covid Why Did It Take So Long to Accept the Facts About Covid?

[Solar Legion]

Oh for ....

[AnnabelleApocalypse]

Just now, FairreLilette said:

But, if that is true, then why aren't there viruses everywhere as globalization and encroachment are everywhere? 

SARS? MERS? Swine Flu? Ebola? China literally culled millions of pigs just last year. It was the biggest known animal disease outbreak ever.

You just have to do a quick google for "rising instances of zoonotic disease" to find pages and pages of studies and articles from reputable sources. A quote from just one I found.
 

Quote

A new United Nations report (July 2020) warns that more diseases that pass from animals to humans, such as COVID-19, are likely to emerge as habitats are ravaged by wildlife exploitation, unsustainable farming practices and climate change.

These pathogens, known as zoonotic diseases, also include Ebola, MERS, HIV/AIDS and West Nile virus. They have increasingly emerged because of stresses humans have placed on animal habitats, according to the U.N. Environment Program.

"We have intensified agriculture, expanded infrastructure and extracted resources at the expense of our wild spaces," UNEP Executive Director Inger Andersen said. "The science is clear that if we keep exploiting wildlife and destroying our ecosystems, then we can expect to see a steady stream of these diseases jumping from animals to humans in the years ahead."

 In some of the world's poorest regions, endemic zoonotic diseases associated with livestock already cause more than 2 million human deaths a year, the report says. 

And obviously, they will emerge in areas where a larger % of the population are in close proximity to livestock. So Asia/Africa will be the most likely vectors.

Edited May 18, 2021 by AnnabelleApocalypse

[Rowan Amore]

24 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:

No, not talking about the pandemic.  The article stated globalization and encroachment as a reason for the virus BUT the virus or two coronaviruses came out of only one area, not globally yet globalization and encroachment are everywhere but not new and different viruses everywhere.  Luna and I were having a discussion about the article she posted.  India's virus IS the pandemic.  That's not what we were discussing so this has nothing to do with populated areas as India doesn't have a different virus altogether, they have a variation of the coronavirus.  We were discussing how it may have started not the pandemic; started due to globalization and encroachment.  But, if that is true, then why aren't there viruses everywhere as globalization and encroachment are everywhere? 

And China has one of the fastest growing global markets.   Put 2 and 2 together. 

If a new virus starts in Nowhere, Wyoming, chances are it's not going to become a global threat.  Wuhan, where the virus supposedly originated, has over 8 million people and is a major transportation hub.  

Other viruses start in other places besides China as I've already mentioned.  They don't become global pandemics because they originate in non-global economy countries such as the Congo (Ebola) or Uganda (Zika).

[Solar Legion]

24 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

And China has one of the fastest growing global markets.   Put 2 and 2 together. 

If a new virus starts in Nowhere, Wyoming, chances are it's not going to become a global threat.  Wuhan, where the virus supposedly originated, has over 8 million people and is a major transportation hub.  

Other viruses start in other places besides China as I've already mentioned.  They don't become global pandemics because they originate in non-global economy countries such as the Congo (Ebola) or Uganda (Zika).

Springboarding on the above: The Viri we do see are the ones that evolved enough to become the threats they are and it takes rather specific factors to cause a given virus or bacteria to evolve in differing ways.

It does not take much effort (among other things) to see this in action.

[JanuarySwan]

13 hours ago, Istelathis said:

I found an interesting article on wired that may also contribute to this conversations.  The article  is called "The 60-Year-Old Scientific Screwup That Helped Covid Kill" and makes for an interesting read as well as understanding as to the events that lead to where we are now.

"All pandemic long, scientists brawled over how the virus spreads. Droplets! No, aerosols! At the heart of the fight was a mysterious error in decades-old research."

You can read it on wired:
https://www.wired.com/story/the-teeny-tiny-scientific-screwup-that-helped-covid-kill/

Although it may be behind a pay / subscription wall which is annoying.  I used outline.com to bypass it, from my understanding deleting cookies will also bypass it as you are allowed to read a few articles from wired before the wall 'o doom appears to block out 90% of your screen.

https://outline.com/nRXjqZ

 

I was able to read your article for some reason and your article is saying the same as the OP is asking...why did it take so long for the WHO to admit or say it was airborne?  There doesn't seem to be any good reason for it unless the WHO thought it wasn't the usual sneezing and coughing/hacking symptomatology as per the usual cold or flu.  The "they" below were the ones trying to convince the WHO that they were wrong about it being airborne.

Your article says this:

Over Zoom, they laid out the case. They ticked through a growing list of superspreading events in restaurants, call centers, cruise ships, and a choir rehearsal, instances where people got sick even when they were across the room from a contagious person. The incidents contradicted the WHO’s main safety guidelines of keeping 3 to 6 feet of distance between people and frequent handwashing. If SARS-CoV-2 traveled only in large droplets that immediately fell to the ground, as the WHO was saying, then wouldn’t the distancing and the handwashing have prevented such outbreaks? Infectious air was the more likely culprit, they argued. But the WHO’s experts appeared to be unmoved. If they were going to call Covid-19 airborne, they wanted more direct evidence—proof, which could take months to gather, that the virus was abundant in the air. Meanwhile, thousands of people were falling ill every day.

Edited May 18, 2021 by JanuarySwan

[AnnabelleApocalypse]

Just now, JanuarySwan said:

I was able to read your article for some reason and your article is saying the same as the OP is asking...why did it take so long for the WHO to admit or say it was airborne? 

In retrospect I think it was (a misguided attempt) to stop people totally freaking out.

Think back to when it was all kicking off. Shops were getting stripped. Toilet paper was £50 a gram. People were on edge. Maybe they thought adding "Oh sh*t its airborne!" might have created a real panic. 

This was re-enforced for me by watching the news. At least in the UK, when they talked about transmission they would explain the mechanics (EG: "the virus can hang in the air for several minutes, and air currents can carry it across significant distance") but without ever actually saying "airborne". It was like the forbidden word. You could describe it but never say it. I clearly remember it because it was so ridiculous. 

EDIT I know: conspiracy theory, no proof

Edited May 18, 2021 by AnnabelleApocalypse

[Ceka Cianci]

One of the main reasons a virus like Ebola can be contained quicker is because it's a fast acting virus, where symptoms show up quickly..

They are more deadly to those that get exposed, but the spread can be handled much better.. Where Covid 19 was a slow virus talking like 5 days to show up, so in a busy area that deals globally.. it's gonna spread like wild fire.

 

 

[FairreLilette]

10 hours ago, AnnabelleApocalypse said:

SARS? MERS? Swine Flu? Ebola? China literally culled millions of pigs just last year. It was the biggest known animal disease outbreak ever.

You just have to do a quick google for "rising instances of zoonotic disease" to find pages and pages of studies and articles from reputable sources. A quote from just one I found.
 

And obviously, they will emerge in areas where a larger % of the population are in close proximity to livestock. So Asia/Africa will be the most likely vectors.

But is it because of globalization and encroachment?  I think most of us think part of it is, ie pollution but I really think it is something much more complex than that, I think it's different immunities.  We know there has been more international travel now than ever in the 21st Century and especially in and out of Asia where labor is very cheap, workers who will work for pennies a day and meals.  Take where I live and find the average salary nearing close to 200 hundred dollars a day in comparison to just how cheap overseas labor is.  

However, I think what we are finding is that species that aren't used to co-mingling in their own habitat with certain other animals or species but then are co-mingling in these wet markets, are getting sick.  Thus, the animals have different immunities.  I think people have different immunities also.  In short, international travel IS the health hazard then.  I have a friend who died at the age of 26 from a virus she caught in Greece while vacationing.  International travel has never been thought of as particularly "safe".  But, what do most people want once they are out of lockdown according to the polls, a trip.  We have a careless society as well and we are all victims of a careless society is the real reason.

Edited May 18, 2021 by FairreLilette

[Arielle Popstar]

26 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:

But is it because of globalization and encroachment?  I think most of us think part of it is, ie pollution but I really think it is something much more complex than that, I think it's different immunities.  We know there has been more international travel now than ever in the 21st Century and especially in and out of Asia where labor is very cheap, workers who will work for pennies a day and meals.  Take where I live and find the average salary nearing close to 200 hundred dollars a day in comparison to just how cheap overseas labor is.  

However, I think what we are finding is that species that aren't used to co-mingling in their own habitat with certain other animals or species but then are co-mingling in these wet markets, are getting sick.  Thus, the animals have different immunities.  I think people have different immunities also.  In short, international travel IS the health hazard then.  I have a friend who died at the age of 26 from a virus she caught in Greece while vacationing.  International travel has never been thought of as particularly "safe".  But, what do most people want once they are out of lockdown according to the polls, a trip.  We have a careless society as well and we are all victims of a careless society is the real reason.

I think this is all a major stretch of imagination. There is a lab within 400 yards of the wet market where they believe it originated, that is known to be working on bat coronaviruses with a gain of function intent. The only mingling here is an infected Lab worker leaving the lab to get some lunch at the wet market and from there infecting others. Let's just use Occam's razor here and figure the simplest explanation to be the most likely.

[FairreLilette]

3 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

I think this is all a major stretch of imagination. There is a lab within 400 yards of the wet market where they believe it originated, that is known to be working on bat coronaviruses with a gain of function intent. The only mingling here is an infected Lab worker leaving the lab to get some lunch at the wet market and from there infecting others. Let's just use Occam's razor here and figure the simplest explanation to be the most likely.

I think it's a possibility too...as a matter of fact, I think it's the most logical possibility.  

However, the most brilliant brains will tell you we are all victims of a careless society.  If one wants to be an ostrich, one wants to be an ostrich.

[Luna Bliss]

43 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:

But is it because of globalization and encroachment?  I think most of us think part of it is, ie pollution but I really think it is something much more complex than that, I think it's different immunities.  We know there has been more international travel now than ever in the 21st Century and especially in and out of Asia where labor is very cheap, workers who will work for pennies a day and meals. 

However, I think what we are finding is that species that aren't used to co-mingling in their own habitat with certain other animals or species but then are co-mingling in these wet markets, are getting sick.  Thus, the animals have different immunities.  I think people have different immunities also.  In short, international travel IS the health hazard then.

Humans and animals carry viruses that we've developed immunity to over time, and these viruses don't make us sick. Bats carry all sorts of coronaviruses (many haven't even been identified yet) but aren't ill because of it.
The danger lies in encountering a new virus we haven't developed immunity to, and encroaching into natural environments containing ample biodiversity provides the perfect environment for passing on pathogens we have no defense against:

“We invade tropical forests and other wild landscapes, which harbor so many species of animals and plants—and within those creatures, so many unknown viruses,” David Quammen, author of Spillover: Animal Infections and the Next Pandemic, recently wrote in the New York Times. “We cut the trees; we kill the animals or cage them and send them to markets. We disrupt ecosystems, and we shake viruses loose from their natural hosts. When that happens, they need a new host. Often, we are it.”

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/destroyed-habitat-creates-the-perfect-conditions-for-coronavirus-to-emerge/

[Luna Bliss]

1 minute ago, FairreLilette said:

8 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

I think this is all a major stretch of imagination. There is a lab within 400 yards of the wet market where they believe it originated, that is known to be working on bat coronaviruses with a gain of function intent. The only mingling here is an infected Lab worker leaving the lab to get some lunch at the wet market and from there infecting others. Let's just use Occam's razor here and figure the simplest explanation to be the most likely.

I think it's a possibility too...as a matter of fact, I think it's the most logical possibility.  

However, the most brilliant brains will tell you we are all victims of a careless society.  If one wants to be an ostrich, one wants to be an ostrich.

It's the most logical possibility for people who have not studied the Science to understand how viruses develop over time and also have a penchant for assigning sinister motives to everything.

[FairreLilette]

2 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

The danger lies in encountering a new virus we haven't developed immunity to, and encroaching into natural environments containing ample biodiversity provides the perfect environment for passing on pathogens we have no defense against:

I spoke of my friend who caught a virus in Greece and died at the age of 26 and this was way before coronavirus; it was years and years ago.  I was never told more than that but I can gather most Greek's must have had immunity to whatever she caught to which she had no previous immune system response for.  I don't know how to put it into medical words.  But, in short, Greek's were already immune, her no. 

[Rowan Amore]

Richard Ebright, a professor of chemical biology at Rutgers University, said earlier this year in an interview with The Washington Post: “Based on the virus genome and properties, there is no indication whatsoever that it was an engineered virus.”

The Scripps Research Institute released a study that rejects the notion that the virus was man-made. Researchers concluded that if the virus were engineered, its genome sequence would more closely resemble earlier and more serious versions of the coronavirus.

“If someone were seeking to engineer a new coronavirus as a pathogen, they would have constructed it from the backbone of a virus known to cause illness,” the report said. “But the scientists found that the SARS-CoV-2 backbone differed substantially from those of already known coronaviruses and mostly resembled related viruses found in bats and pangolins.”

A statement in the Lancet, a medical journal, written by public health officials who have been following the progression of the virus also asserted that animals are the likely source: “Scientists from multiple countries have published and analysed genomes of the causative agent, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), and they overwhelmingly conclude that this coronavirus originated in wildlife.”

Edited May 18, 2021 by Rowan Amore

[Ceka Cianci]

This was interesting.

 

 

 

[Luna Bliss]

20 hours ago, Arielle Popstar said:

A therapeutic like Ivermectin on the other hand with its 80% reduction of symptoms could have saved at least half of those and would have been available for use much sooner as they already had data for its safety from years of use on other ailments. Why is that so difficult to grasp? It's like passing up on an aspirin for a headache because one would rather wait for a vaccine to hopefully cure all headaches.

Ivermectin has been debunked by reputable studies, and therapeutic treatments are being developed along with vaccines.  There's no need to create an 'either-or' dilemma.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/21/executive-order-improving-and-expanding-access-to-care-and-treatments-for-covid-19/

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-52354520

[Rowan Amore]

12 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:

I think it's a possibility too...as a matter of fact, I think it's the most logical possibility.  

However, the most brilliant brains will tell you we are all victims of a careless society.  If one wants to be an ostrich, one wants to be an ostrich.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/psych-unseen/202004/covid-19-conspiracy-theories-was-sars-cov-2-made-in-lab

[Luna Bliss]

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2020-03-04/why-so-many-epidemics-originate-in-asia-and-africa

[FairreLilette]

27 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

It's the most logical possibility for people who have not studied the Science to understand how viruses develop over time and also have a penchant for assigning sinister motives to everything.

I wasn't assigning any sinister motives when I said it is the most logical possibility.  I think it could been part of our careless society or it was most likely accidental.  But, most of those "bats" if they were from the same habitat, it doesn't seem logical it would just suddenly jump from one bat into a human all of a sudden.  With my hypothesis earlier, I was eluding to the fact there could have been multiple species in that lab, many species from different environments/habitats.   To have intermediate hosts I believe it's been determined one needs species that are co-mingling from differing habitats other than their usual, and my hypothesis was built on intermediate hosts.  In short, some of those intermediate hosts are not immune.

Edited May 18, 2021 by FairreLilette

[Arielle Popstar]

On 5/14/2021 at 5:42 PM, Luna Bliss said:

Really, your faith and insistence in some sort of pie-in-the-sky natural treatment is worse than Big Pharma pushing its drugs unnecessarily.

Did you know that the word vitamin originated as vital amine because these are considered to be vital to our health? I realize you are all about living better chemically but even that doesn't work without the action of vitamin D on our immune systems. When one's vitamin D levels are depressed, the immune system no longer works well and the vaccines we are given will not work in such a case because the system is incapable of producing the antibodies and T-cells needed to fight the virus when the host does become infected. That is why there is an increasing amount of breakthrough cases coming to light and from testing done of those cases, results are showing a severe lack of Vitamin D. Vaccines are basically wasted on people with low vitamin D levels and the one's whose levels are in a good range, don't need the vaccine because their immune system is capable of dealing with the virus naturally.

On 5/14/2021 at 5:42 PM, Luna Bliss said:

Just because there is corruption in health agencies does not mean everything they do is corrupt! There is corruption and error in all human endeavors but we don't toss them all out because of it.
It's your usual black-and-white thinking where 'some' equals 'all' I see on display yet again, and your belief that perfection must exist in human endeavors lest we should throw it all out (and then replace with bizarre 'maverick' solutions from right-wing rags).

Ever hear the idea that a little yeast spreads through the whole batch? You are right though that there are ones who aren't corrupt but they are mostly outside of the mainstream.

[Luna Bliss]

9 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:

32 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

It's the most logical possibility for people who have not studied the Science to understand how viruses develop over time and also have a penchant for assigning sinister motives to everything.

I wasn't assigning any sinister motives when I said it is the most logical possibility.  I think it could been part of our careless society or it was most likely accidental.  But, most of those "bats" if they were from the same habitat, it doesn't seem logical it would just suddenly jump from one bat into a human all of a sudden.  With my hypothesis earlier, I was eluding to the fact there could have been multiple species in that lab, many species from different environments/habitats.   To have intermediate hosts I believe it's been determined one needs species that are co-mingling from differing habitats other than their usual, and my hypothesis was built on intermediate hosts.  In short, some of those intermediate hosts are not immune.

You'd have to study how pathogens develop in the wild and what happens when there is a spillover to humans to get a complete picture. It's easy to see what's in the lab and so easy to place the problem there, but correlation does not equal causation.

There's usually nothing sudden about the jumping from one species to another, and often the dynamic has been in play for decades or longer before the crucial mutation that makes it transmissible to humans (for example, with HIV, it was in circulation for decades before it spread to enough people to become an AIDS epidemic). 

 

[Blush Bravin]

I find it deeply disturbing that I find myself in somewhat agreement with Rand Paul, but for months I've suspected a lab leak. A thorough investigation of this needs to be conducted. It's common knowledge that gain of function research is going on and has been funded by US concerns in the past. It was banned during the Obama administration but the ban was lifted under the Trump administration. The Wuhan Virology Institute has been conducting gain of function research for some time. A coincidence? I don't think so. I've never suspected that the virus was intentionally released, but I certainly have no trouble believing that an accident occurred and was covered up by China.  Determining with certainty the origins of this virus is of the utmost importance. 

[Luna Bliss]

13 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

On 5/14/2021 at 4:42 PM, Luna Bliss said:

Really, your faith and insistence in some sort of pie-in-the-sky natural treatment is worse than Big Pharma pushing its drugs unnecessarily.

Did you know that the word vitamin originated as vital amine because these are considered to be vital to our health? I realize you are all about living better chemically but even that doesn't work without the action of vitamin D on our immune systems. When one's vitamin D levels are depressed, the immune system no longer works well and the vaccines we are given will not work in such a case because the system is incapable of producing the antibodies and T-cells needed to fight the virus when the host does become infected. That is why there is an increasing amount of breakthrough cases coming to light and from testing done of those cases, results are showing a severe lack of Vitamin D. Vaccines are basically wasted on people with low vitamin D levels and the one's whose levels are in a good range, don't need the vaccine because their immune system is capable of dealing with the virus naturally.

When I say "pie-in-the-sky" I'm referring to the pig de-wormer, Ivermectin, that you keep touting as a cure for Covid infection .  I have no issues with vitamins and take Vitamin D myself.  And don't tell my progressive friends, but I also believe children's vaccines should not be given all at once, and thankfully many doctors are now spacing them so it's not such a load all at once.

Once again, you make this into an 'either-or' issue.  Why not take vitamins, keep your health up through whatever vitamins might be needed, and get vaccinated too?

[Arielle Popstar]

46 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Ivermectin has been debunked by reputable studies, and therapeutic treatments are being developed along with vaccines.  There's no need to create an 'either-or' dilemma.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/21/executive-order-improving-and-expanding-access-to-care-and-treatments-for-covid-19/

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-52354520

From the links you provided the other day in response to a previous post, that is not true which you should have known had you actually read the log of the interviews and followed up on the links. https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/public-health/fda-experts-discuss-covid-19-therapeutic-clinical-trials

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dr. Bailey: Thank you for incredible presentations going over a lot of wonderful data. We have a lot of questions from the audience and we'll take as many questions as we can. The one that seemed to pop up the most and so we'll go ahead and address that one is the use of ivermectin. Evidently, there is a Phase II clinical trial that's due to be completed fairly soon for use in hospitalized patients. Dr. Woodcock, I'm going to throw this one to you. Can you discuss the current evidence base related to treatment of COVID-19 patients with ivermectin?

Dr. Woodcock: Well, I think the basic answer is, again, it's mixed. I saw John nodding. Do you have some more details on this?

Dr. Farley:  I think it illustrates a lot of the points Dr. Woodcock was making earlier because what we've got is 17 to 20 relatively small clinical trials, many of which have been put together in a well-done meta-analysis. The University of Liverpool is working on this. They've done a great job and they've been outstanding collaborators, but they themselves recognize the limitations. You've got small studies studying different patient populations with different endpoints, and Liverpool is working very hard to avoid publication bias, but you've always got that as a factor. What we're doing is trying to get platform trials going. There is ... one going in Europe, and then NIH is working with some other partners within the U.S. to get one moving in the U.S. because I think it's an important question that physicians need to answer. I'll stop there and turn it over to Dr. Woodcock.

Dr. Woodcock: I would say one of the things I wished in Operation Warp Speed I'd started faster but it was extremely difficult to get going, we're getting going now, is a pragmatic trial of repurposed agents in outpatients because people have a long list. There are people who are proponents of fluvoxamine. There are people who are proponents of ivermectin, cyclosporine. I just saw one today, buproprion, okay? Yes, so what we needed was a very pragmatic trial that everybody would have to keep their mitts off of like a recovery so that it didn't have a hundred different bells and whistles that could be done almost remotely for safe drugs, oral agents so that we could just have something like, does it increase hospitalization? Do a randomized trial pragmatic in that we had so many patients.

No, it was hard to get up and running and we're trying to get up and running now, but I think what John's trying to say, we don't have solid evidence right now. We have hints. We've had hints for a long time on ivermectin, but again, we've had hints on a lot of these agents and many of them have not panned out.

Dr. Bailey: Well, and a couple other I've heard of and we had questions submitted about famotidine. about ... cetirizine, H1 and H2 blockers ... Can you give us any information where these are coming from and where they might be going?

Dr. Woodcock: Well, early in the disease course, in vitro screens were done and different compounds rose to the top. Hydroxychloroquine, frankly, was a frequent flyer for viral illnesses because it had been tried in a wide variety of... as promising as an oral antiviral. These rose to the top and people started trying them, including famotidine, but one of the things that people didn't look at is pharmacokinetics and the achieved intracellular concentrations of these agents. That turned out to be one of the sticking points for a lot of these. How high do you have to dose these in humans to get to the intracellular concentration that was inhibitory to virus in vitro?

Probably an easier way to get the answer to some of these things would have been to have like famotidine, okay, a large, pragmatic trial. You could use famotidine, but I think it was tried. A trial was started, but the doses were so high that there were concerns about it trying to achieve the plasma levels that would lead to an inhibitory concentration. That trial I don't think was restarted, so all of these agents that surfaced from in vitro screening and other mechanistic reasoning didn't have a really easy way to get tested.

Dr. Bailey: You know, it was so interesting and really kind of disheartening to hear your data about only 5% of the thousands of trial arms that have been executed really generating data that was either randomized and adequately powered. It just seems like such a waste and, of course, you know negative studies aren't a waste. You've got to have negative studies, but [crosstalk 00:42:25] can you get any usable data from the trials that weren't randomized and weren't adequately powered?

Dr. Woodcock: Well, as John said, people are trying with ivermectin, but then you run into all of these methodologic problems of, who was randomized? What were the endpoints? How was it done? The convalescent plasma, they're actually doing a meta-analysis on that of RCTs for hospitalized patients because other than recovery, most of them were not large enough. I think at the beginning of this pandemic, we didn't now enough about the disease and its heterogeneity.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

According to that talk, Ivermectin is still very much being considered but they want to see larger studies. Problem is they are starting on this so late when it should have been a priority and done with warp speed but guess there is more money in new vaccines then in drugs past their patent expiry date.

[Luna Bliss]

37 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

On 5/14/2021 at 4:42 PM, Luna Bliss said:

Just because there is corruption in health agencies does not mean everything they do is corrupt! There is corruption and error in all human endeavors but we don't toss them all out because of it.
It's your usual black-and-white thinking where 'some' equals 'all' I see on display yet again, and your belief that perfection must exist in human endeavors lest we should throw it all out (and then replace with bizarre 'maverick' solutions from right-wing rags).

Ever hear the idea that a little yeast spreads through the whole batch? You are right though that there are ones who aren't corrupt but they are mostly outside of the mainstream.

Where is your proof for this?  I think a corrupt individual who places money over doing the right thing, lacking conscience, is equally prevalent in non-mainstream avenues.  Being 'non-mainstream' does not place a halo on someone's head.

Really, I find it funny that I've been accused of being some type of extreme radical when I'm actually more the traditional 'law and order' person here who follows the mainstream as far as what Science proclaims.  But you are so radical that you're off the charts..

Edited May 18, 2021 by Luna Bliss