That Lancet published study vilifying HCQ that Chris has debunked point by point over the past few videos? It’s just been retracted.
Turns out, it was exactly the “garbage science” Chris said it was. Score a big victory for fans of truth.
But it shouldn’t have to be this way…our scientists should be rigorous and honest. We need that more than ever right now. But instead, we’re getting shoddy results at best, and compromised conclusions influenced by politics and big money at worst.
Too much damage is being done right now – to our faith in the institutions that govern our society, to social equity, to public health and security.
As we’ve been warning, long after the virus subsides, it’s going to take years – possibly decades – to recover from the wounds covid-19 has inflicted.
The tribe is suiting up! We've seen tremendous response now that our RESILIENCE shirt production partner is finally back in action.
How likely is it that people actually knew the date they were infected? The experiment didn’t test participants before entering the study, participants may have been infected before it began.
The study didn’t continue treatment through the duration of the study, so infection could have occurred after medication ended. They treat the incubation period like it’s a clockwork 2 weeks, it’s not. Incubation has been reported as short as a few days and as long as 21 days, 14 is merely the average.
Since no participants were tested we don’t know who was actually infected.
The drug is not claimed to prevent infection but to significantly inhibit the virus reproduction. If you get infected while on HCQ you may well show symptoms. The difference is that you are less likely to have a severe case or to sustain any significant lung or organ damage. Since they didn’t assess case severity over time they don’t know if people on HCQ recovered faster or recovered with less lasting damage.
A more relevant test would be to administer the drug for several months and track the infection rates and disease progression in both cohorts. Zinc is necessary for HCQ to properly function against COVID19 but it wasn’t supplied to participants. Only people who were already taking it got it. That alone negates most of the usefulness of the study.
The yellow jacket movement proved your point Chris 47min42. The “guns” shoot a rubber bullet the size of a squash ball - with a lazer sight making a red dot on the targeted sight. Hard to say those who lost eyes “éborgné” lost them by accident - terrible statistics from France.
I have great respect for Ghandi and his way of peaceful disobedience.
The unemployment numbers today make little sense. The end result is that we will be hearing lots of positive news over the weekend. MSM style.
Here are two good “framing” points to consider.
from an economist I like - who says that companies said they will hire. With that promise government money becomes a grant, not a loan.
Nice way to get a strong number, eh? https://twitter.com/EconguyRosie/status/1268924453385318401
I guess Greg Mannarino pulled his Twitter where he questioned how could record number of hirings take place with businesses shut in?
The Medium is the Massage. Marshall McLuhan
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-52917118
Was there any safety testing? I don’t care to be a guinea pig, so I hope there we are offered informed consent as ethics requires.
I agree completely that stocks appear to be way overpriced by any sensible measure. But being that we can’t abolish the Fed or even contain it, it makes sense to me to try to get at least a small slice of that wealth pie by not fighting the Fed and taking part in the madness. I’ve missed too many gains over the past 10 years by being so convinced that we’ve been in a constant bubble. Why can’t they keep it inflated for the next 10?
T.
I just saw an article on the Google newspage with this headline: “New Study Likely closes the door on use of Hydroxychloroquine for Covid-19”
The headline was simply not true. I clicked through to the article. The study had not even been peer reviewed. While the actual protocols of the study were unclear the article noted:
“… it is still an open question whether the medicine might work earlier in the disease.”
Well, we already knew that it did not work late in the disease. In other words, the new study added absolutely nothing to what we already knew. And it certainly did not “likely close the door on use of Hydroxychloroquine for Covid-19.”
But the headline flatly stated that it did.
Is this just poor journalism or is there more to it?
I wish I knew.
Its from STAT and the Daily Mail, from another Oxford study of around 1,542 patients in ICU of whom 25% died, the problem being no zinc and it was late onset in the UK where mortality hit 95% of case resolutions, before they stopped releasing the figures. Right now another dodgy dossier. The study gave out a control group of 3132 who received a placebo where 23% died, this is an abysmal death rate, never mind the study - about twice the estimate of 11-14% per head of population.
"Robert Califf, the former Food and Drug Administration commissioner and Alphabet employee, tweeted that the study “essentially rules out benefit of [hydroxychloroquine] in critically ill hospitalized patients.” He wrote that the results showed “no benefit; no major risk.”:- well Chris was telling them it was completely worthless to administer it that way for months. https://www.statnews.com/2020/06/05/hydroxychloroquine-had-no-benefit-for-hospitalized-covid-19-patients-possibly-closing-door-to-use-of-drug/ https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8392293/Hydroxychloroquine-does-NOT-treat-coronavirus-biggest-study-drug-finds.html
Hi to all!
At last, now all 4 parts of the series on Bill Gates are available, taking a total of approximately 2 hours to watch.
In my view, this is an extremely important documentary to watch if you want to know if the vaccines that are being developed for Sars-Cov-II are safe.
Also, I think this series is a MUST WATCH if you want to know WHY hydroxychloroquine is being suppressed in favour of a so-called Sars-Cov-II vaccine (the short answer is: if you want to vaccinate the whole world, you better suppress cheap medicines such as hydroxychloroquine.) Moreover, it will provide you with an anker against to a lot of misinformation that is being displayed the mainstream media (because who pays for this propaganda? Watch the series for the answer).
You can view all 4 parts at the link below. This link also includes the Transcript, hyperlinks and sources. You can verify everything in the documentary. In short, this is a brilliant MUST documentary of about 2 hours in total. In my humble opinion, this will be the best thing you will see this year.
Part One: How Bill Gates Monopolized Global Health (23 minutes)
Part Two: Bill Gates’ Plan to Vaccinate the World (28 minutes)
Part Three: Bill Gates and the Population Control Grid (36 minutes)
Part Four: Meet Bill Gates (38 minutes) https://www.corbettreport.com/gates/
Enjoy and good luck to all!
french-connexion,
I wondered about the unemployment numbers as well. It made no sense. I am beginning to feel like I live in the matrix. It seems like I am living in a simulation, rather than a real world.
put in another 150’ row of Beauregard sweet taters. Kelsey is on her game,a Suffolk draft ‘orse.
next I read headlines and am reminded that I live in a matrix.
hay is coming into the barn. The garden is gorgeous. Heavy horse will be necessary again. Enjoy Jethro Tull, a prophet. Pls read the lyrics. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vRHATZzMh-g
will try to make a video tomorrow of Kelsey and I in the garden. We are not the high input CA. Style. It is horse,chicken,cow,manure and alotta cultivating. Carbon is fixed in the pastures.
thanks SP
Good Evening
Panama Guinea Pigs reporting in. All nine of us are still on HCQ and all nine without side effects. We are on preventive of 400 mg per week.
One big advantage in my mind to being on HCQ is that it feels like I are taking positive action and when one thinks…Oh my goodness, maybe I slipped up with my mask or got to close to someone of whatever, then if one is on HCQ, one is relieved thinking oh yeah, I’m on something to help lower my risk. To me, this is of psychological benefit. Not to say, one should take one iota more of risk, being on HCQ, as to me that is an ethical decision. It is unethical to take any known risks unless 100% necessary. At the same time, it is tough to maintain the centeredness and discipline to be 100% careful all the time. Taking my little orange pill a week helps me feel a tiny bit more resilient.
Dr. M,
Where the study shows 13% developed COVID, but only 3% were confirmed by PCR, I take that to mean 3% of total study. Thus, 3%/ 13% = 23% of (reported) infections were confirmed by PCR.
I find that % change in a value that is a percentage is often confusing, and authors are rarely clear. In this case, if only 3% of infections were confirmed by PCR, that might really call into question the validity of the study.
So, if my hypothesis is right, it doesn’t materially change the punchline, but adds a tad bit of credibility to the testing.
Thoughts?
