Jump to content

Menu

So any comments on the Stella Immanuel Video?


KidsHappen
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

It's almost as if it was never really about the data....

The stupid thing is for me it really is.  I don’t even live in the US and I think the way our state gov have handled things is good and they align more closer to republican than Democrat although we give them different names here (liberal versus labour).  I’m really struggling with why scientific data in a pandemic is political.

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ausmumof3 said:

The stupid thing is for me it really is.  I don’t even live in the US and I think the way our state gov have handled things is good and they align more closer to republican than Democrat although we give them different names here (liberal versus labour).  I’m really struggling with why scientific data in a pandemic is political.

Of course it should be all about the data. The fact that we are actually debating whether some bizarre worldwide conspiracy involving the Deep State, Illuminati, Bill Gates, and Lizard People are all conspiring to hide the truth about HCQ and allow hundreds of thousands of people to die just to make Donald J. Trump look bad seems like a bizarre parody of an M. Night Shyamalan movie. Yet here we are. 

  • Like 10
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, popmom said:

I totally agree with you! These are extraordinary times. And perhaps that is why I think silencing these doctors in not the right move.

 

23 minutes ago, Frances said:

They are hardly being silenced when our scientifically illiterate leader is touting them despite admitting knowing nothing about them or their credentials. They are getting tons of publicity.

 

20 minutes ago, popmom said:

BINGO! This is what y'all are really all about! Goodnight! 

I've done so good just lurking this thread, but a quick escapade.

So, you say "I think silencing doctors is not the right move". Intimating they are being silenced.

Frances disagrees with you, "They are hardly being silenced."

And you respond, "Bingo!"

I don't know if you've played Bingo before, because I do not think it means what you think it means.

On a more on-topic note: a scientific debate (and I'm using the term loosely here) would require both sides to bring all data to the table with plenty of time before hand so that the debaters (ie scientists) could study the data and conclusions drawn from it. One side is already presenting their data for review in the form of journals. The logical step, if you are sincere in wanting this debate, would be for this doctor's data to be presented completely for review, either in a journal if one would be willing to print, or, I'm sure, there are other ways.

So really, it's not that we are even at the point of rejecting a debate (which could be a valid decision in itself), but rather this doctor is not prepared for one. This is not the other side's fault. They cannot debate or question (or validate!!) what they cannot see, ie her data. I have seen people in this thread ASK to see the data, which seems to be in more good faith than they are being given in return.

An opinion/assertion is not enough to bring to the table in a scientific setting. Otherwise I would opine/assert that cookies do not make me gain weight, and no, you cannot see my data. Or my clothes size. Checkmate, primary care physician. 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the original poster who was asking about enrolling in trials I found that we have a full register of clinical trial for Australia and New Zealand.  There is at least one study on the use of prophylactic HCQ taking place.  I’m not sure if it was paused due to the lancet study it doesn’t say so but it doesn’t say not.

im assuming there is something similar in the us.  
 

one issue with our studies here is the outbreak has been too small but sadly that’s probably no longer the case.

https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=379618&isReview=true

 

edited to add link to the details of the trial.

Edited by Ausmumof3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, kand said:


I’m left wondering why some people are so invested in this particular drug being the answer.

I was lurking on this thread, but, I might have a good guess on this: HCQ is dirt cheap in the 3rd world and millions of doses are manufactured every month for pennies per dose in many countries - Bill Gates has taken on malaria in Africa as a disease his foundation will eradicate in his lifetime and they have funded several manufacturers of this drug - if this drug works reliably, it is cheaper and easier for us to get back to normalcy than if we were to wait for 350 million doses of the vaccine for everyone in the US. I think, many people are so invested in marketing this drug as the answer to all our prayers because of the economic hit and the need for a quick and cheap solution (preferably before November!).

PS: Anecdotally, I know some people IRL who got Covid and recovered after using this drug. So, I know that it works for some youngish people with no underlying health conditions.

Edited by mathnerd
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, popmom said:

There is absolutely a place for this in academia. Universities host debates all the time over lesser issues. This needs to be one. One of the medical schools or perhaps the AMA could sponsor it. 

I don't know what exactly you are imagining here. This would not look like a debate where someone is pummeling their fist on the podium, sweat beading on their brow, with one other person standing on the other side of the stage, perhaps cooly sipping their water or shuffling their papers to look disinterested and unaffected. 

That's good TV. That's not good science.

I'm assuming that you sincerely want these ideas to be given true consideration, right? True consideration wouldn't be done in an hour with commercial breaks, it would be days of deliberate and well-thought questions; no pithy zingers, no gotcha moments, no audience gasps as the damning piece of data on Table 3-42b is highlighted.

"Scientific debate", ie "Science", is literally is what these scientists are doing all day, every day. They aren't going to just pencil in "2-4pm Thursday afternoon, HCQ final decision". 

The point of science is to LEARN, to get closer to the truth, logically test and fine tune theories and hypotheses, not to win.

Also: "host debates all the time over lesser issues." I do not see what the importance of an issue has in relation to its debatability. Subjectiveness is a more key element than importance, and the more scientific you go the less subjectivity you are allowed. 

  • Like 12
  • Thanks 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04335084?term=Hydroxychloroquine&cond=COVID-19&intr="Hydroxychloroquine"&cntry=US&draw=4&rank=24
 

here’s one with Hydroxychloroquine vitamin c, vitamin d and zinc (very similar to the math plus protocol).  Will be interesting to see what this finds.

That's an interesting one — it's a prophylactic study and they are planning to give the treatment group a single dose of HCQ followed by 12 weeks of Vit C, Vit D, and zinc. I wonder how they decided that a single dose of HCQ was adequate if the role of HCQ is to act as an ionophore for the zinc? I also wonder if they are going to measure or track Vit D levels in both the treatment and control groups, since it seems like Vit D alone could have a significant effect.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

That's an interesting one — it's a prophylactic study and they are planning to give the treatment group a single dose of HCQ followed by 12 weeks of Vit C, Vit D, and zinc. I wonder how they decided that a single dose of HCQ was adequate if the role of HCQ is to act as an ionophore for the zinc? I also wonder if they are going to measure or track Vit D levels in both the treatment and control groups, since it seems like Vit D alone could have a significant effect.

Yeah I wondered what the point of the single dose was as well.  Seems like an odd way to do the study.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

That's an interesting one — it's a prophylactic study and they are planning to give the treatment group a single dose of HCQ followed by 12 weeks of Vit C, Vit D, and zinc. I wonder how they decided that a single dose of HCQ was adequate if the role of HCQ is to act as an ionophore for the zinc? I also wonder if they are going to measure or track Vit D levels in both the treatment and control groups, since it seems like Vit D alone could have a significant effect.

I found one of the scientists here on Twitter. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Searching for zinc is an easier way to get combination trials because there are only three compared to over 60 of HCQ.  All of them are combining with HCQ so hopefully at least one manages to get good methodology 

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?term=Hydroxychloroquine&cond=COVID-19&intr="Zinc"&cntry=US

Edited by Ausmumof3
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mathnerd said:

I was lurking on this thread, but, I might have a good guess on this: HCQ is dirt cheap in the 3rd world and millions of doses are manufactured every month for pennies per dose in many countries - Bill Gates has taken on malaria in Africa as a disease his foundation will eradicate in his lifetime and they have funded several manufacturers of this drug - if this drug works reliably, it is cheaper and easier for us to get back to normalcy than if we were to wait for 350 million doses of the vaccine for everyone in the US. I think, many people are so invested in marketing this drug as the answer to all our prayers because of the economic hit and the need for a quick and cheap solution (preferably before November!).

PS: Anecdotally, I know some people IRL who got Covid and recovered after using this drug. So, I know that it works for some youngish people with no underlying health conditions.

No, you don't. Many young people who get Covid recover quickly without taking anything. That any individual takes HCQ and recovers means nothing, since many people with Covid recover.

There are people on my RA forum who take HCQ and have still gotten Covid and had quite a rough time with it. That doesn't prove it doesn't work.

We need good large, randomized studies with control groups.

  • Like 18
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

However if she uses good methodology and gets accurate data that doesn’t matter. I was hoping to find some details to find what the thought behind the single dose was.

True.

Looks like her company has 6 different Covid trials going, including a second one looking at HCQ/C/D/zinc + AZ. https://progenabiome.com/clinical-trials

They also have a study looking at something called "ResCure" but I can't find anything about that — googling just pulls up references to that one clinical trial.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Corraleno said:

True.

Looks like her company has 6 different Covid trials going, including a second one looking at HCQ/C/D/zinc + AZ. https://progenabiome.com/clinical-trials

They also have a study looking at something called "ResCure" but I can't find anything about that — googling just pulls up references to that one clinical trial.

Yes looks like they have two of the three.  I’m going through the ones under vitamins now.  The other trial is being done by Dr Avni Thakore who seems to be a very well respected cardiologist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

Yes looks like they have two of the three.  I’m going through the ones under vitamins now.  The other trial is being done by Dr Avni Thakore who seems to be a very well respected cardiologist.

It doesn't look like there's any control group in Thakore's study — one group gets HCQ + zinc + AZ and the other gets HCQ + zinc + doxy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

It doesn't look like there's any control group in Thakore's study — one group gets HCQ + zinc + AZ and the other gets HCQ + zinc + doxy.

Ugh!

likewise the vit c one the vit c is being used as the placebo/control group so there’s no one not getting either.  I’m assuming vit c is the placebo which I guess makes sense as I think it was shown not to do anything in China.

Edited by Ausmumof3
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, kand said:

For what it’s worth, I think the removal of dangerous misinformation videos is a bit problematic because it plays into people’s conspiracy theories. But it’s equally problematic to just leave them, because people believe the darn things and spread them around, causing actual harm. I don’t know what the answer is on that. 

I agree. I think one part of the problem is that the general public has a very short attention span and a surprisingly large amount of people draw a conclusion that works with their confirmation bias for literally nothing but the headline. They don’t read an article, let alone seek more info from other sources. 

A bit ago, I shared an article on FB about a young man who died of COVID one day after he expressed, on SM, regret about going to a party where he caught the virus. My “it’s the flu” people on FB immediately posted nonsense refutations on my feed, vividly demonstrating that they either didn’t read the article at all or they really struggle with reading comprehension. One person thought the article was saying he died one day after he got COVID at a party, and a different person thought he went to the party already infected himself. 

I do like when true scientists take the time to refute conspiracies, as the one doctor did point-by-point for the Plandemic video, but many know it is a waste of their very limited time because the people who just want their bias confirmed are not going to watch the refutation. The two days before the Plandemic video was removed, it was freakin everywhere. I saw links to it a dozen times, sometimes posted by people I was really surprised would put stock in it. (One is a lawyer! This is a person who is no stranger to logical argumentation!) But the video that refuted it, I saw only here. I have even linked it for friends on FB, thinking, “If they watch this video, surely they will begin to understand why the plandemic video is not right...” but that is literally never what happens. Literally has never happened once. It also hasn’t happened when I patiently explained why one can’t use last week’s death rate provisional report to calculate that “deaths are going down!” The people who want to believe it stick with their belief. 

  • Like 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, mathnerd said:

PS: Anecdotally, I know some people IRL who got Covid and recovered after using this drug. So, I know that it works for some youngish people with no underlying health conditions.

No, you don't know that it "works". Because the drug may have played no role in their recovery. All you know is the drug did not kill them.

  • Like 9
  • Thanks 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, popmom said:

There is absolutely a place for this in academia. Universities host debates all the time over lesser issues. This needs to be one. One of the medical schools or perhaps the AMA could sponsor it. 

That is not how scientific discourse works. 

It does not happen in front of a camera, but in scientific journals via peer reviewed studies. I am happy to explain to you what those words mean.

  • Like 11
  • Thanks 3
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, FuzzyCatz said:

Just as an aside, the University  of MN released a study on the need for hospitalization and using hydroxychloroquine for covid.  I know local health care workers that were excited about this study and protocol when it first came up and were happy to volunteer.   "The trial results, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, determined that hydroxychloroquine did not decrease the severity of COVID-19 symptoms over 14 days any better than a placebo."

 https://twin-cities.umn.edu/news-events/early-treatment-mild-covid-19-university-minnesota-trial-shows-hydroxychloroquine-has-no

 

I’m curious about the placebo. In one of the studies I read about early on, they were using Vitamin C as the placebo. Vitamin C therapy has been used in the treatment of Covid in some places, so the argument was that you may not see the hydroxychloroquine as being effective because it’s not actually being studied against a true placebo. I’m not saying it is or isn’t effective, just that it may sway any promising results if that is indeed the case. I think knowing things like that matter.

And regarding this particular doctor - she wasn’t the only one speaking there. This was a group of doctors, and not the first ones I’ve read about saying this treatment worked. I really don’t think it’s the responsibility of Facebook to pop up and tell me this is BS and a vaccine is needed. What it COULD say is this is not proven to be effective, but deleting it and telling people the only thing that will work is a vaccine looks like an agenda, and that’s where conspiracy theories come from.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Corraleno said:

What's really needed "more than ever in our discourse" is not treating nuts who believe in lizard people and space aliens and astrally-traveling witches as if they are sane, rational people whose opinions deserve serious consideration.

I sort of agree with you but there are many, usually quite sane, people who are latching on to these crazy people right now and seemingly believing what they say with very little question. I think they need to be addressed in some way that does not feed the paranoia and the conspiracy theories.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, square_25 said:

Nope, that’s not where conspiracy theories come from. Conspiracy theories happen with or without FB removal. It’s a mindset.

 

They may not start there, but I can assure you, FB’s blocking and removal of information feeds them. 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

  • why do these “doctors” all show up at a staged appearance in the same lab coat.  We haven’t seen other studies released like this.  How did that go down?  Did money change hands?  Who arranged that travel?
  • where are theses doctors qualifications?  There are reliable news sources saying at least some lied about their qualifications and others were eye doctors, etc
  • why is a pediatrician prescribing drugs to people with multiple comorbitites?  Again, data and analyses is important.  This doctor doesn’t have a normal clinic addresss.  Sounds dicey.  
  • where is the data?   Why can’t we find and analyze the study and methods and scientist qualifications like we can with other studies.  Where is the peer review?

As far as censorship, private companies have terms of service.  No one is stopping them from starting their own website or publishing a study.  I’m sure they will get their 5 minutes in the media regardless. They’ve already got too much as far as I’m concerned.  

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, StaceyinLA said:

 

I’m curious about the placebo. In one of the studies I read about early on, they were using Vitamin C as the placebo. Vitamin C therapy has been used in the treatment of Covid in some places, so the argument was that you may not see the hydroxychloroquine as being effective because it’s not actually being studied against a true placebo. I’m not saying it is or isn’t effective, just that it may sway any promising results if that is indeed the case. I think knowing things like that matter.

And regarding this particular doctor - she wasn’t the only one speaking there. This was a group of doctors, and not the first ones I’ve read about saying this treatment worked. I really don’t think it’s the responsibility of Facebook to pop up and tell me this is BS and a vaccine is needed. What it COULD say is this is not proven to be effective, but deleting it and telling people the only thing that will work is a vaccine looks like an agenda, and that’s where conspiracy theories come from.

Interesting about the vitamin C. It shows how easy it might be to draw the wrong conclusion if you don’t control the variables properly.

I know there are other Drs who believe HCQ works and so I wonder why they chose this particular one as their spokesperson. Did they not research her at all? I think you have to bear in mind someone’s credibility when considering what they say about something like this. It doesn’t necessarily mean it doesn’t work, but when the person expressing the view has other, wildly unbelievable views then anything they say needs to be examined very carefully before acting on it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, FuzzyCatz said:

 

  • why do these “doctors” all show up at a staged appearance in the same lab coat.  We haven’t seen other studies released like this.  How did that go down?  Did money change hands?  Who arranged that travel?
  • where are theses doctors qualifications?  There are reliable news sources saying at least some lied about their qualifications and others were eye doctors, etc
  • why is a pediatrician prescribing drugs to people with multiple comorbitites?  Again, data and analyses is important.  This doctor doesn’t have a normal clinic addresss.  Sounds dicey.  
  • where is the data?   Why can’t we find and analyze the study and methods and scientist qualifications like we can with other studies.  Where is the peer review?

As far as censorship, private companies have terms of service.  No one is stopping them from starting their own website or publishing a study.  I’m sure they will get their 5 minutes in the media regardless. They’ve already got too much as far as I’m concerned.  

 

Just one thing that crosses my mind with this whole scenario, and I’m sure many will take it as a conspiracy theory - maybe it is, but when you talk about money changing hands, I can’t help but think about the tens (or even hundreds) of billions of dollars that will be lost by the pharmaceutical companies and those in their pockets if we have an inexpensive treatment for this virus.

I am NOT saying this is the treatment, nor that there will be one (I mean heck, we don’t have one for the common cold), but when you look at it from a financial perspective, it is not in the best financial interests of many for there to be a successful treatment of any kind.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TCB said:

Interesting about the vitamin C. It shows how easy it might be to draw the wrong conclusion if you don’t control the variables properly.

I know there are other Drs who believe HCQ works and so I wonder why they chose this particular one as their spokesperson. Did they not research her at all? I think you have to bear in mind someone’s credibility when considering what they say about something like this. It doesn’t necessarily mean it doesn’t work, but when the person expressing the view has other, wildly unbelievable views then anything they say needs to be examined very carefully before acting on it.

 

Yeah that does make a person wonder. I know there have been doctors from other countries who have spoken about the HCQ, and others from here as well. It at least seems like there has been SOME success with it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, StaceyinLA said:

 

Just one thing that crosses my mind with this whole scenario, and I’m sure many will take it as a conspiracy theory - maybe it is, but when you talk about money changing hands, I can’t help but think about the tens (or even hundreds) of billions of dollars that will be lost by the pharmaceutical companies and those in their pockets if we have an inexpensive treatment for this virus.

I am NOT saying this is the treatment, nor that there will be one (I mean heck, we don’t have one for the common cold), but when you look at it from a financial perspective, it is not in the best financial interests of many for there to be a successful treatment of any kind.

Well there is dexamethazone which is also cheap.  And we do have studies for that.  On the other side there’s big financial interests in finding something that works so we can get the economy going.  Not the drug companies of course but many others.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, square_25 said:

But we’ve already talked about how lots of the treatments are cheap. Also, how many doctors is big pharma supposed to have in their pockets, globally?

 

There have been doctors in other countries who spoke about success with this treatment though, and more from here in the past. You just never continue to hear about it.

And hey, like I said, it just crosses my mind. I’m not stating it as fact. But billions of dollars is a lot of dollars.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, StaceyinLA said:

 

Yeah that does make a person wonder. I know there have been doctors from other countries who have spoken about the HCQ, and others from here as well. It at least seems like there has been SOME success with it.

The view of some epidemiologists is that in most trials if the results had been as poor as for HCQ they would have stopped studying.  It’s only really because of the political push to keep studying it that it’s happening at all.  The other ones that were looking at early have mostly been dropped.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, StaceyinLA said:

 

I’m curious about the placebo. In one of the studies I read about early on, they were using Vitamin C as the placebo. Vitamin C therapy has been used in the treatment of Covid in some places, so the argument was that you may not see the hydroxychloroquine as being effective because it’s not actually being studied against a true placebo. I’m not saying it is or isn’t effective, just that it may sway any promising results if that is indeed the case. I think knowing things like that matter.

And regarding this particular doctor - she wasn’t the only one speaking there. This was a group of doctors, and not the first ones I’ve read about saying this treatment worked. I really don’t think it’s the responsibility of Facebook to pop up and tell me this is BS and a vaccine is needed. What it COULD say is this is not proven to be effective, but deleting it and telling people the only thing that will work is a vaccine looks like an agenda, and that’s where conspiracy theories come from.

I wondered the same re vit c.  But I think all the high dose vit c trials didn’t show it to be effective.  I’m not sure why they don’t just give sugar pills.

im also wondering if you could taste the difference.  Doesn’t vit c have a kind of acid taste.  I’ve only ever had flavoured type so maybe it’s just the flavouring they put in.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The u of mn study used both zinc and c with hydrox.   I’m sure you could look Up their study conditions easily.  Again, I live very local to the u of mn and am an alum and know health care professionals who happily volunteered for this study.  Their was initially some optimism about this combo.  Wouldn’t health care professionals be clamoring for this as a prophylactic if it was obviously affective?

That’s the beauty of looking at published studies.  You can know and analyze the exact conditions and scientist qualifications.  That info was in the press release of page one of this thread from the u of mn.   

Edited by FuzzyCatz
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have not read the while thread, and I'm not planning on it. But does anyone have a link to her actual website that documents her kooky claims and conspiracy theories? All I can find are news reports about her when I Google, not her actual site. I've got oodles and oodles of people on my fb posting the video, and news reports about her are probably not going to be trusted as refutation, but if I had the link to her actual site talking about demon sperm that might help. 🤣 Thanks!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, FuzzyCatz said:

The u of mn study used both zone and c with hydrox.   I’m sure you could look Up their study conditions easily.  Again, I live very local to the u of mn and am an alum and know health care professionals who happily volunteered for this study.  Their was initially some optimism about this combo.  Wouldn’t health care professionals be clamoring for this as a prophylactic if it was obviously affective?

That’s the beauty of looking at published studies.  You can know and analyze the exact conditions and scientist qualifications.  That info was in the press release of page one of this thread from the u of mn.   

 

They used zinc and C as the placebo, or WITH the drug? Again, what was the placebo? That’s what I am curious about. If your placebo isn’t truly a placebo, of course the treatment won’t look like it is effective. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, StaceyinLA said:

 

They used zinc and C as the placebo, or WITH the drug? Again, what was the placebo? That’s what I am curious about. If your placebo isn’t truly a placebo, of course the treatment won’t look like it is effective. 

WITH the drug. It’s easy to look up.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

Well there is dexamethazone which is also cheap.  And we do have studies for that.  On the other side there’s big financial interests in finding something that works so we can get the economy going.  Not the drug companies of course but many others.

Trust me, the drug companies are also hurting with this.   Most of their API comes from overseas, they are experiencing all kinds of supply chain issues, and they have people out sick or furloughed just like everyone else.  Plus people aren't going to the doctor to get their viagra scripts, or to the hospital for anything not very serious, they lose all the sales for the post-op drugs and sales are down on many medications.  It's in their interest to get this over with.  If they can get in on the manufacture of whatever treatments end up working, that's a bonus.  

5 minutes ago, Momto6inIN said:

I have not read the while thread, and I'm not planning on it. But does anyone have a link to her actual website that documents her kooky claims and conspiracy theories? All I can find are news reports about her when I Google, not her actual site. I've got oodles and oodles of people on my fb posting the video, and news reports about her are probably not going to be trusted as refutation, but if I had the link to her actual site talking about demon sperm that might help. 🤣 Thanks!

It was taken down but can be found on some archive sites.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Momto6inIN said:

I have not read the while thread, and I'm not planning on it. But does anyone have a link to her actual website that documents her kooky claims and conspiracy theories? All I can find are news reports about her when I Google, not her actual site. I've got oodles and oodles of people on my fb posting the video, and news reports about her are probably not going to be trusted as refutation, but if I had the link to her actual site talking about demon sperm that might help. 🤣 Thanks!

 

This is sad to me. I mean yeah, clearly she’s got some issues, but why are people so happy to discredit her? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, StaceyinLA said:

 

This is sad to me. I mean yeah, clearly she’s got some issues, but why are people so happy to discredit her? 

Why are people so happy to believe anyone that puts on a lab coat?   Again, publish your data and qualifications and put them out for review.  

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, square_25 said:

People are using their critical thinking skills to figure out whether she’s worth listening to! Skills I would frankly hope that people are teaching their kids!!

Come on, is what we teach our kids that they listen to random people they’ve never heard of before?? Is that what we tell them is a reliable source?!?!

I’m not anti-HCQ! I’ll be delighted if it helps. But it is absolutely ridiculous that on a board that is supposed to be about rigorous education, people are complaining about the critical approach to sources!!

 

I don’t think it’s critical thinking to be excited to be able to discredit someone. If she and the rest of the group with her have not treated people as they say, I absolutely want that found out, but being happy to be able to make her look like a fool is not the same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...