Covid-19 vaccine

Dakitten · Jul 25, 2021

subcon959 said:
The plan is to go with option (a) after all this vaccine stuff is done, and for specifically the reason you mentioned. Pharmaceutical companies are developing extremely expensive new treatments because it's way more profitable than eradicating the virus with already existing out-of-patent molecules. I still recommend people watch the JRE podcast with Brett Weinstein (evolutionary biologist) and Pierre Kory (intensive care doctor) where they discuss how effective Ivermectin has been.

Didn't they try using that in Peru for a while, only to find that any benefits were impossible to gauge and that it failed to reduce infection rate and mortality/serious conditions? Pretty sure the WHO also doesn't have a very high opinion of it, and that Pierre Kory seems to pussy-foot around subjecting treatment to the common standards for pharmaceutical drugs.

https://www.the-scientist.com/news-...ersial-ivermectin-paper-pre-publication-68505

Don't believe everything you hear from Tim Pool and Joe Rogan. A de-wormer for horses is pretty close to hydroxychloroquine on the list of miracle cures that don't work, albeit it is at least mostly less dangerous. The whole point of my question was to show that folks should be skeptical of motivations, and this is a prime example. A bitter and disgraced professor (Brett calls himself an exile, for gods sake) and a physician who proclaims his findings are "miraculous" after being dragged in front of the Sentate by Ron Johnson both deserve a bit of the old stink-eye and scrutiny.

jimbo13 · Jul 25, 2021

subcon959 said:
The plan is to go with option (a) after all this vaccine stuff is done, and for specifically the reason you mentioned. Pharmaceutical companies are developing extremely expensive new treatments because it's way more profitable than eradicating the virus with already existing out-of-patent molecules. I still recommend people watch the JRE podcast with Brett Weinstein (evolutionary biologist) and Pierre Kory (intensive care doctor) where they discuss how effective Ivermectin has been.

Be prepared for hysterical moronic comments attacking JRE, In before someone starts shrieking "Joes not a doctor" ignoring the fact he is not the source. The source being the two well researched academics, one being a doctor.

The Jecovid Witness's will defer to their Lord and Savior, admitted liar Saint Fauci. If Saint Fauci said shove a pineapple up your ass for vitamin C they would stand for the rest of their lives.

Deleted User · Jul 25, 2021

jimbo13 said:
The Jecovid Witness's will defer to their Lord and Savior, admitted liar Saint Fauci.

His view only changed to reflect the science. Which, idk if you know, science changes to reflect better understanding of something. So no, Fauci isn't a liar.

Foxi4 · Jul 25, 2021

Dakitten said:
A de-wormer for horses is pretty close to hydroxychloroquine on the list of miracle cures that don't work, albeit it is at least mostly less dangerous.

Define "miracle cure" and "not working". A recent observational study of ventilated COVID-19 patients indicates that hydroxychloroquine used in conjunction with azithromycin increases the survival rate by nearly 200%. The paper wasn't written by quacks either - it's authored by researchers from Smith Center for Infectious Diseases & Urban Health and Saint Barnabas Medical Center. Of course this is a very specific circumstance - the majority of COVID infections don't develop into such a severe condition, so it's hardly a "cure" for the disease, rather it improves a patient's odds if they're in a state similar to that of the examined cohort (255 patients). I'll quickly point out that this is a pre-print and it's yet to be peer-reviewed, but the data does exist. It shouldn't be blown out of proportion at this stage, but it shouldn't be ignored either. I personally don't take medical advice from the media - I listen to what doctors have to say since they're the ones with the expertise necessary to prescribe appropriate medication, depending on a patient's specific condition. If the patients at St. Barnabas were better off when they were administered HCQ+AZM, I'm not going to question that - I'll wait until the results of the study are reviewed and the final version is published. The process has to play out, then we'll know if there's any truth to this.

Reual said:
His view only changed to reflect the science. Which, idk if you know, science changes to reflect better understanding of something. So no, Fauci isn't a liar.

Faucci is on record admitting that he personally manipulated herd immunity numbers knowing that they'll be disseminated by the media, and he did so specifically to encourage or discourage certain behaviours. I quote the man himself:

When polls said only about half of all Americans would take a vaccine, I was saying herd immunity would take 70 to 75 percent. Then, when newer surveys said 60 percent or more would take it, I thought, ‘I can nudge this up a bit,’ so I went to 80, 85. We need to have some humility here, we really don’t know what the real number is. I think the real range is somewhere between 70 to 90 percent. But, I’m not going to say 90 percent.

In other words, the percentage of vaccinated population required was derived from poll numbers and what Dr.Faucci "thought" at any given time - he doesn't actually know the number, which isn't surprising since nobody does. I'd classify that as a lie - it's not based on hard science, it's based on manipulation for the purposes of reaching a desired outcome.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/24/health/herd-immunity-covid-coronavirus.html

Of course this is a "white lie" of sorts - ideally that number should be 100%, but that's extremely discouraging. If you keep the bar low and move the goal post incrementally, you're more likely to get people to come since you've put them in a perpetual state of "we're almost there".

He also absolutely did lie about funding research in Wuhan. The funds weren't explicitly dedicated to gain of function research of coronaviruses, that part is correct, but money is fungible - if you fund a given institution for a specific purpose, the money that institution would've otherwise spent for the project out of their own pocket simply funds something else - in this case the "something else" was gain of function. Probably not something Faucci would've known about without being in Wuhan in person, but a half-truth nonetheless, which is half way to a lie.

Deleted member 546149 · Jul 25, 2021

I'm getting my first shot soon
I think I'll put my fears aside

subcon959 · Jul 25, 2021

I'm still reserving judgement on Fauci as I think he was put in a difficult position where there was a clear conflict of interest. But after I saw the WHO spokesperson refuse to even acknowledge Taiwan in an interview I am finding it hard not to believe they are a captured organisation.

omgcat · Jul 25, 2021

well republican leaders are shitting their pants and starting to call for conservatives to get vaccinated. it's gonna suck though since it takes 6-8 weeks for full vaccine effect and that is too long to stop the exponential growth given that a single shot is ~30% effective after 4 weeks.

the GOP are backtracking on the vaccine bashing for example

‘Vaccines are saving lives’: DeSantis stresses importance of shots, criticizes mask mandates as Florida COVID cases spike

After waiting, Steve Scalise gets COVID vaccine, calls it 'safe and effective'

it's going to be a long dark summer in less educated places.

Alabama doctor describes how sick COVID patients 'beg' for the vaccine but she can only hold their hand and tell them it is too late

will republicans pull through and get vaccinated to save lives? or will they eat their own and call their own leaders "deep state operatives". tune in 3 months from now to find out!

The Catboy · Jul 25, 2021

Foxi4 said:
I don't know why people think the government needs to inject them with a microchip secretly to know their every move. It's the government - they already know, if they have the interest. It's as if the Snowden leak never happened, and that was almost a decade ago - take a wild guess on whether the surveillance technology has improved or stayed the same since then. More importantly though, you're just not that interesting.

It takes a massive ego to think the government gives a shit about someone’s whereabouts. Like, they don’t, you aren’t that special. If they wanted to find you, they could check the countless methods they already have to track people, including your phone.

jimbo13 said:
Be prepared for hysterical moronic comments attacking JRE, In before someone starts shrieking "Joes not a doctor" ignoring the fact he is not the source. The source being the two well researched academics, one being a doctor.

The Jecovid Witness's will defer to their Lord and Savior, admitted liar Saint Fauci. If Saint Fauci said shove a pineapple up your ass for vitamin C they would stand for the rest of their lives.

What sources are you referring to?

BlazeMasterBM · Jul 26, 2021

Reual said:
Consider the cost of R&D, consider the fact that most people already have phones that track their location. There is no reason for the elites to do that, they already have what they want.

I know, I don't believe in the micro chip theory at all. I'm just saying they might be able to do something like that, though I doubt on such a large scale. Who knows

Xzi · Jul 26, 2021

Lilith Valentine said:
It takes a massive ego to think the government gives a shit about someone’s whereabouts. Like, they don’t, you aren’t that special. If they wanted to find you, they could check the countless methods they already have to track people, including your phone.

But...but...they know the TRUTH about the global liberal pedophile ring and the frogs turning gay! Surely that threatens the status quo enough to warrant 24/7 surveillance by an entire team of agents. /s

The Catboy · Jul 26, 2021

Xzi said:
But...but...they know the TRUTH about the global liberal pedophile ring and the frogs turning gay! Surely that threatens the status quo enough to warrant 24/7 surveillance by an entire team of agents. /s

They could just you know, end them, but spending tax payer money for 24/7 surveillance makes more sense

Dakitten · Jul 26, 2021

BlazeMasterBM said:
I know, I don't believe in the micro chip theory at all. I'm just saying they might be able to do something like that, though I doubt on such a large scale. Who knows

To what purpose? If it wasn't large scale, it wouldn't be useful (nobody needs a "sampling size" of random folk), and if it is small scale, it is wildly simpler to use existing technologies or even old fashioned spying.

subcon959 said:
I'm still reserving judgement on Fauci as I think he was put in a difficult position where there was a clear conflict of interest. But after I saw the WHO spokesperson refuse to even acknowledge Taiwan in an interview I am finding it hard not to believe they are a captured organisation.

You got a source on that, comrade? I'd love to see the context!

jimbo13 said:
Be prepared for hysterical moronic comments attacking JRE, In before someone starts shrieking "Joes not a doctor" ignoring the fact he is not the source. The source being the two well researched academics, one being a doctor.

The Jecovid Witness's will defer to their Lord and Savior, admitted liar Saint Fauci. If Saint Fauci said shove a pineapple up your ass for vitamin C they would stand for the rest of their lives.

Oh good, he missed my point because he can't hang with civil discourse. Not only is Joe not a doctor, but the other two parties have dubious backgrounds as well. At least he acknowledges one of the guests isn't even a doctor either... good grief, the blinders on this sheepysheep.

Foxi4 said:
Define "miracle cure" and "not working". A recent observational study of ventilated COVID-19 patients indicates that hydroxychloroquine used in conjunction with azithromycin increases the survival rate by nearly 200%. The paper wasn't written by quacks either - it's authored by researchers from Smith Center for Infectious Diseases & Urban Health and Saint Barnabas Medical Center. Of course this is a very specific circumstance - the majority of COVID infections don't develop into such a severe condition, so it's hardly a "cure" for the disease, rather it improves a patient's odds if they're in a state similar to that of the examined cohort (255 patients). I'll quickly point out that this is a pre-print and it's yet to be peer-reviewed, but the data does exist. It shouldn't be blown out of proportion at this stage, but it shouldn't be ignored either. I personally don't take medical advice from the media - I listen to what doctors have to say since they're the ones with the expertise necessary to prescribe appropriate medication, depending on a patient's specific condition. If the patients at St. Barnabas were better off when they were administered HCQ+AZM, I'm not going to question that - I'll wait until the results of the study are reviewed and the final version is published. The process has to play out, then we'll know if there's any truth to this.
Faucci is on record admitting that he personally manipulated herd immunity numbers knowing that they'll be disseminated by the media, and he did so specifically to encourage or discourage certain behaviours. I quote the man himself:
In other words, the percentage of vaccinated population required was derived from poll numbers and what Dr.Faucci "thought" at any given time - he doesn't actually know the number, which isn't surprising since nobody does. I'd classify that as a lie - it's not based on hard science, it's based on manipulation for the purposes of reaching a desired outcome.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/24/health/herd-immunity-covid-coronavirus.html

Of course this is a "white lie" of sorts - ideally that number should be 100%, but that's extremely discouraging. If you keep the bar low and move the goal post incrementally, you're more likely to get people to come since you've put them in a perpetual state of "we're almost there".

He also absolutely did lie about funding research in Wuhan. The funds weren't explicitly dedicated to gain of function research of coronaviruses, that part is correct, but money is fungible - if you fund a given institution for a specific purpose, the money that institution would've otherwise spent for the project out of their own pocket simply funds something else - in this case the "something else" was gain of function. Probably not something Faucci would've known about without being in Wuhan in person, but a half-truth nonetheless, which is half way to a lie.

So, lemme get this straight. Out of the things I mentioned, your beef is that hydroxychloroquine has possibly gotten a covid related use, even though it is as a treatment for symptoms and not a cure like I was saying... But otherwise the things I brought up in response to your points were valid? And for Reual's point on Faucci, you claim his educated opinion (he never stated that it was scientific fact that herd immunity had a solid bar that must be reached) fluctuating to match the circumstances in the country as they unfolded is proof of a lie (that never even cleared the threshold he himself held to) and that his "half truth" regarding the purpose of funding in a foreign country is further proof of him lying...

Are you a serious person? Does this not seem like nitpicking to you? Mod or not, this kind of discourse absolutely loses any respect I otherwise gained for your bringing new elements to the discussion.

BlazeMasterBM · Jul 26, 2021

Dakitten said:
To what purpose? If it wasn't large scale, it wouldn't be useful (nobody needs a "sampling size" of random folk), and if it is small scale, it is wildly simpler to use existing technologies or even old fashioned spying.

You got a source on that, comrade? I'd love to see the context!

Oh good, he missed my point because he can't hang with civil discourse. Not only is Joe not a doctor, but the other two parties have dubious backgrounds as well. At least he acknowledges one isn't even a doctor... good grief, the blinders on this sheepysheep.

So, lemme get this straight. Out of the things I mentioned, your beef is that hydroxychloroquine has possibly gotten a covid related use, even though it is as a treatment for symptoms and not a cure like I was saying... But otherwise the things I brought up in response to your points were valid? And for Reual's point on Faucci, you claim his educated opinion (he never stated that it was scientific fact that herd immunity had a solid bar that must be reached) fluctuating to match the circumstances in the country as they unfolded is proof of a lie (that never even cleared the threshold he himself held to) and that his "half truth" regarding the purpose of funding in a foreign country is further proof of him lying...

Are you a serious person? Does this not seem like nitpicking to you? Mod or not, this kind of discourse absolutely loses any respect I otherwise gained for your bringing new elements to the discussion.

idk

Foxi4 · Jul 26, 2021

Dakitten said:
So, lemme get this straight. Out of the things I mentioned, your beef is that hydroxychloroquine has possibly gotten a covid related use, even though it is as a treatment for symptoms and not a cure like I was saying... But otherwise the things I brought up in response to your points were valid? And for Reual's point on Faucci, you claim his educated opinion (he never stated that it was scientific fact that herd immunity had a solid bar that must be reached) fluctuating to match the circumstances in the country as they unfolded is proof of a lie (that never even cleared the threshold he himself held to) and that his "half truth" regarding the purpose of funding in a foreign country is further proof of him lying...

Are you a serious person? Does this not seem like nitpicking to you? Mod or not, this kind of discourse absolutely loses any respect I otherwise gained for your bringing new elements to the discussion.

I don't care about anyone's respect, particularly not on the Internet. I quote specific sections of specific posts that I take issue with, I don't need to respond to anything that I have no opinion on or what doesn't interest me.

You said quite clearly that hydroxychloroquine "doesn't work" when used in COVID treatment - clearly it does, in specific cases - that's what the latest research says. Reual stated that Faucci is "not a liar" - he is, and he says as much himself publicly, even if he won't admit he was lying to save face. If he pulls one number out of a magician's top hat, all of his other numbers are automatically put into question - if he said one thing based on polls and personal feeling rather than hard science, it makes perfect sense to treat what he says with a degree of skepticism. This is what we call "getting a second opinion", rather than buying what he says wholesale.

"You're nitpicking" is not an argument, both of you alleged certain things about HCQ and Faucci respectively, and I put those things into question based on the available data. Faucci is a grown man - he doesn't need an army of Internet knights to protect his honour every single time he lies before Congress or to the public. HCQ is a drug - either it increases treatment effectiveness or it doesn't, and the answer to that question is found via scientific research, not bumbling idiots on TV.

I've noticed a certain trend, and the trend is this: "if Trump said it at any point in time then it must be wrong". If that's the line of thinking both of you are applying on your decision-making, all the power to you, but don't simultaneously claim that what you say is based on "the science" - it's based on personal feeling, more specifically an inherent dislike of your opposition. If your claims are not based on data, you're liable to make errors that could've otherwise been avoided. If you treat that kind of commentary personally, I must underline that I'm not liable for any hurt fee-fees.

Dakitten · Jul 26, 2021

Foxi4 said:
I don't care about anyone's respect, particularly not on the Internet. I quote specific sections of specific posts that I take issue with, I don't need to respond to anything that I have no opinion on or what doesn't interest me.

You said quite clearly that hydroxychloroquine "doesn't work" when used in COVID treatment - clearly it does, in specific cases - that's what the latest research says. Reual stated that Faucci is "not a liar" - he is, and he says as much himself publicly, even if he won't admit he was lying to save face. If he pulls one number out of a magician's top hat, all of his other numbers are automatically put into question - if he said one thing based on polls and personal feeling rather than hard science, it makes perfect sense to treat what he says with a degree of skepticism. This is what we call "getting a second opinion", rather than buying what he says wholesale.

"You're nitpicking" is not an argument, both of you alleged certain things about HCQ and Faucci respectively, and I put those things into question based on the available data. Faucci is a grown man - he doesn't need an army of Internet knights to protect his honour every single time he lies before Congress or to the public. HCQ is a drug - either it increases treatment effectiveness or it doesn't, and the answer to that question is found via scientific research, not bumbling idiots on TV.

I've noticed a certain trend, and the trend is this: "if Trump said it at any point in time then it must be wrong". If that's the line of thinking both of you are applying on your decision-making, all the power to you, but don't simultaneously claim that what you say is based on "the science" - it's based on personal feeling, more specifically an inherent dislike of your opposition. If your claims are not based on data, you're liable to make errors that could've otherwise been avoided. If you treat that kind of commentary personally, I must underline that I'm not liable for any hurt fee-fees.

I think you may have ever so slightly missed the point. Orange man bad is a fun meme (and largely accurate!) but it has nothing to do with this particular thread/discussion. I said hydroxychloroquine is not a miracle cure, hence "miracle cure that doesn't work". Your link sites a non-peer reviewed paper with a small sampling size using a drug that can have fairly serious side effects. It doesn't show that "clearly it does, in specific cases" at all, and the author is under intense scrutiny for attempting to use his report as proof of his claims given flawed data sets and unwillingness to use traditional testing norms to prove his suspicions. Meanwhile, other reports regarding hydroxychloroquine have shown it to not be of significant benefit in covid symptom treatment. In other words... you're wrong and your source is bad, and considering you mentioned Trump in a place where he hasn't been given his due thrashing for mishandling the pandemic and failing to save the lives of a half-million of the people he swore to serve, I presume you to be a partisan apologist.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/ja...le_alert-jama&utm_content=olf&utm_term=110920

Accusing you of nitpicking is a perfectly valid argument, because rather than tackle many of the statements I made head-on, you presume a knowledge of these specific barely related findings that is lacking at best and deceptive at worst. Then, when reviewing Reual's statement, you accuse an actual specialist of being a political agent and a liar using, again, barely relevant talking points that don't even make much sense. All this absolutely reeks of partisan bias, and that is why I'm now certain you don't deserve any more respect for your input in this discussion. This doesn't even qualify as half-truths so much as obfuscating lies.

Perhaps you should try and get your science facts from sources other than Steven Crowder in the future?

subcon959 · Jul 26, 2021

Dakitten said:
You got a source on that, comrade? I'd love to see the context!

The context was Taiwan's universally praised response to coronavirus, yet the WHO official defaulted to China's stance which was to not even acknowledge the country. This caused a pretty big uproar across the board last year so I'm surprised more people aren't aware of it.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-52088167.amp

Foxi4 · Jul 26, 2021

Dakitten said:
I think you may have ever so slightly missed the point. Orange man bad is a fun meme (and largely accurate!) but it has nothing to do with this particular thread/discussion.

Hole in one. I'm good at both golf and battleship, it seems.

I said hydroxychloroquine is not a miracle cure, hence "miracle cure that doesn't work". Your link sites a non-peer reviewed paper with a small sampling size using a drug that can have fairly serious side effects. It doesn't show that "clearly it does, in specific cases" at all, and the author is under intense scrutiny for attempting to use his report as proof of his claims given flawed data sets and unwillingness to use traditional testing norms to prove his suspicions. Meanwhile, other reports regarding hydroxychloroquine have shown it to not be of significant benefit in covid symptom treatment. In other words... you're wrong and your source is bad, and considering you mentioned Trump in a place where he hasn't been given his due thrashing for mishandling the pandemic and failing to save the lives of a half-million of the people he swore to serve, I presume you to be a partisan apologist.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/ja...le_alert-jama&utm_content=olf&utm_term=110920

Compare like to like. We are not testing HCQ in isolation - HCQ is supposed to improve absorption rate of other drugs it's used with. So far it's been tested with AZM and zinc, with positive or sometimes mixed results. I'm well-aware that the study is still going through peer review, and said as much. In fact, I said that it shouldn't be taken as gospel - I said that data exists to support HCQ efficacy *when used appropriately* and *in patient cohorts that require it*, however it needs to go through the usual review before it's considered valid. There are multiple studies that cite similar findings - I know of at least two other clinical trials. Miracle drug? No. Potential treatment? Yes, and it's actively used as such, at least in certain trials.

Accusing you of nitpicking is a perfectly valid argument,

It's not.

because rather than tackle many of the statements I made head-on, you presume a knowledge of these specific barely related findings that is lacking at best and deceptive at worst.

That's what you presume, not me. I'm pointing out a potential error and substantiating it with evidence. Whether it is an error or not remains to be seen based on peer review - the matter is being actively researched around the globe.

Then, when reviewing Reual's statement, you accuse an actual specialist of being a political agent and a liar using, again, barely relevant talking points that don't even make much sense. All this absolutely reeks of partisan bias, and that is why I'm now certain you don't deserve any more respect for your input in this discussion. This doesn't even qualify as half-truths so much as obfuscating lies.

Faucci is a government spokesperson - he's literally hired by the administration. He is a specialist, yes, but in his current position I expect him to be truthful and transparent. So far he only seems to be transparent when his feet are put to the fire, and if that's the case, he should be wearing shoes that are constantly engulfed in flames. Again, I don't care about your respect, or the approval of Internet strangers - that's not a currency I'm interested in. I'd rather err on the side of being right. If something is uncertain, it should be pointed out as uncertain.

Perhaps you should try and get your science facts from sources other than Steven Crowder in the future?

Swing and a miss. What's more scientifically accurate, The Daily Show or Saturday Night Live?

Dakitten · Jul 26, 2021

subcon959 said:
The context was Taiwan's universally praised response to coronavirus, yet the WHO official defaulted to China's stance which was to not even acknowledge the country. This caused a pretty big uproar across the board last year so I'm surprised more people aren't aware of it.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-52088167.amp

Ooh, neat! Many thanks! Will make for good reading before work!

Foxi4 said:
Hole in one. I'm good at both golf and battleship, it seems.
Compare like to like. We are not testing HCQ in isolation - HCQ is supposed to improve absorption rate of other drugs it's used with. So far it's been tested with AZM and zinc, with positive or sometimes mixed results. I'm well-aware that the study is still going through peer review, and said as much. In fact, I said that it shouldn't be taken as gospel - I said that data exists to support HCQ efficacy *when used appropriately* and *in patient cohorts that require it*, however it needs to go through the usual review before it's considered valid. There are multiple studies that cite similar findings - I know of at least two other clinical trials. Miracle drug? No. Potential treatment? Yes, and it's actively used as such, at least in certain trials.
It's not.
That's what you presume, not me. I'm pointing out a potential error and substantiating it with evidence. Whether it is an error or not remains to be seen based on peer review - the matter is being actively researched around the globe.
Faucci is a government spokesperson - he's literally hired by the administration. He is a specialist, yes, but in his current position I expect him to be truthful and transparent. So far he only seems to be transparent when his feet are put to the fire, and if that's the case, he should be wearing shoes that are constantly engulfed in flames. Again, I don't care about your respect, or the approval of Internet strangers - that's not a currency I'm interested in. I'd rather err on the side of being right. If something is uncertain, it should be pointed out as uncertain.
Swing and a miss. What's more scientifically accurate, The Daily Show or Saturday Night Live?

Sweet yob, just hearing that you've confirmed opposition and you're already singing your own praises.

The point is that all you're doing is giving yourself a little corner case of information you feel comfortable with, and entrenching yourself with it while ignoring everything else... And you're even doing that poorly, since again, your study is extremely preliminary and open to scathing criticism from other researchers, not to mention that it flies in the face of other blind studies, much like the first garbage drug you propped up. The only reason Hydroxy even got the attention that it did was... Donald Trump! Hey hey, full circle! Maybe that's relevant! While better than bleach, his statement resulted in harm and death.

Faucci isn't a government mouthpiece, he's the country's leading virulent disease expert with a half century of experience and accolades to his name, and a role of advisor to administrations of both parties. I'm sorry if you can't understand why his statements are sometimes opinions and not holy writ exposing hypocrisy in the big pharma puppet show, but your examples of "lies" are just comical. He has been uncertain about things, but his direction hasn't been contradictory or disingenuous, while I can't say the same for your tactics in this thread. I'd much rather you concern yourself with being decent to people you disagree with over being right at all costs, because this has just been sad as well as inaccurate.

Also, for whatever its worth, the Daily Show is obviously the answer because it is a show focused on presenting news and making fun of it, instead of finding comedy to be drawn out of real events whenever they feel certain a chuckle can be gained from it. Sure, it is often biased as all heck these days, but there is at least a level of journalism going on in the background, even if you don't care for the obvious political leanings its tragically smothered in.

Foxi4 · Jul 26, 2021

Dakitten said:
Sweet yob, just hearing that you've confirmed opposition and you're already singing your own praises.

I'm an excellent singer. I simply don't like blanket statements.

The point is that all you're doing is giving yourself a little corner case of information you feel comfortable with, and entrenching yourself with it while ignoring everything else... And you're even doing that poorly, since again, your study is extremely preliminary and open to scathing criticism from other researchers, not to mention that it flies in the face of other blind studies, much like the first garbage drug you propped up.

Of course it's preliminary - it was published 2 months ago. I only said it twice now - third time lucky.

The only reason Hydroxy even got the attention that it did was... Donald Trump! Hey hey, full circle! Maybe that's relevant! While better than bleach, his statement resulted in harm and death.

You have no evidence of that. The last time the media propped up a story about someone munching on aquarium cleaner it turned out to be a homicide. As it stands, the latest FDA guidance only permits use of HCQ and CQ in hospital settings where clinical trials are available, so test cohorts are going to be small due to the revoked EUA. Point being, you don't know what it does, neither do I, and claiming otherwise silly.

Faucci isn't a government mouthpiece, he's the country's leading virulent disease expert with a half century of experience and accolades to his name, and a role of advisor to administrations of both parties. I'm sorry if you can't understand why his statements are sometimes opinions and not holy writ exposing hypocrisy in the big pharma puppet show, but your examples of "lies" are just comical. He has been uncertain about things, but his direction hasn't been contradictory or disingenuous, while I can't say the same for your tactics in this thread. I'd much rather you concern yourself with being decent to people you disagree with over being right at all costs, because this has just been sad as well as inaccurate.

Dr.Fauci is a duly appointed Chief Medical Advisor and the COVID team lead, he is de facto a government mouthpiece in all matters regarding COVID. He also did not mince words in his response to the NYT - he revised the proposed figure based on a change in polls, not new emerging evidence. If you want to argue the finer details of his statement, you'll have to argue with him, not me. Me calling him a liar is my opinion, it is subjective and based upon the fact that he demonstrably mislead the population in regards to the minimum required vaccination levels to reach herd immunity, among other things. You are welcome to disagree with that assessment, but nothing you've said so far invalidates it. I'm sorry that his mask slipped in a moment of weakness, but you are not required to mount a defense for him - he can do that himself when asked.

Also, for whatever its worth, the Daily Show is obviously the answer because it is a show focused on presenting news and making fun of it, instead of finding comedy to be drawn out of real events whenever they feel certain a chuckle can be gained from it. Sure, it is often biased as all heck these days, but there is at least a level of journalism going on in the background, even if you don't care for the obvious political leanings its tragically smothered in.

Both SNL and TDS are comedy entertainment. In the case of SNL it's pure comedy, in the case of TDS it's satirical news. I specifically brought up the comparison because you mentioned Crowder, who fits in the same bracket. You shouldn't draw your information from any of these shows - the only thing you can get out of SNL is cancer, the only thing you can get out of Crowder is cringe, the only thing you can get out of TDS is mild amusement from watching Trevor Noah cry on national television. I wouldn't treat any of these shows as a reliable source, you're the one who threw the first punch in regards to this kind of nonsense.

jimbo13 · Jul 27, 2021

"The U.S. government has issued a ‘vaccine mandate’ for over 100,000 workers that are employed by the Department of Veterans Affairs. The mandate was reported by the New York Times. The vaccine mandate will apply to workers who are “the most patient-facing,” McDonough said, including ‘doctors, dentists, registered nurses, physician assistants and some specialists.’"

https://trendingpolitics.com/breaki...andate-that-impacts-over-100000-workers-knab/

And no one asks why so many trained medical professionals, many formerly military who are accustomed to a heavy vax schedule are declining in numbers to the degree it would require a mandate?

Covid-19 vaccine

Will you get the vaccine?

Yes

No

Well-Known Member

Terry Crews #1 Fan

Deleted User

Guest

Endless Trash

Well-Known Member

@!#?@!

Well-Known Member

GBAtemp Official Catboy™: Boywife

I Eat Garlics

Time to fly, 621

GBAtemp Official Catboy™: Boywife

Well-Known Member

I Eat Garlics

Endless Trash

Well-Known Member

@!#?@!

Endless Trash

Well-Known Member

Endless Trash

Terry Crews #1 Fan

Similar threads

Popular threads in this forum