SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: i-node who wrote (223491)1/19/2022 7:24:58 PM
From: Trader77  Respond to of 354453
 
Sure thing. A medical doctor committed to saving lives doesn't know about the "science" but some Trump cultist who posts BS online all day does. Read the science from the ivermectin doctors themselves and maybe you'll learn something (though that's highly doubtful):

covid19criticalcare.com

I happen to agree with them that only top grade N95/KN95 masks are of value and outdoor mask wearing isn't needed for the existing variants.



To: i-node who wrote (223491)1/19/2022 10:21:40 PM
From: Thomas M.  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 354453
 
Scientist finds Ivermectin works, but then science gets vetoed by Bill Gates. Scientists face this choice all the time: obey Fauci, Gates, etc or lose research funding.
Andrew Hill, PhD, is a senior visiting Research Fellow in Pharmacology at Liverpool University. He is also an advisor for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Clinton Foundation. As a researcher for the WHO evaluating ivermectin, Hill wielded enormous influence over international guidance for the drug’s use.

Hill had previously authored a analysis of ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19 that found the drug overwhelmingly effective. On Jan. 6 of 2021, Hill testified enthusiastically before the NIH COVID-19 Treatment Guidlelines Panel in support of ivermectin’s use.

Within a month, however, Hill found himself in what he describes as a “tricky situation.” Under pressure from his funding sponsors, Hill then published an unfavorable study. Ironically, he used the same sources as in the original study. Only the conclusions had changed.
Hill admitted his manipulated study would likely delay the uptake of ivermectin in the UK and United States, but said he hoped his doing so would only set the lifesaving drug’s acceptance back by about “six weeks,” after which he was willing to give his support for its use.

Hill affirmed that the rate of death at that time was 15,000 people per day. At the 80 percent recovery rate using the drug, which Hill and Lawrie discussed earlier in the call, the number of preventable deaths incurred by such a delay would be staggering — as many as 504,000.

Lawrie was unable to persuade Hill, who instead of joining her team as lead author, went ahead and published his manipulated findings.
Four days before publication, Hill’s sponsor Unitaid gave the University of Liverpool, Hill’s employer $40 million. Unitaid, it turns out, was also an author of the conclusions of Hill’s study.

he admitted his sponsor, Unitaid, was an unacknowledged author of conclusions. “Unitaid has a say in the conclusions of the paper. Yeah,”
worldtribune.com

Tom