Twitter is not a source. Ever. If you post about a study, link to the actual study and not some asshole spouting off about the study, invoking every politically charged buzzphrase he can muster and screaming about genocide trials.
If you want to evaluate research, you have to do it with a dispassionate distance. You have to set aside preconceived notions and simply look at what the methodology and data actually show. ClinicalTrials.gov is not showing any reported results. All we have is a poster from a French drug company. I have no actual data on the authors, when or where the poster was presented, links to actual data (rather than the sanitized conclusions a poster format requires), etc.
It's probably also noteworthy that this is for post-exposure prophylaxis, not pre-exposure prophylaxis or for treatment of a confirmed case of the Virus Which Cannot Be Named. The TOGETHER and ACTIV-6 trials both showed no benefit for treatment.
But doesn't Big Pharma use peer review to filter out contrary evidence to the narrative? I mean, if we only went with peer reviewed studies, then we would reach the conclusion that the vaccine actually saved lives and that Ivermectin did not help. All the peer reviewed research (and there is a lot of it) all basically backs up what the MSM has been saying.
Tucker Carlson told us a big part of what woke him up was reading the book "The Psychology of Totalitarianism" by Mattias Desmet. Among other things that book annihilates the so-called peer reviewed scientific community studies and lays bare how subjective and often corrupt they are. There's no way I can do the book justice, but I highly recommend it.
That's my way of saying I completely agree with you. My opinion on this may not be popular even on GAW but part of the Great Awakening has got to include smart people letting go of sacred cows. Science is not our savior! It has been corrupted as much as anything by the cabal which I call the Revelation 2:9ers now.
This is why we need to abolish the so called "scientific method" It's designed to lead to leftist conclusions so that even those who are searching for truth will be deceived. We already have the truth with what we can see with our eyes. You can just walk outside and see that climate change is a hoax and that the horizon is flat and not curved. We can see the truth of vaccines and voter fraud just from first hand experience.
I'm starting chapter 5 of the book and thought you would like the opening paragraph. Here it is in quotes. The parentheses are in the book (not added by me):
"In previous chapters, we discuss how science tipped from open-mindedness to dogma and blind conviction (chapter 1), how its practical applications isolate people from one another and from nature (chapter 2), how its utopian pursuit of an artificial and rationally controllable universe equates to the destruction of the essence of life (chapter 3), and how its belief in objectivity and measurability of the world leads to absurd arbitrariness and subjectivity (chapter 4). In this chapter, we will discuss the fate of another great ambition of science: to liberate man from his anxiety and insecurity and his moral commandments and prohibitions."
Needless to say, chapter 5 goes on to show that science didn't fare any better on those last points.
Twitter is not a source. Ever. If you post about a study, link to the actual study and not some asshole spouting off about the study, invoking every politically charged buzzphrase he can muster and screaming about genocide trials.
If you want to evaluate research, you have to do it with a dispassionate distance. You have to set aside preconceived notions and simply look at what the methodology and data actually show. ClinicalTrials.gov is not showing any reported results. All we have is a poster from a French drug company. I have no actual data on the authors, when or where the poster was presented, links to actual data (rather than the sanitized conclusions a poster format requires), etc.
It's probably also noteworthy that this is for post-exposure prophylaxis, not pre-exposure prophylaxis or for treatment of a confirmed case of the Virus Which Cannot Be Named. The TOGETHER and ACTIV-6 trials both showed no benefit for treatment.
Link to the ClinicalTrials.gov listing here.
Link to the poster (this is not yet published or peer-reviewed) here.
For me, I'll wait to see a full write-up and some proper peer-review before passing judgement. Downvote away.
But doesn't Big Pharma use peer review to filter out contrary evidence to the narrative? I mean, if we only went with peer reviewed studies, then we would reach the conclusion that the vaccine actually saved lives and that Ivermectin did not help. All the peer reviewed research (and there is a lot of it) all basically backs up what the MSM has been saying.
Tucker Carlson told us a big part of what woke him up was reading the book "The Psychology of Totalitarianism" by Mattias Desmet. Among other things that book annihilates the so-called peer reviewed scientific community studies and lays bare how subjective and often corrupt they are. There's no way I can do the book justice, but I highly recommend it.
That's my way of saying I completely agree with you. My opinion on this may not be popular even on GAW but part of the Great Awakening has got to include smart people letting go of sacred cows. Science is not our savior! It has been corrupted as much as anything by the cabal which I call the Revelation 2:9ers now.
This is why we need to abolish the so called "scientific method" It's designed to lead to leftist conclusions so that even those who are searching for truth will be deceived. We already have the truth with what we can see with our eyes. You can just walk outside and see that climate change is a hoax and that the horizon is flat and not curved. We can see the truth of vaccines and voter fraud just from first hand experience.
I'm starting chapter 5 of the book and thought you would like the opening paragraph. Here it is in quotes. The parentheses are in the book (not added by me):
"In previous chapters, we discuss how science tipped from open-mindedness to dogma and blind conviction (chapter 1), how its practical applications isolate people from one another and from nature (chapter 2), how its utopian pursuit of an artificial and rationally controllable universe equates to the destruction of the essence of life (chapter 3), and how its belief in objectivity and measurability of the world leads to absurd arbitrariness and subjectivity (chapter 4). In this chapter, we will discuss the fate of another great ambition of science: to liberate man from his anxiety and insecurity and his moral commandments and prohibitions."
Needless to say, chapter 5 goes on to show that science didn't fare any better on those last points.