Images | Commentary | Digital Scrapbook
“…Joe Biden appointed a gender-fluid LGBT+ activist who plays the role of a drag queen and “pup” fetishist to serve as the deputy assistant secretary of spent fuel and waste disposition in the Department of Energy’s Office of Nuclear Energy…”
Yes. That’s a real picture of Biden’s nominee to DOE’s Office of Nuclear Energy.
“…MSNBC regular and The Nation’s justice correspondent Elie Mystal said Friday on “The ReidOut” that former Minnesota police officer Kim Potter being sentenced to two years for the Daunte Wright’s manslaughter conviction showed that America hates black people…”
“…Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) on Friday blasted the Biden administration for seemingly finding ways to “thumb their nose at Florida,” announcing his move to appeal the administration’s denial for individual assistance for those displaced by tornadoes in two Florida counties…”
Why would anyone keep their money in a Canadian bank after this? pic.twitter.com/6NqttMkIbl
— The_Real_Fly (@The_Real_Fly) February 17, 2022
Totalitarianism. They know what’s best for you and believe that with the fervor of religious zealots. They won’t tolerate dissent. They will enforce their edicts with the power of the state.
Rise up Canadians!
Reject these dictatorial jerks!
Regain your God-given freedom!
Igor Chudov:
“…CNN says study shows Ivermectin does not work — but it shows that it DOES
Came across this tweet from a bluecheck CNN anchor:
I was so sad to hear that Ivermectin is not effective, so I decided to give the study a closer look.
The study had a 241 person study group who received 0.4 mg/kg Ivermectin for 5 days, which is the FLCCC recommended dose. (my wife got 0.3 mg/kg). It also had a 249 person control group who received the standard of care. (and no ivermectin)
The patients were at-risk persons with comorbidities, most likely to get sick or die.
Design, Setting, and Participants The Ivermectin Treatment Efficacy in COVID-19 High-Risk Patients (I-TECH) study was an open-label randomized clinical trial conducted at 20 public hospitals and a COVID-19 quarantine center in Malaysia between May 31 and October 25, 2021. Within the first week of patients’ symptom onset, the study enrolled patients 50 years and older with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19, comorbidities, and mild to moderate disease.
Interventions Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either oral ivermectin, 0.4 mg/kg body weight daily for 5 days, plus standard of care (n = 241) or standard of care alone (n = 249). The standard of care consisted of symptomatic therapy and monitoring for signs of early deterioration based on clinical findings, laboratory test results, and chest imaging.
To my utter shock, the study actually showed that Ivermectin DID work:
So, the study showed that , for Ivermectin vs control group:
For those versed in statistics, the “statistical significance” of these differences (P) was 0.19 and 0.09. It does not get under the standard of P <= 0.05, so the difference can be called “not statistically significant”. But it IS significant to us, and the P values are high because the study was underpowered.
Clearly Ivermectin showed positive effect, 3 vs 10 deaths is a huge benefit. The study likely saved about 7 lives by giving Ivermectin to 241 persons.
So I posted a tweet explaining the numbers from the article, and you know what happened? Take a look and sorry for my Hunter Biden-level art skills
Our astute reader Dean commented and his thinking about the P value is the clearest explanation I have ever seen:
If I understand correctly, “P= .09” means there is a 91% chance that the effect was not by chance. And if there’s a 91% probability that by taking a harmless drug for a few days I can reduce my chance of death by 70%, then how stupid would I be to refuse? The P=.05 cutoff is arbitrary and doesn’t take into account risk vs. benefit, right?
So, why does the article say Ivermectin did not work, where it clearly reduced the worst outcomes (ventilators and deaths)?
It is possible that their “conclusion” was a way to slip truthful real life numbers from JAMA anti-ivermectin censors.
After writing this article, I had to visit a customer, and came back to find myself in the eye of a storm. It turned out that two more people wrote articles about this specific study:
I will not criticise him, but would note that the study was conducted IN HOSPITALS:
Design, Setting, and Participants The Ivermectin Treatment Efficacy in COVID-19 High-Risk Patients (I-TECH) study was an open-label randomized clinical trial conducted at 20 public hospitals and a COVID-19 quarantine center in Malaysia between May 31 and October 25, 2021. Within the first week of patients’ symptom onset, the study enrolled patients 50 years and older with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19, comorbidities, and mild to moderate disease.
Is it a wonder that people already in a hospital would soon require oxygen? How is that really a “primary outcome”? The “primary outcome” is death or other permanent adverse health outcome, not what happens a day after the person is hospitalized and given Ivermectin for the first time, and somehow the patient’s condition will improve in a day after hospitalization?
The feedback on Alex article’s comments is the most amazing…”
Wake up Canada
Related:
Democrats are losing voters faster than CNN is losing viewers
Hold tight for a high-speed political U-turn…
We live in the age of stupid.
“…Pediatricians call it “breath-holding spells.” It was when children hold their breath when upset until they experience syncope, or passing out. The media in Washington appears close to a collective faint over the recent filings of Special Counsel John Durham. While the media has largely buried or downplayed the disclosures by Durham on the origins of the Russian conspiracy claims, Durham keeps adding new details implicating top Democratic figures in what he describes as an ongoing investigation. You can only hold your breath so long and Durham shows no signs that he is done by a long shot.
The latest disclosures by Durham are difficult for many in the media to cover because they directly refute years of prior coverage. Many in the media lampooned Donald Trump for claiming that the FBI and the Clinton campaign spied on Trump Tower and his campaign. Yet, we later learned that the FBI did spy on the campaign. In 2020, the media largely ignored that finding.
That is when the first stage of syncope began: the “prodrome” with signs of media “discomfort, extreme fatigue, weakness, yawning, nausea, dizziness, and vertigo.”
Now, Durham has told a court that he has evidence that Clinton operatives “exploited” access to systems at the Trump Tower, Trump’s apartment building, and “the Executive Office of the President of the United States.” While Durham does not use the term “spying,” he states that the operation allegedly targeted the campaign and the Trump Tower as well as the Executive Office.
We are now in the second syncopal phrase: loss of media consciousness.
There is no way to cover this story without many admitting that it facilitated a false narrative created by the Clinton campaign, including attacking those who suggested that the Clinton campaign would ever engage in such disreputable conduct…
And
…Durham’s continued investigation may be pushing the media to the final stage called “postsyncope,” which involves “protracted confusion, disorientation, nausea, dizziness, and a general sense of poor health.”…”
Related: