ADVERTISEMENT

Fourth Pfizer Dose Slashed Risk of Catching Omicron in Study

None of the research shows benefit there, yet you did it. Dumbass.


you must have missed your last chain email or whatever special journal club you subscribe to....but im sure you will now educate us on Bayesian mathematics after review
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joes Place
Why wouldn't you use remdesivir...there is a proven clear benefit for pts not on ecmo/mv.... cant say I've ever seen a renal failure from remdesivir or death...or one described from the tens of thousands of pts given it in our hosp system... why don't you show a study that says as much... at least you have proven you can copy and paste from the internet.

While you are at it why don't you copy and paste definition of survivor bias. As I'm sure you still "know" infection immunity has better antibody response than vaccine immunity
Oh, I don't know maybe because of what I told you and gave you the information previously from studies on renal failure that you decided not to look at because you're a know it all who thinks I'm beneath you with your hubris and the continued "prove to me what xyz bias is" blah, blah, blah horseshit that isn't even a factor in the studies I provide. Or maybe because I talk with a doctor on the frontlines at the UofI who has administered it for his covid patients and it was worthless and problems he saw. Oh but I know anecdotal right......

NIH acknowledging renal failure as an adverse side effect? Liver damage??!!! Yep

Wonderful study here showing serious adverse events and renal failure? Yep. But you've never heard of it huh?
"A total of 32 patients (60%) reported adverse events during follow-up (Table 2). The most common adverse events were increased hepatic enzymes, diarrhea, rash, renal impairment, and hypotension. In general, adverse events were more common in patients receiving invasive ventilation. A total of 12 patients (23%) had serious adverse events. The most common serious adverse events — multiple-organ-dysfunction syndrome, septic shock, acute kidney injury, and hypotension — were reported in patients who were receiving invasive ventilation at baseline"

WHO recommended against it until gasp some new "study" came out in April 2022 (treatment not hospitalization)

Renal failure studies

Even our own University of Iowa published a study of how lousy the drug is

It's a wonder why Fauci, without any verifiable evidence in 2020 (he used a study that changed it's outcome from mortality to reduced hospital stay in the middle of the study), put this crappy drug approved to be used in the hospital setting and has the audacity to give hospitals a 20% bonus payment for using under CMS changes? Could it be his old buddy Ralph Baric, infamous for his connection to Wuhan and gain-of-function research, was part of making this drug? Nah, you wouldn't pay ANY attention to these conflicts of interest would you?


Let's next tackle your little meta-analysis horseshit you sent over (taking aside your smart ass, inconsequential Bayesian mathematics stupidity). There have only been 8 RCTs for remdesivir for Covid.

- 1 Early treatment study showing AMAZING results that you touted funded by none other than Gilead! You know the maker of Remdesivir. How convenient for the narrative!
- 7 late treatment studies, 2 of which show negative benefits, 3 showing little to no benefit (including the largest trial showing this wonderful outcome: Death occurred in 301 of 2743 patients receiving remdesivir and in 303 of 2708 receiving its control) and 2 showing marginal benefit.

But by all means tout that magnificent turd of a meta analysis while completely discounting the 2 meta's done on IVM because it doesn't fit your narrative. If remdesivir was so effective we would have had much less deaths around the world. It's a shit drug which failed for ebola and quite simply was repurposed for financial gain.


A drug made for ebola and it had a worse death rate than the disease itself and was pulled from the study. But by all means, smart guy, keep injecting a drug that has no anti-inflammatory qualities during the pulmonary inflammation stage. You're an idiot and should have been encouraging early treatment instead of this crap when patients came into the hospital. Take your BS questions and shove 'em. I'm not answering anymore because your arguments SUCK.
 
Ohh boy soo much to unpack here and def game me a laugh .... it really goes to show the #dunningkruger effect in full force....lets just unpack your post ... i have 15 min before I need to get going.

NIH acknowledging renal failure as an adverse side effect? Liver damage??!!! Yep

Lol the CYA from the NIH.... liver enzymes may go up....but do you know what goes up in viral infections?? I'll save you the time, its AST/ALTs.

As for them listing renal/Liver failure. The direct quote "Drug vehicle is SBECD, which has been associated with renal and liver toxicity." I hope you arent basing your renal failure on this part. SBECD can cause liver/renal and other issues....but at doses much much higher and longer than what would be given with RDV. SBECD isn't something new to manage. For a 5-10 day course there is no risk of accumulation to occur.

Continue to educate yourself

Wonderful study here showing serious adverse events and renal failure? Yep. But you've never heard of it huh?
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2007016 "A total of 32 patients (60%) reported adverse events during follow-up (Table 2). The most common adverse events were increased hepatic enzymes, diarrhea, rash, renal impairment, and hypotension. In general, adverse events were more common in patients receiving invasive ventilation. A total of 12 patients (23%) had serious adverse events. The most common serious adverse events — multiple-organ-dysfunction syndrome, septic shock, acute kidney injury, and hypotension — were reported in patients who were receiving invasive ventilation at baseline"

What were those rates in control group?? ohh no control group...and all the adverse events have in the vent group?? Well here is something else for you to learn. Ppl on vents tend to have have bad outcomes including but not limited to organ injury....tends to happen right after vent as well...you know since ppl usually are pretty hypoxic prior to vent .... and organs being hypo perfused is not a good outcome. Take it one step further and these patients also tend to need pressor support as well....well that pressure support can cause the arteries in the kidney to "clamp" down and thus cause more AKI

Continue to educate yourself

WHO recommended against it until gasp some new "study" came out in April 2022 (treatment not hospitalization)
A better question is why the WHO sat on a trial for >1 .... that showed decreased mortality...




lol "studies" Its a computer search looking key words...using a data system .... no control group what so ever and pulling certain terms.... yeah one could reasonably say they need to look at this data in a RCT to see if holds up but only a true #dunningkruger would think this is a gotcha moment.

Even our own University of Iowa published a study of how lousy the drug is

In true #dunningkruger fashion you want to compare a retrospective/observational cohort to a meta-analysis (filled with quality RCTs)?? Yes that data should lead you to want to complete a RCT but to say it has any meaning against RCT and specifically a meta-analaysis??? Thats not how it work....

It's a wonder why Fauci, without any verifiable evidence in 2020 (he used a study that changed it's outcome from mortality to reduced hospital stay in the middle of the study), put this crappy drug approved to be used in the hospital setting and has the audacity to give hospitals a 20% bonus payment for using under CMS changes? Could it be his old buddy Ralph Baric, infamous for his connection to Wuhan and gain-of-function research, was part of making this drug? Nah, you wouldn't pay ANY attention to these conflicts of interest would you?

without even getting into your brand of crazy and going off the rails here...but...lets just "pretend" everything you said is true (which so far nothing you have said is true)...but lets pretend...how does this have any effect on the data the meta-analysis showed?? well it doesn't...and doesn't change results of the data

Let's next tackle your little meta-analysis horseshit you sent over (taking aside your smart ass, inconsequential Bayesian mathematics stupidity). There have only been 8 RCTs for remdesivir for Covid.

You do realize in all your dunningkruger glory that meta-analysis are superior to RCT ..... well as long as they are conducted correctly and use good studies to make up the meta... if you fill a meta with crap studies ...you will get crap results which we can look at later.

- 1 Early treatment study showing AMAZING results that you touted funded by none other than Gilead! You know the maker of Remdesivir. How convenient for the narrative!

Its not like they are hiding that they funded it....but maybe your should look up the Idaho VA home and see the logical progession to why they wanted fund this trial. You know its ok for a drug company to do a trial right?? Especially if its clearly known.... can you tell me the biases them funding the trial created??

7 late treatment studies, 2 of which show negative benefits, 3 showing little to no benefit (including the largest trial showing this wonderful outcome: Death occurred in 301 of 2743 patients receiving remdesivir and in 303 of 2708 receiving its control) and 2 showing marginal benefit.

again a meta-analysis can show benefit comprised from only studies that showed none...and would be considered higher quality evidence than any of those RCTs that comprise the meta. At this time you will need to explain that the quality of evidence used in the meta is not good .... otherwise using data from RCTs in the meta against the meta is a sure fire #krugerdunning move.

But by all means tout that magnificent turd of a meta analysis while completely discounting the 2 meta's done on IVM because it doesn't fit your narrative.

fill a meta with crap...and you get crap in return...but here is another recently published gem


If remdesivir was so effective we would have had much less deaths around the world.
Lol, or one could say without remdesivir there would have been much more deaths..... a #dunningkruger statement at its finest.

A drug made for ebola and it had a worse death rate than the disease itself and was pulled from the study
I know we know this...but i dont think you know how to read and understand studies well....

But by all means, smart guy, keep injecting a drug that has no anti-inflammatory qualities during the pulmonary inflammation stage.

ohh by all means please tell use when the viremic stage completely ends and is all inflammatory stage.... you understand they overlap for quite a bit?? Like pry why the last 2 meta-analysis have showed remdesivr benefit prior to vent....also never used in vent patients ... and very few ppl i know have either...maybe during the compassionate use days but its not like it was wide spread.

You're an idiot and should have been encouraging early treatment instead of this crap when patients came into the hospital

I have always advocated for early treatment you know like the vaccine...wearing a mask and trying to get into better shape/health

I'm not answering anymore because your arguments SUCK.
No, you arent answering anymore because you are truly an idiot that thinks they know something of a subject when you clearly don't. you are the poster child for #dunningkruger
 
Was there no discussion here of the CDC admitting they botched the covid reponse?

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/17/us/politics/cdc-rochelle-walensky-covid.html

"WASHINGTON — Dr. Rochelle P. Walensky, the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, on Wednesday delivered a sweeping rebuke of her agency’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic, saying it had failed to respond quickly enough and needed to be overhauled.

“To be frank, we are responsible for some pretty dramatic, pretty public mistakes, from testing to data to communications,” she said in a video distributed to the agency’s roughly 11,000 employees.
 
No, you arent answering anymore because you are truly an idiot that thinks they know something of a subject when you clearly don't. you are the poster child for #dunningkruger
This is the case on so VERY MANY topics with him...
 
  • Like
Reactions: *33*
You would have to be an absolute fool to keep putting that stuff in your body, unless you just really enjoy being a lab rat for big pharm.
 
Wouldnt know, don't need it. How is the myocarditis and negative efficacy?
Efficacy is quite excellent, as a matter of FACT

deaths_vaxx_rate_062122.jpg


3.5:1 Higher Deaths Rates for the unvaccinated.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Pinehawk
don’t know anyone that’s had any side effects and the efficacy is great. You should consider talking to your doctor.

"In this nationwide study involving a population of 32 million people aged 12 to 50 years having received 46 million doses of mRNA vaccines, we provide detailed estimates of the risk of myocarditis and pericarditis by sex, age categories and vaccine type. We find that vaccination with both mRNA vaccines was associated with an increased risk of myocarditis and pericarditis within the first week after vaccination. The associations were particularly pronounced after the second dose, and were evident in both males and females. We found a trend of increased risks towards younger age groups but a significant risk was also found in males over 30 years to develop myocarditis and in females over 30 years to develop a pericarditis after vaccination. Reassuringly, these cases of myocarditis and pericarditis, although requiring hospitalization, did not result in more severe outcomes than those unrelated to vaccination.

Our findings bring new elements in showing that the risk of acute cardiac inflammation after vaccination is not confined to myocarditis in young men4,5,6,14"

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-31401-5
 
"In this nationwide study involving a population of 32 million people aged 12 to 50 years having received 46 million doses of mRNA vaccines, we provide detailed estimates of the risk of myocarditis and pericarditis by sex, age categories and vaccine type. We find that vaccination with both mRNA vaccines was associated with an increased risk of myocarditis and pericarditis within the first week after vaccination. The associations were particularly pronounced after the second dose, and were evident in both males and females. We found a trend of increased risks towards younger age groups but a significant risk was also found in males over 30 years to develop myocarditis and in females over 30 years to develop a pericarditis after vaccination. Reassuringly, these cases of myocarditis and pericarditis, although requiring hospitalization, did not result in more severe outcomes than those unrelated to vaccination.

Our findings bring new elements in showing that the risk of acute cardiac inflammation after vaccination is not confined to myocarditis in young men4,5,6,14"

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-31401-5

wow, 2 cases per 100,000!
 
"In this nationwide study involving a population of 32 million people aged 12 to 50 years having received 46 million doses of mRNA vaccines, we provide detailed estimates of the risk of myocarditis and pericarditis by sex, age categories and vaccine type. We find that vaccination with both mRNA vaccines was associated with an increased risk of myocarditis and pericarditis within the first week after vaccination.
Getting Covid holds HIGHER risks

And when you get vaccinated, they know EXACTLY when to monitor for these side effects; when you get Covid, you may not know.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Pinehawk
Getting Covid holds HIGHER risks

And when you get vaccinated, they know EXACTLY when to monitor for these side effects; when you get Covid, you may not know.

You may not get covid, but if you do get vaccinated, you will have an increased chance of myocarditis.
 
why would you compare the rate of death to the rate of getting a very manageable side effect? The rate of myocarditis from getting Covid is 1 per 10,000.

Covid has you dismissing Myocarditis as a manageable side effect. Sad.
 
Good thing it's not the kids getting myocarditis, then.

Not just kids, no. But...

"The largest associations are observed for myocarditis following mRNA-1273 vaccination in persons aged 18 to 24 years."
 
What’s a little permanent heart damage if it stops your teenager from getting the sniffles (which they’ll probably still get since the shot doesn’t actually prevent covid).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pinehawk
It's temporary

And when you're able to monitor for it after vaccines, it's easy to treat.
Permanent damage comes from Covid-induced heart inflammation, when you don't know you have it and it goes untreated.

They should put that on the covid vaccine billboard:

'Get your Covid vaccine Now! The myocarditis is temporary! And, easy to treat! If you monitor for it!'
 
  • Like
Reactions: Finance85
That is absolutely untrue.
Well, I posted it a year ago; LOTS of health professionals were saying the same thing very early in the pandemic, because that is HOW pandemics work.

Once Covid hit every continent, it was inevitable, and I'm sure you can Google up sources which stated this in the early/mid 2020s.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Pinehawk
ADVERTISEMENT