7 ms·
It's actually pretty simple to read the evidence and come to the conclusion its not suitable to be used in the treatment of COVID. Unfortunately the issue is pl
by qmmmur 5y ago
It's actually pretty simple to read the evidence and come to the conclusion its not suitable to be used in the treatment of COVID. Unfortunately the issue is plagued by misinformation and those who profit from peddling it.
- mdp2021 5y agoWhich evidence do you find simple - those two links you posted? (Non rhetorical question - in case of doubt.) People who will read that evidence without full contextual intellectual preparation will not be able to be certain of their evaluation; they are not competent to review it ("review" as in the expression "peer review"). On the other hand, yesterday I started exploring the material of a medical doctor who publishes interesting conferences - found as I was looking for other material, and to my surprise, from what he practices on himself I am sure he would disagree with your previous post. Who to trust? On the other hand, if I see censorship, few exceptions aside it will be very clear that the censorship will help approaching truth. And for this, one name I will give: Lex Fridman, who denounced the matter a few weeks ago, while interviewing for this podcast one of the notable censored voices.
- mdp2021 5y agoSorry, critical mistyping as I looked for the best formulation: «it will be very clear that the censorship will [/not/] help approaching truth».