Freeforester
Well-Known Member
Strawman Arguments: What They Are and How to Counter Them – Effectiviology
effectiviology.com
try the Vigi database in Uppsala, for the information you seek.
Ivermectin, for the interested
- Thread starter Freeforester
- Start date
- Status
effectiviology.com
try the Vigi database in Uppsala, for the information you seek.
I do not fully understand the apparent federal system in India, but what is clear is that individual states have adopted somewhat disparate strategies.
What is 100% clear is the strong correlation between the use of Ivermectin and reduction of covid cases in Uttar Pradesh. [That state has 4 times the population of UK. Many living cheek-by-jowl...]
What is 100% clear is the strong correlation between the use of Ivermectin and reduction of covid cases in Uttar Pradesh. [That state has 4 times the population of UK. Many living cheek-by-jowl...]
J@son
Well-Known Member
I am all for robust healthy debate. But it is starting to feel as though I am arguing against the willfully blind.
Freeforester, Zambezi et al - it is clear that I am not going to change your minds on this issue. The only reason I have kept going for as long as I have is that I think it is important not to give you the floor on this important issue.
I don't accept that I'm adopting some sort of sneaky "strawman" strategy to counter your arguments. I am looking at the evidence you are referring to and asking you questions about it. And I when I quote your posts back at you, I do so word-for-word.
Your recent post (Freeforester) refers to a study based on the experience of 68 people, 51 of whom were given an escalating dose of Ivermectin. You attach significance to this study. I think you are wrong to do so and I would like to point out why to everyone else. You referred to the study. I am merely pointing out its (obvious) limitations.
Your recent post also asserts that aspirin and paracetamol have, and I quote, "poorer safety records than Ivermectin". I am assuming you would not say this unless you had some reason for thinking it - some evidence to support your stated view on this. I am simply asking you to produce this evidence. And I suspect that, if you can't, the straw man here is you, not me.
Freeforester, Zambezi et al - it is clear that I am not going to change your minds on this issue. The only reason I have kept going for as long as I have is that I think it is important not to give you the floor on this important issue.
I don't accept that I'm adopting some sort of sneaky "strawman" strategy to counter your arguments. I am looking at the evidence you are referring to and asking you questions about it. And I when I quote your posts back at you, I do so word-for-word.
Your recent post (Freeforester) refers to a study based on the experience of 68 people, 51 of whom were given an escalating dose of Ivermectin. You attach significance to this study. I think you are wrong to do so and I would like to point out why to everyone else. You referred to the study. I am merely pointing out its (obvious) limitations.
Your recent post also asserts that aspirin and paracetamol have, and I quote, "poorer safety records than Ivermectin". I am assuming you would not say this unless you had some reason for thinking it - some evidence to support your stated view on this. I am simply asking you to produce this evidence. And I suspect that, if you can't, the straw man here is you, not me.
We are at parity there.
FF did that:
From FF's suggested reading, a starter for 10:
And from the WHO we have this commentary on Ivermectin's deployment in just one large parasitic campaign in Africa. [This is one campaign. Overall, 3.7BILLION doses have been administered globally since 1987]:
Recall that Ivermectin was first licenced for use in humans against Onchocerciasis. Since then it has been licenced for 7 more infections. There is sufficient data accrued in 18 months to warrant full trials of its efficacy against SARS-CoV-2. To state otherwise is willfull blindness.
@zambezi, there you go again with a prime example of how you cherry pick data from different sources to suit your narrative.
You showed the results of typing "aspirin" into VigiAccess and then quote some totally irrelevant figures for Ivermectin.
Type Ivermectin into VigiAccess and have a look at the results.
Take your time.
You showed the results of typing "aspirin" into VigiAccess and then quote some totally irrelevant figures for Ivermectin.
Type Ivermectin into VigiAccess and have a look at the results.
Take your time.
Rewulf
Well-Known Member
Also a study on human ivermectin use covered by the Lancet in 97 DEFINE_ME
Estimates are that 3000 people a year die in the UK every year from daily dose 75mg of aspirin, thats not ODs , thats DAILY DOSE ,that used to be recommended by DOCTORS.
They no longer do so , and aspirin seems to have disappeared from supermarket shelves, as the CONSENSUS has changed on the use.safety of aspirin.
How strange ?
Estimates are that 3000 people a year die in the UK every year from daily dose 75mg of aspirin, thats not ODs , thats DAILY DOSE ,that used to be recommended by DOCTORS.
They no longer do so , and aspirin seems to have disappeared from supermarket shelves, as the CONSENSUS has changed on the use.safety of aspirin.
How strange ?
Rewulf
Well-Known Member
What planet are you on
The ADR s for ivermectin are extremely low, whilst paracetamol and aspirin are pretty high , these are global figures, so the argument for aspirin use being higher doesnt really wash , when human ivermectin use in countries like India and Africa is high.
So your 'deadly dangerous' drug comment , is at best , the fevered ramblings of a man in his cups.
And talking of cherry picking
Try putting the covid vaccines through Vigiaccess , and boom ! The WHO sponsored drug reporting portal, isnt to be believed any more.....
Fact check: Video on World Health Organization's VigiAccess tool lacks context
The World Health Organization's VigiAccess tool is being misrepresented online to suggest vaccines are dangerous.
eu.usatoday.com
How strange,
Rewulf
Well-Known Member
WHO would have thought it ? A five-day course of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 may reduce the duration of illness - PubMed
How strange . . . .
How strange . . . .
You really should start to read links if you are going to try and use them as evidence of how right you are.What planet are you on
The ADR s for ivermectin are extremely low, whilst paracetamol and aspirin are pretty high , these are global figures, so the argument for aspirin use being higher doesnt really wash , when human ivermectin use in countries like India and Africa is high.
So your 'deadly dangerous' drug comment , is at best , the fevered ramblings of a man in his cups.
And talking of cherry picking
Try putting the covid vaccines through Vigiaccess , and boom ! The WHO sponsored drug reporting portal, isnt to be believed any more.....
Fact check: Video on World Health Organization's VigiAccess tool lacks context
The World Health Organization's VigiAccess tool is being misrepresented online to suggest vaccines are dangerous.
How strange,
Rewulf
Well-Known Member
Is that it ?
Youre just going to highlight the text , and expect me to work out what your latest ramblings are ?
Why dont you and your husband just stick to the laughing emoji, because you arent really making any sense with your posts.
J@son
Well-Known Member
This trial is based on the observed outcomes of just 47 elderly (65 years+) patients conducted in 1997.
Did I miss something? Are we now simply focusing all our efforts on identifying the trial with the smallest, most out-of-date and least relevent evidence base?
That's it rewulf, you're all on your own.
But don't worry as my expectations of you having a grasp on anything are fairly low.
You need to move on now as you are adding nothing to the discussion except for the juvenile insults.
Rewulf
Well-Known Member
No , we are putting to bed the total lie that ivermectin is a 'deadly dangerous' drug , only to be used on cattle.
Its also becoming increasingly difficult to maintain the lie , that it has NO benefits in treating covid.
Poor old rewulf has a habit of shooting himself in the foot with his links.
Rewulf
Well-Known Member
Says the troll who thinks adding to the discussion, is a laugh emoji , or quoting some outlandish fake info , he thinks he read somewhere.
Again , where is the problem with the link ?Poor old rewulf has a habit of shooting himself in the foot with his links.
Trolling again , with more laugh emojis , bit sad really.
Rewulf
Well-Known Member
I suggest if you are not interested in this thread , that you find another one.
If you had bothered to read any of it , you would already know the answer anyway.
Rewulf
Well-Known Member
If the membership decide, and the interest is there, it can continue for another 32.
Why is it certain people feel so threatened by a discussion on a drug that isnt even freely available in (human) tablet form in this country, that they feel they need to call for the thread to be shut down ?
No one is forcing anyone to do anything they dont want to here, its a discussion , have we really moved into some kind of quasi fascist mindset where some things cannot be uttered without thought police intervention ?
There have been cries of 'dangerous' misinformation, and 'costing lives' Yet no one has died here, and no one who didnt before will be going out and raiding the stables for a pouch of lick.
The thread is entitled appropriately , if youre not interested, move on, and let those who are, debate.
- Status
Similar threads
