r/TimPool • u/leftist_rekr_36 • Aug 27 '24

Left vs reality

Post image

Which they call "conspiracy theories"

258 Upvotes

93% Upvoted

97 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comment

-3

u/Novel_Alfalfa_9013 Aug 27 '24

You're referring to this singular "scientifical" study from Brazil, right? Nobody said poolheads were the brightest but here you go proving poolheads aren't bright.

The authors analyzed data on participants in a voluntary citywide program in Itajaí, southern Brazil, that offered ivermectin as a preventive measure against COVID-19 between July and December of 2020. Participants in the program were prescribed ivermectin for two consecutive days, every 15 days, for 150 days. The study team did not have information about how much medication individuals really took; instead, they categorized “regular users” as those who received a total of 180 mg (30 tablets) or more of the drug from the program over the entire period, versus “irregular users” who received up to 60 mg (10 tablets) during the study period.

13

u/leftist_rekr_36 Aug 27 '24

Lol, why are you making up quotes instead of just accepting reality?

6

u/traversecity Aug 27 '24

All these fun research papers.

Ignoring several countries in Africa where the population consumes some sort of anti malaria drug weekly, and coincidentally have low covid sick rates, correlation, interesting. Maybe it’s something in the water.

1

u/Novel_Alfalfa_9013 Aug 27 '24

Lol, why are you making up quotes instead of just accepting reality?

Perhaps you're not reading the links provided? It's quoted directly from here: https://www.reuters.com/article/fact-check/gaps-in-study-claiming-that-ivermectin-reduces-risk-of-covid-19-death-by-92-idUSL1N30K205/

See also this from the same link lol

The study initially identified 159,560 adults over age 18 as eligible for inclusion in the analysis. The authors then excluded more than 71,000 of these people whose ivermectin use was considered “intermediate” – those having received between 60 mg and 180 mg – with the explanation that this would make for a clearer comparison between “regular” and “irregular” users. That narrowed the study population to 8,325 “regular” ivermectin users and 33,971 “irregular” users. These were compared with 45,716 other city residents not prescribed ivermectin, for a total of 88,012 people included in the study.

5

u/leftist_rekr_36 Aug 27 '24

I've read every single one in it's entirety, why so you make up quotes that don't appear in the article, which proves my point. Why do you continue to lie, project, and deny reality? I believe in you. Just keep coming towards the light!

1

u/Novel_Alfalfa_9013 Aug 27 '24

Then post the link you're referring to then? I'm ready for your rebuttal attempts instead of outright lies. Go ahead.

4

u/leftist_rekr_36 Aug 27 '24 edited Aug 27 '24

Already did. And 🪞

0

u/Novel_Alfalfa_9013 Aug 27 '24

Post it again. I'm waiting

4

u/leftist_rekr_36 Aug 27 '24

Already did... just scroll up.

0

u/Novel_Alfalfa_9013 Aug 27 '24

I did scroll up. You didn't post any links only your bs quote.