Ivermectin: balance of evidence shows no benefit against Covid-19

buka001

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
12,411
Ya, quite the epic fail on his part.

So, are you gonna give evidence as to these unreasonable dosages that Geoff was talking about, or nah?
He has said several times it needs to be at a concentration of 5 (cant recall units).

To which evidence has been shown through several studies, even some from pre-COVID (so no ideological malarky and bias), that achieving this level in humans is not practically achievable.

He is big enough to admit this himself.

P.s. the only fail there is yours. Greta waves hi! I assume you prefer an oral based argument with her?
 

JangoFett

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2021
Messages
846
Yeah because he was very vague one what the dosage level for preventative usage is. Is it the same as his famous 5 whatever it is level? Or is that the level for when you are infected? Or is it the same as when used for prevention?
So, you wanted to criticise him about dosages, but you don't have anything to go on? So you were just making up more k@k? Why am I not surprised? :rolleyes:

You are mirroring the confusion felt by those who challenge Geoff on his theories.
I'm not at all confused, though.

You are just seeing it now, because I am saying what he said. Your bias missed it when he said it.
You're making stuff up.

The challenge is relative. Is it perfectly fine if used the way Geoff advocates for it? As an experimental preventative drug?
I have no idea what way Geoff was advocating for it, you made claims that you can't back up. As I said, citation needed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Swa

JangoFett

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2021
Messages
846
He has said several times it needs to be at a concentration of 5 (cant recall units).
Says the troll whose claims can't be taken at face value.

To which evidence has been shown through several studies, even some from pre-COVID (so no ideological malarky and bias), that achieving this level in humans is not practically achievable.
Citation needed.

He is big enough to admit this himself.
No, he didn't admit anything of the sort, in fact he explained that you were misconstruing his claims and you never followed up, so I think one can safely conclude that you were just spreading more lies.

P.s. the only fail there is yours. Greta waves hi! I assume you prefer an oral based argument with her?
Sorry, it's the other side of the political fence that wants to get freaky with minors, you must be confused.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Swa

HS2000

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2020
Messages
434

Pfizer moves towards an oral anti-COVID-19 therapyOral SARS-CoV-2 specific therapeutics that are applicable for treatment of the broad population upon COVID-19 diagnosis are urgently needed,” writes Owen and colleagues.​

“Such a treatment approach may prevent more severe disease, hospitalizations and deaths. Indirectly, it may also reduce further transmission from infected individuals.”​



 

buka001

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
12,411
Says the troll whose claims can't be taken at face value.


Citation needed.


No, he didn't admit anything of the sort, in fact he explained that you were misconstruing his claims and you never followed up, so I think one can safely conclude that you were just spreading more lies.


Sorry, it's the other side of the political fence that wants to get freaky with minors, you must be confused.
Its been posted in this thread several times over.

You police the thread as to who likes what post, I am sure you can find it.

P.s. no confusion. I recall that post of yours very well. You even defended it.
 

JangoFett

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2021
Messages
846
Its been posted in this thread several times over.

You police the thread as to who likes what post, I am sure you can find it.
What does not exist cannot be found, but you already know that, hence the dodge.

And I had a very similar experience when a treatment for efficacy that used cells from a slaughtered labrat was twisted into claims about using medicine internally when the stated recipe referred to topical applications. Dissemblers gonna dissemble.
 

HS2000

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2020
Messages
434
If you guys aren't too busy fighting with each other. Here is an interesting interview :

 

buka001

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
12,411
What does not exist cannot be found, but you already know that, hence the dodge.

And I had a very similar experience when a treatment for efficacy that used cells from a slaughtered labrat was twisted into claims about using medicine internally when the stated recipe referred to topical applications. Dissemblers gonna dissemble.
Here is where is objecting to the evidence that discounts the concentration he argues in favour of.


There are more. It has been his biggest theory, that the concentration used in a desk study of a petri dish in Australia is what is needed in humans.

You obviously just here to punt your anti-science and don't really follow the discussions? I mean you thought the Cochrane Group was a person.
 

JangoFett

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2021
Messages
846
Here is where is objecting to the evidence that discounts the concentration he argues in favour of.


There are more. It has been his biggest theory, that the concentration used in a desk study of a petri dish in Australia is what is needed in humans.
No mention of a concentration is mentioned. Try again. And what's more you've already acknowledged that the studies that used the standard 200mcg dosage have shown promising results, so this is really pathetic straw clutching on your part.

You obviously just here to punt your anti-science and don't really follow the discussions? I mean you thought the Cochrane Group was a person.
Deflection. Cochrane sounds like a name, and I hadn't previously mentioned their work one way or the other before that. I'm happy to be corrected on such matters. What difference does it make if Cochrane is an individual or a collection of individuals, anyway? :ROFL:
 

buka001

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
12,411
No mention of a concentration is mentioned. Try again. And what's more you've already acknowledged that the studies that used the standard 200mcg dosage have shown promising results, so this is really pathetic straw clutching on your part.


Deflection. Cochrane sounds like a name, and I hadn't previously mentioned their work one way or the other before that. I'm happy to be corrected on such matters. What difference does it make if Cochrane is an individual or a collection of individuals, anyway? :ROFL:
It shows you haven't really been following the actual discussions and instead decided to drop your ideological persuasions instead.

I'll link all the posts tomorrow. On Taptalk, takes forever to scroll up.

Or he can just demonstrate his integrity and state that he has been arguing in favour of a specific concentration, based on a petri dish study from Australia.
 

pouroverguy

Expert Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2013
Messages
1,257
No mention of a concentration is mentioned. Try again. And what's more you've already acknowledged that the studies that used the standard 200mcg dosage have shown promising results, so this is really pathetic straw clutching on your part.


Deflection. Cochrane sounds like a name, and I hadn't previously mentioned their work one way or the other before that. I'm happy to be corrected on such matters. What difference does it make if Cochrane is an individual or a collection of individuals, anyway? :ROFL:

What difference does it make if Cochrane is one individual, or an organization of more than 30 000 experts in evidence-based medicine and analyzing evidence? Okay then.
 

JangoFett

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2021
Messages
846
It shows you haven't really been following the actual discussions and instead decided to drop your ideological persuasions instead.
Feel free to show a single claim I made that was in any way relevant to what the Cochrane group has been doing, aside from the Israeli study. Hint: you won't find it. Hence, your claims about my "ideological persuasions" is nothing but hollow puffery.


I'll link all the posts tomorrow. On Taptalk, takes forever to scroll up.
Uhuh...

Or he can just demonstrate his integrity and state that he has been arguing in favour of a specific concentration, based on a petri dish study from Australia.
Why anyone would entertain your pathetic red-herrings when you've already proven yourself to be a liar is beyond me.
 

JangoFett

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2021
Messages
846
What difference does it make if Cochrane is one individual, or an organization of more than 30 000 experts in evidence-based medicine and analyzing evidence? Okay then.
Does it matter how many people did the work? Are you going for an appeal to popularity fallacy or what?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Swa

pouroverguy

Expert Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2013
Messages
1,257
Does it matter how many people did the work? Are you going for an appeal to popularity fallacy or what?

Does it matter how many experts all had to work on the same thing, and came to an agreement and conclusion before it could be published. (not all 30 thousand were involved of course). Are you listening to yourself?
 

JangoFett

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2021
Messages
846
Does it matter how many experts all had to work on the same thing, and came to an agreement and conclusion before it could be published. (not all 30 thousand were involved of course). Are you listening to yourself?
So it is an appeal to popularity fallacy after all. Or maybe that's the appeal to authority fallacy?

And here I thought that the merits of sound claims were to be judged based on the evidence rather than how many people said it. :cautious:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Swa

pouroverguy

Expert Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2013
Messages
1,257
So it is an appeal to popularity fallacy after all. Or maybe that's the appeal to authority fallacy?

And here I thought that the merits of sound claims were to be judged based on the evidence rather than how many people said it. :cautious:

The point is that the analysis of the evidence came from a gigantic group, and not just one individual. It is much more likely one individual or small group could all be wrong, then a larger group.
 

Temujin

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 18, 2015
Messages
12,825

Pfizer moves towards an oral anti-COVID-19 therapyOral SARS-CoV-2 specific therapeutics that are applicable for treatment of the broad population upon COVID-19 diagnosis are urgently needed,” writes Owen and colleagues.​

“Such a treatment approach may prevent more severe disease, hospitalizations and deaths. Indirectly, it may also reduce further transmission from infected individuals.”​



images
 

pouroverguy

Expert Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2013
Messages
1,257
The point is that the analysis of the evidence came from a gigantic group, and not just one individual. It is much more likely one individual or small group could all be wrong, then a larger group.

If 1 says you don't have cancer, and 99 say you do - it is much more likely the 99 are right.
 
Top