If you can prove that the NIH and WHO got their treatment guidelines right, you could win $2M

If you can prove that the NIH and WHO got their treatment guidelines right, you could win $2M

This is the second in a series of articles arguing that obeisance to constrictive evidence-based medicine (EBM) treatment protocols in a pandemic is causing an unnecessary loss of hundreds of thousands of lives.

In my previous article, I showed that the current NIH and WHO treatment guidelines for fluvoxamine and ivermectin don’t fit the evidence at all. A FOR recommendation for both these drugs is a near-perfect fit to all the data.

In this article, I will make it clear to everyone that their recommendations are so indefensible that no qualifying enabler (see list below) will be able to come forward to support these recommendations even if I offer a million dollar incentive for them to do so.

Any drug protocol used for treating COVID early must fall into one of three categories: 

helpful, neutral, or harmful.

I claim that there has been abundant evidence on the table for at least the past 7 months, all in plain sight, that both fluvoxamine and ivermectin when given early at an effective dose are helpful because a HELPFUL hypothesis is a near perfect fit to all the evidence and that the other two alternatives, neutral or harmful, don’t fit the eviden...

Note:  If you need assistance with your subscription or would like to discuss a corporate subscription for more than 10 employees please contact us or use the chat (bottom right).

Personal
$5 / Month
Individuals at home that are reading our content for personal health care or other non-professional reasons.
Like a Starbucks a month
Personal - Single Payment
$50 for 1 Year
Individuals - reading for personal reasons who prefer to pay for one year in advance with no recurring billing.
18% discount to monthly
Professional
$12 / Month
Professionals from the healthcare industry who are subscribing on behalf of their company for work reasons.
Way better than coffee