Dr Strangetroll : or how I learned to stop arguing and be amused by the intransigence

[Cdkipp]

As usual you and Johnson want to focus on the wrong things. I'm focused on the results of the studies .... Not to mention the TREMENDOUS success the FLCCC has had using their protocols

The FLCCC is comprised of front line doctors .... If something works ... they us it and fine tune it as they go.
You are also ignoring that the FLCCC isn't using Ivermectin alone ... they are using a cocktail of things together ... a synergistic approach.

I don't know why you are so excited bout those studies I cited, they are in your IVMMETA materials---you never read anything).

Okay so now you are saying the dosage was not too low but the problem was they didn't use it in a protocol with other ineffective drugs?

So you cannot use ivermectin alone and you cannot use it for anyone over 50 or with an underlying condition. Right?

How does ivermectin work?

 

[Bob B]

I don't know why you are so excited bout those studies I cited, they are in your IVMMETA materials---you never read anything).

Okay so now you are saying the dosage was not too low but the problem was they didn't use it in a protocol with other ineffective drugs?

So you cannot use ivermectin alone and you cannot use it for anyone over 50 or with an underlying condition. Right?

How does ivermectin work?

If you want to know more about how to use it effectively .... actually study that FLCCC page .... also, as I noted .... they don't say to use Ivermectin stand alone .... they use it as part of a cocktail of medicines and do so VERY effectively.

I've got things to do .... outa here for the evening.... so you will be able to troll all you want for a while and probably get away with it.

 

[Cdkipp]

For any of you who are actually interested .... and not just TROLLS.

The FLCCC protocols are here ... and they include a protocol for LONG COVID

Treatment Protocols

Prevention and treatment protocols for COVID, Flu and RSV.

covid19criticalcare.com

That is the same damn thing I posted!!!!!!!. Here is what it says.

"Ivermectin dosing table: 200 ug/kg (0.2 mg/kg) or fixed dose of 12 mg (≤ 80kg) or 18 mg (≥ 80kg). [68] Depending on the manufacturer, ivermectin is supplied as 3mg, 6 mg or 12 mg tablets."

It does say you can range up to 0.6 mg/kg but the Together Trial gives dead in the middle and far more than in previous studies you have cited.

 

[Cdkipp]

If you want to know more about how to use it effectively .... actually study that FLCCC page .... also, as I noted .... they don't say to use Ivermectin stand alone .... they use it as part of a cocktail of medicines and do so VERY effectively.

Okay, Bob. And blink five times while snapping your fingers.

So it is not ivermectin that works alone. It has to be with this other stuff. Of which there is no RCT by anyone. Right? So the fatal flaw isn't the dosage? You are moving the goalpost. The fatal flaw is that it wasn't used as part of the protocol?

If ivermectin did work. How does it work?

 

[MurphyGuy]

If you want to know more about how to use it effectively .... actually study that FLCCC page .... also, as I noted .... they don't say to use Ivermectin stand alone .... they use it as part of a cocktail of medicines and do so VERY effectively.

Sure! I bet if you took the Ivermectin with a Covid 19 vaccine it would preform great!

 

[Johnson]

 

[Bob B]

Okay, Bob. And blink five times while snapping your fingers.

So it is not ivermectin that works alone. It has to be with this other stuff. Of which there is no RCT by anyone. Right? So the fatal flaw isn't the dosage? You are moving the goalpost. The fatal flaw is that it wasn't used as part of the protocol?

If ivermectin did work. How does it work?

Ok ... So, this morning I looked up those 2 studies you posted ..... and as usual you are trying to do your smoke and mirror dog and pony show.

Those studies DID show Ivermectin was 90 and 91% effective ..... They were BOTH studies to see if Ivermectin would work if used as Pre-exposure Prophylaxis for COVID-19 .... It's not really very hard to understand why they were using a smaller dose .... Doesn't the FLCCC recommend a smaller dose for prevention and early treatment? There is no big mystery about dosage differences here as you tried to PRETEND.

So .... They have been aware for a LONG time that Ivermectin is EXTREMELY effective when used for prevention.
Prevention and early treatment is what BmCL was preaching for a long time ... he was right. This is the optimal way to use Ivermectin.

Now, to the study you and the NYT are so proud to reference.
If I were going to design a study to test the effectiveness of Ivermectin .... I wouldn't only accepted SERIOUSLY ill people and all with comorbidities .... That's not the best use of Ivermectin .... I WOULD be using the optimal dose for that purpose if those are the patients I decided to accept.
What they did was use a suboptimal dose for a less than optimal amount of time .... the combination of those two things resulted in a SERIOUS under dose of the patients.
So.... either the people who conducted that study were just incompetent .... or they were intentionally picking a scenario that isn't the best use of Ivermectin and then under dosing them in order for the trial to fail .... or they just like watching people die of Covid.
To hold that study up as proof of anything is beyond ridiculous.

It is perfectly clear that they understand that EARLY TREATMENT of Covid is one of the keys to defeating it .... After all, isn't that EXACTLY what they are trying to do now with Paxlovid?
They want to do a rapid test at a pharmacy and if you test positive send you home with Paxlovid for early treatment ..... What a novel idea ... it didn't need to take over 2 years to arrive at that.
In the case of Paxlovid, however, the thing they are ignoring is that long list of negative interactions we discussed earlier.

What they should have been doing all along is exactly what they are now doing with Paxlovid ... only they could have given people a kit containing the inexpensive medicines in the FLCCC early treatment cocktail along with instruction of how to use it ..... Sound a little familiar doesn't it ... after all Uttar Pradesh showed us a long time ago that was how to defeat Covid.
They could have saved BILLIONS of dollars and many many thousands of lives ... and made the pandemic a walk in the park .... instead, they were determined to sell an experimental vaccine that we won't know the full impact of for many years.

I'm busy for the rest of the day .... I'm sure you will ignore all the evidence and start back up with your trolling and smoke and mirror dog and pony show that is getting very old and tired.

My preventive measures have keep me and my family Covid free ...... But, it's REALLY a shame that now this is all somewhat of a sour grapes scenario ... the only thing that can be done is hold those accountable who perpetrated this whole thing and thank goodness for all the brave doctors that are part of the FLCCC who in spite of all the harassment and misinformation have treated so many patients effectively and saved so many lives.

 

[Johnson]

 

[Cdkipp]

Ok ... So, this morning I looked up those 2 studies you posted ..... and as usual you are trying to do your smoke and mirror dog and pony show.

Those studies DID show Ivermectin was 90 and 91% effective ..... They were BOTH studies to see if Ivermectin would work if used as Pre-exposure Prophylaxis for COVID-19 .... It's not really very hard to understand why they were using a smaller dose .... Doesn't the FLCCC recommend a smaller dose for prevention and early treatment? There is no big mystery about dosage differences here as you tried to PRETEND.

So .... They have been aware for a LONG time that Ivermectin is EXTREMELY effective when used for prevention.
Prevention and early treatment is what BmCL was preaching for a long time ... he was right. This is the optimal way to use Ivermectin.

Now, to the study you and the NYT are so proud to reference.
If I were going to design a study to test the effectiveness of Ivermectin .... I wouldn't only accepted SERIOUSLY ill people and all with comorbidities .... That's not the best use of Ivermectin .... I WOULD be using the optimal dose for that purpose if those are the patients I decided to accept.
What they did was use a suboptimal dose for a less than optimal amount of time .... the combination of those two things resulted in a SERIOUS under dose of the patients.
So.... either the people who conducted that study were just incompetent .... or they were intentionally picking a scenario that isn't the best use of Ivermectin and then under dosing them in order for the trial to fail .... or they just like watching people die of Covid.
To hold that study up as proof of anything is beyond ridiculous.

It is perfectly clear that they understand that EARLY TREATMENT of Covid is one of the keys to defeating it .... After all, isn't that EXACTLY what they are trying to do now with Paxlovid?
They want to do a rapid test at a pharmacy and if you test positive send you home with Paxlovid for early treatment ..... What a novel idea ... it didn't need to take over 2 years to arrive at that.
In the case of Paxlovid, however, the thing they are ignoring is that long list of negative interactions we discussed earlier.

What they should have been doing all along is exactly what they are now doing with Paxlovid ... only they could have given people a kit containing the inexpensive medicines in the FLCCC early treatment cocktail along with instruction of how to use it ..... Sound a little familiar doesn't it ... after all Uttar Pradesh showed us a long time ago that was how to defeat Covid.
They could have saved BILLIONS of dollars and many many thousands of lives ... and made the pandemic a walk in the park .... instead, they were determined to sell an experimental vaccine that we won't know the full impact of for many years.

I'm busy for the rest of the day .... I'm sure you will ignore all the evidence and start back up with your trolling and smoke and mirror dog and pony show that is getting very old and tired.

My preventive measures have keep me and my family Covid free ...... But, it's REALLY a shame that now this is all somewhat of a sour grapes scenario ... the only thing that can be done is hold those accountable who perpetrated this whole thing and thank goodness for all the brave doctors that are part of the FLCCC who in spite of all the harassment and misinformation have treated so many patients effectively and saved so many lives.

Well Bob I was clear about how I selected those. They are both listed under the late treatment section of IVMMETA's table. Thee have prophylactic, early treatment, and late treatment. These were under late treatment and picked at random. Both of them used a significantly smaller dose than the Together Trial. So if your point is that the IVMMETAanalysis is crap, we agree, but you are disagreeing with something you claim is accurate.

Your claim that these people were seriously ill upon treatment onset simply is not true. That is nowhere in the study. But if it was, are you saying ivermectin doesn't work in the late stage? You seem to be all over on this Bob.

 

[Cdkipp]

Ok ... So, this morning I looked up those 2 studies you posted ..... and as usual you are trying to do your smoke and mirror dog and pony show.

Those studies DID show Ivermectin was 90 and 91% effective ..... They were BOTH studies to see if Ivermectin would work if used as Pre-exposure Prophylaxis for COVID-19 .... It's not really very hard to understand why they were using a smaller dose .... Doesn't the FLCCC recommend a smaller dose for prevention and early treatment? There is no big mystery about dosage differences here as you tried to PRETEND.

So .... They have been aware for a LONG time that Ivermectin is EXTREMELY effective when used for prevention.
Prevention and early treatment is what BmCL was preaching for a long time ... he was right. This is the optimal way to use Ivermectin.

Now, to the study you and the NYT are so proud to reference.
If I were going to design a study to test the effectiveness of Ivermectin .... I wouldn't only accepted SERIOUSLY ill people and all with comorbidities .... That's not the best use of Ivermectin .... I WOULD be using the optimal dose for that purpose if those are the patients I decided to accept.
What they did was use a suboptimal dose for a less than optimal amount of time .... the combination of those two things resulted in a SERIOUS under dose of the patients.
So.... either the people who conducted that study were just incompetent .... or they were intentionally picking a scenario that isn't the best use of Ivermectin and then under dosing them in order for the trial to fail .... or they just like watching people die of Covid.
To hold that study up as proof of anything is beyond ridiculous.

It is perfectly clear that they understand that EARLY TREATMENT of Covid is one of the keys to defeating it .... After all, isn't that EXACTLY what they are trying to do now with Paxlovid?
They want to do a rapid test at a pharmacy and if you test positive send you home with Paxlovid for early treatment ..... What a novel idea ... it didn't need to take over 2 years to arrive at that.
In the case of Paxlovid, however, the thing they are ignoring is that long list of negative interactions we discussed earlier.

What they should have been doing all along is exactly what they are now doing with Paxlovid ... only they could have given people a kit containing the inexpensive medicines in the FLCCC early treatment cocktail along with instruction of how to use it ..... Sound a little familiar doesn't it ... after all Uttar Pradesh showed us a long time ago that was how to defeat Covid.
They could have saved BILLIONS of dollars and many many thousands of lives ... and made the pandemic a walk in the park .... instead, they were determined to sell an experimental vaccine that we won't know the full impact of for many years.

I'm busy for the rest of the day .... I'm sure you will ignore all the evidence and start back up with your trolling and smoke and mirror dog and pony show that is getting very old and tired.

My preventive measures have keep me and my family Covid free ...... But, it's REALLY a shame that now this is all somewhat of a sour grapes scenario ... the only thing that can be done is hold those accountable who perpetrated this whole thing and thank goodness for all the brave doctors that are part of the FLCCC who in spite of all the harassment and misinformation have treated so many patients effectively and saved so many lives.

How does ivermectin stop Covid?

 

[Cdkipp]

Ok ... So, this morning I looked up those 2 studies you posted ..... and as usual you are trying to do your smoke and mirror dog and pony show.

Those studies DID show Ivermectin was 90 and 91% effective ..... They were BOTH studies to see if Ivermectin would work if used as Pre-exposure Prophylaxis for COVID-19 .... It's not really very hard to understand why they were using a smaller dose .... Doesn't the FLCCC recommend a smaller dose for prevention and early treatment? There is no big mystery about dosage differences here as you tried to PRETEND.

So .... They have been aware for a LONG time that Ivermectin is EXTREMELY effective when used for prevention.
Prevention and early treatment is what BmCL was preaching for a long time ... he was right. This is the optimal way to use Ivermectin.

Now, to the study you and the NYT are so proud to reference.
If I were going to design a study to test the effectiveness of Ivermectin .... I wouldn't only accepted SERIOUSLY ill people and all with comorbidities .... That's not the best use of Ivermectin .... I WOULD be using the optimal dose for that purpose if those are the patients I decided to accept.
What they did was use a suboptimal dose for a less than optimal amount of time .... the combination of those two things resulted in a SERIOUS under dose of the patients.
So.... either the people who conducted that study were just incompetent .... or they were intentionally picking a scenario that isn't the best use of Ivermectin and then under dosing them in order for the trial to fail .... or they just like watching people die of Covid.
To hold that study up as proof of anything is beyond ridiculous.

It is perfectly clear that they understand that EARLY TREATMENT of Covid is one of the keys to defeating it .... After all, isn't that EXACTLY what they are trying to do now with Paxlovid?
They want to do a rapid test at a pharmacy and if you test positive send you home with Paxlovid for early treatment ..... What a novel idea ... it didn't need to take over 2 years to arrive at that.
In the case of Paxlovid, however, the thing they are ignoring is that long list of negative interactions we discussed earlier.

What they should have been doing all along is exactly what they are now doing with Paxlovid ... only they could have given people a kit containing the inexpensive medicines in the FLCCC early treatment cocktail along with instruction of how to use it ..... Sound a little familiar doesn't it ... after all Uttar Pradesh showed us a long time ago that was how to defeat Covid.
They could have saved BILLIONS of dollars and many many thousands of lives ... and made the pandemic a walk in the park .... instead, they were determined to sell an experimental vaccine that we won't know the full impact of for many years.

I'm busy for the rest of the day .... I'm sure you will ignore all the evidence and start back up with your trolling and smoke and mirror dog and pony show that is getting very old and tired.

My preventive measures have keep me and my family Covid free ...... But, it's REALLY a shame that now this is all somewhat of a sour grapes scenario ... the only thing that can be done is hold those accountable who perpetrated this whole thing and thank goodness for all the brave doctors that are part of the FLCCC who in spite of all the harassment and misinformation have treated so many patients effectively and saved so many lives.

Bob B's Wheel o' Bullshit:

 

[Bob B]

Well Bob I was clear about how I selected those. They are both listed under the late treatment section of IVMMETA's table. Thee have prophylactic, early treatment, and late treatment. These were under late treatment and picked at random. Both of them used a significantly smaller dose than the Together Trial. So if your point is that the IVMMETAanalysis is crap, we agree, but you are disagreeing with something you claim is accurate.

Your claim that these people were seriously ill upon treatment onset simply is not true. That is nowhere in the study. But if it was, are you saying ivermectin doesn't work in the late stage? You seem to be all over on this Bob.

Yes .... You got right to work with your smoke and mirrors

Well Bob I was clear about how I selected those. They are both listed under the late treatment section of IVMMETA's table. Thee have prophylactic, early treatment, and late treatment. These were under late treatment and picked at random. Both of them used a significantly smaller dose than the Together Trial. So if your point is that the IVMMETAanalysis is crap, we agree, but you are disagreeing with something you claim is accurate.

Your claim that these people were seriously ill upon treatment onset simply is not true. That is nowhere in the study. But if it was, are you saying ivermectin doesn't work in the late stage? You seem to be all over on this Bob.

Look .... You are the one who reference the study ... and apparently didn't read any of it except the dosage.
Stop lying about what I said and what I didn't .... I said Ivermectin works BEST for prevention and early treatment ... It doesn't work as well when you have incompetent people doing a study who can't even figure out how to dose the medicine.
That METTA analysis isn't crap ... your inability to understand and use it is what's crap.

 

[Bob B]

Bob B's Wheel o' Bullshit:

You are MORE of a TROLL than the others .... they troll out of ignorance ... You troll to try to hide the facts.
You are in this category.

How To Get A Job As A Paid Troll

I often asked myself whether at the Job Centre, applying for jobs as a troll would be considered seriously looking for work. You don’t have to work for the secret services to know that being …

jackthejones.wordpress.com

 

[Bob B]

Uh ...OH .... Is Elon Musk going to make Twitter great again?

Elon Musk Becomes Twitter’s Largest Shareholder After Shakeup Tease | The Daily Wire

www.dailywire.com

 

[Cdkipp]

Yes .... You got right to work with your smoke and mirrors

Look .... You are the one who reference the study ... and apparently didn't read any of it except the dosage.
Stop lying about what I said and what I didn't .... I said Ivermectin works BEST for prevention and early treatment ... It doesn't work as well when you have incompetent people doing a study who can't even figure out how to dose the medicine.
That METTA analysis isn't crap ... your inability to understand and use it is what's crap.

I TOLD YOU I DIDN'T READ THEM EXCEPT FOR DOSAGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You say the dose was too low.

Now you are saying it was given too late?

You are slipperier than a greased pig.

What is it Bob????????

 

[Cdkipp]

Yes .... You got right to work with your smoke and mirrors

Look .... You are the one who reference the study ... and apparently didn't read any of it except the dosage.
Stop lying about what I said and what I didn't .... I said Ivermectin works BEST for prevention and early treatment ... It doesn't work as well when you have incompetent people doing a study who can't even figure out how to dose the medicine.
That METTA analysis isn't crap ... your inability to understand and use it is what's crap.

IS BOB TELLING THE TRUTH?

Bob says the Together Trial only treated people in the late stage of the disease. He says that is why the ivermectin did not work. But the Together Trial specifically excluded anyone sick enough to require hospitalization at the time of presenting! Everyone in the Trial was there 7 days or less after symptoms presented. In fact, over 40 percent of the trial participants presented only three days after symptoms presented.

 

[Bob B]

IS BOB TELLING THE TRUTH?

Bob says the Together Trial only treated people in the late stage of the disease. He says that is why the ivermectin did not work.

No ... That's not what I said.

But the Together Trial specifically excluded anyone sick enough to require hospitalization at the time of presenting! Everyone in the Trial was there 7 days or less after symptoms presented. In fact, over 40 percent of the trial participants presented only three days after symptoms presented.

I already posted the clip showing the background goal for the study .... Do I need to look that up for you again? The intent of the study was for seriously ill people who had comorbidities.
Actually the intent had to be for the study to fail or they would have designed it properly.

I TOLD YOU I DIDN'T READ THEM EXCEPT FOR DOSAGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's pretty hard to miss the big bold type at the top that says the study was to study ivermectin as a prophylactic for Covid .... unless your intent was do as you did and compare apples to oranges.

You say the dose was too low.

Now you are saying it was given too late?

I said the dose was too low and the amount of time they delivered the small dose was too short ...
Of course these people would have been better off if they had gotten early treatment.

In spite of the ignorant way the study was set up .... the Ivermectin group did better than the control group. There are other ways that study was flawed but getting into those things might just be too much for you .... since the basics seem to have totally eluded you.

So .... are you now admitting that Ivermectin is EXTREMELY effective for prevention and early treatment?

 

[Johnson]

 

[Cdkipp]

I already posted the clip showing the background goal for the study .... Do I need to look that up for you again? The intent of the study was for seriously ill people who had comorbidities.

Okay. Bob let's take that pack of lies one by one starting with the bold above. You are mixing two issues. The study included only people over 55 or o had diabetes or who were obese or had another recognized comorbidity. But they were not seriously ill with Covid when the Trial started. In fact, over 44% of them had symptoms for 3 days or less and all of them 7 days or less. Spe

I do not want your snippet from your BS. I want you to show us where in the study it says that. Just so we are clear acutely symptomatic does not mean seriously ill. The protocol specifically states:

"Patients presenting to an outpatient care setting with an acute clinical condition compatible with COVID-19 and symptoms beginning within 07 days from the randomization date."

It then goes on to say:

Patients who meet any of the following criteria are excluded:

• 1. Patients with acute respiratory condition compatible with COVID-19 treated in the primary care and with hospitalization need."

So Bob contrary to what you said above they wanted symptomatic people but not people in respiratory distress. They were testing people in the early stage of Covid to see if :

" The primary composite outcome was hospitalization due to Covid-19 within 28 days after randomization or an emergency department visit due to clinical worsening of Covid-19 (defined as the participant remaining under observation for >6 hours) within 28 days after randomization.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2115869 https://gatesopenresearch.org/articles/5-117

 

[bradbill]

I have a friend...actually former friend now...who is just like Bobby Bullshit here. He bought into Trump hook line and sinker. He doubted how bad COVID was. He was against the vaccines. He took hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin instead. He thinks the election was stolen. He thinks that jan6 was a peaceful protest and that the violence was done by ANTIFA.

He lost over 75% of his friends...his wife left him...his kids don't talk to him...he thinks his family is brainwashed. He basically lost his mind to Qanon beliefs.

There are a lot of Bobbies out there...very dangerous!