Doc Posted June 5 Share Posted June 5 (edited) 11 minutes ago, L Ron Burgundy said: I'm cool with trying new things to fight covid, drink all the bleach you want. I'm not cool with acting like they work before we know they do. Which is what most imbeciles from your side of the aisle did. Deny that anf you are lying. Why? It was a safe drug that hundreds of millions of people had used since its creation 70 years earlier. What was the downside? There wasn't a single other treatment available, there was empirical evidence it worked and time was of the essence. Why did imbeciles from your side of the aisle lie about it being dangerous? Did you stop to ask yourself that question? Edited June 5 by Doc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Frankish Reich Posted June 5 Share Posted June 5 37 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: So we shoulda tried bleach and perhaps Sevin dust… it kills parasites too….and wait, I thought the whole pandemic was just a charade… I was prescribed ivermectin years ago, in a cream form to treat rosacea. Worked like a charm. Fascinating reason why. And yes, we all have them, but it only causes problems in some people and often from time to time. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/25/multimedia/bugs-halloween-kids-ar-ul.html Face Mite These scaly microscopic mites live in the hair follicles and oil glands of your face. (Two face mite species are found just on humans. Lucky us). We don’t know what they’re eating exactly — it could be our oils, skin cells or microbes — but it’s enough to keep them content for their entire lives (a few weeks). “I like to think of them as grazers,” Dunn says. Face mites mostly move around your face during the night because they don’t like bright light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaCrispy Posted June 5 Author Share Posted June 5 8 hours ago, Doc said: Why? It was a safe drug that hundreds of millions of people had used since its creation 70 years earlier. What was the downside? There wasn't a single other treatment available, there was empirical evidence it worked and time was of the essence. Why did imbeciles from your side of the aisle lie about it being dangerous? Did you stop to ask yourself that question? Great question… Even if people disagreed with using iverctin for treating Covid, there was really no reason to try to convince people it was dangerous (by referring to it as a horse de-wormer) and purposely not distinguishing between the animal medicine and the human medicine… The constant bashing and misrepresentation of the drug seemed disingenuous, and driven by ulterior motives…Ironically, it helped to contribute to vaccine hesitancy, as the msm’s criticism of ivermectin did not seem rational, and many saw through it, especially with the heightened pharmaceutical ads sponsoring the news networks…👍 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Ferguson forever Posted June 5 Share Posted June 5 45 minutes ago, JaCrispy said: purposely not distinguishing between the animal medicine and the human medicine… cuz it's the same drug. For rosacea, I think metronidazole is a safer, better drug. Let's say you go to your doc today and tell him you're worried about a heart attack. you have a family history, you're fat and you smoke. And he says "let's put you on a beta blocker". And the smart guy that you are, you ask "what's the evidence for that?". And he says, "there isn't much for primary prevention but tons for secondary prevention (post heart attack). And then you ask "what about statins?". He says , yes tons of data, hundreds of studies". And you say "never mind, I've heard bad things about statins....". 9 hours ago, Doc said: Why? It was a safe drug that hundreds of millions of people had used since its creation 70 years earlier. What was the downside? There wasn't a single other treatment available, there was empirical evidence it worked and time was of the essence. Why did imbeciles from your side of the aisle lie about it being dangerous? Did you stop to ask yourself that question? the downside was that it didn't work, dummy 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted June 5 Share Posted June 5 So I see the thread about Fauci has been (conveniently) derailed . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Frankish Reich Posted June 5 Share Posted June 5 4 minutes ago, B-Man said: So I see the thread about Fauci has been (conveniently) derailed . . And who derailed it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Ferguson forever Posted June 5 Share Posted June 5 21 minutes ago, B-Man said: So I see the thread about Fauci has been (conveniently) derailed . . it is about fauci cuz it's about science.... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted June 5 Share Posted June 5 Fauci’s Evidence It just sort of appeared. You know, from nowhere. It’s taken me a few days to get round to it but I wanted to say a few words about Fauci’s behind closed doors testimony in January 2024, which has only just been publicly released by the Republican members of the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic. The text that has now been released is remarkable in several ways. For convenience, and hopefully to give a fuller sense of how impactful this all is, I’ll bullet point the key admissions first: When asked where the 6 foot social distancing rules came from, Fauci replied that “they just sort of appeared”. Fauci admitted there were never any scientific studies (any scientific evidence) for the social distancing rules. Asked if he had seen any studies supporting a 6 foot social distancing guideline he replied “I was not aware of studies that [did that]”. Asked if he had ever seen any evidence to support the masking of children he replied that he didn’t recall doing so, but “might have”. Asked about the cognitive learning, educational impacts and psychological impacts of mask wearing on children, Fauci admitted that no studies were done to assess these impacts as they developed. Fauci admitted that lab leak origin was not a conspiracy theory. Now none of the above is exactly revelatory for anyone sensible. In fact, the lack of any scientific or rational grounding for social distancing was obvious in 2020 to anyone capable of applying their own critical reasoning rather than instructions from media and government. Lots of us instinctively recoiled from the totalitarian aspects of it all-the uniformity, the propaganda, the social pressure, the hysteria. Or we saw the absurdity and the illogic of it. More at the link: https://jupplandia.substack.com/p/faucis-evidence . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted June 5 Share Posted June 5 Dr. Birx: Yes, We Tried to Quash the COVID Lab-Leak Theory Bob Hoge Dr. Deborah Birx, the scarf-wearing former White House Coronavirus Response Coordinator under Donald Trump, finally admitted what we’ve all known for a long time: the “experts” tried to quash the idea the COVID virus came from a Chinese lab, and they moved to discredit and humiliate anyone who said otherwise. In a CNN interview Tuesday, she said the country is still suffering from the blatant censorship: https://redstate.com/bobhoge/2024/06/04/dr-birx-yes-we-tried-to-quash-the-covid-lab-leak-theory-n2175048 https://www.foxnews.com/media/dr-deborah-birx-admits-effort-squash-covid-lab-leak-theory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Ferguson forever Posted June 5 Share Posted June 5 1 hour ago, B-Man said: Fauci’s Evidence It just sort of appeared. You know, from nowhere. It’s taken me a few days to get round to it but I wanted to say a few words about Fauci’s behind closed doors testimony in January 2024, which has only just been publicly released by the Republican members of the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic. The text that has now been released is remarkable in several ways. For convenience, and hopefully to give a fuller sense of how impactful this all is, I’ll bullet point the key admissions first: When asked where the 6 foot social distancing rules came from, Fauci replied that “they just sort of appeared”. Fauci admitted there were never any scientific studies (any scientific evidence) for the social distancing rules. Asked if he had seen any studies supporting a 6 foot social distancing guideline he replied “I was not aware of studies that [did that]”. Asked if he had ever seen any evidence to support the masking of children he replied that he didn’t recall doing so, but “might have”. Asked about the cognitive learning, educational impacts and psychological impacts of mask wearing on children, Fauci admitted that no studies were done to assess these impacts as they developed. Fauci admitted that lab leak origin was not a conspiracy theory. Now none of the above is exactly revelatory for anyone sensible. In fact, the lack of any scientific or rational grounding for social distancing was obvious in 2020 to anyone capable of applying their own critical reasoning rather than instructions from media and government. Lots of us instinctively recoiled from the totalitarian aspects of it all-the uniformity, the propaganda, the social pressure, the hysteria. Or we saw the absurdity and the illogic of it. More at the link: https://jupplandia.substack.com/p/faucis-evidence . Re1-4, fauci pointed out that the cdc, not he, made the social distancing guidelines. They were based on the belief, at the time and based on other virus behavior, that Covid was primarily spread by droplets and not aerosol. That was incorrect but science sorted it out in its normal systematic, analytical manner. It took some time as it always does. The best path imo with icu’s filling up and 1000’s dying per day was with an abundance of caution. Certainly Doc felt the urgency given his reasoning for the rush to widely utilize any possible treatment. re #5. See above. He didn’t write the guidelines. That question should be asked of the cdc. I suspect they employ social scientists and economists… Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Ferguson forever Posted June 5 Share Posted June 5 21 minutes ago, B-Man said: Dr. Birx: Yes, We Tried to Quash the COVID Lab-Leak Theory Bob Hoge Dr. Deborah Birx, the scarf-wearing former White House Coronavirus Response Coordinator under Donald Trump, finally admitted what we’ve all known for a long time: the “experts” tried to quash the idea the COVID virus came from a Chinese lab, and they moved to discredit and humiliate anyone who said otherwise. In a CNN interview Tuesday, she said the country is still suffering from the blatant censorship: https://redstate.com/bobhoge/2024/06/04/dr-birx-yes-we-tried-to-quash-the-covid-lab-leak-theory-n2175048 https://www.foxnews.com/media/dr-deborah-birx-admits-effort-squash-covid-lab-leak-theory No one in this interview said “quash” or “squash “. She was asked about an intention to discredit the lab leak theory. Why wouldn’t there be? Scientists disagree, often. Some are passionate. And why would the director of the cdc need anyone’s permission to publicly dispute it…well, maybe the prez permission but guess who that was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlBUNDY4TDS Posted June 5 Share Posted June 5 15 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: No one in this interview said “quash” or “squash “. She was asked about an intention to discredit the lab leak theory. Why wouldn’t there be? Scientists disagree, often. Some are passionate. And why would the director of the cdc need anyone’s permission to publicly dispute it…well, maybe the prez permission but guess who that was. Do u honestly buy the wet market theory? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L Ron Burgundy Posted June 5 Share Posted June 5 13 hours ago, Doc said: Why? It was a safe drug that hundreds of millions of people had used since its creation 70 years earlier. What was the downside? There wasn't a single other treatment available, there was empirical evidence it worked and time was of the essence. Why did imbeciles from your side of the aisle lie about it being dangerous? Did you stop to ask yourself that question? Despite it being safe people took it in unsafe ways and died. How are you questioning this? There's a vast difference between we found something that might work and THIS WORKS, which is exactly what many on the right were saying. They are still saying it! Are you on X? Despite what some people here seem to think you will find the craziest looniest morons constantly spreading misinformation. And they are good at it. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted June 5 Share Posted June 5 18 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: No one in this interview said “quash” or “squash “ That's why it wasn't in quotes, but you knew that. You always try to divert from the information in articles with minutia Quote Dr. Deborah Birx, a former White House Coronavirus Response Coordinator under Donald Trump, told CNN on Tuesday that there was an effort to squash scientists suggesting the COVID-19 virus started in a lab in Wuhan, China. "I think early on, people did take very definitive sides, and it did divide along party lines, and we're still suffering from that four years later," Birx told CNN's Kasie Hunt, who asked if there was any substance to the argument that the lab leak theory was suppressed. "I do think it happened. If you look at what people said about Bob Redfield and how they disparaged him as a scientist because he wanted to bring forward the lab leak potential," the former top medical official said. QUASH: put an end to; suppress. "a hospital executive quashed rumors that nursing staff will lose jobs" Similar: put an end to put a stop to curb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Ferguson forever Posted June 5 Share Posted June 5 (edited) 1 hour ago, B-Man said: That's why it wasn't in quotes, but you knew that. You always try to divert from the information in articles with minutia QUASH: put an end to; suppress. "a hospital executive quashed rumors that nursing staff will lose jobs" Similar: put an end to put a stop to curb the word used was "discredit" (perhaps you should watch your own links) and was used by the CNN anchor. No one said "suppress". None of the words used as descriptors in the MAGA articles are close to equivalent to "discredit". But you and they knew that....It's kinda like when a reputable news agency labels a group as terrorists and the fringe sites call the same group "freedom fighters". Edited June 5 by Joe Ferguson forever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L Ron Burgundy Posted June 5 Share Posted June 5 9 minutes ago, Gregg said: Cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Ferguson forever Posted June 5 Share Posted June 5 1 hour ago, Gregg said: Dead men don’t speak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlBUNDY4TDS Posted June 5 Share Posted June 5 6 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: Dead men don’t speak. You never saw a Biden presser? 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts