现在政府竟然赤果果地宣称要1)flag “misinformation/disinformation” (whatever that''s against the mainstream narrative); 2) remove anyone from ALL platforms if they are removed from ONE platform. 这不是极权法西斯是什么,简直就是深得文革,斯大林,和纳粹的精髓啊!是不是很快就要上网实名制了好让fbi容易点请你喝茶?https://rumble.com/vjxopq-july-16-2021.html 还有某些自诩砖家的人只会骂街却无法解释: -- 为什么那么多疫苗副作用甚至死亡; -- 为什么cdc指使医院拒绝治疗covid初期病人,让他们自生自灭到了要上呼吸机才给治疗 -- 为什么败灯一上台就改了covid death的计算方法(之前用的是died WITH covid 也就是车祸死只要阳性也是covid death, 现在改成died OF covid数量立马断崖式下降,还有PCR testing cycle的改变):
https://youtu.be/L1nf5Mb50eg
-- 为什么拼命压制还污名化(比如去年Lancet那个后来撤稿的污名化HCQ的文章)用了几十年的普通安全的驱虫药 -- 为什么实验性的东西却拒绝做数据跟踪分析甚者make patients jump through hoops to just report a vaccine adverse reaction?! 这正常吗?真理不是越辩越明吗,疯狂言论控制和中世纪的宗教迫害有什么区别。哦对了,leftism is a cult。
各位关注ivm的mm,刚发布的podcast,请的Dr. Tess Lawrie,医疗领域meta analysis的专家。他们聊了ivm正反两方面的证据,最近发表的几个meta analysis。还有为什么政府和监管部门对big body of positive evidence for ivm视而不见,对各个国家的vaccine adverse event reporting system里面疫苗大规模副作用数据视而不见。大家可以听一下! Tess Lawrie is an MD and PHD, external analyst for the World Health Organization, and an expert in analysis of medical evidence. 视频在这里: https://odysee.com/@BretWeinstein:f/TessLawrie:0 One of the virtues of meta-analysis is that it allows conclusions to be adjusted with changing evidence. One Randomized Controlled Trial included in the BIRD Group''s meta-analysis of Ivermectin has been challenged in The Guardian. It is unclear if the study in question is fatally flawed. In this clip, Tess Lawrie shows us what happens to the meta-analysis when the suspect study is eliminated. Answer: the estimate of the medication''s effectiveness change somewhat (prevention of death drop''s from 62% to 49%. Prophylactic effectiveness goes up slightly from 86% to 87%. Confidence intervals become somewhat wider). The conclusion of the analysis remains the same: Ivermectin reduces deaths substantially and is a very effective preventive measure against the contraction of COVID-19. 最新的meta analysis的preprint全文在这里: https://osf.io/dzs2vAbstract Background Re-purposed medicines may have a role against the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The antiparasitic ivermectin, with anti-viral and anti-inflammatory properties, has now been tested in numerous clinical trials. Areas of uncertainty We assessed the efficacy of ivermectin treatment in reducing mortality, in secondary outcomes, and in chemo-prophylaxis, among people with, or at high risk of, covid-19 infection. Data sources We searched bibliographic databases up to April 25 2021. Two review authors sifted for studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Meta-analyses were conducted and certainty of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach and additionally in trial sequential analyses for mortality. Twenty-four RCTs involving 3406 participants met review inclusion. Therapeutic Advances Meta-analysis of 15 trials found ivermectin reduced risk of death compared with no ivermectin (average Risk Ratio 0.38, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.19 to 0.73; n=2438; I2=49%; moderate-certainty evidence). This result was confirmed in a trial sequential analysis (TSA) using the same DerSimonian-Laird method that underpinned the unadjusted analysis. This was also robust against a TSA using the Biggerstaff-Tweedie method. Low-certainty evidence found ivermectin prophylaxis reduced covid-19 infection by an average 86% (95% CI 79% to 91%). Secondary outcomes provided less certain evidence. Low certainty evidence suggested that that there may be no benefit with ivermectin for ‘need for mechanical ventilation’, whereas effect estimates for ‘improvement’ and ‘deterioration’ clearly favoured ivermectin use. Severe adverse events were rare among treatment trials and evidence of no difference was assessed as low certainty. Evidence on other secondary outcomes was very low certainty. Conclusions Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in covid-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Employing ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.
这是英国的医生组织,跟这边的frontline doctors和flccc一样都是倡导早治疗的。 The BIRD Group website: https://bird-group.org/
各位关注ivm的mm,刚发布的podcast,请的Dr. Tess Lawrie,医疗领域meta analysis的专家。他们聊了ivm正反两方面的证据,最近发表的几个meta analysis。还有为什么政府和监管部门对big body of positive evidence for ivm视而不见,对各个国家的vaccine adverse event reporting system里面疫苗大规模副作用数据视而不见。大家可以听一下! Tess Lawrie is an MD and PHD, external analyst for the World Health Organization, and an expert in analysis of medical evidence. 视频在这里: https://odysee.com/@BretWeinstein:f/TessLawrie:0 One of the virtues of meta-analysis is that it allows conclusions to be adjusted with changing evidence. One Randomized Controlled Trial included in the BIRD Group''''s meta-analysis of Ivermectin has been challenged in The Guardian. It is unclear if the study in question is fatally flawed. In this clip, Tess Lawrie shows us what happens to the meta-analysis when the suspect study is eliminated. Answer: the estimate of the medication''''s effectiveness change somewhat (prevention of death drop''''s from 62% to 49%. Prophylactic effectiveness goes up slightly from 86% to 87%. Confidence intervals become somewhat wider). The conclusion of the analysis remains the same: Ivermectin reduces deaths substantially and is a very effective preventive measure against the contraction of COVID-19. 最新的meta analysis的preprint全文在这里: https://osf.io/dzs2vAbstract Background Re-purposed medicines may have a role against the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The antiparasitic ivermectin, with anti-viral and anti-inflammatory properties, has now been tested in numerous clinical trials. Areas of uncertainty We assessed the efficacy of ivermectin treatment in reducing mortality, in secondary outcomes, and in chemo-prophylaxis, among people with, or at high risk of, covid-19 infection. Data sources We searched bibliographic databases up to April 25 2021. Two review authors sifted for studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Meta-analyses were conducted and certainty of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach and additionally in trial sequential analyses for mortality. Twenty-four RCTs involving 3406 participants met review inclusion. Therapeutic Advances Meta-analysis of 15 trials found ivermectin reduced risk of death compared with no ivermectin (average Risk Ratio 0.38, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.19 to 0.73; n=2438; I2=49%; moderate-certainty evidence). This result was confirmed in a trial sequential analysis (TSA) using the same DerSimonian-Laird method that underpinned the unadjusted analysis. This was also robust against a TSA using the Biggerstaff-Tweedie method. Low-certainty evidence found ivermectin prophylaxis reduced covid-19 infection by an average 86% (95% CI 79% to 91%). Secondary outcomes provided less certain evidence. Low certainty evidence suggested that that there may be no benefit with ivermectin for ‘need for mechanical ventilation’, whereas effect estimates for ‘improvement’ and ‘deterioration’ clearly favoured ivermectin use. Severe adverse events were rare among treatment trials and evidence of no difference was assessed as low certainty. Evidence on other secondary outcomes was very low certainty. Conclusions Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in covid-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Employing ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.
这是英国的医生组织,跟这边的frontline doctors和flccc一样都是倡导早治疗的。 The BIRD Group website: https://bird-group.org/
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/health-departments/breakthrough-cases.html As of May 1, 2021, CDC transitioned from monitoring all reported vaccine breakthrough cases to focus on identifying and investigating only hospitalized or fatal cases due to any cause. This shift will help maximize the quality of the data collected on cases of greatest clinical and public health importance. 我用词不严谨了,不是不测,是不report。
打了就不危害了?现在口风已经从防感染传播 变成防重症了?打完传播的是不是抗性更强的优选毒株啊?
这就是大学现阶段风险评估的结果,你可以反对,也可能过两天就变了
那你还说什么个人有选择呢?这不是没选择了吗?都危害别人了,打了才不危害别人,这个论调不是强制是啥呢?另外, 谁说不打疫苗就是危害别人?流感疫苗这么多人不打怎么就容许危害别人?按你的说法为了保护别人我们应该把市面上所有疫苗都打一遍?艾滋疫苗你打不打?
你有看到我什么事情都往文革上扯吗?网友举的例子都视而不见 听而不闻了吗?
照你这样说,从covid一开始就错了,啥都不该做。
是啊,现在医药界都是在说理论上如何如何,但是理论脱离实际的例子海了去。共产主义理论上很美好,天花乱坠,一实践就跑肚拉稀。对人体的了解也就是个初级阶段,出任何无法解释的问题我都不奇怪。如果这么自信,为什么自免疫疾病这么难,或者说根本治不好。
也搜了一下 看到这个 https://www.ott.nih.gov/bundle/tab-3261
全是术语 看不懂
不是签的免责,是肯尼迪政府制定的政策当时给所有生产疫苗公司的豁免。条例一直有效。打过疫苗的好自为之吧。因疫苗死亡的已经过万了
他在几分钟之内的发言完全是自我否定。开始是支持个人选择,不支持强制。然后又说如果影响了别人,就是另一回事,还是要强制。 最后一贴干脆不提强制,一扭头转到新冠本身。 到底是什么思路?比较晕,选择不跟他的帖子。
怎么好自为之呢?各大学 各公司纷纷强制
informed consent难道不是医学和人参与的科学实验里最基本的科学底线?这个我是头一回听说。拜托别回我了,什么乱七八糟的
我的意思是说,如果你wfh,你完全可以选择不打,但是学校等单位也有选择风险评估制定政策的自由。就像儿童疫苗,学校强制,但也有家长不愿意,个人选择,UCLA前些年的麻疹事件,还有人知道么?
但凡学过免疫学和生理学都能看出来这句话就是在胡扯。 先不说这俩会不会绑定。单说细胞壁上各种受体,要是绑定一个protein就出个凸起,那人体各个系统全都是疙疙瘩瘩各种凸起了。
同学,该醒醒了,川普确实大选输了,要想回来还是等下一次大选吧
我还认识一个80岁老人打完疫苗癌症就好了呢
更不要说,现在在美国如果想买到HCQ or Ivermectin,基本上比登天还难了。首先你就基本找不到敢开这个药的医生。如果去frontline doctors那里看了医生开了处方,有的药房竟然还能不给取药。以前从来没听说过一个药房还是大爷了,病人拿着处方去买药还能不给的。
之前好几个例子,比如这个buffalo 80岁的老太,都已经上ICU呼吸机插管了,医生已经说没戏了。家属自己想办法做研究,要求医生给试一试ivermectin,结果明显好转,下了呼吸机出了ICU转到另一个unit,然后这个新的unit医生就不肯再给药了,情况又变糟。家属不得已,找了律师去法院告,judge发了文书,才能让医院再给ivermectin。
这个故事在这里。 https://buffalonews.com/news/local/after-judge-orders-hospital-to-use-experimental-covid-19-treatment-woman-recovers/article_a9eb315c-5694-11eb-aac5-53b541448755.html
还一个芝加哥的老太也是类似的经历,要告到法院才能得到Ivermectin的治疗。 https://www.chicagotribune.com/coronavirus/ct-elmhurst-hospital-ivermectin-covid-court-order-20210504-2dvay7tatzartk2ijv23hgdxw4-story.html
看了这些觉得简直头脑爆炸,作为一个在ICU等死的病人,在第一剂明显有作用的情况下,想吃这个几块钱的药就这么难,还得整到法院去。
个人的医疗的自由,基本上已经在失去的边缘了。疫苗的各种软性强制,对质疑的铺天盖地的censorship和污名化,稍微说几句马上autivaxxer神棍反科学这些大帽子就扣下来了。
anyway, 无论支持还是对疫苗有concern,所有的的朋友都要想一想,现在岌岌可危的是个人的自由和选择权,而这个失去的自由,会反噬到每个人身上。
赞,果然包治百病
手动点赞扶苏mm,说话有理有据有节。
“无论支持还是对疫苗有concern,所有的的朋友都要想一想,现在岌岌可危的是个人的自由和选择权,而这个失去的自由,会反噬到每个人身上。”
手动支持一下这个,现在搞的那套,简直就是文革借尸还魂
是的 会反噬到每个人身上 今天别人被强制 明天可能就是你 到最后不一定谁能逃掉
手动点赞
手动点赞。
历史总是不断重复的,今天有段大家都知道的名言:
"纳粹把共产党人抓走的时候 我没说话 我又不是共产党人 他们把社民党人关起来的时候 我没说话 我又不是社民党人 他们来抓工会人员的时候 我没说话 我又不是工会人员 他们来抓我的时候, 已没有人能为我说话了"
明天我们的后辈也可能会有一段大家都知道的名言:
他们封锁异议的时候,我没说话,因为我和主流宣传的观点一致。
他们强制疫苗的时候,我没说话,因为我已经打了疫苗。
他们推行数字监控的时候,我没说话,因为我觉得监控没啥。
等我想说话说不出来的时候,已经没有人能为我呼喊了。
你可否给科普下
这帖子看的惴惴不安
任何药物,在一个人群里药物反应和副作用都因个体有很大差别,医疗的规范就是保护大多数病人得到益处,而少数病人可能会丧失治疗的自由,由个体推论整体是不科学的,反之也不能从整体必然到个体。从去年到今年,很多东西在颠覆,包括对自由的认知,在大事件下,只能权衡什么对自己稍好。
看不懂也不妨碍你相信那些莫名其妙的东西。
扣帽子是cancle culture的常用伎俩
可不是么,扣帽子一套套的
美国强行压制治疗药的信息,比自生自灭还不如
那是,美国屁民没有发声的权利
都是一丘之貉
就是些收钱办事的营销号,非要包装成权威,可笑
说的好,它就是说不过了,想人肉楼主来网暴
对,它想颠倒黑白
所以都是有目的性的到处营销
美国医疗就是挣钱的工具,药是他们的掌控手段,想自己吃药?没门 虽然药不是医生发明的,但要买药吃药先得给他们上供钱财,当然都是美其名曰为你好,lol
这句话永远是真理
你说的表面上是有道理,可是没必要这么大火气吧。S蛋白理论上是锚定在细胞表面的,那也只能说明楼主proposed 副作用机制在根据现有的理论是说不通或者不完善的,并不能证明相关的副作用的机制不存在。你自己那个帖子里不也说Novavax副作用小吗,什么原因呢?mRNA疫苗在体内被细胞表达产生S蛋白,而Novavax直接注射蛋白,所以mRNA疫苗比重组蛋白疫苗更接近被病毒感染的情况,当然副作用更大了,这是完全合理的。副作用的具体机制经过一段时间会有研究结果,很可能跟体内表达有关,但是不论如何,人家的怀疑是有道理的,即使论述不难么完整,也没有必要这么急着扣帽子吧。如果你是一个学者,就应该拿出一些学者风范来。
都是这套路,上窜下跳的扣帽子,打压不同声音
对,记住这些
有道理
对,美国医疗只为金钱工作
说的就是
fake science只允许一言堂,不准人说反对的声音
全面打压质疑的声音,就是不想研究,全面掩盖
真实数据
都是职业培训出来,不可能尊重人的
现在的世道,找真相很难
老人可怜了
这医生好
一直压制
可不是吗,疫情以来(其实疫情之前早就开始了只不过过去一年凸显)感受最深的就是,阴谋论和真相的区别就是6-12个月(有时更长)。
多少所谓的阴谋论都被一一证明了。比如lab leak theory, 几个月前谁敢提就是racist, consipracy theorist, anti-science alt-right/low-IQ,(不要)脸书动辄删帖删账号,结果后来藏不住了,(不要)脸书翻脸比翻书还快,不删了!https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/facebook-lifts-ban-on-wuhan-lab-leak-posts-amid-renewed-debate-over-theory/ar-AAKq24i
比如远在媒体曝光Epstein之前甚至大多数人不知道此人是何人之前,全国最有名最被左左 痛恨的“阴谋论者”Alex Jones就跟Joe Rogan说过Epstein和"精英”们不可说的故事。
比如去年大家觉得vaccine passport是不可能的,great reset 是假新闻,结果呢,法国打响vaccine passport第一炮,美国迟早会屁颠屁颠地跟进的。而败灯疯狂印钞发钱,大公司大量购买affordable housing,普通人资产缩水,不就是great reset的布局吗?
这样的事情数不胜数。现在还相信政府和媒体 (媒体已经是赤果果的1984里的Ministry of Truth)我只能说too simple too naive, 也有可能不是蠢就是坏。如果只是天真,请看看cnn这个造谣机器的真相:
现在政府竟然赤果果地宣称要1)flag “misinformation/disinformation” (whatever that''s against the mainstream narrative); 2) remove anyone from ALL platforms if they are removed from ONE platform. 这不是极权法西斯是什么,简直就是深得文革,斯大林,和纳粹的精髓啊!是不是很快就要上网实名制了好让fbi容易点请你喝茶?https://rumble.com/vjxopq-july-16-2021.html
还有某些自诩砖家的人只会骂街却无法解释: -- 为什么那么多疫苗副作用甚至死亡; -- 为什么cdc指使医院拒绝治疗covid初期病人,让他们自生自灭到了要上呼吸机才给治疗 -- 为什么败灯一上台就改了covid death的计算方法(之前用的是died WITH covid 也就是车祸死只要阳性也是covid death, 现在改成died OF covid数量立马断崖式下降,还有PCR testing cycle的改变):
这正常吗?真理不是越辩越明吗,疯狂言论控制和中世纪的宗教迫害有什么区别。哦对了,leftism is a cult。
感谢层主,我正想贴这首诗!
问题是盖不住又怎样,反正疫苗公司免责,政客永远免责,fda的砖家一转身去big pharma继续consulting。
这个说得好。 政府和非不可flag misinformation, flag extremist 说好的free speech呢?况且把健康人标榜成asymptotic 等等怪事也太多太多了,到底谁在散播不正确的言论呢?
视频在这里: https://odysee.com/@BretWeinstein:f/TessLawrie:0
One of the virtues of meta-analysis is that it allows conclusions to be adjusted with changing evidence. One Randomized Controlled Trial included in the BIRD Group''s meta-analysis of Ivermectin has been challenged in The Guardian. It is unclear if the study in question is fatally flawed. In this clip, Tess Lawrie shows us what happens to the meta-analysis when the suspect study is eliminated. Answer: the estimate of the medication''s effectiveness change somewhat (prevention of death drop''s from 62% to 49%. Prophylactic effectiveness goes up slightly from 86% to 87%. Confidence intervals become somewhat wider). The conclusion of the analysis remains the same: Ivermectin reduces deaths substantially and is a very effective preventive measure against the contraction of COVID-19.
最新的meta analysis的preprint全文在这里: https://osf.io/dzs2v Abstract Background Re-purposed medicines may have a role against the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The antiparasitic ivermectin, with anti-viral and anti-inflammatory properties, has now been tested in numerous clinical trials. Areas of uncertainty We assessed the efficacy of ivermectin treatment in reducing mortality, in secondary outcomes, and in chemo-prophylaxis, among people with, or at high risk of, covid-19 infection. Data sources We searched bibliographic databases up to April 25 2021. Two review authors sifted for studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Meta-analyses were conducted and certainty of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach and additionally in trial sequential analyses for mortality. Twenty-four RCTs involving 3406 participants met review inclusion. Therapeutic Advances Meta-analysis of 15 trials found ivermectin reduced risk of death compared with no ivermectin (average Risk Ratio 0.38, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.19 to 0.73; n=2438; I2=49%; moderate-certainty evidence). This result was confirmed in a trial sequential analysis (TSA) using the same DerSimonian-Laird method that underpinned the unadjusted analysis. This was also robust against a TSA using the Biggerstaff-Tweedie method. Low-certainty evidence found ivermectin prophylaxis reduced covid-19 infection by an average 86% (95% CI 79% to 91%). Secondary outcomes provided less certain evidence. Low certainty evidence suggested that that there may be no benefit with ivermectin for ‘need for mechanical ventilation’, whereas effect estimates for ‘improvement’ and ‘deterioration’ clearly favoured ivermectin use. Severe adverse events were rare among treatment trials and evidence of no difference was assessed as low certainty. Evidence on other secondary outcomes was very low certainty. Conclusions Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in covid-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Employing ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.
这是英国的医生组织,跟这边的frontline doctors和flccc一样都是倡导早治疗的。 The BIRD Group website: https://bird-group.org/
还学者风范呢。很多教育产业流水线上出来的所谓专家,都是科研产业上的技工而已,没有什么真正的科学素养可言,连science到底是什么都不知道,以为science就是权威机构背书的一系列orthodox,一旦盖章认证就是不容置疑的结论,谁敢提出质疑那就是阴谋论(对应heresy),反科学(异教徒)。这帮护法才是真正的anti-science的cult,跟中世纪的宗教没有什么两样。
这世界只有宗教不能质疑。 很多人被洗脑成科学教信徒了还不自知。
不是说年底么,问题是这个疫苗安全不安全。。。
我们常用的疫苗里面最快研发出来的就是mump疫苗,用了四年时间。新疫苗出来用了传统技术的话让人相对安心一点,但也还是没有长期安全性的数据,有很多疫苗都是二期三期的时候被毙了。 你看看我上面贴的视频,现在很多医生和医生组织倡导的早治疗方案里面用的药都是用了好几十年很安全的常用药,有这个不用,为什么非要risk打新的疫苗呢。
的确是有这个问题,现代科学的先驱们都是有反对权威,追求真理的科学精神的。如今科学却被人捧成了新的宗教,一些所谓的权威人士打压异端,雇主能以科学的名义强迫人打试验性的疫苗。这就像中世纪天主教会不让人自己读圣经,教会垄断了圣经的解读权,之后对有自由思想的人各种迫害,其实也完全违背了耶稣传达的福音。索性社会还是有进步的,不打疫苗只是不让上班,不让上学,还没有处以火刑什么的。
所谓的砖家叫兽
我就问一句如果半年后这livm和hcq一样挂了没效没有人炒作你要不要自杀id
我也不明白,在疫苗没出来之前美国医疗系统面临崩溃时,为什么不用呢?
单独的mump疫苗为啥不让生产了,非要并入三联的麻风腮?这里面有啥不可说的利益关系吧
https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/worrying-me-quite-bit-mrna-vaccine-inventor-shares-viral-thread-showing-covid-surge-most
还有美国宁可冒着自己经济奔溃社会动荡的危险,放着简单现成的有效药物不用,死这么多人,弄到现在通货膨胀都不知怎么收场,这盘大棋,普通人真看不懂。。。这简直不是说药厂赚几个黑心钱的问题了,要是美国都没了,疫苗公司怎么赚钱?
很公允
可能可以作死一部分精英人士?像911恐袭那样
我和你一样 老人要打 哪怕是当安慰剂打我都不反对 成年人起码我自己不愿打 小孩我反对打
同意 美帝目前的科学家集体失声 和tg国殊途同归了
人们得到信息会自己判断,做informed consent,我都只是给大家分享信息,有给哪个人意见是打还是不打,是吃还是不吃么? 不要把其他人当小孩子了,别人都有判断力,自己的判断自己负责。你们做的就是censor你们认为的所谓“危害社会”的信息,不让人们知道反对你们观点的信息。问题是,历史上所有的极权政府,censor的时候都是这样的理由,不让你们看这个是为了你们好,为了国家安全。谁有权利做the ministry of truth?谁能保证自己说的就肯定一直是对的? 你自己想想吧。byebye~
如果他们不免责的话,可能我的疑虑会消除那么一点点。现在是他们赚得盆满钵满,打了疫苗出了问题他们一点责任没有,让老百姓后果自负。这还有天理不?
听上去很烧脑对吧,但是你沿着你这个思路往下问,为什么呢?
这些big pharma都是跨国公司,美国衰弱或者完蛋,并不耽误他们自己赚钱对吧。你看看这一年财富增长最快的是谁(不光big pharma,big tech也在里面)?如果这些大公司都是你家的,你自己并不受新冠的损害,你还赚了大钱,那么,延长一下疫情,对你来说有什么坏处呢?ps, 通货膨胀最主要的是让普通人的财富缩水。
这并不是什么阴谋论,就是非常简单的game theory,人性。
很多人,可能就是简单的被善良限制了理解能力。
嗯,这个我也看到了。 而且还有人指出说,现在美国新闻里说的所谓99。5%的cases都是unvaccinated,其实包括了从2月份到现在的数据,那个时候打了疫苗的人本来就很少。而且,现在cdc的guidelines就是vaccinated只要不是重症住院就不用测,不测就不会记录breakthrough cases,这样就会显得vaccinated没有新case。 别的国家的数据更valid。至少没有cdc这种的manipulation
按你的说法英国数据不是正说明死亡率很低么,你打算怎么spin,要说死亡数lagging再等等吗?
如果真有各种长期后遗症,人们也还是得继续吃他们的各种药。好sinister。
好多人真的是天真了,觉得不能相信政府能这么腐败和无能,然后疫情以来的种种操作,明眼人早该看清楚了。
不知他们下一步要怎么走。过去几十年全球化使他们的利益实现了最大化,可能他们觉得是时候消灭国家,实现世界大同了吧。
你这就是一堆车轱辘话,其实你自己也知道ivm大概率和hcq一样是场闹剧,但是碍于自己的面子得要硬挺罢了
说的太好了!手动点赞!希望更多人看到这些话。都是社会主义国家出来的,对媒体政府应该有天然的怀疑。为什么有些MM会无条件信任政府?
拜托, 你看看有些疫苗率低的国家压根就是发病率低,当然死亡率更低。
疫苗的问题分两类:第一它到底对防护有多大效率?以色列说对印度变异是64%,对秘鲁变异好像更低。第二它长期的副作用到底有多大?如果它的副作用总体超过好处,那就不应该打,特别是对小孩打。楼主只是想心平气和的讨论可能副作用。
上这个论坛的都是成年人了,每个人为自己的行为负责。不管打了还是没有打的,大家用逻辑和数据讨论就好了。
前两天在推特看到一组公布的数据,也是99.x%的new cases都是unvaccinated,往下一看time frame是12/7-6/7……非常的无语
是的,就是人性,未必这些人天生就坏,而是美国医疗系统设计有根本缺陷,医疗发财和国民健康是对立的 坏的系统把人变成鬼,好的系统把鬼变成人
号外
福奇又出新词: pandemic of the unvaccinated
别的不知道,我在covid19的一个test center上班,我们除了不给10天内测出过阳性的人再测试,其他想测就测,而且都是免费,没有cdc的所谓不是重症不给测。测出来阳性的病人我都会电话问诊,有打过疫苗测到阳性的,只是很少。电话问诊就是简单分流,根据严重程度给病人建议。我不知道你这个所谓不是重症不用测也不统计是个什么意思?
嗯 朝鲜确实符合你说的,我觉得你们这些ID有个特点就是我说个东西你们就去讨论别的,我问你英国的数据说明啥,你给我讨论朝鲜
你理解错了,自行替换了楼主的文字。她压根没说打了疫苗再感染的不给测。 你给出的大众免费测试的例子大家都很清楚,全美国都是这样。
你去读读473楼吧
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/health-departments/breakthrough-cases.html
As of May 1, 2021, CDC transitioned from monitoring all reported vaccine breakthrough cases to focus on identifying and investigating only hospitalized or fatal cases due to any cause. This shift will help maximize the quality of the data collected on cases of greatest clinical and public health importance.
我用词不严谨了,不是不测,是不report。
你还不如再加上这些人的亲戚朋友都提前服用了万能解药,解药还可以遗传,然后他们就去武汉投毒了,这样可以永远的割剩下的韭菜
系统提示:若遇到视频无法播放请点击下方链接
https://twitter.com/i/videos/1416426955080142848
其实疫苗的有效率不止95%。可能有100%。原因见下图: 所以打完两针 一点儿反应都没有的,应该去测下抗体。