So for three years the mainstream media has been full of articles outlining how Covid-19 may have originated in the Wuhan lab. The media reflected over time the likelihood of the Wuhan lab being the source increasing as more evidence pointed towards this -- coupled with China's lack of transparency. And suddenly you are showing up trying to claim that assertions the Wuhan lab was the source of Covid-19 were viewed as a conspiracy theory. Highly laughable.
Nowhere does it say that the majority received the dosage after 5 days, do you understand what majority means? 60% of participants received the study drug within 5 days of symptom onset. Most outpatient COVID-19 antiviral trials have limited enrollment to participants within 5 days of symptom onset.1,2 And of course you ignored this because it goes against your narrative In this trial, no evidence of a differential treatment effect was observed based on shorter time to study drug receipt.
WOW YOU FOUND IT!! It says 40% received the drugs after 5 days!!!! And therefore of those 60% remaining, one can postulate that an additional 10% of the total group received it on day 3 or 4 or 5…hence - the majority received the drug at a time when it was of limited use. Even if not - nearly half of participants were given the drug in an untimely fashion. “I gave him CPR, but 8 hours after we found him at the bottom of the pool. I guess CPR doesn’t work.” Vaxxtard Early Treatment Denier FAIL.
First, you were totally wrong, 40% is majority? You kept claiming that and it was a lie, I still couldn't find where it said MAJORITY didn't get the drug within 5 days. As for your concern trolling, it was already addressed by comparing it with the 60% (aka ACTUAL MAJORITY) In this trial, no evidence of a differential treatment effect was observed based on shorter time to study drug receipt. There is no need for you to guess or confuse Ivm with emergency medicine, you are so desperate to ignore a large scale proper study of your miracle drug. Now what's the next excuse gonna be?
40% is nearly the majority. And when you consider what percent of the 60% that remained that were dosed early (day 1 or 2) you can safely assume that the MAJORITY were dosed too late. You can safely assume another crap study from a highly conflicted vaxxtard author doing whatever she can to pump mRNA experimental tech. Sounds like Naggie. It’s well known that mild symptomatic patients aren’t at risk from COVID. Again - another major flaw of the study. No evidence of the shorter time drug receipt having a differential effect on the results? LOL. So why consider it a limitation. Oh, because it’s a HUGE limitation. Garbage.
40% is not 'near' the majority. WTF is this math. Secondly, there is no need for useless ASSUMPTION, the study considered dosage intervals and found no difference. In this trial, no evidence of a differential treatment effect was observed based on shorter time to study drug receipt. You ignored this whole part, they had MAJORITY of people take the drug within 2 days. Rest of your rants are just more assumptions.
It's similar to fuzzy math that they used when former President Trump won by a landslide in the 2020 U.S. Presidential election. Trump 46.9% versus Biden 51.3% wrbtrader
LOL. Except 40% didn’t get the drug until day 5. LOOOOOL. But sure, the other 60% got it within 2 days. Yeah. But it doesn’t matter. Mildly symptomatic patients aren’t at risk from COVID, for neither hospitalization or death. Soft endpoints from a highly conflicted author. YAWN.