Doesn't change the absolute fact that these "vaccines" are the most dangerous ever deployed. They have killed more people in less than 1 year than all vaccines for the last 30 years combined. 1,000s killed and almost 900,000 injured as recorded in a data base that is roundly acknowledged to only collect 10% of all cases. There are no lon…
Doesn't change the absolute fact that these "vaccines" are the most dangerous ever deployed. They have killed more people in less than 1 year than all vaccines for the last 30 years combined. 1,000s killed and almost 900,000 injured as recorded in a data base that is roundly acknowledged to only collect 10% of all cases. There are no long term safety studies, only "research". mRNA has a long spotted history of development. For a virus that has a 99.98% survival rate, and that includes me, they can shove these injections up their ass!
1. COVID does not have a 99.98% survival rate. What's your source? Maybe for some a certain population slice, but that's not accurate for general population.
2. Have you actually looked at any charts that show COVID deaths vs. VAERS-reported deaths lately? Here's the US data: https://imgur.com/gallery/rJQiSCH
3. Vaccines are not risk-free, nor will any vaccine ever be 100% risk-free.
But you are:
(a) Using incorrect/false COVID survival rate; and not also considering the "survival rate" of vaccination
(b) Using absolute VAERS-reported death numbers while ignoring COVID absolute death numbers
(c) Totally ignoring COVID "adverse effects" including hospitalization, and known long-COVID morbidities
(d) Totally ignoring unknown unknown risks around COVID infection
Did you actually read what I wrote? Let me capitalize the relevant portion for you to re-read:
1. COVID does not have a 99.98% survival rate. What's your source? MAYBE FOR A CERTAIN POPULATION SLICE, but that's not accurate for general population.
You then link to an article that has the death rate for children and young people. Are children and young people
(a) a certain population slice
(b) general population
Correct, (a) a certain population slice.
If you look at the general population, numbers are higher. Case fatality rate (CFR) depends on many, many factors:
(a) testing rates. In countries with frequent testing, you end up finding far more mild/asymptomatic cases, which pushes up the denominator [cases], which pushes down the case fatality rate (e.g., South Korea, ). In other countries, testing is done more sparsely perhaps for political or cultural reasons (e.g., Egypt, Peru, Brazil, Iran), which may lead to an under-counting of COVID cases, leading to an overestimated CFR.
(b) access to health care, and the prevailing standard of care in a particular city/county/state. In localities where health care is easier to access (cost/insurance matters here) and prevailing standards of care are higher,
(c) population age and co-morbidities distribution. Localities with older populations as well as those with greater obesity, diabetes, etc. will have higher CFR.
(d) other idiosyncratic factors affecting patient behavior. E.g., religious factors favoring praying rather than taking a sick person to a health care facility until the person is gravely ill.
(e) reporting. In some localities, especially poorer rural localities, people die from COVID without ever having professional care, and further may never have a medical examination or post-mortem COVID test. This may result in under-reporting COVID deaths (e.g., India, Bangladesh).
Given all these factors, the "true" CFR really depends on country, or even state or city-level factors.
Nonetheless, if we simply looked at major western European nations and US, we see CFRs in the range of 1-2%.
You are correct re the case fatality rate, it's not 99.98, it is likely much higher. If we listen to the "experts" who have masked and locked people down on the myth of asymptomatic spread and undetected cases, there are tens of thousands more cases that weren't detected. It's always been the elderly and those w multiple comorbidities at risk. Rampant overvaccination of the healthy is just plain stupid, especially here where there is virtually no reduction in infection or transmission, and "status" is being weaponized to persecute those w enough sense to question and reject these chemicals.
My friend, you are using information compiled with Medical Nihilism being the "standard of care" for any poor human being who is labeled "Covid Positive" with a highly inaccurate, over amplified PCR test, which cannot differentiate between Corona Viruses, Influenza Viruses, and SARS-COV-2!
If said poor human victim of the Eugenics plan we have been watching roll out, has heart disease, COPD, and Diabetes, and has the Flu, and our most expensive and corrupt medical system on Earth, sends him or her home until they turn blue from hypoxia, and then puts them in a hospital with Remdesivir and a ventilator as treatment! You can be damn sure that American will be a dead American, and listed as a Covid19 Death.
End of story.
So even with the withholding of HCQ, Zinc, and Zithromax, (Zelenko protocol,) or Ivermectin and Doxycycline and Budesonide, the FLCCC protocol, or Dr. LaTullipppe's protocol, or dozens of others which were found to reduce Covid-19 Deaths and Hospitalization by 85%+++, still, some people still get through this, under these horrifying conditions. Also, it sure does look like a Bioweapon, and now we are force Vaxxing the entire "Free World" with the Chimeric, Toxic, Spike Protien from that Bioweapon by forcing our own cells to produce it!!
Sorry for whomever takes that path willingly. It looks like a very dark road to me. Not saying the Bioweapon is good. Just saying I won't run straight into the gunfire......
2. I disagree with your casting blame wholly on the medical system and current treatment protocols for COVID patients. I think you are also overlooking some very important issues around patient behavior in all this which includes: delaying/avoiding getting tested for COVID, and delaying/avoiding seeing care providers until they're already very seriously ill.
3. I probably strongly differ with you on the efficacy of these alternative treatment protocols. Some of them probably offer some efficacy, but many of them are just placebos as far as COVID goes.
“I am a "conspiracy theorist.” I believe men and women of wealth and power conspire. If you don't think so, then you are what is called "an idiot.” If you believe stuff but fear the label, you are what is called "a coward.”
I read a great comment from a reader on Off-Guardian about not using the term "Conspircy Theorist". When someone calls you that just say that you are a"Conspircy Analylist".
Looking at all of the factors involved on a certain issue, it is very important to "analyize" the data and the sources. This is the responsible way to approach any issue. It takes more critical thinking, reading and research to arrive at this point.
Stay away from emotions....this is what the other side wants a person to do....get angry and get even. Give them some food for thought when they are finished stating their opinion.
In the end, they will be more frustrated with their point of view simply because they will not be able to defend it.
Lastly, I agree with you regarding men and women of power wanting to control the agenda of the scamdemic. We do have a pandemic but it is one of greed and fear. Stay on The Path. Peace.
"People do, on occasion, conspire. There are many theories. Some theories that appear to explain observed phemomena are plausible and supported by evidence. Some imaginative theories are not only unsupported by the evidence, but are implausible to the point of absurdity. If you regularly believe the latter kinds of theories, and further believe they involve a conspiracy, then you are indeed a conspiracy theorist and potentially you're a delusional idiot unwilling or unable to think critically and fairly assess the whole of the evidence."
-CanYouEvenSpellmRNA
1. If SARS-CoV-2 is a bioweapon, it's a pathetic one. Far better choices existed.
2. The best available evidence is in no way compatible with the bioweapon theory, it's compatible with zoonotic origin, which is consist with past outbreaks (SARS in 2002, MERS in 2012, Zika, Ebola, West Nile, etc.).
Go do some research to learn why the lab leak theory is simply not substantiated by the genomic evidence, even if you believe the preposterous conspiracy theory idea that the Wuhan lab was a gain of function bioweapon facility. 🤨
Anyone who wants a serious discussion can read this paper about the origin of SARS-CoV-2 and the genomic evidence, and respond.
A- PCR does not provide information about infection. At the 35-45 cycles of amplification being utilized by most states yields 95%+ false positives, according to many experts. It cannot differentiate between Infuenza A, Influenza B, or SARS-COV-2. And, people can receive positive PCR tests for many months post a Covid Infection. Each test is then counted as a "case" of Covid19.
Absolute fraud.
B- Ivermectin has been proven over and over again to be, actually safe and effective against SARS-COV-2, if prescribed early, as has HCQ, Zinc and Zithromax. Millions of lives have been saved worldwide by adopting early treatment strategies. Look up Dr. Tess Lawrie. Or Steve Kirsch. Or Pierre Kory. Or FLCCC. Maybe you will learn something.
C- Before mRNA Chimeric Spike Protien gene therapy injections became common, and resulted in a 1000 times the harm reported to VAERS, of any previous Biologic, the Harvard Pilgram Study concluded that between 1% and 13% of vaccine injuries are actually reported.
So while I don't know what you know, I do know that you are missing critical information about our current situation, and the absolutely atrocious, completely deadly, policies our government has subjected the citizens it is sworn to serve, to.
Read Peter Breggins book. Or listen to Dr. Peter McCullough. Try learning from Dr. Michael Yeadon, or Dr. Steven Latulippe. Or, or, or.... The whistleblowing is getting LOUD!
1. PCR testing. Have you ever done a PCR test yourself? I worked in a microbio lab, and I have. There are so many myths and preposterous assertions here ... false positive rate, cross-reactivity to influenza, it's hard to know where to begin. PCR tests are not perfect, there are false positives. But holy cow, so much nonsense.
Here's a suggestion: Try reading a couple fact-checks; and/or come back with a link to a source for your claims if you still believe any of them after reading a fact-check.
2. Ivermectin has had so much flawed/bogus research around it, I find it hard to read any new research on it, honestly. I can come back to this topic separately, but almost ever large-effect study I've looked at is hugely problematic; all the small-effect studies are so small and seem to have methological problems. And every credible study I've reviewed shows it's basically no better than placebo. HCQ w/ or w/o Azithromycin, more or less the same thing, except there were some risks for certain people with pre-existing conditions.
I have been extremely hopeful, I'll add, that any of these medications would be a silver bullet. But from the biomechanisms I've reviewed, there's just not great reasons to expect that they would work. And the reputable clinical trial research I've seen, unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be clear evidence that they work any better than placebo.
3. I've also read some of the research from Kory and the other FLCCC doctors. I also find their methods and results **extremely dubious.**
Example:
Kory's latest paper on his so-called MATH+ treatment protocol for COVID.
The paper retracted for multiple issues. First, one of the hospitals at which the MATH+ protocol being tested wrote to the editor to say the data Kory published and interpreted was wrong. The full MATH+ treatment group had higher mortality than the group that only received one of the treatments.
This is problematic for more than it first appears.
(a) First, well, it's obviously not good when the mortality rate in your full treatment protocol group is higher than the group that gets a partial protocol.
(b) The methodology is just... well, I'll say it's not what I'd call good at separating out cause from coincidence. Let me just quote the authors:
"Although the authors place immense value and importance on the need for well-conducted observational and/or randomized controlled trials, in such a novel disease syndrome, it must be recognized that not all institutions possess the necessary experience, resources, or infrastructure to design and conduct such trials, especially during a pandemic. Further, the group decided against a randomized, placebo controlled trial design given that such trials require investigators to possess “clinical equipoise,” which is the belief by the investigator that neither intervention in the control or experimental group is “better.” With respect to each of the individual “core” therapies of MATH+, all authors felt the therapies either superior to any placebo or possessed evidence of minimal risk and cost compared to potential benefit such that use was favored, with these judgements based on not only the rapidly accumulated evidence and insight into COVID-19 but also from our collective knowledge, research, and experience with each of the
component medications in critical illness and other severe
infections."
Basically, they rejected doing a double-blind randomized clinical trial because (a) it's difficult (b) they believe so much that their MATH+ protocol before they've even tested it out.
This is really, really problematic. Things really should be the other way around. If you're super confident in your protocol, it should really easy to agree to doing a double- (or triple-) blind randomized RCT because you know your treatment will work. This kind of attitude lends itself to all kinds of other potential confirmatory biases in the research.
But worst of all, if the treatment appears to "work", you can't really be sure whether it worked or you just happened to give it to the least sick people who would have gotten better at a higher rate than the more sick people even in the absence of the treatment.
As it so happened when the real data was all accounted for, they might have actually given the full protocol to the most sick patients, and perhaps that's why they died at higher rates. But again, without a full randomized/blinded methodology, you just can't really tell if the protocol still did something positive even if the mortality rate was still the highest compared to the partial protocol or untreated/control group.
(c) This is a big one. The fact that the hospital wrote to the journal editors directly to provide correct data and request a retraction is very, very, very troubling. No hospital would do this unless they had already made an effort to first reach out to Dr. Kory directly, shared the new data with him, and asked him to amend the research paper's data and conclusions and, if appropriate, retract the paper. The fact that the hospital wrote directly to the journal strongly suggests that Dr. Kory was not receptive to the data corrections; and/or was unwilling to amend his paper. That kind of intransigence suggests a lack of commitment to high standards of evidence in one's research. And if a researcher is willing to compromise his commitment to that standard, well, one has earned every bit of the very substantial amount of skepticism readers ought to reasonably to other research from himself, his co-authors, and, depending on how his affiliated institutions deal with the matter, even the affiliated institutions, as well.
Just a question w regarding to point b, wasn't the overall mortality rate in the pfizer trial higher in the experimental group? Yes it was. Also, you state '
But worst of all, if the treatment appears to "work", you can't really be sure whether it worked or you just happened to give it to the least sick people who would have gotten better at a higher rate than the more sick people even in the absence of the treatment." All of the vaccine makers developed the jabs using healthy test subjects who were unlimely to experience severe disease in the first place. Why do you devalue alternative treatments for this reason, while advocating for the effectiveness of the jabs??
Doesn't change the absolute fact that these "vaccines" are the most dangerous ever deployed. They have killed more people in less than 1 year than all vaccines for the last 30 years combined. 1,000s killed and almost 900,000 injured as recorded in a data base that is roundly acknowledged to only collect 10% of all cases. There are no long term safety studies, only "research". mRNA has a long spotted history of development. For a virus that has a 99.98% survival rate, and that includes me, they can shove these injections up their ass!
1. COVID does not have a 99.98% survival rate. What's your source? Maybe for some a certain population slice, but that's not accurate for general population.
2. Have you actually looked at any charts that show COVID deaths vs. VAERS-reported deaths lately? Here's the US data: https://imgur.com/gallery/rJQiSCH
3. Vaccines are not risk-free, nor will any vaccine ever be 100% risk-free.
But you are:
(a) Using incorrect/false COVID survival rate; and not also considering the "survival rate" of vaccination
(b) Using absolute VAERS-reported death numbers while ignoring COVID absolute death numbers
(c) Totally ignoring COVID "adverse effects" including hospitalization, and known long-COVID morbidities
(d) Totally ignoring unknown unknown risks around COVID infection
That's not reasonable, and it's not smart.
If I were you, I'd just leave. What you are writing is simply SHAMEFUL. Go on your merry, Big Pharma marketing, PR way...
Your #1 is wrong again, as always. All I have to reply to is your #1. You are an easy target because you are so consistently wrong.
https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-689684/v1
Did you actually read what I wrote? Let me capitalize the relevant portion for you to re-read:
1. COVID does not have a 99.98% survival rate. What's your source? MAYBE FOR A CERTAIN POPULATION SLICE, but that's not accurate for general population.
You then link to an article that has the death rate for children and young people. Are children and young people
(a) a certain population slice
(b) general population
Correct, (a) a certain population slice.
If you look at the general population, numbers are higher. Case fatality rate (CFR) depends on many, many factors:
(a) testing rates. In countries with frequent testing, you end up finding far more mild/asymptomatic cases, which pushes up the denominator [cases], which pushes down the case fatality rate (e.g., South Korea, ). In other countries, testing is done more sparsely perhaps for political or cultural reasons (e.g., Egypt, Peru, Brazil, Iran), which may lead to an under-counting of COVID cases, leading to an overestimated CFR.
(b) access to health care, and the prevailing standard of care in a particular city/county/state. In localities where health care is easier to access (cost/insurance matters here) and prevailing standards of care are higher,
(c) population age and co-morbidities distribution. Localities with older populations as well as those with greater obesity, diabetes, etc. will have higher CFR.
(d) other idiosyncratic factors affecting patient behavior. E.g., religious factors favoring praying rather than taking a sick person to a health care facility until the person is gravely ill.
(e) reporting. In some localities, especially poorer rural localities, people die from COVID without ever having professional care, and further may never have a medical examination or post-mortem COVID test. This may result in under-reporting COVID deaths (e.g., India, Bangladesh).
Given all these factors, the "true" CFR really depends on country, or even state or city-level factors.
Nonetheless, if we simply looked at major western European nations and US, we see CFRs in the range of 1-2%.
References:
1. https://ourworldindata.org/mortality-risk-covid
2. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/covid-19-cumulative-confirmed-cases-vs-confirmed-deaths?minPopulationFilter=1000000
just a concerned brigade 77 citizen, trying to help us all not be fooled by our lying eyes.
You are correct re the case fatality rate, it's not 99.98, it is likely much higher. If we listen to the "experts" who have masked and locked people down on the myth of asymptomatic spread and undetected cases, there are tens of thousands more cases that weren't detected. It's always been the elderly and those w multiple comorbidities at risk. Rampant overvaccination of the healthy is just plain stupid, especially here where there is virtually no reduction in infection or transmission, and "status" is being weaponized to persecute those w enough sense to question and reject these chemicals.
My friend, you are using information compiled with Medical Nihilism being the "standard of care" for any poor human being who is labeled "Covid Positive" with a highly inaccurate, over amplified PCR test, which cannot differentiate between Corona Viruses, Influenza Viruses, and SARS-COV-2!
If said poor human victim of the Eugenics plan we have been watching roll out, has heart disease, COPD, and Diabetes, and has the Flu, and our most expensive and corrupt medical system on Earth, sends him or her home until they turn blue from hypoxia, and then puts them in a hospital with Remdesivir and a ventilator as treatment! You can be damn sure that American will be a dead American, and listed as a Covid19 Death.
End of story.
So even with the withholding of HCQ, Zinc, and Zithromax, (Zelenko protocol,) or Ivermectin and Doxycycline and Budesonide, the FLCCC protocol, or Dr. LaTullipppe's protocol, or dozens of others which were found to reduce Covid-19 Deaths and Hospitalization by 85%+++, still, some people still get through this, under these horrifying conditions. Also, it sure does look like a Bioweapon, and now we are force Vaxxing the entire "Free World" with the Chimeric, Toxic, Spike Protien from that Bioweapon by forcing our own cells to produce it!!
Sorry for whomever takes that path willingly. It looks like a very dark road to me. Not saying the Bioweapon is good. Just saying I won't run straight into the gunfire......
1. I don't think you really understand PCR testing, it's specificity, or the real causes of false positives. If you want to learn more, please go read: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7934325/
2. I disagree with your casting blame wholly on the medical system and current treatment protocols for COVID patients. I think you are also overlooking some very important issues around patient behavior in all this which includes: delaying/avoiding getting tested for COVID, and delaying/avoiding seeing care providers until they're already very seriously ill.
3. I probably strongly differ with you on the efficacy of these alternative treatment protocols. Some of them probably offer some efficacy, but many of them are just placebos as far as COVID goes.
4. The "bioweapon" stuff is conspiracy nonsense.
“I am a "conspiracy theorist.” I believe men and women of wealth and power conspire. If you don't think so, then you are what is called "an idiot.” If you believe stuff but fear the label, you are what is called "a coward.”
-- David B. Collum
That statement is perfect! And made me laugh, as well!
I read a great comment from a reader on Off-Guardian about not using the term "Conspircy Theorist". When someone calls you that just say that you are a"Conspircy Analylist".
Looking at all of the factors involved on a certain issue, it is very important to "analyize" the data and the sources. This is the responsible way to approach any issue. It takes more critical thinking, reading and research to arrive at this point.
Stay away from emotions....this is what the other side wants a person to do....get angry and get even. Give them some food for thought when they are finished stating their opinion.
In the end, they will be more frustrated with their point of view simply because they will not be able to defend it.
Lastly, I agree with you regarding men and women of power wanting to control the agenda of the scamdemic. We do have a pandemic but it is one of greed and fear. Stay on The Path. Peace.
"People do, on occasion, conspire. There are many theories. Some theories that appear to explain observed phemomena are plausible and supported by evidence. Some imaginative theories are not only unsupported by the evidence, but are implausible to the point of absurdity. If you regularly believe the latter kinds of theories, and further believe they involve a conspiracy, then you are indeed a conspiracy theorist and potentially you're a delusional idiot unwilling or unable to think critically and fairly assess the whole of the evidence."
-CanYouEvenSpellmRNA
1. If SARS-CoV-2 is a bioweapon, it's a pathetic one. Far better choices existed.
2. The best available evidence is in no way compatible with the bioweapon theory, it's compatible with zoonotic origin, which is consist with past outbreaks (SARS in 2002, MERS in 2012, Zika, Ebola, West Nile, etc.).
Go do some research to learn why the lab leak theory is simply not substantiated by the genomic evidence, even if you believe the preposterous conspiracy theory idea that the Wuhan lab was a gain of function bioweapon facility. 🤨
Anyone who wants a serious discussion can read this paper about the origin of SARS-CoV-2 and the genomic evidence, and respond.
https://www.cell.com/cell/pdf/S0092-8674(21)00991-0.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjHwJr0kpL0AhWFNX0KHT9AD8Q4ChAWegQIBhAB&usg=AOvVaw0iEsZ7x3_MUNV63LEutmTs
Correct link: https://www.cell.com/cell/pdf/S0092-8674(21)00991-0.pdf
A- PCR does not provide information about infection. At the 35-45 cycles of amplification being utilized by most states yields 95%+ false positives, according to many experts. It cannot differentiate between Infuenza A, Influenza B, or SARS-COV-2. And, people can receive positive PCR tests for many months post a Covid Infection. Each test is then counted as a "case" of Covid19.
Absolute fraud.
B- Ivermectin has been proven over and over again to be, actually safe and effective against SARS-COV-2, if prescribed early, as has HCQ, Zinc and Zithromax. Millions of lives have been saved worldwide by adopting early treatment strategies. Look up Dr. Tess Lawrie. Or Steve Kirsch. Or Pierre Kory. Or FLCCC. Maybe you will learn something.
C- Before mRNA Chimeric Spike Protien gene therapy injections became common, and resulted in a 1000 times the harm reported to VAERS, of any previous Biologic, the Harvard Pilgram Study concluded that between 1% and 13% of vaccine injuries are actually reported.
So while I don't know what you know, I do know that you are missing critical information about our current situation, and the absolutely atrocious, completely deadly, policies our government has subjected the citizens it is sworn to serve, to.
Read Peter Breggins book. Or listen to Dr. Peter McCullough. Try learning from Dr. Michael Yeadon, or Dr. Steven Latulippe. Or, or, or.... The whistleblowing is getting LOUD!
1. PCR testing. Have you ever done a PCR test yourself? I worked in a microbio lab, and I have. There are so many myths and preposterous assertions here ... false positive rate, cross-reactivity to influenza, it's hard to know where to begin. PCR tests are not perfect, there are false positives. But holy cow, so much nonsense.
Here's a suggestion: Try reading a couple fact-checks; and/or come back with a link to a source for your claims if you still believe any of them after reading a fact-check.
2. Ivermectin has had so much flawed/bogus research around it, I find it hard to read any new research on it, honestly. I can come back to this topic separately, but almost ever large-effect study I've looked at is hugely problematic; all the small-effect studies are so small and seem to have methological problems. And every credible study I've reviewed shows it's basically no better than placebo. HCQ w/ or w/o Azithromycin, more or less the same thing, except there were some risks for certain people with pre-existing conditions.
I have been extremely hopeful, I'll add, that any of these medications would be a silver bullet. But from the biomechanisms I've reviewed, there's just not great reasons to expect that they would work. And the reputable clinical trial research I've seen, unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be clear evidence that they work any better than placebo.
3. I've also read some of the research from Kory and the other FLCCC doctors. I also find their methods and results **extremely dubious.**
Example:
Kory's latest paper on his so-called MATH+ treatment protocol for COVID.
The paper retracted for multiple issues. First, one of the hospitals at which the MATH+ protocol being tested wrote to the editor to say the data Kory published and interpreted was wrong. The full MATH+ treatment group had higher mortality than the group that only received one of the treatments.
This is problematic for more than it first appears.
(a) First, well, it's obviously not good when the mortality rate in your full treatment protocol group is higher than the group that gets a partial protocol.
(b) The methodology is just... well, I'll say it's not what I'd call good at separating out cause from coincidence. Let me just quote the authors:
"Although the authors place immense value and importance on the need for well-conducted observational and/or randomized controlled trials, in such a novel disease syndrome, it must be recognized that not all institutions possess the necessary experience, resources, or infrastructure to design and conduct such trials, especially during a pandemic. Further, the group decided against a randomized, placebo controlled trial design given that such trials require investigators to possess “clinical equipoise,” which is the belief by the investigator that neither intervention in the control or experimental group is “better.” With respect to each of the individual “core” therapies of MATH+, all authors felt the therapies either superior to any placebo or possessed evidence of minimal risk and cost compared to potential benefit such that use was favored, with these judgements based on not only the rapidly accumulated evidence and insight into COVID-19 but also from our collective knowledge, research, and experience with each of the
component medications in critical illness and other severe
infections."
Basically, they rejected doing a double-blind randomized clinical trial because (a) it's difficult (b) they believe so much that their MATH+ protocol before they've even tested it out.
This is really, really problematic. Things really should be the other way around. If you're super confident in your protocol, it should really easy to agree to doing a double- (or triple-) blind randomized RCT because you know your treatment will work. This kind of attitude lends itself to all kinds of other potential confirmatory biases in the research.
But worst of all, if the treatment appears to "work", you can't really be sure whether it worked or you just happened to give it to the least sick people who would have gotten better at a higher rate than the more sick people even in the absence of the treatment.
As it so happened when the real data was all accounted for, they might have actually given the full protocol to the most sick patients, and perhaps that's why they died at higher rates. But again, without a full randomized/blinded methodology, you just can't really tell if the protocol still did something positive even if the mortality rate was still the highest compared to the partial protocol or untreated/control group.
(c) This is a big one. The fact that the hospital wrote to the journal editors directly to provide correct data and request a retraction is very, very, very troubling. No hospital would do this unless they had already made an effort to first reach out to Dr. Kory directly, shared the new data with him, and asked him to amend the research paper's data and conclusions and, if appropriate, retract the paper. The fact that the hospital wrote directly to the journal strongly suggests that Dr. Kory was not receptive to the data corrections; and/or was unwilling to amend his paper. That kind of intransigence suggests a lack of commitment to high standards of evidence in one's research. And if a researcher is willing to compromise his commitment to that standard, well, one has earned every bit of the very substantial amount of skepticism readers ought to reasonably to other research from himself, his co-authors, and, depending on how his affiliated institutions deal with the matter, even the affiliated institutions, as well.
Go read the article yourself: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0885066620973585
Just a question w regarding to point b, wasn't the overall mortality rate in the pfizer trial higher in the experimental group? Yes it was. Also, you state '
But worst of all, if the treatment appears to "work", you can't really be sure whether it worked or you just happened to give it to the least sick people who would have gotten better at a higher rate than the more sick people even in the absence of the treatment." All of the vaccine makers developed the jabs using healthy test subjects who were unlimely to experience severe disease in the first place. Why do you devalue alternative treatments for this reason, while advocating for the effectiveness of the jabs??
Troll