Jul 18, 2022·edited Jul 18, 2022Liked by Mathew Crawford
The original prize was the government incentives given to the healthcare providers for each covid positive test, each patient admitted, each patient in the ICU and on a vent, each patient on FDA mandated meds, and each patient dead from Covid. A private incentive/prize could top that a few times, but likely not enough times to sway a whole embedded (corrupt) system to the side of right without going totally broke.
This. This is the kind of observation that people would (should) make when thinking about prizes: all the incentives. Just observing how the incentives aligned with motivations of malpractice should be chilling.
If common watchdogs who have the attention of a significant portion of American aren't noticing and calling out those incentives on day 1, then the system has long since achieved orbit from scrutiny by the people.
We need to write scientific papers that study philanthropaths in such a way that treats them as a natural disaster such as a volcano or a hurricane. Analyze "official" scientific research in an anthropological sort of way rather than treating it with the dignity of peer review, and study how much damage the philanthropaths have caused to how they treat the truth.
When my son's college was offering $200 cash if the kids showed their vax card, I was seriously stunned. Sadly a student "died in her sleep" after this campaign.
We have endless wars and endless pandemics. “Don’t kill the job” was the old union construction worker saying. Grift, money laundering, and most importantly control are the objectives and pesky solutions only get in the way.
Breaking point of global systems.... I'm not there yet. I think most of them are entrenched / resilient. But you may be right, and you've gotten a lot right since I've been following, so I should start there.
You wrote an article some time ago that asked "what happens when that first domino falls" (approx quote, sorry). But it still hasn't fallen... Maybe it's effectively staked to the ground, going nowhere? Hope I'm wrong.
That's a good question. You exposed something I hadn't thought through enough. I was picturing the first domino as congressional hearings demanding more information about the clinical trials and the inner workings at FDA. But maybe that's more like the tenth domino.
If you think the first domino has already fallen, please write more about it, I am all ears. Well, eyes.
Pfizer and Moderna have been given a billion plus dollar prize and it still hasn’t been totaled. And we are on the hook for paying ALL the debts incurred. They, Pfizer and Moderna, can easily afford to insure nobody else wins.
My family had C19. It was more like a flu than a cold for them. In the before times, I'd have been a little worried, but not overly. I was the one who brought to their attention the first video from Dr. Bridle in Feb. 2021. So I did have a few moments where I thought to myself, "OMgosh, what if I was wrong"? I never got it, weirdly enough. Three in the house sick for several days. They slept around the clock. They had borderline fever, with severe body aches and anorexia. All lost their taste. My daughter was vomiting for several days. So I agree in part: don't freak out. But it was not a cold in our case. One of the new variants? We had lots of supplements (NAC, Fit D, Quercitin, Zinc, Black Seed Oil and I v e r - although my daughter was so sick, she could not keep anything down). My hubby has elevated cholesterol, but the rest of us have 0 co-morbidities. All of us have normal BMIs. My hubby recovered faster than my daughter, as he was taking all of the supplements, and she could not. Her BF smokes. He brought C19 to us from his work. He recovered the fastest. None of us are vaxxed. I share as a point of interest.
My family and I just had the exact same thing. My kid caught it from a fully vaxxed friend June 28) and passed it to us (July 2). We took Quercetin, ivermectin, zinc, but we were very sick anyway. I’ve read that the new NYC strain is very bad and this is where my kid’s friend works & was infected.
Right? And I forget the severe headache symptom. This was not a cold. I did get a little testy when my bro said, "Oh, you mean they have a cold." My DD had one of those about 3 weeks before C19 and still functioned. There was no functioning for 3-4 days from any of them. Good thing I was okay to look after them & the animals (3 cats/1 dog).
Yes, I forgot about the headaches. Worst I’ve ever had, like you, I could not function for at least 3 days. Definitely not a cold, this was a bad flu. Personally I feel the vaccines are driving the variants and worsening their virulence.
Many people have researched both, without a prize, and have been silenced. IV vitamin C reduces inflammation better than remdesivir. Ivermectin has shown efficacy, when given early, in studies conducted in countries with less US pharma interest, like India. Even a woman in the UK researcjing wormwood extract for fibroid conditions has shown it has in vitro efficacy against covid. We don’t need a prize. We need bureaucratic and corporate censorship removed and a medical freedom act to release physicians already working on this from proscriptive measures by insurance companies, hospitals, the CDC and the AMA.
"We don't need a prize, we just need [something that will never happen in the current system]" sounds to me like a commitment to not succeeding.
Heck, all we need is for humans not to commit crimes or act aggressively toward one another?
I think we entered the Era of Totalitarianism without most people knowing. That has to be unwound by winning hearts, minds, and souls before we can have any realistic expectation of winning back the value of public institutions.
Most hearts are emotional basket cases, most minds aren’t thinking, and most people don’t believe in souls. We are weak and sick as a culture. That’s where we need to start, in my opinion. Mend the culture.
That’s certainly part of it. But you can’t just surrender to the culture when it goes off the rails. We need to think about practical ways to boycott it and fight it.
Winning hearts, minds, and souls is where it's at, absolutely. But we can't very well expect humans not to commit crimes or even atrocities. We just enough humans to hold those bad actors accountable.
Absolutely, Jennie. The Brownstein nutrient and oxidative protocol could probably bring a nearly 100% recovery rate. Thinking this trough, if there were such a prize, what other "bonuses" would await the "winner"? The only solution I see is enough people saying "enough is enough". Then the rest will follow as a matter of course. Though things might get very, very ugly first.
"Why would the government and media all of a sudden accept it just because someone got a prize."
This is about the war for hearts and minds. People cannot sanely ignore the prizes, and would then be open to reading more about the evidence. And that's the point I'm making: the lack of a prize before now indicates a desire to keep people from talking and learning about the evidence.
We have entire countries that fared much better than us because of better early protocols. Media ignores it, and the majority of people still dont know it ever happened.
This runs deep. If someone gets attention(censorship makes this doubtful). You would be shamed, fired, arrested and destroyed. We are waiting for courage, anytime now.
"Win a prize and spend the rest of your life having hit pieces written about you and being stripped of your Drs. licence."
Sounds like such Drs license is a fraud license then? And worse than an honest license of a board-approved executioner.
Who needs a cowardly doctor lying to them and effectively killing them? Both of my parents were doctors. I'm glad they passed away w/o witnessing this degradation of their profession.
I would never be able to do the paperwork required to matriculate into med school and earn a Drs license anyway so a prize seems like a good deal to me. May have to put it in a special trust so that I can still get my SSI though. Or invest it so that I don't need SSI anymore but I don't know how stonks work. There's one type of math that I'm not good at and it had to be stonks math.
Unfortunately, the only way to prove a claim for either of these prizes is to conduct multiple RCTs against relevant controls. The cost of doing so would be very high and in the West it's unlikely that funding would be available, especially as the voices of darkness did everything in their power to derail any such efforts.
Realistically, the evidence would have to be based on painstaking analysis and meta-analysis of all existing data in the public domain and the use of FOIA to extract data which has NOT been made public by Agencies such as CDC.
My intent is not to be negative because I share the view that the basic concept is excellent. I'm just pointing to some of the practical difficulties which might help focus thinking and refine the idea.
The idea that RCTs are necessary has never at any point in history been one shared by more than a small minority of the statistics community, almost all of which is employed by or through the Pharmafia.
Rationally, requiring such trials is a load of bollocks. If it works, it works, and that's good enough for anyone with a speck of reason. But medicine as we know it has become more like Medieval religion than proper science. So the research protocol is church dogma, if you catch my drift.
I'm not talking statistics, I'm talking medicine. How else will you prove the superiority of one protocol over another. There is not that much "clean" data available because these protocols have all been systematically suppressed. So meta-analysis would probably not reach a standard to be convincing. Especially the way things are at the moment. I hope I'm wrong, I'm not trying to be negative, just realistic.
"How else will you prove the superiority of one protocol over another."
What qualifies as "proof"? That's not a scientific word, and not really the domain of inferential statistics. There is only opinion, trained or otherwise.
Prior to the introduction of RCTs, the statistician whose methods get applied to RCTs (Ronald Fisher) did not need RCTs to form opinions, and then critiqued the way many scientists (particularly among the Pharmafia) used his statistical framework.
Lots of opinions have been held historically without RCTs. Their relevance is actually quite small in the grand scheme of evidence gathering.
OK, I'm all ears. So with the limited amount of dat available and virtually no controlled data, how are you going to prove the superiority of one protocol over another?
Part of my point is that in the medical world cotrolled data is the gold standard so even if you believe that a purely mathematical analysis on unctrolled data is possible, it would not be accepted. So why bother?
The goal is not to prove anything. It is to wisely evaluate and judge the evidence. That's what science is.
The vast majority of medicine came to pass from "uncontrolled data" and there is an entire body of literature showing that controlled and uncontrolled data tend to quickly converge.
No problem with that BUT the original proposal I posted about was to award a prize for proving the most successful protocol for SC-2 treatment. My question in that context was how are you going to do that?
Read Mathew's response again. Statisticians like the concept of RCTs, the medical community didn't claim to require (very expensive) RCTs until Big pHarma and Fauci realized they needed barriers to block real solutions to problems they created. Ironically, the current EUA pharmaceuticals did not use RCTs to gain approval, so requiring them for other treatments is disingenuous, but the general population doesn't understand this, believing Fauci's BS because it sounds sciency.
That has value in and of itself! Way better than someone actually getting the prize.
There would be widespread awakening as people and institutions are compelled to do the research themselves, only to uncover large swaths of bullshit and junk, fudged datasets.
Right. Lack of such BS trials is exactly the rationale that has been used to marginalize such treatments which are already out there. It's a way of controlling the players and court, and rigging the game. It's all well and fine to implement such safe and effective treatments on a small scale, but a strict no-go in the big picture. Now follow that line of reasoning down the rabbit hole... The only way I see to succeed on a large scale is to change the bloody game.
There are two issues here, one more critical than the other. First , HOW do you propose to demonstrate superiority? It was my understanding that science was all about a hypothesis, demonstrating the veracity of the hypothesis and being able to replicate it? Statistics only come AFTER the event. Second, the lesser issue, is what supporting evidence will be generally accepted within the present "peer review" structure as the gatekeeper for publication and serious debate eminating from publication in a "reputable" peer reviewed Journal.
In the latter regard, you may very well be correct, but the former still requires a robust process of SOME description. I am not being dogmatic and am entirely open to other serious suggestions as to how the superiority of a given therapy can be established to a reasonable standard which would be generally accepted as such.. Like so many things, the present system may be corrupted, but it developed over decades with an honest and reasonable purpose.
Evidently we're on about different things. I'm on about censorship of treatments, not approval process for nutrients that are known to be safe. If 107 patients in Dr. B's practice fully recover within 9 days, compared to a norm of, say, 10 long COVID cases among patients with similar characteristics elsewhere, does that not constitute convincing evidence of efficacy?
It would be very difficult to conduct a proper controlled trial of such a treatment protocol. First, patients would have to be informed of the nature of the treatments, and would have to consent to either one. If I were told one was a nutrient and H2O2 protocol and the other was a drug, I would demand the former.
I think there needs to be a more "all hands on deck" way to get a sense of the efficacy of treatments, in which doing the best one can do to save the patient always comes first.
I don't disagree with you and what you say makes logical sense. BUT without a protocol and control group, such results would not be accepted by the scientific community the way things work a present - rightly or wrongly. And it is because so few controlled trials have been conducted for HCQ and IVM that they have been able to maintain their view that there is "no evidence" they work - because data of the type you describe is disregarded.
The problem with prizes from the baddies, is that they just steal your stuff and ,yeah, they give you the prize, but then they don't use it. Imagine prizes in the 30's , 40's , 50's, and you would have had Reich and Brown and Ray Rife offering their tech, only to be ruined. Oh wait, that kinda happened in another way. So if you discover something that works independent of your presence, make a thousand copies, give them away with limited licence, such that free people can use it, but governments, military, big corp, etc, must pay. Now, we know they won't play that game, so you can join the dots as to what Needs to come next.
There were effective early treatment protocols almost right from the git-go. In the summer of 2020, Dr. David Brownstein published his exceptionally effective drug-free nutrient and oxidative protocol, which brought full recovery for all 107 of his patients so treated within 9 days. While no deaths may be unexceptional for such a small number of patients, not a single "long COVID" case or case that got to the cytokine storm phase was very exceptional, indeed.
For all we know, early treatment using his approach could save over 99% of those for whom COVID is the most critical condition. I used a similar approach to easily kick COVID to the curb myself. It would be effective for any
But when he put the info out, expecting it to be received with enthusiasm, the alphabet agencies told him to "cease and desist" from publicizing it under the rationale that it was "not a double-blind controlled study", as if it would be ethical in any way to withhold such effective treatment.
So he kept quiet, so he could get away with continuing to provide such effective and 100% safe early treatment.
The original prize was the government incentives given to the healthcare providers for each covid positive test, each patient admitted, each patient in the ICU and on a vent, each patient on FDA mandated meds, and each patient dead from Covid. A private incentive/prize could top that a few times, but likely not enough times to sway a whole embedded (corrupt) system to the side of right without going totally broke.
This. This is the kind of observation that people would (should) make when thinking about prizes: all the incentives. Just observing how the incentives aligned with motivations of malpractice should be chilling.
If common watchdogs who have the attention of a significant portion of American aren't noticing and calling out those incentives on day 1, then the system has long since achieved orbit from scrutiny by the people.
Anyone offering a prize for a solution that drains the swamp?
Yes. Satoshi Nakamoto.
We need to write scientific papers that study philanthropaths in such a way that treats them as a natural disaster such as a volcano or a hurricane. Analyze "official" scientific research in an anthropological sort of way rather than treating it with the dignity of peer review, and study how much damage the philanthropaths have caused to how they treat the truth.
A lot of rich material to be mined there. Bill Gates would be a good place to start.
More profits to be made for the swamp-things to keep their habitat the way it is. That includes both those that feed the swamp and feed off of it.
The rest of us are left with the options of joining either group or trying to trudge out of the swamp.
Removing any single one of them is its own reward. Removing five and getting away with it makes you a demi-god
When my son's college was offering $200 cash if the kids showed their vax card, I was seriously stunned. Sadly a student "died in her sleep" after this campaign.
Here are some major questions that citizens should have answers for in July,2022.
1. How did SARS CoV 2 get deployed?
2. Why is there no clear early treatment available online or from most doctors?
3. If the MRNA gene therapy does not prevent infection, hospitalization, or death. What is the purpose?
Congratulations on your podcast! It’s filled with great information and I love your approach.
We have endless wars and endless pandemics. “Don’t kill the job” was the old union construction worker saying. Grift, money laundering, and most importantly control are the objectives and pesky solutions only get in the way.
Breaking point of global systems.... I'm not there yet. I think most of them are entrenched / resilient. But you may be right, and you've gotten a lot right since I've been following, so I should start there.
You wrote an article some time ago that asked "what happens when that first domino falls" (approx quote, sorry). But it still hasn't fallen... Maybe it's effectively staked to the ground, going nowhere? Hope I'm wrong.
What would you consider the first domino, if not the failure of the global repo markets?
That's a good question. You exposed something I hadn't thought through enough. I was picturing the first domino as congressional hearings demanding more information about the clinical trials and the inner workings at FDA. But maybe that's more like the tenth domino.
If you think the first domino has already fallen, please write more about it, I am all ears. Well, eyes.
Here is one article I wrote that talks about it:
https://roundingtheearth.substack.com/p/what-could-45-trillion-buy-during?s=w
Pfizer and Moderna have been given a billion plus dollar prize and it still hasn’t been totaled. And we are on the hook for paying ALL the debts incurred. They, Pfizer and Moderna, can easily afford to insure nobody else wins.
Many billions.
The best early treatment protocol is not to freak out when you catch a cold.
My family had C19. It was more like a flu than a cold for them. In the before times, I'd have been a little worried, but not overly. I was the one who brought to their attention the first video from Dr. Bridle in Feb. 2021. So I did have a few moments where I thought to myself, "OMgosh, what if I was wrong"? I never got it, weirdly enough. Three in the house sick for several days. They slept around the clock. They had borderline fever, with severe body aches and anorexia. All lost their taste. My daughter was vomiting for several days. So I agree in part: don't freak out. But it was not a cold in our case. One of the new variants? We had lots of supplements (NAC, Fit D, Quercitin, Zinc, Black Seed Oil and I v e r - although my daughter was so sick, she could not keep anything down). My hubby has elevated cholesterol, but the rest of us have 0 co-morbidities. All of us have normal BMIs. My hubby recovered faster than my daughter, as he was taking all of the supplements, and she could not. Her BF smokes. He brought C19 to us from his work. He recovered the fastest. None of us are vaxxed. I share as a point of interest.
And for the elderly, people with comorbidities, or auto-inteeferon disorders, it's definitely no joke.
My family and I just had the exact same thing. My kid caught it from a fully vaxxed friend June 28) and passed it to us (July 2). We took Quercetin, ivermectin, zinc, but we were very sick anyway. I’ve read that the new NYC strain is very bad and this is where my kid’s friend works & was infected.
Right? And I forget the severe headache symptom. This was not a cold. I did get a little testy when my bro said, "Oh, you mean they have a cold." My DD had one of those about 3 weeks before C19 and still functioned. There was no functioning for 3-4 days from any of them. Good thing I was okay to look after them & the animals (3 cats/1 dog).
Yes, I forgot about the headaches. Worst I’ve ever had, like you, I could not function for at least 3 days. Definitely not a cold, this was a bad flu. Personally I feel the vaccines are driving the variants and worsening their virulence.
Being sick sucks
Many people have researched both, without a prize, and have been silenced. IV vitamin C reduces inflammation better than remdesivir. Ivermectin has shown efficacy, when given early, in studies conducted in countries with less US pharma interest, like India. Even a woman in the UK researcjing wormwood extract for fibroid conditions has shown it has in vitro efficacy against covid. We don’t need a prize. We need bureaucratic and corporate censorship removed and a medical freedom act to release physicians already working on this from proscriptive measures by insurance companies, hospitals, the CDC and the AMA.
"We don't need a prize, we just need [something that will never happen in the current system]" sounds to me like a commitment to not succeeding.
Heck, all we need is for humans not to commit crimes or act aggressively toward one another?
I think we entered the Era of Totalitarianism without most people knowing. That has to be unwound by winning hearts, minds, and souls before we can have any realistic expectation of winning back the value of public institutions.
Most hearts are emotional basket cases, most minds aren’t thinking, and most people don’t believe in souls. We are weak and sick as a culture. That’s where we need to start, in my opinion. Mend the culture.
Then let's go all Maria Montessori and raise better children.
That’s certainly part of it. But you can’t just surrender to the culture when it goes off the rails. We need to think about practical ways to boycott it and fight it.
Winning hearts, minds, and souls is where it's at, absolutely. But we can't very well expect humans not to commit crimes or even atrocities. We just enough humans to hold those bad actors accountable.
Absolutely, Jennie. The Brownstein nutrient and oxidative protocol could probably bring a nearly 100% recovery rate. Thinking this trough, if there were such a prize, what other "bonuses" would await the "winner"? The only solution I see is enough people saying "enough is enough". Then the rest will follow as a matter of course. Though things might get very, very ugly first.
1. the best early treatment protocol ($1M reward)
2.the best in-patient (hospital) treatment protocol ($10M reward)
We know what works in early treatment and in hospitals.
Why would the government and media all of a sudden accept it just because someone got a prize.
Win a prize and spend the rest of your life having hit pieces written about you and being stripped of your Drs. licence.
"Why would the government and media all of a sudden accept it just because someone got a prize."
This is about the war for hearts and minds. People cannot sanely ignore the prizes, and would then be open to reading more about the evidence. And that's the point I'm making: the lack of a prize before now indicates a desire to keep people from talking and learning about the evidence.
We have entire countries that fared much better than us because of better early protocols. Media ignores it, and the majority of people still dont know it ever happened.
This runs deep. If someone gets attention(censorship makes this doubtful). You would be shamed, fired, arrested and destroyed. We are waiting for courage, anytime now.
"Win a prize and spend the rest of your life having hit pieces written about you and being stripped of your Drs. licence."
Sounds like such Drs license is a fraud license then? And worse than an honest license of a board-approved executioner.
Who needs a cowardly doctor lying to them and effectively killing them? Both of my parents were doctors. I'm glad they passed away w/o witnessing this degradation of their profession.
I would never be able to do the paperwork required to matriculate into med school and earn a Drs license anyway so a prize seems like a good deal to me. May have to put it in a special trust so that I can still get my SSI though. Or invest it so that I don't need SSI anymore but I don't know how stonks work. There's one type of math that I'm not good at and it had to be stonks math.
I wish we could have a Covid Fall Fair in every town, with a prize for the local person who got the most people to take the red pill.
https://manuherold.substack.com/p/t-cells-
Unfortunately, the only way to prove a claim for either of these prizes is to conduct multiple RCTs against relevant controls. The cost of doing so would be very high and in the West it's unlikely that funding would be available, especially as the voices of darkness did everything in their power to derail any such efforts.
Realistically, the evidence would have to be based on painstaking analysis and meta-analysis of all existing data in the public domain and the use of FOIA to extract data which has NOT been made public by Agencies such as CDC.
My intent is not to be negative because I share the view that the basic concept is excellent. I'm just pointing to some of the practical difficulties which might help focus thinking and refine the idea.
The idea that RCTs are necessary has never at any point in history been one shared by more than a small minority of the statistics community, almost all of which is employed by or through the Pharmafia.
Why would you go and apply their propaganda here?
Rationally, requiring such trials is a load of bollocks. If it works, it works, and that's good enough for anyone with a speck of reason. But medicine as we know it has become more like Medieval religion than proper science. So the research protocol is church dogma, if you catch my drift.
I'm not talking statistics, I'm talking medicine. How else will you prove the superiority of one protocol over another. There is not that much "clean" data available because these protocols have all been systematically suppressed. So meta-analysis would probably not reach a standard to be convincing. Especially the way things are at the moment. I hope I'm wrong, I'm not trying to be negative, just realistic.
"How else will you prove the superiority of one protocol over another."
What qualifies as "proof"? That's not a scientific word, and not really the domain of inferential statistics. There is only opinion, trained or otherwise.
Prior to the introduction of RCTs, the statistician whose methods get applied to RCTs (Ronald Fisher) did not need RCTs to form opinions, and then critiqued the way many scientists (particularly among the Pharmafia) used his statistical framework.
Lots of opinions have been held historically without RCTs. Their relevance is actually quite small in the grand scheme of evidence gathering.
OK, I'm all ears. So with the limited amount of dat available and virtually no controlled data, how are you going to prove the superiority of one protocol over another?
Part of my point is that in the medical world cotrolled data is the gold standard so even if you believe that a purely mathematical analysis on unctrolled data is possible, it would not be accepted. So why bother?
The goal is not to prove anything. It is to wisely evaluate and judge the evidence. That's what science is.
The vast majority of medicine came to pass from "uncontrolled data" and there is an entire body of literature showing that controlled and uncontrolled data tend to quickly converge.
No problem with that BUT the original proposal I posted about was to award a prize for proving the most successful protocol for SC-2 treatment. My question in that context was how are you going to do that?
Read Mathew's response again. Statisticians like the concept of RCTs, the medical community didn't claim to require (very expensive) RCTs until Big pHarma and Fauci realized they needed barriers to block real solutions to problems they created. Ironically, the current EUA pharmaceuticals did not use RCTs to gain approval, so requiring them for other treatments is disingenuous, but the general population doesn't understand this, believing Fauci's BS because it sounds sciency.
That has value in and of itself! Way better than someone actually getting the prize.
There would be widespread awakening as people and institutions are compelled to do the research themselves, only to uncover large swaths of bullshit and junk, fudged datasets.
Right. Lack of such BS trials is exactly the rationale that has been used to marginalize such treatments which are already out there. It's a way of controlling the players and court, and rigging the game. It's all well and fine to implement such safe and effective treatments on a small scale, but a strict no-go in the big picture. Now follow that line of reasoning down the rabbit hole... The only way I see to succeed on a large scale is to change the bloody game.
There are two issues here, one more critical than the other. First , HOW do you propose to demonstrate superiority? It was my understanding that science was all about a hypothesis, demonstrating the veracity of the hypothesis and being able to replicate it? Statistics only come AFTER the event. Second, the lesser issue, is what supporting evidence will be generally accepted within the present "peer review" structure as the gatekeeper for publication and serious debate eminating from publication in a "reputable" peer reviewed Journal.
In the latter regard, you may very well be correct, but the former still requires a robust process of SOME description. I am not being dogmatic and am entirely open to other serious suggestions as to how the superiority of a given therapy can be established to a reasonable standard which would be generally accepted as such.. Like so many things, the present system may be corrupted, but it developed over decades with an honest and reasonable purpose.
Evidently we're on about different things. I'm on about censorship of treatments, not approval process for nutrients that are known to be safe. If 107 patients in Dr. B's practice fully recover within 9 days, compared to a norm of, say, 10 long COVID cases among patients with similar characteristics elsewhere, does that not constitute convincing evidence of efficacy?
It would be very difficult to conduct a proper controlled trial of such a treatment protocol. First, patients would have to be informed of the nature of the treatments, and would have to consent to either one. If I were told one was a nutrient and H2O2 protocol and the other was a drug, I would demand the former.
I think there needs to be a more "all hands on deck" way to get a sense of the efficacy of treatments, in which doing the best one can do to save the patient always comes first.
I don't disagree with you and what you say makes logical sense. BUT without a protocol and control group, such results would not be accepted by the scientific community the way things work a present - rightly or wrongly. And it is because so few controlled trials have been conducted for HCQ and IVM that they have been able to maintain their view that there is "no evidence" they work - because data of the type you describe is disregarded.
So?
#stopthewho https://jamesroguski.substack.com/p/ten-things-everyone-needs-to-know/comments
The problem with prizes from the baddies, is that they just steal your stuff and ,yeah, they give you the prize, but then they don't use it. Imagine prizes in the 30's , 40's , 50's, and you would have had Reich and Brown and Ray Rife offering their tech, only to be ruined. Oh wait, that kinda happened in another way. So if you discover something that works independent of your presence, make a thousand copies, give them away with limited licence, such that free people can use it, but governments, military, big corp, etc, must pay. Now, we know they won't play that game, so you can join the dots as to what Needs to come next.
There were effective early treatment protocols almost right from the git-go. In the summer of 2020, Dr. David Brownstein published his exceptionally effective drug-free nutrient and oxidative protocol, which brought full recovery for all 107 of his patients so treated within 9 days. While no deaths may be unexceptional for such a small number of patients, not a single "long COVID" case or case that got to the cytokine storm phase was very exceptional, indeed.
https://www.publichealthpolicyjournal.com/_files/ugd/adf864_cc5004cfa84a46d3b1a0338d4308c42c.pdf
For all we know, early treatment using his approach could save over 99% of those for whom COVID is the most critical condition. I used a similar approach to easily kick COVID to the curb myself. It would be effective for any
But when he put the info out, expecting it to be received with enthusiasm, the alphabet agencies told him to "cease and desist" from publicizing it under the rationale that it was "not a double-blind controlled study", as if it would be ethical in any way to withhold such effective treatment.
So he kept quiet, so he could get away with continuing to provide such effective and 100% safe early treatment.