ICU NURSE: "You're being lied to about COVID."
(rumble.com)
Comments (9)
sorted by:
Not much in the way of credentials. I could post a video of me reading the same script. Any reason why we should listen to her?
https://ivmmeta.com/
https://www.smh.com.au/national/examine-ivermectin-and-understanding-scientific-evidence-20210817-p58jd0.html
Problem 1: he says Cochran study is independent - it is receiving government funding - therefore it's not independent.
Problem 2: he says "oh those studies are low quality" the only thing low quality is that each study is small - but putting them together is a valid way to look at the data, a meta analysis.
Problem 3: he appeala to authority "Cochran is renowned for their work", "that's just some random website" well the random website doesn't need history, it shows all is sources done by real scientists/doctors
If that was the case no government funded study would ever produce results the government didn't want to hear. Here's a relevant example: https://www.smh.com.au/national/not-enough-evidence-key-taskforce-rejects-rollout-of-new-covid-19-drug-20210808-p58guv.html
Meta analyses are useful in their place and that place needs to trustworthy. A mystery web site that mixes in studies and pre-prints - none of which we are qualified to evaluate - is not a first rank source, but I do note that its first screen says this:
"While many treatments have some level of efficacy, they do not replace vaccines and other measures to avoid infection."
Yes - exactly. It's not always, but very frequently studies do give the result the funder wants.
You're not wrong, but not right. If Liam Mannix had any real qualms, he should be able to point out how (for example) how Mahmud has a conflict of interest. If Liam had reservations about accuracy, they could limit it to the peer-reviewed studies: https://ivmmeta.com/#fig_fpp
Taking a medication as a prophylactic "forever" isn't viable, or good. It would be nice if there was a safe-working vaccine - but there isn't. You realize the studies that say "vaccine X is 90% effective" are based on only a few hundred infections, and they all have conflicts of interest right? Pfizer says it works because Pfizer wants to sell vaccines.
Is there a reason why governments would push ineffective vaccines (with the requirement of suppressing valid treatments)? Yes of course - profit. Blackrock owns a large chunk of Pfizer. Thomas is with blackrock. Thomas' associates influence the whitehouse:
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2021/06/20/blackrock-in-the-white-house/
How does the flu shot fit in?
Why would a supposedly authoritative paper include in the list of peer-reviewed studies a study that is not peer-reviewed?
Why would such a paper, supporting the use of Ivermectin, include a study with this statement: "Conclusions: Inclusion of ivermectin in treatment regimen of mild to moderate COVID-19 patients could not be said with certainty based on our study results as it had shown only marginal benefit in successful discharge from the hospital with no other observed benefits."
This is not top-notch science.
Vaccines and drugs as prophylactics are different and you know what I meant.
Which one?
Yes it is... Huh? If they didn't include as many studies as possible, or even worse, biased the studies toward ones that showed the results they want then it would be garbage.