Wikipedia and a pint of gin
- By Justus R. Hope, MD
- Jul 5, 2021 Updated Jul 6, 2021
Allow me to illustrate a case in point. Dr. Pierre Kory has served as the Chief of Critical Care Medicine at a University Medical Center. This fact is accurately reported on his Wikipedia page. In addition, he published a book on Ultrasound and won a British Award for this. Again, this is also accurately portrayed on his page.
He testified at the US Senate about Ivermectin, and this is where the incorrect information gets written. The Wikipedia page reports,
During his testimony in December 2020, Kory erroneously claimed that the antiparasitic medication ivermectin was a “wonder drug” with “miraculous effectiveness” against COVID-19.[3]
[3] Beatrice Dupuy (11 December 2020). “No evidence ivermectin is a miracle drug against COVID-19” (Fact check). AP News.
By BEATRICE DUPUYDecember 11, 2020
In 2002, Kory graduated from St. George’s University in Grenada with an MD and completed residency and fellowship training in critical care and pulmonary medicine.[4] He did clinical rotations at the Weill Cornell School of Medicine.[4] Kory first practiced in Madison, Wisconsin, at UW Health, which is the academic medical center at the University of Wisconsin. He served there as the medical director for the Trauma and Life Support Center, in the outpatient pulmonary medicine clinic, where he performed bronchoscopic and pleural procedures.[4] Kory was the critical care service chief at the UW Health University Hospital (part of the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health) until May 2020.[5][6] He later joined Aurora St. Luke’s Medical Center in Milwaukee, Wisconsin,[7] before becoming a locum tenens physician.[8]
Kory is an expert in critical care ultrasonography. In 2015, along with his two co-editors, Kory won the British Medical Association‘s 2015 President’s Choice award in medical textbooks for their work on Point of Care Ultrasound.[4]
- “Pierre Kory, MD”. St. George’s University. Archived from the original on July 10, 2021.
- ^ a b Small, Taurean (6 May 2020). “Senate committee explores COVID-19 recommendations from local expert”. Charter Communications. SPECTRUM NEWS.
- ^ a b c d Susan Dominus (5 August 2020). “The Covid Drug Wars That Pitted Doctor vs. Doctor”. New York Times.
- ^ a b c d Fiore, Kristina (6 January 2021). “What’s Behind the Ivermectin-for-COVID Buzz?”. MedPage Today, LLC.
- ^ a b c McGinley, Laurie (April 8, 2021). “Supporters tout anti-parasite drug as covid-19 treatment, but skeptics call it the ‘new hydroxychloroquine'”. The Washington Post. Retrieved 2021-08-10.
Soni, Nilam J; Arntfield, Robert; Kory, Pierre, eds. (2015). Point of Care Ultrasound. Elsevier. ISBN 978-0323544702.
In support, Wikipedia cites an AP Fact Check article by a journalist, Ms. Beatrice Dupuy, who is not a medical professional to my knowledge. She has never served as a medical director of Critical Care or Pulmonary Medicine. I believe she has written for StarTribune and TeenVogue Magazine in the past.
However, she is somehow sufficiently competent to call Dr. Kory’s testimony “false.”
TrialSite News published an article debunking Beatrice Dupuy’s “fact check,” and this is what they wrote about her errors in the argument concerning Ivermectin and Dr. Kory:
On December 11, TrialSite reported on a US Senate hearing at which, among other things, there was testimony urgently calling for more research and an EUA for ivermectin as both a prophylactic against and an early treatment for COVID-19. As we recently covered, there is mounting evidence in support of these uses, and definitely for government-sponsored research, for this cheap and safe drug. One media account we did not address was a December 10 “fact check” by the Associated Press (AP) in collaboration with Facebook titled, “No evidence ivermectin is a miracle drug against COVID-19.” In this piece, the AP relies on old protocols and also ignores newer evidence, showing an excessive deference to official edicts over honestly looking at the medical evidence. The AP author doesn’t do her homework as is elaborated on below. Based on accumulating data and growing evidence, the case for publicly-funded investigation into ivermectin is compelling. Does AP represent a particular agenda in that particular piece? Does power, politics, and money influence which research gets funded in the midst of the pandemic?https://trialsitenews.com/fact-checking-the-fact-checkers-the-case-of-ivermectin-for-publicly-subsidized-research/
What is truly troubling is that the Wikipedia editor considers this type of “fact check” by a non-physician a reliable source. What is even more troubling is that Wikipedia DOES NOT CONSIDER the American Journal of Therapeutics a reliable source. Their editors REFUSED to allow even the mention of Dr. Kory’s recent publication or Dr. Tess Lawrie’s recent publication in the same journal.
Since this was written in December 2020, MUCH MORE EVIDENCE has been published beyond Ms. Dupuy’s disputed fact check issued by the AP on December 11, 2020. We now have over 61 studies involving 19,432 patients via 578 authors.
That is more than a mountain of evidence. It is more like an encyclopedia of data comprising volumes and volumes of evidence. Included are 32 randomized controlled trials. Because many cancer drugs are FDA approved without a SINGLE randomized controlled trial, and many drugs are approved with less than 3,000 patients studied, the double standard is laughable.
My advice is to stand with college professors everywhere, “Wikipedia is NOT reliable, and their information should be taken with a grain of salt and perhaps a pint of gin as well.”
Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines
Andrew Bryant et al. Am J Ther. 2021.
Background: Repurposed medicines may have a role against the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The antiparasitic ivermectin, with antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties, has now been tested in numerous clinical trials.
Areas of uncertainty: We assessed the efficacy of ivermectin treatment in reducing mortality, in secondary outcomes, and in chemoprophylaxis, among people with, or at high risk of, COVID-19 infection.
Data sources: We searched bibliographic databases up to April 25, 2021. Two review authors sifted for studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Meta-analyses were conducted and certainty of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach and additionally in trial sequential analyses for mortality. Twenty-four randomized controlled trials involving 3406 participants met review inclusion.
Therapeutic advances: Meta-analysis of 15 trials found that ivermectin reduced risk of death compared with no ivermectin (average risk ratio 0.38, 95% confidence interval 0.19-0.73; n = 2438; I2 = 49%; moderate-certainty evidence). This result was confirmed in a trial sequential analysis using the same DerSimonian-Laird method that underpinned the unadjusted analysis. This was also robust against a trial sequential analysis using the Biggerstaff-Tweedie method. Low-certainty evidence found that ivermectin prophylaxis reduced COVID-19 infection by an average 86% (95% confidence interval 79%-91%). Secondary outcomes provided less certain evidence. Low-certainty evidence suggested that there may be no benefit with ivermectin for “need for mechanical ventilation,” whereas effect estimates for “improvement” and “deterioration” clearly favored ivermectin use. Severe adverse events were rare among treatment trials and evidence of no difference was assessed as low certainty. Evidence on other secondary outcomes was very low certainty.
Conclusions: Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.
Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34145166/
Wikipedia editing courses launched by Zionist groups
Two Israeli groups set up training courses in Wikipedia editing with aims to ‘show the other side’ over borders and cultureRachel Shabi in Jerusalem and Jemima Kiss @rachshabiWed 18 Aug 2010 15.52 EDT 11 years old https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/aug/18/wikipedia-editing-zionist-groups
Li-Meng Yan(Qingdao, 1983) (chino simplificado: 闫丽梦; chino tradicional: 閆麗夢), es una viróloga[cita requerida]china. Yan es una denunciante que afirma haber investigado con el COVID-19 en la Universidad de Hong Kong. Posteriormente abandonó la ciudad para ir a los Estados Unidos. Yan cree que el gobierno chino y la Organización Mundial de la Salud sabían de la transmisión de persona a persona de COVID-19 mucho antes de que se informara, incluso antes de publicar informes en sentido contrario.[1] Actualmente vive y se esconde en los Estados Unidos.[2]
Yan obtuvo su título de médico en el Colegio Médico Xiang Ya de la Universidad Central del Sur, China, y su doctorado en la Universidad Médica del Sur, China. En el momento de la pandemia COVID-19 trabajaba en la Escuela de Salud Pública de la Universidad de Hong Kong, realizando investigaciones especializadas en virología e inmunología.[3]
Es coautora de un artículo titulado “Patogenia y transmisión del SARS-CoV-2 en hámsteres dorados”, publicado en Nature en mayo de 2020, sobre la transmisión del virus en hámsteres. Este artículo fue coautor de sus ahora ex colegas en HKU.[4] También es coautora de un artículo llamado “Dinámica viral en casos leves y graves de COVID-19” publicado en marzo de 2020, sobre los patrones de diseminación viral observados en pacientes con COVID-19 leve y grave.[5]
- Bowden, Ebony (10 de julio de 2020). «Chinese virologist in hiding after accusing Beijing of coronavirus cover-up». New York Post (en inglés estadounidense). Consultado el 14 de julio de 2020.
- ↑ a b Chakraborty, Barnini (9 de julio de 2020). «EXCLUSIVE: Chinese virologist accuses Beijing of coronavirus cover-up, flees Hong Kong: ‘I know how they treat whistleblowers’». Fox News (en inglés estadounidense). Consultado el 14 de julio de 2020.
- ↑ «Keystone Symposia». virtual.keystonesymposia.org. Consultado el 14 de julio de 2020.
- ↑ Sia, Sin Fun; Yan, Li-Meng; Chin, Alex W. H.; Fung, Kevin; Choy, Ka-Tim; Wong, Alvina Y. L.; Kaewpreedee, Prathanporn; Perera, Ranawaka A. P. M. et al. (2020-07). «Pathogenesis and transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in golden hamsters». Nature (en inglés) 583 (7818): 834-838. ISSN 1476-4687. doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2342-5. Consultado el 28 de agosto de 2020.
- ↑ Liu, Yang; Yan, Li-Meng; Wan, Lagen; Xiang, Tian-Xin; Le, Aiping; Liu, Jia-Ming; Peiris, Malik; Poon, Leo L. M. et al. (06 2020). «Viral dynamics in mild and severe cases of COVID-19». The Lancet. Infectious Diseases 20 (6): 656-657. ISSN 1474-4457. PMC 7158902. PMID 32199493. doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30232-2. Consultado el 28 de agosto de 2020.
CORONAVIRUSPublished July 10, 2020 EXCLUSIVE: Chinese virologist accuses Beijing of coronavirus cover-up, flees Hong Kong: ‘I know how they treat whistleblowers’ Li-Meng Yan told Fox News that she believes China knew about the coronavirus well before it claimed it did. She says her supervisors also ignored research she was doing that she believes could have saved lives. By Barnini Chakraborty , Alex Diaz| Fox News Yan’s story weaves an extraordinary claim about cover-ups at the highest levels of government and seemingly exposes the obsessive compulsion of President Xi Jinping and his Communist Party to control the coronavirus narrative: what China knew, when it knew it and what edited information it peddled to the rest of the world. https://www.foxnews.com/world/chinese-virologist-coronavirus-cover-up-flee-hong-kong-whistleblower
The Gates Cambridge Trust was established in October 2000 by a donation of US$210m from the Gates Foundation to the University of Cambridge. This remains the largest single donation to a UK university.https://www.gatescambridge.org › th… The Trust – Gates Cambridge
Grounding: Exploring Earthing Science and the Benefits Behind It
Medically reviewed by Debra Rose Wilson, Ph.D., MSN, R.N., IBCLC, AHN-BC, CHT — Written by Eleesha Lockett, MS on August 30, 2019
Grounding, also called earthing, is a therapeutic technique that involves doing activities that “ground” or electrically reconnect you to the earth.
This practice relies on earthing science and grounding physics to explain how electrical chargesTrusted Source from the earth can have positive effects on your body.
The central theory from one review studyTrusted Source is that grounding affects the living matrix, which is the central connector between living cells.
Electrical conductivity exists within the matrix that functions as an immune system defense, similar to antioxidants. They believe that through grounding, the natural defenses of the body can be restored. Further research expands on this idea.
In a small studyTrusted Source on grounding and heart health, 10 healthy participants were grounded using patches on the palms of their hands and soles of their feet.
Blood measurements were taken before and after grounding to determine any changes in red blood cell fluidity, which plays a role in heart health. The results indicated significantly less red blood cell clumping after grounding, which suggests benefits for cardiovascular health.
Another slightly larger studyTrusted Source examined the role of grounding on post-exercise muscle damage. Researchers used both grounding patches and mats and measured creatine kinase, white blood cell count, and pain levels before and after grounding.
Blood work indicated that grounding reduced muscle damage and pain in participants. This suggests that grounding may influence healing abilities.
This research is supported by a recent studyTrusted Source on grounding for pain reduction and mood improvement. Sixteen massage therapists alternated between periods of grounding and no grounding.
Before grounding therapy, physical and emotional stress and pain were common side effects of their physically demanding jobs. After the earthing therapy, pain, stress, depression, and fatigue were all reduced among participants.
https://www.healthline.com/health/grounding#the-science
Earthing: Health Implications of Reconnecting the Human Body to the Earth’s Surface Electrons Gaétan Chevalier, Stephen T. Sinatra, […], and Pawel Sokal Environmental medicine generally addresses environmental factors with a negative impact on human health. However, emerging scientific research has revealed a surprisingly positive and overlooked environmental factor on health: direct physical contact with the vast supply of electrons on the surface of the Earth. Modern lifestyle separates humans from such contact. The research suggests that this disconnect may be a major contributor to physiological dysfunction and unwellness. Reconnection with the Earth’s electrons has been found to promote intriguing physiological changes and subjective reports of well-being. Earthing (or grounding) refers to the discovery of benefits—including better sleep and reduced pain—from walking barefoot outside or sitting, working, or sleeping indoors connected to conductive systems that transfer the Earth’s electrons from the ground into the body. This paper reviews the earthing research and the potential of earthing as a simple and easily accessed global modality of significant clinical importance. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3265077/ Conclusion De Flora et al. wrote the following: “Since the late 20th century, chronic degenerative diseases have overcome infectious disease as the major causes of death in the 21st century, so an increase in human longevity will depend on finding an intervention that inhibits the development of these diseases and slows their progress” [33].
Could such an intervention be located right beneath our feet? Earthing research, observations, and related theories raise an intriguing possibility about the Earth’s surface electrons as an untapped health resource—the Earth as a “global treatment table.” Emerging evidence shows that contact with the Earth—whether being outside barefoot or indoors connected to grounded conductive systems—may be a simple, natural, and yet profoundly effective environmental strategy against chronic stress, ANS dysfunction, inflammation, pain, poor sleep, disturbed HRV, hypercoagulable blood, and many common health disorders, including cardiovascular disease. The research done to date supports the concept that grounding or earthing the human body may be an essential element in the health equation along with sunshine, clean air and water, nutritious food, and physical activity. Disclosure G. Chevalier, S. T. Sinatra, and J. L. Oschman are independent contractors for Earthx L. Inc., the company sponsoring earthing research, and own a small percentage of shares in the company. Article information J Environ Public Health. 2012; 2012: 291541.Published online 2012 Jan 12. doi: 10.1155/2012/291541PMCID: PMC3265077PMID: 22291721Gaétan Chevalier, 1, 2 , *Stephen T. Sinatra, 3 James L. Oschman, 4 Karol Sokal, 5 and Pawel Sokal 6
READ manipulación fotográfica Hitler Cuba Rusia barco radio controlado
Sharing is caringFacebookX / TwitterLinkedInWhatsAppTelegramRedditEmail2920 words · 145 views