May 16, 2022·edited May 16, 2022Liked by Alexandros Marinos
If you (and Phil Harper) can get this trial retracted that will be a miracle. The fact that you have probably had the paper modified already (without any public acknowledgment) is an incredible achievement. Having modified an already published paper without acknowledgement probably represents gross scientific misconduct on behalf of the NEJM and they are obviously noting every word you say.
My advice is to be careful and seek legal advice. If you bring the Together trial down you will have some very powerful entities out for you.
As I mentioned once before, the dominoes will start to fall and they won’t stop falling until they get all the way back to Andrew Hill.
If it is all true, if indeed there is a grand conspiracy against Ivermectin, then the powers that be will simply not let the first domino fall for the consequences will be utterly unimaginable.
So be careful, you, Phil and a few others are nudging that first domino
How could they have granted emergency abuse authorization to the hacksxxxine for big Harma .... with some cheap ivermectin cure available?
They had to destroy it - Ivermectin- to save us with their safe and effective hacksxxxxxines. How could the Harmaceuticals have pushed their hacksxxxxine if their was no emergency?
As the wall suggests at the end?
If I hear it right ...
How can you have your puddin if you don't eat your meat?
Eat your meat else you won't have any puddin.
How can you have any puddin if you don't eat your meat?
What ever the line is, you have to scream it loud as you can....
That paper first states: “The 6 h threshold referred only to periods of time recommended for observation by a clinician and does not include waiting times“…
but then later states: “The event adjudication committee did count patient wait times as contributing to a primary endpoint.”
The Ivermectin paper states: “The 6-hour threshold referred only to periods of time that were recommended for observation by a clinician and was discounted for wait times,“ but can we really believe that given the contradictory statement from the Fluvoxamine paper?? Please let me know if I’m missing/misunderstanding anything here
Great observation on the E/H ratios! I’d caution against calling them “ER observations” though. I was quite confused by this at first as well, but the “emergency settings” (or “emergency departments” as the paper also refers to them as) are not ERs as we know them in the US. As the paper points out “This region of Brazil implemented mobile hospital-like services in the emergency settings (i.e., temporary field hospitals) with units of up to 80 beds; services included multiple-day stays, oxygenation, and mechanical ventilation.” I vaguely recall one of the trial authors muddying this all up by referring to them as “emergency rooms” himself when presenting the Fluvoxamine data last year, so I certainly don’t blame you for using the term yourself. But so as not to mislead I would suggest editing accordingly
If you (and Phil Harper) can get this trial retracted that will be a miracle. The fact that you have probably had the paper modified already (without any public acknowledgment) is an incredible achievement. Having modified an already published paper without acknowledgement probably represents gross scientific misconduct on behalf of the NEJM and they are obviously noting every word you say.
My advice is to be careful and seek legal advice. If you bring the Together trial down you will have some very powerful entities out for you.
As I mentioned once before, the dominoes will start to fall and they won’t stop falling until they get all the way back to Andrew Hill.
If it is all true, if indeed there is a grand conspiracy against Ivermectin, then the powers that be will simply not let the first domino fall for the consequences will be utterly unimaginable.
So be careful, you, Phil and a few others are nudging that first domino
How could they have granted emergency abuse authorization to the hacksxxxine for big Harma .... with some cheap ivermectin cure available?
They had to destroy it - Ivermectin- to save us with their safe and effective hacksxxxxxines. How could the Harmaceuticals have pushed their hacksxxxxine if their was no emergency?
As the wall suggests at the end?
If I hear it right ...
How can you have your puddin if you don't eat your meat?
Eat your meat else you won't have any puddin.
How can you have any puddin if you don't eat your meat?
What ever the line is, you have to scream it loud as you can....
The part of this topic that I’d really like better clarity on from the authors is whether the “observation” time included wait time or not. If I’m not mistaken, this seemed to be contradicted in the Fluvoxamine paper: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X(21)00448-4/fulltext
That paper first states: “The 6 h threshold referred only to periods of time recommended for observation by a clinician and does not include waiting times“…
but then later states: “The event adjudication committee did count patient wait times as contributing to a primary endpoint.”
The Ivermectin paper states: “The 6-hour threshold referred only to periods of time that were recommended for observation by a clinician and was discounted for wait times,“ but can we really believe that given the contradictory statement from the Fluvoxamine paper?? Please let me know if I’m missing/misunderstanding anything here
Great observation on the E/H ratios! I’d caution against calling them “ER observations” though. I was quite confused by this at first as well, but the “emergency settings” (or “emergency departments” as the paper also refers to them as) are not ERs as we know them in the US. As the paper points out “This region of Brazil implemented mobile hospital-like services in the emergency settings (i.e., temporary field hospitals) with units of up to 80 beds; services included multiple-day stays, oxygenation, and mechanical ventilation.” I vaguely recall one of the trial authors muddying this all up by referring to them as “emergency rooms” himself when presenting the Fluvoxamine data last year, so I certainly don’t blame you for using the term yourself. But so as not to mislead I would suggest editing accordingly