. You have no idea that most research centers are funded by NIH and big Pharma, Bill Gates foundation and if you don’t play ball with them, you lose your funding. So they can always find a few researchers to say anything about anything or tell scientist to retract a study or lose their funding. We are talking billions of dollars here.

There are literally hundreds of peer reviewed studies published in medical journals, many RTC showing high efficacy of ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine for COVID when administered early. If you want to believe the propaganda you are digging up on the internet sewer designed specifically for people like you go for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Holy ****, it just keeps going. The third one on his list, the Ochoa-Jaramillo one, concluded:

 

“There was no difference in the 21-day risk of admission to the ICU between ivermectin (21.6%) and placebo (15.8%) (RD= 5.8%; 95%CI: -11.8%-23.5%); neither in the risk of requirement of IMV (18.9% vs 13.2%), mortality (5.4% vs 10.5%) or in adverse events (32.4% vs. 28.9%).


Discussion: Ivermectin showed no significant benefit in reducing the requirement of ICU, IMV, or mortality for severe COVID-19 patients.”


http://revistainfectio.org/P_OJS/index.php/infectio/article/download/1105/1247

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, VTCrunkler said:

alright fellas. Get it all in (or out of your system) before the lock. 

I love watching Gazoo be the least self aware person I've ever known and it's known from ABF to TATF. He's literally the poster representation of Dunning Kruger and I love it. I'm done now. Dude proves himself wrong and says lol you just can't read it. I love that dude.

 

See, that's positive. I love how wrong and confident he is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, The Monarch said:

Holy ****, it just keeps going. The third one on his list, the Ochoa-Jaramillo one, concluded:

 

“There was no difference in the 21-day risk of admission to the ICU between ivermectin (21.6%) and placebo (15.8%) (RD= 5.8%; 95%CI: -11.8%-23.5%); neither in the risk of requirement of IMV (18.9% vs 13.2%), mortality (5.4% vs 10.5%) or in adverse events (32.4% vs. 28.9%).


Discussion: Ivermectin showed no significant benefit in reducing the requirement of ICU, IMV, or mortality for severe COVID-19 patients.”


http://revistainfectio.org/P_OJS/index.php/infectio/article/download/1105/1247


You cite one for the intensive care unit?

There are literally hundreds of peer reviewed studies published in medical journals, many RTC showing high efficacy of ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine for COVID when administered early. If you want to believe the propaganda you are digging up on the internet sewer designed specifically for people like you go for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, gazoo said:

There are literally hundreds of peer reviewed studies published in medical journals, many RTC showing high efficacy of ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine for COVID when administered early. If you want to believe the propaganda you are digging up on the internet sewer designed specifically for people like you go for it.

Maybe you should have presented those instead of articles arguing against your point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Moist Words said:

I love watching Gazoo be the least self aware person I've ever known and it's known from ABF to TATF. He's literally the poster representation of Dunning Kruger and I love it. I'm done now. Dude proves himself wrong and says lol you just can't read it. I love that dude.

 

See, that's positive. I love how wrong and confident he is.

We used to call that knowing just enough to make you dangerous. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...