SectionC3 Posted June 17, 2021 Posted June 17, 2021 8 minutes ago, Chef Jim said: How far do I have to get to see anything that has to do with race. Sounds more like GA is run my the Keystone Cops not Racists. Let me know the ruling. 👍🏻 Start on page 56. Enjoy, Chef Jim Crow. 14 minutes ago, Doc said: Who? The idiots who lied about HCQ being dangerous and that Trump only chose it because he once owned stock in it, duh! Simps like you just bought it because you deferred to fealty and refused to speak against their obvious lies. Simp, huh? Gargle some more HCQ. While you’re at it, do recall that the issue wasn’t safety, it was efficacy. As in, HCQ is not and was not an effective treatment for COVID.
Orlando Buffalo Posted June 17, 2021 Posted June 17, 2021 (edited) 9 hours ago, SectionC3 said: Start on page 56. Enjoy, Chef Jim Crow. Simp, huh? Gargle some more HCQ. While you’re at it, do recall that the issue wasn’t safety, it was efficacy. As in, HCQ is not and was not an effective treatment for COVID. HCQ is generally harmless and is a medicine given to fight malaria. But I know you say gargle because you still believe that women in Arizona used the fish tank cleaner for a reason other than murdering her husband. The woman is a liberal who knew other liberals are so dumb they would believe her https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.yahoo.com/amphtml/woman-blamed-trump-giving-her-133613382.html Edited June 17, 2021 by Buffalo Timmy Forgot link
Unforgiven Posted June 17, 2021 Posted June 17, 2021 https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/06/16/poll-joe-bidens-approval-rating-drops-to-48-percent/ A Wednesday poll indicates President Joe Biden’s approval rating continues downward in June from 49 percent to 48 percent. Who the hell are these 48%
Doc Posted June 17, 2021 Posted June 17, 2021 10 hours ago, SectionC3 said: Simp, huh? Gargle some more HCQ. While you’re at it, do recall that the issue wasn’t safety, it was efficacy. As in, HCQ is not and was not an effective treatment for COVID. Oh, it was efficacious and they knew it. Sure it wasn't a cure-all, but it wasn't purported to be and in those early stages of the pandemic, there was nothing else with which to treat the Chinese virus and wouldn't be for months. And time was of the essence. It was perfectly safe (safe enough for tens of millions of people to be on it daily and for it to be around for decades) and even if a few lives were saved, it would have been worth it. So they tried to demonize it by lying and saying it was dangerous, trumpeting stories like the idiots who took fish cleaner and those who OD'd on CQ in Africa. Then they said we need to do controlled studies, again when time was of the essence. And they still did the studies (and did them poorly, like I was telling you all last year) and published results in a joke of a medical journal in Britain. It's amazing what politics (see: lab leak theory) and big money (see: Big Pharma) can do. And to those who think us doctors only cared about validating Trump and not saving lives, I say GFY. You're not even worth spitting on. 1 1
SectionC3 Posted June 17, 2021 Posted June 17, 2021 1 hour ago, Doc said: Oh, it was efficacious and they knew it. Sure it wasn't a cure-all, but it wasn't purported to be and in those early stages of the pandemic, there was nothing else with which to treat the Chinese virus and wouldn't be for months. And time was of the essence. It was perfectly safe (safe enough for tens of millions of people to be on it daily and for it to be around for decades) and even if a few lives were saved, it would have been worth it. So they tried to demonize it by lying and saying it was dangerous, trumpeting stories like the idiots who took fish cleaner and those who OD'd on CQ in Africa. Then they said we need to do controlled studies, again when time was of the essence. And they still did the studies (and did them poorly, like I was telling you all last year) and published results in a joke of a medical journal in Britain. It's amazing what politics (see: lab leak theory) and big money (see: Big Pharma) can do. And to those who think us doctors only cared about validating Trump and not saving lives, I say GFY. You're not even worth spitting on. And today, we know that the drug doesn’t improve COVID-19 outcomes but still carries side effects. It’s a loser in this context. You can try to rewrite history all you want, but the fact is that you (and others, to be sure) were blinded by fealty and continued to advocate for the use of that drug in this context for political, not medical or scientific, reasons.
BillStime Posted June 17, 2021 Author Posted June 17, 2021 (edited) 2 hours ago, Doc said: Oh, it was efficacious and they knew it. Sure it wasn't a cure-all, but it wasn't purported to be and in those early stages of the pandemic, there was nothing else with which to treat the Chinese virus and wouldn't be for months. And time was of the essence. It was perfectly safe (safe enough for tens of millions of people to be on it daily and for it to be around for decades) and even if a few lives were saved, it would have been worth it. So they tried to demonize it by lying and saying it was dangerous, trumpeting stories like the idiots who took fish cleaner and those who OD'd on CQ in Africa. Then they said we need to do controlled studies, again when time was of the essence. And they still did the studies (and did them poorly, like I was telling you all last year) and published results in a joke of a medical journal in Britain. It's amazing what politics (see: lab leak theory) and big money (see: Big Pharma) can do. And to those who think us doctors only cared about validating Trump and not saving lives, I say GFY. You're not even worth spitting on. I wonder where all this is coming from.. I really do wonder where... And this is why @Doc and the other nut jobs will go to their grave defending Trump . Edited June 17, 2021 by BillStime
Doc Posted June 17, 2021 Posted June 17, 2021 20 minutes ago, SectionC3 said: And today, we know that the drug doesn’t improve COVID-19 outcomes but still carries side effects. It’s a loser in this context. You can try to rewrite history all you want, but the fact is that you (and others, to be sure) were blinded by fealty and continued to advocate for the use of that drug in this context for political, not medical or scientific, reasons. Yeah, no we don't. Actually there is a study that was done, correctly I might add, which says otherwise. And the side effects are still as minimal as they were prior to Trump mentioning HCQ, which allowed for its use for 70 years and by hundreds of millions of people over that time, without a concern for its safety. But there you go, mentioning them again ("it wasn't about side effects..."). Again you got duped because of your blind fealty to political scumbags. Own it. 1 1
Doc Posted June 17, 2021 Posted June 17, 2021 54 minutes ago, BillStime said: I wonder where all this is coming from.. I really do wonder where... And this is why @Doc and the other nut jobs will go to their grave defending Trump LOL! Defend Trump from...what? The Left got HCQ shut down (and Ivermectin as well, which was even better) and more people died than needed to. You and your ilk "protected" the world from a safe drug against a pandemic which killed people. Congrats!
BillStime Posted June 17, 2021 Author Posted June 17, 2021 1 minute ago, Doc said: LOL! Defend Trump from...what? The Left got HCQ shut down (and Ivermectin as well, which was even better) and more people died than needed to. You and your ilk "protected" the world from a safe drug against a pandemic which killed people. Congrats! Wait - your ilk called the virus a flu and a hoax - and Trump told us it would just go away. 1
Doc Posted June 17, 2021 Posted June 17, 2021 8 minutes ago, BillStime said: Wait - your ilk called the virus a flu and a hoax - and Trump told us it would just go away. Yes some idiots called it a hoax. And despite what Trump said about it going away, it's not like they did nothing. Again the lack of PPE and mask confusion, and people still wanting to congregate did the most damage.
SectionC3 Posted June 17, 2021 Posted June 17, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, Doc said: Yeah, no we don't. Actually there is a study that was done, correctly I might add, which says otherwise. And the side effects are still as minimal as they were prior to Trump mentioning HCQ, which allowed for its use for 70 years and by hundreds of millions of people over that time, without a concern for its safety. But there you go, mentioning them again ("it wasn't about side effects..."). Again you got duped because of your blind fealty to political scumbags. Own it. 1. You’ve conceded that HCQ has side effects. That’s a good start. 2. Let’s see this single study on which you — but not the relevant scientific community, I note — rely. 3. At bottom you advocate for taking a drug with known adverse effects but, in the COVID context, no demonstrable benefit — save, allegedly, for this single, isolated study to which you refer. That is, although there literally is no benefit to the ingestion of the drug in this context, and still a concomitant threat of risk, you say it should be taken for this purpose. It’s a ludicrous position explained only by stubbornness, ignorance, fealty, or recalcitrance. Take your pick. Edited June 17, 2021 by SectionC3
ALF Posted June 17, 2021 Posted June 17, 2021 Trump Calls McConnell a ‘Dumb Son of a B word’ and ‘Stone Cold Loser’ at Donor Event https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-mcconnell-dumb-son-of-a-B word-1154201/
Chef Jim Posted June 17, 2021 Posted June 17, 2021 17 hours ago, SectionC3 said: Start on page 56. Enjoy, Chef Jim Crow. Ummmmm I did. Some tidbits from the Complaint: Quote 248. S.B. 202 violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, because it was purposefully enacted and operates to deny, abridge, or suppress the right to vote of otherwise eligible voter on account of race or color. I didn't see the proof of this. Quote 249. The facts alleged herein reveals that S.B. 202 was enacted, at least in part, with a racially discriminatory intent to discriminate against Black voters and other voters of color in violation of the United States Constitution. Nor here. Quote 253. S.B. 202 violates the Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, because Defendants intentionally enacted and operate the law to deny, abridge, or suppress the right to vote on account of race or color. Just a document full of unproven allegations like we've heard from many here on the left. A lot of allegations but no proof. Get back to me after the ruling mmmkay.
BillStime Posted June 17, 2021 Author Posted June 17, 2021 2 minutes ago, Chef Jim said: Ummmmm I did. Some tidbits from the Complaint: I didn't see the proof of this. Nor here. Just a document full of unproven allegations like we've heard from many here on the left. A lot of allegations but no proof. Get back to me after the ruling mmmkay. Unproven allegations and no proof? Are you talking about CRT again?
Chef Jim Posted June 17, 2021 Posted June 17, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, BillStime said: Unproven allegations and no proof? Are you talking about CRT again? You know what I'm talking about and I'm surprised you even interjected here seeing I've handed you your lunch in this debate. Proof of actual racism in the GA Bill? Zero and counting. EDIT: I originally had this line in my post but deleted it. So ***** predicable. @BillStime laughing emoticon in 3.....2.....1...... Edited June 17, 2021 by Chef Jim 1 1 1
Chef Jim Posted June 17, 2021 Posted June 17, 2021 9 minutes ago, BillStime said: NO!! We need the old man to hold on for 1,277 (plus or minus) more days.
Doc Posted June 17, 2021 Posted June 17, 2021 (edited) 5 hours ago, SectionC3 said: 1. You’ve conceded that HCQ has side effects. That’s a good start. 2. Let’s see this single study on which you — but not the relevant scientific community, I note — rely. 3. At bottom you advocate for taking a drug with known adverse effects but, in the COVID context, no demonstrable benefit — save, allegedly, for this single, isolated study to which you refer. That is, although there literally is no benefit to the ingestion of the drug in this context, and still a concomitant threat of risk, you say it should be taken for this purpose. It’s a ludicrous position explained only by stubbornness, ignorance, fealty, or recalcitrance. Take your pick. 1. Every drug have side effects, chief. Your profession has made billions off of this well-known fact. But HCQ's are very rare, hence the reasons tens of millions of people are on it daily and no one ever talked about its side effects before. It's as safe as the vaccines Joey is taking credit for. That you keep harping on it tells me your handlers did a great job pounding this lie into you. 2. The study was linked above. 3. There was a demonstrable benefit observed by doctors who were using it well before Trump ever mentioned it...hence the reason he mentioned it. Your masters just told you to believe that it was dangerous when it wasn't and then used bogus stories to back it up, as a pretext for not using it to help prevent people from getting sick and dying. Then they had bogus "studies" conducted. Did you ever stop to ask why? No of course not. Which is how they want you. Edited June 17, 2021 by Doc 1
Recommended Posts