It’s not easy to know anything for sure outside of hard science and engineering.
Take the coronavirus origin story as an example. There are millions of places in the world where humans have tiny to enormous settlements. Most of those have people traveling around between difference populations, a lot. A coronavirus allegedly originates in location #1,253,953 which is fine, there’s a slightly greater or lesser probability of it originating in any of the locations on the list. But what’s the probability of it originating in location #1,253,953 of all places when that location is virtually alone out of that enormous, widely distributed list of points in having a coronavirus experiment factory? Why not #492 or #843,123 or etc etc for many, many, many pages (especially when spaced out to scale)?
Then we have multiple different scientists saying that the virus has been altered. So the balance of probability dictates that it had something to do with that lab and/or a lab. Either that or it was just a chance mutation in that specific location AND all the scientists are wrong. Whether that location is special because it’s the actual origin, or that somebody wants people to think that it’s the origin is up for debate.
But we can’t run experiments and even full confessions would not be believed by one side or the other. So probabilities are all we have and I don’t think it’s stupid discussing these at all.
Fortunate for you it sounds like that in your specific field stuff just needs to function. Some electronics stuff (guitar amps) is as much about the character of disfunction. Ask your amp building buddy about the undersized transformers and filter caps that Fender used in tweed amps (later tweeds) for example, which gave them much of their signature sound. They even resorted to using a standby switch for which a whole mythos started around, which was for the simple purpose of saving money by using smaller filter capacitors (practical at that time), where larger capacitors were very expensive back then, and a standby switch solved the problem by preventing full inrush current (which tended to kill the small capacitors) at switching on the power to the amps, which could be something like 4x higher than when an amp is up and running. And then Marshall not knowing any better straight copied the full Fender design and carried on with the standby switch in their amps, even with plenty big filter caps to handle full inrush current. And it still continues on today, despite amps having plenty big filter caps these days. A lot like how the teaching of current is still backward and electronics symbols are still backward.
HCQ works and works quite fast as do other well known established treatments for covid/symptoms but which have been unlisted by the FDA. Only if your “idealogical values” are psychopathic does it makes sense to oppose those life saving treatments in favour of very dubious experimental non vaccines, as you do.
How many have died bc of no access to these known effective treatments in favor of some experimental “we say it’s good” pseudo vaccine of which the main proven quality is to make money, cause blood clots, deaths and other issues.
The efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 prophylaxis: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials
Although pharmacologic prophylaxis is an attractive preventive strategy against COVID-19, the current body of evidence failed to show clinical benefit for prophylactic hydroxychloroquine and showed a higher risk of adverse events when compared to placebo or no prophylaxis.
Hydroxychloroquine is effective, and consistently so when provided early, for COVID-19: a systematic review
HCQ has been shown to have consistent clinical efficacy for COVID-19 when it is provided early in the outpatient setting; in general, it appears to work better the earlier it is provided. Overall, HCQ is effective against COVID-19. There is no credible evidence that HCQ results in worsening of COVID-19. HCQ has also been shown to be safe for the treatment of COVID-19 when responsibly used.
Efficacy of chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Moderate certainty evidence suggests that HCQ, with or without azithromycin, lacks efficacy in reducing short-term mortality in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 or risk of hospitalization in outpatients with COVID-19.
If there is anything I notice there, it is that the meta analyses with stricter requirements for the methodology of studies included show less positive results than those that include weaker types of studies, including those with no peer review at all. That doesn’t mean that observations studies are worthless, but when you look at them you have to remember how many times things that seemed strong based on such studies turned out to be ineffective when studied using the most rigorous methodologies.
Wish I could summon the necessary level of confidence from the evidence available to ascribe psychopathic values to people who either don’t believe it works, or aren’t certain based on the current evidence. Life would be much simpler then, and I wouldn’t have to do any self examination when I screamed bile at people.
What I don’t do is grab one paper, especially one with demonstrable methodological and ethical issues, and declare that it must be proof that it works. Why is it proof that it works, but none of the papers that get a negative result proof that it doesn’t work?
Good methodology, and the repeatability that is enabled by it is important. It’s easy to look at numbers, like in Raoult’s papers and declare that they MUST mean something… So then other studies that don’t give strong indications of efficacy can be dismissed.
It’s a shame that Raoult cares more about his ego than solid science, because if he’d done the right thing, and got strong results with good methodology, his work might have made a useful contribution to our understanding of this issue.
When you make big announcements like he did about his results, and then it turns out he faked his “hospitalized” patients, to compare results with patients who really were sick enough to be hospitalized, all you’ve done is create further doubt and polluted the whole scientific process.
If it does turn out that it works effectively, he can take some of the blame for slowing the process of reaching that understanding.
Then we are talking about someone who knew that chloroquine worked, then reverse ferret, knew that hydroxychloroquine worked, before he did his studies.
Yeah, it’s all about the money, unless it’s the results produced by a guy who faked hospitalized patients to get the results he wanted, in which case he’s a rebel hero, fighting the good fight against the NWO Big Pharma Pizza Parlor Illuminati.
If I build an electronic circuit, and it doesn’t work, that’s it. I can’t blame the Jews. The light bulb either comes on or it doesn’t.
When we get to issues like this, does it work is a harder question to answer. I can only look at the analysis of studies done by other people. What if some nefarious Jewish force is influencing the results?
Well, if I want to know the truth, the answers aren’t found in discussion about the Jews. The answers are found by further scientific investigation. The answer to scientific questions is only available through science. If it can be shown to work, or to not work, then what the Jews want is irrelevant.
What if the Jews are hiding all the real good evidence? Well, now we’re outside of scientific discussion. Unknowable things and ideology. If the good evidence is hidden, then we still don’t know. If the Jews have successfully hidden the good evidence that interstellar aliens live amongst us, then I can’t know that it’s true. The only way to sort that out is with more good scientific evidence.
I still don’t think you have a good understanding of measuring the strength of results. The strength of the methodology is the most important bit. Once you’ve assessed that, only then can you determine how meaningful the numbers are.
The criticisms made of the methodological weaknesses in that paper were fair and to the point.
Raoult then went on to do a larger study, which should have been able to confirm or dismiss the results of his first trial. He faked hospitalized patients to compare with people who were really hospitalized.
Given his willingness to do that, and his personal selection of the participants in different groups in his first trial, how do you maintain confidence that he didn’t fiddle with that one too, given his lack of randomization. Why didn’t he randomize? There is no good reason not to, and we’ve already established that he will manipulate the chosen participants to get a stronger result.
You’re happy to bang on about a Zionist agenda, but in the service of your personal agenda, you’ll make excuses for someone who deliberately chose people who were less sick to compare with real hospitalized patients, to make his results look better.
The third one has only 1 outpatient study in the RCT and cohort sections. They reduced - a human intervention - targets down to 21, yet couldn’t find any other outpatient studies, even giving them a reduced weighting? Remember that the Brazillian biomathematician studied all of the data and found conclusive proof that it worked.
So here’s the 1 RCT study they use for outpatients, concluding that it does nothing. They only treated patients with HCQ for 7 days. Average age of 41. You could get a thousand children and give them a treatment that is 100% effective when used consistently for 14 days and show no difference after halting at 7 days since they are all going to recover anyhoo.
I see that they (probably) mention the discredited paper that halted trials too:
While numerous large randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were started in different countries worldwide, several observational studies addressing the efficacy and safety of CQ/HCQ in the treatment of COVID-19 disease got published along with preliminary results from some RCTs. These studies have different methodologies and sample sizes, and produced mixed results, ranging from reduced mortality and improved other clinical outcomes to increased mortality among COVID-19 patients.