What we got during the 'pandemic' was fraudulent clinical trials of a totally novel 'vaccine' allowing for emergency use authorisations, followed by one huge observational-based study of essentially untested pharmaceutical products, which co-opted half the human race as uninformed and often unwilling guinea pigs. They then proceeded to consistently ignore the observational based clinical data. At the same time, they banned even small observational studies involving the use of clinically proven, safe pharmaceutical products and conducted rigged and fraudulent randomised control clinical trials of those products (often involving the administration of lethal overdoses) which 'proved' that they didn't work for Covid. I think they call it the Totality of Profits Wheel.
Real-world evidence beats a randomized control trial every time. What the public needs to know is the toxicity profile of the drug in question - what constitutes a non-toxic dosage, and which drug interactions must be avoided. In Ivermectin's case, this profile had been known for more than a decade before covid blew in. Before there were any vaccines, the only other option quickly became sitting on one's hands and doing nothing until the faux vaccines were developed.
Why NOT give Ivermectin - or any other non-toxic approach - a try in the meantime? The cost of "being wrong" was negligible to non-existent.
It never made sense that ivermectin was essentially banned. It was already known to have an exceptional safety record. Even if only moderately effective (see Dr Tess Laurie, and her meta study showing good results), it should have been used. Safe and effective is actually true for ivermectin.
Of course, the availability of a treatment would undermine the narrative that the only response is COVID theatrics “ to protect granny and your neighbour” and mass vaccination. So any discussion of off patent treatments out steps to protect oneself (like nasal washes) were treated like quackery.
"Safe" is a weasel-word, when used by the authorities. Whether a drug is "non-toxic" and which drug interactions must be avoided is what the public needs to know.
Using therapies based on high levels of evidence is falsely equated with making optimal treatment decisions. Decision Analysis 101. I wrote something much like this piece for my super secret nonprofit.
This was Dr. McCullough's position from the start - it's relatively simple and makes complete sense. This approach assumes that the objective of the response is to save lives which as we've suspected, and are now definitively learning, was not the case in the COVID response.
As I understood things before the panic, that was how epidemics and pandemics were dealt with; using medical training and experience to determine which then available interventions were likely to help the patients and use them, off label if necessary. We just didn’t do that with Covid, for whatever reason/s.
I offer an alternative method--the Parachute Paradigm. Parachutes are for those at risk in free fall from heights. They wouldn't benefit most people. And even when parachutes are worn by those in free fall, there is a window of time where their use may benefit the wearer and won't benefit outside that window.
Let's consider how parachute skeptics might counter the assertion of parachute benefit.
Skeptics counter that, hypothetically, putting parachutes on corpses doesn't resurrect them and that there have been RCTs where parachutes have been tried in an hypothetical randomized cluster trial showing no benefit for most people (not in free fall). Hence, the totality of evidence is _against_ benefit from parachutes.
Keep up the great posts and analysis, Joel. It is really helping people to get to grips with what is informed consent. Having this kind of knowledge is key, far better than entrusting everything to politicians or physicians who don't seem to be able to give anyone up to date, honest advice. People have to be more responsible now, the pandemic has made this more pronounced than ever.
What we got during the 'pandemic' was fraudulent clinical trials of a totally novel 'vaccine' allowing for emergency use authorisations, followed by one huge observational-based study of essentially untested pharmaceutical products, which co-opted half the human race as uninformed and often unwilling guinea pigs. They then proceeded to consistently ignore the observational based clinical data. At the same time, they banned even small observational studies involving the use of clinically proven, safe pharmaceutical products and conducted rigged and fraudulent randomised control clinical trials of those products (often involving the administration of lethal overdoses) which 'proved' that they didn't work for Covid. I think they call it the Totality of Profits Wheel.
Real-world evidence beats a randomized control trial every time. What the public needs to know is the toxicity profile of the drug in question - what constitutes a non-toxic dosage, and which drug interactions must be avoided. In Ivermectin's case, this profile had been known for more than a decade before covid blew in. Before there were any vaccines, the only other option quickly became sitting on one's hands and doing nothing until the faux vaccines were developed.
Why NOT give Ivermectin - or any other non-toxic approach - a try in the meantime? The cost of "being wrong" was negligible to non-existent.
It never made sense that ivermectin was essentially banned. It was already known to have an exceptional safety record. Even if only moderately effective (see Dr Tess Laurie, and her meta study showing good results), it should have been used. Safe and effective is actually true for ivermectin.
Of course, the availability of a treatment would undermine the narrative that the only response is COVID theatrics “ to protect granny and your neighbour” and mass vaccination. So any discussion of off patent treatments out steps to protect oneself (like nasal washes) were treated like quackery.
Never forget, never forgive.
"Safe" is a weasel-word, when used by the authorities. Whether a drug is "non-toxic" and which drug interactions must be avoided is what the public needs to know.
Using therapies based on high levels of evidence is falsely equated with making optimal treatment decisions. Decision Analysis 101. I wrote something much like this piece for my super secret nonprofit.
This was Dr. McCullough's position from the start - it's relatively simple and makes complete sense. This approach assumes that the objective of the response is to save lives which as we've suspected, and are now definitively learning, was not the case in the COVID response.
As I understood things before the panic, that was how epidemics and pandemics were dealt with; using medical training and experience to determine which then available interventions were likely to help the patients and use them, off label if necessary. We just didn’t do that with Covid, for whatever reason/s.
I offer an alternative method--the Parachute Paradigm. Parachutes are for those at risk in free fall from heights. They wouldn't benefit most people. And even when parachutes are worn by those in free fall, there is a window of time where their use may benefit the wearer and won't benefit outside that window.
Let's consider how parachute skeptics might counter the assertion of parachute benefit.
Skeptics counter that, hypothetically, putting parachutes on corpses doesn't resurrect them and that there have been RCTs where parachutes have been tried in an hypothetical randomized cluster trial showing no benefit for most people (not in free fall). Hence, the totality of evidence is _against_ benefit from parachutes.
That falls into the poorly designed RCT category as addressed in the article?
But would the skeptics see it that way? Would a focus on the Parachute Paradigm enable skeptics to see problems with their argument?
Here is what the MORE-ONS think https://t.me/downtherabbitholewegofolks/52868
Keep up the great posts and analysis, Joel. It is really helping people to get to grips with what is informed consent. Having this kind of knowledge is key, far better than entrusting everything to politicians or physicians who don't seem to be able to give anyone up to date, honest advice. People have to be more responsible now, the pandemic has made this more pronounced than ever.
I am limited to Microsoft Excel! Unless I'm travelling then I use LibreOffice.
Reading now