. . . There have been 187
hydroxy studies, 122 of which were peer reviewed. The word on Fox News and Twitter is that hydroxy will kill you, . . . Yet the science says otherwise if you look at early versus late treatment of COVID, which only makes sense. The fire department saves houses if they arrive when there is a small kitchen fire, not when the entire house is ablaze.
100 percent of
these studies report positive effects for early treatment, meaning those not yet in the hospital and certainly not on a ventilator.
Yet the medical establishment and media choose only to focus on advanced disease where hydroxy offers little if any benefit. . . .
. . . . For more detail on cases versus tests, please read my summary of this
COVID-con. Other have reached the same conclusion. A
legal ruling in Portugal found that the COVID PCR test is “not fit for purpose” meaning mass testing.
They determined that overly high amplification cycles lead to excessive false positives and unreasonable quarantines and business closures. The … test has only a 3 percent chance of actually being positive…
…Death counts are reported no differently than COVID cases…
…Johns Hopkins University actually took a stab at the science of Chinese virus deaths before they decided their results were inconvenient and
buried them.
Hopkins researchers noted that the number of people who died last year is the same as this year. How could that be if hundreds of thousands are dying of the Wuhan flu? It turns out that increases in COVID deaths are offset by decreases in deaths due to heart disease and other ailments.
Has heart disease miraculously disappeared this year? Or are heart attacks being called COVID deaths? . . .
The scientists want clinical trials.
Where are the trials on masks, social distancing, quarantining the healthy, closing the economy? There are none. When a study is actually performed, as in the Danish mask study, the results are deemed inconvenient and buried by the scientist and corporate media.
If science were serious, as it should be, coronavirus data should be reviewed, analyzed, and presented objectively. Instead, we are seeing the opposite, where any results inconvenient to a largely political agenda are deemed inconvenient and hidden or deleted. Those presenting inconvenient results are castigated, maligned, and threatened by the ruling class for daring to challenge the orthodoxy. . .
