https://t.co/eAmtY241ug
They are now saying my tweets are misleading. It's another lie. They are the ones who are misleading, and I will now prove it in this thread. They are lying about the safety of the vaccines:
https://t.co/eAmtY241ug
More from Robin Monotti MA FRSA ⭐
#BMJResearch update: Corticosteroids probably reduce mortality and mechanical ventilation in patients with covid-19 compared with standard care, whereas azithromycin, hydroxychloroquine, interferon-beta, and tocilizumab may not reduce either https://t.co/oQ3lTWUqaz
— The BMJ (@bmj_latest) December 18, 2020
This meta-analysis of controlled trials only looks at hospitalized patients. How long were the patients ill for before being hospitalized? One week? Two? Three? Too late for zinc ionophores (HCQ) (+ZINC? No zinc no point..) to work. Severe illness becomes bacterial in nature.
Was azythromycin administered when the bacterial infections were also too advanced? I have seen Azythromycin work with my very own eyes but that's not to say that if administered too late it may not save the patient. How many patients were given AZT & ventilated? It's all timing.
All the meta-analysis is telling us is if you leave it too late you may have missed the early window for antiviral zinc treatment (Zn+HCQ) & that if you are given AZT when you are ventilated or very severe it may too late for it to save you & corticosteroids may be last resort.
And of course antibiotics need also probiotics, or they may harm the bacterial flora which is part of the immune response. Difficult to tell from a meta-analysis how this problem was managed.
Here is the Italian-EU scientific study indicating SARSCoV2 replicates in bacteria, not only human cells, and that is why antibiotics work and these vaccines will not:
"The preliminary results suggest that SARS-CoV-2 replicates in bacterial
2 of the 4 authors of the study work at the European Commission. Another works at an Italian medical research facility called Craniomed: https://t.co/EETSM3nb3T
You can find all of CRANIOMED's Carlo Brogna's published scientific research articles here, take a look:
Lockdowns increase infections because they lower immunity & therefore increase the disease. After hospitals & care homes households account for the largest number of transmissions. Schools/universities act as a break in transmission of the disease. All evidence based.
Transmission does not mean infection. I can transmit SARSCoV2 but I can't transmit Covid19. Whether SARSCoV2 develops at all into mild or severe Covid19 depends entirely on the immune system of the recipient. Early treatment prevents severe Covid19, the right treatment cures it.
"Children act more as a brake on infection," said Prof. Reinhard Berner, the head of pediatric medicine at Dresden University Hospital and leader of the study. "Not every infection that reaches them is passed
Closing schools increases transmission of respiratory viral infection because children act as a break on the community transmission of the virus. We have known this since 1918:
https://t.co/TPRYQ1LAAJ
On the 19th March 2020 the WHO released this guidance intended for healthcare workers (HCWs), healthcare managers and IPC teams at the facility level & at national and district/provincial level:https://t.co/C4aV2BnMPj pic.twitter.com/tCk1EyLskV
— Robin Monotti (@robinmonotti) December 21, 2020
It clearly does indicate both the risks of bacterial infection & to prescribe broad spectrum antibiotics as part of treatment:
"Collect blood cultures for bacteria that cause pneumonia and sepsis, ideally before antimicrobial therapy. DO NOT
delay antimicrobial therapy"
"6. Management of severe COVID-19: treatment of co-infections
Give empiric antimicrobials [broad spectrum antibiotics] to treat all likely pathogens causing SARI and sepsis as soon as possible, within 1 hour
of initial assessment for patients with sepsis."
"Empiric antibiotic treatment should be based on the clinical diagnosis (community-acquired
pneumonia, health care-associated pneumonia [if infection was acquired in health care setting] or sepsis), local epidemiology &
susceptibility data, and national treatment guidelines"
"When there is ongoing local circulation of seasonal influenza, empiric therapy with a neuraminidase inhibitor [anti-viral influenza drugs] should
be considered for the treatment for patients with influenza or at risk for severe disease."
More from Category c19
/1
https://t.co/qwQS3b2NPq pic.twitter.com/TqW1K3oC60
— Medical Nemesis (@Medical_Nemesis) February 20, 2021
Legends and myths in medicine. Debunked. Not that but few care.
https://t.co/3Hu2D9Un0J
/2
https://t.co/xnZ2EXO1f5
/3
Open access.
Where have we seen this before? 🤔
“15 days to slow the spread” began one year ago. It was March 2020, the Year of the Rat. Never was any year more fitting of the name. Never in history have the people been betrayed so callously, flagrantly and absolutely by their alleged leaders.
2/ They were betrayed by their WHO
3/ and their national health
4/ They were betrayed by medical
Despite ignorance by many in the West, this article by The Lancet is a powerful endorsement of China\u2019s successful pandemic response. Hate to read stories by those paparazzi journalists who are experts at spinning but have little knowledge of science. https://t.co/Q8rKwwTPsI pic.twitter.com/436BEmx9nl
— Chen Weihua \uff08\u9648\u536b\u534e\uff09 (@chenweihua) October 16, 2020
5/ and their peer
6/ Eurosurveillance, a journal whose editors coincidentally includes Mr. Drosten, takes only a single day for the peer review process and publishes the hastily compiled PCR protocol on January 22. https://t.co/cWX3UdKeID
— Pace \U0001f642 (@theotherphilipp) February 25, 2021
Title is "Maximum collaboration”, showing @BMI_Bund / Horst Seehofer had a secret paper drafted in the 1st COVID-19 wave that dramatically depicted the threat.
A scandal of gigantic proportions. Thread⬇️
2/: @welt released 2 versions: long version as print, short-edit, online.
This thread focuses on the long version. It's of crucial importance-people around the globe understand this earthshaking scandal. Share.
English: https://t.co/qAbU6D8c0P
German: https://t.co/W2i1FtVrCg
3/: Mid-March 2020: Federal Minister of the Interior-Horst Seehofer (@BMI_Bund, @cducsubt) was on the edge: Christian Drosten (@c_drosten) & Lothar Wieler (@RKI) urgently warned: Germany was threatened w/ dramatic consequences if the country returned to everyday life too quickly.
4/: Horst Seehofer sent his Secretary of State Markus Kerber into the lane. The plan was to bring together leading scientists: they should produce a paper that would then serve as legitimation for further tough political measures, beyond Easter - now known as the “panic paper”.
5/: Markus Kerber launched a corresponding call to researchers via e-mail, 4 days later, the request was fulfilled: A classified paper, which presented the danger posed by the virus as dramatically as possible, and which quickly spread through the media.
You May Also Like
This New York Times feature shows China with a Gini Index of less than 30, which would make it more equal than Canada, France, or the Netherlands. https://t.co/g3Sv6DZTDE
That's weird. Income inequality in China is legendary.
Let's check this number.
2/The New York Times cites the World Bank's recent report, "Fair Progress? Economic Mobility across Generations Around the World".
The report is available here:
3/The World Bank report has a graph in which it appears to show the same value for China's Gini - under 0.3.
The graph cites the World Development Indicators as its source for the income inequality data.
4/The World Development Indicators are available at the World Bank's website.
Here's the Gini index: https://t.co/MvylQzpX6A
It looks as if the latest estimate for China's Gini is 42.2.
That estimate is from 2012.
5/A Gini of 42.2 would put China in the same neighborhood as the U.S., whose Gini was estimated at 41 in 2013.
I can't find the <30 number anywhere. The only other estimate in the tables for China is from 2008, when it was estimated at 42.8.
This New York Times feature shows China with a Gini Index of less than 30, which would make it more equal than Canada, France, or the Netherlands. https://t.co/g3Sv6DZTDE
That's weird. Income inequality in China is legendary.
Let's check this number.
2/The New York Times cites the World Bank's recent report, "Fair Progress? Economic Mobility across Generations Around the World".
The report is available here:
3/The World Bank report has a graph in which it appears to show the same value for China's Gini - under 0.3.
The graph cites the World Development Indicators as its source for the income inequality data.
4/The World Development Indicators are available at the World Bank's website.
Here's the Gini index: https://t.co/MvylQzpX6A
It looks as if the latest estimate for China's Gini is 42.2.
That estimate is from 2012.
5/A Gini of 42.2 would put China in the same neighborhood as the U.S., whose Gini was estimated at 41 in 2013.
I can't find the <30 number anywhere. The only other estimate in the tables for China is from 2008, when it was estimated at 42.8.