982 replies to this topic

[Dorian Grey]

Hmm, it seems that HCQ wasn't so impressive in 2020 and even less so in 2021.

 

I must be missing something...  I see Russia had a lot of excess deaths, but most of the other countries with high excess deaths appear to be those restricting HCQ.  Perhaps a look at COVID deaths per million population rather than excess deaths in Russia would be enlightening?  Was Russia treating their patients early?  How early?  

 

Why do you think the US, UK & other first world countries had such high excess deaths, when we had remdesivir, & plenty of ventilators?  

Edited by Dorian Grey, 16 June 2024 - 07:37 PM.

[Florin]

I must be missing something...  I see Russia had a lot of excess deaths, but most of the other countries with high excess deaths appear to be those restricting HCQ.  Perhaps a look at COVID deaths per million population rather than excess deaths in Russia would be enlightening?  Was Russia treating their patients early?  How early?  

 

Why do you think the US, UK & other first world countries had such high excess deaths, when we had remdesivir, & plenty of ventilators?  

 

The HCQ-restricting countries of France and the Netherlands were doing just as well as some of the HCQ-using countries, and by the end of 2021, they (including Belgium) were doing better. Russia was on your list of HCQ-using countries that was presumably treating early. Excess deaths are probably more reliable than official covid deaths stats, especially in countries like Russia.

 

I don't have a strong opinion about how well vents and remdesivir worked, but I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't work all that well, especially for older people.

Edited by Florin, 16 June 2024 - 08:04 PM.

[Dorian Grey]

The HCQ-restricting countries of France and the Netherlands were doing just as well as some of the HCQ-using countries, and by the end of 2021, they (including Belgium) were doing better. Russia was on your list of HCQ-using countries that was presumably treating early. Excess deaths are probably more reliable than official covid deaths stats, especially in countries like Russia.

 

I don't have a strong opinion about how well vents and remdesivir worked, but I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't work all that well, especially for older people.

 

Yes, by the end of 2021 we were all doing a lot better.  As I recall, the darkest days of the pandemic were 2020, & the appearance of the Delta surge in mid 2021.  

 

Russia was indeed listed as a country that did not discourage HCQ, but I really don't know how available, or widely utilized it was, do you?  Did they need a 3 day PCR test turn-around after a day or two of symptom onset before they got started on their treatment?  

 

Go back & look at my post on the global meta-analysis on the previous page, & let me know what you think of it.  

 

https://c19hcq.org/meta.html

 

Abstract

Early treatment shows 66% [54‑74%] lower risk with pooled effects in 39 studies. Results are similar for higher quality studies and for peer-reviewed studies. The 17 mortality and 16 hospitalization results show 76% [61‑85%] lower mortality and 41% [28‑51%] lower hospitalization.

Late treatment is less successful, with 22% [18‑26%] lower risk from 264 studies. Very late treatment may be harmful, especially with excessive dosages.

Randomized Controlled Trials show 19% [6‑30%] lower risk, or 25% [11‑37%] when excluding late treatment.

 

There is substantial bias towards publishing negative results. Prospective studies show higher efficacy. Negative RCTs received priority treatment at top journals, while positive trials report difficulty publishing. There is a strong geographical bias, with significantly more negative studies from North America.

[joesixpack]

Hmm, it seems that HCQ wasn't so impressive in 2020 and even less so in 2021.

 

Your graphs show cumulative excess deaths, and having nothing to do with HCQ.

 

The point is pharmaceutical companies were convincing countries to suppress the use of HCQ and Ivermectin. In 2020 and 2021 early treatment with those drugs would have saved many lives. Instead, protocols that sent everyone who tested positive home with no treatment were established in many countries. This led to hospitals filling with critical patients, on ventilators, where many of them died. Doctors and nurses that broke with the "protocol" and treated people were fired, lost their licenses, and otherwise ostracized.

 

How they ever got the "do nothing" protocol established is a mystery and a crime. They would have saved lives if they started a basic pneumonia protocol when people tested positive.

[Florin]

 

Yes, by the end of 2021 we were all doing a lot better.  As I recall, the darkest days of the pandemic were 2020, & the appearance of the Delta surge in mid 2021.  

 

Russia was indeed listed as a country that did not discourage HCQ, but I really don't know how available, or widely utilized it was, do you?  Did they need a 3 day PCR test turn-around after a day or two of symptom onset before they got started on their treatment?  

 

Go back & look at my post on the global meta-analysis on the previous page, & let me know what you think of it.  

 

https://c19hcq.org/meta.html

 

Abstract

Early treatment shows 66% [54‑74%] lower risk with pooled effects in 39 studies. Results are similar for higher quality studies and for peer-reviewed studies. The 17 mortality and 16 hospitalization results show 76% [61‑85%] lower mortality and 41% [28‑51%] lower hospitalization.

Late treatment is less successful, with 22% [18‑26%] lower risk from 264 studies. Very late treatment may be harmful, especially with excessive dosages.

Randomized Controlled Trials show 19% [6‑30%] lower risk, or 25% [11‑37%] when excluding late treatment.

 

There is substantial bias towards publishing negative results. Prospective studies show higher efficacy. Negative RCTs received priority treatment at top journals, while positive trials report difficulty publishing. There is a strong geographical bias, with significantly more negative studies from North America.

 

Maybe HCQ wasn't used early in Russia, maybe it was, maybe it was used early until August of 2020 and then Russia switched to late treatment for some inexplicable reason. Or maybe the virus didn't spread as much in Russia before late 2020 and HCQ had nothing to do with how well Russia did until that time. Maybe this, maybe that. Do you really want to go further down that rabbit hole?

 

We already discussed the other stuff.

 

Your graphs show cumulative excess deaths, and having nothing to do with HCQ.

 

The point is pharmaceutical companies were convincing countries to suppress the use of HCQ and Ivermectin. In 2020 and 2021 early treatment with those drugs would have saved many lives. Instead, protocols that sent everyone who tested positive home with no treatment were established in many countries. This led to hospitals filling with critical patients, on ventilators, where many of them died. Doctors and nurses that broke with the "protocol" and treated people were fired, lost their licenses, and otherwise ostracized.

 

How they ever got the "do nothing" protocol established is a mystery and a crime. They would have saved lives if they started a basic pneumonia protocol when people tested positive.

 

If HCQ worked well, excess deaths would have been lower in the HCQ-using countries compared to the HCQ-restricting countries Dorian mentioned, but they weren't.

 

I doubt pharma cares what happens in countries like Russia.

Edited by Florin, 16 June 2024 - 09:23 PM.

[Dorian Grey]

Maybe HCQ wasn't used early in Russia, maybe it was, maybe it was used early until August of 2020 and then Russia switched to late treatment for some inexplicable reason. Or maybe the virus didn't spread as much in Russia before late 2020 and HCQ had nothing to do with how well Russia did until that time. Maybe this, maybe that. Do you really want to go further down that rabbit hole?

 

We already discussed the other stuff.

 

 

If HCQ worked well, excess deaths would have been lower in the HCQ-using countries compared to the HCQ-restricting countries Dorian mentioned, but they weren't.

 

I doubt pharma cares what happens in countries like Russia.

 

"We already discussed the other stuff"

 

You mean the meta-analysis?  Is that what we've already discussed?  

 

https://c19hcq.org/meta.html

 

Abstract

Early treatment shows 66% [54‑74%] lower risk with pooled effects in 39 studies. Results are similar for higher quality studies and for peer-reviewed studies. The 17 mortality and 16 hospitalization results show 76% [61‑85%] lower mortality and 41% [28‑51%] lower hospitalization.

Late treatment is less successful, with 22% [18‑26%] lower risk from 264 studies. Very late treatment may be harmful, especially with excessive dosages.

Randomized Controlled Trials show 19% [6‑30%] lower risk, or 25% [11‑37%] when excluding late treatment.

 

There is substantial bias towards publishing negative results. Prospective studies show higher efficacy. Negative RCTs received priority treatment at top journals, while positive trials report difficulty publishing. There is a strong geographical bias, with significantly more negative studies from North America.

[Florin]

I replied about the meta here, but after that, you didn't reply to my reply about it.

Edited by Florin, 16 June 2024 - 09:55 PM.

[Dorian Grey]

I replied about the meta here, but after that, you didn't reply to my reply about it.

 

I believe I did reply...  Specifically about the RCTs that were not as impressive as the retrospective and observational data.

 

"The weak benefit seen in the RCTs, is primarily due to time wasted getting people tested (results took days early on), enrolled, and started on their med.  On the front lines, I recall Dr Zelenko saying he had HCQ on hand to get his patients started on before they even got their test results or prescriptions filled.  If they had symptoms, they got treated...  IMMEDIATELY! "

 

Are you not impressed with the 76% [61‑85%] lower mortality and 41% [28‑51%] lower hospitalization of the higher quality studies?  Wasn't not dying and preferably not having to go to a hospital for some remdesivir & a vent important to you in 2020/21? 

 

Keep in mind, these trials and observations were done when PCR tests took 3 days to turn around, and patients were probably symptomatic for at least a day or two before getting tested.  Can you imagine how much improvement we might have seen in a Paxlovid class early treatment trial with a 3 day cohort?  

[Advocatus Diaboli]

The backfire effect:

 

"In a perfectly rational world, people who encounter evidence that challenges their beliefs would first evaluate this evidence, and then adjust their beliefs accordingly. However, in reality this is seldom the case.

Instead, when people encounter evidence that should cause them to doubt their beliefs, they often reject this evidence, and strengthen their support for their original stance. This occurs due to a cognitive bias known as the backfire effect."

[Dorian Grey]

The backfire effect:

 

"In a perfectly rational world, people who encounter evidence that challenges their beliefs would first evaluate this evidence, and then adjust their beliefs accordingly. However, in reality this is seldom the case.

Instead, when people encounter evidence that should cause them to doubt their beliefs, they often reject this evidence, and strengthen their support for their original stance. This occurs due to a cognitive bias known as the backfire effect."

 

I'm also on Medscape (for medical professionals), and have seen the backfire effect even with doctors & nurses I've engaged there.  When I asked for the actual early treatment trials they were basing their HCQ opinions on, one doctor cited the COPE trial (Brazil), which actually stated in the limitations a "lack of sufficient power to detect meaningful benefit towards lower risk of hospitalisation". Another doc liked Skipper et al, with a median age of 40, which had to punt on their initial endpoint of hospitalization as so few of treated or controls ever went to hospital. A nurse on the forum liked the Together Trial (Brazil), which accepted patients symptomatic up to 8 days, and/or with ground glass opacities on CT scan.

 

Ground glass opacities? Early treatment? Really? How would Paxlovid have done in these trials? No matter... They'll still swear on a stack of bibles proper, world class early treatment trials have been done which prove the negative with HCQ.

 

We live in interesting times!

[Florin]

I believe I did reply...  Specifically about the RCTs that were not as impressive as the retrospective and observational data.

 

"The weak benefit seen in the RCTs, is primarily due to time wasted getting people tested (results took days early on), enrolled, and started on their med.  On the front lines, I recall Dr Zelenko saying he had HCQ on hand to get his patients started on before they even got their test results or prescriptions filled.  If they had symptoms, they got treated...  IMMEDIATELY! "

 

Are you not impressed with the 76% [61‑85%] lower mortality and 41% [28‑51%] lower hospitalization of the higher quality studies?  Wasn't not dying and preferably not having to go to a hospital for some remdesivir & a vent important to you in 2020/21? 

 

Keep in mind, these trials and observations were done when PCR tests took 3 days to turn around, and patients were probably symptomatic for at least a day or two before getting tested.  Can you imagine how much improvement we might have seen in a Paxlovid class early treatment trial with a 3 day cohort?  

 

You didn't seem to address the points of the quote I mentioned regarding the meta, and that's why I thought you didn't reply.

 

The 11 RCTs studied early use of HCQ, and the quote claimed that they were unreliable. Are you saying that they didn't study early use, or are you referring to a different set of RCTs? If you agree that those 11 early-use-of-HCQ RCTs are unreliable, what's left to discuss?

Edited by Florin, 17 June 2024 - 04:46 AM.

[Dorian Grey]

You didn't seem to address the points of the quote I mentioned regarding the meta, and that's why I thought you didn't reply.

 

The 11 RCTs studied early use of HCQ, and the quote claimed that they were unreliable. Are you saying that they didn't study early use, or are you referring to a different set of RCTs? If you agree that those 11 early-use-of-HCQ RCTs are unreliable, what's left to discuss?

 

Let's put it this way...  There has never been a single world class HCQ RCT, Paxlovid might have had a prayer in hell of passing.  The "early study" HCQ RCTs initiated treatment within 8 days of symptom onset (Together), or had a cohort so young (Skipper et al median age 40), there was no chance of statistical significance.  

 

"Early treatment" in fast moving respiratory virus runs around 2 days (Tamiflu), or perhaps 3 to 5 days (Paxlovid), and if you want to see if it's effective at keeping patients out of hospital, or morgue, you've got to trial it on patients susceptible to hospitalization or death from the virus...  Namely SENIORS!  

 

There were a boatload of HCQ trials designed to generate a continuous drip, drip, drip of negative outcomes in the news.  Most all were on hospitalized patients, or trials with pathetic risk stratification.  They were designed to buy time, while Big Pharma's billion dollar babies hatched.  

 

As I mentioned above, even medical professionals became certain proper early trials had been done, but when you ask them to cite these trials, they come up empty handed, or with some pathetically flawed third world trial.  

 

Do you know of any world class "early treatment" HCQ RCT Paxlovid might have had a prayer at showing benefit in?  Keep in mind, the Paxlovid trial required an un-vaccinated cohort, who got started on the med within 3 days for their advertised result.  

 

What's left to discuss are the real world results, documented in peer reviewed and published retrospective and observational trials, done by front line doctors who never expected to get rich pushing cheap generics, and had little to gain other than the fact that they saved lives with the resources they had at the time they were needed.  

 

Absence of proof through world class RCT is not proof of absence.  Sometimes we've got to simply believe our eyes and personal experience, like with smoking and cancer/heart disease.  No proof via RCT there either, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.  

Edited by Dorian Grey, 17 June 2024 - 05:14 AM.

[Mind]

When we were told that hospitals were "overwhelmed" with COVID patients, some people went to those hospitals (this video is from from Scotland, but it happened in several countries, including the US) to see if it was really true. It wasn't.

 

The local hospitals in my area had so few patients that they sent staff home for weeks at a time. The hospitals weren't even half staffed, only taking care of a few COVID patients. Everyone else's important treatments, screenings, visits were cancelled. This is one of those cases where I had to call BS on the media and the US government. They were blatantly lying to the public about hospitals being overwhelmed. Even when the hospitals reported having their ICUs at 100% capacity, that was misleading. A typical hospital's ICU is normally 70 to 80% capacity. COVID only added a few more patients (not dozens or hundreds of additional patients)

 

What happened when people filmed the empty hospitals - they were censored, fined, arrested (in order to maintain a fear narrative). I am surprised and dismayed that people can see the evidence and yet still believe that COVID was a terrible pandemic. I think it has to do with the emotional aspect of memories. Fear makes one irrational. False memories are implanted and hard to dislodge.

[Florin]

Let's put it this way...  There has never been a single world class HCQ RCT, Paxlovid might have had a prayer in hell of passing.  The "early study" HCQ RCTs initiated treatment within 8 days of symptom onset (Together), or had a cohort so young (Skipper et al median age 40), there was no chance of statistical significance.  

 

"Early treatment" in fast moving respiratory virus runs around 2 days (Tamiflu), or perhaps 3 to 5 days (Paxlovid), and if you want to see if it's effective at keeping patients out of hospital, or morgue, you've got to trial it on patients susceptible to hospitalization or death from the virus...  Namely SENIORS!  

 

There were a boatload of HCQ trials designed to generate a continuous drip, drip, drip of negative outcomes in the news.  Most all were on hospitalized patients, or trials with pathetic risk stratification.  They were designed to buy time, while Big Pharma's billion dollar babies hatched.  

 

As I mentioned above, even medical professionals became certain proper early trials had been done, but when you ask them to cite these trials, they come up empty handed, or with some pathetically flawed third world trial.  

 

Do you know of any world class "early treatment" HCQ RCT Paxlovid might have had a prayer at showing benefit in?  Keep in mind, the Paxlovid trial required an un-vaccinated cohort, who got started on the med within 3 days for their advertised result.  

 

What's left to discuss are the real world results, documented in peer reviewed and published retrospective and observational trials, done by front line doctors who never expected to get rich pushing cheap generics, and had little to gain other than the fact that they saved lives with the resources they had at the time they were needed.  

 

Absence of proof through world class RCT is not proof of absence.  Sometimes we've got to simply believe our eyes and personal experience, like with smoking and cancer/heart disease.  No proof via RCT there either, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.  

 

So, we're back where we started from near the beginning of the pandemic with no good evidence for the effectiveness of HCQ; the idea that millions could have been saved by early use of HCQ isn't well supported.

 

In contrast to HCQ, there are strong mechanistic reasons to think that respirators could have saved millions even though no definitive RCTs exist to prove this.

[Florin]

This is one of those cases where I had to call BS on the media and the US government. They were blatantly lying to the public about hospitals being overwhelmed. Even when the hospitals reported having their ICUs at 100% capacity, that was misleading. A typical hospital's ICU is normally 70 to 80% capacity. COVID only added a few more patients (not dozens or hundreds of additional patients)

 

You're calling BS on your own reporting? Running ICUs at 100% capacity means that the ICUs were overwhelmed.

[Dorian Grey]

So, we're back where we started from near the beginning of the pandemic with no good evidence for the effectiveness of HCQ; the idea that millions could have been saved by early use of HCQ isn't well supported.

 

In contrast to HCQ, there are strong mechanistic reasons to think that respirators could have saved millions even though no definitive RCTs exist to prove this.

 

Let's not throw out any babies with the bathwater...  Did you miss the global meta-analysis I posted?  

 

Are you not impressed with the 76% [61‑85%] lower mortality and 41% [28‑51%] lower hospitalization of the higher quality studies?  Wasn't not dying and preferably not having to go to a hospital for some remdesivir & a vent important to you in 2020/21? 

 

Have a care for the front line doctors, who risked their lives trying to help, and documenting what they learned.  

 

Hydroxychloroquine is effective, and consistently so, when given early; a systematic review...

https://doi.org/10.1...mni.2020.100776

Edited by Dorian Grey, 18 June 2024 - 02:07 AM.

[joesixpack]

Let's not throw out any babies with the bathwater...  Did you miss the global meta-analysis I posted?  

 

Are you not impressed with the 76% [61‑85%] lower mortality and 41% [28‑51%] lower hospitalization of the higher quality studies?  Wasn't not dying and preferably not having to go to a hospital for some remdesivir & a vent important to you in 2020/21? 

 

Have a care for the front line doctors, who risked their lives trying to help, and documenting what they learned.  

 

Hydroxychloroquine is effective, and consistently so, when given early; a systematic review...

https://doi.org/10.1...mni.2020.100776

 

Alright, last fall I tested positive for Covid for the first time. I called the DR. and he prescribed Paxlovid. This was a 2 day deal. He prescribed it and it was available on the fifth day.

 

Meanwhile I had started the FLCCC protocol at day one. I kept up with that one. On day 3 I had few symptoms. On day five, No symptoms. I had 2 days of bad symptoms, and that was it. The protocol includes both HCQ and Ivermectin, with zinc and a few other things. And it probably works on other viral things as well. So give it a try when you think some thing is coming on. You know what it feels like.

 

They are not telling the truth. And get your own supply.

[Dorian Grey]

Alright, last fall I tested positive for Covid for the first time. I called the DR. and he prescribed Paxlovid. This was a 2 day deal. He prescribed it and it was available on the fifth day.

 

Meanwhile I had started the FLCCC protocol at day one. I kept up with that one. On day 3 I had few symptoms. On day five, No symptoms. I had 2 days of bad symptoms, and that was it. The protocol includes both HCQ and Ivermectin, with zinc and a few other things. And it probably works on other viral things as well. So give it a try when you think some thing is coming on. You know what it feels like.

 

They are not telling the truth. And get your own supply.

 

Yes, I recall Dr Peter McCullough musing that many things show benefit for COVID, provided you start them early enough.  

 

Inhaled budesonide, systemic prednisone, clot inhibitors (simple aspirin), Vitamin-D & Zinc, HCQ, IVM, & even Paxlovid provided you could start it by day 2 or 3.  

 

The only unwise thing to take was acetaminophen, which showed substantial detriment in observational/retrospective data https://c19early.org/acemeta.html

 

"Concerns have been raised over the use of acetaminophen (paracetamol) for COVID-192,3. Studies show significantly increased risk."

 

The only unwise thing to do was sit at home until you turned blue and call 911 for remdesivir & a vent.  

 

And what did Dr Fauci prescribe?  Stay at home & take acetaminophen, and call 911 if you can't breathe or start turning blue.  BRILLIANT!  

Edited by Dorian Grey, 18 June 2024 - 03:00 PM.

[joesixpack]

I didn't follow the complete early treatment protocol from the FLCCC. I took the drugs suggested, the supplements that I already have, zinc, vitamin C, D3 and a multivitamin.                    

 

I think that the gargling and Providone Iodine nasal spray recommended are also important. 

 

In case anyone is interested in the FLCCC early treatment protocol for Covid 19, it can be found here. https://covid19criti...ovid-treatment/

[Florin]

Let's not throw out any babies with the bathwater...  Did you miss the global meta-analysis I posted?  

 

Are you not impressed with the 76% [61‑85%] lower mortality and 41% [28‑51%] lower hospitalization of the higher quality studies?  Wasn't not dying and preferably not having to go to a hospital for some remdesivir & a vent important to you in 2020/21? 

 

Have a care for the front line doctors, who risked their lives trying to help, and documenting what they learned.  

 

Hydroxychloroquine is effective, and consistently so, when given early; a systematic review...

https://doi.org/10.1...mni.2020.100776

 

How much should I trust those other studies and c19hcq.org's analysis of those studies? Did you go through all of them to see if they're any good? Did you compare the good ones (if any) and determine if there's any statistically significant risk reduction? I doubt it, and I certainly won't.

[Dorian Grey]

How much should I trust those other studies and c19hcq.org's analysis of those studies? Did you go through all of them to see if they're any good? Did you compare the good ones (if any) and determine if there's any statistically significant risk reduction? I doubt it, and I certainly won't.

 

The meta discloses which have been peer reviewed & published, which is the standard for legitimate science; and meta-analysis has an advantage of slightly different methodologies and different authors that reduces weakness often seen when looking at an individual study as a sacred cow.  I'm humble enough to admit, I don't have the education & experience to claim "I KNOW" these folks business better than they do, though I can spot crooked research that is obvious, like withholding treatment in a clinical trial till patients are critically ill, like Recovery & Solidarity HCQ trials did.  

 

I also tend to trust data from doctors on the front line of care, rather than government and/or pharmaceutical researchers, who may have an agenda of their own.  The RCT was developed so Big Pharma could do its own research, establishing safety & efficacy (of potential new drugs) at the same time with minimal bias.  Repurposed drugs have an established safety record, and cheap generics don't have a lot of pressure for biased research, as no one is going to become a billionaire if data gets fudged.  

 

I find it very unprofessional government bureaucrat doctors telling front line doctors actually treating patients, what they are seeing in the field isn't actually real.  In the 1960s Arlo Guthrie wrote a song called Alice's Restaurant, with the hook line: "You can get anything you want, at Alice's Restaurant".  Seeing what I did back in 2020, I'm beginning to think Big Pharma and the government researchers have mastered the art of the deceptive RCT; and they'll parrot out their mantra the RCT trumps observational and retrospective data to flush all other legitimate research down the crapper & get their way.  

 

In the end, I tend to trust my own eyes, ears, and experiences more-so than anyone from the government who's here to help me.  I took the dreaded HCQ when I got COVID, and my infection was a walk in the park.  I literally spent several hours each day of my isolation walking in a park.  What am I going to do next time I get it (or bird flu!)?  I'll give you three guesses...  

Edited by Dorian Grey, 19 June 2024 - 01:49 AM.

[Mind]

The meta discloses which have been peer reviewed & published, which is the standard for legitimate science; and meta-analysis has an advantage of slightly different methodologies and different authors that reduces weakness often seen when looking at an individual study as a sacred cow.  I'm humble enough to admit, I don't have the education & experience to claim "I KNOW" these folks business better than they do, though I can spot crooked research that is obvious, like withholding treatment in a clinical trial till patients are critically ill, like Recovery & Solidarity HCQ trials did.  

 

I also tend to trust data from doctors on the front line of care, rather than government and/or pharmaceutical researchers, who may have an agenda of their own.  The RCT was developed so Big Pharma could do its own research, establishing safety & efficacy (of potential new drugs) at the same time with minimal bias.  Repurposed drugs have an established safety record, and cheap generics don't have a lot of pressure for biased research, as no one is going to become a billionaire if data gets fudged.  

 

I find it very unprofessional government bureaucrat doctors telling front line doctors actually treating patients, what they are seeing in the field isn't actually real.  In the 1960s Arlo Guthrie wrote a song called Alice's Restaurant, with the hook line: "You can get anything you want, at Alice's Restaurant".  Seeing what I did back in 2020, I'm beginning to think Big Pharma and the government researchers have mastered the art of the deceptive RCT; and they'll parrot out their mantra the RCT trumps observational and retrospective data to flush all other legitimate research down the crapper & get their way.  

 

In the end, I tend to trust my own eyes, ears, and experiences more-so than anyone from the government who's here to help me.  I took the dreaded HCQ when I got COVID, and my infection was a walk in the park.  I literally spent several hours each day of my isolation walking in a park.  What am I going to do next time I get it (or bird flu!)?  I'll give you three guesses...  

 

How many times does big pharma need to publish fake and biased studies, buy off the media, doctors, and hospitals with the US "health" bureaucracy lending a big helping hand, before you stop taking their drugs/vaccines that don't work. How many times? Once, twice, five times, ten times? For me it was only 2 or 3 times, then I stopped believing them. The opioid debacle, Vioxx, SSRIs, Fen-Phen, Zantac, Bextra, etc...all followed the same path. 

[joesixpack]

Today the Kansas Attorney General announced that he and maybe 4 other states are suing Pfizer for misleading the nation with regard to the injuries caused by their Covid vaccine, and the fact that it did not prevent catching Covid, and did not prevent transmission.

 

https://x.com/PeterS...sage5737810/pg1

Edited by joesixpack, 19 June 2024 - 10:47 PM.

[Mind]

People forget how thick the US government laid on the propaganda to force everyone to take Pfizer's and Moderna's COVID shots. It was truly disturbing. Sadly, millions of people not only fell for it, they went on a hate-filled warpath to demonize their neighbors and anyone who dissented.

 

Also recall that the definition of a pandemic, vaccine, and "having a disease", were all changed early on in the pandemic. All were changed (with no open scientific debate) to make it easier to spread fear and propaganda.

[Mind]

I still don't think people realize the scale of deception and misinformation that was spread by the US government/media/"health" authorities.

 

They were even suppressing books on Amazon that offered differing opinions about the COVID situation.

[Mind]

We got really bad and unscientific COVID pandemic panic policies because there was a multibillion dollar effort to spread a coordinated (mostly false) narrative - mainly directed by the US government and big pharma.

[Mind]

The COVID panic confirmed the Milgram experiment - to wit - 80% of the population will follow orders from authority figures no matter what.

 

Some are still following orders - booing Novak Djokovic to this day - because he didn't take the COVID injection.

[Mind]

I am surprised that more people did not call "BS" on the whole operation once...

 

1. BLM rioters were allowed to gather in the streets by the millions while everyone else had to isolate/test/mask/lockdown under threat of arrest.

2. Millions of migrants were allowed to pour into the US untested and unvaxxed, while everyone else could barely travel at all without testing/masking/vaxxing.

3. Politicians flagrantly violated the mask rules ALL THE TIME and were also caught on microphone saying it "is all theatre".

[albedo]

A(H5N1) influenza in dairy cattle in the United States of America

https://openknowledg...565fd0b/content

[Mind]

As if the first COVID panic response was not awful enough, now Peter Hotez wants to use NATO and Homeland Security to militarize the next response to make sure everyone follows orders. Why does someone like Hotez have any influence in "public health"?