You're willfully ignorant. MRNA tech has been around for DECADES and is well researched. The risk of myocarditis/pericarditis is rare, and studies show COVID-19 infection itself carries a much higher risk of heart issues. Blood clots were primarily linked to the Johnson & Johnson vaccine (viral vector, not mRNA). The claim that mRNA vaccines "most likely killed people" due to lack of testing simply isn't supported by broad scientific evidence.
In support of this, a bunch of SpaceX-ers who worked on Starshield joined a startup that is building hypersonic warheads "at massive scale" (according to their website: https://www.castelion.com/team )
These would be ideal as interceptors staged in orbit onboard Starlink/Starshield satellites.
(We noticed The Pile was recently taken offline, so we hosted it: https://thenose.cc. Apparently Books3 was also a part of The Pile, so feel free to download.)
Different websites (such as https://ivmmeta.com/, https://c19ivermectin.com/, https://tratamientotemprano.org/estudios-ivermectina/, among others) have conducted meta-analyses with ivermectin studies, showing unpublished colourful forest plots which rapidly gained public acknowledgement and were disseminated via social media, without following any methodological or report guidelines. These websites do not include protocol registration with methods, search strategies, inclusion criteria, quality assessment of the included studies nor the certainty of the evidence of the pooled estimates. Prospective registration of systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis protocols is a key feature for providing transparency in the review process and ensuring protection against reporting biases, by revealing differences between the methods or outcomes reported in the published review and those planned in the registered protocol. These websites show pooled estimates suggesting significant benefits with ivermectin, which has resulted in confusion for clinicians, patients and even decision-makers. This is usually a problem when performing meta-analyses which are not based in rigorous systematic reviews, often leading to spread spurious or fallacious findings.
Concluding, research related to ivermectin in COVID-19 has serious methodological limitations resulting in very low certainty of the evidence, and continues to grow. The use of ivermectin, among others repurposed drugs for prophylaxis or treatment for COVID-19, should be done based on trustable evidence, without conflicts of interest, with proven safety and efficacy in patient-consented, ethically approved, randomised clinical trials.
> Models 2 to 5: Disentangling the effect of the ivermectin-based kit from medical follow-up
> The intervention consisted in providing the ivermectin kit, but also in offering a patients follow up implemented by the Locatel call center. To isolate the effect of the ivermectin kit from the Locatel tracking.
They claim that the can remove the effect of the follow-up calls by phone, but this is one of the classic spots were there are problem. That's the reason why the studies should have a double blind control group, that has an identical treatment to the test group.
> Locatel follow-up: A dichotomous variable in which 1 was assigned to people who agreed to receive telephone and medical follow-up via Locatel.
This is not a random subgroup. Probably people with mild symptoms don't agree ("Nah"). Dead people don't answer the phone. If someone goes to the hospital twice and the second time agree to take the kit or the phone calls, how is s/he counted?
