What about the events of the past year have indicated to you that this will NOT happen?
Printable View
and what about the other CCP? Churches being burned in Canada as Trudeau looks on - YouTube
Dr. Grantham, what is wrong with this? Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy o... : American Journal of Therapeutics
Not much. There aren't many bullets flying yet, but we are at war, and we are losing badly. I think the good guys need to take more care not to run defeatist propaganda. Some of it is intentional, but most of it is just sloppiness.
For example, I would have framed the headline as "DNC declares war on your privacy" or something to that effect.
Here is a bad-faith attempt at a rebuttal. Its main supporting evidence is a meta-analysis which was found to be erroneous as a preprint, but was nonetheless published with mistakes. These are detailed in the request for retraction.
This is a narrow technical interpretation which fails to see the bigger picture. Yes, it is (somewhat) true that, even after many cycles, a well-tuned assay is specific to the presence of the nucleic acid of interest. However, this is not equivalent to the presence of clinically-significant, infectious disease, which is the actual downstream interpretation of the test.
I agree.
I watched a 4 hour video with Dr. Fleming regarding CoVid, the vaccines, etc. One of the most important points he made is the following:
In the Vietnam War they did not use the most lethal bullets. It was "better" to severely injure the enemy combatants. That way you take out him, and his buddies that had to bring him off the field. In addition, the injured solder brings the story of the incident home. The goal is to demoralize the enemy.
I generally like Tucker, but sometimes think the conspiratorial view of him could be right. He's the gatekeeper of allowable opinion for conservatives. At the same time he often demoralizes by presenting encroaching tyranny as something we have to accept. I've seen this at least a few times. Would the oligarchs allow him to continue, if he was a real threat, rather than a controlled threat?
Perhaps I wasn't clear about my position wrt ivermectin. I've not said that people should not be treated with ivermectin. I don't have the expertise to evaluate treatment protocols. Metanalyses like this appear to make a reasonable case, but I leave those decisions to folks that are more qualified than me to evaluate these studies.
The issue that I had was wrt using ivermectin as the primary means to prevent infections. I stand by my assesment that there are not compelling evidence that we should drop vaccinations and all non pharmaceutical interventions and replace them with ivermectin. It may make sense to add it to what is already being done, but not as a wholesale replacement yet. Squishing together a bunch of small studies to make that case is not enough.
Maybe I misunderstood the issue that was brought up in the post I was responding to. I thought the issue being brought up was why they use 35-45 cycles if it wasn't reliable. There is of course a difference between a positive RT-PCR assay and disease.