well that pubmed published this is somewhat encouraging...
that this supports the notion that a small number of psychopaths who have recruited and empowered a slightly larger number of those with strong narcissistic tendencies has gain control of public opinion yet this group of dark players are not the true majority...
also figure 1 is an nice visual of the behind the scenes structure of this darkness...
darkness where sales/marketing campaign propaganda is masquerading as valid science...
Yes indeed 90% of Big Pharma's products have been a cynical money grab from the get go.. little to no real value to human health.. facilitating only symptomatic medical practice not Causative.. side affects galore.. Until now.. with their creation of the supremely dangerous Experimental Biologicals falsely labeled vaccines..
The entire Big Pharma Industrial Complex deserves to be completely gutted.. Govt Regulation to Big Finance, Moderna to Pfizer, Gates Foundation, ALL absolutely gutted... Nuremberg nothing less..
While the appearance of this article on an NIH website is encouraging, I'm curious about a couple of things. Not because I disagree with any of the content—far from it!—but I'm concerned about possible weak points that will provide fodder for detractors. So please don't jump down my throat.
Is Surgical Neurology International (SNI) one of those less prestigious journals we hear about? The editor, who composed the editor's note, is the CEO of SNI™ and SNI Digital™ Publications. The editor's note has some grammatical errors – which of course don't necessarily detract from it but could lessen the perception of credibility.
While peer review of some types of articles is worthless or worse (see for example https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2022/11/24/cleaning-the-augean-stables-part-i/), it might actually have served some purpose for this article. I'm not sure if this means it was peer reviewed or not: "Institutional review board statement: Not applicable." Conceivably this could be the work of only two individuals, the author, and the editor who published it.
Again, this looks like a well done article that contains a lot of what substack readers are familiar with. It's very exciting that it's made it into a scientific publication, an indicator that the atmosphere is slowly changing for the better. It hasn't exactly been broadcast far and wide in the two months since its publication, so we still have a long way to go.
An excellent and precise analysis…thank p you!
I continue to spread the word!
Most individuals are still in a hypnotic state.
If I can change one person a day that would be a start!
well that pubmed published this is somewhat encouraging...
that this supports the notion that a small number of psychopaths who have recruited and empowered a slightly larger number of those with strong narcissistic tendencies has gain control of public opinion yet this group of dark players are not the true majority...
also figure 1 is an nice visual of the behind the scenes structure of this darkness...
darkness where sales/marketing campaign propaganda is masquerading as valid science...
Does this mean it's peer reviewed?I see it references studies on Vit D, HCQ and IVM, which have been attacked by the retraction lobbyists.
Yes indeed 90% of Big Pharma's products have been a cynical money grab from the get go.. little to no real value to human health.. facilitating only symptomatic medical practice not Causative.. side affects galore.. Until now.. with their creation of the supremely dangerous Experimental Biologicals falsely labeled vaccines..
The entire Big Pharma Industrial Complex deserves to be completely gutted.. Govt Regulation to Big Finance, Moderna to Pfizer, Gates Foundation, ALL absolutely gutted... Nuremberg nothing less..
While the appearance of this article on an NIH website is encouraging, I'm curious about a couple of things. Not because I disagree with any of the content—far from it!—but I'm concerned about possible weak points that will provide fodder for detractors. So please don't jump down my throat.
Is Surgical Neurology International (SNI) one of those less prestigious journals we hear about? The editor, who composed the editor's note, is the CEO of SNI™ and SNI Digital™ Publications. The editor's note has some grammatical errors – which of course don't necessarily detract from it but could lessen the perception of credibility.
While peer review of some types of articles is worthless or worse (see for example https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2022/11/24/cleaning-the-augean-stables-part-i/), it might actually have served some purpose for this article. I'm not sure if this means it was peer reviewed or not: "Institutional review board statement: Not applicable." Conceivably this could be the work of only two individuals, the author, and the editor who published it.
Again, this looks like a well done article that contains a lot of what substack readers are familiar with. It's very exciting that it's made it into a scientific publication, an indicator that the atmosphere is slowly changing for the better. It hasn't exactly been broadcast far and wide in the two months since its publication, so we still have a long way to go.
Thank you so much for this article! Excellent...Will share.
Did big pharm incentivize the hospitals to use the deadly Remdesivir protocol? Where did all that money come from?