Infection_Ag11 said:

---

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

You're contorting yourself to a comical degree. "The problem is that Joe Public just missed the nuance of our profession's lexicon!" And now you're trying to hide behind technicalities or distortions. Nah. Y'all lied. The intent was to deceive and manipulate. You lie.

---

That's not what I'm saying at all. But you do you.

---

Quote:

---

A primary point of disconnect is the lack of understanding outside of medicine regarding the doctors you see in TV vs clinicians.

---

Quote:

---

Most of the mistakes were initially not mistakes, they were unknowns, and only later once it was clear they were mistakes are many of these individuals liable.

---

Quote:

---

I mean, they WERE effective. They were also sold as something they weren't, in many cases by well intentioned individuals. But as a means of decreasing morbidity/mortality for the highest risk groups they very much did that.

---

Quote:

---

He's thinking about how do I get as many people to take this as possible because it's the best thing we have right now.

---

Quote:

---

It's also a myth, frankly one I didn't really realize many people would held until all this, that all vaccines prevent you from getting a disease all the time. That just isn't true.

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

tysker said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

tysker said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

Quote:

---

These geniuses of medicine killed untold thousands or millions with ventilators and Remdesivir.

---

This sort of stuff is what I'm talking about

---

There used to be stories by practicing medical professionals that once patients were placed on ventilators, they didn't come off. Even in the best circumstances, it's hard for patients to be weaned from ventilators.

---

That's because, generally speaking, intubation as a means of therapy for respiratory infections is a life sustaining measure performed where patients are on the brink of fatal respiratory failure. They are often in multi-organ failure and/or shock as well. These are the sickest patients many of whom will die no matter what you do.

Quote:

---

So when physicians placed their patients on vents, were they and their families informed of the risks and likelihood the patients will never be taken off?

---

Sometimes intubation is emergent, meaning that unless the patient is DNI we have to intubate them immediately or they will die. When it isn't, yes, patients and/or their families are told the risks of the procedure and whether or not we believe they will eventually be able to be extubated. I've had many talks with sick end stage COPD patients where I told them that if they get intubated they will likely either still pass away or at best ultimately require a trach and long term ventilation. Some then choose to not be intubated and proceed with comfort measures, some still want it. On the flip side, a young person with an asthma exacerbation is told we will almost certainly be able to extubated and usually relatively soon. But when possible it's an informed decision.

The issue here is the belief that there was widespread intubation of people who otherwise would have been fine without it, and that the mechanical ventilation itself is what killed them. And while it's certainly possible for an intubated patient to sustain an acute lung injury from high airway pressures (this is long established and why we monitor pressures in intubated patients) that is neither unique to covid nor the primary cause of death in anyone who is intubated.

---

Are you certain covid patients were informed of the downsides of intubation? It may not have killed them, but did it help cure them? Why was intubation considered an acceptable practice given the known outcomes?

---

As a matter of law it's required to provide informed consent when at all possible. But more to the point, there is a fundamental misunderstanding of what intubation is. The alternative to intubation in these cases is generally just death. We don't intubate people to "treat" them, not directly anyway. We intubate to buy us time to treat them by other means. We don't intubate people unless we've run out of other ways to ventilate/oxygenate them or other ways will not be adequately or provide adequate time for them to get better.

People get intubated because they are about to die of respiratory failure, not because we think it will help improve an otherwise stable patient. There's this idea that we were intubating people en masse to prevent respiratory spread or intubating them much earlier than we do for other conditions, and that just isn't true. There were certain modalities we DIDNT often use because it was associated with poor outcomes, and as the pandemic went covid patients generally actually had a HIGHER threshold to intubation because of the pressure issue we talked about. The fibrosis triggered by severe covid just made it so hard to use positive airway pressure modalities in some cases.

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

Ulysses90 said:

---

Quote:

---

A meta-analysis of studies including over ONE MILLION total patients

---

Meta analyses you say? Back up and let's discuss the statement you made above that there is no good evidence that Ivermwctin is effective at treating or preventing COVID.

https://c19ivm.org/

---

This has been thoroughly panned and shredded here and elsewhere across the Internet. The long and short of it is many of the included studies in this meta analysis were small and poorly conducted, proven fraudulent and/or since retracted, conducted in third world countries with a myriad of flaws, etc. One of the studies has an N of 6 and was published in a local newspaper in Mumbai. That's a joke. And it's also a lie to claim they were all peer reviewed even to begin with. Again, in a world full of grift Pierre Kory is the king.

Compare that to the two in my link, in which the entire controversy between BOTH of them is one single retracted study from Italy on the basis of discrepancies in inclusion criteria. Moreover, extremely large analysis not including controversial data have shown no benefit of ivermectin.

We're just talking about entirely different classes of evidence here.

---

tysker said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

tysker said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

tysker said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

Quote:

---

These geniuses of medicine killed untold thousands or millions with ventilators and Remdesivir.

---

This sort of stuff is what I'm talking about

---

There used to be stories by practicing medical professionals that once patients were placed on ventilators, they didn't come off. Even in the best circumstances, it's hard for patients to be weaned from ventilators.

---

That's because, generally speaking, intubation as a means of therapy for respiratory infections is a life sustaining measure performed where patients are on the brink of fatal respiratory failure. They are often in multi-organ failure and/or shock as well. These are the sickest patients many of whom will die no matter what you do.

Quote:

---

So when physicians placed their patients on vents, were they and their families informed of the risks and likelihood the patients will never be taken off?

---

Sometimes intubation is emergent, meaning that unless the patient is DNI we have to intubate them immediately or they will die. When it isn't, yes, patients and/or their families are told the risks of the procedure and whether or not we believe they will eventually be able to be extubated. I've had many talks with sick end stage COPD patients where I told them that if they get intubated they will likely either still pass away or at best ultimately require a trach and long term ventilation. Some then choose to not be intubated and proceed with comfort measures, some still want it. On the flip side, a young person with an asthma exacerbation is told we will almost certainly be able to extubated and usually relatively soon. But when possible it's an informed decision.

The issue here is the belief that there was widespread intubation of people who otherwise would have been fine without it, and that the mechanical ventilation itself is what killed them. And while it's certainly possible for an intubated patient to sustain an acute lung injury from high airway pressures (this is long established and why we monitor pressures in intubated patients) that is neither unique to covid nor the primary cause of death in anyone who is intubated.

---

Are you certain covid patients were informed of the downsides of intubation? It may not have killed them, but did it help cure them? Why was intubation considered an acceptable practice given the known outcomes?

---

As a matter of law it's required to provide informed consent when at all possible. But more to the point, there is a fundamental misunderstanding of what intubation is. The alternative to intubation in these cases is generally just death. We don't intubate people to "treat" them, not directly anyway. We intubate to buy us time to treat them by other means. We don't intubate people unless we've run out of other ways to ventilate/oxygenate them or other ways will not be adequately or provide adequate time for them to get better.

People get intubated because they are about to die of respiratory failure, not because we think it will help improve an otherwise stable patient. There's this idea that we were intubating people en masse to prevent respiratory spread or intubating them much earlier than we do for other conditions, and that just isn't true. There were certain modalities we DIDNT often use because it was associated with poor outcomes, and as the pandemic went covid patients generally actually had a HIGHER threshold to intubation because of the pressure issue we talked about. The fibrosis triggered by severe covid just made it so hard to use positive airway pressure modalities in some cases.

---

This reads to me as if the covid patients put on a vent were ostensibly dead before receiving such treatment. So, the messaging was mostly a failure? The vent wasnt a cause but a highly correlated signal.

---

Burdizzo said:

---

I have encountered a handful of doctors over the years that had a God complex

---

AnScAggie said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

Ulysses90 said:

---

Quote:

---

A meta-analysis of studies including over ONE MILLION total patients

---

Meta analyses you say? Back up and let's discuss the statement you made above that there is no good evidence that Ivermwctin is effective at treating or preventing COVID.

https://c19ivm.org/

---

This has been thoroughly panned and shredded here and elsewhere across the Internet. The long and short of it is many of the included studies in this meta analysis were small and poorly conducted, proven fraudulent and/or since retracted, conducted in third world countries with a myriad of flaws, etc. One of the studies has an N of 6 and was published in a local newspaper in Mumbai. That's a joke. And it's also a lie to claim they were all peer reviewed even to begin with. Again, in a world full of grift Pierre Kory is the king.

Compare that to the two in my link, in which the entire controversy between BOTH of them is one single retracted study from Italy on the basis of discrepancies in inclusion criteria. Moreover, extremely large analysis not including controversial data have shown no benefit of ivermectin.

We're just talking about entirely different classes of evidence here.

---

So you're convinced that ivermectin does not work on covid symptoms or lessen the infection because of a cohort of research that shows it does not work. Yet, you were convinced that other treatment would work based on published evidence that has since been redacted and absolutely did not work??? Here's my anecdotal observation, the only group of people I know who either never got covid, or if they did had extremely mild symptoms were those that either preemptively took ivermectin or took it when they were exposed or tested positive. Another anecdotal observation is my unvaxxed family and nearly all of my unvaxxed friends never had any complications approaching anything severe or life threatening.

If the government, medical profession, pharmaceutical industry and regulators were able to change the course of our daily lives in a matter of a few weeks or months in ways that benefited them, is it possible that they could also help to suppress data that did not fit their narrative, such as alternative treatments or even god forbid not doing anything different in our daily lives. In today's world being called a kook or conspiracy theorist should actually be considered a badge of honor, considering how wrong the people that were supposed to be actual experts were.

---

BudFox7 said:

---

People were posting their vax cards on social media like it was a badge of honor

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

tysker said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

tysker said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

tysker said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

Quote:

---

These geniuses of medicine killed untold thousands or millions with ventilators and Remdesivir.

---

This sort of stuff is what I'm talking about

---

There used to be stories by practicing medical professionals that once patients were placed on ventilators, they didn't come off. Even in the best circumstances, it's hard for patients to be weaned from ventilators.

---

That's because, generally speaking, intubation as a means of therapy for respiratory infections is a life sustaining measure performed where patients are on the brink of fatal respiratory failure. They are often in multi-organ failure and/or shock as well. These are the sickest patients many of whom will die no matter what you do.

Quote:

---

So when physicians placed their patients on vents, were they and their families informed of the risks and likelihood the patients will never be taken off?

---

Sometimes intubation is emergent, meaning that unless the patient is DNI we have to intubate them immediately or they will die. When it isn't, yes, patients and/or their families are told the risks of the procedure and whether or not we believe they will eventually be able to be extubated. I've had many talks with sick end stage COPD patients where I told them that if they get intubated they will likely either still pass away or at best ultimately require a trach and long term ventilation. Some then choose to not be intubated and proceed with comfort measures, some still want it. On the flip side, a young person with an asthma exacerbation is told we will almost certainly be able to extubated and usually relatively soon. But when possible it's an informed decision.

The issue here is the belief that there was widespread intubation of people who otherwise would have been fine without it, and that the mechanical ventilation itself is what killed them. And while it's certainly possible for an intubated patient to sustain an acute lung injury from high airway pressures (this is long established and why we monitor pressures in intubated patients) that is neither unique to covid nor the primary cause of death in anyone who is intubated.

---

Are you certain covid patients were informed of the downsides of intubation? It may not have killed them, but did it help cure them? Why was intubation considered an acceptable practice given the known outcomes?

---

As a matter of law it's required to provide informed consent when at all possible. But more to the point, there is a fundamental misunderstanding of what intubation is. The alternative to intubation in these cases is generally just death. We don't intubate people to "treat" them, not directly anyway. We intubate to buy us time to treat them by other means. We don't intubate people unless we've run out of other ways to ventilate/oxygenate them or other ways will not be adequately or provide adequate time for them to get better.

People get intubated because they are about to die of respiratory failure, not because we think it will help improve an otherwise stable patient. There's this idea that we were intubating people en masse to prevent respiratory spread or intubating them much earlier than we do for other conditions, and that just isn't true. There were certain modalities we DIDNT often use because it was associated with poor outcomes, and as the pandemic went covid patients generally actually had a HIGHER threshold to intubation because of the pressure issue we talked about. The fibrosis triggered by severe covid just made it so hard to use positive airway pressure modalities in some cases.

---

This reads to me as if the covid patients put on a vent were ostensibly dead before receiving such treatment. So, the messaging was mostly a failure? The vent wasnt a cause but a highly correlated signal.

---

Someone sick enough from covid to need intubation has a very high mortality just in that basis alone, yes.

---

tysker said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

tysker said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

tysker said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

tysker said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

Quote:

---

These geniuses of medicine killed untold thousands or millions with ventilators and Remdesivir.

---

This sort of stuff is what I'm talking about

---

There used to be stories by practicing medical professionals that once patients were placed on ventilators, they didn't come off. Even in the best circumstances, it's hard for patients to be weaned from ventilators.

---

That's because, generally speaking, intubation as a means of therapy for respiratory infections is a life sustaining measure performed where patients are on the brink of fatal respiratory failure. They are often in multi-organ failure and/or shock as well. These are the sickest patients many of whom will die no matter what you do.

Quote:

---

So when physicians placed their patients on vents, were they and their families informed of the risks and likelihood the patients will never be taken off?

---

Sometimes intubation is emergent, meaning that unless the patient is DNI we have to intubate them immediately or they will die. When it isn't, yes, patients and/or their families are told the risks of the procedure and whether or not we believe they will eventually be able to be extubated. I've had many talks with sick end stage COPD patients where I told them that if they get intubated they will likely either still pass away or at best ultimately require a trach and long term ventilation. Some then choose to not be intubated and proceed with comfort measures, some still want it. On the flip side, a young person with an asthma exacerbation is told we will almost certainly be able to extubated and usually relatively soon. But when possible it's an informed decision.

The issue here is the belief that there was widespread intubation of people who otherwise would have been fine without it, and that the mechanical ventilation itself is what killed them. And while it's certainly possible for an intubated patient to sustain an acute lung injury from high airway pressures (this is long established and why we monitor pressures in intubated patients) that is neither unique to covid nor the primary cause of death in anyone who is intubated.

---

Are you certain covid patients were informed of the downsides of intubation? It may not have killed them, but did it help cure them? Why was intubation considered an acceptable practice given the known outcomes?

---

As a matter of law it's required to provide informed consent when at all possible. But more to the point, there is a fundamental misunderstanding of what intubation is. The alternative to intubation in these cases is generally just death. We don't intubate people to "treat" them, not directly anyway. We intubate to buy us time to treat them by other means. We don't intubate people unless we've run out of other ways to ventilate/oxygenate them or other ways will not be adequately or provide adequate time for them to get better.

People get intubated because they are about to die of respiratory failure, not because we think it will help improve an otherwise stable patient. There's this idea that we were intubating people en masse to prevent respiratory spread or intubating them much earlier than we do for other conditions, and that just isn't true. There were certain modalities we DIDNT often use because it was associated with poor outcomes, and as the pandemic went covid patients generally actually had a HIGHER threshold to intubation because of the pressure issue we talked about. The fibrosis triggered by severe covid just made it so hard to use positive airway pressure modalities in some cases.

---

This reads to me as if the covid patients put on a vent were ostensibly dead before receiving such treatment. So, the messaging was mostly a failure? The vent wasnt a cause but a highly correlated signal.

---

Someone sick enough from covid to need intubation has a very high mortality just in that basis alone, yes.

---

So what the medical purpose of intubation? What was the intended outcome?

---

AnScAggie said:

---

I must be mistaken because I seem to remember your 2020-2022 posts being highly critical of OTC vitamins/nsaids, HCQ and ivermectin, and very pro vax, social distancing, mask mandates, Paxlovid, Remdesivir, ventilators, and all the rest.

---

FrioAg 00 said:

---

You talk about how difficult it is to admit you were wrong to someone who was right only for ideological reasons.

But there was, without doubt, NO group in the country who was led less by science and more by political ideology than the physicians and medical institutions.

Basic, elementary type scientific knowledge was not just ignored - but it was zealously fought against by the supposed "scientists".

What they did to children (who were almost completely unaffected) and education, the lunacy of unsealed surgical masks and cloth face coverings, the pushing of vaccines that had no chance of keeping up with a rapidly evolving respiratory virus,… there were honestly so many mistakes pushed that were obvious mistakes made in the name of liberal groupthink.

---

Quote:

---

People get intubated because they are about to die of respiratory failure, not because we think it will help improve an otherwise stable patient. There's this idea that we were intubating people en masse to prevent respiratory spread or intubating them much earlier than we do for other conditions, and that just isn't true. There were certain modalities we DIDNT often use because it was associated with poor outcomes, and as the pandemic went covid patients generally actually had a HIGHER threshold to intubation because of the pressure issue we talked about. The fibrosis triggered by severe covid just made it so hard to use positive airway pressure modalities in some cases.

---

Ulysses90 said:

---

Quote:

---

People get intubated because they are about to die of respiratory failure, not because we think it will help improve an otherwise stable patient. There's this idea that we were intubating people en masse to prevent respiratory spread or intubating them much earlier than we do for other conditions, and that just isn't true. There were certain modalities we DIDNT often use because it was associated with poor outcomes, and as the pandemic went covid patients generally actually had a HIGHER threshold to intubation because of the pressure issue we talked about. The fibrosis triggered by severe covid just made it so hard to use positive airway pressure modalities in some cases.

---

Of course, the fact that the CARES Act increases the subsidy for hospitals and nursing homes from $13,000 per admitted COVID patient to $39,000 per COVID patient that was put n a ventilator for >96 hours had no incentive effect on the course of treatment.

Nobody would stoop so low as to put a dying patient on a ventilator just to grab some CARES Act cash for their struggling hosptal that could not generate revenue from routine care and elective procedures under lockdown protocols. Such a conspirac6 of economic incentives sounds so crazy it could have come from the mouth of Thomas Sowell or Milton Friedma.

https://www.sciencealert.com/most-covid-19-deaths-may-be-the-result-of-a-completely-different-infection

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

Ulysses90 said:

---

Quote:

---

People get intubated because they are about to die of respiratory failure, not because we think it will help improve an otherwise stable patient. There's this idea that we were intubating people en masse to prevent respiratory spread or intubating them much earlier than we do for other conditions, and that just isn't true. There were certain modalities we DIDNT often use because it was associated with poor outcomes, and as the pandemic went covid patients generally actually had a HIGHER threshold to intubation because of the pressure issue we talked about. The fibrosis triggered by severe covid just made it so hard to use positive airway pressure modalities in some cases.

---

Of course, the fact that the CARES Act increases the subsidy for hospitals and nursing homes from $13,000 per admitted COVID patient to $39,000 per COVID patient that was put n a ventilator for >96 hours had no incentive effect on the course of treatment.

Nobody would stoop so low as to put a dying patient on a ventilator just to grab some CARES Act cash for their struggling hosptal that could not generate revenue from routine care and elective procedures under lockdown protocols. Such a conspirac6 of economic incentives sounds so crazy it could have come from the mouth of Thomas Sowell or Milton Friedma.

https://www.sciencealert.com/most-covid-19-deaths-may-be-the-result-of-a-completely-different-infection

---

One, most doctors have no idea about any of this. Hospital reimbursement is something entirely foreign to almost everyone who actually sees patients.

Two, literally no physician has ever intubated a patient because it might make the hospital more money. That just doesn't happen.

Finally, what else would you do with a dying covid patient that still wants everything done? Let them suffocate the get sued into oblivion and lose your license? You have no idea how any of this works.

---

captkirk said:

---

LOL

Peer-Reviewed Study: 'The Higher the Number of Vaccines Previously Received, the Higher the Risk of Contracting COVID-19'

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/benbartee/2023/05/30/peer-reviewed-study-the-higher-the-number-of-vaccines-previously-received-the-higher-the-risk-of-contracting-covid-19-n1699197

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

tysker said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

tysker said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

tysker said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

tysker said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

Quote:

---

These geniuses of medicine killed untold thousands or millions with ventilators and Remdesivir.

---

This sort of stuff is what I'm talking about

---

There used to be stories by practicing medical professionals that once patients were placed on ventilators, they didn't come off. Even in the best circumstances, it's hard for patients to be weaned from ventilators.

---

That's because, generally speaking, intubation as a means of therapy for respiratory infections is a life sustaining measure performed where patients are on the brink of fatal respiratory failure. They are often in multi-organ failure and/or shock as well. These are the sickest patients many of whom will die no matter what you do.

Quote:

---

So when physicians placed their patients on vents, were they and their families informed of the risks and likelihood the patients will never be taken off?

---

Sometimes intubation is emergent, meaning that unless the patient is DNI we have to intubate them immediately or they will die. When it isn't, yes, patients and/or their families are told the risks of the procedure and whether or not we believe they will eventually be able to be extubated. I've had many talks with sick end stage COPD patients where I told them that if they get intubated they will likely either still pass away or at best ultimately require a trach and long term ventilation. Some then choose to not be intubated and proceed with comfort measures, some still want it. On the flip side, a young person with an asthma exacerbation is told we will almost certainly be able to extubated and usually relatively soon. But when possible it's an informed decision.

The issue here is the belief that there was widespread intubation of people who otherwise would have been fine without it, and that the mechanical ventilation itself is what killed them. And while it's certainly possible for an intubated patient to sustain an acute lung injury from high airway pressures (this is long established and why we monitor pressures in intubated patients) that is neither unique to covid nor the primary cause of death in anyone who is intubated.

---

Are you certain covid patients were informed of the downsides of intubation? It may not have killed them, but did it help cure them? Why was intubation considered an acceptable practice given the known outcomes?

---

As a matter of law it's required to provide informed consent when at all possible. But more to the point, there is a fundamental misunderstanding of what intubation is. The alternative to intubation in these cases is generally just death. We don't intubate people to "treat" them, not directly anyway. We intubate to buy us time to treat them by other means. We don't intubate people unless we've run out of other ways to ventilate/oxygenate them or other ways will not be adequately or provide adequate time for them to get better.

People get intubated because they are about to die of respiratory failure, not because we think it will help improve an otherwise stable patient. There's this idea that we were intubating people en masse to prevent respiratory spread or intubating them much earlier than we do for other conditions, and that just isn't true. There were certain modalities we DIDNT often use because it was associated with poor outcomes, and as the pandemic went covid patients generally actually had a HIGHER threshold to intubation because of the pressure issue we talked about. The fibrosis triggered by severe covid just made it so hard to use positive airway pressure modalities in some cases.

---

This reads to me as if the covid patients put on a vent were ostensibly dead before receiving such treatment. So, the messaging was mostly a failure? The vent wasnt a cause but a highly correlated signal.

---

Someone sick enough from covid to need intubation has a very high mortality just in that basis alone, yes.

---

So what the medical purpose of intubation? What was the intended outcome?

---

To keep them from dying in the moment. We don't just allow people to suffocate to death, unless they have said no to further measures in which case we make them as comfortable as possible per their wishes. But we effectively have to intubate people who are otherwise going to die unless they or their family tells us not to.

---

FriscoKid said:

---

And blue star for you. What you said above is 100% my viewpoint too. Ivermectin will be proven to have been somewhat effective on COVID.

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

Ulysses90 said:

---

Quote:

---

People get intubated because they are about to die of respiratory failure, not because we think it will help improve an otherwise stable patient. There's this idea that we were intubating people en masse to prevent respiratory spread or intubating them much earlier than we do for other conditions, and that just isn't true. There were certain modalities we DIDNT often use because it was associated with poor outcomes, and as the pandemic went covid patients generally actually had a HIGHER threshold to intubation because of the pressure issue we talked about. The fibrosis triggered by severe covid just made it so hard to use positive airway pressure modalities in some cases.

---

Of course, the fact that the CARES Act increases the subsidy for hospitals and nursing homes from $13,000 per admitted COVID patient to $39,000 per COVID patient that was put n a ventilator for >96 hours had no incentive effect on the course of treatment.

Nobody would stoop so low as to put a dying patient on a ventilator just to grab some CARES Act cash for their struggling hosptal that could not generate revenue from routine care and elective procedures under lockdown protocols. Such a conspirac6 of economic incentives sounds so crazy it could have come from the mouth of Thomas Sowell or Milton Friedma.

https://www.sciencealert.com/most-covid-19-deaths-may-be-the-result-of-a-completely-different-infection

---

One, most doctors have no idea about any of this. Hospital reimbursement is something entirely foreign to almost everyone who actually sees patients.

Two, literally no physician has ever intubated a patient because it might make the hospital more money. That just doesn't happen.

Finally, what else would you do with a dying covid patient that still wants everything done? Let them suffocate the get sued into oblivion and lose your license? You have no idea how any of this works.

---

OPAG said:

---

And aggressively so, as well as extremely arrogant and downright nasty like the other Covidians.

I from day one was on this for reasons outside of the medical field. I knew where this came from, knew what it was and as I had lived in Bahrain, had an early exposure to it.

I also knew the WHO was extremely corrupt. That Big Pharma's own, the FDA, the CDC, and the NIH.

I also knew that Bill Gates and the Gates Foundation along with the Rockfeller foundation had basically taken over the AMA, medical schools and more importantly where the one's giving the money for grants.

I was also privy to an early attempted study by the Henry Ford Institute that sought to do a thorough test on HCQ early in the game and they were absolutely shut down and not only shut down but threatened.

I knew who Michael Yeadon was, I knew who Luc Montaiiner was. I knew who Robert Malone was. I watch Inf 11 take the same ad hominen attacks on them that he does now with Kory.

I also have just a few high level virologist and epidemiologist as friends, most are Chinese. some were knowledgeable of what was going on in Wuhan.

I knew from the before the onset that this was a gain of function man altered virous.

I knew that Francis Collins had told Fauci to censor various "fringe scientist' (even though they were high level reputable scientist until they kicked against this BS)

I called it Nazi because that is exactly what it was and still is. and nobody was more Nazish than Infection.

Yet, I was the kook right? Hmmmm, I don't think so.

I have had a number of people either thank me for educating and warning them, so they did not take this Nazi vac (which we still have no idea about what long term effects there may be) which includes my whole family and wife's family and half of my side. And there have been a few that told me they wished they had listened to me and now they are afraid of unknown possible health ramifications (OF WHICH THERE ARE MANY). I have seen more die or been severely injured by reaction to the Nazi vax - than I saw massively impacted by Covid which I did get and got through in 3 days. then by Covid. It was a Plandemic.

I know that I will be at peace when I stand before the one whose final judgements will really count (GOD, specifically Father of Jesus Christ)

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

Ulysses90 said:

---

Quote:

---

A meta-analysis of studies including over ONE MILLION total patients

---

Meta analyses you say? Back up and let's discuss the statement you made above that there is no good evidence that Ivermwctin is effective at treating or preventing COVID.

https://c19ivm.org/

---

This has been thoroughly panned and shredded here and elsewhere across the Internet. The long and short of it is many of the included studies in this meta analysis were small and poorly conducted, proven fraudulent and/or since retracted, conducted in third world countries with a myriad of flaws, etc. One of the studies has an N of 6 and was published in a local newspaper in Mumbai. That's a joke. And it's also a lie to claim they were all peer reviewed even to begin with. Again, in a world full of grift Pierre Kory is the king.

Compare that to the two in my link, in which the entire controversy between BOTH of them is one single retracted study from Italy on the basis of discrepancies in inclusion criteria. Moreover, extremely large analysis not including controversial data have shown no benefit of ivermectin.

We're just talking about entirely different classes of evidence here.

---