BangkokReady

Do you know what the age of consent is in Thailand?

The difference is that the man is still expected to provide the same as he did when he was young and fit.

His exit is going to be a pretty tragic one. He's been exposed and humiliated. His final image is of an old man suffering from dementia that him and his party tried to conceal from the nation, using pretty insulting lies (like he has a speech impediment). I actually genuinely feel sorry for Biden. (Unlike loony-lefties, I don't have a deep rooted hatred for anyone who I disagree with.) He should have been allowed to retire before his condition was exposed. Now he's a laughing stock.

Your claim: Ivermectin is only for parasites not covid The research evidence (some presented by you): It helps with covid That's really all you need to know. Talking about misinformation and trust is irrelevant to the claim you made. (And quite ironic, given that you made claims that are untrue.)

Huh? 😐

I admit he didn't said that directly. Saying that Trump said a lot of crazy sh..t has that connotation. Funnily enough, I just stumbled across that section of the podcast in another video. When Rogan says "You said a lot of wild sh*t", he's referring to what Trump has said generally over time that has contributed to him getting a lot of publicity. He also says that that is why Trump became so popular. It isn't even Rogan commenting on the podcast and had no connotations as to how he felt about it. 🙄 So, we've gone from Rogan saying it was a sh*t show, to Rogan saying that Trump said a lot of crazy sh*t during the podcast, to the truth, which is that Rogan didn't say either of those things. It's amazing the things that people come out with. Even giving Eric the benefit of the doubt (and assuming he's simply parroting propaganda from biased sources), it's still pretty wild that he would simply regurgitate unsubstantiated claims, when he can so easily watch the podcast for himself. 🤷‍♂️

Meaningless garbage to make anyone who doesn't agree with you sound bad so you can try to ignore them.

Cannot see the actual research. Says this: "The median time to recovery was 12 days (IQR, 11-13) in the ivermectin group and 13 days (IQR, 12-14) in the placebo group." "For the ordinal outcome at day 14, the difference in the amount of time spent feeling unwell with COVID-19 was estimated to be 0.49 days (95% CrI, 0.15-0.82 days) in favor of ivermectin." "Although there are numerous published studies reporting on the potential efficacy of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19, many are in the inpatient setting and the majority are small, variable in population and dosing, and some have been retracted.11-13" https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2797483?resultClick=1 Cannot see the actual research. Says this: "In the SARS-CoV-2 positive primary analysis population, the observed median time to first recovery was 14 days in the ivermectin group compared to 15 in the usual care group (Fig. 2). In the concurrent randomisation analysis population, (excluding participants randomised to usual care before the ivermectin arm opened) the observed median time to first recovery was 14 in the ivermectin group and 16 in the usual care group. Based on the Bayesian primary analysis model which adjusts for temporal drift, there was evidence of a benefit in time-to-first-recovery in the ivermectin group versus usual care (hazard ratio 1·145, 95% Bayesian credible interval [1·066 to 1·231]." https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0163445324000641 Unfortunately, with something like Ivermectin/Covid, you really need to look at the research yourself, rather than simply trusting the conclusions. There appears to be some real bias around Ivermectin, which is a shame. To sum up, @Captain Monday has failed to support his claim that Ivermectin is just for parasites and the evidence shows that it can clearly be used to treat covid (while there are differing opinions about how effective it is and in what circumstances). Both of the two research papers that are accessible show that Ivermectin has some effects in the treatment of covid.

do you actually seriously think it's for animals only?. actually don't answer, zero tolerance for covid BS from people like you. He knows perfectly well that it is effective against covid. I already quoted a medical journal in a previous reply to him: "A 5-day course of ivermectin resulted in an earlier clearance of the virus compared to placebo (p = 0.005), thus indicating that early intervention with this agent may limit viral replication within the host. In the 5-day ivermectin group, there was a significant drop in CRP and LDH by day 7, which are indicators of disease severity. It is noteworthy that the viral nucleic acid Ct value (indicator of viral load) dropped significantly compared to the placebo group on day 7 and day 14." https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(20)32506-6/fulltext So, medical research shows that it is effective against covid, and he has seen this medical research. He simply wants to lie about it.

Pay for it ? Farkkkk that ! He appears to be one of these "I really want other people to be paedos so that I can loudly point out how bad it is and judge them" types. A bit odd. 🤷‍♂️

I wrote find, not meet. Find suggests starting a relationship with them.

It's more disturbing that some posters seem to want others to be doing such a thing. How many posters are "desperately seeking a legal loophole that will allow them to pay for sex with a girl under 18" in this thread?

The thing is, some people have such an issue with older men being with younger women, they'll try to label the guy a paedo, even when the girl is in her twenties.

I would have thought that it would depend if he genuinely paid for her taxi ride home, or gave her "money for a taxi" in the form of one or two thousand baht.

It's an odd thing to try to point out as being a negative. Generally it's easier to find someone your own age than to find someone younger than you. I'm sure most men who come to Thailand in search of a younger partner could easily get one their own age back home. And they could certainly find someone their own age in Thailand easier (or perhaps cheaper) than someone younger. Someone younger is typically viewed as better (for obvious reasons), so it seems counterintuitive to be saying that people would rather have somehtng worse, but are forced to look for something better, as their second choice.

No wonder most Thais have no interest in politics. 🤦‍♂️

Absolutely mad. "We're the antifascists and we're here to attack you and try to stop you from speaking out about political issues!" I think maybe they added the "anti" part in error.

Watch the video. Rogan has already asked him to outline the reasons, so he's right in the middle of that and wants to finish. Rogan agrees with what Trump says and even adds detail to his answers. Rogan could have asked the question again, but he didn't. Fairly normal in a conversation and not indicative of anything.

You might well think that, but you'd be very wrong. "A 5-day course of ivermectin resulted in an earlier clearance of the virus compared to placebo (p = 0.005), thus indicating that early intervention with this agent may limit viral replication within the host. In the 5-day ivermectin group, there was a significant drop in CRP and LDH by day 7, which are indicators of disease severity. It is noteworthy that the viral nucleic acid Ct value (indicator of viral load) dropped significantly compared to the placebo group on day 7 and day 14." https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(20)32506-6/fulltext You're probably going to tell us now how The International Journal of Infectious Diseases is a Nazi publication and should be silenced. 🙄

Where has Rogan said it was a <deleted> show? I didn't even spot that lie. Too many to count, I guess. 🙄 Rogan had a great time on the podcast. He likes talking to Trump and knows he was making history.

Not pedantic at all. You made a blatantly false claim. You could do the reasonable thing and admit you were wrong, but it looks like you're choosing to go the opposite way. Oh, well. I can't make you be honest, but at least everyone can see how your willing to engage with this topic. 🤷‍♂️

The bottom line is that you tried to claim that the Trump podcast interview was "regular numbers on JR Experience", yet, as you can see, it entered the top 10 out of thousands within a couple of days. You could do the decent thing and simply admit that you were wrong.

So you agree that it is exceptional by the standards of the Rogan podcast?

A pretty bold claim. Any evidence to back up claim number four?

Except the view rate is significant, and you know it. 🙄