The real “Menace to Public Health” isn’t Joe Rogan, but “data-driven” statisticians.

By Na'omi Allen
Mrs Allen is a political science research assistant and this is her personal WIP blog.
She studies political phenomena through the lens of Realpolitik and Conservative Liberalism.

 

This post was rolled from Twitter, with errors and Tweetspeak left intact. Join the conversation, here.

The headlines would have you think that hundreds of doctors from all over the world have declared @joerogan to be a “Menace to Public Health”, but the phrase isn’t even mentioned in the said open letter sent to @Spotify.

spotifyopenletter.wordpress.com/2022/01/10/an-…

The phrase first appears in a piece by @RollingStone about the open letter, where they quote comments they received from one of the open letter’s co-signers, @DrKatEpi, who accuses Joe of presenting a “false balance” of information…

archive.is/mXXMG

… a false balance, even though he has also given airtime to experts on both sides of the issue, including high profile advocates of the c-vax, like @drsanjaygupta

open.spotify.com/episode/6rAgS1…

… a false balance, because in her “expert” opinion, there aren’t two sides to this issue. There’s only one: “The overwhelming evidence is the vaccine works, and it is safe.” And anyone who says otherwise is a fringe lunatic and “menace to public health”.

What’s at stake? What is it that these experts are pressuring Spotify to protect with censorship? The credibility of data-driven guidance offered by medical professionals. Aka, glorified statisticians.

It’s kinda funny to me… because I’ve been thinking a lot, lately, about how “data-driven guidance” is the rot of CoV-19 pandemic malpractice. Scientific method has been replaced with the art of data-skewing.

Game on.

These people presume that critics of Faucism can’t cite peer reviewed and published works to back up their claims, and they’re dead wrong…

Example: Peer reviewed & published in the American Journal of Therapeutics, meta analysis of 15 Ivermectin clinical trials show that the heavily maligned “horse paste” has an 85% success rate at preventing/reversing disease progression in vulnerable pts.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P…

That’s higher than Merck’s poison pill… which sits at 30%.

reuters.com/business/healt…

One would have to get THREE Pfizer shots before reaching a higher rate of protection. And nobody knows how long that *waning* protection would last. Peer reviewed, and published by the New England Journal of Medicine:

nejm.org/doi/full/10.10…

The Pfizer shot is the most sketchy of all the covid vaccines, yet it’s the one our government has placed all its bets on. Sometimes I wonder if the “experts” should include info about their stock portfolios with their publications.

Fun fact: Ivermectin is a Merck product. Which raises the question: Why would they malign one of their own earlier products, that is proven to have a decent success rate and a decent safety profile? Just to turn out a new, less effective product later?

Pure speculation, but… could it possible be, because Ivermectin has been around for so long now that it’s patent-free and can be made generically by other companies?

I was skeptical of Ivermectin, until the published data started rolling in. And it’s kind of blowing my mind that, with all of the peer reviewed & published papers now proving its efficacy, the “data-driven” experts are still calling it horse paste.

“Data-driven” experts who skew the numbers to make the c-vax out to be more than it really is, and who demonize empirical medicine, for the sake of protecting “vaccine confidence”, are the *real* menaces of public health.

The truth they want suppressed: The mRNA vax provides short-lived and extremely erratic protection, and people who get vax’d need a plan b.

Why they want it suppressed: They don’t want that ‘plan b’ to end up being ‘plan a’ for most people… which would be very likely, if people knew the whole truth.

What makes that more messed up than Joe Rogan giving air time to “both sides” of the story: Suppression of info is also suppressing the availability of medicines, and a lot of doctors are now afraid to practice empirical medicine.

Ask around your local medical community & you might find out that the only outpt med most places have available to treat covid if you catch it, is Merck’s poison pill. In which case… pray you have Omicron. Which, despite what the “data-driven” experts say, is *indeed* mild.

Merck’s poison pill has the riskiest safety profile and the least effectiveness. The FDA approved its EUA to be used only as a last resort treatment. But somehow, this ‘last resort’ pill has ended up as the first-offered med for C+ outpatients patients.

nature.com/articles/d4158…

Make it make sense.

This is where the “[skewed] data-driven guidance” has brought us. Demonizing empirical medicine, empirical research, and anything that refuses to accept Almighty mRNA as our one true Lord and Savior, is all the rage.