As someone who didn't start questioning things early on, I initially bought the "HCQ is ineffective" line, but then they went way too far by suggesting HCQ is too potentially dangerous to try. Our family has traveled to regions where malaria is endemic and the pediatricians have always been quite insistent that our children prophylax, so I've seen all the safety data comparing this to other anti-malarials. Safe for kids. Safe for pregnant women. Suddenly more dangerous than doing nothing up to the time a covid patient needs to be ventilated?
Your merry HCQ studies simplified chart does a great job of showing me just how duped I was-- as a bonus I clicked through to see the original and all the data. Wow. I gotta say, though, it would definitely look more seasonal if it had a little more red on it. Too bad!
"But the way this happened in a matter of minutes was startling, so I'm going to assume that I'm right over the target. This is a great graph to share with friends who just haven't taken the time to see what the pharmaceutical industry, captured regulators, and media have to do to keep people from understanding the evidence.
This Christmas, give somebody you care about the chance to step outside of the Matrix."
Abso-frigging-lutely right about being over the target. The fear is almost palpable with the speed of the censorship. As a bit of an expert at the math adverse and graphically challenged I can say with certainty the final chart is perfect. It's perfect depicting the problem and perfect gift, thank you! :~)
Maybe a good enough picture can knock people out of the matrix. I think this essay might wake some people up, too It's that good, if you haven't seen it:
Hmm, where have I heard something like this before? Oh, I know! When life-saving aerosol pentamidine and Bactrim were denied to AIDS sufferers for three years while the toxic AZT was pushed—all thanks to fraudulent manipulation of studies and data.
Kind of sounds like the denial/smearing of early treatment protocols such as HCQ and IVM while the lethal, lucrative Remdesivir was being pushed.
There seems to be a common denominator here … let me think … oh yes, Dr. Mengelfauci!
So in other words, the studies that only treated people sick enough long enough to possibly need ventilators with dangerously high levels of HCQ tended to not fare well from the treatment but it wasn’t clear what killed them.
I don't know crap about HCQ's efficacy, but this wall-to-wall censorship of opposing opinions and datasets means... HCQ probably works so well that the pharma industry is concerned about their $1.2 trillion pipeline of business.
As someone whose medical bandwidth is limited, but who knows that every illness attracts quacks and faith healers (Pfizer and moderna included), I find it difficult to know where to draw the line with controversial treatment. I do have some ivermectin and antibiotics in my medicine drawer and plan to use them for known exposure or likely symptoms.
Being by nature a sceptic and a cynic to boot, to preserve some shred of mental health I generally check claims (when it concers areas I know ---- all about) with this:
Does the source seem to seek to present a truthful statement, or is it trying to make believe that a statement is true? (Sorry, can't put it better without typing an essay on lingusitics, semantics, and the rest of that stuff.)
Is the source trying to make me act in a certain way? Does it do so implicitly, or overtly?
Is it trying to sell me something I have never felt the need for of my own?
Is it trying to induce fear, FOMO or similar mechanisms?
Is the source trying to imply that disbelieving it is evil?
Is there an implicit sense of "Believe and comply, or else!"?
Is the source preaching, didactic and fussy about 'bad words'? (Not incorrect terms, but 'bad' words.)
I've never "served" any "time" on facebook, I do criminal defense work, and that's the language criminals use when talking about their sentences. I've been censored before, and quickly, and been blacked out entirely for days at a time. So I'd put it in different language, to reflect what's actually going on - censoring and blacking out in a way which could never exist in any sort of free society. Metaverse, if this continues, will be the digital equivalent of pre-1989 East Germany. We have to figure out a way - or ways - to break down the Wall.
As for "WHERE IN MEDICAL HISTORY HAS SUCH A LARGE BODY OF CONSISTENT EVIDENCE BEEN IGNORED?! WHAT KIND OF INSANITY IS THIS?!", that's simple. It happened to Semmelweis, when he came up with the idea of physicians washing their hands between patient exams, he was able to cut the puerperal fever rate, which subjected many women to agonizing deaths in hospitals after they gave birth, to almost nothing - and for this he was censored and ostracized and driven insane. It's happened to lots of others - like Wegener, whose theory of plate tectonics was denounced as a crackpot scheme, from when he announced it in 1912, until 1962, when it was generally accepted as the correct theory, and if he had lived to see the day, he would have gotten a Nobel Prize instead of dying in obscurity. Max Planck - "Science progresses one funeral at a time." In this case, though, it's a bit different, lots of people have gotten in on an incredibly lucrative scam which continues to net them billions of dollars, and which gives government the ability to scare their citizens into becoming subjects of a totalitarian regime. So they engage in all sorts of psychopathic tactics, with the same thing in mind - putting as much money in their pockets as possible - and this includes greedy scumbags like Mark Zuckerberg, Anthony Fauci, et al, who do what they do without a trace of conscience or empathy. The real question is why these people should be allowed to stay in power, much less respected at all. They broke numerous laws to get to where they are, but the laws were not enforced. If there's anyone who should serve hard time, it's these people and their enablers.
Well, the substitute chart does slap pretty hard, and mainly because it's visually less cluttered. If you can vouch for the accuracy of it, if it's not too much of distortion, if at all, I'd go with it.
Omigod, it just goes on and on and on. I’ve never seen anything like this. In grade seven social we did a semester on censorship and propaganda. I remember it well and it’s been brought back to me in spades because I was a good student and learned that lesson. I learned censorship was WRONG and a BAD thing. And that accompanying propaganda should be recognized and dismissed. Now they want me to embrace it all. I’m just not wired like that. Besides the bullshit is palpable. Very stinky so it’s not like it’s hard to recognize.
As someone who didn't start questioning things early on, I initially bought the "HCQ is ineffective" line, but then they went way too far by suggesting HCQ is too potentially dangerous to try. Our family has traveled to regions where malaria is endemic and the pediatricians have always been quite insistent that our children prophylax, so I've seen all the safety data comparing this to other anti-malarials. Safe for kids. Safe for pregnant women. Suddenly more dangerous than doing nothing up to the time a covid patient needs to be ventilated?
Your merry HCQ studies simplified chart does a great job of showing me just how duped I was-- as a bonus I clicked through to see the original and all the data. Wow. I gotta say, though, it would definitely look more seasonal if it had a little more red on it. Too bad!
Ho. Ha.
“Always with the statistics jokes….”
Null hypothesis (Ho) and alternative hypothesis (Ha).
"But the way this happened in a matter of minutes was startling, so I'm going to assume that I'm right over the target. This is a great graph to share with friends who just haven't taken the time to see what the pharmaceutical industry, captured regulators, and media have to do to keep people from understanding the evidence.
This Christmas, give somebody you care about the chance to step outside of the Matrix."
Abso-frigging-lutely right about being over the target. The fear is almost palpable with the speed of the censorship. As a bit of an expert at the math adverse and graphically challenged I can say with certainty the final chart is perfect. It's perfect depicting the problem and perfect gift, thank you! :~)
Maybe a good enough picture can knock people out of the matrix. I think this essay might wake some people up, too It's that good, if you haven't seen it:
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/arts-letters/articles/i-have-been-through-this-before-bauer
Hmm, where have I heard something like this before? Oh, I know! When life-saving aerosol pentamidine and Bactrim were denied to AIDS sufferers for three years while the toxic AZT was pushed—all thanks to fraudulent manipulation of studies and data.
Kind of sounds like the denial/smearing of early treatment protocols such as HCQ and IVM while the lethal, lucrative Remdesivir was being pushed.
There seems to be a common denominator here … let me think … oh yes, Dr. Mengelfauci!
This is not unique. The same thing happened with stomach ulcer treatment.
https://www.drmirkin.com/histories-and-mysteries/barry-marshall-from-quack-to-nobel-prize.html
Want to know what Australia did regarding HCQ as a potential treatment? Penalties of up to 6 months imprisonment for a doctor prescribing it for an unapproved reason: https://www.qld.gov.au/health/conditions/health-alerts/coronavirus-covid-19/current-status/public-health-directions/prescribing,-dispensing-or-supply-of-hydroxychloroquine-direction
So in other words, the studies that only treated people sick enough long enough to possibly need ventilators with dangerously high levels of HCQ tended to not fare well from the treatment but it wasn’t clear what killed them.
I don't know crap about HCQ's efficacy, but this wall-to-wall censorship of opposing opinions and datasets means... HCQ probably works so well that the pharma industry is concerned about their $1.2 trillion pipeline of business.
As someone whose medical bandwidth is limited, but who knows that every illness attracts quacks and faith healers (Pfizer and moderna included), I find it difficult to know where to draw the line with controversial treatment. I do have some ivermectin and antibiotics in my medicine drawer and plan to use them for known exposure or likely symptoms.
You, and people like you, are awesome.
Being by nature a sceptic and a cynic to boot, to preserve some shred of mental health I generally check claims (when it concers areas I know ---- all about) with this:
Does the source seem to seek to present a truthful statement, or is it trying to make believe that a statement is true? (Sorry, can't put it better without typing an essay on lingusitics, semantics, and the rest of that stuff.)
Is the source trying to make me act in a certain way? Does it do so implicitly, or overtly?
Is it trying to sell me something I have never felt the need for of my own?
Is it trying to induce fear, FOMO or similar mechanisms?
Is the source trying to imply that disbelieving it is evil?
Is there an implicit sense of "Believe and comply, or else!"?
Is the source preaching, didactic and fussy about 'bad words'? (Not incorrect terms, but 'bad' words.)
It works quite well.
yours,
Rikard
Great work- looking forward to the book. Seems like it always comes back to HCQ...
By the way, as of November the FLCCC *finally* elevated HCQ from “uncertain benefit” to “second-line treatment”- a step in the right direction.
https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/FLCCC-Protocols-–-A-Guide-to-the-Management-of-COVID-19.pdf
I've never "served" any "time" on facebook, I do criminal defense work, and that's the language criminals use when talking about their sentences. I've been censored before, and quickly, and been blacked out entirely for days at a time. So I'd put it in different language, to reflect what's actually going on - censoring and blacking out in a way which could never exist in any sort of free society. Metaverse, if this continues, will be the digital equivalent of pre-1989 East Germany. We have to figure out a way - or ways - to break down the Wall.
As for "WHERE IN MEDICAL HISTORY HAS SUCH A LARGE BODY OF CONSISTENT EVIDENCE BEEN IGNORED?! WHAT KIND OF INSANITY IS THIS?!", that's simple. It happened to Semmelweis, when he came up with the idea of physicians washing their hands between patient exams, he was able to cut the puerperal fever rate, which subjected many women to agonizing deaths in hospitals after they gave birth, to almost nothing - and for this he was censored and ostracized and driven insane. It's happened to lots of others - like Wegener, whose theory of plate tectonics was denounced as a crackpot scheme, from when he announced it in 1912, until 1962, when it was generally accepted as the correct theory, and if he had lived to see the day, he would have gotten a Nobel Prize instead of dying in obscurity. Max Planck - "Science progresses one funeral at a time." In this case, though, it's a bit different, lots of people have gotten in on an incredibly lucrative scam which continues to net them billions of dollars, and which gives government the ability to scare their citizens into becoming subjects of a totalitarian regime. So they engage in all sorts of psychopathic tactics, with the same thing in mind - putting as much money in their pockets as possible - and this includes greedy scumbags like Mark Zuckerberg, Anthony Fauci, et al, who do what they do without a trace of conscience or empathy. The real question is why these people should be allowed to stay in power, much less respected at all. They broke numerous laws to get to where they are, but the laws were not enforced. If there's anyone who should serve hard time, it's these people and their enablers.
Why keep using Facebook after all their blatantly bad faith censorship?
Well, the substitute chart does slap pretty hard, and mainly because it's visually less cluttered. If you can vouch for the accuracy of it, if it's not too much of distortion, if at all, I'd go with it.
Omigod, it just goes on and on and on. I’ve never seen anything like this. In grade seven social we did a semester on censorship and propaganda. I remember it well and it’s been brought back to me in spades because I was a good student and learned that lesson. I learned censorship was WRONG and a BAD thing. And that accompanying propaganda should be recognized and dismissed. Now they want me to embrace it all. I’m just not wired like that. Besides the bullshit is palpable. Very stinky so it’s not like it’s hard to recognize.