5 ms·

Supposedly they are not buying everyone off. Look, 2008 happened, why couldn't similar thing that happened in financial industry happen in medicine industry? T

Supposedly they are not buying everyone off. Look, 2008 happened, why couldn't similar thing that happened in financial industry happen in medicine industry? The motivations, rushing of everything could be just aligned enough to cause all of this. Safety studies excluding some participants, some important data. All you'd have to pay off is to exclude certain data, for which there are ALREADY reports coming out for. For example Maddie de Garay's injuries excluded, there's report of someone else's vaccine injury being excluded from the original study. BMJ coming up with the article of falsified data etc. The way Pfizer reportedly conducted side effect studies. E.g. asking participants to report their side effects on 7th day in the app without any freeform text or custom symptoms - only predetermined symptoms. For any custom symptom you had to contact the doctors, who may have just ignored you or determined your symptoms to be irrelevant since they didn't have motivation or time to deal with you. Pfizer just pressuring subcontractors just enough for them to provide data that favours vaccine safety, and there's just not enough time to double check everything so all of it just flies by. Mainstream media has reported absolutely none of it. None of the excluded participants, nothing about the BMJ article. Nothing about how Pfizer conducted the studies. Everyone is clueless about that. There's already so much PR built towards hating "anti-vaxxers" and considering them uneducated and unintellectual, so the word "vaccine" is already associated in everyone's mind as something good, safe and effective. The PR is already there, you just have to work out something that you could call "vaccine", and help out people in the current very desperate situation. Very few are actually closely looking into the data and there are actually plenty of scientists and doctors talking about it, but they are getting debunked using very superficial arguments and just finding anything slightly wrong or misleading about what they are saying and they are immediately considered "debunked". Similarly during 2008, very few people were predicting this crash and everyone just wanted to pretend together that everything was going well. All the experts, economists etc. And human anatomy is somehow simpler than financial system?

Pyramus 5y ago
Directly from the article: > "Sometimes these people even have a specific theory for why elites are covering up ivermectin, like that pharma companies want you to use more expensive patented drugs instead. This theory is extremely plausible. Pharma companies are always trying to convince people to use expensive patented drugs instead of equally good generic alternatives. Ivermectin believers probably heard about this from the many, many good articles by responsible news outlets, discussing the many, many times pharma companies have tried to trick people into using more expensive patented medications. Like this ACSH article about Nexium. Or my article on esketamine. Given that dozens of studies said a drug worked, and elites continued to deny it worked, and there are well-known times where elites lie about drugs in order to make money, it was an incredibly reasonable inference that this was one of those times. > If you have a lot of experience with pharma, you know who lies and who doesn’t, and you know what lies they’re willing to tell and which ones they shrink back from. As far as I know, no reputable scientist has ever come out and said ‘esketamine definitely works better than regular ketamine’. The regulatory system just heavily implied it. > I claim that with ivermectin, even the people who don’t usually lie were saying it was ineffective, and they were saying it more directly and decisively than liars usually do. But most people can’t translate Pharma → English fluently enough to know where the space of “things people routinely lie about and nobody worries about it too much” ends. So they incredibly reasonably assume anything could be a lie. And if you don’t know which statements about pharmaceuticals are lies, “the one that has dozens of studies contradicting it” is a pretty good heuristic!"
- mewpmewp2 5y ago
  What are these paragraphs in response to? > I claim that with ivermectin, even the people who don’t usually lie were saying it was ineffective, and they were saying it more directly and decisively than liars usually do. But most people can’t translate Pharma → English fluently enough to know where the space of “things people routinely lie about and nobody worries about it too much” ends. So they incredibly reasonably assume anything could be a lie. And if you don’t know which statements about pharmaceuticals are lies, “the one that has dozens of studies contradicting it” is a pretty good heuristic!" We currently have a unique situation. Never in the world have scientists, experts or doctors been as pressured to direct people to current vaccines. There's a clear risk to losing your credibility and your job if you were to contradict. Even if you were to think that something may be wrong, it would be a herculean task for you to prove it and is it really worth it to sacrifice your career and everything else? Maybe you are just 50/50 or 80% sure, and incase of that 20% uncertainty you definitely don't want to risk your life work. Also chicken and an egg problem. Anyone who claims current vaccines are unsafe or ineffective are discredited, so after they have made their claim you can just call them misinformation spreaders and tell again "no credible scientist has said X" and if that credible scientist says X, you will just stop considering them as credible. But my point is more oriented towards vaccines than Ivermectin honestly. I'm not a proponent of Ivermectin, but I'm just trying to discuss what results might current motivations in the world yield, and I believe it's definitely possible that Ivermectin COULD be improperly discredited in current ecosystem of everything. With all the social pressures, dire situation, debates being blocked, people labelled immediately misinformation spreaders if their conclusions don't fit the mainstream narrative, I would say very many untruths are possible. I myself can't trust MSM at all any longer, and I am 95% sure that vaccines are not as safe and effective as MSM is trying to portray them as. I don't know exactly how unsafe or how ineffective they are, but that's mostly because proper debate is not allowed. Until this clears up, I'm going to skip on vaccines.
  - Nursie 5y ago
    > Anyone who claims current vaccines are unsafe or ineffective Needs to come up with some compelling evidence. That's what your evaluation is missing.

Pyramus 5y ago

Directly from the article: > "Sometimes these people even have a specific theory for why elites are covering up ivermectin, like that pharma companies want you to use more expensive patented drugs instead. This theory is extremely plausible. Pharma companies are always trying to convince people to use expensive patented drugs instead of equally good generic alternatives. Ivermectin believers probably heard about this from the many, many good articles by responsible news outlets, discussing the many, many times pharma companies have tried to trick people into using more expensive patented medications. Like this ACSH article about Nexium. Or my article on esketamine. Given that dozens of studies said a drug worked, and elites continued to deny it worked, and there are well-known times where elites lie about drugs in order to make money, it was an incredibly reasonable inference that this was one of those times. > If you have a lot of experience with pharma, you know who lies and who doesn’t, and you know what lies they’re willing to tell and which ones they shrink back from. As far as I know, no reputable scientist has ever come out and said ‘esketamine definitely works better than regular ketamine’. The regulatory system just heavily implied it. > I claim that with ivermectin, even the people who don’t usually lie were saying it was ineffective, and they were saying it more directly and decisively than liars usually do. But most people can’t translate Pharma → English fluently enough to know where the space of “things people routinely lie about and nobody worries about it too much” ends. So they incredibly reasonably assume anything could be a lie. And if you don’t know which statements about pharmaceuticals are lies, “the one that has dozens of studies contradicting it” is a pretty good heuristic!"

mewpmewp2 5y ago
What are these paragraphs in response to? > I claim that with ivermectin, even the people who don’t usually lie were saying it was ineffective, and they were saying it more directly and decisively than liars usually do. But most people can’t translate Pharma → English fluently enough to know where the space of “things people routinely lie about and nobody worries about it too much” ends. So they incredibly reasonably assume anything could be a lie. And if you don’t know which statements about pharmaceuticals are lies, “the one that has dozens of studies contradicting it” is a pretty good heuristic!" We currently have a unique situation. Never in the world have scientists, experts or doctors been as pressured to direct people to current vaccines. There's a clear risk to losing your credibility and your job if you were to contradict. Even if you were to think that something may be wrong, it would be a herculean task for you to prove it and is it really worth it to sacrifice your career and everything else? Maybe you are just 50/50 or 80% sure, and incase of that 20% uncertainty you definitely don't want to risk your life work. Also chicken and an egg problem. Anyone who claims current vaccines are unsafe or ineffective are discredited, so after they have made their claim you can just call them misinformation spreaders and tell again "no credible scientist has said X" and if that credible scientist says X, you will just stop considering them as credible. But my point is more oriented towards vaccines than Ivermectin honestly. I'm not a proponent of Ivermectin, but I'm just trying to discuss what results might current motivations in the world yield, and I believe it's definitely possible that Ivermectin COULD be improperly discredited in current ecosystem of everything. With all the social pressures, dire situation, debates being blocked, people labelled immediately misinformation spreaders if their conclusions don't fit the mainstream narrative, I would say very many untruths are possible. I myself can't trust MSM at all any longer, and I am 95% sure that vaccines are not as safe and effective as MSM is trying to portray them as. I don't know exactly how unsafe or how ineffective they are, but that's mostly because proper debate is not allowed. Until this clears up, I'm going to skip on vaccines.
- Nursie 5y ago
  > Anyone who claims current vaccines are unsafe or ineffective Needs to come up with some compelling evidence. That's what your evaluation is missing.