Well ain't that the Sh1ts.@UCFWayne told us he bled out from peptic ulcer. Another known problem with 💉💉💉. Much like many of the anti-VAX today, he is victim
Behind on your covid booster?
- Thread starter Boston.Knight
- Start date
Hahaha 😂
You are such a ****ing sociopath
Like nobody with a wife and kids ever committed suicide tool
6 shots bitch. Want to race me with this Covid Vaccine ravaged heart/lung?
It’s Implausible you freaking illiterate tool
No.., he did not get vaccinated and he did not get a ruptured ulcer from a vaccine or a vaccine that he didn’t take. Tool
At least dead people do not use "antidotal" instead of "anecdotal".
Seriously Boston has to be a plant trying to make MAGAts look dumber than they actually are.
Four new vaccines added to the adult schedule! Don't worry about little Jerry Curl, there are many new vaccines to the child schedule as well.
Roll up your sleeves as the doc pumps you up 5 shots at a clip. Make sure to get a sticker and a lollipop for each one
Roll up your sleeves as the doc pumps you up 5 shots at a clip. Make sure to get a sticker and a lollipop for each one
Jered Little Suicide, Arlington VA United States Army Colonel Sadly Passed Away – Obituary
Jered Little Obituary, Death Cause – The Arlington community is currently enveloped in a cloud of profound sadness and collective grief following the heartbreaking news of the passing of United States Army Colonel Jered Little. The somber revelation of his reported suicide has sent shockwaves not only through military circles but also resonated deeply within the civilian community. As Arlington grapples with this tragedy, it prompts a critical examination of the challenges faced by service members and underscores the pressing need to address mental health issues within the armed forces.
Colonel Jered Little was not just a military officer; he was a dedicated and honorable servant of his country. His career was marked by unwavering commitment, exemplary leadership, and a sense of duty that extended far beyond the call of duty. As news of his passing circulates, tributes from fellow soldiers, friends, and community members attest to the impact he had on those around him. Colonel Little’s tragic death brings to light the immense challenges that service members often confront, both on and off the battlefield. The demanding nature of military service, coupled with the stressors associated with deployments, can take a toll on mental health. Many military personnel endure prolonged separations from loved ones, exposure to traumatic experiences, and the pressure to maintain peak performance under challenging conditions. These factors, among others, contribute to the elevated risk of mental health issues among service members.
Despite increased efforts to promote mental health awareness, a lingering stigma surrounding mental health issues persists within the military. The prevailing culture often emphasizes resilience and toughness, inadvertently discouraging individuals from seeking help when they need it most. This reluctance to address mental health concerns can have severe consequences, as exemplified by Colonel Little’s tragic end. Colonel Jered Little’s passing is not an isolated incident but rather a poignant reminder of the broader mental health challenges faced by the military community. As Arlington mourns the loss of a respected member of its community, it is crucial to use this moment as a catalyst for change. The military and civilian spheres must come together to destigmatize mental health issues, foster a culture of openness, and prioritize the well-being of those who dedicate their lives to serving the nation.
To address the mental health crisis within the armed forces, increased investment in mental health support services is imperative. This includes expanding access to counseling, therapy, and other resources that can assist service members in coping with the unique challenges they face. Moreover, initiatives to raise awareness and educate both military personnel and the general public about mental health issues must be prioritized.
Leaders within the military must actively champion a shift in culture that normalizes discussions around mental health. By leading from the front and sharing personal experiences, commanders can create an environment where seeking help is not viewed as a sign of weakness but as a proactive step toward resilience and well-being. Promoting a culture of empathy and understanding is crucial to dismantling the barriers that prevent individuals from reaching out for support.
The passing of United States Army Colonel Jered Little has cast a somber shadow over the Arlington community, prompting deep reflection on the mental health challenges faced by service members. This tragic event serves as a poignant reminder that addressing mental health issues within the armed forces is an urgent and collective responsibility. By fostering a culture of support, understanding, and open dialogue, both military and civilian communities can work together to ensure that no more lives are lost to the silent battles fought within the minds of those who bravely serve our nation.
Jered Little Suicide, Arlington VA United States Army Colonel Sadly Passed Away – Obituary
Jered Little Obituary, Death Cause – The Arlington community is currently enveloped in a cloud of profound sadness and collective grief following the heartbreaking news of the passing of United States Army Colonel Jered Little. The somber revelation of his reported suicide has sent shockwaves not only through military circles but also resonated deeply within the civilian community. As Arlington grapples with this tragedy, it prompts a critical examination of the challenges faced by service members and underscores the pressing need to address mental health issues within the armed forces.
Colonel Jered Little was not just a military officer; he was a dedicated and honorable servant of his country. His career was marked by unwavering commitment, exemplary leadership, and a sense of duty that extended far beyond the call of duty. As news of his passing circulates, tributes from fellow soldiers, friends, and community members attest to the impact he had on those around him. Colonel Little’s tragic death brings to light the immense challenges that service members often confront, both on and off the battlefield. The demanding nature of military service, coupled with the stressors associated with deployments, can take a toll on mental health. Many military personnel endure prolonged separations from loved ones, exposure to traumatic experiences, and the pressure to maintain peak performance under challenging conditions. These factors, among others, contribute to the elevated risk of mental health issues among service members.
Despite increased efforts to promote mental health awareness, a lingering stigma surrounding mental health issues persists within the military. The prevailing culture often emphasizes resilience and toughness, inadvertently discouraging individuals from seeking help when they need it most. This reluctance to address mental health concerns can have severe consequences, as exemplified by Colonel Little’s tragic end. Colonel Jered Little’s passing is not an isolated incident but rather a poignant reminder of the broader mental health challenges faced by the military community. As Arlington mourns the loss of a respected member of its community, it is crucial to use this moment as a catalyst for change. The military and civilian spheres must come together to destigmatize mental health issues, foster a culture of openness, and prioritize the well-being of those who dedicate their lives to serving the nation.
To address the mental health crisis within the armed forces, increased investment in mental health support services is imperative. This includes expanding access to counseling, therapy, and other resources that can assist service members in coping with the unique challenges they face. Moreover, initiatives to raise awareness and educate both military personnel and the general public about mental health issues must be prioritized.
Leaders within the military must actively champion a shift in culture that normalizes discussions around mental health. By leading from the front and sharing personal experiences, commanders can create an environment where seeking help is not viewed as a sign of weakness but as a proactive step toward resilience and well-being. Promoting a culture of empathy and understanding is crucial to dismantling the barriers that prevent individuals from reaching out for support.
The passing of United States Army Colonel Jered Little has cast a somber shadow over the Arlington community, prompting deep reflection on the mental health challenges faced by service members. This tragic event serves as a poignant reminder that addressing mental health issues within the armed forces is an urgent and collective responsibility. By fostering a culture of support, understanding, and open dialogue, both military and civilian communities can work together to ensure that no more lives are lost to the silent battles fought within the minds of those who bravely serve our nation
Jered Little Suicide, Arlington VA United States Army Colonel Sadly Passed Away – Obituary
Jered Little Obituary, Death Cause – The Arlington community is currently enveloped in a cloud of profound sadness and collective grief following the heartbreaking news of the passing of United States Army Colonel Jered Little. The somber revelation of his reported suicide has sent shockwaves not only through military circles but also resonated deeply within the civilian community. As Arlington grapples with this tragedy, it prompts a critical examination of the challenges faced by service members and underscores the pressing need to address mental health issues within the armed forces.
Colonel Jered Little was not just a military officer; he was a dedicated and honorable servant of his country. His career was marked by unwavering commitment, exemplary leadership, and a sense of duty that extended far beyond the call of duty. As news of his passing circulates, tributes from fellow soldiers, friends, and community members attest to the impact he had on those around him. Colonel Little’s tragic death brings to light the immense challenges that service members often confront, both on and off the battlefield. The demanding nature of military service, coupled with the stressors associated with deployments, can take a toll on mental health. Many military personnel endure prolonged separations from loved ones, exposure to traumatic experiences, and the pressure to maintain peak performance under challenging conditions. These factors, among others, contribute to the elevated risk of mental health issues among service members.
Despite increased efforts to promote mental health awareness, a lingering stigma surrounding mental health issues persists within the military. The prevailing culture often emphasizes resilience and toughness, inadvertently discouraging individuals from seeking help when they need it most. This reluctance to address mental health concerns can have severe consequences, as exemplified by Colonel Little’s tragic end. Colonel Jered Little’s passing is not an isolated incident but rather a poignant reminder of the broader mental health challenges faced by the military community. As Arlington mourns the loss of a respected member of its community, it is crucial to use this moment as a catalyst for change. The military and civilian spheres must come together to destigmatize mental health issues, foster a culture of openness, and prioritize the well-being of those who dedicate their lives to serving the nation.
To address the mental health crisis within the armed forces, increased investment in mental health support services is imperative. This includes expanding access to counseling, therapy, and other resources that can assist service members in coping with the unique challenges they face. Moreover, initiatives to raise awareness and educate both military personnel and the general public about mental health issues must be prioritized.
Leaders within the military must actively champion a shift in culture that normalizes discussions around mental health. By leading from the front and sharing personal experiences, commanders can create an environment where seeking help is not viewed as a sign of weakness but as a proactive step toward resilience and well-being. Promoting a culture of empathy and understanding is crucial to dismantling the barriers that prevent individuals from reaching out for support.
The passing of United States Army Colonel Jered Little has cast a somber shadow over the Arlington community, prompting deep reflection on the mental health challenges faced by service members. This tragic event serves as a poignant reminder that addressing mental health issues within the armed forces is an urgent and collective responsibility. By fostering a culture of support, understanding, and open dialogue, both military and civilian communities can work together to ensure that no more lives are lost to the silent battles fought within the minds of those who bravely serve our nation
LOL. This is what a Scammer looks like.
From the good doctor's wikipedia page:
Around early 2020, Ladapo began to write op-eds for The Wall Street Journal on the emerging COVID-19 pandemic, notwithstanding a lack of specialization in infectious diseases.
In these columns, Ladapo promoted unproven treatments including hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin questioned the safety of vaccines, and opposed lockdown and mask mandates deriving from his "experience in treating COVID-19 patients at UCLA." However, UCLA's staff scheduling roster did not have him assigned to treat any COVID-19 patients, and several of his colleagues said he had never treated any COVID-19 patient
Ladapo's op-eds caught the interest of Florida Governor Ron DeSantis. On September 21, 2021, he appointed him Surgeon General of the state,
Jered Little Suicide, Arlington VA United States Army Colonel Sadly Passed Away – Obituary
Jered Little Obituary, Death Cause – The Arlington community is currently enveloped in a cloud of profound sadness and collective grief following the heartbreaking news of the passing of United States Army Colonel Jered Little. The somber revelation of his reported suicide has sent shockwaves not only through military circles but also resonated deeply within the civilian community. As Arlington grapples with this tragedy, it prompts a critical examination of the challenges faced by service members and underscores the pressing need to address mental health issues within the armed forces.
Colonel Jered Little was not just a military officer; he was a dedicated and honorable servant of his country. His career was marked by unwavering commitment, exemplary leadership, and a sense of duty that extended far beyond the call of duty. As news of his passing circulates, tributes from fellow soldiers, friends, and community members attest to the impact he had on those around him. Colonel Little’s tragic death brings to light the immense challenges that service members often confront, both on and off the battlefield. The demanding nature of military service, coupled with the stressors associated with deployments, can take a toll on mental health. Many military personnel endure prolonged separations from loved ones, exposure to traumatic experiences, and the pressure to maintain peak performance under challenging conditions. These factors, among others, contribute to the elevated risk of mental health issues among service members.
Despite increased efforts to promote mental health awareness, a lingering stigma surrounding mental health issues persists within the military. The prevailing culture often emphasizes resilience and toughness, inadvertently discouraging individuals from seeking help when they need it most. This reluctance to address mental health concerns can have severe consequences, as exemplified by Colonel Little’s tragic end. Colonel Jered Little’s passing is not an isolated incident but rather a poignant reminder of the broader mental health challenges faced by the military community. As Arlington mourns the loss of a respected member of its community, it is crucial to use this moment as a catalyst for change. The military and civilian spheres must come together to destigmatize mental health issues, foster a culture of openness, and prioritize the well-being of those who dedicate their lives to serving the nation.
To address the mental health crisis within the armed forces, increased investment in mental health support services is imperative. This includes expanding access to counseling, therapy, and other resources that can assist service members in coping with the unique challenges they face. Moreover, initiatives to raise awareness and educate both military personnel and the general public about mental health issues must be prioritized.
Leaders within the military must actively champion a shift in culture that normalizes discussions around mental health. By leading from the front and sharing personal experiences, commanders can create an environment where seeking help is not viewed as a sign of weakness but as a proactive step toward resilience and well-being. Promoting a culture of empathy and understanding is crucial to dismantling the barriers that prevent individuals from reaching out for support.
The passing of United States Army Colonel Jered Little has cast a somber shadow over the Arlington community, prompting deep reflection on the mental health challenges faced by service members. This tragic event serves as a poignant reminder that addressing mental health issues within the armed forces is an urgent and collective responsibility. By fostering a culture of support, understanding, and open dialogue, both military and civilian communities can work together to ensure that no more lives are lost to the silent battles fought within the minds of those who bravely serve our nation
Remember when Boston.Knight said the Tampa Bay Rays' catcher died from a vaccine?
More died suddenly. I mean it's freaking everywhere now. All dying in their sleep. Sagat. In sleep. Included article on the Ray's bullpen catcher. https://www.wfla.com/community/health/coronavirus/13-year-old-dies-in-sleep-after-getting-covid-19-vaccine-cdc-investigating/...
ucf.forums.rivals.com
Ummmm...
HCQ has continued to prove itself very useful in reducing over-reactions in the case of any respiratory disease when the patient is clearly struggling with their immune system over-reacting, including SARS-CoV-2 disease.
In fact, most state boards that banned its use, because of ignorant Media proliferation *wrongly* stating it was *useless* ended up reversing those policies very quickly.
HCQ is still used today for those cases. It kept people off of respirators. Even Fauci admits this.
As far as Ivermectin, it's been proven in a court of law now, twice, with the FDA itself testifying and admitting, it creates the same substance as the 2 EUA medicines for SARS-CoV-2 disease that were repurposed, failed flu drugs.
Ivermectin is also 4 decades proven safe at FDA approved doses, and this was also part of. the court records. In one case, the judge ruled the FDA advisement most be taken down, and the FDA has ignored that ruling. This is *unlike* the 2 new drugs which cause all sorts of issue, and own has been proven to be accelerating mutations of SARS-CoV-2 in multiple, peer reviewed studies.
No one knows if Ivermectin works well against SARS-CoV-2 as an anti-viral, but it doesn't work any worse that the 2 new drugs, and it's proven safe. Even the alleged poison control center calls for Ivermectin ended up being fake news.
Please STFU and stop being a media drone. So much is experimental right now, and doctors are all tired of the narratives, especially yours. they need to be in control, not you.
Clinical Trials Show Ivermectin Does Not Benefit COVID-19 Patients, Contrary to Social Media Claims
Full Story
The latest results of several large, randomized controlled trials show no benefit in using the antiparasitic drug ivermectin to treat COVID-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus, or SARS-CoV-2. The results are consistent with existing evidence that shows the cheap and accessible drug does not work to treat COVID-19.
But a recently published study from Brazil that claims ivermectin decreased COVID-19 hospitalization by 100% and COVID-19 mortality by 92% is giving new wings to those touting ivermectin as a miracle drug. The observational study contains methodological flaws, and isauthored by ivermectin activists. And its results are completely inconsistent with stronger studies that did not identify any benefit of using the drug for COVID-19.“From multiple, large well-conducted, double-blind randomized clinical trials of now thousands of participants, ivermectin has not been shown to have any meaningful clinical benefit for the early, outpatient treatment of COVID-19,” Dr. David Boulware, a professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota Medical School and an adviser for two large trials in the U.S., told us in an email.
“Specifically, two large, multi-site randomized clinical trials (Covid-Out; ACTIV-6) have been completed in the United States. These two trials both failed to detect any statistically significant benefit of ivermectin,” Boulware added.
In addition, the flawed study got intertwined with a false rumor that the National Institutes of Health COVID-19 treatment guidelines website had “now” added ivermectin as a recommended treatment. But that’s not accurate. The drug has been listed on the NIH’s page for antiviral treatments for a while (here’s an archived capture from June 12, 2021) as a medication “that is being evaluated to treat COVID-19.” But the NIH recommends against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 outside of clinical trials.
“Yesterday the National institute of health added Ivermectin to the list of covid treatment,” former martial arts fighter Jake Shields wrote on Twitter. “Looks like the conspiracy theorist were right and the ‘experts’ wrong once again,” he said, later referencing the problematic study. His tweet got over 42,000 likes and 13,000 retweets in three days.
On Sept. 3, the conservative website The Blaze published a story titled“Ivermectin reduces COVID death risk by 92%, peer-reviewed study finds,” which got over 1,000 shares. The same day, Robby Starbuck, a former Republican congressional candidate in Tennessee, referenced both the study and the supposed addition of ivermectin to the NIH’s website in posts across his socialmedia.
“Now’s a good time to think about the mass censorship campaign carried out against those who used it or advocated for the freedom to use it, pharmacists who refused to fill doctors prescriptions and the unending hate people got for treating COVID with it. The attacks on it were all about lining Big Pharma and politicians pockets,” he wrote in a Facebook post. A capture of the post on his Instagram got over 26,000 likes in four days.
As we said, there has been no recent change to the NIH website to recommend ivermectin as a treatment. The page on ivermectin, which clearly states that the agency’s guidelines recommend against the use of the drug to treat COVID-19, was last updated on April 29.
The antiparasitic drug has not been approved or authorized by the Food and Drug Administration to prevent or treat COVID-19. Ivermectin is approved for human use only to treat some conditions caused by parasites, such as intestinal strongyloidiasis and onchocerciasis, head lice, and skin conditions. The FDA has warned that the use of large doses of the drug or of ivermectin for animals is dangerous.
Most Recent Results of Large Clinical Trials Show No Benefit
More than 80 studies around the world have examined the use of ivermectin to treat or prevent COVID-19. But as we’ve reported, over and over, randomized controlled trials have shown no evidence of a clinical benefit for ivermectin.Here are some of the latest results of large clinical trials we’ve been following.
In May, researchers of the Together trial in Brazil concluded thattreatment with a moderate daily ivermectin dose for three days “did not result in a lower incidence of medical admission to a hospital due to progression of Covid-19 or of prolonged emergency department observation among outpatients with an early diagnosis of Covid-19.” This study had a total of 3,515 patients with a SARS-CoV-2 infection, where 679 received ivermectin, 679 got a placebo, and 2,157 received another intervention.
In June, the ACTIV-6 trial, funded by the NIH, reported that a moderate daily ivermectin dose for three days “resulted in less than one day of shortening of symptoms and did not lower incidence of hospitalization or death among outpatients with COVID-19 in the United States during the delta and omicron variant time periods.” The ivermectin arm of the study had 1,591 participants with a SARS-CoV-2 infection, with 817 assigned to the ivermectin group and 774 to the placebo.
Finally, in August, researchers of the University of Minnesota Covid-Out trial, which studied the use of ivermectin, metformin and fluvoxamine for COVID-19 in 1,323 patients with a SARS-CoV-2 infection, reported that none of the three medications “prevented the occurrence of hypoxemia, an emergency department visit, hospitalization, or death associated with Covid-19.”
“At the dose we used, which was a median of 430 micrograms per kilo, per day, for three days, there was no effect on reducing severe COVID-19 in this population — and our population was adults over age 30 with a BMI greater than 25,” said Dr. Carolyn T. Bramante, an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, in a videoresponding to the question of whether ivermectin was effective in reducing the severity of COVID-19.
Boulware, who provided advice for the trial, told us that investigators found there was no difference in the duration of symptoms between the participants who took ivermectin and those who took the placebo, and that numerically the ivermectin group patients had more ER visits and hospitalizations than the placebo group.
Problematic Study
The study that revived claims about ivermectin for COVID-19 used data from a citywide program in Itajaí, a city in southeastern Brazil, in which residents were offered ivermectin to prevent COVID-19 between July and December 2020.In March, we explained that a previous observational study by the same team, using the same dataset, had multiple methodological flaws. Both papers were published in Cureus, an open-access online medical journal that allows researchers to publish studies faster than the traditional peer-reviewed journals. The peer-review process for the most recent paper took five days. In other journals, the peer-review process typically takes morethan a month.
The team reported multiple conflicts of interest: Two of the authors have financial ties with an ivermectin manufacturer, and four of them work for organizations that promote ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19.
Neither of the studies, the firstpublished in January and the secondpublished in August, were randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials. Instead, the researchers looked back at data collected by clinics and health centers where ivermectin was offered. According to the study’s methodology, people without COVID-19 symptoms could opt to get a prescription to take a low dose (about half of the dose given in the previously mentioned clinical trials) of ivermectin for two consecutive days every 15 days over the course of 150 days. Those who then got COVID-19 were medically followed, and data on hospitalizations and deaths were registered. The study grouped the participants by non-users (residents who didn’t use ivermectin), irregular users (those who took up to 10 tablets), and regular users (took more than 30 tablets), and compared their outcomes.
“The regular use of ivermectin decreased hospitalization for COVID-19 by 100%, mortality by 92%, and the risk of dying from COVID-19 by 86% when compared to non-users,” the paper concluded.“Protection from COVID-19-related outcomes was observed across all levels of ivermectin use, with a notable reduction in risk of death in the over 50-year-old population and those with comorbidities.”
But experts have identified numerous problems with the study, which as an observational study can at most only claim to have found an association between regular ivermectin use and better outcomes — not that the drug reduced hospitalizations or mortality.
“The main flaw is that it’s an uncontrolled epidemiological trial using a small quantity of routinely collected clinical data in a somewhat useless way,” Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz, an epidemiologist from the University of Wollongong in Australia, told us in an email. “In this sort of study, you have to spend a great deal of time looking for alternate explanations for why you might be seeing a relationship, like residual confounding, immortal time bias, or survivorship bias as others have mentioned, but instead the authors simply decided to run a biased analysis and call it a day.” (Click on the links for more information about residual confounding, immortal time biasand survivorship bias.)
The study, for example, attempted to control for some factors that might explain the outcomes of the different groups, such as sex, age and some underlying health conditions — but not for other factors related to infection risk, including income. Those could have skewed the results.
The inability to control for differences in groups is always a problem for observational studies — and that’s why randomized controlled trials, which randomly assign individuals to the treatment and control groups from the start, are considered more reliable and a higher level of evidence.
Perhaps most critically, as Greg Tucker-Kellogg, a biology professor in practice at the National University of Singapore, and Kyle Sheldrick, a medical researcher in Australia, have noted, the study suffers from survivorship bias because once a participant contracted COVID-19 they were advised not to use ivermectin.
This is important because the study’s purported finding is about “regular” ivermectin users who took at least 30 tablets of the drug. This means that most of the people who took ivermectin in the study who got sick were not included in the analysis because they couldn’t have taken enough pills to be considered a “regular” user, Tucker-Kellogg explains in a video. In contrast, no one in the non-ivermectin group was removed from that group if they got sick earlier in the study.
“By definition, ‘regular users’ would almost always be people who didn’t get infected,” Meyerowitz-Katz told us, “that’s simply how the study has been designed.”
Or, as Tucker-Kellogg put it, “This is a way to game the system. This is basically gaming the outcome so that the strictly regular ivermectin users have an extremely low rate of sickness and death, because basically most of the people who got sick are not counted in that group.”
In the study’s comments, Cadegiani, one of the authors, dismissed these issues.
But Meyerowitz-Katz said that even if the paper didn’t have methodology problems, it still wouldn’t be useful at this point, when there is higher-quality evidence that ivermectin doesn’t work.
“I could go on with issues and errors, but there’s not that much point. When it comes to ivermectin, a poorly-conducted study with errors *in the title* is not going to move the dial on what the evidence says at all,” he said on Twitter. “Current best evidence shows that ivermectin is unlikely to have a clinically meaningful benefit in the treatment of COVID-19, and there’s not much evidence for its use as a prophylactic.”
Which doctors? The legitimate experts or the media whores with zero expertise or experience with the viral diseases they claim to have all the answers for?
He’s referring to doctors that the rest of the sane world would never dare take advice from
Like Dr. Igor Chudov and Dr. Alfred E. Neumann. Aka BostonKnght
Doctors who had conversations with him like this:
Señor Buffet Slayer: "Doc, am I fat because I eat 9,000 calories a day or is it something else?"
Doctor Brown, M.D., University of Twitter: "Nope, B.S., it's probably from the carbon monoxide in your double wide. (checks notes) Your BP is 240/120, Total cholesterol is 457, A1C is 9.5----yeah this is all WELL WITHIN RANGE. Definitely the carbon. Wait a second....You got the COVID vaccine?
WELL THERE IT IS!!!
The root of all your problems!!!!!!!
Carbon monoxide from a double wide + COVID vaccine = OBESITY. Imma post this on Twitter."
Señor Gordito:
Imagine being a physician and seeing Parade Float taking up 2-3 chairs in the waiting room?Doctors who had conversations with him like this:
Señor Buffet Slayer: "Doc, am I fat because I eat 9,000 calories a day or is it something else?"
Doctor Brown, M.D., University of Twitter: "Nope, B.S., it's probably from the carbon monoxide in your double wide. (checks notes) Your BP is 240/120, Total cholesterol is 457, A1C is 9.5----yeah this is all WELL WITHIN RANGE. Definitely the carbon. Wait a second....You got the COVID vaccine?
WELL THERE IT IS!!!
The root of all your problems!!!!!!!
Carbon monoxide from a double wide + COVID vaccine = OBESITY. Imma post this on Twitter."
Señor Gordito:
The physician tells the staff
“Call the police and get the discharge letter ready.”
“GOD DAMMIT!!! WE JUST REPLACED THOSE THREE CHAIRS FROM HIS LAST VISIT!!!
MARCY, YOU TELL THAT FUKCING COW HE STANDS IN THE WAITING ROOM OR HIS FAT ASS PAYS FOR NEW FURNITURE!!!!”
Again, address my actual comment/question ...
Clinical Trials Show Ivermectin Does Not Benefit COVID-19 Patients, Contrary to Social Media Claims
Full Story
The latest results of several large, randomized controlled trials show no benefit in using the antiparasitic drug ivermectin to treat COVID-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus, or SARS-CoV-2. The results are consistent with existing evidence that shows the cheap and accessible drug does not work to treat COVID-19.
But a recently published study from Brazil that claims ivermectin decreased COVID-19 hospitalization by 100% and COVID-19 mortality by 92% is giving new wings to those touting ivermectin as a miracle drug. The observational study contains methodological flaws, and isauthored by ivermectin activists. And its results are completely inconsistent with stronger studies that did not identify any benefit of using the drug for COVID-19.
“From multiple, large well-conducted, double-blind randomized clinical trials of now thousands of participants, ivermectin has not been shown to have any meaningful clinical benefit for the early, outpatient treatment of COVID-19,” Dr. David Boulware, a professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota Medical School and an adviser for two large trials in the U.S., told us in an email.
“Specifically, two large, multi-site randomized clinical trials (Covid-Out; ACTIV-6) have been completed in the United States. These two trials both failed to detect any statistically significant benefit of ivermectin,” Boulware added.
In addition, the flawed study got intertwined with a false rumor that the National Institutes of Health COVID-19 treatment guidelines website had “now” added ivermectin as a recommended treatment. But that’s not accurate. The drug has been listed on the NIH’s page for antiviral treatments for a while (here’s an archived capture from June 12, 2021) as a medication “that is being evaluated to treat COVID-19.” But the NIH recommends against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 outside of clinical trials.
“Yesterday the National institute of health added Ivermectin to the list of covid treatment,” former martial arts fighter Jake Shields wrote on Twitter. “Looks like the conspiracy theorist were right and the ‘experts’ wrong once again,” he said, later referencing the problematic study. His tweet got over 42,000 likes and 13,000 retweets in three days.
On Sept. 3, the conservative website The Blaze published a story titled“Ivermectin reduces COVID death risk by 92%, peer-reviewed study finds,” which got over 1,000 shares. The same day, Robby Starbuck, a former Republican congressional candidate in Tennessee, referenced both the study and the supposed addition of ivermectin to the NIH’s website in posts across his socialmedia.
“Now’s a good time to think about the mass censorship campaign carried out against those who used it or advocated for the freedom to use it, pharmacists who refused to fill doctors prescriptions and the unending hate people got for treating COVID with it. The attacks on it were all about lining Big Pharma and politicians pockets,” he wrote in a Facebook post. A capture of the post on his Instagram got over 26,000 likes in four days.
Ivermectin pills. The antiparasitic drug has not been approved or authorized by the FDA to treat COVID-19. Photo by Callista Images via Getty Images.
As we said, there has been no recent change to the NIH website to recommend ivermectin as a treatment. The page on ivermectin, which clearly states that the agency’s guidelines recommend against the use of the drug to treat COVID-19, was last updated on April 29.
The antiparasitic drug has not been approved or authorized by the Food and Drug Administration to prevent or treat COVID-19. Ivermectin is approved for human use only to treat some conditions caused by parasites, such as intestinal strongyloidiasis and onchocerciasis, head lice, and skin conditions. The FDA has warned that the use of large doses of the drug or of ivermectin for animals is dangerous.
Most Recent Results of Large Clinical Trials Show No Benefit
More than 80 studies around the world have examined the use of ivermectin to treat or prevent COVID-19. But as we’ve reported, over and over, randomized controlled trials have shown no evidence of a clinical benefit for ivermectin.
Here are some of the latest results of large clinical trials we’ve been following.
In May, researchers of the Together trial in Brazil concluded thattreatment with a moderate daily ivermectin dose for three days “did not result in a lower incidence of medical admission to a hospital due to progression of Covid-19 or of prolonged emergency department observation among outpatients with an early diagnosis of Covid-19.” This study had a total of 3,515 patients with a SARS-CoV-2 infection, where 679 received ivermectin, 679 got a placebo, and 2,157 received another intervention.
In June, the ACTIV-6 trial, funded by the NIH, reported that a moderate daily ivermectin dose for three days “resulted in less than one day of shortening of symptoms and did not lower incidence of hospitalization or death among outpatients with COVID-19 in the United States during the delta and omicron variant time periods.” The ivermectin arm of the study had 1,591 participants with a SARS-CoV-2 infection, with 817 assigned to the ivermectin group and 774 to the placebo.
Finally, in August, researchers of the University of Minnesota Covid-Out trial, which studied the use of ivermectin, metformin and fluvoxamine for COVID-19 in 1,323 patients with a SARS-CoV-2 infection, reported that none of the three medications “prevented the occurrence of hypoxemia, an emergency department visit, hospitalization, or death associated with Covid-19.”
“At the dose we used, which was a median of 430 micrograms per kilo, per day, for three days, there was no effect on reducing severe COVID-19 in this population — and our population was adults over age 30 with a BMI greater than 25,” said Dr. Carolyn T. Bramante, an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, in a videoresponding to the question of whether ivermectin was effective in reducing the severity of COVID-19.
Boulware, who provided advice for the trial, told us that investigators found there was no difference in the duration of symptoms between the participants who took ivermectin and those who took the placebo, and that numerically the ivermectin group patients had more ER visits and hospitalizations than the placebo group.
Problematic Study
The study that revived claims about ivermectin for COVID-19 used data from a citywide program in Itajaí, a city in southeastern Brazil, in which residents were offered ivermectin to prevent COVID-19 between July and December 2020.
In March, we explained that a previous observational study by the same team, using the same dataset, had multiple methodological flaws. Both papers were published in Cureus, an open-access online medical journal that allows researchers to publish studies faster than the traditional peer-reviewed journals. The peer-review process for the most recent paper took five days. In other journals, the peer-review process typically takes morethan a month.
The team reported multiple conflicts of interest: Two of the authors have financial ties with an ivermectin manufacturer, and four of them work for organizations that promote ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19.
Neither of the studies, the firstpublished in January and the secondpublished in August, were randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials. Instead, the researchers looked back at data collected by clinics and health centers where ivermectin was offered. According to the study’s methodology, people without COVID-19 symptoms could opt to get a prescription to take a low dose (about half of the dose given in the previously mentioned clinical trials) of ivermectin for two consecutive days every 15 days over the course of 150 days. Those who then got COVID-19 were medically followed, and data on hospitalizations and deaths were registered. The study grouped the participants by non-users (residents who didn’t use ivermectin), irregular users (those who took up to 10 tablets), and regular users (took more than 30 tablets), and compared their outcomes.
“The regular use of ivermectin decreased hospitalization for COVID-19 by 100%, mortality by 92%, and the risk of dying from COVID-19 by 86% when compared to non-users,” the paper concluded.“Protection from COVID-19-related outcomes was observed across all levels of ivermectin use, with a notable reduction in risk of death in the over 50-year-old population and those with comorbidities.”
But experts have identified numerous problems with the study, which as an observational study can at most only claim to have found an association between regular ivermectin use and better outcomes — not that the drug reduced hospitalizations or mortality.
“The main flaw is that it’s an uncontrolled epidemiological trial using a small quantity of routinely collected clinical data in a somewhat useless way,” Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz, an epidemiologist from the University of Wollongong in Australia, told us in an email. “In this sort of study, you have to spend a great deal of time looking for alternate explanations for why you might be seeing a relationship, like residual confounding, immortal time bias, or survivorship bias as others have mentioned, but instead the authors simply decided to run a biased analysis and call it a day.” (Click on the links for more information about residual confounding, immortal time biasand survivorship bias.)
The study, for example, attempted to control for some factors that might explain the outcomes of the different groups, such as sex, age and some underlying health conditions — but not for other factors related to infection risk, including income. Those could have skewed the results.
The inability to control for differences in groups is always a problem for observational studies — and that’s why randomized controlled trials, which randomly assign individuals to the treatment and control groups from the start, are considered more reliable and a higher level of evidence.
Perhaps most critically, as Greg Tucker-Kellogg, a biology professor in practice at the National University of Singapore, and Kyle Sheldrick, a medical researcher in Australia, have noted, the study suffers from survivorship bias because once a participant contracted COVID-19 they were advised not to use ivermectin.
This is important because the study’s purported finding is about “regular” ivermectin users who took at least 30 tablets of the drug. This means that most of the people who took ivermectin in the study who got sick were not included in the analysis because they couldn’t have taken enough pills to be considered a “regular” user, Tucker-Kellogg explains in a video. In contrast, no one in the non-ivermectin group was removed from that group if they got sick earlier in the study.
“By definition, ‘regular users’ would almost always be people who didn’t get infected,” Meyerowitz-Katz told us, “that’s simply how the study has been designed.”
Or, as Tucker-Kellogg put it, “This is a way to game the system. This is basically gaming the outcome so that the strictly regular ivermectin users have an extremely low rate of sickness and death, because basically most of the people who got sick are not counted in that group.”
In the study’s comments, Cadegiani, one of the authors, dismissed these issues.
But Meyerowitz-Katz said that even if the paper didn’t have methodology problems, it still wouldn’t be useful at this point, when there is higher-quality evidence that ivermectin doesn’t work.
“I could go on with issues and errors, but there’s not that much point. When it comes to ivermectin, a poorly-conducted study with errors *in the title* is not going to move the dial on what the evidence says at all,” he said on Twitter. “Current best evidence shows that ivermectin is unlikely to have a clinically meaningful benefit in the treatment of COVID-19, and there’s not much evidence for its use as a prophylactic.”
How is that any different than the 2x US FDA 'official' EUA 'drugs' for SARS-CoV-2 disease (COVID-19), two failed and repurposed flu drugs, that produce the same, allegedly 'effective' anti-viral compounds in the body as Ivermectin? NONE!
The only difference is that Ivermectin has been proven safe for 40+ years in US FDA approved doses, and the other two have a huge wake of side-effects, DNA damage and even mutations of the viruses.
I never said Ivermectin was proven significantly viable en masse with any signficance, only ancedotal, and in limited studies. I only said the 2 'official' EUA drugs are not doing any better, and have far worse side effects and are even causing more mutuations!
Sorry. I don’t discuss Covid, Covid treatments, and vaccines with laid off, has been, IT specialists, with average IQs that weigh 400 lbs and get their information from Twitter
Not a winning formula for a prolonged life
“We’re” is a lot of people
It’s just the certifiably insane last I checked. Hardly anyone in Healthcare is even discussing this. Only laid off IT specialists, pool cleaners, and whatever Boston the imbecile does for employment that buys him a hoopty Minivan with bad wheels and an old refrigerator that he fixes himself
Just like the doctors and nurses you talked to say anyone who says the vaccines don't stop the spread are idiots? And everyone in the office and not sick were vaccinated, and everyone unvaccinated was out sick?
I've literally lost track home many times you've pulled sh-- out of your @$$ and attributed it to alleged medical professionals, only to end up dead wrong.
Yes, because it's still going around, and nothing is working much at all. Excess deaths have killed far more than people who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 disease (not that they died from it).
Oh, yeah, we're still dealing with the fallout of the ineffective, totalitarian lockdowns, and spending like we don't care about even just the interest on the debt. How many times do I have to be proven correct, and you proven incorrect?
You literally just nuke everything, and get lost on any bit of detail, looking oblivious.
Do you guys have any credibiltity left?!
The laid off IT specialist with an average IQ and a BMI of 50 who thinks he’s a Covid and Vaccine expert is asking if WE HAVE ANY CREDIBILITY LEFT
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Yep
I’ve been vaccinated 6 times and I NEVER GET SICK ENOUGH TO MISS WORK. You on the other hand cannot hold down a job
THE VACCINE HAS ABSOLUTELY SLOWED THE SPREAD AND YOU ARE DEAD WRONG. THE VACCINES HAVE DECREASED HOSPITALIZATIONS AND DEATHS
YOU ARE WRONG AGAIN
COVID SIDE EFFECTS ARE GREATER THAN THE SIDE EFFECTS OF VACCINES IN EVERY AGE GROUP. YOU ARE WRONG AGAIN
You on the other hand are one of the most unhealthy people I’ve ever seen in person. You must have a BMI of 50+
ADDITIONALLY, you are vaccinated. Therefore, you are a fraud.
Last edited:
Apparently he was damaging too many company computers by getting KFC chicken fat and grease between the keyboard keys during lunch
Additionally, he was on Twitter (X) constantly at work and trying to convince the cleaning ladies that vaccines are bad for them and their children
They kept having nervous breakdowns. Turnover was just too high. He was a liability
