@earl said in [Coronavirus Outbreak](/post/1454261) said:
@tiger5150 said in [Coronavirus Outbreak](/post/1454254) said:
. I’m not going to bother with a rebuttal other than to say for EVERY time I make any definitive statement about something on this topic I ALWAYS post a link to the data and people can make their own conclusions. I only post reputable journals and sources.
His proof was a podcast that was taken down from You Tube. How hilarious is that.
Oh Im not on foe anymore?
Scroll through my posts you liar. Every definitive statement is backed by a peer reviewed study or report at a minimum. you on the otherhand....nothing. I didnt seek to prove anything with the podcast. My point **WAS** that it got taken down from youtube.
1. Lab theory - no proof
It is now the null hypothesis. How is your bat eating hypothesis looking? Found the bat yet?
2. Ivermectin (a drug which the clinical evidence shows is not statistically effective) - failure.
I posted numerous studies showing efficacy of Ivermectin (a drug which the clinical evidence shows is not statistically effective) as a treatment and as a prophylactic. I ended up posting a meta analysis by Tess Lawrie on Ivermectin (a drug which the clinical evidence shows is not statistically effective) as therapeutic and prophylactic that shows efficacy in both. Ivermectin (a drug which the clinical evidence shows is not statistically effective) is being used worldwide as both.
Turns out I wasnt the only one who posted the meta-analysis....
___________________________________________________
POSTED BY EARL:
https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/Fulltext/2021/08000/Ivermectin_for_Prevention_and_Treatment_of.7.aspx
*Conclusions:*
*Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using Ivermectin (a drug which the clinical evidence shows is not statistically effective). Using Ivermectin (a drug which the clinical evidence shows is not statistically effective) early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that Ivermectin (a drug which the clinical evidence shows is not statistically effective) is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.*
*I don’t think this is the best thing for any country with access to the vaccine. It’s more something that could really help the developing countries who can’t get access to vaccines.*
https://weststigersforum.com/topic/30513/coronavirus-outbreak/10859
________________________________________________
It takes a special kind of genius to have a crack at someone for posting something and then post the exact same thing. Another word would be **hypocrite**
By the way, what exactly was a failure about it?
3. Vaccines don't work - failure
Never said that in a million posts. Point to a SINGLE post of mine that I said vaccines dont work. YOU ARE A **DAMN LIAR** AND YOU NEED TO STOP. **You need to apologise for making this accusation.**
In fact the only person Ive seen in here question the efficacy of the vaccines is you...
EARL:
"*In Israel they have also seen a fairly steep decline in the efficacy with the Pfizer over like 6 months.*"
https://weststigersforum.com/topic/30513/coronavirus-outbreak/12052
Of course you were completely wrong and continually and knowingly spreading misinformation.
4. Pfizer efficacy is better than AZ - he doesn't even understand efficacy and he got it wrong.
I understand efficacy perfectly. I'll tell you who else understands efficacy...the scientists publishing in the New England Journal of Medicine. Pfizer 88% efficacy against contracting Delta vs 67% AZ.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2108891
Someone else that understands efficacy....Public Health England. Exactly the same efficacy.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/vaccines-highly-effective-against-hospitalisation-from-delta-variant
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/phe-monitoring-of-the-effectiveness-of-covid-19-vaccination
Someone who completely does NOT understand efficacy at all and posted a Vox video which was correct but he didnt understand what it said......Earl.
and who could forget this jewel of Earls understanding of efficacy and simple mathematics....
"*The calculation should work like follows:-
Get the number of people with COVID in the placebo group. Get the number of people who are vaccinated who get COVID.
Subtract the number of people with COVID who were vaccinated from the number of people who received the placebo who developed COVID. Divide this by the number of COVID cases in the placebo group.*"
https://weststigersforum.com/topic/30513/coronavirus-outbreak/12090
So much understanding of efficacy right there....and maffs. I hope you are not helping your 10yo with their maths homework.
You've gotten everything wrong. Every single one.
As Ive stated.....and as is easily confirmed by a quick scroll through my posts, every definitive statement Ive made in this thread has been backed by a link to respected journals, studies and data (not a Vox vid to be seen). I can not say the same about you. But while we are enquiring...
How many people have died in the US from COVID, I remember YOU saying it was 2%, over 7MILLION PEOPLE? Was that right?
What about your prediction of a 5% case fatality rate in Australia?
Your prediction of 10,000 annual deaths in Australia?
Earl you have shown that you do not have me on foe, which means that you do not have that excuse every time I have posted scientific and medical journals refuting the rubbish you have been posting. This means that you are INTENTIONALLY spreading lies and misinformation on a very important topic in this thread. You should stop. I dont know what is wrong with you and why you would be doing this but you should stop or the mods should stop you. @Geo @willow @cochise
You also owe me an apology and a correction for stating that I posted that the vaccines dont work.
