impulse

Took the oath in 1988. Haven't had a drink or a toke since then. But I do hang out with a lot of newly sober/ clean people who have horror stories about the ways their suppliers had of increasing profits and keeping their customers coming back.

You are out of touch! Are you claiming that there's no adulterated cannabis products being sold? If so, how do you know that?

Do you really need 10 pot shops in a 2 block area? Even as a non-toker, I have no objection to legalizing it, even for recreational purposes. But since it's a substance that has health implications, I'd like to see better monitoring of exactly what's being sold. Not unlike food, I'd like to see labeling requirements (strength, other ingredients, etc) And oversight of the supply to make sure that ganga isn't really yaba... or worse. With a shop or two on the block, random inspections and testing may be possible. With 10 shops, not so much. The idea that anyone with a table and a stove can whip up a batch of a mind altering substance is a little scary... Add in the over-supply that incents people to cut corners and even cheat to make a profit...

That's one opinion. My belief (and that's all that it is) is that HCQ and Ivermectin are useful in cases where the side effects of the Covid treatment lead to complications related to parasites, which is their indicated use. On an aside, that's why I think the hospitals didn't randomly administer HCQ. I suspect they only (or preferentially) gave HCQ to patients already in distress. And that's why it's correlated with higher mortality. But the reason(s) isn't mentioned in this meta-study.

Dems did. In Wisconsin. Here's the Wisconsin Supreme Court case that says they did. https://www.wicourts.gov/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=542617 Wisconsin Election Commissioner Meagan Wolfe unilaterally declared ballot drop boxes could be used to vote in 2020 elections, even though “WEC’s commissioners never voted to adopt this memo.” Ahead of the November 2020 Election, Wolfe encouraged clerks to use “creative solutions” to deploy drop boxes, that she said could be "unstaffed.” There were 528 drop boxes used in the General Election, and a total of 1,969,274 absentee votes cast, including 1,346,731 votes cast by mail, and 653,236 in-person. In a concurring opinion to the ruling finding drop boxes to be unlawful, Justice Rebecca Bradley writes, “If the right to vote is to have any meaning at all, elections must be conducted according to law. Throughout history, tyrants have claimed electoral victory via elections conducted in violation of governing law… in Wisconsin elected officials “deriv[e] their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Of course, by the time the WSC decision came down in July, 2022, it was too late. So you can't say "no evidence". That's what you call evidence. Here's 32 more pages of similar, nicely compiled, on 5 swing states. With 99 footnotes. If you don't believe the guy who compiled these, follow the footnotes. (Wisconsin case above is on P12). https://cdn.nucleusfiles.com/e0/e04e630c-63ff-4bdb-9652-e0be3598b5d4/summary20of20election20fraud20in20the20swing20states.pdf And I challenge Danderman123 to show me which of these allegations is a lie or a half truth... But cite a specific case and the footnote. Or I won't bother responding.

I got the Pfizer. Twice. And I still got Covid. All this study indicates is that people who were given HCQ had a higher mortality rate. It includes no information about why those patients were chosen to receive HCQ. They didn't evaluate any alternative hypotheses, or if they did, they didn't mention them. My guess is that, knowing that HCQ has profound side effects, those patients were chosen to receive HCQ because they were in worse shape. Something was different about them already, that justified the use of HCQ. But that's just a guess.

How would any hospital choose who got HCQ and who didn't?

I'll ask you the same question. How did they choose who got HCQ in hospital and who didn't? And how did they make it random without violating ethics? Keep in mind these were studies of people being treated in hospital, real time. Not double blind random studies with volunteers.

Here's a tidbit. I'm open to the possibility that both parties cheated like crazy in 2020. And Trump's pissed because he didn't get his money's worth. But nobody's ever going to convince me it was a clean election. Too much evidence that it wasn't. Maybe not enough to change the results, but it wasn't clean.

How, exactly, did they randomly select who got HCQ and who did not? If they gave everyone HCQ, they can't calculate the difference in mortality. If they randomly chose who got HCQ, they were conducting a medical study without the consent of the patient. That's unethical. If one doctor gave out HCQ and another didn't, the doctors are also a variable. If one hospital gave out HCQ and another didn't the quality of the hospital is a variable. If they selected patients for HCQ based on a symptom, that is a HUGE variable (and I suspect that's what happened) Just like they choose heart patients for a CABG. Only those with serious problems get a CABG. So, we're already at risk for a higher mortality.

Key word there is "associated with". Coronary bypass surgery (CABG) is also associated with a higher mortality than those who have never had CABG. But I'd be dead if I hadn't gotten a CABG. Don't even get me started with their recommendations to more tightly control off label drug use during the next pandemic... This result argues in favour of tightly regulating access to off-label prescriptions during future pandemics That's a huge stretch, just from a study of HCQ. Tinfoil hat stuff. Or, maybe just sponsored.

A) That's old history B) I didn't live in the USA at the time, so I didn't follow it to form my own opinion C) I'd have to look at the data behind the survey. Gotta link?

I did. I don't see a causal correlation. And while the title claims "induced by", the highlights only claim "associated" and "related". And as best as I can see, the data (meta data) they pulled from just correlated association, not causation. Of course, I'm not going to spend weeks perusing the hundreds of studies. I'll wait for the interweb wingnuts. They'll be along in a week or so. And they have PhD's in this stuff.

If that's true, what will be the mechanism for proving that $50,000 is savings and not money you made selling navel lint on EBay? Or on OnlyFans? Or any other online endeavor...

I notice that they're careful not to claim a cause, just an association. And their analysis is of people who were treated in hospital, not people who took HCQ as a preventative, or a self-prescribed treatment when they felt sick. Given that HCQ is a treatment for parasites, it's not hard to imagine that those chosen for HCQ treatment in hospital may have had more serious issues than those who weren't. My understanding (from way early) is that some of the treatments for Covid had serious side effects, some of them having to do with parasites running amuck. Given that the entire medical establishment seemed to be wary of HCQ from all the bad press, there must have been a reason(s) for them to use it on some and not others. Let's see all the other correlations, like which patients were given HCQ. For example, was it generally used as a Hail Mary? Or more on older people? Or on people who had specific symptoms that already predicted a higher mortality rate? Which hospitals used HCQ on their patients, and what are their mortality statistics on a good day? So many unanswered questions. Or, it may have been a deadly poison imposed on millions of people who took it willingly. Edit: For example, people with cancer who undergo radiation generally die at a much higher rate than cancer patients that don't need radiation. Because they're sicker to start with... Radiation probably saved a lot of people, in the big scheme of things. But any study would show that it's associated with a higher mortality rate.

No thanks, Candide fooled me with that. Fool me once...

Bruce Jenner did. I'm still a fan...

You don't figure Covid had something to do with that? Interesting that, under the miracle of Bidenomics, it doesn't seem to be coming down. Even after Covid restrictions were lifted and the economy came roaring back to life. Cough, cough.

If I ever post a link that's not factual, please show me where I'm wrong. Unless, as I occasional do, I post a link to a site questioning it's validity. If I post links to sources you don't like, tough noogies. Life's tough, get a helmet.

Watching the video, I believe he was referring to Jill when he claimed, "I understand power". Or, maybe he did say "I like ice cream". We'll have to wait for the Monday morning quarterbacks at the MSM to tell us. They've walked back so many of his daft declarations...

I'm only guessing here, but I doubt retirees will be affected much. The guys who are going to get hit are the offshore workers. (as in, work in 3rd country, not their home country and not where they reside) The ones that aren't paying tax on a huge portion of their income and used to get by claiming this is last year's money so they didn't pay tax when it arrived in Thailand. That provision never made sense to me, though I thought I understood who it was intended to shield. And it wasn't foreigners. But, that's just a guess. As I ponder my decision where to retire to, Mexico is looking better. Mostly because it's closer to home and Medicare. Pre-existing conditions prevent me from getting reliable, affordable insurance.

Not hardly. I still remember when my Russian grandfather went to visit his brothers and sisters in the old country. Mid '70s, after he'd been gone over 60 years. We asked him how it was and he just said "Quit complaining and pay your taxes. We have it good here". Regarding Biden, my opinion aligns with 58% of my countrymen. And I believe in the democratic process. Not in lawfare. But then, until earlier this year, I lived in the USA for 4 years. Most of the guys posting here haven't been on the ground, living there, in years (if ever). If I read only the MSM, I'd probably think he was the 2nd coming of Jesus. I know better, from personal experience.

Nope. Never had sex with a Thai woman, paid or unpaid, of any age. Considered it, but my Chinese GF sometimes feeds the ducks on the pond where we live.

As I stated, I don't. Candide's link was the first time I ever visited the Pravda website. Based on what I found, I don't ever have to go back. But I do looks for news from RT, AlJazeera and some other sources unfriendly to the USA. If only to understand what they're thinking and what they're peddling. And sometimes, they beat the MSM by hours (in the case of the 737-9Max incident, for example).

So, if I see some news on Fox or CNN, I need to make sure it's not on Russian media before I link to it? Does that mean I'm not supposed to discuss the Boeing 737 Max9 thing, because that's all over Russian media.