See hidden discussions | Win great prizes | Get free support
Have you any opinion about the HAT protocol and particularly, the benefits of intravenous vitamin C therapy you are prepared to share here or via a PM?This may help to explain clinicians scepticism of the flccc group right from the start of this entire debacle.
The data underpinning a famous study of vitamin C for sepsis that some thought might put its author on track for a Nobel Prize in Medicine, may be fraudulent, according to an Australian analysis. Kyle Sheldrick, a physician and statistician, who is completing his PhD at the University of New...www.medicalbrief.co.za
Taking the evil vaccine that he developed single-handedly at warp speed wont faze the anti-vaxxer redneck MAGA voters.Trumps gonna win the 2024 elections because all his opponents would have died by taking the vaccine. They all going to die in 2 years.
He also took it. (Now what????)
We he grabs by the pussy he gets more votes...Taking the evil vaccine that he developed single-handedly at warp speed wont faze the anti-vaxxer redneck MAGA voters.
'I Could ... Shoot Somebody, And I Wouldn't Lose Any Voters'
As a result of all these experiments, is it possible that ivermectin will be THE placebo used in all the trials in future? Maybe that will be the win they are looking for ?In another totally surprising turn of events,another Placebo control study - ACTIV6 - again finds no benefit to Ivermectin
ACTIV-6 has several notable strengths. Many of the prior studies of ivermectin were conducted largely outside of the United States, thus data from a high-income country with associated healthcare system were lacking. ACTIV-6 is a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled national study with enrolling sites in 28 states and a call center able to recruit participants from the remainder of the United States. This ivermectin arm of the ACTIV-6 platform trial enrolled rapidly due to the delta and omicron variant surges and included both vaccinated and unvaccinated patients, thus representing a highly relevant study population. The trial also has limitations. Due to the broad study population, including almost 50% reporting vaccination, few participants progressed to severe COVID-19, limiting the power to study the treatment effect on relevant clinical outcomes like hospitalization and death. Due to the remote nature of the trial and constraints related to timing of randomization, the average time from start of symptoms to receipt of study drug was 6 days, which is later in the disease course than recent antiviral trials.1,2 However, there was no benefit observed for those who started treatment earlier (≤3 days) versus later (>3 days) in the subgroup analysis.
Here we go: Pre-print but i'm quite sure nothing will be changing post-review,this was actually a gold-standard double-blind randomized placebo-controlled national study
Ivermectin for Treatment of Mild-to-Moderate COVID-19 in the Outpatient Setting: A Decentralized, Placebo-controlled, Randomized, Platform Clinical TrialBackground: The effectiveness of ivermectin to shorten symptom duration or prevent hospitalization among outpatients in the United States with mild-to-moderate symptomatic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is unknown. Objective: We evaluated the efficacy of ivermectin 400 mcg/kg daily for 3...www.medrxiv.org
Indeed. It is very difficult to get rid of world view that one held for most of one's lives (religion in my case) but it is possible.View attachment 1330130
WHY DON’T FACTS CHANGE OUR MINDS?
Have you ever found yourself wondering, “How in the world can someone believe something so strange?” And then thought, “Surely, this evidence will change their mind!”
If so, I have bad news.
Many of us think “facts” are incontrovertible.
But facts are never neutral. Taken out of context, misrepresented, or cherry picked, “facts” can tell whatever story we want them to.
We’re particularly motivated to defend beliefs that are important to our identity and our social standing. And the more we’ve sacrificed and/or publicly staked our reputation on a belief, the less willing we are to concede defeat.
Instead, we act like lawyers trying to win our case and search for evidence to prove ourselves right. Not only do we not change our mind, we double down.
In other words, we deceive ourselves because it feels better than admitting we were wrong.
In 1954, psychologist Leon Festinger was fascinated by a cult that expected to be saved from a global flood by aliens on December 21. So he and his team infiltrated the group to see what would happen on December 22. Would they change their minds when they weren’t rescued by aliens in flying saucers?
From “When Prophecy Fails”: “Suppose an individual believes something with his whole heart; suppose further that he has a commitment to this belief, that he has taken irrevocable actions because of it; finally, suppose that he is presented with evidence, unequivocal and undeniable evidence, that his belief is wrong: what will happen? The individual will frequently emerge, not only unshaken, but even more convinced of the truth of his beliefs than ever before. Indeed, he may even show a new fervor about convincing and converting other people to his view.”
I’m often reminded of Festinger’s study these days. While we certainly all believe things that aren’t true, some beliefs are clearly more wrong than others. Yet, when presented with incontrovertible evidence they’re wrong, and the proverbial aliens aren’t saving them from global destruction, too many refuse to change their minds.
The importance of Festinger’s study cannot be overstated. It’s a lesson all of us would do well to heed.
It’s also an incredibly interesting and entertaining story: https://thinkingispower.com/the-person-who-lies-to-you-the-most-is-you/
"People have a certain worldview; [then] they’re confronted with evidence that conflicts with the worldview, so they have dissonance, conflict in their minds," Nye says. "[So] instead of changing your worldview, which you may have held your entire life, you dismiss the evidence—and along with that you dismiss the authorities that may have provided the evidence."