Shut your hole.
What the fuck is wrong with you, that would be your go to, because someone said something that surprised you, or was contrary to what you thought you lnew?
Quit repeating soundbites.
Reading studies requires paying attention to the context, and nuance.
And then understanding how to interpret and apply them in their correct context.
Not anything that you are doing, or have done, correct?
If so, then shut your fucking hole.
Such a madlad.
I don’t know which is worse-
Hearing the anti-vaxxers repeat the same bullshit all day.
Or the people spouting the same kind of crap about the non-vaccine therapeutics.
Both groups by and large, for the most part, have no idea what they are talking about.
And your comments falls squarely into that category.
It does get tiring, having to explain again, and again, “no, it depends…”
The true threat to western democracy…
You can fuck off about it
I don’t have to prove a negative. And you telling me I don’t understand doesn’t mean I don’t understand unless you can actually demonstrate my lack of understanding…
What am I missing about it?
You know what shows to be good at treating COVID. Antivirals like nirmatrelvir that has went through clinical trials.
I believe the early clinical trials for both invermectin and hqc both failed to show significant results on treating COVID. At least by the reputable.
I’m waiting to be seated at dinner.
If I PM you my phone number, will you incur Klanadian long distance charges by calling a US number?
Yes obviously, why would want a call? I thought this place has a discord.
It does, actually.
That twat, Inky, runs it.
But I am on there.
My handle is the same there.
Well you enjoy your dinner and I will enjoy mine. It’s my sister’s in law’s birthday.
I have cooking then cleaning to do.
If you do want to know what you are missing, later we can have a call.
I don’t give two fucks about politics in either direction.
But I can speak to the Complexity Maths involved, and the studies.
I love to learn, and we can discuss it later in discord if you want too.
I don’t understand why you can’t just write in the thread though.
Because I am not quite altruistic enough to write an applied graduate level treatise on Complexity Maths, Chaos Theory, wide independent variables with extremely high levels of interaction, static versus highly and rapidly dynamic primary independent variables, Competing paths to fitness, and the value of control groups that sidestep what would otherwise be a medical ethical quandary as relates to the COVID19 pandemic progression, for the benefit of Bullshido.com, when that is what I do for work.
And this site, is supposed to be one of my not-at-work activities.
Alright I get that but why would you be willing to do that for me?
Because all large miracles are made of small ones.
Pebbles thrown well, alter the course of rivers.
This isn’t even hard stuff to chase down:
Those are meta analysis,
Did you bother to take a look at their sources?
Ie the original studies and their findings and methodology?
HCQ, in particular in combination with zinc, impedes viral activity.
Ivermectin impedes COVID19 severity as well, in some cases.
A treatment that works for some does not preclude it as effective. It just doesn’t work for others, or as well.
I’m really lost on the people that think that something has to work 100% of the time to be “sciency.” After all, the “vaccines,” are fairly fallible. Sort of an untenable position to take, don’t you think?
Are you familiar with the concept of garbage in, garbage out.
That applies to those meta analysis you linked.
Garbage in, garbage out applies to all things.
Not just the meta analysis that @submessenger posted.
Saying such platitudes generally may be true in general, but may be noise to specific contexts.
Much like saying vaccines kill some people.
Sure, some people who take vaccines will die from taking them.
That statement is true in general, but lacks context.