Parlons science le RDV du mardi

barbabapat écrivait:
----------
> croc1765 écrivait:
> --------
> > barbabapat écrivait:
> > ----------
> > > croc1765 écrivait:
> > > --------
> > > > rapelapente écrivait:
> > > > -----------
> > > > > Non mais il soutient ceux qui ont fait les essais de l'HCl à 10 fois la
> > dose
> > > > de
> > > > > l'IHU.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Schooner For Ever
> > > >
> > > > Tu sors cela d’où ?
> > >
> > > C'est le principe de Etudes de Cambridge ou ils ont prescrit tardivement des
> > > doses clairement toxiques et décrites comme toxique dans la littérature a
> des
> > > patients qui avaient en plus un risque cardiovasculaire avérée.
> > Tu peux me montrer le *10 et le proto
>
> C'est amusant tu te focalise sur le 10 fois et oui le protocole est sur une dose
> clairement toxique qui lui ne t’intéresse pas.
> Pourtant avant le 10 fois qui est une hyperbole de langage,qui n'est pas de moi,
> le dose clairement toxique est bien plus intéressant d'un point de vue des
> effets sur les patients.

Donc là tu sous entends et pas que sous entends d’ailleurs que des scientifiques ont voulu sciemment administré une dose toxique d’un médoc à des patients
Mais afin de montrer quoi et dans quel but?.
Après venant de toi avec ton « seulement voilà le projet de ces gens là diminution drastique de la population… » je ne suis pas étonné
Mais je veux bien que tu me donnes le proto et les doses

rapelapente écrivait:
-----------
> Avec tout ça je ne vais pas pouvoir lire cette étude explosive promise par Croc.
> Je vais être obligé de regarder la télé pendant mon vol...
> Tout en restant dans mon ignorance crasse d'élève de 6 ème... ☹️
>
>
> --
> Schooner For Ever
Non tu as un petit exercise 4eme( tu vois tu exagères à dire 6 eme) qui consiste à trouver avec le tableau quel jour ont eu lieu les décès dans les groupes h et hcq+Az

rapelapente

05/10/2024 à 11h12

C'était le test recovery.
4 g au lieu de 600mg.
C'est pas 10 fois, c'était une façon de parler, mais c'est donner volontairement une dose reconnue toxique.
Bonne idée quand le but est de démontrer la toxicité.
Puis on retire l'étude en douceur...

https://www.lemonde.fr/sciences/article/2020/06/04/hydroxychloroquine-trois-auteurs-de-l-etude-du-lancet-se-retractent_6041803_1650684.html

--
Schooner For Ever

rapelapente

05/10/2024 à 11h21

Bon je pense que l' étude que tu ne m'envoies pas ne doit pas être très défavorable à l'HCQ.
J'attaque Le comte de Montecristo...



--
Schooner For Ever

20241005_112044.jpg

rapelapente écrivait:
-----------
> C'était le test recovery.
> 4 g au lieu de 600mg.
> C'est pas 10 fois, c'était une façon de parler, mais c'est donner volontairement
> une dose reconnue toxique.
> Bonne idée quand le but est de démontrer la toxicité.
> Puis on retire l'étude en douceur...
>
> https://www.lemonde.fr/sciences/article/2020/06/04/hydroxychloroquine-trois-auteurs-de-l-etude-du-lancet-se-retractent_6041803_1650684.html
>
> --
> Schooner For Ever
Mdr
Depuis qd recovery a été retiré ?
Tu as lu l’article que tu postes ?.
4g au lieu de 0,6?
Mais tu sort cela d’où ?

Postiti

05/10/2024 à 13h32

croc1765 écrivait:
--------

> Depuis qd recovery a été retiré ?
> Tu as lu l’article que tu postes ?.

"La saisine du HCSP était intervenue après la publication, vendredi 22 mai, dans The Lancet, d’une étude rétrospective qui avait mis en évidence une plus forte mortalité chez les patients hospitalisés pour cause de Covid-19 et ayant reçu de la chloroquine et de l’hydroxychloroquine, en combinaison ou non avec des macrolides (antibiotiques comme l’azithromycine prescrite par Didier Raoult), ainsi que des arythmies cardiaques."

comment tu n'as pas honte de soutenir des fabricants de fausses preuves ?

rapelapente

05/10/2024 à 13h44

Je ne sais pas si les liens fonctionnent.


Oct 5


https://substack.com/redirect/4654bd96-deb0-4ddd-ab2c-33ad597433d0?j=eyJ1IjoiMnhvanliIn0.DQ01w-oOnsrOiCxsbdHG7lD4t6kypHP8LAQ0-6diuSA




https://substack.com/redirect/6e9e3f8f-e34f-490a-b027-7736de8777ca?j=eyJ1IjoiMnhvanliIn0.DQ01w-oOnsrOiCxsbdHG7lD4t6kypHP8LAQ0-6diuSA

https://substack.com/redirect/9fa74409-3fe0-482a-8ef8-f1b965d65617?j=eyJ1IjoiMnhvanliIn0.DQ01w-oOnsrOiCxsbdHG7lD4t6kypHP8LAQ0-6diuSA

https://substack.com/redirect/5dec8ce7-67fc-4569-80ea-c5c4a9499469?j=eyJ1IjoiMnhvanliIn0.DQ01w-oOnsrOiCxsbdHG7lD4t6kypHP8LAQ0-6diuSA

https://substack.com/redirect/c26d846a-a9c0-401e-a273-99e16e3dcbfb?j=eyJ1IjoiMnhvanliIn0.DQ01w-oOnsrOiCxsbdHG7lD4t6kypHP8LAQ0-6diuSA

https://substack.com/redirect/e2a89442-ca39-4424-b5fe-fdac75a33811?j=eyJ1IjoiMnhvanliIn0.DQ01w-oOnsrOiCxsbdHG7lD4t6kypHP8LAQ0-6diuSA

https://substack.com/redirect/c0914dbd-390e-425b-a4a1-d99006880475?j=eyJ1IjoiMnhvanliIn0.DQ01w-oOnsrOiCxsbdHG7lD4t6kypHP8LAQ0-6diuSA









Two new peer-reviewed medical journal articles indicate that the science is starting to catch up with the ‘conspiracy theorists’ and ‘anti-vaxxers’ such as myself, also known as people that rationally asked questions of novel products that were rushed out the door, to help stem a pandemic that was far less deadly than all other causes, including cardiovascular disease, cancer, and even tobacco use (and note that COVID-19 deaths tend to be inflated). Publishing in the Polish Annals of Medicine, Thoene conducts a limited literature review on the reporting of COVID-19 vaccine severe adverse events in scientific journals, finding:

“From 2020 to 2024, the literature has gone from claiming there are absolutely no SAEs from mRNA based vaccines (2020/2021) to an acknowledgment of a significant number of various SAEs (2023/2024); including but not limited to neurological complications, myocarditis, pericarditis and thrombosis. … The early scientific literature was biased, so as not to report SAEs, due to social and political concerns and overwhelming corporate greed. Only in the last year have scientists been able to publish articles that acknow- ledge a high number of SAEs linked to mRNA based vaccines. This should act as a warning that science should be completely objective when evaluating health risks, but can often be influenced by social and economic considerations.” Source.

Proving once again that Eastern Europeans are based (the Hungarians stand up to the EU on immigration [source], and the Bulgarians published my little study on the correlation between COVID-19 vaccination and European excess mortality), the Polish journal kindly accepted my brief response, entitled ‘Scientific views around mRNA based covid vaccines are changing, but to what end?’, praising them and Thoene for this important paper, and noting that this is only the tip of the iceberg. Source. There is so much more in the published science that most people are unaware of, such as:

Thacker, on “issues such as data falsification and patient unblinding concerning Pfizer’s vaccine trial”.

Fraiman et al., on the “excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest with the mRNA vaccines”.

Benn et al., on there being “no statistically significant decrease in COVID-19 deaths in the mRNA vaccine clinical trials, while there was an increase (also not statistically significant) in total deaths”.

The JECP4 articles by Doshi’s team and Lataster’s team (of one, because nobody likes me…) on “counting window issues (such as counting window delays, counting window biases, and counting window misclassifications), likely leading to exaggerated effectiveness and safety estimates” in the clinical trials and major observational studies, with one of the major problems being “when COVID-19 infections are being overlooked in the ‘partially vaccinated,’ and in some cases were even ascribed to unvaccinated groups”. Note that Mead et al. discussed some similar issues and yet was astonishingly retracted.

Faksova et al., which Thoene barely mentioned, and which demonstrated that the vaccines are associated with several concerning adverse effects, despite employing a counting window endpoint of only 42 days following vaccination.

Raethke et al., “which noted a rate of serious adverse drug reactions of approximately 1 per 400 people”, which I note compares “very unfavourably with UK government estimates on the numbers needed to vaccinate in young and healthy people to prevent a severe COVID-19 hospitalisation being in the hundreds of thousands”.

Mostert et al., on the “mysterious problem of excess mortality post-pandemic, which they hint could be related to the COVID-19 vaccines”, and my aforementioned Bulgarian Medicine article demonstrating that there are indeed correlations between COVID-19 vaccination and European excess deaths.

Of course, my ‘favourite’ topic, COVID-19 vaccine negative effectiveness, where “the vaccines increase the chance of COVID-19 infection, and even COVID-19 death, a ‘benefit’ which is of course a poor trade-off for the risk of (other) adverse effects”. This “led to some discussion in major medical journals such as the BMJ [and also AJGP], with the most common excuse for this phenomenon being that there must be some confounding variable at play”, an “excuse that somehow does not apply before vaccine effectiveness crosses the x-axis, indicating a clear double standard (one of many) in how the vaccines are evaluated”.

Fürst et al. (those Eastern Europeans again!), on evidence “that a healthy vaccinee bias is at play”, which “would further imply that the effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccines is being exaggerated, beyond the effects of counting window issues and other data manipulations, even when declining to zero and beyond”.

The “substantive critiques appearing in influential medical journals of major observational studies purporting the benefits of the vaccines (with more on the way)”. These include my BMJ rapid response on the WHO’s jab study and the little academic debate between myself and a team from Johns Hopkins. Much more coming soon…

Still wondering how I managed to get this published, I end with a stark warning for those who partook in the deadly con:

“There is clearly much research on the COVID-19 vaccines, published in the biggest medical journals, which greatly contradict the mainstream and early, as well as ongoing, claims concerning their safety and effectiveness, and even necessity, for all. There is much more not mentioned in this brief article, and there is no doubt more to come. It seems obvious to me, that at least for the young and healthy, COVID-19 vaccines are most certainly not worth the risk, even when considering just a single adverse effect (myocarditis), no matter how rare it is purported to be – serious COVID-19 in the young and healthy is rarer still, and the same is even more true when considering the little to no benefits offered by what increasingly appears to be a feckless vaccine.

There have already been many legal actions, including victories (as with myself), initiated on behalf of the (somehow still alive) unvaccinated who were persecuted over a pharmaceutical product that they clearly did not need, and the vaccinated who have died and otherwise been injured as a result of vaccination. I anticipate that many more lawsuits are on the horizon, involving – amongst others – the vaccine manufacturers; the government officials that approved, encouraged, and even mandated the vaccines; and the many doctors and scientists who effectively betrayed their professions and public trust in encouraging the use of these flawed products based on very limited and even manipulated scientific evidence.”

Of course, while the science is starting to catch up, and the lawsuits are continuing apace (source), we’re still being told by our governments and mainstream media to roll up our sleeves, even those of us as young as 6 months. Source and source.

--
Schooner For Ever

rapelapente

05/10/2024 à 14h09

Tu vois, à l'inverse de toi Je ne suis pas avare de liens utiles.
Le Wi-Fi satellite n'est pas très rapide.
Vivement Starlink.

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/clinical-considerations/interim-considerations-us.html

https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/05/health/fda-vaccine-advisers-covid-shot/index.html

https://www.reuters.com/legal/kansas-accuses-pfizer-misleading-public-about-covid-vaccine-lawsuit-2024-06-17/




Bonne lecture.


--
Schooner For Ever

Postiti écrivait:
-------
> croc1765 écrivait:
> --------
>
> > Depuis qd recovery a été retiré ?
> > Tu as lu l’article que tu postes ?.
>
> "La saisine du HCSP était intervenue après la publication, vendredi 22 mai, dans
> The Lancet, d’une étude rétrospective qui avait mis en évidence une plus forte
> mortalité chez les patients hospitalisés pour cause de Covid-19 et ayant reçu de
> la chloroquine et de l’hydroxychloroquine, en combinaison ou non avec des
> macrolides (antibiotiques comme l’azithromycine prescrite par Didier Raoult),
> ainsi que des arythmies cardiaques."
>
> comment tu n'as pas honte de soutenir des fabricants de fausses preuves ?

Montre moi que l’étude recovery a été retirée
Donne moi le proto et les dosages
L’article parle t’il de l’étude recovery ?.

rapelapente écrivait:
-----------
> Tu vois, à l'inverse de toi Je ne suis pas avare de liens utiles.
> Le Wi-Fi satellite n'est pas très rapide.
> Vivement celui d'Elon.
>
> https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/clinical-considerations/interim-considerations-us.html
>
> https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/05/health/fda-vaccine-advisers-covid-shot/index.html
>
> https://www.reuters.com/legal/kansas-accuses-pfizer-misleading-public-about-covid-vaccine-lawsuit-2024-06-17/
>
>
>
>
> Bonne lecture.
>
>
> --
> Schooner For Ever
Idem que postiti
Recovery retirée ?
Dosage et proto ?.

rapelapente écrivait:
-----------
> Bon je pense que l' étude que tu ne m'envoies pas ne doit pas être très
> défavorable à l'HCQ.
> J'attaque Le comte de Montecristo...
>
>
>
> --
> Schooner For Ever

Je vais évidemment rechercher cette publi
Mais dans la mesure c’était juste la mise en data des critères cliniques de la première daube (tu sais celle où les patients étaient écartés de l’étude) elle reste une daube
D’ailleurs dès que je met la main dessus on comparera les données
En attendant ma question reste entière concernant le jour des décès