Vaxxers read this. Link provided

[JohnD]

The big Egyptian study that set the Trumpist antivaxxers aflame?

"The data also looked suspicious to Lawrence, with the raw data apparently contradicting the study protocol on several occasions.

“The authors claimed to have done the study only on 18-80 year olds, but at least three patients in the dataset were under 18,” Lawrence said.

“The authors claimed they conducted the study between the 8th of June and 20th of September 2020, however most of the patients who died were admitted into hospital and died before the 8th of June according to the raw data. The data was also terribly formatted, and includes one patient who left hospital on the non-existent date of 31/06/2020.”

There were other concerns.


“In their paper, the authors claim that four out of 100 patients died in their standard treatment group for mild and moderate Covid-19,” Lawrence said. “According to the original data, the number was 0, the same as the ivermectin treatment group. In their ivermectin treatment group for severe Covid-19, the authors claim two patients died, but the number in their raw data is four.”

 

[JohnD]

"Brown created a comprehensive document uncovering numerous data errors, discrepancies and concerns, which he provided to the Guardian. According to his findings the authors had clearly repeated data between patients.

“The main error is that at least 79 of the patient records are obvious clones of other records,” Brown told the Guardian. “It’s certainly the hardest to explain away as innocent error, especially since the clones aren’t even pure copies. There are signs that they have tried to change one or two fields to make them look more natural.”

Fake.

"Meyerowitz-Katz told the Guardian that “this is one of the biggest ivermectin studies out there”, and it appeared to him the data was “just totally faked”. This was concerning because two meta-analyses of ivermectin for treating Covid-19 had included the Elgazzar study in the results. A meta-analysis is a statistical analysis that combines the results of multiple scientific studies to determine what the overall scientific literature has found about a treatment or intervention.

“Because the Elgazzar study is so large, and so massively positive – showing a 90% reduction in mortality – it hugely skews the evidence in favour of ivermectin,” Meyerowitz-Katz said.


“If you remove this one study from the scientific literature, suddenly there are very few positive randomised control trials of ivermectin for Covid-19. Indeed, if you get rid of just this research, most meta-analyses that have found positive results would have their conclusions entirely reversed.”

Kyle Sheldrick, a Sydney doctor and researcher, also independently raised concerns about the paper. He found numbers the authors provided for several standard deviations – a measure of variation in a group of data points – mentioned in tables in the paper were “mathematically impossible” given the range of numbers provided in the same table."

 

[JohnD]

You won't want to read this.

https://grftr.news/why-was-a-major-study-on-ivermectin-for-covid-19-just-retracted/

Or this

https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciab591/6310839

Conclusions
Compared with the standard of care or placebo, IVM did not reduce all-cause mortality, LOS, or viral clearance in RCTs in patients with mostly mild COVID-19. IVM did not have an effect on AEs or SAEs and is not a viable option to treat patients with COVID-19.

 

[JohnD]

Horse-worming tablets FFS.

Supported by Trumpists.

 

[JP_]

Horse-worming tablets FFS.

Supported by Trumpists.

You can guarantee that the people behind promoting it also have an investment in it, or are buddies with somebody that does.
Gotta be so careful with any news of medication these days, as most is a commercial enterprise and they will use social media marketing to help sell it. Gullible people that believe anything have become one of the best marketing tools on the internet - who needs advertising?

 

[Deleted member 18243]

By 8th September the vaccines had killed 1645 people in Britain and there had been 1,119,683 reported adverse reactions.

COVID-19 Yellow Card Data | UKColumn

 

[JohnD]

By 8th September the vaccines had killed 1645 people in Britain

that's an interesting assertion. Can you find this claim on any reputable source?

 

[ellal]

Perhaps a poor choice of wording on my part. Full approval might be a more accurate one.

Anyone taking a non fully approved 'jab' is a tad stupid...

And anyone allowing a child of theirs to have one enforced on them is akin to being a child abuser!

 

[noseall]

By 8th September the vaccines had killed 1645 people in Britain

Nonsense.

 

[Deleted member 18243]

Nonsense.

See "Events with a fatal outcome":

Coronavirus vaccine - weekly summary of Yellow Card reporting - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

 

[ellal]

If you flip a coin enough times, you will eventually get ten heads in a row.

If you disregard all the others, and your biggest run of heads was a fake, you can convince yourself that you have the knack.

If you get an infinite number of CC cretins to type on an infinite number of keyboards they'd still all come up an infinite amount of ****e!

Of course they'd then delete a topic or impose an order that your 'privileges' to reply are 'restricted'

What are they afraid of?

The truth?

 

[Trazor]

See "Events with a fatal outcome":

Coronavirus vaccine - weekly summary of Yellow Card reporting - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

From your link, under events with a fatal outcome...........

" Usage of the vaccines has increased over the course of the campaigns and as such, so has reporting of fatal events with a temporal association with vaccination however, this does not indicate a link between vaccination and the fatalities reported. Review of individual reports and patterns of reporting does not suggest the vaccines played a role in these deaths."

Also, please remember that 1600 people die each day in the UK, the vast majority being elderly, will have had both jabs.

Many would have died within days of being vaccinated, but not because of the vaccine.

 

[IT Minion]

See "Events with a fatal outcome":

Coronavirus vaccine - weekly summary of Yellow Card reporting - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

Just stick it in a single thread, you don't need to keep repeating the same thing in both, especially if it's wrong.

 

[Captain Nemesis]

... vaccine trial volunteers ...
.
.
.
Thus the experiment goes on and on!

So you complain because you think vaccines arent tested.

And you complain when there are trials of vaccines.

You are basically beyond any reasoning with.

 

[JohnD]

See "Events with a fatal outcome":

Coronavirus vaccine - weekly summary of Yellow Card reporting - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

It does not say what you claim it says.