So why would NIH publish it?you can link to pubmed, but as you can see if you attempt to read the meta-analysis, it's not there. you can only read the abstract. surely you noticed this when you tried to read the paper?
So why would NIH publish it?you can link to pubmed, but as you can see if you attempt to read the meta-analysis, it's not there. you can only read the abstract. surely you noticed this when you tried to read the paper?
they didn't...So why would NIH publish it?
Stop killing people with false, anti-vaxx propaganda snowflake ❄️4.No repetitive negative posting. What makes a repetitive post? If you come to the forum and consistently say the exact same thing about the exact same topic day in and day out, that is being repetitive. Be sure to understand that no one is saying that you can not be critical. But this site will not be overrun by the same people coming on the site day after day saying the same negative things.![]()
No flaming: If a poster come onto the board with the intent only to flame, and continues to post nothing but flames or engages in no substantive discussion, the poster's posts will be deleted and the poster will be banned at the mod’s discretion.
Seriously bad news for vaccine enhanced disease. mRNA is turning into a real shit show
So ... I looked at the raw study (full table on page 50).Seriously bad news for vaccine enhanced disease. mRNA is turning into a real shit show
That's why I tagged you. As I said, I wasn't entering the debate.it took a little digging because the full text wasn't even linked here for some reason (or maybe we all know the reason). It was published in the Indian journal of pharmacology, a very prestigious journal no doubt.
But of course, this meta-analysis and systematic review includes fraudulent data:
![]()
come on guys all you gotta do is actually read the things before you link to them...
in the largest RCT included in this meta analysis (the largest ever done so far in the world), NO BENEFIT WAS FOUND
I'm as Libertarian as they come, but the hypocrisy of Progressives with stuff like this always cracks me up!
I guess I just don't get it. You say that the publisher is highly esteemed and its consistent with dozens and dozens of US doctors that are saying the same thing, but its still bunk. Why, and for what reason? We aren't talking about healing crystals and magnets here, it's an actual proven pharmaceutical.they didn't...
they linked to it at the bottom of the page. being on pubmed does not equal peer review...
the highly esteemed indian journal of pharmacology handled the peer review on this baby. in any case, it was submitted in february of 2021, presumably before everyone became aware of the fraud contained therein. this journal published it much later though. sus.
Because it contains falsified data. I provided a link earlier with an explanation that was published in the journal Nature.I guess I just don't get it. You say that the publisher is highly esteemed and its consistent with dozens and dozens of US doctors that are saying the same thing, but its still bunk. Why, and for what reason? We aren't talking about healing crystals and magnets here, it's an actual proven pharmaceutical.
If it contains falsified data, why wasn't it taken down?Because it contains falsified data. I provided a link earlier with an explanation that was published in the journal Nature.
I was being facetious when I called them a good journal
No… you don’t get it. You never will. Your uneducated, unemployed, handyman job just doesgive you the brainpower to handle facts.I guess I just don't get it.
If it contains falsified data, why wasn't it taken down?
Because it’s in a shit journal nobody ever heard of?If it contains falsified data, why wasn't it taken down?
So no doctors read PubMed for information? What's the point of having it?Because it’s in a shit journal nobody ever heard of?
Just read the article it explains the issues with your study and why the original preprint server that hosted it withdrew it.So no doctors read PubMed for information? What's the point of having it?
You’re dealing with a lonely guy that is just desperate for human interaction. Don’t stoop to his level. You’ll drive yourself crazy trying to reason with him and BS. I’m sure you figured that out already. They just don’t listen. Crazyhole is a lazy thinker who spends his entire life locked in his house alone.Just read the article it explains the issues with your study and why the original preprint server that hosted it withdrew it.
If u cite a study you should read it first at least
Cheers
Congratulations. Poor guy wasted 5 minutes of his life coming over here and figuring you out. Say goodbye to who you thought was your new friend. 😂😂😂.So no doctors read PubMed for information? What's the point of having it?
Basically what you are saying is that pubmed should not be a reliable source, just like VAERS. Why is the government using these systems if they are worthless?Just read the article it explains the issues with your study and why the original preprint server that hosted it withdrew it.
If u cite a study you should read it first at least
Cheers
That isn’t what I’m saying about pubmed. I’m saying your particular study is bunk and the full text of it isn’t on pubmed so I know u didn’t even read itBasically what you are saying is that pubmed should not be a reliable source, just like VAERS. Why is the government using these systems if they are worthless?
How many millions of boosted people tested positive between September 1 and December 4? Answer that or go back to your boiler roomNo… you don’t get it. You never will. Your uneducated, unemployed, handyman job just doesgive you the brainpower to handle facts.
Maybe this will help
The answer is who cares. Irrelevant just like you. Go back to your basementHow many millions of boosted people tested positive between September 1 and December 4? Answer that or go back to your boiler room
I read everything that was there and it says the date is Dec 2021.That isn’t what I’m saying about pubmed. I’m saying your particular study is bunk and the full text of it isn’t on pubmed so I know u didn’t even read it
This explains the problem. Give it a readI read everything that was there and it says the date is Dec 2021.
When was it debunked, and if it was prior to publication why was it printed on a government website? I'm open to whatever data you have that debunks it and whatever your analysis of the data is, but to just say "you didn't read it" is weak sauce.
Those are from July and August. My link was to an article in November. Explain why it was published if you would, because this really doesn't add up.This explains the problem. Give it a read
![]()
Flawed ivermectin preprint highlights challenges of COVID drug studies
The study’s withdrawal from a preprint platform deals a blow to the anti-parasite drug’s chances as a COVID treatment, researchers say.www.nature.com
As far as I know the elgazzar paper never passed peer review after being pulled in preprint
this is the guy that discovered the plagiarism etc.
![]()
Why Was a Major Study on Ivermectin for COVID-19 Just Retracted? - Grftr News
Questions about major lapses of scientific integrity led to the withdrawal of a study that formed a critical component of the pro-ivermectin case.grftr.news
I am not the Indian journal of pharmacology so I cant do that for you friendo.Those are from July and August. My link was to an article in November. Explain why it was published if you would, because this really doesn't add up.
You linked to a study from Bolivia. I don't see that referenced in the PubMed article I sharedI am not the Indian journal of pharmacology so I cant do that for you friendo.
It's actually shocking to me that the chuds will take their side on this. They don't think people have a right to know what exactly is being forcibly injected into your body.They would be releasing the data immediately if it was all good.