COVID: Pfizer says antiviral pill 89% effective in high risk cases

1. ‘Pfizermectin’ lol. Big pharma are really taking our useless and corrupt governments to the cleaners.

2. Free up Ivermectin – which has utility as an antiviral, costs pennies, and has safety record
   unmatched by any other drug on the market.

   • Yep.

3. You are something else Sugarapple, posting again without any supporting evidence. Guess you love this pandemic, always posting nonsense that will not help defeat the virus. Check out the FDA’s position on Ivermectin. What bogus websites are you following? Same for you Mr. C.

   https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-should-not-use-ivermectin-treat-or-prevent-covid-19

   • Ivermectin squash the pandemic in Uttar Pradesh. Gtfoh! FDA is a captured agency, it gets much of it’s funding from pharma. Tell your stories to people who only read established rubbish. And a piece of unsolicited advise, f off of my name. Write your crap without mentioning me. Just for the hell of it.
     http://ivmmeta. com.

     • Establishment

   • FDA? That corrupted, big pharma driven, drug pushing US organisation? Do your research you sheep like idiot. Ivermectin works. Ivermectin is demonised by these pharma drug as the EUA (emergency use only) and hence legal immunity status of their dodgy, expensive Covid drugs depends on the fiction that there are no viable alternative treatments.

4. Hey Sug, you are truly delusional. Keep reading that right wing garbage if that turns you on. Anything you post can be debunked. Learn to do real research, not just cherry pick headlines from your bogus Facebook and Twitter feeds.

   • Jackass, I sent you a link of the results of the meta- analysis on ivermectin. I knew you weren’t smart enough to be able to decipher it. LMAO! Right wing? I don’t deal in politics. That’s for people like you who don’t have a mind of their own and needs someone to lead them. Get a life, some vaseline and make yourself a winner with this 🥒.

     • Hey Sug, I read your article, did you? A better question would be could you, because it doesn’t have many pictures but lots of big words. You love garbage pseudo science because you’re too dim to understand real science or think critically. All you want is attention and to satisfy your fragile ego and you’re willing to confuse unsuspecting Antiguans and Barbudans with your unsubstantiated claims, putting their health at risk. Now lets see if you really can read. Here’s a critique of your bogus meta-analysis.

       Misleading clinical evidence and systematic reviews on ivermectin for COVID-19. https://ebm.bmj.com/content/early/2021/05/26/bmjebm-2021-111678

       Different websites (such as https://ivmmeta.com/, https://c19ivermectin.com/, https://tratamientotemprano.org/estudios-ivermectina/, among others) have conducted meta-analyses with ivermectin studies, showing unpublished colourful forest plots which rapidly gained public acknowledgement and were disseminated via social media, without following any methodological or report guidelines. These websites do not include protocol registration with methods, search strategies, inclusion criteria, quality assessment of the included studies nor the certainty of the evidence of the pooled estimates. Prospective registration of systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis protocols is a key feature for providing transparency in the review process and ensuring protection against reporting biases, by revealing differences between the methods or outcomes reported in the published review and those planned in the registered protocol. These websites show pooled estimates suggesting significant benefits with ivermectin, which has resulted in confusion for clinicians, patients and even decision-makers. This is usually a problem when performing meta-analyses which are not based in rigorous systematic reviews, often leading to spread spurious or fallacious findings.

       • Well if I’m looking attention, I certainly got yours; but fyi, I don’t do stalkers! The proof of ivermectin efficacy has already been proven in all the people that took it got rid of their covid without any side effects.You can continue to post as many of the paid for play links as you can find, but you
         CAN’T stop me from advocating for ivermectin. I already told you what to do with the vaseline and 🥒. Now I’m telling you to do it again.🥒🥒

         • You are something else Sug. Who are all these people that have received the magic Ivermetin? You clearly are not a very good advocate, you haven’t posted ONE credible piece of information to support your claims. Why? Because there isn’t any. If you want to take Ivermectin, have at it. But stop your bullshit posts trying to convince others to think like you. Please note I have not pushed any cure or treatment on anyone, you included. And you are delusional if you think I’m posting paid for play links, how much money do you think someone can make posting anything in the comments section of Antigua News Room ??? I’m simply fed up with people like you who only follow social media algorithms and then try to sow seeds of confusion and doubt amongst the masses. You clearly have a predisposition to believe conspiracy theories and you want as much company as you can find to believe along with you. I guess you’re lonely. You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own made-up facts. But remember, no one is obligated to pay any attention to your opinion(s) and let your absurd claims go unchallenged. Antiguans and Barbudans deserve better than your trite rhetoric. Maybe you are the real paid shill pushing Ivermectin. Here’s an analogy to your unsubstantiated Ivermectin claim(s) that the good people of Antigua and Barbuda should consider. I have a dog. I pat him on the head every day. I have avoided getting covid. Therefore, it is clear that patting a dog on the head every day prevents covid. Same effect as taking Ivermectin.
           And don’t flatter yourself, you do not have my attention. I’m simply countering your unproven claim(s). The growing majority of Antiguans and Barbudans are clearly following the advice of professional health care officials. The shrinking minority are increasingly putting themselves at ever greater risk, thanks to people like you. The only thing I have learned from you is that you have an interesting cucumber and vaseline fetish. Really Sug, is that how you spend your spare time?

5. Pfizer sure making a financial killing from this Pandemic. I wondered how many in Washington,DC. have shares in Pfizer and or took Campaign Financing from Pfizer. Those Politicians have never seen a dollar they did not like.GREEDY BASTARDS !!

6. Hey Sug, I can do this all day…

   Ivermectin: How false science created a Covid ‘miracle’ drug

   https://www.bbc.com/news/health-58170809.amp

   No evidence suggests a causal link between ivermectin recommendation and the decline of COVID-19 cases in the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh

   https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/no-evidence-suggests-a-causal-link-between-ivermectin-recommendation-and-the-decline-of-covid-19-cases-in-the-indian-state-of-uttar-pradesh/

   • Get a life troll; it’s clearly obvious that you don’t have one. You stated as much about what you can do all day. That’s why I suggested the vaseline and 🥒. I want you to make me STOP posting about IVERMECTIN.What is credible to is is not credible to me. But carry on with you delusions about your toxic spike protein bioweapon. IVERMECTIN FOR COVID 19.

     • You have a serious vaseline and cucumber fetish Sug. That’s what you dream about all day, haha.

       Now you are exposing yourself for what you really are; anti-vax, uneducated, undisciplined. By the way, I’ve never written anything pro vaccine in any of my replies to you, so there you go making-up stuff again, trying to deflect from your weak position. And I’m very sure that you haven’t a clue what a spike protein is or how a mRNA vaccine’s work. instead you chose to use phrases like “toxic spike protein bioweapon” which is nothing but hyperbole.

       Facts are facts, credible is credible, science is science, standards are standards. You can’t cherry pick what you like and throw out the rest. I can pick apart you claims all day because it’s easy to do. Things can’t automatically be credible just because you believe them to be true. Are you a flat earther to? Moon landing fake? You must have credible reasons and evidence to support why something is true or false, else it’s nothing more than fantasy. And we all know now that your biggest fantasy involves vaseline and cucumber. Hahah…

       • Just so you know STALkER… IVERMECTIN for COVID 19. And I don’t give a rats ass about any of the gibberish you write

7. Hey Sug, I read your article, did you? A better question would be could you, because it doesn’t have many pictures but lots of big words. You love garbage pseudo science because you’re too dim to understand real science or think critically. All you want is attention and to satisfy your fragile ego and you’re willing to confuse unsuspecting Antiguans and Barbudans with your unsubstantiated claims, putting their health at risk. Now lets see if you really can read. Here’s a critique of your bogus meta-analysis.

   Misleading clinical evidence and systematic reviews on ivermectin for COVID-19. https://ebm.bmj.com/content/early/2021/05/26/bmjebm-2021-111678

   Different websites (such as https://ivmmeta.com/, https://c19ivermectin.com/, https://tratamientotemprano.org/estudios-ivermectina/, among others) have conducted meta-analyses with ivermectin studies, showing unpublished colourful forest plots which rapidly gained public acknowledgement and were disseminated via social media, without following any methodological or report guidelines. These websites do not include protocol registration with methods, search strategies, inclusion criteria, quality assessment of the included studies nor the certainty of the evidence of the pooled estimates. Prospective registration of systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis protocols is a key feature for providing transparency in the review process and ensuring protection against reporting biases, by revealing differences between the methods or outcomes reported in the published review and those planned in the registered protocol. These websites show pooled estimates suggesting significant benefits with ivermectin, which has resulted in confusion for clinicians, patients and even decision-makers. This is usually a problem when performing meta-analyses which are not based in rigorous systematic reviews, often leading to spread spurious or fallacious findings.

Comments are closed.