Experts learn, takes tests, and obey dogma. They don't, unless they are researchers or old school practitioners, experiment and explore. They follow protocol.
They are technicians, not professionals. Lest the technician in the audience howls at that, a legal aide cannot hang a shingle as a licensed attorney; a PA cannot hang a shingle as …
Experts learn, takes tests, and obey dogma. They don't, unless they are researchers or old school practitioners, experiment and explore. They follow protocol.
They are technicians, not professionals. Lest the technician in the audience howls at that, a legal aide cannot hang a shingle as a licensed attorney; a PA cannot hang a shingle as a licensed MD; a flight attendant cannot pilot an aircraft.
If a practitioner stands before a patient and says "I don't deviate from protocol," then the patient is staring at a technician who paints by numbers rather than puts his professional reputation on the line and delivers his professional and informed judgment.
Was there a verification by some august body that certified the efficacy of HCQ in early stage covid? Because, the frontier physicians figured it out and the agencies still don't believe it.
mRNA was a holy grail of pharma for cancer applications.
It had been prevented from human trials due to known toxicity. The covid crisis was the breakthrough that they needed to finally get mRNA into humans.
Once an mRNA platform made it into humans, the surveillance would begin, and if it wasn't so bad that it got banned forever, then there was now a future for mRNA.
That's why covid played out the way it did at start.
Interesting thought. I may be wrong but mRNA was/is being used in cancer treatment as “targeted therapy” - which I thought looks like a good idea. How did it go so wrong? Or how is it helpful for cancer patients but was used to control populations? I’m a person with cancer, CLL, 20 years no treatment, but have been interested in treatments for blood cancers.
Experts learn, takes tests, and obey dogma. They don't, unless they are researchers or old school practitioners, experiment and explore. They follow protocol.
They are technicians, not professionals. Lest the technician in the audience howls at that, a legal aide cannot hang a shingle as a licensed attorney; a PA cannot hang a shingle as a licensed MD; a flight attendant cannot pilot an aircraft.
If a practitioner stands before a patient and says "I don't deviate from protocol," then the patient is staring at a technician who paints by numbers rather than puts his professional reputation on the line and delivers his professional and informed judgment.
Not scientists, anyhow. Review the scientific method. Verification (reproducibility) is required.
Not under the RNA push supported 100% by the CDC and their sponsors.
Was there a verification by some august body that certified the efficacy of HCQ in early stage covid? Because, the frontier physicians figured it out and the agencies still don't believe it.
Why would they when the agenda was to create the RNA scenario?
mRNA was a holy grail of pharma for cancer applications.
It had been prevented from human trials due to known toxicity. The covid crisis was the breakthrough that they needed to finally get mRNA into humans.
Once an mRNA platform made it into humans, the surveillance would begin, and if it wasn't so bad that it got banned forever, then there was now a future for mRNA.
That's why covid played out the way it did at start.
Interesting thought. I may be wrong but mRNA was/is being used in cancer treatment as “targeted therapy” - which I thought looks like a good idea. How did it go so wrong? Or how is it helpful for cancer patients but was used to control populations? I’m a person with cancer, CLL, 20 years no treatment, but have been interested in treatments for blood cancers.
Maybe of was wrong to begin with.