During the COVID-19 pandemic, these journals experienced an unprecedented surge in citations, particularly for their COVID-related publications. The new letter raises questions about these journals being relied upon for accurate and unbiased information, especially during a pandemic.
They removed their own publications regarding the effectiveness of Ivermectin because people were citing it as a potential effective treatment, because it was an effective treatment. They preferred people die rather than be informed and come up with a better way to treat the sick. They chose to kill people. End of discussion.
The Lancent is explicitly guilty of pushing disinformation that the authors knew to be false about the origins of Covid, because the author was the origin of Covid.
There is nothing in any of these medical journals that is better than trial-by-error, and a lot that is probably worse.
When they couldn't lie they delayed. UK's PRINCIPLE trial waited 4 years to say, yep, p=0.001 statistically certain 12% benefit from using one of the safest medicines ever 8 days after symptoms.
But while waiting to publish they decided that it'd have to be 20% benefit to be 'worth it' so of course NPR reports that as yet another study showing Ivermectin doesn't work.
Apparently the so-called scientists didn't consider, hey, maybe giving medicine to people while they were still sick would make it work even better.
They're still hiding their hydroxychloroquine results, even though that arm was done before Ivermectin. So we can conclude it's at least 20% benefit.
It took 3 years for the medical sciences to discover the difference between "of" and "with".
But while waiting to publish they decided that it'd have to be 20% benefit to be 'worth it' so of course NPR reports that as yet another study showing Ivermectin doesn't work.
Hey NPR, if the fatality rate of respirators and remdesivir is 85%, is that "worth it"?
It took them almost 2 years to remember how many amplifications was too many for accuracy in PCR testing. Thankfully, they remembered it wasn't supposed to be more than 28 as soon as Biden was sworn in.
Anyone who would willingly identify themself as a 'doctor' or 'scientist' in the wake of the pandemic should have the same stigma as if they call themselves a pedophile or niggerfaggot.
edit: this post is not a joke. there is nothing I believe as sincerely as this
Medical research has always been the marketing arm of powerful drug and food lobbies. Look at the shit show that is nutrition research. It's a propaganda arm of Big Agriculture and its war on meat and saturated fat.
They removed their own publications regarding the effectiveness of Ivermectin because people were citing it as a potential effective treatment, because it was an effective treatment. They preferred people die rather than be informed and come up with a better way to treat the sick. They chose to kill people. End of discussion.
The Lancent is explicitly guilty of pushing disinformation that the authors knew to be false about the origins of Covid, because the author was the origin of Covid.
There is nothing in any of these medical journals that is better than trial-by-error, and a lot that is probably worse.
When they couldn't lie they delayed. UK's PRINCIPLE trial waited 4 years to say, yep, p=0.001 statistically certain 12% benefit from using one of the safest medicines ever 8 days after symptoms.
But while waiting to publish they decided that it'd have to be 20% benefit to be 'worth it' so of course NPR reports that as yet another study showing Ivermectin doesn't work.
Apparently the so-called scientists didn't consider, hey, maybe giving medicine to people while they were still sick would make it work even better.
They're still hiding their hydroxychloroquine results, even though that arm was done before Ivermectin. So we can conclude it's at least 20% benefit.
It took 3 years for the medical sciences to discover the difference between "of" and "with".
Hey NPR, if the fatality rate of respirators and remdesivir is 85%, is that "worth it"?
It took them almost 2 years to remember how many amplifications was too many for accuracy in PCR testing. Thankfully, they remembered it wasn't supposed to be more than 28 as soon as Biden was sworn in.
Also the ''effectiveness'' of ''anti-depressants'' like Sertraline prescribed like candy is pretty-much entirely based on cherry-picking studies.
( Deliberately not publishing studies showing no positive or negative effects. So rolling the dice and only pick the desired results. )
Related:
https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/drug-trials-funded-manufacturers-find-50-percent-greater-drug-effectiveness
Anyone who would willingly identify themself as a 'doctor' or 'scientist' in the wake of the pandemic should have the same stigma as if they call themselves a pedophile or niggerfaggot.
edit: this post is not a joke. there is nothing I believe as sincerely as this
Medical research has always been the marketing arm of powerful drug and food lobbies. Look at the shit show that is nutrition research. It's a propaganda arm of Big Agriculture and its war on meat and saturated fat.
Doctors agree: Smoking is good for your health.
only became a huge issue after nuclear testing started