Coronavirus | Discussion

Your arguing consists of your personal idea which is not backed by reasonable arguments. It's an out of gut and nay saying depressing mood. (Ah..don't talk crap, anything is crap just as the other crap.)
The rest are pointless assumptions and is witness of lacking of any basics.
It's always hard when experts come to a conclusion and suddenly somebody who has no clue of anything tries to convince otherwise saying oh no black is not black. Black is white.

"That crap is on the same level as ex's chlorine dioxide crap ." Oranges are the same crap than apples. Why? Because I say so.

"The study is peer revued ...... not the result that they claim ." The result is the major part of the study and therefore also peer revived. But only people who have no idea how peer review works can say it is not.

"Is not enough to say anything except that there could be reason to do more tests ......... BUT ......... that organisation doesnt want the tests they want to prescribe it ."

Another pointless assumption out of the wild without any point of evidence. No they want to safe lives! IVM is out of patent and a cent drug. Why would they?
And IF they would do who earns the money? The doc who is prescribing it?!?!

The doctor gets his money for service regardless of what he is prescribing.
It's different at meds who still are protected by patents. From time to time such companies are willing to send little 'gifts' to the doctors when they prescribe a lot of their stuff...

"And right at the top of that report it says ---- > ' Expert scientists welcome the news of UK Government-funded research into ivermectin for Covid-19 but questions its merit."
Of course and they have reasoned it why.

Short: I don't think you are qualified to make a valid statement about IVM.
But I appreciate you have read it.

Those who are against approval of IVM for whatever reasons:

Are you really aware what you deny?

When it comes out that IVM works and saves lots of life?
Is your personal convincement really based on fundamental and rational evaluation of the matter that you can dare to speak out your opinion against the use of it?
This is no candy for kids. It is supposed to safe lives!

Think about it!

 

I take back my appreciation that you have read the study. You obviously didn't. Page 15 of the pdf clearly illustrates why the size is sufficient to get significant results.
The study was published in the American Journal of Therapeutics. The BIRD site is neither her site nor has it something to do with the result in there.

And why did you cheery pick and bash on Dr. Tess Lawrie and not at those other 6 authors? Don't you like her nose? Sorry a rational explanation is out of question.
Besides of that it seems you know her very well, far better than anybody out there ever could....I wonder from where...enemy stereotype from deep down your consciousness?

No thanks. Oranges are crap and therefore are apples, too. Got it. Life can be so simple!

Insult is the final verbal weapon after an ego has spotted that rational arguments never existed.

And you forget that it is not about me or you or others who can be right or wrong about IVM.
It's about a drug that has the potential to fight covid. And I do agree, it can.
You do not...and time will tell what it does.

 

@case-sensitive
The major part of misunderstanding....
A meta analyses purpose IS even to take several studies which are available to come to a more significant result. It's an analyses of different studies. You cannot blame any of the authors not to have made the studies themselves, it is never the case.

Result and opinion about an result.
Dr Lawrie later posted her own opinion about the study. This is no result of the study.
She has the opinion that it is unethical to go for another study because (according to her group) there is already enough evidence that IVM works. Unethical because you would have a control group to recruit, control gets no medication and is fully exposed to the virus.

It's no reason to fight. And I am sorry about my harsh tone.

I am just very convinced that it works and when its distribution gets suppressed people have to die from covid which could have been saved.
I am that much convinced that I am emotionally affected when people have to die which don't have to.

The BIRD panel is not only one person

I just do agree with their assessment on IVM. That's all.
And they are not alone. There is also the FLCCC and many more.

 

Well, if you still have the will to have more views on that. The FLCCC invited some of the authors to talk about.

I mean even if you don't want to deal with medical details anymore, you at least can see who they are as a person, as human. Simple insight into human nature requires no scientific backgrounds at ll.
(If they are doing it because of profit, or any other ego related reasons).

I simply will continue to post about IVM because to me it is important that it gets recognized as a covid treatment. I have no bad intents doing that. I have my IVM pills at home and could simply leave it that way and remain silent...thinking I have it. It is beneficial for me in case of.... why should I care about others?

But I cannot....