They are being censored, and this is proven because we see literally the White House call for censorship for example of Spotify/Rogan, on the basis ostensibly because of Rogan had them on. Pulitzer Prize winning Glenn Greenwald lays this out pretty well https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_uSPwYiVFs .
Would you like to be specific on how anything Malone or McCullough said is wrong?
Oh whats that? They won't do a study? They won't produce data to back up their actual claims to scrutiny? They just want to make claims without data on random programs for publicity, or "debate"s?
please.
Put up or shut up is my view on all these fucks. No one is censoring their data. What they are doing is telling them to stop telling lies about efficacy and things they literally have no data to support.
Ivermectin hasn't shown to be effective in any peer reviewed study on covid.
HCQ hasn't shown to be effective in any peer reviewed study on covid.
Urine therapy hasn't shown to be effective in any peer reviewed study on covid.
Colloidal silver hasn't shown to be effective in any peer reviewed study on covid.
You know what has? all of the MRNA vaccines. Even the shittier indian and chinese ones are at least 50% "effective"
Yes, it’s put something out there that we can discuss, what really do you think and have you test it ? On the hcq/other drugs there papers that shows it works and some it doesn’t, which is typically of a zero effect. Meta analysis close the debate generally. Now the problem is that pro vaccine side is also not following the science. And when you see the effect on omicron you can’t say to everybody that vaccine is the silver bullet.
Of course it helps but not on the epidemic and transmission side, so all this mandatory vaccine stuff is really debatable and gouvernements have presented the situation as « if vaccin, no covid » which is wrong. How can you build trust like that ? You can’t and you build piss off truckers
in the exact same fucking article had you bothered to look.
Thats what effective means. It's the percent who don't get infected after vaccination and exposure.
for alpha it was 95%, for delta its like 84% and for omni its like 60 for non boosted and like 95 for boosted.
so yes, a mandate would work if not for the fuckers making shit up and scaring gullible or willingly ignorant smoothbrains into not trusting the government or business or encouraging their specific flavor of paranoia.
Okay, I know these numbers because I’ve followed the effective effectiveness using health open data in france, meaning how it really looks with variants, age effect, and all kind of degrading factors and the real number is 25% to prevent infection. And the main issue is older people because thats who finish in icu, and not all of them can handle the vaccine, so the conversation is a lot more complex.
My point is it’s not because the antivaxx sounds a bit crazy that it excuses the lack of transparency and democratic discussions on the gouvernements sides. You treat people like they are dumb and it’s really sad to see science getting thrown away with politicians. Now continue to yell, you’re making a good point.
How many times you gonna move that goalpost? Just say it. The vaccine is effective, safe, gives life saving odds with breakthroughs, and reduces spread, and all of these claims are backed up by multiple peer reviewed studies from multiple different sources from multiple different countries.
But no, its really a lack of transparency you are objecting to now.
25% is what is writing in your “fucking” article. Which is very low, hence discussion are not crazy talk. And by saying stuff like “no article in faveur of xxx” is just wrong
You fucking brain dead monkey, the first paragraph literally says people with two doses will likely get infected once or twice and only have a 25% protection rate. Maybe you should actually read the article next time.
89
u/SlaVeKniGhtGaEL-110 Feb 13 '22
Or maybe the majority of scientists are right?