|
COVID wasn't a thing in 2015, you simpleton. It's not been shown to be effective against COVID.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
hmm it seemed like joe was always antivaxxx tho
but if he is rich and said he had a plan ready on standby then why get the vaxxx ???? so i doubt he was vaxxed so im guessing the motoclora whatever **** is only for the rich elite ???? and if it works well why not market a core cheap version of it to the masses ??? but let me guess its all about money power and control right ??? thats human nature |
Quote:
2. The studies around ivermectin regarding covid are problematic as ****. The only reason you're touting them is cause you're still trying to justify supporting Trump's irresponsible nonsense cause otherwise you'd have to admit that you're a moron. https://www.medpagetoday.com/special...clusives/93658 |
Quote:
|
Quote:
2. It has nothing to do with Trump. Big pharma won't make any money if a cheap drug turns out to be particularly effective at the right dose or mixed with other treatments. You should be encouraging those studies, not act like a ****wit just because somebody says something positive about it. |
Go **** yourself.
|
Quote:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...011?via%3Dihub |
Quote:
|
Quote:
The bottom line is that nobody is going to have a real idea if ivermectin actually does or doesn't work until all of these bigger control-group studies finish later this year. The horse memes are funny either way. |
Quote:
But in this case, where Big Pharma yields the same degree of power and exerts similar pressures on public opinion, questioning the narrative that rubbishes any medication except an experimental vaccine whose long-term health consequences are unknown and which you have to get a refill of every six months - that makes you a Trumpist? (putting aside whatever history you two may have, that's none of my business) |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Bat likes to take bits and pieces of squabbles he doesn't actually remember and then string them together into a convenient strawman when he doesn't get his way. Don't mind him.
Quote:
|
And you like to post studies that may or may not be bull**** but either way do not qualify as scientific consensus by the medical community because you have no interest in science, which is why your solutions to any given social ill tend to fall back on science fiction. You might as well be a flat earther.
|
Quote:
Who are you to talk about science when your best response is just "I guess a hundred plus studies just materialized out of nowhere for no reason whatsoever in a vacuum.". You are acting like a moron who just regurgitates whatever Pfizer wants you to hear, which can be summed up as "X thing is not worth studying because it doesn't make us money". If you cared about science, you'd actually agree with me about what scientists are looking at and why. It's not like there's just one or two ongoing studies here. There's like a 100+, and you can see a big chunk of them here - https://ivmmeta.com |
Quote:
It seems to me that people who would normally be very suspicious of information that comes with the US govt's seal of approval are now saying that questioning the narrative that rubbishes any medication except an experimental vaccine whose long-term health consequences are unknown and which you have to get a refill of every six months is white supremacist or something. Suddenly, science is not institutionalized knowledge that's subject to countless political pressures but something you must "believe" or you're a dangerous person. |
Quote:
You're also extrapolating a lot from a study he randomly posted as if publishing a study means we have a new cure. You publish a study. Then it gets peer reviewed. Then you get more studies. Then more peer reviews. Then you get meta analysis of all the studies and then maybe you can talk about having a new thing. As far as I know the analysis of the studies that has been done has said that ivermectin is not effective at treating covid. And several of the studies, including the big one that was done in Egypt that was the only thing worth hooting about, have been retracted for being dog****. But if you'd like to take ivermectin cause you heard about it on Joe Rogan or Facebook then knock yourself out. |
Quote:
I've seen "white supremacy" used as one of the (perfectly random, imo) cudgels against those who are critical of some aspect of the authorities' handling of the pandemic. I was trying say that the left, of which you seem broadly representative, could use a bit more of their customary suspicion toward the governing institutions, including medicine. But whatever. I do like the idea that I'm someone who listens to Joe Rogan though. I sometimes wish I would, seems like a fun way of life, but I can't take more than 15 seconds of his voice. He sounds like some guy on the bus who would sit next to you to start a conversation about car insurance rates and crop dusters. |
So your field is humanities and you are not a leftie? Weird.
Also, since when is the liberal left suspicious of governing institutions? Weren't commies all about big government and nationalization and state run companies and the like and it's actually the libertarians who are the suspicious types? http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/c...wer/unsure.gif |
Quote:
Once said institutions, the story goes, are liberated through revolution and become property of the people, then they are redeemed. But not yet. Naturally, after the disasters in Eastern Europe and China, greater and greater portions of the left have abandoned the dream of a revolution that would overthrow capitalism and moved on to work on some localized projects while accepting the confines of the capitalist state. The left after 2008, esp in the US, is a pretty weird creature though. *In the US liberals and left overlap or are synonymous but in France for instance liberal means the pro-capital center-right. Historically, liberals and radicals are different groups with different goals. Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
I think the rational approach at the moment is to understand that vaccines are not going to eradicate covid anytime soon and that there are more drugs that can and should be part of the solution.
There's a huge amount of studies going on to check various medications, as there should be. However, that is NOT a reason to skip vaccines. The mRNa vaccine technology looks to me relatively safe, more so than the old way of making vaccines. Vaccines have the potential to lead to unwanted responses in the immune system, like a flu vaccine might lead to narcolepsis because part of the flu virus may be structurally similar to a protein involved in human sleep regulation. Training the body against that part of the virus may simultaneously train your body to attack itself in such a way that you develop narcolepsis. Side effects like these are typically rare, but sometimes still expected. This new generation of mRNA vaccines don't use real viruses, instead focusing on mRNA codes for the very specific part of the virus that we want to train the immune system against (spike protein). For that reason, I expect them to be safer than older vaccine technologies. TLDR; get your vaccine and then hope we can also find other ways to combat covid. |
Quote:
|
I dunno, give me the old school, workmanlike, boring-yet-serviceable Russian vaccine over this newfangled demonic concoction. I really see myself reading a NYT piece on Pfizer in a couple of years and learning from like the 7th paragraph that it was prepared on the basis of Jeffrey Epstein's DNA.
|
From what I understand they're not even using a weakened version of the virus in these new vaccines so it's supposed to be even safer? I mean sure "Big Pharma" are some pieces of **** but you have to be just as paranoid about grifters during a pandemic peddling snake oil.
|
Quote:
To me, the idea that invermectin can effectively treat covid symptoms is counter intuitive. Vaccines that are specifically designed to guard against an illness have been proved, historically as the best way to fight smallpox, polio, etc. Why would a horse de-wormer work against a respiratory virus? In the past, who has treated their cold/flu/lung infection with something for (I presume) the bowels? No-one. And what countries or scientific institutes have committed to rolling out an ivermectin program? None, afaik. That's enough for me to trust the CDC (and their equivalents worldwide) to do the science, and their conclusion is that vaccines are the way to go. Does Guybrush still have his memorable signature, "In the information age, ignorance is a choice." While that is true, one peril of the internet age is the idea that we should all of us be second-guessing every opinion issued from an expert or govmnt institution. From what I have seen of Rand Paul's floundering performances, many people seem to be forgetting this old adage: "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing." Quote:
|
Lisna, the reason they're looking at ivermectin (for humans) is that the first two studies in Australia produced results. If they didn't, nobody else would have bothered launching large scale studies. It isn't counter-intuitive - anything that someone could take which could inhibit Covid-19 further even if you are vaccinated and still experience symptoms or have to get hospitalized is a good thing to have.
Also, it appears Rand Paul was actually right and that Fauci was not forthcoming about what was funded and why in regards to GOF research. The Intercept - New Details Emerge About Coronavirus Research at Chinese Lab |
Quote:
As to its efficacy for covid it doesn't look great so far and several of the studies have been retracted and heavily criticized for being fraudulent and manipulating data. What is going on with these studies isn't clear at this point unfortunately. This is a pretty decent rundown. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02081-w Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
EDIT: thanks for your more in-depth run down, Batlord. TBH, I'm surprised at your patience in looking into this issue in such detail. As is probably obvious, my attention span on the subject is best measured in nanoseconds. |
Variants aside, we should be approaching something resembling herd immunity at this point or in the near future.
More than 80% of Americans 16 and older have some immunity to coronavirus, blood survey finds |
Quote:
|
|
|
1 Attachment(s)
|
???
|
Highbrow humour Charles, not for the plebs.
|
Quote:
|
Oh that's SO fifteenth century of you!
|
Swollen balls? No problem. Buy yourself an indulgence as an insurance plan.
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:41 AM. |
© 2003-2024 Advameg, Inc.