Jump to content

COVID rants /shares 2.0 thread


You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 173 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

Just now, Innula Zenovka said:

Both my niece and her fiancé are junior doctors in NHS hospitals here, and that particular piece of nonsense annoys me considerably.

If there were effective treatments available, don't you think they'd be using them? 

Remember I know my niece and her fiancé and you don't.

 

To what degree are they allowed to use treatments not recommended by the national health bodies or even the individual hospital they might work in? In the USA there have been several cases where a patients lawyer had to take a hospital administrative body to court to be able to get treated with Ivermectin.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

But that is still apples and oranges to how it was done in the case of the Covid vaccines.

Yes, because we (or the patent holders anyway) already had a vaccine against seasonal flu, and it's a matter of tweaking it each year.

 So there's no need for the government to invest in discovering a vaccine against it, because that's already been discovered.

That's a significant difference, don't you think?

 

Edited by Innula Zenovka
  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

*sigh*

The latest on 'reaching herd immunity':

"Early in the pandemic, when vaccines for the coronavirus were still just a glimmer on the horizon, the term “herd immunity” came to signify the endgame: the point when enough Americans would be protected from the virus so we could be rid of the pathogen and reclaim our lives."
...
"Instead, they are coming to the conclusion that rather than making a long-promised exit, the virus will most likely become a manageable threat that will continue to circulate in the United States for years to come, still causing hospitalizations and deaths but in much smaller numbers.

How much smaller is uncertain and depends in part on how much of the nation, and the world, becomes vaccinated and how the coronavirus evolves. It is already clear, however, that the virus is changing too quickly, new variants are spreading too easily and vaccination is proceeding too slowly for herd immunity to be within reach anytime soon."

 

Source: https://www.chicagotribune.com/coronavirus/ct-aud-nw-nyt-coronavirus-herd-immunity-20210503-3fzzv6mmyzbnbkzv7tdqr2bemi-story.html

 

  • Sad 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, LittleMe Jewell said:

It is already clear, however, that the virus is changing too quickly, new variants are spreading too easily and vaccination is proceeding too slowly for herd immunity to be within reach anytime soon."

Not helped in anyway by those who either deny COVID is real, deny the vaccines are real, refuse the vaccines, believe Bill Gates is out to implant them with Windows (Version 3.12, Windows for Persecuted-groups), wont wear a mask, or seem to be on the side of the virus in general (perhaps in the hope it will disproportionally impact certain minority groups).

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Innula Zenovka said:

Yes, because we (or the patent holders anyway) already had a vaccine against seasonal flu, and it's a matter of tweaking it each year.

 So there's no need for the government to invest in discovering a vaccine against it, because that's already been discovered.

That's a significant difference, don't you think?

 

Exactly, that was my point. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Innula Zenovka said:

If there were effective treatments available, don't you think they'd be using them?

If this were a perfect world, yes. But there is way more going on than just legitimate evaluation for drugs.

Consider the Johnson & Johnson CoVid vaccine. Six people out of about 7 million had a bad reaction and died. Tylenol kills 150 per year. Yet J&J was considered dangerous!?! J&J was being given to prevent a "likely possibility" of death. Tylenol is given for minor aches and pains, among other things. Something seems out of wack.

Have you looked to see how many members at the top of the FDA and the boards making recommendations to the FDA have ties to big pharma?

Have you looked at Cytodyn's Leronlimab and the challenges they are having getting FDA approval for a treatment that for all practical purposes cures most viral infections? They started developing it for HIV. They have had awesome results with CoVid and few if any side-effects. But they can't get a EUA from the FDA for use with CoVid as a treatment. They are being forced into more and more studies. The Philippines is using it and UK is using it in trails. What's with the FDA?

There is no hard proof the FDA is misusing their position. But it wouldn't be the first time people running a government agency miss used a position of authority. And the appearance of miss use is striking. If there is an effective treatment with no or few side-effects, why take an experimental vaccine that may induce ADE? People wouldn't and that would have a multi-billion dollar impact on big pharma.

So, my actual answer is, not necessarily.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:

believe Bill Gates is out to implant them with Windows (Version 3.12, Windows for Persecuted-groups), 

How can one trust a man who is synonymous with vulnerabilities to viruses and blue screens of death?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Solar Legion said:

While pretending to have the high ground/be morally (among other variations) superior.

Gotta have knights n stuffs, even without black n white, we know the bad guy has the mustache!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:
1 hour ago, Arielle Popstar said:

but with the advent of sjw's and snowflakes, opposing views have become fake news

Why does only one side talk like this?

The other side talks about fake new also, but they describe the people with different terms -- terms that are no better.

Neither side is any better when it comes to knocking the other side.

Edited by LittleMe Jewell
  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
31 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Why does only one side talk like this?

 

29 minutes ago, Solar Legion said:

Partially because it is all they have.

 

15 minutes ago, LittleMe Jewell said:

The other side talks about fake new also, but they describe the people with different terms -- terms that are no better.

Neither side is any better when it comes to knocking the other side.

I would like to - in responding to Littleme above - amend my response to Love as well: Thus far, I have yet to see another, actual "side" to this at all.

For there to be two (or more) sides to a discussion or argument, there must be actual, proper data (among many other things) presented or discussed (etc). That simply is not happening here (and elsewhere). One group has presented actual data while the other has presented absolute fantasy.

Edited by Solar Legion
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Solar Legion said:

While pretending to have the high ground/be morally (among other variations) superior.

And this is the attempt at reclaiming that moral high ground? If the time money and resources had been put in treatments vs dubious patentable vaccines with a supercharged authorization schedule that doesn't allow for proper testing of side effects, we would have been much further ahead. A lot less lives lost and no economic disaster looming on the horizon.  I honestly do not get how some can be so  stunningly disingenuous when it comes to treatments that were already in use before the first vaccine was even thought of. And yet still trying to put the blame on a minority who didn't march to the lockdown and masking beat.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Solar Legion said:
14 minutes ago, LittleMe Jewell said:

The other side talks about fake new also, but they describe the people with different terms -- terms that are no better.

Neither side is any better when it comes to knocking the other side.

I would like to - in responding to Littleme above - amend my response to Love as well: Thus far, I have yet to see another, actual "side" to this at all.

I took Love's comment about "only one side" to be more general and mean Liberal versus Conservative / Democrat versus Republican, as that is typically the context of where the SJW/Snowflake terms get applied - and it was the SJW/Snowflake comment that Love replied to.

I wasn't referring to anything specific to the Covid discussions here.

Edited by LittleMe Jewell
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, LittleMe Jewell said:

I took Love's comment about "only one side" to mean Liberal versus Conservative / Democrat versus Republican, as that is typically the context of where the SJW/Snowflake terms get applied - and it was the SJW/Snowflake comment that Love replied to.

I wasn't referring to anything specific to the Covid discussions here.

"For there to be two (or more) sides to a discussion or argument, there must be actual, proper data (among many other things) presented or discussed (etc). That simply is not happening here (and elsewhere). One group has presented actual data while the other has presented absolute fantasy."

Applies to any topic/discussion where such happens and further removes the rather foolish political spin.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Solar Legion said:

"For there to be two (or more) sides to a discussion or argument, there must be actual, proper data (among many other things) presented or discussed (etc). That simply is not happening here (and elsewhere). One group has presented actual data while the other has presented absolute fantasy."

Applies to any topic/discussion where such happens and further removes the rather foolish political spin.

The second half of Arielle's post, "opposing views have become fake news", applies to pretty much any topic/discussion these days and thus it is all political anymore.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, LittleMe Jewell said:

The second half of Arielle's post, "opposing views have become fake news", applies to pretty much any topic/discussion these days and thus it is all political anymore.

Only when one allows it to be.

The described tactic is all too often misused by those who wish to push their opinions as far as possible or otherwise by those with their own agenda.

Edited by Solar Legion
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
53 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Gotta have knights n stuffs, even without black n white, we know the bad guy has the mustache!

Put em up! Put em up!

Pups.jpg?ve=1&tl=1

 

Pretend there is a man behind a green curtain in the background.

Edited by Selene Gregoire
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Arielle Popstar said:

To what degree are they allowed to use treatments not recommended by the national health bodies or even the individual hospital they might work in? In the USA there have been several cases where a patients lawyer had to take a hospital administrative body to court to be able to get treated with Ivermectin.

I'm not going to read all the websites, Arielle.  I simply don't have time.  But, in regards to "what degree...", I read on the WHO website Ivermectin is approved for clincial trials.  Clinical trials does not include everyone.  So, they did administer it as I posted some studies on it from the NIH which showed it helped in in vitro cells only.  Could it just be possible it is not effective on cells which may be aged and/or cells that are weakened from a pre-existing condition?  In vitro cells does not equate to aged cells.  

https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/who-advises-that-ivermectin-only-be-used-to-treat-covid-19-within-clinical-trials

All cells experience changes with aging. They become larger and are less able to divide and multiply. Among other changes, there is an increase in pigments and fatty substances inside the cell (lipids). Many cells lose their ability to function, or they begin to function abnormally.

Edited by FairreLilette
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 173 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...