I replied to 2 other threads, where the SAME article has been posted. It has been posted more than twice. I haven't even looked at who was posting it -- the same user? I don't know.
But this is too important for people to continue to be led astray.
So, I am creating a new thread to get a conversation going about what these "studies" REALLY mean.
This was my response to the latest thread:
I realize that most people here do not have a lifetime of understanding scientific studies and literature -- myself included. I hated science in school, and never pursued it.
However, the medical and scientific industries have become so corrupted with lies, that we owe it to ourselves to become somewhat educated on this stuff, or else we will be mislead and lied to even more.
was associated with
EVERY time you see those words, it means it was NOT a clinical trial, where the thing was tested in people, and observations were recorded. No, that is NOT what it means. It means it was an epidemiological study. An epidemiological study is NOT a real study. It is a questionnaire. "How many grapfruits did you eat in the past year?" might be a question asked.
NOBODY can answer these questions accurately, and there is also a bias towards answering questions the way someone thinks they should be answered, rather than the true facts (even if they can be remembered).
Epidemiological studies are ONLY for the purpose of collecting data and THEN forming hypothesis that can LATER be studied in a real trial.
Always take this sort of thing with a grain of salt. Dr. Georgia Eads, a psychologist who became interested in learning about the scientific studies related to nutrition, became horrified when she read hundreds of papers and realized almost all of them are epidemiological, and almost all of those are biased and/or otherwise fraudulent. She doesn't even bother reading them anymore, because they have an 80% failure rate. Meaning, when an epidemiological study "is associated with" something, and then later a real clinical trial is run to test the hypothesis, the trial FAILS to prove what was suspected from the study 80% of the time.
It's worse odds than a coin flip.
binding to the SARS-CoV-2 host receptor ACE2
Because NOBODY has EVER isolated a purified sample of SARS-CoV-2, and NO SAMPLE EXISTS in any laboratory anywhere in the world ... there is NO PROOF that this ACE2 receptor exists, either.
It is ENTIRELY a conceptual fantasy, with NO PROOF that it exists. Therefore, any claim about it is ALSO conceptual. NOBODY has "looked at it" and seen this thing happening in real time.
NOBODY.
SARS-CoV-2 positivity
What does THAT mean? It looks to me like it means a "positive PCR test," which is a BOGUS claim. PCR is NOT a diagnostic tool, so positive/negative is completely meaningless. Therefore, so is the claim of positivity of SARS-CoV-2.
In reality, it means nothing at all.
infection of Vero E6 cells
EVERY time you see the word "vero" ... IT MEANS MONKEY KIDNEY CELLS ... in a PETRIE DISH ... in a LABORATORY. Vero cells are NOT human cells, and they are NOT in the body.
This is the fraud that forms the foundation of ALL of virology. They put something on vero cells, they poison the vero cells, the vero cells break down, and then they CLAIM the breakdown has meaning (namely, that a "virus" must have killed the cells, when in fact it was the poisons they fed the vero cells that caused them to break down).
When the word "vero" shows up, you KNOW it is NOT a clinical trial. Just a lab experiment -- which might or might not mean anything. There is no way to know until this is an actual trial with real people, or at least to start with real animals.
in vitro
"In vivo" means inside a living organism, such as a human, a monkey (living), a cat, a rat, a mouse, or anything living.
"In vitro" means NOT inside a living organism, but rather in a laboratory and in a petrie dish, test tube, or some other non-living apparatus.
This ENTIRE article/study is PURE SPECULATION.
Do these things help people who are sick?
Maybe.
Maybe not.
We have NO WAY OF KNOWING the answer to that, based solely on this paper.
Get a clue, guys. "Edumacate" yourself, and learn how to understand these things.
If you don't, you will continue to be fooled and lied to. And then others who want to "debunk" you will have an easy time of it, because you didn't understand what the hell you were reading in the first place.
This trash paper keeps getting posted on GAW, as if it means something.
It MIGHT be a step in the right direction, but there is NO WAY to know that without a real trial.
Insist on REAL science, not junk claims.
The fake news media pushes junk claims ALL THE TIME.
That should be a clue.
Dude your post complaining about somebody else's post doesn't have any context. What post? What Study?
Good point. Has to do with diphenhydramine and SARS-CoV-2 claims.
This is one from yesterday.
https://greatawakening.win/p/140cbZBTrn/looks-like-real-scientists-just-/
There have been multiple posts on the same thing, today and yesterday.
In reality, my topic is much bigger than any particular post. It is about understanding ALL the studies we come across, where someone claims it means something significant.
I just came from that post. I stopped reading the linked article when vero cells were mentioned as being used to conduct the experiment: vero = virology = fraud
Then I came to this happy post. Perfectly stated.
Gracias, Amigo.
Well, as digital soldiers, not trained in reading scientific papers we do the best we can.
Understand that speaking for myself, I'm not interested in reading academic research. But we are forced into it because our actual scientists and medical doctors are completely letting us down. They are cowering under the lab bench and letting these criminals do whatever the fuck they want.
So you can attack us for not understanding this shit all day long, but we aren't the problem. The problem is the entrenched criminals like Fauci, not us.
Agreed. That's WHY I said this in my OP: "I realize that most people here do not have a lifetime of understanding scientific studies and literature -- myself included. I hated science in school, and never pursued it."
Again, I agree. That is WHY I said this in my OP: "However, the medical and scientific industries have become so corrupted with lies, that we owe it to ourselves to become somewhat educated on this stuff, or else we will be mislead and lied to even more."
I stated WHY I was posting this. I am in agreement with you, except for ONE thing.
I do not agree that "we aren't the problem." While we did not directly CAUSE the problem, the problem exists, and we ALLOW it to continue when we CHOOSE to be ignorant.
We can't read ALL the scientific literature. Most doctors don't read ANY of it. They ONLY read the marketing materials that the Big Pharma reps (prostitutes) drop off at their offices, trying to drum up business for their drugs (drug pushers).
Since they have created an industry where the "professionals" drop the ball, it IS up to us to do what we can.
The topics I covered in my OP are BASIC THINGS. These are NOT difficult to look for.
"Associated with"
"Vero cells"
"In vitro"
These are OFTEN sited, and they show us what the claims REALLY mean. This is not rocket surgery. ;-)
Ty !
If simple anti histamine can disrupt a toxin and help improve their health I am all for that info reaching out to people.
I am, too, but his paper does NOT prove it.
Hell, if people want to experiment and do it anyway, I am all for it. I am in favor of HCQ, Ivermectin, horse paste, and this stuff, too. If it works, it works.
But this paper does NOT prove that it does.
We should understand when we are POSSIBLY being led astray.
Lack of knowledge is WHY we are in this situation in the first place.
Yeah maybe link to the bullshit study/post
I agree with you. People dont understand terminology so they depend on MSM to explain it. We know how that works, dont we.
I used to work in the School of Medicine at a large university where every doctor had to perform a Human Use study via the NIH. Because I submitted the protocols, followed the studies to completion, submitted the results and prepared the results for publication, I am aware that all we are told is Bull....it. When Fraudchi opened his mouth the very 1st time re masks I yelled out "Youre full of s...t". Even though his own published paper on masks proved it is more harmful than beneficial. He contradicted his own research! There were no clinical trials so its fraud to claim something is 'safe and effective'
Another incident is I was having coffee with a man who bragged that he voted for O-care and claimed he read it and approved. I told him he didnt know what he was reading. What did you think about the medical devices policy? You are 65, have a pacemaker. When you turn 70 youre not getting any replacement batteries. So you voted to die in 5 years.
Congress is not innocent either. When they are given a bill of thousands and thousands of pages and scheduled to vote on the bill in the next day or two, anyone who votes for a bill without reading all the details is an idiot. If I were a congressman I would make it loud and clear I will NEVER vote for a bill I cannot read and discuss previous to the vote.
Well remember what the dolt Nancy Pelosi said about Odummy Care, "We have to pass it to know what's in it."
I do recall. What was your reaction to that? Mine was you cant be that stupid. But guess what, they are.
Everyone in my family was flabbergasted at hearing her say that. What was worse was the idiot reporter who gave her a pass on it. If I was the reporter, I would have torn her a new one! I would have hammered her with question after question about how she or any of the Communists in Congress could pass a 5000 page bill without knowing what is in it. They are sickening.
Sen. Rand Paul tried to get the Senate to make it a rule that every bill had to be read aloud before a vote, and only members who were there for the reading could vote on it.
You can guess how that went over.
Good post.
Great post MAG - all this virus nonsense is getting tiring.
Hear, hear!
I agree with a lot of what you said, though I have to quibble a bit about ACE2 receptors. You said, "there is NO PROOF that this ACE2 receptor exists, either."
I'm not sure what level of proof would be sufficient for you. We know a pretty good amount about ACE2 receptor agonist/antagonist binding. The receptor is certainly a target for a wide range of therapeutics. Can I prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that ACE2 receptors exist? No... I can't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that anything exists. Can we genotype them, and look at them with x-ray crystallography, and use SEMs to see them? Research papers tell us it is possible. But I sure can't see them with my naked eye or prove that they exist for sure. We are inferring their existence... accurately, I think, but we do know that we can intervene by bonding an agonist to them and produce a certain effect. That is sufficient evidence to prove their existence to me. Your mileage may vary.
OK, the quote from the paper was this: "... binding to the SARS-CoV-2 host receptor ACE2 ..."
What I meant was that this binding is ficticious if SARS-CoV-2 itself is ficticious.
Understood. That makes much more sense.
The mere belief there is a covid virus is junk.
All scientific studies have basically been pay for play for years now. Big pharma sponsors, funds, or directly affects them all in some way. Whether it’s burying the ones they don’t want to see the light of day or pushing the false ones with cooked statistics, you basically cannot trust anything being printed in our “scientific” journals these days.
Honestly I don't think they even look at anything we're saying anyway. The AP just wrote a smear piece about Robert Kennedy Jr. I didn't get all the way thru the article because it was so disgustingly biased, but they didn't even bother to address any of the actual content of his book. Just smeared him with ad-hominem attacks, and accused him of getting rich off us dumb anti-vaxxers. I don't think they even mentioned the title of his book in the article. I may circle back to it to try to finish, if I can manage to suppress my gag reflex long enough.
That's the only play they have in their playbook.
They can't win on their ideas because their ideas are horrific.
So, they resort to emotion: Racist! Sexist! Homophobe! Transphobe! Islamobphobe! Xenophobe! Truther! Denier!
Funny how we are both truthers AND deniers. I guess it means we are denying things that are not true. Well ... duh.
So get in there goat style and set them straight
Agreed, but it is probably a result of newbies getting on board. Both good and bad to that happening, but overall it is good that these ideas get more exposure.