Day: April 2, 2022

GOLD: A gold back currency

Published on by reinkefjLeave a comment

https://www.theburningplatform.com/2022/04/02/russia-could-be-planning-the-ultimate-gold-move/

Russia Could Be Planning the Ultimate Gold Move

*** begin quote ***

Imagine the global response to the first national currency of the 21st Century backed by physical gold! At a stroke, Russia could reposition itself as a globally relevant economy, virtually guarantee international investor interest, and re-establish its currency as a store of value. And it could do all this without violating sanctions.

Consider the response from the U.S. and EU, both suffering four-decade high inflation, both crippled by debt and awash in freshly-printed currency. A new Russian gold standard would represent an economic coup over the west. All without firing a single shot.

Though the odds of such a move seem low, it looks like the kind of out-of-left-field move that Putin delights in. We’ll be paying close attention to developments in this story over the next few months.

*** end quote ***

Hell, I’d buy me some roubles.  A gold back currency,  Where do I sign up?

—30—

HEALTH: NY Times Latest to Mislead Public on New Ivermectin Study • Children’s Health Defense

Published on by reinkefjLeave a comment

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/ny-times-mislead-public-ivermectin-study/?utm_source=salsa&eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=a00a2e8c-3156-4f4b-85a8-a703c029bc06

NY Times Latest to Mislead Public on New Ivermectin Study • Children’s Health Defense

  • The New York Times on Wednesday sent an email to subscribers titled: “Breaking News: Ivermectin failed as a Covid treatment . . .” The Times was referring to a study in the New England Journal of Medicine, covered March 18 by The Wall Street Journal. In both cases, the newspapers failed to provide an accurate critical analysis of the study.

By Madhava Setty, M.D.

*** begin quote ***

Rather than pounding the final nail in the coffin around ivermectin’s utility in treating COVID, the NEJM study raises more questions.

  • What would the effect have been if a higher dose shown to be effective were administered?
  • What would be the benefit of this medicine in patients with no risk factors?
  • How statistically significant would the results have been if more participants were enrolled?
  • Why weren’t more participants enrolled as the study progressed given the emerging benefit of the drug and the absence of adverse events?
  • Why did the investigators define a primary outcome with such different real-world implications (ER visits vs hospitalizations)?
  • With less than 50% of the placebo arm adhering to the study protocol, why were their outcomes included in the analysis?
  • What effect did vaccination status have on outcome? If this is the primary means endorsed to prevent hospitalization, why wasn’t vaccination status mentioned as a confounder?
  • Did the investigators choose to limit the study as it became clear that an Ivermectin benefit would be too big to ignore?

*** end quote ***

​Heaven forbid there would be a real test because it might “embarrass” the experts!

—30—