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

[pouroverguy]

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2777389 - also, Cochrane already reviewed a tonne of the data before they came to their findings. Why do you disagree with them? Give your qualified opinion. I'd love to hear why you're right, and all the experts are wrong.

Please, give us your expert takedown of why Cochrane's analysis of the studies they actually did review is incorrect. And explain which studies they didn't include should have been included, and are not flawed. Please, provide us with your own meta-analysis.

 

[pouroverguy]

It's not a study against IVM, by your own admission.


I asked you for conclusive evidence, you posted the study, now you're saying you never said it was conclusive. So you were actually not interested in answering my question, you were just spamming BS in the hopes that bullshit baffles brains?

Trololololol.

Why would I believe anything you have to say about the Cochrane study at this point? Tsek.

You and Buka should have a little get together, looks like you're singing from the same hymnsheet. No wonder you got sensitive when I called him out on his trolling, you saw it as a slight against yourself as well.

Where is your conclusive evidence that IVM works?

 

[JangoFett]

Please, give us your expert takedown of why Cochrane's analysis of the studies they actually did review is incorrect. And explain which studies they didn't include should have been included, and are not flawed. Please, provide us with your own meta-analysis.

Please, give me any reason why I should bother.

 

[pouroverguy]

Please, give me any reason why I should bother.

You know better than the experts obviously. Bless us with your knowledge.

 

[JangoFett]

You know better than the experts obviously. Bless us with your knowledge.

Sorry, this reason does not appear to be valid within the context of my argument.

 

[JangoFett]

Where is your conclusive evidence that IVM works?

Why would I need to present conclusive evidence when I spoke in favour of tentative evidence?

 

[pouroverguy]

Sorry, this reason does not appear to be valid within the context of my argument.

Please, give me any reason why I should bother.

So if you could be "bothered," you are completely capable of a qualified and well-reasoned expert takedown of the cochrane analysis?

 

[JangoFett]

So if you could be "bothered," you are completely capable of a qualified and well-reasoned expert takedown of the cochrane analysis?

My mistake. I refuse to answer the questions you ask with premises smuggled into them that I did not assent to.

Henceforth I shall not be giving you the benefit of the doubt, because you're a fat troll who refuses to acknowledge his own dishonesty. Tsek.

P.S. Thankyou for proving to everyone beyond a reasonable doubt that you're more interested in winning forum arguments than any genuine interest in the welfare of people, as @Howdy was originally intimating.

 

[Howdy]

Settle down there skippy. I was being sarcastic with Geoff.

I've said before if it works then it's a cost-effective answer to those people who cannot get the jab. Not averse to the use.

So did you win your forum game?

Skippy is as skippy does.

 

[pouroverguy]

My mistake. I refuse to answer the questions you ask with premises smuggled into them that I did not assent to.

Henceforth I shall not be giving you the benefit of the doubt, because you're a fat troll who refuses to acknowledge his own dishonesty. Tsek.

P.S. Thankyou for proving to everyone beyond a reasonable doubt that you're more interested in winning forum arguments than any genuine interest in the wellfare of people, as @Howdy was originally intimating.

My opinion that IVM has not been shown yet to be effective means I don't have any genuine interest in the wellfare of people? Okay then.

 

[JangoFett]

My opinion that IVM has not been shown yet to be effective means I don't have any genuine interest in the wellfare of people? Okay then.

There is your opinion, and then there is the dishonesty with which you argue in favour of it. Those are not the same things, but I'm sure you knew that.

 

[pouroverguy]

There is your opinion, and then there is the dishonesty with which you argue in favour of it. Those are not the same things, but I'm sure you knew that.

Reading back up the thread, it seems you asked for a study with a conclusive result. On that part, I'll accept that I did not read you correctly - and read it as that you wanted a study that showed a negative result - which is why I posted the JAMA article, as well as mentioned Cochrane which has enough negative results so far. So my bad on that - I'm more than willing to admit I made a mistake.

 

[JangoFett]

Reading back up the thread, it seems you asked for a study with a conclusive result. On that part, I'll accept that I did not read you correctly - and read it as that you wanted a study that showed a negative result - which is why I posted the JAMA article, as well as mentioned Cochrane which has enough negative results so far. So my bad on that - I'm more than willing to admit I made a mistake.

Inconclusive negative results do not rebut positive results, tentative or otherwise. You should know that.

And since you think the Cochrane results are conclusive, you can explain why, because I sure as hell am not going to do your homework for you.

 

[pouroverguy]

Inconclusive negative results do not rebut positive results, tentative or otherwise. You should know that.

And since you think the Cochrane results are conclusive, you can explain why, because I sure as hell am not going to do your homework for you.

And a few positive results do not rebut the Cochrane analysis?

Where did I say the Cochrane results are conclusive? If good evidence comes around that changes things , they will update the results.

 

[JangoFett]

And a few positive results do not rebut the Cochrane analysis?

You tell me. You're the one claiming familiarity with the study. I, on the other hand, have not claimed such a thing.

Where did I say the Cochrane results are conclusive? If good evidence comes around that changes things , they will update the results.

Thankfully we already know from other posters that they did not address the Israeli study that I originally pointed to, so there's no reason to think that their conclusions are responsive to the evidence that I initially proffered in order to enquire if there were problems with the findings.

 

[pouroverguy]

You tell me. You're the one claiming familiarity with the study. I, on the other hand, have not claimed such a thing.


Thankfully we already know from other posters that they did not address the Israeli study that I originally pointed to, so there's no reason to think that their conclusions are responsive to the evidence that I initially proffered in order to enquire if there were problems with the findings.

Give us your analysis as to why the Israeli study should change the Cochrane analysis of all the other studies done so far. Without your conspiracy not backed up by any actual proof theories that they willfully ignored articles and cherry-picked to suit their conclusions (and I'm the dishonest one supposedly). Are your intimately familiar with the Israeli research article, and have the qualifications or expertise to analyze medical evidence?

 

[JangoFett]

Give us your analysis over why the Israeli study should change the Cochrane analysis of all the other studies done so far. Without your conspiracy not backed up by any actual proof theories that they willfully ignored articles and cherry-picked to suit their conclusions (and I'm the dishonest one supposedly). Are your intimately familiar with the Israeli research article, and have the qualifications or expertise to analyze medical evidence?

Back to trolling, I see.

And just when I was beginning to think that perhaps I had misjudged you.

Tsek.

 

[Geoff.D]

real people are dying in the real life.

This! While all and sundry go all out to prevent an affordable frug to be used easily and when it can help, people real people, not numbers on a chart or table or in a database are dying that might have been helped.

 

[Howdy]

people real people, not numbers on a chart or table or in a database are dying that might have been helped.

This. We already say this numbers sentiment from the one honorable Israeli doctor. It's not so bad ...

Every death is a tragedy. Real people with loved ones, breadwinners. Lives forever changed. It's easy taking up pedantic positions relying on other people who may or may not have your best interests at heart. We saw how this turned out in other issues.

I suspect many of these types will also discredit faith and religion - while perversely doing exactly that.

 

[Geoff.D]

Could you please explain what was wrong with other studies that found no benefit with IVM? (No conspiracy theories unsubstantiated by any actual proof please).

Dosages that are already known to be unlikely to make a marked difference. I will post a pretty thorough dosage analysis that explains why most of the trials currently accepted for reporting on show no significant result. - because the dosage regime is just not at the right levels to do anything.

When I post it, check out the date when that highly technical study was done.