See figure 2. Double shot of Moderna has higher chance of myocarditis than covid does. They do add this to the conclusions of the paper, but they defocus it by talking about the populations as one large unbroken dataset.
When looking at people under 40, the risks for myocarditis are higher amongst Moderna double shot patients than for covid infections.
Not true. The removed study was just one of 50. The study already had a control for bias attached to it. Even if the study is removed the effect remains certain.
The hit job on that study was also coordinated. The study was done by an Egyptian doctor in the middle of a pandemic. An actual doctor on the front line trying to save lives. They way he has been sullied in the name of protecting the financial interests of pharma companies is shameful.
The Oxford study is using patients so far down the viral infection it has most certainly been designed to fail. All the evidence suggests ivermectin works best when used early, and Oxford plan to use it on late stage patients.
Funny that - given that Oxford are being funded by the pharma companies to make the vaccine and novel therapies.
Never bite the hand that feeds you and all. I don't know why we are expected to wait for a study from Oxford when it has already been written off by the actual doctors saving lives because of strange doses and late stage patients.
There are already 50+ studies. Nation states are already using ivermectin.
They chose 14 studies of more than 50 available. Their method for screening studies looks biased towards finding an inconclusive result.
Bear in mind that 'bias' with regard to ivermectin is less likely to come from doctors than it is pharma companies. Doctors stand to gain nothing from the efficacy of ivermectin since it's a generic drug on the market since 1987. Pharma companies have a lot to lose if it's proven effective.
To control for bias one ought to look at larger sample sizes. And each time that happens there's a significant result.
I could go on. To really understand what is happening in relation to Ivermectin I can highly recommend Ben Goldacres book Bad Pharma..it shows in detail exactly what we are seeing happen with ivermectin.
There is a significant financial interest in having ivermectin perceived as ineffective. Firstly, if it works it makes the emergency use authorisation for the vaccines look quite precarious. Secondly, and probably more likely, there are novel therapies being developed for Covid right now. Nasal sprays. Anti virals.
They are patented. Ivermectin is not - it's post patent and can be manufacured by multiple companies. Merck who manufacture ivermectin themselves have a new anti viral they hope to bring to market.
If ivermectin - a $3 treatment - proves to be effective then the emergency use Authorization for novel Covid therapies goes out the window.
When we are looking at meta analysis that take about 20% of the available studies and conclude 'inconclusive' we should be mindful that there's a massive financial interest for this. Science works. But like everything else, if you influence how science is funded you influence the results it finds.
The cat is out of the bag on ivermectin. Its already being used in india (where I am) and where the second wave was brought under control without vaccines. There was just 5% vaccine penetration at the peak of second wave but ivermectin started to get administered at that time in delhi.
You'll hear more about the mega doses of horse paste. Its in super high concentration since....it's for horses. In the UK it's not even imported in tablet 12mg form. Hence the stupid situation in which people desperately try to get it via vets and the dosage is way out.
At 12mg doses it's very well tolerated. I should know since I use it india the moment I feel I have any symptoms. 18 months and so far so good. I am just one person of course but I know many many others who have been prescribed it when they got sick and they then recovered.
Science works but financial interests influence what does and does not publish.
I just want to say, thay given how tense this conversation can be, the quality of the conversation in this thread (as of right now) is amongst the highest I've ever seen.
I've seen many people say this. But the reality is that the significant part of BTCs trading volume is in tether. When that dries up it's price will nose dive and the only route out will be into fiat. And if BTCs price is declining, no one is buying. So tether collapsing means BTC will collapse.