I believe you've also expressed strong anti-vaccine views?
-
-
Replying to @GidMK @GabinJean3
Anyway, at a certain point promoting an unproven treatment based largely on fraudulent research rather than the demonstrably effective vaccines is an explicit choice rather than some sort of vague accident
3 replies 11 retweets 51 likes -
At a certain point, those denying early COVID Treatments, including Ivermectin, fall into one of two categories: 1. An academic incompetent 2. An academic fraud (intentional) The Medical Administrators & bureaucrats are almost always frauds.
#ableghttps://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/fulltext/2021/08000/ivermectin_for_prevention_and_treatment_of.7.aspx …2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
The interesting thing about that particular study is that it has not updated to exclude the obvious fraud, but it also includes at least one more fraudulent study that we have not yet gone public about
2 replies 1 retweet 6 likes -
Help me our here. I can’t tell whether your saying ivermectin works or doesn’t work?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jslocum1coxnet1 @MakisMD and
My opinion is that the evidence is not sufficient to determine a conclusion. Currently, the evidence is consistent with a potential modest benefit as well as modest harm, while the studies arguing for large benefits appear to be incredibly bad or outright fraud
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @jslocum1coxnet1 and
Ivermectine-covid.ch Retweeted Ivermectine-covid.ch
Overall, we don't disagree with the fact there is indeed some very limited quality studies. But it seems you are running wayyy behind on the litterature. What about the positive prophylaxis studies? There are some pretty decent ones out there.https://twitter.com/GabinJean3/status/1433763403093401604 …
Ivermectine-covid.ch added,
Ivermectine-covid.ch @GabinJean3Un an plus tard, Health Nerd découvre que l'étude pionnière d'Hector Carvallo est effectivement de qualité assez médiocre. Peut-être qu'en 2022, il découvrira les essais de Behera https://c19ivermectin.com/behera2.html et de Shouman https://c19ivermectin.com/shouman.html qui confirmèrent 85% d'efficacité https://twitter.com/GidMK/status/1433555208211079171 … pic.twitter.com/cnpjy4riKoShow this thread1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @GabinJean3 @jslocum1coxnet1 and
If you cannot see why the Behera and Shouman studies are of astonishingly low quality, I must assume you have not read them
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @GidMK @jslocum1coxnet1 and
Well, I'm waiting for your demonstration.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GabinJean3 @jslocum1coxnet1 and
Lol, well Shouman had very large differences at baseline between groups, which is almost certainly because they report totally destroying their own randomisation schedule halfway through their trial. And that's just the *start*
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
There are so many issues at this point I just assume people who trust these studies haven't actually read them 
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.