The hierarchy of evidence is the problem. Most doctors I know are far too busy to research much themselves so they rely on others WHOM THEY ASSUME are honest and above reproach to provide the gold standard evidence. Namely, from the journals they were taught to trust the most, the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), The Lancet, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). All of these publications receive more submissions than they publish. The Editorial staff are the arbiters of what gets printed. Now, if you were to ask any doctor at random if they're familiar with NEJM for example, probably 100% would say yes, of course. Then if you were to ask if they consider that a reliable source of information the vast majority would again say yes. Then if you followed up and asked who the editor and chief was you'd probably stump most and if you were to ask them to name one of the people on the editorial review board you'd got a sheepish shrug of the shoulders.
So, the important take away is they rely on people they do not know to give them the honest truth about all manner of things medical including the C19 vax. Why is that important? Because it's not first hand knowledge, second hand or probably not third hand in nature. Probably the most important item to note are the people who actually conduct the trials that appear in these journals. There's always a statement about conflict of interest that seldom gets read and if it does seldom researched and checked. Big trials are worth big money and that can skew how trials are done.
For example, I recall reading a trial where hydroxy-chloroquine faired poorly and one of the reasons why is was supposedly rejected by everyone for use on Covid 19. Reading that trial and not looking deeper is what most physicians did and thus dismissed its use out of hand. However, looking into HCQ use by doctors experiencing good results when it was used early, the drug prevented Covid patients from getting worse and being admitted to hospital. It's efficacy waned the later in the disease process it was started. Knowing that is key but that wasn't made known in the trial. Why? Because the trial only enrolled hospitalized patients which made a big, big difference. By the time they were hospitalized HCQ was not as useful as when symptoms first present which then kept them from deteriorating to that point.
So in this case those who constructed the trial either didn't know or purposely left out the body of knowledge of clinicians who had treated Covid successfully with the drug when symptoms first presented. This "official" trial was a half truth that was pushed out as the whole truth. So where did it fall on this hierarchy of evidence? Were the editorial board, aka the unknown arbiters of truth that published it convinced it was the "whole truth" or because they relied on ads from Pfizer, Moderna, J&J and knew they had lots riding on the vaccines and didn't want to rock the boat? Valid questions but the mere fact that this study appeared in the journal read by many doctors and the conclusion said HCQ was not effective was enough for it to be rejected for use early or late stage. We are left to wonder how many people died needlessly as a result?
Steve's trials are like preaching to the choir. Sounds great but those that need converting aren't in attendance. A subpoena would compel them to attend and that's what is now needed.
Dr. Simone Gold, MD board certified in Emergency Medicine had treated many cases of Covid presenting to the ER with HCQ very successfully until she was told to stop by hospital administration. Her first hand experience guided her work and she continued doing what was right by her patients until she was dismissed for not following orders. Her first hand experience was not isolated to a few patients but to a significant number. The hierarchy of evidence didnтАЩt matter in her case and in many others. In fact, it was quite the opposite. During the pandemic she was let go for doing the right thing for her patients, not the hospital admin. Obviously, curing patients was not in the hospitalтАЩs best interest as they were getting paid handsomely to admit Covid patients and vent them. Narrative? No, the truth.
IтАЩm happy Steve has the warrior instinct and has seen first hand how difficult the task to show the truth to those in charge of health care. But I maintain nothing he says or does will get their attention more than them being a defendant in a law suit. They will pay attention to that.
"Assuming Dr. Gold did give patients HCQ all we would actually know is just that she gave it and didn't notice any problems. That's it. She simply doesn't have the data to claim that the treatment was useful. So again, you are wrapping a narrative around the facts."
It might more informative to actually listen to Dr. Gold rather than imply what you think she knew or didn't know.
To the colleagues commenting in the thread above. Shall we cut to the quick here? I politely note the more direct comments by Dr. David Martin--and that I agree with him. This has absolutely nothing to do with health, other than the goal of absolutely diminishing the health of the recipients of the injections--to kill them. https://www.lewrockwell.com/2022/05/no_author/dr-david-e-martin-gives-explosive-jaw-dropping-information-in-canadian-zoom-meeting/ . Once one gets "over the hump" and that does involve appreciating what Dr. Martin outlines...then it is possible to "think the unthinkable." Someone/thing is at war with us. "It" wants to kill a very large number of people. That includes with remdesivir, and the democide in old folks homes in the UK that was conducted there. "It" ("They") want to kill, and are killing, by murder...
The hierarchy of evidence is the problem. Most doctors I know are far too busy to research much themselves so they rely on others WHOM THEY ASSUME are honest and above reproach to provide the gold standard evidence. Namely, from the journals they were taught to trust the most, the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), The Lancet, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). All of these publications receive more submissions than they publish. The Editorial staff are the arbiters of what gets printed. Now, if you were to ask any doctor at random if they're familiar with NEJM for example, probably 100% would say yes, of course. Then if you were to ask if they consider that a reliable source of information the vast majority would again say yes. Then if you followed up and asked who the editor and chief was you'd probably stump most and if you were to ask them to name one of the people on the editorial review board you'd got a sheepish shrug of the shoulders.
So, the important take away is they rely on people they do not know to give them the honest truth about all manner of things medical including the C19 vax. Why is that important? Because it's not first hand knowledge, second hand or probably not third hand in nature. Probably the most important item to note are the people who actually conduct the trials that appear in these journals. There's always a statement about conflict of interest that seldom gets read and if it does seldom researched and checked. Big trials are worth big money and that can skew how trials are done.
For example, I recall reading a trial where hydroxy-chloroquine faired poorly and one of the reasons why is was supposedly rejected by everyone for use on Covid 19. Reading that trial and not looking deeper is what most physicians did and thus dismissed its use out of hand. However, looking into HCQ use by doctors experiencing good results when it was used early, the drug prevented Covid patients from getting worse and being admitted to hospital. It's efficacy waned the later in the disease process it was started. Knowing that is key but that wasn't made known in the trial. Why? Because the trial only enrolled hospitalized patients which made a big, big difference. By the time they were hospitalized HCQ was not as useful as when symptoms first present which then kept them from deteriorating to that point.
So in this case those who constructed the trial either didn't know or purposely left out the body of knowledge of clinicians who had treated Covid successfully with the drug when symptoms first presented. This "official" trial was a half truth that was pushed out as the whole truth. So where did it fall on this hierarchy of evidence? Were the editorial board, aka the unknown arbiters of truth that published it convinced it was the "whole truth" or because they relied on ads from Pfizer, Moderna, J&J and knew they had lots riding on the vaccines and didn't want to rock the boat? Valid questions but the mere fact that this study appeared in the journal read by many doctors and the conclusion said HCQ was not effective was enough for it to be rejected for use early or late stage. We are left to wonder how many people died needlessly as a result?
Steve's trials are like preaching to the choir. Sounds great but those that need converting aren't in attendance. A subpoena would compel them to attend and that's what is now needed.
Dr. Simone Gold, MD board certified in Emergency Medicine had treated many cases of Covid presenting to the ER with HCQ very successfully until she was told to stop by hospital administration. Her first hand experience guided her work and she continued doing what was right by her patients until she was dismissed for not following orders. Her first hand experience was not isolated to a few patients but to a significant number. The hierarchy of evidence didnтАЩt matter in her case and in many others. In fact, it was quite the opposite. During the pandemic she was let go for doing the right thing for her patients, not the hospital admin. Obviously, curing patients was not in the hospitalтАЩs best interest as they were getting paid handsomely to admit Covid patients and vent them. Narrative? No, the truth.
IтАЩm happy Steve has the warrior instinct and has seen first hand how difficult the task to show the truth to those in charge of health care. But I maintain nothing he says or does will get their attention more than them being a defendant in a law suit. They will pay attention to that.
"Assuming Dr. Gold did give patients HCQ all we would actually know is just that she gave it and didn't notice any problems. That's it. She simply doesn't have the data to claim that the treatment was useful. So again, you are wrapping a narrative around the facts."
It might more informative to actually listen to Dr. Gold rather than imply what you think she knew or didn't know.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3o99bs9uuo
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1232869/
To the colleagues commenting in the thread above. Shall we cut to the quick here? I politely note the more direct comments by Dr. David Martin--and that I agree with him. This has absolutely nothing to do with health, other than the goal of absolutely diminishing the health of the recipients of the injections--to kill them. https://www.lewrockwell.com/2022/05/no_author/dr-david-e-martin-gives-explosive-jaw-dropping-information-in-canadian-zoom-meeting/ . Once one gets "over the hump" and that does involve appreciating what Dr. Martin outlines...then it is possible to "think the unthinkable." Someone/thing is at war with us. "It" wants to kill a very large number of people. That includes with remdesivir, and the democide in old folks homes in the UK that was conducted there. "It" ("They") want to kill, and are killing, by murder...