Never in the history of medicine has a drug known to kill people been approved for any use at all, let alone for "more vulnerable" people. Again, for something that killed only the sickest people.
Ivermectin is incredibly safe and inexpensive. There would have been no downside given, again, the lack of even a shitty vaccine at the time. There is better data now for Ivermectin than even the manipulated data released to the public.
If you honestly agree with the idea "a lethal experimental drug is OK for really old sick dying people," then you're agreeing with a vicious moving of the public health goalposts.
In my brief medical education, I was given a few pharmacology lectures on drug safety and adverse events vis a vis risks and benefits. This fucking shit never should have been approved for a single fucking human being.
You've been gaslit into compliance along with everyone else who might tell me I'm. "conflating issues" by the same people who invented BOTH the virus AND the fake vaccines, another thing Prasad the bullshit truth-teller avoids.
Ivermectin is a red herring. That's why people defending the shots seize on it. But let's disregard the testimonies of those who claim it gave them symptom relief, and assume ivermectin is useless for covid.
That doesn't do a damn thing to dent the numbers of people injured or killed by the shots. Ivermectin killed how many people since 2021? Jesus Christ.
Stop watching that apologist. You told me months ago you thought Robert Malone was a crank. So far no one has made any of that stand up. I'll stand with the maximalist skeptics. Anyone who bothers looking for good motives or silver linings given just the knowledge the FDA was desperate to hide what the sham trials revealed.
Fauci has done nothing but lie. The media have done nothing but lie. If you let anyone near your fucking arm with a needle for the rest of your life, you're either insane or even more intent in departing this unholy shit show than I am.
Instead of the loathsome shill Hotez (do these people even try not to look like a liberal doofus straight out of central casting?) why not host RFK to hash this stuff out with Vinay Prasad whose take here is pretty much where I am on this.
I like Briahna Joy Gray's frustrated rant about the idiotic treatment of RFK in the mainstream press here starting at 1:30. Gray just nails it here. Is someone going to call her a conservative?
"but at least 97 or 98 percent of Gen Zers believe they’re gay, with nearly half of them incorrect."
Crucial correction..."but at least 97 or 98 percent of Gen Zers believe they’re queer". Queer, the "stolen valor" pose of the identity world. When someone says they are queer, I have yet been able to ascertain what fact about them I can observe or discover that would let me know they are lying since it mostly seems to mean having some sort of ideological position rather than actually doing, or even being anything in particular. Seems to me just a no-cost opt-out of an oppressor identity.
"It was always someone else, some unimpeachable authority, that could explain this and many other obvious scriptural contradictions. Never the person actually involved in the discussion."
Well, this is sort of a tricky question because we all rely on authorities and most of us aren't particularly well equipped to judge most matters of science, etc. In the case of the religious douchebag who thinks there is a fundamentalist explanation for the two creation stories in Genesis, they have to explain why if you separate them out they read perfectly well like two stories that were cobbled together because an editor didn't want to throw out anything and had two narratives in front of them. The key here isn't so much relying on authorities, but keeping in mind that reliance is provisional and it isnt' a malfunction of the system when people voice objections. For example, I think the folks rightly angry about mismanagement of COVID are just ignoring evidence if they think ivermectin has any efficacy againt COVID 19 and I think they are making the same mistake as masking/endless booster people are making. The shit just fails RCTs. The same evidence adduced for ivermectin would be dismissed if it implied masking worked, and vice versa. But why the fuck would we need to suppress or silence people for arguing this and why would I dismiss someone's views in total just because they make a mistake on one thing? None of RFKs whackier poorly evidenced beliefs are deal breakers for me, especially when I think he comes at these questions more from a product liability standpoint than a anti-science standpoint. It could simultaneously be true that mercury containing vaccines spare more suffering than they cause and also the companies that make them get offered regulatory shortcuts and take production shortcuts that cause more negative externalities than should otherwise be present. I used to see this kind of shit from conservatives wherein the second you criticize a negative externality of capitalism they are like "what are you, an idiot Marxist? Don't you get capitalism has raised people from poverty blah blah blah" as if the second you criticize something and say it could be done better you are a hardened enemy of that thing.
Never in the history of medicine has a drug known to kill people been approved for any use at all, let alone for "more vulnerable" people. Again, for something that killed only the sickest people.
Ivermectin is incredibly safe and inexpensive. There would have been no downside given, again, the lack of even a shitty vaccine at the time. There is better data now for Ivermectin than even the manipulated data released to the public.
If you honestly agree with the idea "a lethal experimental drug is OK for really old sick dying people," then you're agreeing with a vicious moving of the public health goalposts.
In my brief medical education, I was given a few pharmacology lectures on drug safety and adverse events vis a vis risks and benefits. This fucking shit never should have been approved for a single fucking human being.
You've been gaslit into compliance along with everyone else who might tell me I'm. "conflating issues" by the same people who invented BOTH the virus AND the fake vaccines, another thing Prasad the bullshit truth-teller avoids.
Ivermectin is a red herring. That's why people defending the shots seize on it. But let's disregard the testimonies of those who claim it gave them symptom relief, and assume ivermectin is useless for covid.
That doesn't do a damn thing to dent the numbers of people injured or killed by the shots. Ivermectin killed how many people since 2021? Jesus Christ.
Stop watching that apologist. You told me months ago you thought Robert Malone was a crank. So far no one has made any of that stand up. I'll stand with the maximalist skeptics. Anyone who bothers looking for good motives or silver linings given just the knowledge the FDA was desperate to hide what the sham trials revealed.
Fauci has done nothing but lie. The media have done nothing but lie. If you let anyone near your fucking arm with a needle for the rest of your life, you're either insane or even more intent in departing this unholy shit show than I am.
Instead of the loathsome shill Hotez (do these people even try not to look like a liberal doofus straight out of central casting?) why not host RFK to hash this stuff out with Vinay Prasad whose take here is pretty much where I am on this.
https://vinayprasadmdmph.substack.com/p/take-rfk-jr-seriously-what-rfk-jr
I like Briahna Joy Gray's frustrated rant about the idiotic treatment of RFK in the mainstream press here starting at 1:30. Gray just nails it here. Is someone going to call her a conservative?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfpKlezgHXk
"but at least 97 or 98 percent of Gen Zers believe they’re gay, with nearly half of them incorrect."
Crucial correction..."but at least 97 or 98 percent of Gen Zers believe they’re queer". Queer, the "stolen valor" pose of the identity world. When someone says they are queer, I have yet been able to ascertain what fact about them I can observe or discover that would let me know they are lying since it mostly seems to mean having some sort of ideological position rather than actually doing, or even being anything in particular. Seems to me just a no-cost opt-out of an oppressor identity.
"It was always someone else, some unimpeachable authority, that could explain this and many other obvious scriptural contradictions. Never the person actually involved in the discussion."
Well, this is sort of a tricky question because we all rely on authorities and most of us aren't particularly well equipped to judge most matters of science, etc. In the case of the religious douchebag who thinks there is a fundamentalist explanation for the two creation stories in Genesis, they have to explain why if you separate them out they read perfectly well like two stories that were cobbled together because an editor didn't want to throw out anything and had two narratives in front of them. The key here isn't so much relying on authorities, but keeping in mind that reliance is provisional and it isnt' a malfunction of the system when people voice objections. For example, I think the folks rightly angry about mismanagement of COVID are just ignoring evidence if they think ivermectin has any efficacy againt COVID 19 and I think they are making the same mistake as masking/endless booster people are making. The shit just fails RCTs. The same evidence adduced for ivermectin would be dismissed if it implied masking worked, and vice versa. But why the fuck would we need to suppress or silence people for arguing this and why would I dismiss someone's views in total just because they make a mistake on one thing? None of RFKs whackier poorly evidenced beliefs are deal breakers for me, especially when I think he comes at these questions more from a product liability standpoint than a anti-science standpoint. It could simultaneously be true that mercury containing vaccines spare more suffering than they cause and also the companies that make them get offered regulatory shortcuts and take production shortcuts that cause more negative externalities than should otherwise be present. I used to see this kind of shit from conservatives wherein the second you criticize a negative externality of capitalism they are like "what are you, an idiot Marxist? Don't you get capitalism has raised people from poverty blah blah blah" as if the second you criticize something and say it could be done better you are a hardened enemy of that thing.