Scientific consensus on COVID-19

Login or register to post comments Last Post 0 reads   7 posts
  • Thu, Oct 15, 2020 - 09:27am

    #1
    nyhetersverige

    nyhetersverige

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Mar 21 2020

    Posts: 213

    count placeholder0

    Scientific consensus on COVID-19

Scientific consensus on the COVID-19 pandemic: we need to act now

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32153-X/fulltext

  • Thu, Oct 15, 2020 - 09:52am

    #2

    davefairtex

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 03 2008

    Posts: 2187

    count placeholder5

    The Lancet – Pharma Strikes Back vs Barrington

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for “peer review”, but was then promptly ripped to shreds by Internet sleuths in about two weeks and subsequently withdrawn.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:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbGG79WGmu4

  • Thu, Oct 15, 2020 - 02:58pm

    #3
    tbp

    tbp

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 12 2020

    Posts: 521

    count placeholder2

    Scientific consensus on COVID-19

Whenever someone dangles around the term “scientific consensus”, you can be sure they’re pitching you a political dogma.

  • Thu, Oct 15, 2020 - 03:21pm

    #4
    jerryr

    jerryr

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 31 2008

    Posts: 93

    count placeholder3

    Best in world Treatment?

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?

  • Thu, Oct 15, 2020 - 05:04pm

    #5
    2retired

    2retired

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jul 20 2020

    Posts: 72

    count placeholder1

    Reply To: Scientific consensus on COVID-19

If it is science, it is not consensus; if it is consensus, it is not science

  • Fri, Oct 16, 2020 - 07:52am

    #6
    SunFarmer

    SunFarmer

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Mar 07 2019

    Posts: 9

    count placeholder0

    https://www.johnsnowmemo.com/#

Quite a twit storm going on over this johnsnow memo.  Who ya going to call?  https://mobile.twitter.com/hashtag/johnsnowmemo

https://www.johnsnowmemo.com/#

  • Fri, Oct 16, 2020 - 06:00pm

    #7
    jerryr

    jerryr

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 31 2008

    Posts: 93

    count placeholder0

    Scientific consensus on COVID-19

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.

Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)

Login or Register to post comments