This thread started out as an attempt to eulogise the “benefits” of hydroxychloroquine.
Can anybody tell me how that worked out?
1 Like
Was this mentioned? Or were the forum’s Ivermectin cultists too busy shitting out their intestines?
Funded by Bill Gates 
If you knew anything about pharmacology you would know why this trial was set up for failure.
Can you explain to the forum why this trial was not conducted in good faith?
The cult mentality cannot but help expose itself.
You’ve claimed that the study was not conducted in good faith, because you don’t like its findings.
That isn’t an argument.
Nope, wrong answer. Read the report and the study I posted and see if you can spot the difference.
This critical thinking stuff is truly difficult for you isn’t it.
Everything that doesn’t align with your extremist dogma is the wrong answer as far as you are concerned.
More deflection. What’s the key difference in the studies?
The key difference is that the Bangladesh study was based on just 68 people whereas the Together study was based on 1,500 people.
Which do you think is more likely to give reliable results - a study containing 68 people or one containing 1,500 people?
And why are so many of Ivermectin’s prominent advocates so obviously complete crackpots who want vaccines stopped ASAP? Doesn’t that raise red flags to you?
Still haven’t managed to spot the difference. You truly are being exposed here as an utter bullshitter.
If I’m an utter bullshitter, what does that make you given that I repeatedly keep making such a fool of you on this subject?
Tess Lawrie is on record since June as wanting all Covid vaccines stopped immediately.
She has also admitted there is literally no evidence that can persuade her that Ivermectin is not a miracle drug.
That’s pseudoscience, quackery and cultism.
The only fool here is yourself.
What is the key difference not just between these two trials, but between the Bill Gates funded trial and all other small scale trials that showed promise?
More abuse and more being unable to debate a point.
You’re unable to answer a question.
What’s the key difference between the trials?
I answered. The Bangladesh study contained 68 people. The Together one contained 1,500 people.
All studies that purport to claim a benefit for Ivermectin are tiny, of poor quality and serious red flags have been raised about several of them, to the pint where the inescapable conclusion is they are fraudulent.
Plus Ivermectin is promoted furiously by people who are anti-vaxxers and obvious crackpots. You’re fine with that, which raises serious red flags about your judgement, as usual.
That’s the reality.
Juan Chamie, who is Pierre Kory’s “researcher” of choice, appears to endorse the consumption of veterinary Ivermectin.
But apparently that’s not a red flag for @Tierneevin1979.
Nope, still haven’t spotted the difference. Very poor out of you.
A tip. Trying to be cryptic and sarky doesn’t suit you and it doesn’t do anything for your arguments.