Select to expand quoteCarantoc said..japie said..
You need to understand, Prole, that the ONLY solution to this disease is VACCINATION!
Not the only solution to this virus, - but the only solution for society.
The only solution for being allowed to leave your home.
The only solution to be able to cross the state border
The only solution to be allowed to be employed
The only solution to be allow to go into a public open space
The only solution.
(obviously it replaced the previous solution of flattening the curve, or the lockdown for the second wave will be the solution and will be replaced by the next only solution when delta+ / its ineffectiveness / some other issue pops up, but for now IT IS THE ONLY SOLUTION).
Yep. Has to be said again...
Also, Japie.
I hope you're confident in which regimen of Ivermectin you will be following?
Haven't seen consistent advice on that either.
Select to expand quoteGboots said..
People are taking vaccine now ..not for their health but because of fear of losing jobs , not going to
school etc . That is plain immoral. In the old days it was wrong to peer pressure people into taking drugs
And here we have the hat-trick.
Did your missus let you write that eppo, lol
She sounds like a smart woman, you should do what she ever says.
Select to expand quote
lotofwind said..
Did your missus let you write that eppo, lol
Bhahahahaa ha
When i make a decision - and talk it gets done. Otherwise i STFU at all costs. Little secret for marriage for you all.
With active cases in NSW doubling in 12 days, it will be interesting to see if the vaccination rate over the past few weeks will impact hospital admissions over the next 2 - 3 weeks
Select to expand quoteeppo said..lotofwind said..
Did your missus let you write that eppo, lol
Bhahahahaa ha
When i make a decision - and talk it gets done. Otherwise i STFU at all costs. Little secret for marriage for you all.
So are you going to let your missus tell your son he has to partake in the world wide government culling of humans.
lol
Havent you seen the massive evidence that this has all been coordinated to kill everyone that gets the jab?
I can understand you let the missus get it, but not your son.
I guess your problem now is, whos going to make your sandwiches?
It all gets a bit fanatical when the husband and family is not allowed to watch 'main stream news', and is she is prepared to give up her career if forced to retain it by getting a vax. He will be divorced if he gets vacinated. She always had that conspiracy side to her, but this has wound the dial to 10!
LOL, I gave her a hug and told her it would all be OK, then I told her I was double AZ vaxed.
Geez you'd think I had covered myself in dog **** with the carry on
And the American idiocy goes on
www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/despite-warnings-arkansas-inmates-given-anti-worm-drug-as-covid-treatment-20210826-p58m0t.html
This jail in Arkansas is treating its inmates with ivermectin. You can only assume that the people in charge want to bankrupt the state with all the lawsuits that will ensue
Select to expand quoteD3 said..japie said..Mr Milk said..
Speaking as a taxpayer, you know what pisses me off is seeing on 730 report tonight that the government is ordering in a supply of very expensive monoclonal antibodies to treat covid in people who won't get vaccinated. My jabs cost, I don't know, maybe $100 but these selfish pricks think that they should get many thousands worth of "experimental treatments" because they don't want to take an "experimental vaccine"
Speaking as a tax payer what pisses me of is seeing the state funded broadcasting corporation disseminating biased propaganda in support of the government with the aim of vilifying citizens who see fit to exercise their right to manage their own health and by making decisions based on actual medical data compiled by doctors who have successfully treated this disease worldwide with existing cheap and safe off label drugs.
It also pisses me off that the government has spent 23 billion on vaccines which don't appear to vaccinate and are injuring people beyond an acceptable level.
If the science is settled, why is Oxford University doing a bic RCT trial of Ivermectin now?
Most studies out there on the use of Ivermectin to treat covid 19 seem to be observational studies with low quality of evidence.
One of the big RCT studies with 200 participants just got pulled from pre-print due to 'ethical issues' (read: they plagiarized parts and stuffed up the data)
But the good news is that there will be lots of participants in trials being conducted now and by the end of the year. So we will have data from more than just a couple of thousand participants of poorly funded studies.
Good question. Buying time? Who would know. There's always scepticism of scientific data that come from outside ones own country and that is particularly true of the poms.
I've listened to Pierre Kory speak on many different occasions. I've no doubt in my mind that his sole purpose from the outset was to cure patients. That applies to many many doctors who didn't buy the "it is incurable" line.
And in true medical fashion, as Peter McCollough so eloquently explains, they developed strategies and protocols to treat the disease.
Which work.
All of them are at pains to explain that no one medicine works on its own. And that the earlier the intervention the more successful the outcome.
These guys have compiled mountains of evidence and data from trials and publications. What they all have in common is a concerted effort by the media to do their damndest to make sure any suggestion of success is met with ridicule a la Professor Ally Landon of Channel Nine.
Anyone who has spoken out has been lambasted and ridiculed.
There are laws to prevent this happening in the legal system for good reason. Not so in the science and medical world. Unless the other side is attempting to promote something along the lines of flat earthism and it is easy to debunk.
Select to expand quoteD3 said..
Also, Japie.
I hope you're confident in which regimen of Ivermectin you will be following?
Haven't seen consistent advice on that either.
The FLCCC and BIRD have stacks of literature on it.
Select to expand quoterussh said..japie said..Mr Milk said..
Speaking as a taxpayer, you know what pisses me off is seeing on 730 report tonight that the government is ordering in a supply of very expensive monoclonal antibodies to treat covid in people who won't get vaccinated. My jabs cost, I don't know, maybe $100 but these selfish pricks think that they should get many thousands worth of "experimental treatments" because they don't want to take an "experimental vaccine"
Speaking as a tax payer what pisses me of is seeing the state funded broadcasting corporation disseminating biased propaganda in support of the government with the aim of vilifying citizens who see fit to exercise their right to manage their own health and by making decisions based on actual medical data compiled by doctors who have successfully treated this disease worldwide with existing cheap and safe off label drugs.
It also pisses me off that the government has spent 23 billion on vaccines which don't appear to vaccinate and are injuring people beyond an acceptable level.
You are really grasping for something useful to troll the punters
NSW - overloaded ambulances, hospitals turning away patients particularly those with COVID, hospitals ICU's are full of COVID patients and yet you sprout uneducated rubbish about cheap over the counter drugs.
90% of vaccinated patients will not have symptoms worse than a cold - unvaccinated are high risk of major long term lung damage + increase serious clotting risk in future surgery. If we all took you're attitude there would still be Polio, TB, Hep B and measles rampant in the community.
I actually feel sorry for your paranoia and distrust of everything you don't understand
But don't worry the rest of us will do our bit get a vaccination and get on with life and get a laugh out of your posts.
No paranoia here Sunshine. I'm not the one nipping down to the altar and laying bare my arm for the great god Fizzer.
Disappointed for sure.
And I don't sprout, ( I think you probably meant spout??) uneducated rubbish.
I disseminate information compiled by successful practicing physicians. Some of whom have more education than you could sprout.
Sorry, spout??
Select to expand quotejapie said..D3 said..japie said..Mr Milk said..
Speaking as a taxpayer, you know what pisses me off is seeing on 730 report tonight that the government is ordering in a supply of very expensive monoclonal antibodies to treat covid in people who won't get vaccinated. My jabs cost, I don't know, maybe $100 but these selfish pricks think that they should get many thousands worth of "experimental treatments" because they don't want to take an "experimental vaccine"
Speaking as a tax payer what pisses me of is seeing the state funded broadcasting corporation disseminating biased propaganda in support of the government with the aim of vilifying citizens who see fit to exercise their right to manage their own health and by making decisions based on actual medical data compiled by doctors who have successfully treated this disease worldwide with existing cheap and safe off label drugs.
It also pisses me off that the government has spent 23 billion on vaccines which don't appear to vaccinate and are injuring people beyond an acceptable level.
If the science is settled, why is Oxford University doing a bic RCT trial of Ivermectin now?
Most studies out there on the use of Ivermectin to treat covid 19 seem to be observational studies with low quality of evidence.
One of the big RCT studies with 200 participants just got pulled from pre-print due to 'ethical issues' (read: they plagiarized parts and stuffed up the data)
But the good news is that there will be lots of participants in trials being conducted now and by the end of the year. So we will have data from more than just a couple of thousand participants of poorly funded studies.
Good question. Buying time? Who would know. There's always scepticism of scientific data that come from outside ones own country and that is particularly true of the poms.
I've listened to Pierre Kory speak on many different occasions. I've no doubt in my mind that his sole purpose from the outset was to cure patients. That applies to many many doctors who didn't buy the "it is incurable" line.
And in true medical fashion, as Peter McCollough so eloquently explains, they developed strategies and protocols to treat the disease.
Which work.
All of them are at pains to explain that no one medicine works on its own. And that the earlier the intervention the more successful the outcome.
These guys have compiled mountains of evidence and data from trials and publications. What they all have in common is a concerted effort by the media to do their damndest to make sure any suggestion of success is met with ridicule a la Professor Ally Landon of Channel Nine.
Anyone who has spoken out has been lambasted and ridiculed.
There are laws to prevent this happening in the legal system for good reason. Not so in the science and medical world. Unless the other side is attempting to promote something along the lines of flat earthism and it is easy to debunk.
So I keep finding studies that find Ivermectin has little to no impact or the results were inconclusive.
The larger the study the less likely a conclusive result in favour of Ivermectin was found, with a comment larger studies need to be done.
The smaller studies have shown benefits.
So, I'm not coming across the mountains of evidence you've found. Hard to see how we can go ahead with using it as a global treatment based on studies with similar numbers and conflicting evidence
And I hope you will agree there is a difference between calling someone out for claiming something without the evidence to back it up compared to being shouted down and ridiculed unjustly.
Why do I get the feeling that if the gov. were saying we need to be treating covid with ivermectin, that then the gov. fearing, they are tracking us and culling us crew, would be telling us to take AZ or Pfizer.
Select to expand quotelotofwind said..
Why do I get the feeling that if the gov. were saying we need to be treating covid with ivermectin, that then the gov. fearing, they are tracking us and culling us crew, would be telling us to take AZ or Pfizer.
Probably because you are too tribal in your thinking and aren't looking at the real issues for what they are.
Select to expand quoteD3 said..japie said..D3 said..japie said..Mr Milk said..
Speaking as a taxpayer, you know what pisses me off is seeing on 730 report tonight that the government is ordering in a supply of very expensive monoclonal antibodies to treat covid in people who won't get vaccinated. My jabs cost, I don't know, maybe $100 but these selfish pricks think that they should get many thousands worth of "experimental treatments" because they don't want to take an "experimental vaccine"
Speaking as a tax payer what pisses me of is seeing the state funded broadcasting corporation disseminating biased propaganda in support of the government with the aim of vilifying citizens who see fit to exercise their right to manage their own health and by making decisions based on actual medical data compiled by doctors who have successfully treated this disease worldwide with existing cheap and safe off label drugs.
It also pisses me off that the government has spent 23 billion on vaccines which don't appear to vaccinate and are injuring people beyond an acceptable level.
If the science is settled, why is Oxford University doing a bic RCT trial of Ivermectin now?
Most studies out there on the use of Ivermectin to treat covid 19 seem to be observational studies with low quality of evidence.
One of the big RCT studies with 200 participants just got pulled from pre-print due to 'ethical issues' (read: they plagiarized parts and stuffed up the data)
But the good news is that there will be lots of participants in trials being conducted now and by the end of the year. So we will have data from more than just a couple of thousand participants of poorly funded studies.
Good question. Buying time? Who would know. There's always scepticism of scientific data that come from outside ones own country and that is particularly true of the poms.
I've listened to Pierre Kory speak on many different occasions. I've no doubt in my mind that his sole purpose from the outset was to cure patients. That applies to many many doctors who didn't buy the "it is incurable" line.
And in true medical fashion, as Peter McCollough so eloquently explains, they developed strategies and protocols to treat the disease.
Which work.
All of them are at pains to explain that no one medicine works on its own. And that the earlier the intervention the more successful the outcome.
These guys have compiled mountains of evidence and data from trials and publications. What they all have in common is a concerted effort by the media to do their damndest to make sure any suggestion of success is met with ridicule a la Professor Ally Landon of Channel Nine.
Anyone who has spoken out has been lambasted and ridiculed.
There are laws to prevent this happening in the legal system for good reason. Not so in the science and medical world. Unless the other side is attempting to promote something along the lines of flat earthism and it is easy to debunk.
So I keep finding studies that find Ivermectin has little to no impact or the results were inconclusive.
The larger the study the less likely a conclusive result in favour of Ivermectin was found, with a comment larger studies need to be done.
The smaller studies have shown benefits.
So, I'm not coming across the mountains of evidence you've found. Hard to see how we can go ahead with using it as a global treatment based on studies with similar numbers and conflicting evidence
And I hope you will agree there is a difference between calling someone out for claiming something without the evidence to back it up compared to being shouted down and ridiculed unjustly.
Look up the meta analysis.
Select to expand quotekiterboy said..lotofwind said..
Why do I get the feeling that if the gov. were saying we need to be treating covid with ivermectin, that then the gov. fearing, they are tracking us and culling us crew, would be telling us to take AZ or Pfizer.
Probably because you are too tribal in your thinking and aren't looking at the real issues for what they are.
Thinking?
Select to expand quotekiterboy said..lotofwind said..
Why do I get the feeling that if the gov. were saying we need to be treating covid with ivermectin, that then the gov. fearing, they are tracking us and culling us crew, would be telling us to take AZ or Pfizer.
Probably because you are too tribal in your thinking and aren't looking at the real issues for what they are.
Ummmmmmm, that was my point you are proving.
I have read all the propaganda about the mass culling's that anyone on here has posted but still no proof of why or evidence.
Select to expand quotejapie said..kiterboy said..lotofwind said..
Why do I get the feeling that if the gov. were saying we need to be treating covid with ivermectin, that then the gov. fearing, they are tracking us and culling us crew, would be telling us to take AZ or Pfizer.
Probably because you are too tribal in your thinking and aren't looking at the real issues for what they are.
Thinking?
Yeah, I was being generous.
Select to expand quotelotofwind said..kiterboy said..lotofwind said..
Why do I get the feeling that if the gov. were saying we need to be treating covid with ivermectin, that then the gov. fearing, they are tracking us and culling us crew, would be telling us to take AZ or Pfizer.
Probably because you are too tribal in your thinking and aren't looking at the real issues for what they are.
Ummmmmmm, that was my point you are proving.
I have read all the propaganda about the mass culling's that anyone on here as posted but still no proof of why or evidence.
Bit of mental gymnastics you are doing there. I don't see how I proved your point at all.
You haven't read the medical research links though, have you?
Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34145166/
Conclusions: Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.
The Vaccist state of NSW is now commencing apartheid
Apartheid :
The definition of apartheid refers to a political system where people are clearly divided based on race, gender, class or OTHER such factors.
Select to expand quotejapie said..D3 said..japie said..D3 said..japie said..Mr Milk said..
Speaking as a taxpayer, you know what pisses me off is seeing on 730 report tonight that the government is ordering in a supply of very expensive monoclonal antibodies to treat covid in people who won't get vaccinated. My jabs cost, I don't know, maybe $100 but these selfish pricks think that they should get many thousands worth of "experimental treatments" because they don't want to take an "experimental vaccine"
Speaking as a tax payer what pisses me of is seeing the state funded broadcasting corporation disseminating biased propaganda in support of the government with the aim of vilifying citizens who see fit to exercise their right to manage their own health and by making decisions based on actual medical data compiled by doctors who have successfully treated this disease worldwide with existing cheap and safe off label drugs.
It also pisses me off that the government has spent 23 billion on vaccines which don't appear to vaccinate and are injuring people beyond an acceptable level.
If the science is settled, why is Oxford University doing a bic RCT trial of Ivermectin now?
Most studies out there on the use of Ivermectin to treat covid 19 seem to be observational studies with low quality of evidence.
One of the big RCT studies with 200 participants just got pulled from pre-print due to 'ethical issues' (read: they plagiarized parts and stuffed up the data)
But the good news is that there will be lots of participants in trials being conducted now and by the end of the year. So we will have data from more than just a couple of thousand participants of poorly funded studies.
Good question. Buying time? Who would know. There's always scepticism of scientific data that come from outside ones own country and that is particularly true of the poms.
I've listened to Pierre Kory speak on many different occasions. I've no doubt in my mind that his sole purpose from the outset was to cure patients. That applies to many many doctors who didn't buy the "it is incurable" line.
And in true medical fashion, as Peter McCollough so eloquently explains, they developed strategies and protocols to treat the disease.
Which work.
All of them are at pains to explain that no one medicine works on its own. And that the earlier the intervention the more successful the outcome.
These guys have compiled mountains of evidence and data from trials and publications. What they all have in common is a concerted effort by the media to do their damndest to make sure any suggestion of success is met with ridicule a la Professor Ally Landon of Channel Nine.
Anyone who has spoken out has been lambasted and ridiculed.
There are laws to prevent this happening in the legal system for good reason. Not so in the science and medical world. Unless the other side is attempting to promote something along the lines of flat earthism and it is easy to debunk.
So I keep finding studies that find Ivermectin has little to no impact or the results were inconclusive.
The larger the study the less likely a conclusive result in favour of Ivermectin was found, with a comment larger studies need to be done.
The smaller studies have shown benefits.
So, I'm not coming across the mountains of evidence you've found. Hard to see how we can go ahead with using it as a global treatment based on studies with similar numbers and conflicting evidence
And I hope you will agree there is a difference between calling someone out for claiming something without the evidence to back it up compared to being shouted down and ridiculed unjustly.
Look up the meta analysis.
Which one?
The ones that heavily weighted the study that has since been retracted?
The ones purely looking at RCTs with high quality of evidence?
The ones including observational studies of small numbers and poor parameters?
Select to expand quotekiterboy said..
Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34145166/
Conclusions: Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.
'Therapeutic advances: Meta-analysis of 15 trials found that ivermectin reduced risk of death compared with no ivermectin'
That's 15 out of 24 trials that they included in their review.
What did the other 9 show?
Select to expand quoteD3 said..kiterboy said..
Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34145166/
Conclusions: Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.
'Therapeutic advances: Meta-analysis of 15 trials found that ivermectin reduced risk of death compared with no ivermectin'
That's 15 out of 24 trials that they included in their review.
What did the other 9 show?
Well the authors stated they used the GRADE approach.
The GRADE approach (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) is a method of assessing the certainty in evidence (also known as quality of evidence or confidence in effect estimates) and the strength of recommendations in health care.
Perhaps those 9 trials were lacking/not robust enough in their data collection or smaller sample sizes etc, to not warrant inclusion in the meta-analysis.
Select to expand quotebobajob said..
It all gets a bit fanatical when the husband and family is not allowed to watch 'main stream news', and is she is prepared to give up her career if forced to retain it by getting a vax. He will be divorced if he gets vacinated. She always had that conspiracy side to her, but this has wound the dial to 10!
LOL, I gave her a hug and told her it would all be OK, then I told her I was double AZ vaxed.
Geez you'd think I had covered myself in dog **** with the carry on
Wow, and you survived the night?
Tell her that you took one for the team and they are safe for now or that 'they told me it was for tetanus' and see how that works out.
It could come in handy.... when asked to do something you don't want to do - 'those bastards, they injected me with something toxic and I can no longer push the lawn mower. I might need a beer to recover my macro nutrients!'
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..bobajob said..
It all gets a bit fanatical when the husband and family is not allowed to watch 'main stream news', and is she is prepared to give up her career if forced to retain it by getting a vax. He will be divorced if he gets vacinated. She always had that conspiracy side to her, but this has wound the dial to 10!
LOL, I gave her a hug and told her it would all be OK, then I told her I was double AZ vaxed.
Geez you'd think I had covered myself in dog **** with the carry on
Wow, and you survived the night?
Tell her that you took one for the team and they are safe for now or that 'they told me it was for tetanus' and see how that works out.
It could come in handy.... when asked to do something you don't want to do - 'those bastards, they injected me with something toxic and I can no longer push the lawn mower. I might need a beer to recover my macro nutrients!'
We've heard you don't need a beer to get your macro-nutrients...you're happy to receive them from macro, fully sober and in your fishnets.
Select to expand quotekiterboy said..FormulaNova said..bobajob said..
It all gets a bit fanatical when the husband and family is not allowed to watch 'main stream news', and is she is prepared to give up her career if forced to retain it by getting a vax. He will be divorced if he gets vacinated. She always had that conspiracy side to her, but this has wound the dial to 10!
LOL, I gave her a hug and told her it would all be OK, then I told her I was double AZ vaxed.
Geez you'd think I had covered myself in dog **** with the carry on
Wow, and you survived the night?
Tell her that you took one for the team and they are safe for now or that 'they told me it was for tetanus' and see how that works out.
It could come in handy.... when asked to do something you don't want to do - 'those bastards, they injected me with something toxic and I can no longer push the lawn mower. I might need a beer to recover my macro nutrients!'
We've heard you don't need a beer to get your macro-nutrients...you're happy to receive them from macro, fully sober and in your fishnets.
Go away weirdo and stalk someone else. Surely you have something else to do?
