|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
136.37.101.134
In Reply to: RE: Yes - we've got to wait until the REAL medicine comes out posted by Chris from Lafayette on September 19, 2021 at 00:39:50
be a good idea to consider one's outlook on "media:" where DO you get this from, specifically? You NEVER state a source and this forum, in the interests of accuracy, informally calls for one when one makes a claim of a dubious or controversial nature.
By your own admission, you're a product of "mainstream" education that has major corporate, think tank, and tycoon (corporate leadership/ownership)-related ties. Isn't that ironic?
Ivermectin is a horse medication, by the way. NO medical organization recommends it.
Follow Ups:
. . . by his corporate media sources.
I've listed my own news sources at least a couple of times on this forum, most recently in answer to your own direct question JUST A COUPLE OF DAYS AGO (link below). I can't help it if you're too lazy to read what I've said, because you're so eager to put words in people's mouths to create these beloved red herrings you're so adept at populating your own posts with.
"By your own admission, you're a product of "mainstream" education that has major corporate, think tank, and tycoon (corporate leadership/ownership)-related ties. Isn't that ironic?"
Nothing at all ironic about it. And, yes, I'm not at all proud to be associated with an institution which had the likes of a war criminal like Condoleeza Rice on its staff, and which has produced the likes of a war criminal apologist like Rachel Maddow.
And, despite what you claim in your last paragraph, Ivermectin is NOT exclusively a horse medication, and the NIH recommends further study of its effectiveness. If you weren't so smug in your own self approval, you might realize that the corporate media have been captured by the big pharmaceutical companies who underwrite our media programming. Here's a relevant section of a video I've already posted, which you, in your corporate-media-fueled complacency, can't be bothered to spend any time on:
View YouTube Video
that show, Chris? You, and many other conspiracy theorists like you, believe themselves more intelligent than all scientific and medical organizations. How can you square that??? By believing that it's all some dark conspiracy because you cannot possibly be wrong, can you--- better say the entire community of expert scientists are wrong--- than you. A guy on Youtube. I'm still chuckling. But I guess you're serious. The NYT, Wash Post, LA Times, CBS News, BBC, The Guardian: all on common ground with... Jimmy Dore! I kinda hope you're just having some sort of crisis and this isn't really what a healthy Chris believes in.NIH is recommending FURTHER study, yes. For NOW: "Some clinical studies showed no benefits or worsening of disease after ivermectin use,21-24 whereas others reported shorter time to resolution of disease manifestations that were attributed to COVID-19,25-27 greater reduction in inflammatory marker levels,26 shorter time to viral clearance,21 or lower mortality rates in patients who received ivermectin than in patients who received comparator drugs or placebo.21,27
However, most of these studies had incomplete information and significant methodological limitations, which make it difficult to exclude common causes of bias. These limitations include:
The sample size of most of the trials was small.
Various doses and schedules of ivermectin were used.
Some of the randomized controlled trials were open-label studies in which neither the participants nor the investigators were blinded to the treatment arms.
Patients received various concomitant medications (e.g., doxycycline, hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, zinc, corticosteroids) in addition to ivermectin or the comparator drug. This confounded the assessment of the efficacy or safety of ivermectin.
The severity of COVID-19 in the study participants was not always well described.
The study outcome measures were not always clearly defined". NIH websiteStanford: you have several degrees from it. We should discount all your "expertise" regarding music, right? Corporate product that you are, and all. (Try and stick to the point; it's not about faculty, it's about corporations and their "tainted" status, in your eyes). And major orchestras: supported by corporations! All bad, in this country? What are you communicating on, a piece of hollow wood?
Edits: 09/19/21
in other people's mouths. Who said they were more intelligent than ALL scientific and medical organizations? I certainly didn't.
And I'm supposed to believe that "it" is some "dark conspiracy"? Why don't you define your terms for once?
Did you ever consider the possibility that, while Jimmy Dore may not be as educated (or even as intlligent) as the people who work for your beloved corporate press, he may nevertheless be right to offer Dr. Malone a forum, and they could all be wrong? No - of course you haven't. You'd rather indulge in your tribal reaction. Jimmy Dore cheerfully refers to himself as a jagoff comedian working out of his garage, so of course that doesn't impress your discerning mind! You want to see the MONEY behind the opinions you read. Let me tell you this: financial backing does not necessarily make a statement true - something which you have yet to learn.
Oh - and you forgot! You left out some stuff about what the NIH says about Ivermectin - it almost seems like you did this on purpose. Here are some more statements from the NIH on Ivermectin:Ivermectin is an FDA-approved broad-spectrum antiparasitic agent with demonstrated antiviral activity against a number of DNA and RNA viruses, including severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Despite this promise, the antiviral activity of ivermectin has not been consistently proven in vivo.This is from the NIH article linked below. Kinda gives us a different picture, doesn't it? I love how you omit certain information just so you can "win" an argument. When you add the statements I quoted back in, the stance of the NIH might seem a little different from what you were trying to convey.
The 2015 Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine was awarded to William C. Campbell and Satoshi Omura for their discoveries leading to ivermectin. In addition to its extraordinary efficacy against parasitic diseases, ivermectin continues to offer new clinical applications due to its ability to be repurposed to treat new classes of diseases. Beyond its invaluable therapeutic role in onchocerciasis and strongyloidiasis, an increasing body of evidence points to the potential of ivermectin as an antiviral agent.
In light of the potential of ivermectin to prevent replication in a broad spectrum of viruses, the inhibition of importin [alpha-beta]1-mediated nuclear import of viral proteins is suggested as the probable mechanism underlying its antiviral activity. Since SARS-CoV-2 is an RNA virus, a similar mechanism of action may take place
As for Stanford's disgraceful record with respect to war-mongering and corporations, yes, corporations are well represented at that institution. And yet you yourself claim that we shouldn't judge the faculty by their tainted (i.e., tainted by corporations) connections and status, much less bring them into the discussion. So which is it, tin? Are they "tainted" or not? The whole point you try to make is absurd, since there are many, many students and faculty members who oppose the very corporate policies which the institution as a whole and other Stanford faculty members (like Condoleeza Rice) embrace.
Well Chris, far be it from me to say that you are likely wasting your time. There are those that simply have no shame no matter how often the evidence contrary to their opinion is put up in front of them. They also seem to love the red herring. Thanks for the hand. Tweaker
Denied facts are still facts.
... what is your daily dosage of Invermectin?
what are you advocating?
do you like herring? you keep bringing up herring
I prefer it slightly brined in white wine
so what's the dosage Kenneth?
so far everyone that talks about Invermectin doesn't use it
maybe 'enjoy' some and report back?
just kidding, that would be stupid
Stanford sucks and Jimmy Dore is a loser
alright, we've got that all sorted out
... good talk?
regards,
I had never heard of Jimmy Dore but I'm guessing Dr Malone could be a better source than you.
nt
He'll find all these links to corporate news sites which have a vested (and financial!) interest in impugning Dr. Malone's comments. Wow - big surprise!
Don't you find it odd that Google abandoned their original motto of "Don't be evil"? Actually, it's NOT really odd, since Google (Alphabet) itself is now part of the corporate establishment.
Only YOUR sources tell the "truth", just like only wingnut media tells the truth about the "stolen" election. Wanna know the "truth" about any subject? Well, then ya have to ignore what every news outlet other than YOUR faves say. Readers/watchers must understand that all the other ones are corrupt mouthpieces for, shudder, corporations and of course they just print/broadcast what the "deep state" tells them.I'm past posting fests back and forth with you, Chris. Inmates can judge your political/media posts for themselves. They can also read up on Malone and judge for themselves. Oh wait, "cancel" that idea. After all, you'd just find lies about Dr. Malone from MSM. Only favorable info about Malone from Chris-sanctioned media is the "truth".
Edits: 09/20/21
. . . and, like tinear, put words in my mouth. I do NOT say that the corporate MSM are ALWAYS wrong. Where have I ever said that? But indeed, they ARE wrong often enough that they must be "consumed" with a great deal of caution, and I find the sources I listed to be more reliable, even though they're sometimes wrong too.
I've never claimed there was election fraud, although I support any and all efforts (including from Trump supporters) to make sure that our elections are fair and uncorrupted. OTOH, it was you (inspired by the ravings from your beloved MSM) who got hysterical and claimed that the January 6 demonstration constituted an armed insurrection, despite the fact that most of the protesters were UNarmed, including Ashli Babbitt, who was shot dead by the police.
Sure, Rick - just know that it's a cheap tactic to characterize those who disagree with you as supporters of some crazed notion, even when there's not a jot or tittle of evidence. One thing you're right about: inmates can judge our political posts for themselves.
Let's see ya provide a link to me saying "armed insurrection". Good luck trying to find something that doesn't exist.
Linked is what I DID say. Furthermore, look at THE DATES OF MY POSTS. Months before Jan. 6th! Then check out your replies. You were smug as usual and WRONG as usual. If you still don't think Trump and Trumpettes both in and out of Congress essentially tried to have a coup I feel sorry for your lack of cognition.
I'm putting this to bed. To be honest, after all the posts of yours I've read and the back & forths we've had, I simply don't care what you think about anything other than music.
"Christopher Wray - the current head of the FBI *appointed by Trump and confirmed by the Republican majority Senate* in 2017 - just got done testifying that they found ZERO EVIDENCE that anyone but Trump supporters was among the insurrectionists that stormed the Capitol." [my bold]
-Rick W, March 6, 2021
OK - I concede you didn't say anything as to whether they were armed. But as for my finding "something that doesn't exist" (i.e., your use of the term, insurrection/insurrectionists), you should get acquainted with your own posts a bit better. ;-)
'inspired by the ravings from your beloved MSM'
that's hyperbolic CFL
'who got hysterical'
more hyperbole, I've never seen Rick W 'hysterical' about anything
you think he's putting words in your mouth but you're guilty of assigning emotions and attitudes to someone in a 'debate' ... there's a term for that
building a strawman argument
there's no points for that, it's designed to sway an audience
which begs the question ... who are you performing for? what audience?
be well,
You've never seen Rick get hysterical? I think that when he uses the term, "insurrectionists" (see my post above), that IS getting on the hysterical side of things. Therefore, no strawman - right? ;-)
"insurrectionists" is entirely accurate
18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection "Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."
they sought to disrupt and end the lawful process of confirming the vote count of the general election which is a major component in the peaceful transfer of power and authority of the federal gov't and will of the people ... the very definition of rebellion
and yes, many were armed ... you don't need guns to be armed
I suppose pitchforks would be easier to ID and relate to but a spear is a spear and a club is a club ... lots of 'bear spray' too, with nary a bear in sight ... there were lots of guns intercepted that day as well
m'kay? good!
. . . but it leaves the term, "insurrection", undefined. I mean, do you think the January 6 actions constituted a rebellion too (per your quote)? To me, that's a loose usage of either term.
You are supposing intent on the part of the demonstrators - sure, there MAY have been intent to disrupt the proceedings on the part of SOME (kind of like when Code Pink gets in the Senate gallery and disrupts things until they're escorted out by the police), but, as I see it, this "major component of the peaceful transfer of power" was never in any danger. In fact, the main problem with the Jan 6 demonstration was that there was an insufficient number of police on hand to control a crowd of that size - even though anyone with half a brain could have anticipated the size of the crowd in advance.
You also say "many were armed". I say not that many were armed, although I agree that SOME demonstrators (well, I call them demonstrators - I think some here would call them storm troopers) were armed. Whatever, this was not the vast majority of the crowd). And there were "many" guns intercepted that day? How many and where? I don't know about this interdiction, so I'm genuinely interested. As for the bear spray, just as with spears and clubs, that's kind of hard to determine exactly, so if you think there was "lots" of bear spray, then more power to you! BTW, wasn't bear spray being recommended in a recent thread on this very forum? Sometimes, I guess it's handy to have bear spray around. ;-)
my comment started by saying it fit the very definition of insurrection
why are you asking if that's what I think when it's the very predicate posted?
'I guess it's handy to have bear spray around'
sure, if there's bears ... and I don't mean the state police
You used the word in a heading - which did NOT contain the definition.
You say, "my comment started by saying it fit the very definition of insurrection". So what is "it"?
Sheesh!
you said:
"do you think the January 6 actions constituted a rebellion too'
I already answered + gave you the text of 18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection ... the very definition under the law! but that's not much of a definition? what else do you need, captioned pictures?
now you're asking "So what is "it"?" ???
if you're somehow lost in the thread it's not my fault
I struggle to understand how you could possibly be supportive of these honest-to-goodness, extremely dangerous criminals. They did a great deal of damage and injury that day in the process of trying to overthrow the legitimate workings of government. You are grossly minimizing what they did.
Maybe you're just being contrary for the heck of it? That's the only explanation that I'd like to think is plausible. I would expect better of you,
Mark in NC
"The thought that life could be better is woven indelibly into our hearts and our brains" -Paul Simon
I know little about the insurrectionists but we rounded up about 600 hundred of them and they are in cells so we are probably safe now. And they are probably not safe.
We don't know much about what actually happened and whodunnit because they won't release the video tapes.
A good question is why are they sitting in cells for months without being sentenced for their heinous crimes?
'because they won't release the video tapes'
the public shouldn't see evidence in criminal cases, that's between counsel
you know, jury tainting and whatnot
of course, the defense loves leaks because of IBID
'I know little about the insurrectionists'
certainly, of course, most comments start with a disclaimer!
'And they are probably not safe'
... safe from what? due process?
that's too damn bad isn't it!
"... safe from what? due process?"
I think due process is what everybody wants.
There are reports they are being abused and senators were denied access to see for themselves. So we don't know and it looks like we aren't going to know anytime soon.
'There are reports they are being abused'
*sniff*
it's like Guantanamo!
'senators were denied access'
you mean denied political theater?
I agree, traitors deserve no platform, just a day in court
good point! you rock!
be well,
If they're getting a bum rap, then of course I DO want to defend them. And I'm not going to rely on mass corporate media to lay out the facts for me. It's this same media which has inflamed people's emotions by their loose, hysterical reporting of what happened - sometimes in order to make cheap political points.
I do not agree that I'm minimizing what they did, but, in any case, I do not want to lump them all together as "dangerous criminals". Need I repeat that one of these "dangerous criminals" (an unarmed one) was shot to death?
I was trying to be more diplomatic and less direct. Dr Malone knows what he's talking about.
When I first got here (this time) I wandered around and sat down in the iso ward. What was I thinking. So I might have run off a fellow inmate. Had a little convo with the geoffkait. I guess that is a special ward. Hope I didn't do any damage.
Why didn't you respond to my post, two days old now and linked below?
I don't want to argue with you. Let's disagree where we will, but please keep it civil.
The article is pay-walled in any case and I cannot get to it today. My bad, I guess.
Are you brain dead?
Denied facts are still facts.
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: