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…
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??
People are dying with COVID. Lots of them. Many with regrets about their vaccination choices; or their families having regrets about their vaccination choices.
Call me a troll if you want. I'm here to help try to separate out facts from nonsense so people can make well-informed choices.
It's the lives of people like these who motivate me to try to help people make sensible, well-informed choices with their actual personal doctor in the context of their medical history.
Unvaxed SF police who died same day he went to ER (tested Tuesday, ER Saturday, died same day)
I commend your effort and approach, it's hard to find an alternative perspective on things when the vast majority just want to call you an imbecile. I tend to disagree with you. Sadly I can't share the millions of recovery cases, because it doesn't fit the present narrative. I for one know more folks with vaccine injuries, than natural immunity. I live in the country and the folks are a bit older out here. I will admit, that this close nit community may have had the China virus, and never knew it, so take that for what it's worth. I for one will follow the advice of the mRNA inventor. He is apposed to the mandate. It should also worry you that there are tens of thousands of doctors speaking against the vaccine(s). Is this truly about health? Even they recognize herd immunity and the nonsensical mandates and the catastrophic affect it is having. The recovery rate is in the high 98-99%. Let me ask you one more question, do you know anyone that has died from this infection at home? Not to say they don't exist, I for one have not heard of a single case where an infected person died outside of the hospital.
Every time I look out my window, I see my dead neighbor's big white pickup truck.
Been there since February when he died of COVID, just a few weeks before the vax was available for people under the age of 65.
He lived with his divorced sister and two nieces, and was a loving uncle. His sister's ex-husband didn't believe in the "scamdemic" and took the girls to a Christmas party over his custody days with them. He dropped them back off a few days later back, with both girls having a sore throat and sniffles - just a typical winter cold, you know.
A few days later, everyone in the house had COVID. Mom and the girls had the "bad flu" version, but were better within a couple weeks. But Uncle got worse and worse until he had to go to the hospital. He never came back home. They buried him a few weeks later.
Mom and the girls still haven't decided what to do with his truck. Uncle was in his 40s, was a smiling, kind and gentle neighbor, he taught art in the school district.
A man put his sister's brother, his daughter's uncle, into an early grave because he didn't believe COVID was real.
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
People are dying with COVID. Lots of them. Many with regrets about their vaccination choices; or their families having regrets about their vaccination choices.
Call me a troll if you want. I'm here to help try to separate out facts from nonsense so people can make well-informed choices.
It's the lives of people like these who motivate me to try to help people make sensible, well-informed choices with their actual personal doctor in the context of their medical history.
Unvaxed SF police who died same day he went to ER (tested Tuesday, ER Saturday, died same day)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/11/11/san-francisco-officer-dies-covid-unvaccinated/
Unvaxed mother of 4, proud antivaxer, died from COVID
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ny-coronavirus-vaccine-antivax-mother-death-20210923-joivkjffgfbq5gqxi7d7cyaxne-story.html
31 Year old Woman Who Died From COVID after too much vaccine misinformation froze her decision making
https://www.webmd.com/vaccines/covid-19-vaccine/news/20210907/tiktok-creator-covid-death-get-the-vaccine
4 year old dead after getting COVID from her antivax mom
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/texas-covid-girl-anti-vax-mom-b1918895.html
Mikel Lowe, Federal Firefighter, 38 dead, didn’t believe in COVID or vaccines
https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/anti-vaxxer-turns-vaccine-advocate-after-husband-dies-from-covid-19/2709975/
Vax hesitant Southern California Husband & Wife both die from COVID leaving 5 orphans
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/09/13/davy-daniel-macias-covid-19/
Antivax radio show hosts who died of COVID and probably led many of their listeners to die from COVID
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/21/anti-vax-radio-hosts-dying-covid
I can go on ...
Anyway, I don't really care if you call this trolling or not. It is what it is.
we are calling you a troll because you are a classic, 100% obvious troll. you should go back to troll school and try and get a little better at it.
I commend your effort and approach, it's hard to find an alternative perspective on things when the vast majority just want to call you an imbecile. I tend to disagree with you. Sadly I can't share the millions of recovery cases, because it doesn't fit the present narrative. I for one know more folks with vaccine injuries, than natural immunity. I live in the country and the folks are a bit older out here. I will admit, that this close nit community may have had the China virus, and never knew it, so take that for what it's worth. I for one will follow the advice of the mRNA inventor. He is apposed to the mandate. It should also worry you that there are tens of thousands of doctors speaking against the vaccine(s). Is this truly about health? Even they recognize herd immunity and the nonsensical mandates and the catastrophic affect it is having. The recovery rate is in the high 98-99%. Let me ask you one more question, do you know anyone that has died from this infection at home? Not to say they don't exist, I for one have not heard of a single case where an infected person died outside of the hospital.
Every time I look out my window, I see my dead neighbor's big white pickup truck.
Been there since February when he died of COVID, just a few weeks before the vax was available for people under the age of 65.
He lived with his divorced sister and two nieces, and was a loving uncle. His sister's ex-husband didn't believe in the "scamdemic" and took the girls to a Christmas party over his custody days with them. He dropped them back off a few days later back, with both girls having a sore throat and sniffles - just a typical winter cold, you know.
A few days later, everyone in the house had COVID. Mom and the girls had the "bad flu" version, but were better within a couple weeks. But Uncle got worse and worse until he had to go to the hospital. He never came back home. They buried him a few weeks later.
Mom and the girls still haven't decided what to do with his truck. Uncle was in his 40s, was a smiling, kind and gentle neighbor, he taught art in the school district.
A man put his sister's brother, his daughter's uncle, into an early grave because he didn't believe COVID was real.