RT @mkeulemans: Nee @mauricedehond, er is geen 'informatieoorlog' rondom #ivermectine. Wetenschap is geen debatclub. Er waren aanwijzingen…
RT @mkeulemans: Nee @mauricedehond, er is geen 'informatieoorlog' rondom #ivermectine. Wetenschap is geen debatclub. Er waren aanwijzingen…
RT @mkeulemans: Nee @mauricedehond, er is geen 'informatieoorlog' rondom #ivermectine. Wetenschap is geen debatclub. Er waren aanwijzingen…
RT @mkeulemans: Nee @mauricedehond, er is geen 'informatieoorlog' rondom #ivermectine. Wetenschap is geen debatclub. Er waren aanwijzingen…
RT @mkeulemans: Nee @mauricedehond, er is geen 'informatieoorlog' rondom #ivermectine. Wetenschap is geen debatclub. Er waren aanwijzingen…
RT @mkeulemans: Nee @mauricedehond, er is geen 'informatieoorlog' rondom #ivermectine. Wetenschap is geen debatclub. Er waren aanwijzingen…
RT @mkeulemans: Nee @mauricedehond, er is geen 'informatieoorlog' rondom #ivermectine. Wetenschap is geen debatclub. Er waren aanwijzingen…
RT @mkeulemans: Nee @mauricedehond, er is geen 'informatieoorlog' rondom #ivermectine. Wetenschap is geen debatclub. Er waren aanwijzingen…
RT @mkeulemans: Nee @mauricedehond, er is geen 'informatieoorlog' rondom #ivermectine. Wetenschap is geen debatclub. Er waren aanwijzingen…
RT @mkeulemans: Nee @mauricedehond, er is geen 'informatieoorlog' rondom #ivermectine. Wetenschap is geen debatclub. Er waren aanwijzingen…
RT @mkeulemans: Nee @mauricedehond, er is geen 'informatieoorlog' rondom #ivermectine. Wetenschap is geen debatclub. Er waren aanwijzingen…
RT @mkeulemans: Nee @mauricedehond, er is geen 'informatieoorlog' rondom #ivermectine. Wetenschap is geen debatclub. Er waren aanwijzingen…
RT @mkeulemans: Nee @mauricedehond, er is geen 'informatieoorlog' rondom #ivermectine. Wetenschap is geen debatclub. Er waren aanwijzingen…
RT @mkeulemans: Nee @mauricedehond, er is geen 'informatieoorlog' rondom #ivermectine. Wetenschap is geen debatclub. Er waren aanwijzingen…
RT @mkeulemans: Nee @mauricedehond, er is geen 'informatieoorlog' rondom #ivermectine. Wetenschap is geen debatclub. Er waren aanwijzingen…
RT @mkeulemans: Nee @mauricedehond, er is geen 'informatieoorlog' rondom #ivermectine. Wetenschap is geen debatclub. Er waren aanwijzingen…
@laralawless @margabult https://t.co/X2bgpEHz5D lees dit even 😉
RT @mkeulemans: Nee @mauricedehond, er is geen 'informatieoorlog' rondom #ivermectine. Wetenschap is geen debatclub. Er waren aanwijzingen…
RT @mkeulemans: Nee @mauricedehond, er is geen 'informatieoorlog' rondom #ivermectine. Wetenschap is geen debatclub. Er waren aanwijzingen…
RT @mkeulemans: Nee @mauricedehond, er is geen 'informatieoorlog' rondom #ivermectine. Wetenschap is geen debatclub. Er waren aanwijzingen…
RT @pjvanerp: Ter aanvulling hier een uitgebreide bespreking van die zogenaamde debunk van Dr. Campbell van het BBC-artikel waar De Hond n…
@Bob302111 @sleepymammabear @beverleyturner Would that be Tiny Tears Tess's fake Cochrane methodology metaanalysis that included a bunch of fake trials? Which when redone by the actual Cochrane Library turned out with a different result? Yes, yes it is.
RT @mkeulemans: Nee @mauricedehond, er is geen 'informatieoorlog' rondom #ivermectine. Wetenschap is geen debatclub. Er waren aanwijzingen…
Ter aanvulling hier een uitgebreide bespreking van die zogenaamde debunk van Dr. Campbell van het BBC-artikel waar De Hond nogal zwaar op leunt. https://t.co/Am5SvQ0x6c
RT @mkeulemans: Nee @mauricedehond, er is geen 'informatieoorlog' rondom #ivermectine. Wetenschap is geen debatclub. Er waren aanwijzingen…
RT @mkeulemans: Nee @mauricedehond, er is geen 'informatieoorlog' rondom #ivermectine. Wetenschap is geen debatclub. Er waren aanwijzingen…
Nee @mauricedehond, er is geen 'informatieoorlog' rondom #ivermectine. Wetenschap is geen debatclub. Er waren aanwijzingen dat het hielp. En inmiddels blijkt uit grotere studies helaas het tegendeel. (Cochrane Review: https://t.co/k3OQmwdbR1) https://t.c
@Souther09110546 Let me tell you, I mean this with every fibre of my being. You are a stupid human, you are the result of millions of years of evolution, fucking act like it. https://t.co/8LedUapdML
@connorino @GidMK The Cochrane Collaboration is the ‘gold standard’ for systematic reviews and they find no evidence yet to justify using. IVM on Covid, but they note that more work is i progress. I think I we should keep an eye on all these. https://t.co/
@real_socko @Brandenbee @KLCookLab @ashishkjha @J_my_sci Well done. Great source. But published April 2021. Look what they said in July 2021: “Overall, the reliable evidence available does not support the use ivermectin for treatment or prevention of COVI
@kalahiri Ik denk dat Cochrane de resultaten het best samenvat: https://t.co/vtxe8M6X9s
@nojabberoo @Ringo35241184 @ggmumster https://t.co/r8KANdMu5e Ivermectin ( one word) is anti-parasitic not anti viral. Research is ongoing but so far nothing good has shown up. Not saying it won't.. but you wouldn't use worming tablets to treat syphilis.
@beverleyturner @PierreKory @RWMaloneMD NHS trials are already ongoing, given the poor standard of trials already completed, some by those you have name checked For evidence based medicine Cochrane is the gold standard (Tess Lawrie worked for them) here a
Ivermectin for preventing and treating COVID‐19 - Popp, M - July 2021 | Cochrane Library https://t.co/2g9Zj6cZQn
@ConradsonJordan Really? Cause that is not what scientists and researchers have been concluding. https://t.co/WLQBQ6IpLg https://t.co/40Or3yB6o2 https://t.co/aeBIjb3d0T https://t.co/CI61KFtD6p https://t.co/eJ67Euc82U
@tmainframedino @RolandBakerIII @stampijs @SmoleyDG Tframe: I would recommend you read the meta analysis study of IVR - Cochrane - the gold standard in medicine. Or from other top journals. Meta analysis helps study all the papers and decide if IVR researc
@IGFactchecker @drnickgreiner Comparing ivermectin with placebo or standard care in outpatients: no reduction in mortality (RR 0.33 , 95% CI 0.01-8.05), no reduction in mechanical ventilation (RR 2.97; 95% CI 0.12-72.47), and no impact on symptoms (RR 1.04
@__nRv___ @CongasMaracas @rifain_nouvelle Et concernant le Covid? Parce que ça ne semble pas trop être efficace https://t.co/GYdldk680i
@19JKS83 @lasleh @iltalehti_fi 1) Näinkö heikosti luet mitä kirjoitan? 2) Mmmkay.
@IkNet @rengerwitkamp Waarom verwijs je dan naar een bekende nepnieuwssite? En heb je in die zes maanden ook de laatste Cochrane Review over het onderwerp gelezen? En de fraudezaak rond de Elgazzar-paper meegekregen? https://t.co/FSVLJqyWSn
@AboutIndia @RosaleeAdams I suggest you go and read the meta analysis on IVR / Covid in a top journal - Cochrane is the gold standard. Educate yourself first what meta analysis is and then see how it’s used to develop effective treatment. https://t.co/nvqw
@19JKS83 @lasleh @iltalehti_fi 1) Mikset noudata samaa kriittisyyttä toisten lähteiden (McCullough) kanssa? 2) Mitä jos kerron sinulle, että tuo on linkki ja alkuperäinen julkaistu Cochrane Libraryssä? Muuttaako tämä suhtautumistasi? 3) Mikä muuttaisi m
@BottomleyFiona @I_am_a1ice @MichaelYeadon3 @boocles42 @Lizzy_Lang7 @crybaby1976 @ammejo1 @cerberus5555 @AizaLou82 @RWranglebury I will just leave this here for anyone following the thread. There is no evidence to support the use of Ivermectin for the trea
@19JKS83 @lasleh @iltalehti_fi Missä maailmassa on edetty kuvaamaasi suuntaan? Yleensä näitä ratkaisuja ei tehdä höpönassujen puoskarointiehdotusten, vaan tutkimustiedon perusteella. https://t.co/hGrLGqwCeV
7/V So ivermectin fans mislead when they complain about terms like "horse de-wormer", without acknowledging the *POISONINGS* that led to use of those terms. Less time complaining + more time reading 😉 https://t.co/KiRaYi41LS https://t.co/kFXoh0qz0B h
@drhiromi 解釈にバイアスが入らなければ良いのですが。今のところメタアナのコクランレビューではポジではないですね。https://t.co/wCb9ur0HjC
RT @AtomsksSanakan: "Overall, the reliable evidence available does not support the use ivermectin for treatment or prevention of COVID‐19 o…
RT @AtomsksSanakan: @Liberteur @GidMK You use your ideological paranoia about 'Big Pharma!!!' to avoid accepting reality. It's like refusi…
@FireOnDMtn @patrickjmullan Responsible doctors practice research and consensus driven evidence based medicine - they follow what has been approved and aren’t quacks to experiment. Meta analysis and systemic studies from gold star journals also indicate i
@EllenFantasmic @RafaEsteves616 @leftlaneblaine @themattdimitri @jimmy_dore @Covid19Critical That's just a homepage. Here's a link to studies readily available. https://t.co/2rupV6riK6
@RafaEsteves616 @EllenFantasmic @leftlaneblaine @themattdimitri @jimmy_dore @Covid19Critical There's multiple sciences. There are also trends and outliers in science. https://t.co/2rupV6riK6 https://t.co/FLbiU4A5Mt
@EllenFantasmic @RafaEsteves616 @leftlaneblaine @themattdimitri @jimmy_dore @Covid19Critical So you won't look at up to date information on the trials being conducted. I see how it is. Here are completed trials. The information does exist. https://t.co/2ru
@Anthony95488779 @hm01869 @ACChaudre Voilà où on en est avec l’ivermectine. Des études sont en attente mais pour l’instant, les scientifiques ne savent pas si elle a une quelconque utilité. https://t.co/hHJ022kr9r
@EllenFantasmic @RafaEsteves616 @leftlaneblaine @themattdimitri @jimmy_dore @Covid19Critical Again thorough scientific analysis begs to differ. Anti-vaxxers are the ones pushing the bogus miracle cure. The FDA and CDC have prohibited the prescriptions of I
@SaltyFloridaMan @JesusismyKing_7 @HotelGuySA @JasonSCampbell https://t.co/0yS07Gy1Ym from the same source y’all like to pedal. “Based on the current very low- to low-certainty evidence, we are uncertain about the efficacy and safety of ivermectin used to
@EllenFantasmic @RafaEsteves616 @leftlaneblaine @themattdimitri @jimmy_dore @Covid19Critical Again here are legitimate peer reviewed studies that used clinical trials that showed it doesn't work. The science is there. https://t.co/2rupV6riK6
Science is now Big Pharma talking points. https://t.co/2rupV6riK6
@EchoVaush @joseph56176440 @themattdimitri No legitimate study has shown that Ivermectin is effective against COVID-19. In fact, legitimate studies show the complete opposite. https://t.co/2rupV6riK6
@Ryan71612117 @NewfoundStudio @TruAmericanGal1 28 studies "Science" https://t.co/OegUZRPJ8d
@AnttonMntyvaar1 @PasiVirtala @JacquesBoissons Hauska jannu, puhuu holistisesta rokotusstrategiasta samalla promoten ivermektiiniä, jonka tehoa ei ole vieläkään kyetty laadullisesti riittävissä tutkimuksissa osoittamaan. https://t.co/hGrLGqwCeV
#AsiTalCual y aunque esto se sabe hace mucho, la sigue usando 🤦🏻♂️🤣 https://t.co/WUDdeMQ0Nc
@PrinciplePonde2 @Steven_D_Ayers @mattlogical @barnes_law "Overall, the reliable evidence available does not support the use of ivermectin for treatment or prevention of COVID‐19 outside of well‐designed randomized trials." https://t.co/GCWFrfjgQ3
@Acme1S @halfawake11114 @TuinenJaap @nochnichtfurt Da Sie ja gegen Falschinformationen sind, hier Quellen, die Ihre Aussagen widerlegen: https://t.co/mQqsXhTHOo
@DavQuinn There have been many reports of people poisoning themselves with it in the US. Thunder, if he had any intelligence, would have checked the Cochran review (no good evidence for it) on it. https://t.co/jjQ4lQ8iuV
@MartinCJanssen Noch nicht wirklich belegt https://t.co/PWR9epqTE7
@Rbk6kJ49uBkL7Nj @ANINEKObySYSTER @0211Rumble @6sNkhFzWKo0cDDu @u347Ru5NyjvQ2mS @YahooNewsTopics その中には、治験をやってない疑惑(Carvallo)や、捏造疑惑(Cadegiani)、二重盲検のはずが飲ませてる錠剤が違うので二重盲検じゃない疑惑(Niaee)があったりします。 そういう怪しい論文を外していった結果、結局今のエビデンスでは効くとはいえないとなっています。https://t.co/UHhUhSYn
@joseph56176440 @themattdimitri They're anti-vaxxers plain and simple. They listen to anti-vax personalities Dore, Jones, & RFK Jr. They don't believe in vaccine science and thus buy psuedoscience used to sell these "miracle cures" as alternatives to t
RT @ramosdelamedina: Cochrane (quien de verdad es médico sabe lo que significa), publicó hoy su evaluación de la evidencia sobre ivermectin…
@EllenFantasmic @RafaEsteves616 @leftlaneblaine @themattdimitri @jimmy_dore @Covid19Critical Scientific research has shown that it doesn't treat COVID-19. https://t.co/2rupV6riK6 The problem is that anti-vaxxers don't believe in science. They're getting t
RT @AtomsksSanakan: @Liberteur @GidMK You use your ideological paranoia about 'Big Pharma!!!' to avoid accepting reality. It's like refusi…
@Liberteur @GidMK You use your ideological paranoia about 'Big Pharma!!!' to avoid accepting reality. It's like refusing to accept that engines allow cars to drive, just because 'Big Auto!!!' make money from that fact. https://t.co/KiRaYi41LS https://t.
@tony_workman @wbir Here's a recent paper describing the problems with the studies that recommend Ivermectin. https://t.co/rHkI39ExiY
@benp7777 @Jennifer_Arcuri @EFCGriff @RWMaloneMD Quality not Quantity. Theres multiple fraudulent papers. No methodologically sound RCTs with significant efficacy. It is still being trialled. Unbiased SR shows not sufficient evidence for use outside of tri
@alen_page @JesseBWatters As many of those pontificating it’s use are non- ID specialists. Or just ignore the data. https://t.co/1R3BPLRnn9
Short take... Dr John is not impressed with the bias BBC/MSM reporting... just another Rolling Stone/Maddcow non-event #Ivermectin #WaningWinterIsComing BBC debunks ivermectin https://t.co/vaa9cbDaJh via @YouTube
@I_Am_Annatar @Jennifer_Arcuri @benp7777 @EFCGriff No. Because decent clinical trials said so. Whilst its supporters felt the need to falsify the results in some of theirs. https://t.co/g3GrdTND8i https://t.co/CuNCRwdvTp
@Jennifer_Arcuri @benp7777 @EFCGriff @RWMaloneMD Gor the second time in two days Jennifer, Why do you think medical professionals get their information from TV? It's because it doesnt match what expert reviewers from that field say. https://t.co/g3GrdTND8
RT @AtomsksSanakan: @NashVolGuy @GidMK Re: "I simply want answers" No, you don't. You'll just make up any + every excuse to defend ivermec…
@citriko3 Porque ivermectina não tem efeito sobre o processo de replicação do vírus 😂 baixo QI = tu https://t.co/lyYf74NpVR
@tgmiller77 @wbir "Overall, the reliable evidence available does not support the use ivermectin for treatment or prevention of COVID-19" https://t.co/rHkI39ExiY
@benp7777 @EFCGriff @Jennifer_Arcuri But... https://t.co/g3GrdTND8i Not significant evidence of effect. And still in trials like PRINCIPLE https://t.co/bmunxQEgPg
@KrisykaB @usefulID10T @wfaa It just doesn't treat covid. https://t.co/pVKdwxNXPV It also doesn't do anything to prevent covid which the vaccines do. Better to water the lawn before it catches fire.
@NachoBizMf @trbln @MrCat48674293 @thedailybeast @donwinslow https://t.co/RX7Iriavmw You mean this? There is no hard evidence that ivermectin is safe for preventing and treating Covid. The vaccine works great though 😉
@jmancool85 @peterp2690 @matthewloop Some of the studies have even been fraudulent. Here is another analysis showing that the evidence was a very low quality: https://t.co/7Ay2Nz3Oq1 The evidence for working is severely lacking.
@acegotJOKES @jmancool85 @peterp2690 @matthewloop More analysis. The existing data is of very low quality: https://t.co/7Ay2Nz3Oq1
RT @AtomsksSanakan: Even though Dr. Hill left, I hope people still get something out of his insightful analysis and honesty on ivermectin:…
@SteveSimonovic @samnantsma @PhillyGreek11 @redsteeze No it hasn't, shithead. This NIH article literally says the opposite. https://t.co/JSbgOvkwff
@phillyblackshee @alokntyl @Cheese12987 @ArtysHouse @MisterBGood @_GreatUnwashed @joerogan @drsanjaygupta @CNN The meta analysis done that’s been published indicates it’s not effective. I think I shared that to you right ? Cochrane is the gold standard in