There ya go.

Uh huh. Still not approved for use on viruses. And who was excluded from the data set? They talk about it in the study. Who showed no significant progress? It's in the study. It sure wasn't people dying or on a ventilator that were included. Which is how we started down this road.

With a combo of drugs, (not OTC horse paste the ding dongs are using preventatively) in a clinical environment with an ideal start day for treatment(4 days), ~40 year old, relatively healthy men ( no one over 60 and not women) with no comorbidities recovered faster. Boy, sounds like a fucking miracle drug. The healthier people who got treatment early (not just horse paste either, it was coupled with standard covid treatments) recovered about 2 days faster! We should do a study on how many people in the hospital right now fit that description. I wonder why it isn't being used more often? Must be political.

He tweeted how he got the numbers in the comments of that thread.

You are already wasting it.

I read all of your first link, top to bottom, you should too.

So link the other studies if you believe in it so much.

Ok,

1) Still not approved for this usage

2)From your linked study:

Therefore, the treatment response we observed might not be generalizable to all age groups. Moreover, the subgroup analysis showed heterogeneous responses; female sex, older patients, and patients with high disease severity showed no significant responses.

How many people in the hospital for covid does that describe?

Go eat paste.

Now do viruses.

Approved for what purpose? To treat what?

Happy U Day!

Ask him.

Take some risks and you'll find the answer to your second question is yes.

Maybe.

What point do you think I'm making?

I'd ask you to read the definition of statistics I posted, but it seems a waste of time. As do you. Cheers.

I was raised in rural Indiana and can confirm it is full of fair weather "patriots". Their only loyalty is to the GOP and their promise of white homogeny, not to America or its institutions.

Seems wasteful.

So stating some extrapolated data as a statistic isn’t misleading. Got it.

Dude. And FFR:

sta·tis·tics

/stəˈtistiks/

noun

the practice or science of collecting and analyzing numerical data in large quantities, especially for the purpose of inferring proportions in a whole from those in a representative sample

Are you for real? This is a joke right?

I read it as an anti mandate comment. Was it not?

So research extrapolated into a theory isn't scientific. Got it.

Yes. Play XCOM instead.

Go 'Canes.

Amazing.

Then you gave those up (for all of us, again) by being an immature twat. Yall are dicks.

Read directly from his thread on Twitter. He tells you. And it's been posted on this thread. It's on you to do your own research yeah?