Abstract Presented at University of Michigan while Science Feedback Anonymously Discredits Work
Amazing how U of M ovid policy is just the opposite of this.
My husband was hospitalized for a non-Covid issue in 2021. He was initially sent to a semi private room with the other bed vacant. The second day my daughter and I were denied the right to visit him because they could not allow more than one visitor per day and three people would not be allowed in the same room. We got by that when my daughter told them that she was a Health Care Attorney and that if they did not allow her to see her father she would file suit against the security guard and the institution within an hour. They allowed her in.
BUT 6 doctors came into the room when I was with my husband.
AND on the second day they had placed another patient into the same room. That man had a urinary tract infection, was obese, and snored with saliva spewing from his open mouth about 5' away from my husband. But what happened to not allowing 3 people in the same room??? I requested that my husband be placed into a private room as he had no infection of ant kind and covid or not they should not have placed an infected patient 5' away from him.
BUT the head nurse then went into my husband's room to attempt to convince him that he did not want a private room. SHE WANTED HIM IN THE SAME ROOM WITH AN INFECTED PATIENT. Fortunately my daughter set the situation straight by telling them that she was a lawyer and would sue them if they did not give him a private room as ordered by his doctor.
IN ADDITION TO THAT when he was in the ER awaiting a bed I was asked by 5 members of their Customer Relations department if I was speaking for my husband as he was non compos mentis upon admission. I swore that I was the person to make decisions for him. BUT no sooner than I did that they brought in a 6'2" or more security guard to stand in front of me with folded arms commanding that I leave my husband alone in the ER. I was clearly being threatened and forced to leave when he was most in need of protection. HOW CAN I SPEAK FOR HIM IF I WAS NOT ALLOWED TO BE THERE? If some idiot came in and asked hiim to identify himself before administering a drug he would not have been able to protect himself by saying "No that is not me."
THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN shows no respect for people who come there for help.
Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882) - Every violation of truth is not only a sort of suicide in the liar, but is a stab at the health of human society.
Congratulations to Mr. Hulscher for having the courage to undertake this study and thanks to Dr. McCullough for serving as his mentor. I’m surprised that his project was even accepted to be done! After all, if we do not seek, we will not find. Yet these same “fact checkers” fail to discredit research papers published in such biases places like JAMA that are designed to fail. They commonly report the ineffectiveness of generic drugs like HCQ and IVM in studies that usually give too little dose or way too much dose late in the course of illness. And, I agree, these “fact checkers” should identify who they are and what connection that have with Pharma and/or the government. Let’s see their credentials.
Someone should catalogue all the instances of mendacious bullshit fact checkers and keep it on a public website.
If there is any one thing I cannot abide it is anonymous, faceless, gutless wonders attacks on those who possess the courage to identify themselves. If one does not possess the mettle to identify oneself, then what he/she/it/they write brings nothing to the table, is of no value for discourse. What I admire about Dr. McCullough, and others of his character, is their willingness to be present in name as they present their findings, theses, and thoughts for the public.
These so called “ Fact Checkers” without significant credential have a history of arming those that choose to accept the Bio Pharmaceutical complex narrative with unsubstantiated assertions.
The tragedy is that they are directly contributing to the acceptance of ongoing world wide execution of the population by denying and obscuring the objective review of presented facts.
The motivation of these actions is likely money or perhaps pride. It would be interesting to see these individuals on camera publicly defending these assertions and being forced to answer questions by someone like Dr McCullough.
Their participation in this criminality should at the very least be publicly posted for in perpetuity so all of society and their ancestors can remember their names in utter disgust.
Horrific! Cowards, Liars and Prostitutes! THEY PURPOSELY POST TRUE DISINFORMATION TO MISLEAD FROM THE TRUTH OF THE CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY!
Thank you Dr. McCullough for your Strength, Courage, Energy, Research and Amazing Intelligence!
As a graduate, nursing school, professor, I taught evidence-based practice for many years. We spent a good deal of time, reviewing evidence about pharmaceutical companies, and their influence on what is published in journals. In addition, I taught students about the large financial rewards that journal editors receive for publishing certain studies. As a general rule, the students were outraged to find this out. Most of them come with significant nursing experience, and have never heard about the dishonesty and the kickbacks in medical publications. a common response from students is “how can I trust anything?“ I am not surprised, but disappointed that the “fact checkers“ give no rationale for their decision. They should be able to point out flaws in your methodology in order to make a statement like this. Why should they be held to a lower standard than any other researchers would be expected to adhere to?
I am frustrated beyond frustrated at the notion of anonymous fact checkers who offer no credentials, no names, no substantive evidence of any specific misinformation, but blanket cover the article as flawed and false. They are cowards of the worse sort. They hide behind the pseudo authoritarian statement that something is false merely because they say so. What is ever more frustrating is that many of my former colleagues believe this tripe without reading the original article, examining the data and methods. They accept at face value that these fact checkers are legitimate scientists whose words are the be all end all. What complete horse shit. I have had it with these morons masquerading as scientists and having the last word on topics that contradict the written script no matter how well done and documented the piece happens to be. This piece by Dr. McCullough and the Mr. Hulscher is impeccably done, well documented and painstakingly researched and has passed peer review. Sadly, what will be reported by MSM is that paper failed to demonstrate a clear link between the jabs and death. One more bitch, if I might. A phase one trial being done by Moderna for an mRNA Epstein-Barr vaccine was halted because of myocarditis in one participant in the 12-18 age group. This was not announced by Moderna, but Alex Berenson published a piece on it the other day. May I remind everyone that the mRNA in the EB vaccine used the same methodology as the mRNA in the Covid vaccine - mRNA wrapped in an LNP. How simply ironic. This trial stopped because of one case of myocarditis and yet, the Covid vaccine continues to be peddled to all, the very young, the not so young and the very old as safe and effective. https://palexander.substack.com/p/moderna-halts-mrna-epstein-barr-vaccine?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2
The peer review process IS the fact checking that civilization has used for more than a century to authenticate contributions to the universal knowledge base. The world is once again plunged into an epistemological crisis by very dark and nefarious forces. It is the sort of circumstance that has in past ages led to global conflagration.
I say that all authors be required to publicly debate their statements whether they be from a preprint, published paper or a tweet. If they will not publicly debate then they lose their right to distribute their work.
She is likely using a semantic trick . The finding of 73.9 % fails to meet or exceed her criterion of 74% , thus can claim it a falsehood , but she is being totally dishonest if she claims this bioweapon is safe.
Sadly, society has to learn how to be discerning and put a little more effort into gaining knowledge about health in particular. If you live by clickbait you will die by clickbait. I now understand that living an authentic life is not for everyone. Taking responsibility for what goes into your mouth, onto (or into) your skin and into your brain is not in the realm of possibility for too many people. I just can't deal with them anymore.
Would a lawsuit and the discovery process bring things from darkness into light?
The consequences are so devastating for so many people - for example doctors who pushed the vax on pregnant women - that it's going to be an uphill battle to break through to the mainstream. In addition to the monied interests you mentioned above, a lot of people have built large and thick walls of denial which will be difficult to break down. The good news is that there's no stopping it, it will all come to the surface eventually. And when it does, there is going to be a lot of anger - angry parents, angry spouses, angry kids, angry siblings - and a vengeful demand for accountability. I can't imagine the fury I would feel if I had vaxxed my kids and they experienced injuries. I'm so glad I resisted it - the relentless propaganda and gaslighting was powerful and I almost gave in many times. Thanks for all the work you do, it is much appreciated.
We are in the end days and the Lord will cut them short before his creation is destroyed.