LaxPower Back-Up Stick

wgdsr wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 11:33 am

NattyBohChamps04 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 11:10 am

wgdsr wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 9:16 ameffective or not isn't the vernacular. and any other non rcts don't really count unless it's masks.

Does the large scale, peer-reviewed rct on masks count?

nice, you found it. peer reviewed where?

wgdsr wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 11:44 am not so weird seeing as how i used the word you wanted via google?

i'm not trying to be pedantic. as an example, that ivercore study never used that word, it was "had no significant effect". and btb, part of that is because their initial calculations of hospitalizations the study would see was off.
because? it can be argued it was underpowered. and with young people. and other reasons. who says so? the ivercore study does.
and what was that ineffective actual number? a reduction of 35% in hospitalizations.

so it sounds like you are in agreement with me. we need those higher powered trials stat. in the meantime, agree i hope we can find something in the meantime.

Bart wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 10:01 am

wgdsr wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 9:16 am

NattyBohChamps04 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 8:52 am

youthathletics wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 7:17 am

wgdsr wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 6:54 am https://wset.com/news/coronavirus/iverm ... treatments

Heads are going to explode if the find a positive outcome.

Not really. It would be one positive outcome and a lot of ineffective outcomes. Which would just mean more studies are needed.

If it's yet another study showing it's not effective in the real world, will you accept it?

if your standard is "effective", there have been plenty of both. any (all?) rcts have been small, not noteworthy. so "low or very low certainty". effective or not isn't the vernacular. and any other non rcts don't really count unless it's masks.

i suspect this one won't be any different. so we'll accept it for what it is. maybe merck found some more pills to send out to principle.

Here is the latest: make of it what you will.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamain ... le/2789362

NattyBohChamps04 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 12:05 pm

wgdsr wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 11:44 am not so weird seeing as how i used the word you wanted via google?

i'm not trying to be pedantic. as an example, that ivercore study never used that word, it was "had no significant effect". and btb, part of that is because their initial calculations of hospitalizations the study would see was off.
because? it can be argued it was underpowered. and with young people. and other reasons. who says so? the ivercore study does.
and what was that ineffective actual number? a reduction of 35% in hospitalizations.

so it sounds like you are in agreement with me. we need those higher powered trials stat. in the meantime, agree i hope we can find something in the meantime.

We generally only move forward with additional trials if something shows promise. It's not worth spending resources when there are other tons of other things out there to test. Ivermectin is highly politicized, so it's getting a lot more attention and testing than it would have otherwise.

It's nice that we have been able to find a number of things that prevent and treat COVID until Ivermectin somehow becomes effective. Maybe we'll finally get it under control once Ivermectin is found to be effective.

NattyBohChamps04 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 12:02 pm

wgdsr wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 11:33 am

NattyBohChamps04 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 11:10 am

wgdsr wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 9:16 ameffective or not isn't the vernacular. and any other non rcts don't really count unless it's masks.

Does the large scale, peer-reviewed rct on masks count?

nice, you found it. peer reviewed where?

By the expert peers of the various journals it was published in. That's how reputable journals work - they send them out for peer review before publishing.

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 12:26 pm

NattyBohChamps04 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 12:05 pm

wgdsr wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 11:44 am not so weird seeing as how i used the word you wanted via google?

i'm not trying to be pedantic. as an example, that ivercore study never used that word, it was "had no significant effect". and btb, part of that is because their initial calculations of hospitalizations the study would see was off.
because? it can be argued it was underpowered. and with young people. and other reasons. who says so? the ivercore study does.
and what was that ineffective actual number? a reduction of 35% in hospitalizations.

so it sounds like you are in agreement with me. we need those higher powered trials stat. in the meantime, agree i hope we can find something in the meantime.

We generally only move forward with additional trials if something shows promise. It's not worth spending resources when there are other tons of other things out there to test. Ivermectin is highly politicized, so it's getting a lot more attention and testing than it would have otherwise.

It's nice that we have been able to find a number of things that prevent and treat COVID until Ivermectin somehow becomes effective. Maybe we'll finally get it under control once Ivermectin is found to be effective.

No more masks and Ivermectin and this thing is done. We should have been out of it Summer of 2021 if Old Joe and Fauci had listened. Soros and Gates probably have money tied up in masks and vaccines.

wgdsr wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 12:31 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 12:26 pm

NattyBohChamps04 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 12:05 pm

wgdsr wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 11:44 am not so weird seeing as how i used the word you wanted via google?

i'm not trying to be pedantic. as an example, that ivercore study never used that word, it was "had no significant effect". and btb, part of that is because their initial calculations of hospitalizations the study would see was off.
because? it can be argued it was underpowered. and with young people. and other reasons. who says so? the ivercore study does.
and what was that ineffective actual number? a reduction of 35% in hospitalizations.

so it sounds like you are in agreement with me. we need those higher powered trials stat. in the meantime, agree i hope we can find something in the meantime.

We generally only move forward with additional trials if something shows promise. It's not worth spending resources when there are other tons of other things out there to test. Ivermectin is highly politicized, so it's getting a lot more attention and testing than it would have otherwise.

It's nice that we have been able to find a number of things that prevent and treat COVID until Ivermectin somehow becomes effective. Maybe we'll finally get it under control once Ivermectin is found to be effective.

No more masks and Ivermectin and this thing is done. We should have been out of it Summer of 2021 if Old Joe and Fauci had listened. Soros and Gates probably have money tied up in masks and vaccines.

you forgot respectively at the end of the last sentence.

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 12:32 pm

wgdsr wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 12:31 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 12:26 pm

NattyBohChamps04 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 12:05 pm

wgdsr wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 11:44 am not so weird seeing as how i used the word you wanted via google?

i'm not trying to be pedantic. as an example, that ivercore study never used that word, it was "had no significant effect". and btb, part of that is because their initial calculations of hospitalizations the study would see was off.
because? it can be argued it was underpowered. and with young people. and other reasons. who says so? the ivercore study does.
and what was that ineffective actual number? a reduction of 35% in hospitalizations.

so it sounds like you are in agreement with me. we need those higher powered trials stat. in the meantime, agree i hope we can find something in the meantime.

We generally only move forward with additional trials if something shows promise. It's not worth spending resources when there are other tons of other things out there to test. Ivermectin is highly politicized, so it's getting a lot more attention and testing than it would have otherwise.

It's nice that we have been able to find a number of things that prevent and treat COVID until Ivermectin somehow becomes effective. Maybe we'll finally get it under control once Ivermectin is found to be effective.

No more masks and Ivermectin and this thing is done. We should have been out of it Summer of 2021 if Old Joe and Fauci had listened. Soros and Gates probably have money tied up in masks and vaccines.

you forgot respectively at the end of the last sentence.

My bad….and I forgot to add The Clinton Foundation.

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 12:32 pm

wgdsr wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 12:31 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 12:26 pm

NattyBohChamps04 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 12:05 pm

wgdsr wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 11:44 am not so weird seeing as how i used the word you wanted via google?

i'm not trying to be pedantic. as an example, that ivercore study never used that word, it was "had no significant effect". and btb, part of that is because their initial calculations of hospitalizations the study would see was off.
because? it can be argued it was underpowered. and with young people. and other reasons. who says so? the ivercore study does.
and what was that ineffective actual number? a reduction of 35% in hospitalizations.

so it sounds like you are in agreement with me. we need those higher powered trials stat. in the meantime, agree i hope we can find something in the meantime.

We generally only move forward with additional trials if something shows promise. It's not worth spending resources when there are other tons of other things out there to test. Ivermectin is highly politicized, so it's getting a lot more attention and testing than it would have otherwise.

It's nice that we have been able to find a number of things that prevent and treat COVID until Ivermectin somehow becomes effective. Maybe we'll finally get it under control once Ivermectin is found to be effective.

No more masks and Ivermectin and this thing is done. We should have been out of it Summer of 2021 if Old Joe and Fauci had listened. Soros and Gates probably have money tied up in masks and vaccines.

you forgot respectively at the end of the last sentence.

My bad….and I forgot to add The Clinton Foundation.

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 12:42 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 12:32 pm

wgdsr wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 12:31 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 12:26 pm

NattyBohChamps04 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 12:05 pm

wgdsr wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 11:44 am not so weird seeing as how i used the word you wanted via google?

i'm not trying to be pedantic. as an example, that ivercore study never used that word, it was "had no significant effect". and btb, part of that is because their initial calculations of hospitalizations the study would see was off.
because? it can be argued it was underpowered. and with young people. and other reasons. who says so? the ivercore study does.
and what was that ineffective actual number? a reduction of 35% in hospitalizations.

so it sounds like you are in agreement with me. we need those higher powered trials stat. in the meantime, agree i hope we can find something in the meantime.

We generally only move forward with additional trials if something shows promise. It's not worth spending resources when there are other tons of other things out there to test. Ivermectin is highly politicized, so it's getting a lot more attention and testing than it would have otherwise.

It's nice that we have been able to find a number of things that prevent and treat COVID until Ivermectin somehow becomes effective. Maybe we'll finally get it under control once Ivermectin is found to be effective.

No more masks and Ivermectin and this thing is done. We should have been out of it Summer of 2021 if Old Joe and Fauci had listened. Soros and Gates probably have money tied up in masks and vaccines.

you forgot respectively at the end of the last sentence.

My bad….and I forgot to add The Clinton Foundation.

And Hollywood and coastal elites.

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 12:48 pm

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 12:42 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 12:32 pm

wgdsr wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 12:31 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 12:26 pm

NattyBohChamps04 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 12:05 pm

wgdsr wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 11:44 am not so weird seeing as how i used the word you wanted via google?

i'm not trying to be pedantic. as an example, that ivercore study never used that word, it was "had no significant effect". and btb, part of that is because their initial calculations of hospitalizations the study would see was off.
because? it can be argued it was underpowered. and with young people. and other reasons. who says so? the ivercore study does.
and what was that ineffective actual number? a reduction of 35% in hospitalizations.

so it sounds like you are in agreement with me. we need those higher powered trials stat. in the meantime, agree i hope we can find something in the meantime.

We generally only move forward with additional trials if something shows promise. It's not worth spending resources when there are other tons of other things out there to test. Ivermectin is highly politicized, so it's getting a lot more attention and testing than it would have otherwise.

It's nice that we have been able to find a number of things that prevent and treat COVID until Ivermectin somehow becomes effective. Maybe we'll finally get it under control once Ivermectin is found to be effective.

No more masks and Ivermectin and this thing is done. We should have been out of it Summer of 2021 if Old Joe and Fauci had listened. Soros and Gates probably have money tied up in masks and vaccines.

you forgot respectively at the end of the last sentence.

My bad….and I forgot to add The Clinton Foundation.

And Hollywood and coastal elites.

And Maxine Waters

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 6:03 pm https://www.pharmtech.com/view/ema-inve ... 9-vaccines

EMA Investigating Reports of Menstrual Irregularities with COVID-19 Vaccines
February 16, 2022
Pharmaceutical Technology Editors


he European Medicines Agency (EMA) announced on Feb. 11, 2022 that its Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) is assessing reports of heavy menstrual bleeding and lack of menstruation associated with COVID-19 vaccines Comirnaty and Spikevax. Previous reports of period disorders were analyzed in the safety summary reports for COVID-19 vaccines approved in the European Union. It was concluded that evidence at the time did not support a causal link between the vaccines and menstrual disorders.

PRAC has requested an in-depth evaluation of available data from spontaneous reporting systems, clinical trials, and published literature after spontaneous reports of menstrual disorders with both vaccines. “At this stage, it is not yet clear whether there is a causal link between the COVID-19 vaccines and the reports of heavy periods or amenorrhea. There is also no evidence to suggest that COVID-19 vaccines affect fertility,” the agency stated in a press release.

There IS just so much we don't know about trumps fake "vaccine" and what it does to our reproductive system............take that back, we DO know that the CDC changed the meaning of "vaccine". gee......why

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 6:03 pm https://www.pharmtech.com/view/ema-inve ... 9-vaccines

EMA Investigating Reports of Menstrual Irregularities with COVID-19 Vaccines
February 16, 2022
Pharmaceutical Technology Editors


he European Medicines Agency (EMA) announced on Feb. 11, 2022 that its Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) is assessing reports of heavy menstrual bleeding and lack of menstruation associated with COVID-19 vaccines Comirnaty and Spikevax. Previous reports of period disorders were analyzed in the safety summary reports for COVID-19 vaccines approved in the European Union. It was concluded that evidence at the time did not support a causal link between the vaccines and menstrual disorders.

PRAC has requested an in-depth evaluation of available data from spontaneous reporting systems, clinical trials, and published literature after spontaneous reports of menstrual disorders with both vaccines. “At this stage, it is not yet clear whether there is a causal link between the COVID-19 vaccines and the reports of heavy periods or amenorrhea. There is also no evidence to suggest that COVID-19 vaccines affect fertility,” the agency stated in a press release.

There IS just so much we don't know about trumps fake "vaccine" and what it does to our reproductive system............take that back, we DO know that the CDC changed the meaning of "vaccine". gee......why

youthathletics wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 6:34 pm

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 6:03 pm https://www.pharmtech.com/view/ema-inve ... 9-vaccines

EMA Investigating Reports of Menstrual Irregularities with COVID-19 Vaccines
February 16, 2022
Pharmaceutical Technology Editors


he European Medicines Agency (EMA) announced on Feb. 11, 2022 that its Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) is assessing reports of heavy menstrual bleeding and lack of menstruation associated with COVID-19 vaccines Comirnaty and Spikevax. Previous reports of period disorders were analyzed in the safety summary reports for COVID-19 vaccines approved in the European Union. It was concluded that evidence at the time did not support a causal link between the vaccines and menstrual disorders.

PRAC has requested an in-depth evaluation of available data from spontaneous reporting systems, clinical trials, and published literature after spontaneous reports of menstrual disorders with both vaccines. “At this stage, it is not yet clear whether there is a causal link between the COVID-19 vaccines and the reports of heavy periods or amenorrhea. There is also no evidence to suggest that COVID-19 vaccines affect fertility,” the agency stated in a press release.

There IS just so much we don't know about trumps fake "vaccine" and what it does to our reproductive system............take that back, we DO know that the CDC changed the meaning of "vaccine". gee......why

Hearing about more people going to the ENT with vertigo and air sickness ailments in the past year. Something to keep an eye on.

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 6:24 pm

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 6:03 pm https://www.pharmtech.com/view/ema-inve ... 9-vaccines

EMA Investigating Reports of Menstrual Irregularities with COVID-19 Vaccines
February 16, 2022
Pharmaceutical Technology Editors


he European Medicines Agency (EMA) announced on Feb. 11, 2022 that its Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) is assessing reports of heavy menstrual bleeding and lack of menstruation associated with COVID-19 vaccines Comirnaty and Spikevax. Previous reports of period disorders were analyzed in the safety summary reports for COVID-19 vaccines approved in the European Union. It was concluded that evidence at the time did not support a causal link between the vaccines and menstrual disorders.

PRAC has requested an in-depth evaluation of available data from spontaneous reporting systems, clinical trials, and published literature after spontaneous reports of menstrual disorders with both vaccines. “At this stage, it is not yet clear whether there is a causal link between the COVID-19 vaccines and the reports of heavy periods or amenorrhea. There is also no evidence to suggest that COVID-19 vaccines affect fertility,” the agency stated in a press release.

There IS just so much we don't know about trumps fake "vaccine" and what it does to our reproductive system............take that back, we DO know that the CDC changed the meaning of "vaccine". gee......why

You don’t care about the HPV vaccine. Phony…..

youthathletics wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 6:34 pm

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 6:03 pm https://www.pharmtech.com/view/ema-inve ... 9-vaccines

EMA Investigating Reports of Menstrual Irregularities with COVID-19 Vaccines
February 16, 2022
Pharmaceutical Technology Editors


he European Medicines Agency (EMA) announced on Feb. 11, 2022 that its Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) is assessing reports of heavy menstrual bleeding and lack of menstruation associated with COVID-19 vaccines Comirnaty and Spikevax. Previous reports of period disorders were analyzed in the safety summary reports for COVID-19 vaccines approved in the European Union. It was concluded that evidence at the time did not support a causal link between the vaccines and menstrual disorders.

PRAC has requested an in-depth evaluation of available data from spontaneous reporting systems, clinical trials, and published literature after spontaneous reports of menstrual disorders with both vaccines. “At this stage, it is not yet clear whether there is a causal link between the COVID-19 vaccines and the reports of heavy periods or amenorrhea. There is also no evidence to suggest that COVID-19 vaccines affect fertility,” the agency stated in a press release.

There IS just so much we don't know about trumps fake "vaccine" and what it does to our reproductive system............take that back, we DO know that the CDC changed the meaning of "vaccine". gee......why

Hearing about more people going to the ENT with vertigo and air sickness ailments in the past year. Something to keep an eye on.

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 6:43 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 6:24 pm

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 6:03 pm https://www.pharmtech.com/view/ema-inve ... 9-vaccines

EMA Investigating Reports of Menstrual Irregularities with COVID-19 Vaccines
February 16, 2022
Pharmaceutical Technology Editors


he European Medicines Agency (EMA) announced on Feb. 11, 2022 that its Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) is assessing reports of heavy menstrual bleeding and lack of menstruation associated with COVID-19 vaccines Comirnaty and Spikevax. Previous reports of period disorders were analyzed in the safety summary reports for COVID-19 vaccines approved in the European Union. It was concluded that evidence at the time did not support a causal link between the vaccines and menstrual disorders.

PRAC has requested an in-depth evaluation of available data from spontaneous reporting systems, clinical trials, and published literature after spontaneous reports of menstrual disorders with both vaccines. “At this stage, it is not yet clear whether there is a causal link between the COVID-19 vaccines and the reports of heavy periods or amenorrhea. There is also no evidence to suggest that COVID-19 vaccines affect fertility,” the agency stated in a press release.

There IS just so much we don't know about trumps fake "vaccine" and what it does to our reproductive system............take that back, we DO know that the CDC changed the meaning of "vaccine". gee......why

You don’t care about the HPV vaccine. Phony…..

I do!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vAjMXH5JQiY