Ivermectin & Aducanumab: Do They Work?

originally posted by: tanstaafl
I never used anything like that term.

What the hell does that mean? These 3 guys didn't "well establish" anything. Or maybe you need to define what you mean by that.

also now well established by the FLCCC

What was their standards? Not anything actually viewed as standards...

'Just' observations. Yes. It is called practicing medicine like has been done for millennia.

I guess you just do not get it, sorry

Because you keep saying dumb things like "studies are the gold standard" when you know (or should know) that most studies are bull# wrapped in a pretty bow, while dissing Doctors who use tried and true 'observational medicine' to actually save lives.

Well if that is what you think, OK Why didn't they do their own actual clinical trials?

Stop dissing them and worshiping fake science, and I'll stop fighting with you... deal?

I think what they did was interesting, but it needs to be actually proven...

I never said it was a 'defacto proof'. I said it is an extremely valuable and respectable way to practice medicine, and, especially in a plandemic, an invaluable tool to determine what works when it comes to therapeutics without having to wait for years for real trials.

I wish you would actually watch the video to understand what I mean.

Prey on? Once again... THEY ARE SAVING LIVES, so, yeah, they're sure preying on those poor dumb bastards.

The virus is 99.97% not killing anyone, so they pushing it to 99.98%?

Can you at least agree that if there is even a small chance that these extremely safe and extremely cheap medicines with very long and well established safety track records can save lives, that they should be used anywhere and everywhere by anyone who wants to use them (but not forced on anyone, unlike the jab-pushers)?

The track record has to do with de-worming... period. Using it to cure COVID is much newer than the Vaccine...lol

Is it safe, most likely...is it safe to take for a year at a greater level than if you were de-worming...who knows. Also, mixing it into a cocktail of other drugs, ya maybe not so good...

Whether it works or not is not a debate I want...

a reply to: Xtrozero

confused how you think the body's reaction to a chemical differs depending on the reason the doctor gave it to you.

Real smart immune system.

Question for everyone
why read the anonymous deniers without any proof they are not in the pay of Pharma.

Do your research and look at the experts who are saving lives.

originally posted by: puzzled2
a reply to: Xtrozero

confused how you think the body's reaction to a chemical differs depending on the reason the doctor gave it to you.

Real smart immune system.

Question for everyone
why read the anonymous deniers without any proof they are not in the pay of Pharma.

Do your research and look at the experts who are saving lives.

What is the research...that is all I ask. It may work well, but it is based on observations only...OK if that is all you need, but there can be a lot of confounding too.

There are real clinical trials going on so I hope they support the observations. If these people were the "real" experts, they would be doing their own clinical trials, but it seems they are not, why?

See folks can't even click and listen so how do we expect them to give an informed opinion on paper reports of trials.

You have people whose whole careers are built on reviewing trials and providing evidence but get denied by an anonymous keyboard denier of true scientific papers.

Reading the thread you can see they have tried to continually deny multiple usages of drugs. Have no idea about the many different treatments Ivermectin is used for and continually trying to label as a 1 solution drug.

about the bird group read their qualifications then read the studies LATEST NEWS: IVERMECTIN TREATS AND PREVENTS COVID 19

Who are you betting your life on the nobody on a keyboard or experts with no financial gain from treating you?

a reply to: Xtrozero

Lots of false statements in the official narrative.

originally posted by: Salander

Lots of false statements in the official narrative.

True, lots of back and forth, lots of statements that don't help, lots of bad decisions mostly...

a reply to: Xtrozero

What do you think try it or wait for an RCT trial? Do you think they waited for the RCT the first time the smallpox vaccine was introduced?

Errors can occur in research.

A type 1 error, also known as a false positive, occurs when a medicine is incorrectly considered to be effective. A type 2 error, also know as a false negative, occurs when a medicine is incorrectly considered to be ineffective.

In relation to ivermectin, many scientists and doctors around the world think that the medicine regulators have made a type 2 error. The BiRD team highly recommends this new video by Professor Colleen Aldous, which explains what these errors means in the context of ivermectin for covid. Well worth watching if you are trying to make sense of things

Professor Colleen Aldous

originally posted by: puzzled2

What do you think try it or wait for an RCT trial? Do you think they waited for the RCT the first time the smallpox vaccine was introduced?

Well do you really need it? If you are under 40 and healthy just let the virus do its thing.

For smallpox they rounded up like 20 kids gave them cowpox and then gave them smallpox and saw they didn't get smallpox, not sure if that would work today...lol

here is one I pulled up that happened back in March. March

Not a big case study...but

Conclusions: In comparison to SOC or placebo, IVM did not reduce all-cause mortality, length of stay or viral clearance in RCTs in COVID-19 patients with mostly mild disease. IVM did not have an effect on AEs or severe AEs. IVM is not a viable option to treat COVID-19 patients.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Unfortunately more misinformation read the review of that paper that do it for a living.

Rebuttal

Corrections made to article but ignored in the conclusions
This article has an embarrassing history whereby treatment arms in the study of Niaee1
were reversed, attracting protest from Dr Niaee himself. This egregious error has been
corrected in the revised version, but with no change to the Conclusions in spite of dramatic
change in the evidence.

SO who to believe?

a reply to: Xtrozero

Couldn't resist...sorry

originally posted by: puzzled2

SO who to believe?

So the bottom-line as explained a good deal in the video is there are very controlled steps one needs to follow to include peer review and repeatable results. Someone comes along and puts out a study with none of that really doesn't help whether they are right or wrong.

Another big area is registering your study before it happens to once again allow peer review of your method. Then you do the study and record negative or positive results to once again be peer reviewed to insure you followed your registration correctly and your conclusions are correct and repeatable. What many people do is not register so that if they do not get the results they want they can either just canx the study with no one knowing or they just keep moving the goal post until positive results happen for them, then they post it.

This is why we see studies that to a professional researcher seem unbelievable. Its like if people are looking for a 2% increase and someone comes along and says well I get 200% without follow any of the steps required to be a real study.