Scientific consensus on COVID-19
Scientific consensus on the COVID-19 pandemic: we need to act now
Looks like that Barrington thing got the attention of Pharma, which spun up a campaign of its own – apparently sponsored by that Paragon of Scientific Virtue – The Lancet.
Sure, some of you with functioning memories might remember the recent hit piece on HCQ published by The Lancet constructed from fake data that passed what passes for “peer review”, but was then promptly ripped to shreds by Internet sleuths in about two weeks and subsequently withdrawn.
But that was then, and this is now, and the editors of The Lancet certainly aren’t the same Stooges-o-Pharma that they were six months ago.
So Go Sign that Pharma Declaration for More Lockdowns! Pharma will say thank you!
Your mandatory barely-tested vaccine – required yearly – will only reduce symptoms by 50% – won’t work so well for fat people or the elderly – may result in ADE – is on its way.
[Ivermectin – azithromycin – zinc- vitamin-D and the problem is over]
Chris’s latest video:
Whenever someone dangles around the term “scientific consensus”, you can be sure they’re pitching you a political dogma.
At 24:15 in that latest video (Oct. 13) Chris says that the “Best in world treatment” includes Ivermectin, Doxycycline, Vitamin D and Zinc.
Why is Ivermectin on the list and HCQ isn’t? Where is the basis for preferring Doxycycline over Azithromycin?
The website c19study.com maintains a running tally of published studies about both HCQ and Ivermectin. They list 137 published studies about HCQ and they say that 100% of studies involving early treatment with HCQ give positive results. They came up with 13 studies about Ivermectin, only one of which involved early treatment. That one study compared HCQ+AZT to Ivermectin+Doxycycline and found no significant difference.
There don’t seem to be any known negative interactions among any of these drugs. Why couldn’t “Best in World Treatment” include all six ingredients in the cocktail?
If it is science, it is not consensus; if it is consensus, it is not science
John Snow memorandum has 2,800 signatures of “scientists, researchers & healthcare professionals” as of this writing (Oct. 16th). At the same time The Great Barrington Declaration has over 28,000 signatures of “medical & public health scientists” and “medical practitioners”, although to be fair they have been collecting signatures since Oct. 4th, and they don’t verify the signatures, resulting in signatories like “Mr Banana Rama” joining in the festivities.
I don’t necessarily agree that “scientific consensus” is a meaningless concept. But certainly in this case there’s a huge divergence of opinion, with heavy hitters on both sides.