COVID-19: The conspiracy related remedies proven not to work!

Great post, meaningless responses to this don't count.

 

Neutral viewers take note and ignore the steady flow of short post noise in reply.

 

Absolutely verified.

 

Nope. Where? Just the once, but multiple times that nobody can find.

 

Why is that?

 

Viewers, take a look at the two posts at the top of this page. Very informative, just ignore the background noise.

 

Claiming Fareed ‘saved’ people based on your belief that the death rate for covid was 0.04% with his protocol compared to a 1% death rate is not logical and represents methodological flaws.

Most people recover from covid without any treatment. The low death rate observed in Dr Fareed’s patients may simply reflect the population’s baseline (the population of those who he treated) recovery rate rather than the effectiveness of the cocktail. A 0.04% death rate in outpatient settings probably aligns with what would be expected in populations with mild or moderate cases, even without treatment.

The comparison between a 0.04% death rate with the cocktail and a 1% death rate without it is not based on RCTs or controlled studies. Without randomization, it is impossible to account for differences in patient demographics, underlying health conditions, timing of treatment, and severity of illness. You seem to be missing a crucial point in that observational data can easily be skewed by selection bias (e.g., treating healthier patients who were less likely to die in the first place).

Many factors influence Covid-19 outcomes including age, comorbidities, and timing. How did Fareed account for confounding variables? How were patients selected for treatment?

There is also the consideration of people who received the cocktail didn’t progress to and die from covid for reasons unrelated to the treatment. Those with milder symptoms or sought early care who received the cocktail might have skewed the results. Patients who could not access early treatment and progressed to severe covid and death might have been excluded, artificially inflating the perceived success rate.

You are totally misinterpreting statistics by comparing 0.04% to 1%. Absolute numbers matter. Fareed treated a very small number of patients which means the observed result is likely due to chance. What group is Fareed’s patients who received the protocol being compared to? A national or global death rate includes hospitalized patients and those with severe cases, which is not comparable to an outpatient population treated early.

Let’s consider who was actually treated with Fareed’s cocktail.

It was primarily an outpatient population who were in very early stages of covid infection.
The treatment was focused on patients with mild-to-moderate symptoms as opposed to those that were severely ill or hospitalized. Those who were requiring O2 treatment or intensive care were generally not the target of the cocktail.
Fareed has claimed to treat a wide range of patients elderly, young and healthier, those who were high risk.
Most of the patients treated were from the Imperial Valley region of California which consists of a diverse population.
Those who received the protocol were likely aware of Fareed’s protocol and were more likely to receive it.
Patients who were already hospitalized or in advanced stages of covid were not typically treated with the cocktail.
During the severe phase of covid infection, people are in the inflammatory phase of the disease where medications in the protocol are less likely to be effective.

The point is that the outcomes reported by Fareed may not generalized to broader populations because:

• Outpatients and early-stage patients have lower mortality rates overall, even without treatment.
• The population treated may have differed in demographics, health status, or healthcare access compared to those who did not receive the cocktail.

To evaluate the effectiveness of the cocktail, a properly designed clinical trial would need to compare outcomes between two groups of similar patients, one receiving the cocktail and the other a placebo or standard care. This is not what you keep comparing regarding the 0.04% vs 1%.

Realistically, attributing ‘saved lives’ to the cocktail without rigorous evidence can mislead people into believing in unproven treatments and undermine trust in proven interventions like vaccines and antivirals, which have been demonstrated in clinical trials to reduce mortality.

Your claim that Dr Fareed ‘saved’ people lacks scientific rigour and is flawed due to confounding variables, selection bias, and a misunderstanding of natural recovery rates. In addition, none of the elements of the protocol have been shown to be effective at treating covid. As already explained, to reduce the viral load the amount of ivermectin that would be required would be at toxic levels.

Without any controlled trials or peer-reviewed evidence, it is IMPOSSIBLE to attribute a low death rate solely to the covid cocktail. And most importantly, comparisons to a general covid death rate are INVALID unless the populations and circumstances are equivalent.

Unless you can counter any of the points made above with actual real facts that refute them, I would suggest you stop posting the same misinformation over and over. Your statements are incorrect.

 

The 0.04% is based on ~ 5000 sick patients.

Penicillin had no RCT’s.

 

Interested viewers should read this thoroughly, pay attention to the last paragraph(bolded by me in red) and then look just above at the response. The same misinformation without ONCE addressing any of the points in the post.

 

And the 1% is based on billions worldwide vs 5000 patients.

 

So what?

 

The fact that penicillin had no randomized controlled trials (RCTs) initially is not inherently problematic.

Penicillin’s effects were so profound and immediate that its benefits were obvious even without RCTs. For example, patients with life-threatening bacterial infections like sepsis or pneumonia often experienced near-miraculous recoveries after treatment.

When penicillin was first introduced in the early 1940s, the concept of RCTs was still in its infancy. The first modern RCT, which tested streptomycin for tuberculosis, was conducted in 1948. At the time, medical advances were often evaluated through case studies, observational data, and clinical experience.

Given the lack of alternative effective treatments for serious infections, withholding penicillin for the sake of a trial would have been unethical. The immediate need to save lives took precedence over formal study design.

Your point about penicillin is moot.

 

My point about penicillin is completely applicable.

 

Your spam about penicillin is moot. You ignored the entire content of a post explaining it and just restated the same thing done previously 20 times.

 

The post is irrelevant opinion.

 

^^^^^ This post is irrelevant opinion.

Identifying where a user ignores clear explanation and just makes the same claim is most certainly relevant.

 

@AFM Please be so kind as to give concise accurate rebuttal to these points from @MuchAdo

1. A 0.04% death rate in outpatient settings probably aligns with what would be expected in populations with mild or moderate cases, even without treatment.

2. The comparison between a 0.04% death rate with the cocktail and a 1% death rate without it is not based on RCTs or controlled studies.
Without randomization, it is impossible to account for differences in patient demographics, underlying health conditions, timing of treatment, and severity of illness.

3. You seem to be missing a crucial point in that observational data can easily be skewed by selection bias (e.g., treating healthier patients who were less likely to die in the first place).

4. A national or global death rate includes hospitalized patients and those with severe cases, which is not comparable to an outpatient population treated early.

What I find most telling, is that at least 100 times you have posted something along these lines, at virtually ANYTHING that doesn't fit to your personal claims:

See point 2 above.

 

The “explanation “ is opinion.

 

You are entitled to your opinion.

 

Those treated avoided hospitalization. That is the objective of the protocols. The public health agency policy was to do nothing until hospitalization was required.

I have repeated this multiple times.

 

Thread viewers, see list of very relevant questions in my post. Now look at this absurd reply!

Are the forum members entitled to you answering things, without you dishonestly claiming you've already answered them or just evading them completely?

 

This has all been previously addressed.

 

Are the forum members entitled to you answering things, without you dishonestly claiming you've already answered them or just evading them completely?

 

I have provided honest answers.

 

@AFM has never discussed these things.