placeholder

Where is your evidence that the newer variants are less deadly? Delta is believed to be more than twice as contagious as previous variants, and studies have shown that it may be more likely than the original virus to put infected people in the hospital. People who are not vaccinated are most at risk, and the highest spread of cases and severe outcomes is happening in places with low vaccination rates. https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/5-things-to-know-delta-variant-covi Maybe in the long run it's true that contagious pathogens become less virulent. Maybe. It's actually not a settled question. But it's still very early days

Wrong again. Tesla’s China sales have grown to nearly half the size of the company’s U.S. sales Elon Musk’s electric car company reported sales of $3.11 billion in China in the third quarter, or 48.5% of the $6.41 billion U.S. sales during that time, according to a filing Monday. China’s share in Tesla’s overall sales rose to 22.6% in the third quarter, up from just under 20% a year ago. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/26/teslas-china-sales-have-grown-to-nearly-half-the-sales-in-the-us.html

Who has time to watch this class of videos. If they had evidence that would stand up to scrutiny, they would put it in writing. Which is a lot easier to fact check.

Well I'm not sure where he got that 3.5 million years from. Home Sapiens have only been in existence around 200,000 years. That said, where did onemorefarang provide evidence that there were no homosexual unions among stone-age people? Maybe you've got some?

You are, of course, absolutely correct Effect of Ivermectin on Time to Resolution of Symptoms Among Adults With Mild COVID-19A Randomized Clinical Trial In this randomized clinical trial that included 476 patients, the duration of symptoms was not significantly different for patients who received a 5-day course of ivermectin compared with placebo (median time to resolution of symptoms, 10 vs 12 days; hazard ratio for resolution of symptoms, 1.07). Meaning The findings do not support the use of ivermectin for treatment of mild COVID-19, although larger trials may be needed to understand effects on other clinically relevant outcomes. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2777389 Ivermectin for preventing and treating COVID‐19 https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD015017.pub2/full And here's what happened in the case of this large study: "One of the largest trials studying ivermectin for Covid-19 treatment, called the Together Trial, was halted by the data safety monitoring board on Aug. 6 because the drug had been shown to be no better than a placebo at preventing hospitalization or prolonged stay in the emergency room. Dr. Edward Mills, a professor at McMaster University who led the study, which enrolled more than 1,300 patients, said the team would have discontinued it earlier were it not for the level of public interest in ivermectin. “The data safety person said, ‘This is now futile and you’re offering no benefit to patients involved in the trial,’” Dr. Mills said." https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/30/health/covid-ivermectin-prescriptions.html

For one thing you ignore the negative studies. For another there were 2 allegedly huge studies that gave the most weight to the pro ivermectin stance. Both those studies turned out to be fraudulent.

You know, your observation that it takes fossil fuels to power EV's bears a certain resemblance to the argument that because the manufacture of renewables depends in some part on fossil fuel power, it makes no sense to manufacture them. Maybe if it were possible to travel into the future and bring back the power infrastructure as it exists 50 years from now, you might have much of a point. But since that's not possible, you don't. And there's this: Electric Vehicle Myths Even accounting for these electricity emissions, research shows that an EV is typically responsible for lower levels of greenhouse gases (GHGs) than an average new gasoline car. To the extent that more renewable energy sources like wind and solar are used to generate electricity, the total GHGs associated with EVs could be even lower. Learn more about electricity production in your area. https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/electric-vehicle-myths

Typical anti covid vaxxer obfuscation.

I linked to an article by an MD who does forensic research. He is highly qualified to pronounce on those studies. Yes there were a lot of studies. And most of them, according to him, were quite shoddy. As he pointed out, just because an study gets published in a journal, that doesn't mean it's much of one. Lots of journals exist only to allow people to burnish their resumes. These journals are called open source. They actually charge the authors of a study in return for publishing their work. The best journals are supported solely by subscriptions or an endowment.

I'm not disputing that ivermectin hasn't been extraordinarily beneficial to human in treating parasites. But it's a chemical. Not magic. And it's effectiveness in treating parasites has nothing to do with its effects on a virus. Well, it may be indicative of a cult that the news that Kory got Covid 19 in August. The news was only released a day ago. Maybe because it was extremely damaging to his case and the basis on which Ivermectin is worshipped.

You sure about that? History of same-sex unions "Same-sex unions were known in Ancient Greece and Rome,[2] ancient Mesopotamia,[3] in some regions of China, such as Fujian province, and at certain times in ancient European history.[4] Same-sex marital practices and rituals were more recognized in Mesopotamia than in ancient Egypt. The Almanac of Incantations contained prayers favoring on an equal basis the love of a man for a woman and of a man for man.[5]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions And can you please share with us some links pointing to the issue of whether or not same sex marriage existed in the Stone Age?

As for studies are needed... Here's a link to an article written by a medical researcher doing medical forensics. In this case he and authors examined the quality of various studies done on ivermectin. He noticed a trend...the higher the quality of a study, the less likely it was to support the case for Ivermectin. https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/10/ivermectin-research-problems/620473/

"Pierre Kory, MD, one of the most vocal proponents of ivermectin, got COVID-19 in August." Covid-19 is not the virus. "COVID-19 is the disease caused by SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus that emerged in December 2019." https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus If you got a problem with that definition, take it up with Johns Hopkins.

What don't you understand about this claim of Kory's?: "If you take it, you will not get sick," As for the rationalization that the dose wasn't high enough, this kind of thinking corresponds to what happens to cults when evidence confounds their beliefs. Instead of abandoning those beliefs, they just dig in all the more.

Claiming that who is right? If you're referring to scientific expectation of latent illness arising from covid vaccines, I'm saying that it's a lot more probable that there will be none than is the case for the covid virus. Current scientific knowledge overwhelmingly supports that this is the case.

Just as I have no evidence that some particular individual won't win the lottery. And all I have to go on is "only probability". Science uses current knowledge to project possible outcomes. Now if current scientific knowledge has no value in predicting future outcomes, you would have a good point. But that obviously isn't the case, so you don't.

He certainly has a legal right to privacy. But given his past comments about ivermection, and the damage this his comments have done, I don't think he has a moral right to it anymore.

I've explained why this comment of yours is ridiculous: Thanks for clearing that up, you don't know. If you cant predict 100% and its based on probability then I cant be wrong. All you offered to critique my comment was this: "Thanks for clearing that up, you dont know. If you cant predict 100% and its based on probability then I cant be wrong." Basically an appeal to a unanimity of alleged unnamed parties and a general unsupported characterization of my previous arguments. Not much evidence or rationality in such comments.

Do you have a crystal ball to show that such a person definitely wouldn't win the lottery? The laws of probablity say it's unlikely but not impossible. And what is known about vaccines and how they affect the immune system makes it extremely unlikely that there will be latent effects. Certainly a lot less likely than a disease vector might. Since the latter has been the case repeatedly.

He said he got Covid in August. That's all he said. I'm not speculating at all. Just pointing out that he offered very minimal data. He may be fine now, he may not be fine now. We don't know. I'm just pointing out that he offered very limited information. But the information he did offer contradicted his claim that "If you take Ivermectin, you won't get sick."

This is like saying that it makes sense for someone to invest all their saving in the lottery because you can't prove they will fail.

He may still be suffering from the symptoms of long covid. Or he may have ahd long covid and now is better. Who knows?

Some of us understand that modern science is based on probability. No one can predict the future with 100% likelihood. But we can use present evidence to project possibilities.

Who did you hear it from? Who claimed that taking covid vaccines means you won't get sick? Certainly nobody who understood the results of Phase 3 trials made that claim.

What do you mean I don't have any information. Kory confessed that he got sick from covid. The same guy who claimed that "If you take Ivermectin, you won't get sick."