Peer reviewed study. The Horse Paste works

[Mr. Impossible 410]

1 hour ago, Cooke said:

Explain how they benefit goukosan? The drug is literally cheaper than the packing it comes in. 

 

The conflict of interest comes from big Pharma trying to bury it so they can sell remdesevir and molnupiravir for 300/800 dollars per dose instead of 3 cents a dose.

 

Are you starting to see the bigger picture now sweetie?  

 

I have no idea about the efficacy of this but it's beyond retarded to say "how can someone selling something benefit... from selling more of it." Even if it's cheap. It's like you have to say something stupid no matter the situation. 

[Cooke 2,030]

3 minutes ago, Mr. Impossible said:

 

I have no idea about the efficacy of this but it's beyond retarded to say "how can someone selling something benefit... from selling more of it." Even if it's cheap. It's like you have to say something stupid no matter the situation. 

They aren't SELLING it. There is no financial gain. It's a generic drug. These doctors arent making the drug, and even if they were, 1 dose of molnipiravir is equal to over 26000 doses of ivermectin.  Both have similar efficacy rates and safety profile. Both have similar methods of action too. 

Edited March 9, 2022 by Cooke

[jehurey 3,238]

1 hour ago, Cooke said:

They aren't SELLING it. There is no financial gain. It's a generic drug. These doctors arent making the drug, and even if they were, 1 dose of molnipiravir is equal to over 26000 doses of ivermectin.  Both have similar efficacy rates and safety profile. Both have similar methods of action too. 

If they are part of a business group that promotes it.............they are making money from it.

 

It could be purely marketing money.

 

Its amazing..........because people like you talk about how Doctors and Hospitals are in cahoots with the pharmaceutical companies.

The DOCTORS THEMSELVES aren't directly selling the drugs, right?  So according to your logic, they don't benefit, right?

 

Except for all the stories we've heard of doctors getting paid under the table, free gifts, free vacations, basically money laundering.

 

................but this Ivermectin group..........................nnnnnnnnnaaaaaaaaaaawwww, no such thing could ever happen.

 

Another cooke thread where it completely backfired and everybody ran a train on him. LOL

[Cooke 2,030]

1 hour ago, jehurey said:

If they are part of a business group that promotes it.............they are making money from it.

 

It could be purely marketing money.

 

Its amazing..........because people like you talk about how Doctors and Hospitals are in cahoots with the pharmaceutical companies.

The DOCTORS THEMSELVES aren't directly selling the drugs, right?  So according to your logic, they don't benefit, right?

 

Except for all the stories we've heard of doctors getting paid under the table, free gifts, free vacations, basically money laundering.

 

................but this Ivermectin group..........................nnnnnnnnnaaaaaaaaaaawwww, no such thing could ever happen.

 

Another cooke thread where it completely backfired and everybody ran a train on him. LOL

What business group? Wtf are you even talking about? God you're dumber than I thought. Is this your game? When you can't bullshit you're way out of an discussion you just act like a crazy person with nonsensical sentences and emojis?

 

The FLCCC is the Front line Covid Critical Care. It is a non profit medical group that was formed VERY early in the pandemic to come up with viable methods to treat covid patients before any known antivirals or vaccines existed. Oh teh conflicts of interest. Ya dumb shit. 

Edited March 9, 2022 by Cooke

[jehurey 3,238]

40 minutes ago, Cooke said:

What business group? Wtf are you even talking about? God you're dumber than I thought. Is this your game? When you can't bullshit you're way out of an discussion you just act like a crazy person with nonsensical sentences and emojis?

 

 

sweetie, he's part of multiple groups, as mentioned in the comment that I showed you yesterday (and that I've showed from my very first post).

[Cooke 2,030]

1 hour ago, jehurey said:

sweetie, he's part of multiple groups, as mentioned in the comment that I showed you yesterday (and that I've showed from my very first post).

A comment? A comment from who? Did you peer review the comment? Is it supported by evidence?  Come on! Post the evidence jehurey! I dare you! 

 

Lol is so fun to talk like you. 

[jehurey 3,238]

2 hours ago, Cooke said:

A comment? A comment from who? Did you peer review the comment?

the study isn't peer reviewed by anybody reputable.

 

and congratulations on trying to trash the comment.................because that also means you're trashing the "online free medical journal" website that also isn't reputable.

[Cooke 2,030]

1 hour ago, jehurey said:

the study isn't peer reviewed by anybody reputable.

 

and congratulations on trying to trash the comment.................because that also means you're trashing the "online free medical journal" website that also isn't reputable.

The comment has far less value. Might as well have been you that wrote it. 

[jehurey 3,238]

3 minutes ago, Cooke said:

The comment has far less value. Might as well have been you that wrote it. 

Then prove the commenter wrong.

 

 

[Cooke 2,030]

11 hours ago, jehurey said:

Then prove the commenter wrong.

 

 

Why? You didn't prove the study wrong by posting a random comment. 

[jehurey 3,238]

3 hours ago, Cooke said:

Why? You didn't prove the study wrong by posting a random comment. 

Yes I did.

 

The commenter pointed out that the authors of the study have an obvious conflict of interest.

 

Now go ahead and prove that the authors are not in an Ivermectin organization.

 

C'mon, lets see it.

[Cooke 2,030]

32 minutes ago, jehurey said:

Yes I did.

 

The commenter pointed out that the authors of the study have an obvious conflict of interest.

 

Now go ahead and prove that the authors are not in an Ivermectin organization.

 

C'mon, lets see it.

An ivermectin organization?  😂

[Cooke 2,030]

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1201971221009887#

 

Ooo another one. 

 

Treatment with Ivermectin Is Associated with Decreased Mortality in COVID-19 Patients: Analysis of a National Federated Database

Author links open overlay panelI.Efimenko1S.Nackeeran2S.Jabori3J.A. GonzalezZamora4S.Danker3D.Singh1

1

University of Miami, Plastic Surgery, Miami, United States

2

University of Miami, Urology, Miami, United States

3

University of Miami, Plastic Surgery, Miami, United States

4

University of Miami, Infectious Diseases, Miami, United States

 

Results

There were a total of 1,761,060 possible COVID-19 patients based on ICD-10 diagnostic terms and confirmatory lab results. Prior to controlling, our analysis yielded 41,608 patients who had COVID-19 resulting in two unique cohorts that were treated with either ivermectin (1,072) or remdesivir (40,536). Within the ivermectin cohort, average age was 51.9 + 17.8 years, 43% were male, 60% had glucocorticoids and 1% required ventilator support. In the remdesivir cohort, average age was 62.0 + 16.0 years, 54% were male, 64% had glucocorticoids and 2% required ventilator support. After using propensity score matching and adjusting for potential confounders, ivermectin was associated with reduced mortality vs remdesivir (OR 0.308, 95% CI (0.198,0.479)),Risk Difference -5.224%, CI (-7.079%,-3.369%), p <0.0001.

 

Conclusion

 

Ivermectin use was associated with decreased mortality in patients with COVID-19 compared to remdesivir. To our knowledge, this is the largest association study of patients with COVID-19, mortality and ivermectin. Further double-blinded placebo-controlled RCTs with large samples are required for definite conclusion. In the future, if more publications are published with the similar result to the current analyses, the certainty of evidence will increase.

 

 

[jehurey 3,238]

20 minutes ago, Cooke said:

An ivermectin organization?  😂

yeah

 

so where's your counter-evidence to this?

16 minutes ago, Cooke said:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1201971221009887#

 

Ooo another one. 

 

Treatment with Ivermectin Is Associated with Decreased Mortality in COVID-19 Patients: Analysis of a National Federated Database

Author links open overlay panelI.Efimenko1S.Nackeeran2S.Jabori3J.A. GonzalezZamora4S.Danker3D.Singh1

1

University of Miami, Plastic Surgery, Miami, United States

2

University of Miami, Urology, Miami, United States

3

University of Miami, Plastic Surgery, Miami, United States

4

University of Miami, Infectious Diseases, Miami, United States

 

Results

There were a total of 1,761,060 possible COVID-19 patients based on ICD-10 diagnostic terms and confirmatory lab results. Prior to controlling, our analysis yielded 41,608 patients who had COVID-19 resulting in two unique cohorts that were treated with either ivermectin (1,072) or remdesivir (40,536). Within the ivermectin cohort, average age was 51.9 + 17.8 years, 43% were male, 60% had glucocorticoids and 1% required ventilator support. In the remdesivir cohort, average age was 62.0 + 16.0 years, 54% were male, 64% had glucocorticoids and 2% required ventilator support. After using propensity score matching and adjusting for potential confounders, ivermectin was associated with reduced mortality vs remdesivir (OR 0.308, 95% CI (0.198,0.479)),Risk Difference -5.224%, CI (-7.079%,-3.369%), p <0.0001.

 

Conclusion

 

Ivermectin use was associated with decreased mortality in patients with COVID-19 compared to remdesivir. To our knowledge, this is the largest association study of patients with COVID-19, mortality and ivermectin. Further double-blinded placebo-controlled RCTs with large samples are required for definite conclusion. In the future, if more publications are published with the similar result to the current analyses, the certainty of evidence will increase.

 

 

Cool, was it peer reviewed?

 

And also they were comparing it to remdesivir, and said it fared better than remdesivir.

 

Which has mixed results when patients are already hospitalized, and its only real effectiveness is when it is given VERY early to people who had been infected.

 

So........the study is that Ivermectin is relatively better than something that isn't useful when you areadly have serious COVID........and its only a TREATMENT, and never considered a "cure."

[Cooke 2,030]

3 minutes ago, jehurey said:

yeah

 

so where's your counter-evidence to this?

Cool, was it peer reviewed?

 

And also they were comparing it to remdesivir, and said it fared better than remdesivir.

 

Which has mixed results when patients are already hospitalized, and its only real effectiveness is when it is given VERY early to people who had been infected.

 

So........the study is that Ivermectin is relatively better than something that isn't useful when you areadly have serious COVID........and its only a TREATMENT, and never considered a "cure."

Jehurey, what's you're end game here? You just don't want a very cheap widely available drug to work? Do you have money in Moderna or something? Like I don't get this mentality. 

 

I never said it was a cure. It's a treatment, of course. A course of remdesevir costs 300 dollars. A course of ivermectin costs 0.003. Why wouldn't you want this to work? Healthcare costs are extremely high, here's a partial solution for something. 

 

Sorry but I can't take any of your counter arguments in good faith because you go through mental gymnastics to try to disprove scientific studies based on nothings

Edited March 10, 2022 by Cooke

[jehurey 3,238]

3 minutes ago, Cooke said:

Jehurey, what's you're end game here?

Sorry, you're not changing the topic over to me.

 

Prove what's been asked of you, or else you have unsubstantiated studies that don't mean shit.

 

This is now the fourth time you've been challenged to ACTUALLY PROVE what you are claiming.

 

So go do it.

[Cooke 2,030]

2 minutes ago, jehurey said:

Sorry, you're not changing the topic over to me.

 

Prove what's been asked of you, or else you have unsubstantiated studies that don't mean shit.

 

This is now the fourth time you've been challenged to ACTUALLY PROVE what you are claiming.

 

So go do it.

If the scientific studies don't prove it for you then I don't know what to say. Believe what you want. Or follow the science. At this point you're just talking in circles. 

[jehurey 3,238]

Just now, Cooke said:

If the scientific studies don't prove it for you then I don't know what to say.

then you just advocated for the mRNA vaccines, then.

 

Much more studies.

 

Much more peer-review

 

From much-more credible institutions.

 

With even better and definitive results.

 

This is where you going to demonstrate how you're a hypocrite, and we are going to see your REAL AGENDA right here.

[Cooke 2,030]

35 minutes ago, jehurey said:

then you just advocated for the mRNA vaccines, then.

 

Much more studies.

 

Much more peer-review

 

From much-more credible institutions.

 

With even better and definitive results.

 

This is where you going to demonstrate how you're a hypocrite, and we are going to see your REAL AGENDA right here.

And then you just have to ask yourself why it happened the way it did. No one would have made a profit if we just use off label medications to treat covid. The vaccines generated 10s of billions of dollars and gave way to a new form of vaccine in mRNA technology without needing to go through rigorous long term testing like they would normally have to do. FDA approvals used to take 5-10 years, these were approved in a matter of months. Meanwhile we have this other medication that has a long term safe history profile that has been used by humans billions of times. Yet the media comes out and calls it horse paste, dangerous, etc etc. Even made up news stories about gun shot victims not getting treatment at an Ohio hospital. 

 

Which was instantly debunked by the way, yet Rachel Maddow went ahead and promoted that story after its was retracted by the rolling Stone. 

 

Why the concerted effort at all levels to try to smear this medication? The answer is money. You already know this though. 

 

Oh yeah and we can't forget the reaction to these vaccines when it was Trump taking about them can we? Basically everything he talked about the media has to take the opposite approach. Unfortunately he mentioned ivermectin. 

Edited March 10, 2022 by Cooke

[jehurey 3,238]

2 hours ago, Cooke said:

And then you just have to ask yourself why it happened the way it did. No one would have made a profit if we just use off label medications to treat covid.

No, for starters remdesivir is a medication used for other ailments, and if 300 FUCKING MILLION PEOPLE SUDDENLY NEED TO TAKE SOMETHING.

 

you

honestly'

think

that

doesn't

affect

the

price
of

something

??????

 

In a free-market capitalistic society?

 

Are you stupid?

 

No seriously.

 

Are. You. Actually. Stupid?