That's what several vitamin d studies show. A few vitamin d studies against influenza A show better results in preventing infection than the vaccine. That is true.
I don't care what "a few" vitamin D studies say. I care what the overall picture of lots of vitamin D studies say.
They knew it was basically organized pneumonia and you'd treat that with an anti-viral...? Nobody thought that.
Pneumonia is caused by lung infection. Therefore antibiotics and antivirals are prescribed for pneumonia. Who'd have thought?
Oseltamivir (Tamiflu), for instance, is an antiviral.
Do you think all these studies are run by incompetent doctors?
In a way.
I am a scientist who teaches medical students - that gives me quite a good idea as to the scientific knowledge of the average medical doctor: many medical doctors are not very good at carrying out scientific studies, because they're not well trained in it. One might talke the example of that Vit D study you posted and as advertised by Dr. John Campbell's video. That had to be withdrawn, because despite all those medical doctors on it, apparently none of them noticed that their subjects weren't actually randomised like they claimed, and they used the wrong statistical tests. Oopsie!
It's useful to think about what a doctorate is. "Doctor" comes from the Latin for "teacher". A doctor, therefore, was originally a man of learning. In theology, they talk about the "Church Doctors" - figures like St. Augustine or St. Athanasios - who were instrumental in developing the theology of the early church. And so it was for centuries: "doctor" essentially meant a university teacher. The modern PhD emerges in Germany in the 19th century, becoming a specific training system for someone to develop knowledge, with this notion of scholarship. Of course, some medical practitioners even then got to be called "doctors" according to their qualifications. But in fact, the medical degree was actually more a double bachelors: and indeed many retain this name - MBBS for instance means bachelor of medicine, bachelor of surgery. Medical degrees were granted the privilege to confer the title "doctor" as a generosity to indicate that their degree was harder and longer than a normal bachelors degree in other subjects. But what it does not do is teach the sort of higher level scholarship that a PhD does. That's what the further MD qualification is for. An honest medical doctor without an MD would say that, from the point of scholarship and the traditional meaning of "doctor", in fact they are the ones who are not real doctors, and their qualification is lesser than a PhD in that respect. I stress, there are plenty of genuinely fantastic reseachers out there who come from medical backgrounds. But underneath is a vast weight of junk from physicians who may be very good at caring for patients, but bad at research as they are trying their hand at a side-job they aren't so well trained / experienced in.
Not only that, but publishing research is a means for ambitious medical doctors to gain merit. And so medical doctors can pump out a godawful load of junk to boost their CVs, which disappears into low-impact or mickey mouse journals, little cited, hugely ignorable. But at face value when they apply for a job, the interviewers aren't so likely to go through and check what a worthless load of crap these publications are. Frankly, scientists do this too, just it's a little harder to have rubbish go unnoticed, because their research is key to their job in a way it isn't for most medical doctors.
Vast amounts of research is low quality. As we have gone through this debate, I have pointed some of this out to you. Like when one of the papers you posted, I pointed out that journal seems to only contain content from the same researchers who also edit and run the journal (to say this is as dodgy as fuck is an understatement). I've pointed out papers so badly written some of it is incomprehensible, and the flaws in some are glaring, which is why they are squatting in the lowest quality journals. This is part of why understanding science well enough to assess the strengths and weaknesses of scientific papers is really important, because there really is a huge amount of stuff out there that is barely worth consideration.
Both of those ivermectin studies you've linked to are catastrophically flawed to come out with any firm conclusion. One of them says "ivermectin..." but is actually giving a whole treatment plan ("medical kit") with other drugs, phone callbacks, and expanded care. They blithely say "hospitalisation" as their metric, but when we look at the figures for severity of symptoms experienced, the medical kit seems to have made no damn difference at all. There's a lot of hand-waving in the discussion, but an obvious confounder is that the medical kit has a lot of other stuff in to muddy the waters, and the social aspect (grudgingly acknowledged in discussion) that people with a medical kit felt more "secure" about their health and thus less likely to go to hospital.
I believe every single early HCQ study shows positive results.
And you're completely wrong about that, as I have pointed out numerous times. You're following the bullshit on that bullshit website. You said you aren't, but frankly I do not believe you, because I cannot see where else you have formed such a plainly erroneous view. And this goes to the core problem of you saying "look at the data": you either have not done so, or you have seriously misinterpreted it.
You only have 3 studies showing bad results for ivermectin; one had 32 people, one had 69 people, and the other one was a HCQ study that showed that HCQ reduced hospitalizations by 50-60%.
We have literally already been through this with HCQ last year. All those people saying "look at all the positive studies", and yet those positive studies turned out almost certainly wrong. But then, the reason the medical and scientific professions were never very interested in the first place was that they could see they were bad studies. These sorts of studies appear first because they are quick and dirty. And therefore, low quality. Remember how initially people claimed HCQ did everything? And then the claims shrank that it wasn't for severe cases, and then it wasn't for prophylaxis, and then the HCQ fans were left clinging onto the desperate hope it worked in early treatment to prevent symptoms worsening, and not even that ever became usefully supportable.
And ivermectin is the same. Read its proponents, the same claims off the same quick and dirty early studies: it does prophylaxis, it prevents worsening of symptoms, it's useful in severe cases. It's all so wearisome.
CDC puts people who previously had chicken pox under the header of those that SHOULD NOT get the vaccine. The point is you don't need to get a vaccine if you already had a disease outside of the exceptions like the flu. So what about length of immunity? The length isn't going to be really short. Even if it's say 5 years, why get a vaccine when you had it a year ago (or less)?
Because better safe than sorry, and that public health is a matter of getting a population response, not leaving loopholes.
Remdesivir is more a quack treatment than ivermectin and Fauci said it "will set the standard of care". It doesn't work and it's still being used and costs a ton of money.
I have no strong opinion on whether remdesivir or ivermectin is more useless. It's an empty argument, missing the point, like trying to argue whether Stalin or Hitler was worse. And quote mining Fauci is not useful.
In Mexico City, over 156,000 people who didn't get ivermectin compared with 77,000 that got ivermectin (adjusted for age and all the good stuff) and the results showed ivermectin very significantly helped. That alone is better than all the mask data put together that you believe proves masks work.
See above. These two studies are catastrophically weak.
I just don't want to hear you flail around with random claims like "they're better than mask studies", when you have no relevant knowledge or competence to usefully defend the point.
