Just another one

[qse]

... I can tell you that in my field I'm an academic doctor, I see patients but I'm very involved in research, I'm an editor of two major journals in my field. I'm the most published person in my field, which deals with the heart and the kidneys, in the world in history.

[...]  

...the second premise if we don't do something before the hospitalization, we can never stop it. I have to tell you I was a lead author in that paper, but we had dozens of authors from Italy, India, UCLA. We had the best institutions in the United States. I can tell you the interesting thing was there was 50 000 papers in the peer-reviewed literature on C-thing and not a single one that told the doctor how to treat it. Not a single one.

[...]

// 03:18

My daughter, who was home from law school - I was talking to her about it and she said: "Well, why don't you make a Youtube video?"

So I made a Youtube video with four slides from the paper. This is a peer-reviewed paper published in one of the best medical journals in the world. Four slides, I even wore a tie and a suit and she showed me how to record it in PowerPoint and I posted on Youtube. It went absolutely viral and within about a week Youtube said: "You violated the terms of the community".

When senator Johnson's office got involved in Washington, he said: "Oh my gosh, this is important scientific information to help patients in the middle of this crisis and social media is striking it down".

 

Based on what authority?

[...]

// 12:15

 

They're gonna become immune. People who develop COVID have complete and durable immunity. And it's a very important principle: complete and durable, you can't beat natural immunity, you can't vaccinate on top of it and make it better. There's no scientific clinical or safety rationale for ever vaccinating a COVID recovered patient, there's no rationale for ever testing a COVID recovered patient.

 

[...]
 

// 13:00

 

In the vaccine trials fewer than one percent in the vaccine and the placebo actually get COVID, fewer than one percent. The vaccine is going to have a one percent public health impact - that's what the data says.

[...]

...people under 50 who fundamentally have no health risks - there's no scientific rationale for them to ever become vaccinated. There's no scientific rationale, one of the mistakes I heard today as a rationale for vaccination was asymptomatic spread, and I want to be very clear about this: my opinion is there is a low degree if any of asymptomatic spread. Sick person gives it to sick person. The Chinese have published a study, British Medical Journal, 11 million people that try to find asymptomatic spread - you can't find it. And that's been, you know, one of important pieces of misinformation.

Как показывал leo_sosnine, наиболее ёбнутой стратой, для которой простая, понятная, логичная инфа является неусваиваемой, являются держатели master's degree.

Watch on YouTube

(Video: Peter McCullough, MD testifies to Texas Senate HHS Committee)

Comments

[qse]

В этом другом видео на 11:00 также растолковывается тезис об 1% эффекте от вакцин. 120 человек пробиваются дублем ширки, чтобы один не заболел. Официальные цифры, на основе которых выдана EUA.

[k_g]

Да, я давно обратил внимание про 1% в испытательных данных Пфизера и игру с цифрами. Типа укололи плацебо и ширкой по 10 тысяч. Из группы ширковых заболело 150 человек, из плацебников-250. (Цифры условно-примерные). Отсюда сделали вывод по эффективность в 95% (посчитали отношение заболевших к общему числу ширнутых), но а по факту оказывается что у раствора разница в эффективности с плацебо меньше 1%.

[qse]

Ну да, оно ж никакой не секрет https://qse.dreamwidth.org/25081.html да и по сути это какая-то азбука для маленьких в мед статистике, вот хотя бы старый ролик https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7K30MGvOs5s где самым непонятливым объясняют как с таким цифрами работать. То есть было бы лишь желание увидеть манипуляцию, все остальное и так на виду.

[qse]

Ещё в добавок для комплекта видос с доктором Зеленко.