Pfizer Anti-Viral & Ivermectin Science Based Comparison

[jstern]

https://youtu.be/xROICA8Hr7I

In short, not only are you getting scammed, but the vaccine companies are profiting tens of billions of dollars with the deaths of all the people that could have been saved with Ivermectin and the pennies it cost per pill.

[FultzNationRISE]

https://youtu.be/xROICA8Hr7I

In short, not only are you getting scammed, but the vaccine companies are profiting tens of billions of dollars with the deaths of all the people that could have been saved with Ivermectin and the pennies it cost per pill.


It’s about damn time someone made a vaccine thread.

[jstern]

It’s about damn time someone made a vaccine thread.

For the record, the video and the thread is not about the vaccine. The vaccines didn't even cross my mind.

It actually relates more to this (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?499159-Tucker-says-inflation-not-an-accident&p=14474787&viewfull=1#post14474787) comment that you made about Bladefd. Somewhat. Not because of Bladefd himself. But you have a smug public who assume they know so much because someone told them on the news. For example that doctor who died possibly from the vaccine, Tweeting that he wants to punch unvaccinated people in the face. That he won't cry for them at their funeral. You have that arrogance from people who just repeat what they were told. And since it's so easy to brainwash them, they're willing to pay hundreds of dollars for a pill that works almost the exact same way (but less effective) than Ivermectin. Which costs pennies. And they're willing to have thousands die, or they themselves die from suppression of any effective alternatives, as they wait while the less effective copy is being developed.

[diamenz]

For the record, the video and the thread is not about the vaccine. The vaccines didn't even cross my mind.

It actually relates more to this (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?499159-Tucker-says-inflation-not-an-accident&p=14474787&viewfull=1#post14474787) comment that you made about Bladefd. Somewhat. Not because of Bladefd himself. But you have a smug public who assume they know so much because someone told them on the news. For example that doctor who died possibly from the vaccine, Tweeting that he wants to punch unvaccinated people in the face. That he won't cry for them at their funeral. You have that arrogance from people who just repeat what they were told. And since it's so easy to brainwash them, they're willing to pay hundreds of dollars for a pill that works almost the exact same way (but less effective) than Ivermectin. Which costs pennies. And they're willing to have thousands die, or they themselves die from suppression of any effective alternatives, as they wait while the less effective copy is being developed.

how do you know that as a fact?

there's no 'proof' that ivermectin does or doesn't work to treat covid. the drug has about as much credibility as the vaccines themselves.

[theman93]

how do you know that as a fact?

there's no 'proof' that ivermectin does or doesn't work to treat covid. the drug has about as much credibility as the vaccines themselves.

Ivermectin shows itself to be an extremely effective drug against covid. This based on 44 peer reviewed studies. It especially is effective as a preventative.

https://ivmmeta.com/#fig_fpp

[BurningHammer]

Ivermectin shows itself to be an extremely effective drug against covid. This based on 44 peer reviewed studies. It especially is effective as a preventative.

https://ivmmeta.com/#fig_fpp

https://ebm.bmj.com/content/early/2021/05/26/bmjebm-2021-111678


Different websites (such as https://ivmmeta.com/, https://c19ivermectin.com/, https://tratamientotemprano.org/estudios-ivermectina/, among others) have conducted meta-analyses with ivermectin studies, showing unpublished colourful forest plots which rapidly gained public acknowledgement and were disseminated via social media, without following any methodological or report guidelines. These websites do not include protocol registration with methods, search strategies, inclusion criteria, quality assessment of the included studies nor the certainty of the evidence of the pooled estimates. Prospective registration of systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis protocols is a key feature for providing transparency in the review process and ensuring protection against reporting biases, by revealing differences between the methods or outcomes reported in the published review and those planned in the registered protocol. These websites show pooled estimates suggesting significant benefits with ivermectin, which has resulted in confusion for clinicians, patients and even decision-makers. This is usually a problem when performing meta-analyses which are not based in rigorous systematic reviews, often leading to spread spurious or fallacious findings.36 (https://ebm.bmj.com/content/early/2021/05/26/bmjebm-2021-111678#ref-36)

[fsvr54]

I've taken Ivermectin four times this year, feel great and haven't gotten sick in two years.

[theman93]

https://ebm.bmj.com/content/early/2021/05/26/bmjebm-2021-111678

You can go to each peer reviewed study individually.

The science is clear. Why don't you trust the science?

[Chick Stern]

https://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/madison.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/9/95/9956d3df-96b7-5a39-8135-6ddc243f2282/6139284e3eaf2.image.jpg?resize=800%2C624