Let it Rip - Don't argue with anti-vaxx, snakeoil peddling MAGAtards

exGOPer said:
How did the resident SAYANCE expert @LacesOut miss something so obvious.
More...
44 of the 63 studies on IvMmeta.com are peer reviewed showing IVM is positive for treating COVID. Either prophylactically or as early treatment.
Including this one…
Keep watching your vaccines fail and natural immunity reign supreme!
 
Last edited:
LacesOut said:
44 of the 63 studies on IvMmeta.com are peer reviewed showing IVM is positive for treating COVID. Either prophylactically or as early treatment.
Including this one…
Keep watching your vaccines fail and natural immunity reign supreme!
More...

LOL, so you have given defending the so called peer reviewed study and now back to your original gish gallop of 63 studies?

This must be so embarrassing for you, congrats on another surrender.

And if natural immunity will reign, why do you need horse dewormers?
 
LacesOut said:
44 of the 63 studies on IvMmeta.com are peer reviewed showing IVM is positive for treating COVID. Either prophylactically or as early treatment.
Including this one…
Keep watching your vaccines fail and natural immunity reign supreme!
More...

44 are peer reviewed? LOL

Not a single study of these 63 is peer reviewed by a major medical journal.
 
exGOPer said:
LOL, so you have given defending the so called peer reviewed study and now back to your original gish gallop of 63 studies?

This must be so embarrassing for you, congrats on another surrender.

And if natural immunity will reign, why do you need horse dewormers?
More...
I don’t have to defend it. It’s been peer reviewed! That’s the defense. The result is positive. 44 out of the 63 are peer reviewed and meta analysis shows very positive results.

Hope you don’t have to take antibiotics one day - that’s what they use in cows!
Stupid Arts major moron.
 
LacesOut said:
LOL. 44 are peer reviewed. No matter what goalposts your try to rearrange in front of them.
More...

No -- 44 are not peer reviewed.

Please list the 44 you claim are peer reviewed to support your claim.

Otherwise we will acknowledge your claim is completely false.
 
B4DC17E9-3E3A-4B29-99EF-F62EBF3F2A41.jpeg
gwb-trading said:
No -- 44 are not peer reviewed.

Please list the 44 you claim are peer reviewed to support your claim.

Otherwise we will acknowledge your claim is completely false.
More...
Click the link inside ivmmeta.com
It says 44 are peer reviewed.

Then send the source you have that only 12 people worldwide have died as a result of the vaccine.
Been asking for this lie sourced for weeks.
Or will you just admit it’s a lie and you pulled that number completely out your ass?
#BigPharmaBro
 
LacesOut said:
View attachment 266780
Click the link inside ivmmeta.com
It says 44 are peer reviewed.

Then send the source you have that only 12 people worldwide have died as a result of the vaccine.
Been asking for this lie sourced for weeks.
Or will you just admit it’s a lie and you pulled that number completely out your ass?
#BigPharmaBro
More...

Yet when you go to the claimed studies none are peer reviewed. LOL
 
LacesOut said:
I don’t have to defend it. It’s been peer reviewed! That’s the defense. The result is positive. 44 out of the 63 are peer reviewed and meta analysis shows very positive results.

Hope you don’t have to take antibiotics one day - that’s what they use in cows!
Stupid Arts major moron.
More...


Why is the study in an open access journal if its peer reviewed? Who peer reviewed it?

Just random insults from the inbred boomer all the time. Eat more horseshit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top