Jump to content

COVID rants /shares 2.0 thread


You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 91 days.

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

Recommended Posts

32 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:

Well, "they" have to pay for it all somehow.  Do I sound a bit jaded or cynical too when it comes to pharma and the stock market?  Well, I probably am a bit as I wasn't born yesterday.  My sister used to tell me there are necessary evils in this world.  

J&J is among the 12 leaders with the largest marketcap now.  My ex and I used to own Pfizer.  Full disclosure - we sold it long ago and I own no "pharma" type stocks at all.   I didn't really want to go down the road of money and Covid but it is going to have to be paid somehow and I believe there are some necessary evils in this world that we cannot do much about anyhow even though some of it seems rather transparent.  Me just ranting, not necessarily about your post in particular, Love.  

The vaccine companies have definitely made out big on this pandemic.  I saw this info on Pfizer the other day:

image.png.6736b46d3e263ccc220117fbc25dce59.png

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

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

The vaccine companies have definitely made out big on this pandemic.  I saw this info on Pfizer the other day:

image.png.6736b46d3e263ccc220117fbc25dce59.png

But on the other hand.

Pfizer annual/quarterly net income/loss history and growth rate from 2006 to 2020. Net income/loss can be defined as the company's total income or loss before preferred stock dividends, taken from the Income Statement

Pfizer net income/loss for the quarter ending December 31, 2020 was $9.652B, a 40.79% decline year-over-year.

Pfizer net income/loss for the twelve months ending December 31, 2020 was $28.953B, a 36.73% decline year-over-year.

Pfizer annual net income/loss for 2020 was $9.652B, a 40.79% decline from 2019.

Pfizer annual net income/loss for 2019 was $16.302B, a 45.71% increase from 2018.

Pfizer annual net income/loss for 2018 was $11.188B, a 47.61% decline from 2017.

 

The net revenue is what a company earns as a whole and the net income that the company is left with after bearing all the expenses and adding other sources of income.

Edited by Rowan Amore
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

Holy hell, Nalates. Why did you post a reference to support your contention?

You misspelled two of the three keywords in your reference (a Google search for "faucu prohibits hydroy") which produces a list of links that pretty roundly trash your position.

Here are the first ten results from the search you offered to support your position...

  1. https://www.thelibertybeacon.com/deadly-cover-up-fauci-approved-hydroxy-15-years-ago-to-cure-coronaviruses-nobody-needed-to-die/

    This is a rehash of a story that will be debunked by link 2.
     
  2. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fauci-quote-hydroxychloroquine/

    This debunks link 1.
     
  3. https://checkyourfact.com/2020/06/23/fact-check-anthony-fauci-known-hydroxychloroquine-wonder-drug-coronavirus-2005/

    This debunks link 1.
     
  4. https://stillnessinthestorm.com/2020/07/cover-up-fauci-approved-hydroxychloroquine-15-years-ago-to-cure-coronaviruses-nobody-needed-to-die/

    Same story as link 1, already debunked.
     
  5. https://www.americafirstprojects.com/opinion/renewed-calls-to-fire-fauci-after-hydroxyc-hoax/

    This is a call to action, using ad hominem attacks and citing no evidence, but probably fueled by stories already debunked.
     
  6. https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/2020/04/Fact-Check-No-Deep-State-Operators-Trying-To-Ban-Hydroxychloroquine.html

    This debunks your insinuation that there's an attempt to ban HCQ.
     
  7. https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/499704-fauci-data-shows-no-evidence-hydroxychloroquine-is-effective-at-treating

    Debunks your claim that HCQ is effective.
     
  8. https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/04/wow-dr-fauci-cheered-hydroxychloroquine-success-treating-mers-coronavirus-2013-today-skeptical-weird/

     A report on a tweet by Andrew Bostom, MD, MS  who said:

    Dr. Fauci, who found little to like in the research regarding HCQ/azithromycin to treat Covid-19 was, in 2013, encouraged by the availability (it's not clear he made any judgment about the efficacy) of a two drug cocktail, neither of which was HCQ or azithromycin, that showed promise against a virus that was not Covid-19, when tested in a petri dish which is not a human body. Got it.

    I'll reword the good doctor's claim, losing no relevance, to highlight the absurdity of it...

    Fauci, now so sour on using motor oil and weed killer as ice-cream toppings, despite my thinking the combo tastes great and is good for you, gushed in April of 2013 that chocolate syrup and peanuts are particularly encouraging toppings, as they're readily available.

  9. https://www.statesman.com/news/20200416/fact-check-does-anthony-fauci-have-millions-invested-in-coronavirus-vaccine

    This article debunks a theory I have not seen, that Dr. Fauci stands to benefit financially from recommendations he makes.
     
  10. https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/04/faucis-many-mistakes-lies-nih-director-said-one-thing-weeks-months-ago-today-tries-blame-president-trump-video/

    This is, more or less, a description of what it's like to shoot at a moving target. I quite agree that Dr. Fauci and others at NIH did not accurately predict our current situation. I also understand that wasn't possible. Fauci adjusts his stance as new information comes to light, just as he should. The author of the article shows no understanding of how science works, nor any appreciation for the complexity of the situation.

As for your claim that HCQ/Zinc is prohibited from off-label usage, I can't find any evidence that's true. The FDA did revoke emergency use authorization last July, but that still allows physicians to prescribe the combo, at their discretion.

https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3875427/posts

For someone who comments so often on methods of argumentation, you show remarkably little skill at it, Nalates. I've been going toe-to-toe in discussions for three decades and your performance today is among the worst I've ever seen.

Yeah, was typing too fast and didn’t correct the spelling. Did you correct the spelling and rerun the search? Did it actually make a difference? Search engines handle misspellings pretty well.

When I corrected the spelling, I got the same results. So… you were just taking an off subject shot?

In SL we often speak of what we call an SL language typonese. Have you heard of it? Do you think I am the only one that makes spelling mistakes?

 

You did put some effort into your attempted rebuttal. That is remarkable. But you failed to put things in context. You totally missed up the chronological framing of the articles.

My purpose in providing the search reference was to show Fauci’s flip-flop-flip on HCI over time and support for his being one of those involved in prohibiting the use of HCI for CoVid. I think it did that very well.

Your claim that 2020 articles were debunked by 2005 and 2015 articles is just silly. 2005 he is for it, 2015 he is for it, mid 2020 he bans it, 2021 and again he is for it.

Your #5 point saying “citing no evidence” would suggest you didn’t read the whole article. And that may be the case for several of them. The #5 comment about no evidence is wrong as they do link to the Henry Ford study that amply makes their point. That is evidence. And it makes my point that HCI has considerable documented data on the efficacy of HCI for treating CoVid.

As to the ad hominem attacks… I don’t find any in the article. Perhaps you think calling CoVid the Kung Flu Coronavirus is an ad hominem attack. That suggests ad hominem does not mean what you think it means.

Your point #9… I wonder if you pay any attention to how government office-holders profit from their positions? Robert Kennedy Jr. has spoken about how Fauci and Gates will profit from the big pharma vaccines. (Ref) And there is the speculation on where Fauci, AFAIK the highest paid gov employee, will go when he retires from gov service. Have you missed the reporting on all the cushy jobs people in gov get when leaving for the private sector? Of course, for now we can only speculate on what Fauci will get. But it isn’t hard to see which side of his bread is buttered.

On Point 10… The moving target idea is valid. But we know Fauci lies (Ref) to manipulate the public not because he is evolving his thinking. No one can consistently be wrong or flip-flop that often. Something else was/is up. But if you think he is doing a good job then you follow his advice.

 

As to my ability to debate, well that is your opinion. You have misrepresented information you link to and made declarative statements without substantiation and in my opinion totally messed up your rebuttal. Reading your reply, I don’t see it as a debate. It is more of a lame attempt to spin points to make your argument.

That you can’t find Fauci’s HCI restrictions just shows your lack of research ability.

After 30 years of toe-to-toe discussions I would think you would know better and would have gained some ability to make intellectually honest arguments. I suppose I would be wrong.

 

Both Google Search and DuckDuckGo provide an excellent list of the documentation of successful use of HCI in treating CoVid. Term: hydroxychloroquine success in covid-19. Google returns 6+million hits. I find it interesting that the top two results slamming HCI on Google are from the WHO and NIH. I have to wonder why anyone listens to their press releases from either after they have been caught in so many … to be PC… mistakes.

 

 

If you (meaning anyone reading) are unaware that Fauci restricted use of HCI for CoVid, check this article: Ref

If you are unaware of Fauci announcing what amounts to a ban in June 2020, you may want to consider how you gather your news and where you are getting it from.

On the idea he didn’t ban it, just revoked its EUA… outside the medical field few people are aware that once a drug is released for use doctors can use it as they see fit. Yes, there is a ‘recommended’ use. Doctors are the experts balancing risk-benefit on behalf of their patients. If there is no drug for a specific problem doctors make informed decisions on what available drugs may help. Medical treatment is called a practice for a reason.

There was no EUA needed for HCI’s use for CoVid. HCI went through its trials and testing in the 50’s. In Africa HCI is carried and taken like we take Tylenol. Which is how the medical world figured out HCI was a good prophylactic and treatment for CoVid.

With all the information we have on HCI use for CoVid it should leave one questioning why Fauci, WHO, CDC, NIH, and other organizations with government and big pharma ties so oppose it. With all the contradictory reporting one has to work hard to find information that can be trusted. Thinking about it helps.

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

14 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

But on the other hand.

Pfizer annual/quarterly net income/loss history and growth rate from 2006 to 2020. Net income/loss can be defined as the company's total income or loss before preferred stock dividends, taken from the Income Statement

Pfizer net income/loss for the quarter ending December 31, 2020 was $9.652B, a 40.79% decline year-over-year.

Pfizer net income/loss for the twelve months ending December 31, 2020 was $28.953B, a 36.73% decline year-over-year.

Pfizer annual net income/loss for 2020 was $9.652B, a 40.79% decline from 2019.

Pfizer annual net income/loss for 2019 was $16.302B, a 45.71% increase from 2018.

Pfizer annual net income/loss for 2018 was $11.188B, a 47.61% decline from 2017.

While it is expected that they would have more expenses in 2020 than in 2019 - due to having to research and develop the vaccines -- without knowing exactly what expenses they are writing off, I'll not yet have any sympathy for their "net" being lower than 2019.  Corporations get all sorts of ways to write off revenue so that their taxable income is low - some of which are legit in my view and some of which are just more ways for them to avoid paying taxes.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Nalates Urriah said:

If you (meaning anyone reading) are unaware that Fauci restricted use of HCI for CoVid, check this article: Ref

 

Could you tell us what Dr. Fauci's title is, what organization he works for and what authority it gives him? Because he doesn't work for the FDA, which is the organization that article sites.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Overall, we rate NOQ Report Far-Right Biased based and Questionable based on the promotion of conspiracy theories, right-wing propaganda, poor sourcing, a lack of transparency, and false information.  So fail on that one.

1 hour ago, Nalates Urriah said:

If you (meaning anyone reading) are unaware that Fauci restricted use of HCI for CoVid, check this article: Ref

Do you even read what you reference?  From that reference.

Multiple studies provide data that hydroxychloroquine (brand name: Plaquenil) does not provide a medical benefit for hospitalized patients with COVID-19. 

Do studies show hydroxychloroquine is not effective for COVID-19?

Yes, multiple studies provide data that hydroxychloroquine is ineffective in the treatment of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19 disease.

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nalates Urriah said:

Robert Kennedy Jr. has spoken about how Fauci and Gates will profit from the big pharma vaccines. (Ref)

 “Fauci and Six Others at NIAID Own Patents in the Moderna Vaccine”

This is not correct and it also isn’t a critique of vaccine safety. It is, instead, an appeal to emotion that invokes the specter of Fauci, a boogeyman to the anti-vaccine/COVID-19 denial movement, to sow paranoia about ulterior motives. 

The post asserts that “Tony Fauci owns over 1,000 patents … including patents being used on the Moderna vaccine.” Elliot lifts this false notion from an interview between Naomi Wolf and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.. Kennedy, whose Instagram page spreading unhinged claims about 5G wireless technology, Bill Gates, and microchips, was banned in February 2021, is one of the most prolific spreaders of disinformation surrounding vaccine safety, and Ellliot cites Kennedy’s Children’s Defense Fund organization several times in his post.

Fauci is listed as an inventor on at least 36 patents or patent applications, according to a Google Patents search. Being an inventor does not mean that an individual “owns” the patent. These patents are owned primarily by the United States government or, in some cases, the academic institutions where most of the research was conducted. More to the point, however, Fauci himself does not own any patent related to any COVID-19 vaccine. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) does claim joint-ownership of the Moderna vaccine, and Fauci is director of the institute within the NIH that deals with vaccines. Prior to COVID-19 being declared a pandemic disease, in December 2019, the NIH had already signed a contract with Moderna to research coronavirus vaccines. As reported by Axios:

NIH and Moderna have researched coronaviruses, like MERS, for several years, and signed a contract this past December that stated “mRNA coronavirus vaccine candidates [are] developed and jointly owned” by the two parties. The contract was not specific to the novel coronavirus, and it was signed before the new virus had been sequenced.

Moderna had been, for years, developing the vaccine technology that allows for the delivery of mRNA to cells to produce custom-designed antibodies. When the pandemic struck, researchers at NIH sequenced, designed, and applied for a patent on the mRNA sequence that codes for the spike protein found in SARS-CoV-2. This genetic code is what is delivered by Moderna’s technology.

As a result of that fact and the contract signed in December, NIH claims joint ownership of that vaccine. This is not done to enrich individual scientists in the U.S. government, but to allow for a “non-exclusive licensing approach for these patent rights in order to allow multiple vaccine developers” to produce COVID-19 vaccines. Both Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson use the NIH patented spike protein code as well.

The assertion that Fauci profits from the Moderna vaccine is false because Fauci doesn’t “own” any relevant patent related to COVID-19 vaccine technology.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, stlshayne said:

London Real will platform literally anyone, including David Icke, who believes that the powerful and elite are all alien reptilians. I'd be skeptical of anything I see on the channel at best. 

As well as this

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/08/23/fact-check-plandemic-ii-alleges-false-cdc-nih-conspiracy-theory/3408658001/

The doctor seems questionable as well.  Not surprisingly.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, stlshayne said:

London Real will platform literally anyone, including David Icke, who believes that the powerful and elite are all alien reptilians. I'd be skeptical of anything I see on the channel at best. 

I agree but that in itself does not negate the information. I'm sure the parties involved are not going to ever come forward and admit it, but it is potential leads.

5 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

So are most of these factchecking sites you bring up though I will admit this one is a bit better caliber but still seeming to jump to the false conclusion based on circumstantial evidence.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

I agree but that in itself does not negate the information. I'm sure the parties involved are not going to ever come forward and admit it, but it is potential leads.

So are most of these factchecking sites you bring up though I will admit this one is a bit better caliber but still seeming to jump to the false conclusion based on circumstantial evidence.

That's USA today.  A newspaper.

Information given from a questionable source ( that doctor) should always be questioned.  Just like information from people posting here.  Which we do question.  Usually showing they are incorrect.  When several sources be they fact checking websites or other credible sites say something is baloney, I'd say it's baloney.

You're of course free too believe everything you read from those sites.  Most of us see those references for what they are.

Edited by Rowan Amore
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know what?  I said I was done before but dangit, you people keep drawing me back with your nonsensical posts.

Anyway, time wasted, my fault.  I think I shall join @Solar Legionon the sidelines for now.  I will still be shaking my head in disbelief at the ridiculousness.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:
49 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

That's USA today.  A newspaper.

Yes, I'm aware of it. Little far left for my liking.

Per AllSides, which does a pretty damn good job of rating media bias:

image.thumb.png.bf565bf3897c51121fa64a2ff2178273.png

 

They are right there in the center.  By "center" it means that Left & Right folks will probably not agree with everything they say because they are not leaning to the left or the right.

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Sure but it rarely seems to lead them to their logical conclusion.

Have you considered that the problem may be with the "logic" of the "conclusion"?

Here are three tests I use on conspiracy theories:

1.) THE GUMBALL MACHINE PROBLEM

If four people break into a crowded bank and gun down everyone there with automatic weapons, it's very unlikely that the only action they will take afterwards is breaking into the Lions' Club gumball machine. Conspiracies are necessarily complicated and usually involve illegal acts. It's very unlikely that the conspirators will stop short of taking the maximum that their conspiracy will allow them to do. Most big conspiracy theories that I hear have far less of a payout than the potential given the amount of work that the conspiracy would require.

2) THE CROWDED KNOLL

If every conspiracy about the John F. Kennedy assassination was true, Dallas would have been so full of assassins and plotters that Kennedy would probably have escaped scot free as they all tripped over each other. If you hear multiple conspiracies about the same event, especially if they're mutually contradictory, then that would suggest that the evidence around any one of them is so weak that they become less likely.

3) THE SCATMAN COROLLARY

In the movie "The Shining", Scatman Crothers' psychic cook tells the hero boy that, "Sometimes when things happen, there are traces left behind. Like when you burn toast." There is a lot of activity that needs to go into a conspiracy so that's a lot of potential traces to be left behind. If you don't see the traces, that casts doubt on the activity itself.

Edited by Theresa Tennyson
  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

Most big conspiracy theories that I hear have far less of a payout than the potential given the amount of work that the conspiracy would require.

Unless the currency is power. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Evah Baxton said:

Unless the currency is power. 

It's even more of a case then. I came up with the  "gumball machine" problem after hearing the 9/11 conspiricies. Waaaayyyy too much work if the only payout is starting a second-rate war. For something like that to pay off, you need to be given dictatorial powers to deal with the "emergency". Like, say, if a suspicious fire breaks out in a government building:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_Fire_Decree

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

Have you considered that the problem may be with the "logic" of the "conclusion"?

Here are three tests I use on conspiracy theories....

4) THE BLACKADDER

5) THE OTHERS - The plan is so sprawling it requires the input of dozens of organizations, hundreds of people world wide, spans generations or entire religious groups, ignore basic human nature and presents zero direct evidence. Weirdly the only people involved are from different social, political or religious groups.

5b) THE JEWS - Makes use of well documented anti-Semitic dog whistles, coded symbols, invokes globalists / hollywood / coastal elites, George Soros. Infowars, 4chan, 8kun, Q.

6) BOND VILLAN - One person is behind it all, they are probably ultra wealthy and/or a political opponent. Bill Gates, Obama, George Soros (again), and so on.

 

Edited by Coffee Pancake
  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 91 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...