On 11/20/2021 at 2:22 AM, Atlantis said:

And this followed by the puerile “This is very believable!” when one of many uncontroversial real life possibilities is offered.

Apart from Sungod, did all your collective common sense depart you when you were all piling on and engaging in bait-and-switch. It’s pathetic.

 

 

What don't you understand about the fact the sungod said he was asymptomatic but decided to get tested to make sure he hadn't contract the virus that causes genital warts. . As I pointed out, there is no such diagnostic test. So, is his claim that he was tested believable? Some theologian once said "I believe because it is impossible." Maybe he should welcome you to the club.

 

“I have been on ivermectin for 16 months, my wife and I,” Dr. Bruce Boros declared at the end of the meeting at the World Equestrian Center in Ocala. “I have never felt healthier in my life.”   Two days later, the 71-year-old cardiologist fell ill with COVID-19, according to the organizer of the one-day gathering and two other people with direct knowledge.

 

 

Latest news that it's a waste when it comes to COVID...and potentially dangerous:

 

Ivermectin futile for mild to moderate COVID-19, study finds

 

"Early treatment with the antiparasitic drug ivermectin does not lower the risk of severe disease when given to patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, according to a study today in JAMA Internal Medicine.

...

Doctors at 20 Malaysian government hospitals and a COVID-19 quarantine center conducted an open-label, randomized clinical trial on the use of ivermectin in the first week of COVID-19 symptom onset in hospitalized adults 50 years and older with mild or moderate illness and underlying medical conditions. The study took place from May 31 to Oct 25, 2021.

...

Fifty-two of 241 patients in the ivermectin group (21.6%) and 43 of 249 patients in the standard-care-only group (17.3%) became severely ill (relative risk [RR], 1.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.87 to 1.80). There were no significant differences between the two groups in time to symptom resolution or rates of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, 28-day in-hospital death, or adverse events.

...

Forty-four patients (9.0%) had 55 adverse events, 33 of them in the ivermectin group. The most common adverse event was diarrhea, occurring in 14 (5.8%) in the ivermectin group and 4 (1.6%) in the standard-care group. Five serious adverse events—four in the ivermectin group—were reported."

 

(more)

 

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2022/02/ivermectin-futile-mild-moderate-covid-19-study-finds

 

 

i was offered 2 x6mg of iver in thai hospital when positive with omicron.

I declined, because I happen to have my own.

Probably that was a daily dose, to be repeated for up to 10 days.

From the first contact to my ill cousin (he wasn't sure if he has omicron or flu) I took almost 50 pills of iver 5mg, some 5 pills daily.

 

For favipiravir 200mg they wanted 350b per pill, which is about 30x more expensive, that the locally made generic by the GPO costs at the government hospital. They gave me 9 pills to be taken as a first dose. I have declined it also, as 3150b per day for 10 days would brake my insurance for max 100k compensation.

I haven't asked them for price of iver, but I would imagine in thousands per pill (at pharmacy only 100b).

Country in europe, where I used to live, has approved iver for covid for over a year now.

NEW: Ivermectin doesn’t prevent severe disease from Covid-19 any more effectively than a placebo, according to a new study published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

 

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2789362

 

  

41 minutes ago, internationalism said:

 

Country in europe, where I used to live, has approved iver for covid for over a year now.

If you're referring to Slovakia, it hasn't exactly enjoyed a sterling success in combating covid.

8 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

NEW: Ivermectin doesn’t prevent severe disease from Covid-19 any more effectively than a placebo, according to a new study published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

 

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2789362

 

  

that is exactly the same study from malaysia, which TallGuy posted 10h ago

 list of excuses used by people for not believing people and/or data that goes against the official narrative (collected over the past 6 months from multiple sources):

Generic excuses

I don’t want to read it.

I don’t have time to read it.

It was too long to read.

There was a typo in the 3rd paragraph so obviously this is a low quality paper and not worth reading.

I saw the list of 10 reasons for xxx but I disagreed with the first one, so I didn’t bother to read the rest of them.

The author isn’t credible and doesn’t have a background in this area. Only doctors and other professionals can have valid opinions on the data.

The author was discredited on Wikipedia and banned from Twitter so he’s spreading misinformation.

I don’t believe it.

It wasn’t peer-reviewed.

It’s a waste of my time to debate them.

I can’t take it seriously unless it is verified and the data is public.

Just because that person is one of the world’s top experts in his field doesn’t mean what they are saying is true.

Oh, that anecdote was verified by 10 other people who saw the same thing? How do you know they were independent?

If that was true, why didn’t he write a paper on it and have it published in a peer reviewed journal?

There’s probably a confounder or bias that explains that.

If the paper was wrong, why didn’t you write a letter to the editor of the journal to have it corrected?

Case-specific excuses

According to this paper, the rates of <pick one> are higher in people who have COVID than people who got the vaccine

It would have been a lot worse if he hadn’t got the vaccine

The VAERS data is unreliable and the CDC says you can’t determine causality with it (and we know the CDC always tells the truth).

“We’ll get back to you on that” (CDC responding to why there is no URF)

“We’re still investigating those cases” (CDC responding to autopsy reports showing myocarditis as cause of death)

“Those deaths weren’t linked to the vaccine” (Pfizer in their Phase 3 vaccine trials)

If there were over 100,000 deaths, the CDC would have noticed that. You are a nutcase and you need professional help.

I won’t debate you because your position is so preposterous. Just like I wouldn’t debate someone who says the earth is f

For every study for something, there's usually one against it, or my observation over the years, and time studied usually effect the 'final' study, if any are to be believed.

 

Pick one:

Eggs bad for you, eggs good for you

Fats, butter / oil ... holy Buddha, good luck with that

Smoking, no link to cancer, smoking causes cancer

Alcohol bad, small amounts OK, now all amounts bad.

The new wonder drugs / vaccines (1 ex; AZT) ... now withdrawn from market, along with so many others.

Breast implants (old silicone) safe, now if having, recommended to remove

Housing insulation, lead paint ... safe, now, must remove.

 

What to believe, who to believe, who financed the study, who profiting if the study agrees with their marketing plan ???

 

Good Luck with all that.

 

I'll just put my faith in GOD, he / she / it has always protected me.

 

 

2 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

For every study for something, there's usually one against it, or my observation over the years, and time studied usually effect the 'final' study, if any are to be believed.

 

Pick one:

Eggs bad for, eggs good for you

Fats, butter / oil ... holy Buddha, good luck with that

Smoking, no link to cancer, smoking causes cancer

Alcohol bad, small amounts OK, now all amounts bad.

The new wonder drugs / vaccines (1 ex; AZT) ... now withdrawn from market, along with so many others.

Breast implants (old silicone)safe, now if having, recommended to remove

Housing insulation, lead paint ... safe, now, must remove.

 

What to believe, who to believe, who financed the study, who profiting if the study agrees with their marketing plan ???

 

Good Luck with all that.

 

I'll just put my faith in GOD, he / she / it has always protected me.

 

 

In other words, scientific research is valueless.

Several posts with off-topic and unsourced/unsubstantiated claims have been removed, along with replies.

 

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

In other words, scientific research is valueless.

I believe scientific research, whatever that is, was used in most of the examples I posted, and yet .... 

 

If it involves man & $$$, I find most things are corrupt.  I've been around long enough, and that thought (man & $$$) has been proven over & over again.

 

UP2U to see and believe things as you wish.  But 'new science' always seems to prove 'old science' wrong.  Or was it, is it, really science to begin with.

 

Maybe just re-defined to fit an agenda, who knows, who cares.

Have faith ... GOD will provide.

11 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

For every study for something, there's usually one against it, or my observation over the years, and time studied usually effect the 'final' study, if any are to be believed.

 

Pick one:

Eggs bad for you, eggs good for you

Fats, butter / oil ... holy Buddha, good luck with that

Smoking, no link to cancer, smoking causes cancer

Alcohol bad, small amounts OK, now all amounts bad.

The new wonder drugs / vaccines (1 ex; AZT) ... now withdrawn from market, along with so many others.

Breast implants (old silicone) safe, now if having, recommended to remove

Housing insulation, lead paint ... safe, now, must remove.

 

What to believe, who to believe, who financed the study, who profiting if the study agrees with their marketing plan ???

 

Good Luck with all that.

 

I'll just put my faith in GOD, he / she / it has always protected me.

 

 

Darwin.

 

Right then and right now.

14 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

I believe scientific research, whatever that is, was used in most of the examples I posted, and yet .... 

 

If it involves man & $$$, I find most things are corrupt.  I've been around long enough, and that thought (man & $$$) has been proven over & over again.

 

UP2U to see and believe things as you wish.  But 'new science' always seems to prove 'old science' wrong.  Or was it, is it, really science to begin with.

 

Maybe just re-defined to fit an agenda, who knows, who cares.

Have faith ... GOD will provide.

Actually, your ruling belief is in cherry-picking. And apparently, you have no use at all for probability.

22 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Actually, your ruling belief is in cherry-picking. And apparently, you have no use at all for probability.

I just don't put much faith when man & $$$ is involved.  That has worked perfectly for me in the past, so I'll probably remain free thinking the rest o my days.  Don't need strangers telling me how to live.

 

I believe 100% in probability.  I probably don't need something, IF I  don't put myself in harm's way.

I'll probably make a sh!t load of money if I research before investing.

 

That has worked throughout my adult life, with a few learning speed bumps, so all is probably good in my future, since I learn from my mistakes.

1 hour ago, internationalism said:

that is exactly the same study from malaysia, which TallGuy posted 10h ago

Good minds think alike

6 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

I just don't put much faith when man & $$$ is involved.  That has worked perfectly for me in the past, so I'll probably remain free thinking the rest o my days.  Don't need strangers telling me how to live.

 

I believe 100% in probability.  I probably don't need something, IF I  don't put myself in harm's way.

I'll probably make a sh!t load of money if I research before investing.

 

That has worked throughout my adult life, with a few learning speed bumps, so all is probably good in my future, since I learn from my mistakes.

"I believe 100% in probability."

Which somehow you reconcile with your faith in conspiracy theories involving huge numbers of people.

36 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

I just don't put much faith when man & $$$ is involved.  That has worked perfectly for me in the past, so I'll probably remain free thinking the rest o my days.  Don't need strangers telling me how to live.

 

I believe 100% in probability.  I probably don't need something, IF I  don't put myself in harm's way.

I'll probably make a sh!t load of money if I research before investing.

 

That has worked throughout my adult life, with a few learning speed bumps, so all is probably good in my future, since I learn from my mistakes.

Past performance is no guarantee of future returns.

29 minutes ago, placeholder said:

"I believe 100% in probability."

Which somehow you reconcile with your faith in conspiracy theories involving huge numbers of people.

It’s a ‘free thinker’ thing, they all do it.

9 hours ago, KhunLA said:

For every study for something, there's usually one against it, or my observation over the years, and time studied usually effect the 'final' study, if any are to be believed.

 

Pick one:

Eggs bad for you, eggs good for you

Fats, butter / oil ... holy Buddha, good luck with that

Smoking, no link to cancer, smoking causes cancer

Alcohol bad, small amounts OK, now all amounts bad.

The new wonder drugs / vaccines (1 ex; AZT) ... now withdrawn from market, along with so many others.

Breast implants (old silicone) safe, now if having, recommended to remove

Housing insulation, lead paint ... safe, now, must remove.

 

What to believe, who to believe, who financed the study, who profiting if the study agrees with their marketing plan ???

 

Good Luck with all that.

 

I'll just put my faith in GOD, he / she / it has always protected me.

 

A lot of scientific studies start with what is little more than an observation made by a professional, the study is then expanded to larger groups and eventually is studied in a controlled setting.

 

The longitudinal studies about diet, including things like eggs and coffee are really open ended and it takes a lot of time to nail down the why.   Many of these studies center on longevity and there are many other factors involved in how long we live besides whether we eggs every day, or drink coffee or have a glass of wine.  When you look at those studies in their raw form, what isn't always answered is, do you drink coffee each day and smoke a pack of cigarettes with your coffee? 

Do you  eat one or two eggs a day with 1/2 lb. of bacon?  Those questions are where things get fuzzy and over time, they narrow the parameters and start making some preliminary findings.

 

With Covid (and most diseases and conditions) a lot of the metrics are a little easier.  Do people who are vaccinated catch covid more than those who don't?   If vaccinated people catch covid what vaccine did they take?  When?  How strong was the dose?

 

When it comes to drugs like Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine (which largely dropped off the radar), studying their effectiveness is a little more complicated.  We know both of them do have anti-viral properties in the lab when put in a petri dish with cells, but does that translate to the human body?   If so, when?  Does it help as a prophylactic dose to prevent infection or only once a person is infected?  Should it be given in the first few days of an infection?  Does it work later in an infection?   At any of these stages, is the viral load less?  All of this is also clouded by questions about the dosage to be given.   

 

Medical practitioners have tested many, many drugs against Covid, including a long list of proven anti-virals.  Most of those were not effective.  They will continue looking at repurposing drugs, just like they did with an 81 mg. dose of aspirin to prevent heart attacks.  It's cheap and it is effective.

 

There is a lot of noise around various studies and it is confusing.  What we do know, and it's been shown time and again in country after country, is that vaccines are effective.  We know the risks from vaccines are very, very small.   We know that antibodies wane and boosters are recommended.  If you are vaccinated, you are 98 to 99% likely to survive.

 

We also know from a lot of studies that masks work in reducing transmission.   We also know that YOUR mask does more to protect ME, and less (but still a significant amount) for you.  We know if you want protection, then the type of mask you wear matters and how you wear it makes a difference.  

 

So, if you are vaccinated, boosted and wear a mask, you really don't need to spend a lot of time reading studies about Ivermectin.  I know you stay fairly well isolated, but more protection is still probably better than less.

 

Many people really are clueless as to how ‘Darwinism’ actually works.
 

It’s been many many months now and every time I think to myself “maybe I should gently point out…”

 

…NAH!

Cuz there’s really nothing more entertaining than watching overconfident repeatedly slipping on the same banana skin

2 hours ago, Atlantis said:

Many people really are clueless as to how ‘Darwinism’ actually works.
 

It’s been many many months now and every time I think to myself “maybe I should gently point out…”

 

…NAH!

Cuz there’s really nothing more entertaining than watching overconfident repeatedly slipping on the same banana skin

I've seen comments like this before. And on those rare occasions when one of these commentators actually offers something concrete, it invariably turn out to be at best simpliistic, but more often just plain wrong. I'm betting you're just plain wrong.

On 2/21/2022 at 9:31 AM, placeholder said:

I've seen comments like this before. And on those rare occasions when one of these commentators actually offers something concrete, it invariably turn out to be at best simpliistic, but more often just plain wrong. I'm betting you're just plain wrong.

 

Is it really that necessary for me to explain to you why, say, a known 60-something-year-old BM with multiple biological children who hypothetically goes onto to catch Covid, then god-forbid, dies, ….. is absolutely not a victim of ‘Darwinism’ … ^_^

 

@KhunLA

 

I can’t say I have my own invisible friend in the sky nor do I in any way share your blanket skepticism of all scientific publications.

 

But I can appreciate your posts nonetheless. They either wind up people who often deserve it, or, more importantly, serve as an antidote to the discouraging level of unadulterated group think on both the News and Covid forums.

 

Your astute (sane) observations on that silly story about the wife coming home to find her drunkard husband face-down dead on the table on the afternoon of his vaccination did not go unnoticed!

 

It was quite comical how many posters who so readily disparage your unscientific approach (not necessarily these fine folks above) considered it completely okay to accept the nonchalant opinion of a widow in lieu of a proper medical autopsy!
 

Why such glaring hypocrisy? Probably because it’s more important for them to ridicule and ostracize individuals like yourself who, for whatever reason, just simply refuse to COMPLY.

An off-topic post has been removed.