Win / Conspiracies
Conspiracies
Communities Topics Log In Sign Up
Sign In
Hot
All Posts
Settings
All
Profile
Saved
Upvoted
Hidden
Messages

Your Communities

General
AskWin
Funny
Technology
Animals
Sports
Gaming
DIY
Health
Positive
Privacy
News
Changelogs

More Communities

frenworld
OhTwitter
MillionDollarExtreme
NoNewNormal
Ladies
Conspiracies
GreatAwakening
IP2Always
GameDev
ParallelSociety
Privacy Policy
Terms of Service
Content Policy
DEFAULT COMMUNITIES • All General AskWin Funny Technology Animals Sports Gaming DIY Health Positive Privacy
Conspiracies Conspiracy Theories & Facts
hot new rising top

Sign In or Create an Account

9
New NIH paper recommends Ivermectin (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov) BREAKING
posted 4 years ago by the-new-style 4 years ago by the-new-style +9 / -0
9 comments share
9 comments share save hide report block hide replies
Comments (9)
sorted by:
▲ 1 ▼
– infinite-ohm 1 point 4 years ago +1 / -0

Not quite true.

"A. D. Santin1, D. E. Scheim2, P. A. McCullough3, M. Yagisawa4and T. J. Borody51)Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT,2)US Public Health Service, Inactive Reserve, Blacksburg,VA,3)Texas A & M College of Medicine, Dallas, TX, USA,4)Omura Satoshi Memorial Institute, Infection Control Research Center, Kitasato University, Tokyo,Japan and5)Centre for Digestive Diseases, New South Wales, Australia"

That's not an NIH paper, that's from our friends.

NIH is pwned by the great resetters.

permalink save report block reply
▲ 1 ▼
– the-new-style [S] 1 point 4 years ago +1 / -0

Did you look at the URL ?

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 1 ▼
– infinite-ohm 1 point 4 years ago +1 / -0

You're mistaking PubMed with the authors on it. PubMed is a central website that hosts papers from EVERYONE. It does not endorse or deny any papers.

That's part of the peer review process. Other people who are also scientists review the papers. Once the papers are reviewed they make it from preprint to print and show up in various journals. Some papers are open and available, others you can only see the abstracts.

This is sort of like The Library of Congress. The books it has on its shelves are not books Congress published, but rather collected from all publishers.

Please learn a bit more about what you're trying to talk about and how it works. Not trying to attack you.

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 1 ▼
– alltheleavesarebrown 1 point 4 years ago +1 / -0

There is no virus

permalink save report block reply
▲ 1 ▼
– the-new-style [S] 1 point 4 years ago +1 / -0

What would convince you otherwise?

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 1 ▼
– alltheleavesarebrown 1 point 4 years ago +1 / -0

https://rense.com//general96/marine-jab.mp4

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 1 ▼
– infinite-ohm 1 point 4 years ago +1 / -0

Sorry, but there is, it's real. It was a chimera made at the Wuhan Institute of Virology with technical help from NIAD and monetary help from NIAD via Echo Health Alliance, and directly, and overseen by FauXi himself. There are also ties to a US virology lab in NC that also worked on gain of function research.

They may not have isolated in vivo, but they certainly had the full RNA sequences for it from that same lab before it was deleted from their online database, on or around Sep 12, 2019, probably after they realized the CCP made it escape on purpose, probably to have an excuse to quash the Hong Kong Protests.

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 1 ▼
– alltheleavesarebrown 1 point 4 years ago +1 / -0

Wuhan october 2019 military olympics.

Real. A real dud.

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ -2 ▼
– RichardNIxon2point0 -2 points 4 years ago +1 / -3

NEW PAPER... Checks date... 2021 Aug 3

I mean MONTH OLD PAPER.

Search Elg... Yup, that same retracted Elgazzar study is in here, which massively influences any positive results because it was garbage.

It also goes on to cite the exact same 20 some odd studies with VERY low numbers that every meta study seems to cite.

It would be great if Iver worked well, unfortunately I just see randomness still. Many of the studies also don't take into mind all the other drugs people were taking. So in some of them they were taking Iver and a bunch of other shit.

This has to be isolated awa from other medications and proven properly in a controlled test. Larger scale than some of these 20 patient studies that are cited.

permalink save report block reply

GIFs

Conspiracies Wiki & Links

Conspiracies Book List

External Digital Book Libraries

Mod Logs

Honor Roll

Conspiracies.win: This is a forum for free thinking and for discussing issues which have captured your imagination. Please respect other views and opinions, and keep an open mind. Our goal is to create a fairer and more transparent world for a better future.

Community Rules: <click this link for a detailed explanation of the rules

Rule 1: Be respectful. Attack the argument, not the person.

Rule 2: Don't abuse the report function.

Rule 3: No excessive, unnecessary and/or bullying "meta" posts.

To prevent SPAM, posts from accounts younger than 4 days old, and/or with <50 points, wont appear in the feed until approved by a mod.

Disclaimer: Submissions/comments of exceptionally low quality, trolling, stalking, spam, and those submissions/comments determined to be intentionally misleading, calls to violence and/or abuse of other users here, may all be removed at moderator's discretion.

Moderators

  • Doggos
  • axolotl_peyotl
  • trinadin
  • PutinLovesCats
  • clemaneuverers
  • C
Message the Moderators

Terms of Service | Privacy Policy

2025.03.01 - nxltw (status)

Copyright © 2024.

Terms of Service | Privacy Policy