Lefty medical friend calls this the era of idiocracy
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (41)
sorted by:
Honestly, I wouldn't even mind if Evidence Based Medicine was how things were done.
As it stands, we are operating on Scientism Faith Based Medicine. There was never a single randomized, double-blind control trial of the mRNA injections, let alone Remdesivir & ventilators. There's also no such studies explaining the benefits of sex re-assignment surgery, or puberty blockers.
Instead, medical administrators seem to be making holy edicts of what The Science is, and making treatment policies off of that alone.
Pretty sure the initial Pfizer trial was a double blinded RCT.
The problem was that the initial fall 2020 approval was based off of 10 weeks of data that only showed a 1% absolute risk reduction in actually catching COVID.
The initial trial showed a 90% decrease in catching COVID in the jabbed arm vs the placebo (take of that what you will if it was to be believed or not).
But the elephant in the room in the initial study used for approval beyond the hidden deaths in the jabbed arm, etc - 99% of the people they studied during the 10 weeks over summer/fall 2020 didn't catch COVID either way whether they got jabbed or not.
This was still in the middle of all the hysteria over restrictions and after the Summer of Floyd.
So even if the jab actually worked, which it didn't, 99% of the pop didn't actually need it anyway according to Pfizer's own study during the height of the pandemic.
Then they went ahead in Spring 2021 and jabbed the control arm anyway once Pfizer got emergency authorization to purposely destroy the ability to follow the pureblood cohort over time and compare it to the mudblood experimental one.
Emergency authorization was only available because the medical community strenuously rejected any existing treatment.
There were doctors threatened with being struck off for trying to publish treatment protocols.
Eventually, there were clinics that were giving effective treatment, but they had to do it in secret or else they would be destroyed by the state government's regulatory agencies. All to set the stage that the Pfizer clot shot could be rolled out.
In Australia they passed an act of parliament granting Pfizer unlimited immunity to repercussions of the clot shot so the Australian medical system could get access to some of the first exports of the treatment.
It is a conspiracy with a shocking, staggering reach.
The ''experts'' will warn you about the dangers of reading a study yourself instead of trusting them to do it for you, are the same ''experts'' who swallowed hook-line-and-sinker the bait fake study made by fake ''scientists'' supposedly proving hydroxychroloquine was killing people in clinical trials with impossible-to-verrify data.
It was made-up. They paraded it as definitive proof.
That's assuming you can get to the fucking research when it's normally behind a paywall.
Solution: https://www.sci-hub.ru
I have personally been handed a claim from a research study, which was behind a University paywall. The next biggest danger is looking at the actual study, and having to read the whole thing because the abstract doesn't match the conclusion and the conclusion doesn't match the data. IF the data was collected and tabulated correctly (if you don't see error bars or error propagation, throw it away), you might find that the conclusion just fucks off and says the opposite of the data.