Search results

https://www.healthcarehubris.com/po...er-s-change-of-heart-on-long-covid-and-me-cfs Very good article.

A painful condition.

I confess I have not listened to him since mid-year. But IIRC he was one of the first to argue for at least a lock down.

Good question.

:thumbup:

I get that for the day or so before the cold (or flu) starts, and into the first day. That's how I know I am getting a cold. So it's a mixed bag. Relatively good day or two, but knowing it will be immediately followed with a cold, or worse. :rolleyes:

You would think that somebody who has been in the position of going against the establishment would understand what that looks like, and maybe even have a little sympathy for the underdog and give them a fair hearing.

Norman Swan is one of the most problematic individuals in this whole shit show. He made his name exposing a major medical scandal, has a great track record on almost everything he reports on, including COVID-19, and has been one of those who helped set a very high standard for medical...

Yeah, does look like the whole thing didn't go quite as they expected.

Any recommendations for a good doctor/clinic in the SE corner of NSW (Monaro region), for a newly diagnosed patient in that area? Thanks.

It's not a good look, is it.

She has achieved a state of meta-immunity. :noteworthy::noteworthy::noteworthy:

As long as they bring anti-gravity tech, I'm cool. :alien:... :cool: True, but most of us don't get to do it in the BMJ.

Yeah, I initially welcomed his input, and thought that having people like him onside would be good for us. *shrugs*

So I am on a hit list. Unwise and repeated use of provocative inflammatory fraudulent narrative being the traditional way to avoid being on a "hit list".

Yep. Sure has that stench about it.

"Physicians report" What a bunch of utter crap. Rigorous trials, or GTF out of the game. Otherwise 'patients report physicians useless abusive fraudulent arseholes' is equally valid. Sure you want to go down that path?

Seems to be an inverse rule at work here. The academic specialty who should know most about psychological bias in trials, and how to avoid (or at least minimise) it, are psychologists and psychiatrists. Yet they are the worst offenders.

I would love to have that luxury, but I don't think we do in this case. He is not just another patient. He has serious influence. How to respond is the question. This is an important factor. This. Very good chance he has been cynically exploited at a time of great personal distress and...

And even when there is good evidence against it, including from their own studies. It is crystal clear they have no intention of playing fair. They are on a mission, and nothing is going to stop them. Not even reality.