Jump to content
Chapala.com Webboard

Healthy, strong, and now dead


Recommended Posts

19 hours ago, dichosalocura said:

So immediately after assuming someones position is contrary to yours you instantly assume they are not worth talking with and shut your ears and eyes.  What a way to civilly discuss topics of interest.

https://www.google.com.mx/amp/s/www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-antiscience-movement-is-escalating-going-global-and-killing-thousands/%3famp=true

"The Antiscience Movement Is Escalating, Going Global and Killing Thousands

Rejection of mainstream science and medicine has become a key feature of the political right in the U.S. and increasingly around the world. Antiscience is the rejection of mainstream scientific views and methods or their replacement with unproven or deliberately misleading theories, often for nefarious and political gains. It targets prominent scientists and attempts to discredit them. Containing antiscience will require work and an interdisciplinary approach. For innovative and comprehensive solutions, we might look at interagency task forces in the U.S. government or among the agencies of the United Nations. Given the role of state actors such as Russia, and antivaccine organizations that monetize the internet, we should anticipate that any counteroffensive could be complex and multifaceted. The stakes are high given the high death toll that is already accelerating from the one-two punch of SARS CoV2 and antiscience. We must be prepared to implement a sophisticated infrastructure to counteract this, similar to what we have already done for more established global threats. Antiscience is now a large and formidable security issue."

 

 

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

Sorry Alan, that was a good post but I don't believe that questioning scientists and politicians and following the trail of money is being anti science.  Long before the days of Galileo good scientists have always questioned and debated each other.  That is what makes for better science.  Remember that scientists and doctors are not gods, they make mistakes like anybody else.  I think Fauci and the CDC have proven this little fact on more than one occasion.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dichosalocura said:

good scientists have always questioned and debated each other. 

What is going on however, is NOT scientists vs scientists.    It is political disinfo and ignorant people on social media, vs scientists and health professionals.       So nice try on the spin, but.....no.     You missed the target.    Again.   

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, virgo lady said:

What is going on however, is NOT scientists vs scientists.    It is political disinfo and ignorant people on social media, vs scientists and health professionals.       So nice try on the spin, but.....no.     You missed the target.    Again.   

Want some real science?

https://www.cureus.com/articles/82162-ivermectin-prophylaxis-used-for-covid-19-a-citywide-prospective-observational-study-of-223128-subjects-using-propensity-score-matching

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My 2 cents on Ivermectin is simple.  If a person is ill with parasites or worms, then their immune system is diverting resources to rid their body of the invaders.  If this person becomes sick with Covid, then their immune system is deficient because its resources are fighting parasites and/or worms.  If this person takes Ivermectin, then the drug may work as intended and rid the body of parasites and worms.  Thus, the immune system now has more resources to battle the Covid infection.  To assume that Ivermectin was a Covid cure is a stretch and there are no clinical trials to back that claim.  But yes, Ivermectin could possibly help a person beat Covid with a stronger immune system in this scenario. 

But whatever, if you want to rely on Ivermectin to cure you then I am all for it.  US Social Security Cola just jumped 5.9% this year no doubt due to the fact that the life expectancy of Americans regressed 1.5 years in 2020, the largest drop in my lifetime.  Hey it gets better, just wait until the 2021 stats come in.  Gotta love self interest.  

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, virgo lady said:

What is going on however, is NOT scientists vs scientists.    It is political disinfo and ignorant people on social media, vs scientists and health professionals.       So nice try on the spin, but.....no.     You missed the target.    Again.   

Virgo Lady, I did not miss the target.  There are plenty of scientists and health professionals who are NOT buying into the hysteria of this pseudo pandemic.  Remember 99% survival rate is hardly a pandemic.  Sure they recognize that a virus is out there that is killing a very small percentage of the population, people mostly already sufferring from comorbidities.  They also recognize that it is a little extreme and odd to behave the way the world leaders have behaved over the past 2 years by nearly shutting down the entire world.  But of course when ever these scientists and health professionals speak out, they are barred from the medical community, ostricized, disenfranchized and called quacks.

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

Seems like if Ivermectin was a cure for Covid, Merck, the pharmaceutical company that produces the stuff would be touting it. After all, they stand to make billions on it if it was a cure for Covid.

Instead, they have stated that it has  no benefit in regard to Covid, as proven through many studies, and have said not to take it for Covid.

It's an antiparasitic, not an antiviral.

I love the way people go on about how the vaccinations are some big conspiracy between the govt. and pharmaceutical giants, to sell more drugs, yet when a pharmaceutical giant tells people not to buy their product because it has no benefit, the same people somehow think they're lying. 

Cognitive dissonance anyone?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, dichosalocura said:

Virgo Lady, I did not miss the target.  There are plenty of scientists and health professionals who are NOT buying into the hysteria of this pseudo pandemic.

I will always wonder if the governments of the world did nothing over the last two years and today we had 50,000,000 deaths instead of 5,500,000 deaths would the pseudo pandemic have been classified as a true pandemic?  What is the number of deaths that is required for all of us to agree that this is a pandemic?  I have not seen anything close to this in my lifetime.  Drop back 100 years and maybe the Spanish Flu.

As long as we cannot agree on a pseudo pandemic or true pandemic there really is no common ground for debate.  YMMV

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

1 hour ago, dichosalocura said:

Virgo Lady, I did not miss the target.  There are plenty of scientists and health professionals who are NOT buying into the hysteria of this pseudo pandemic.  Remember 99% survival rate is hardly a pandemic.  Sure they recognize that a virus is out there that is killing a very small percentage of the population, people mostly already sufferring from comorbidities.  They also recognize that it is a little extreme and odd to behave the way the world leaders have behaved over the past 2 years by nearly shutting down the entire world.  But of course when ever these scientists and health professionals speak out, they are barred from the medical community, ostricized, disenfranchized and called quacks.

You like to put things in terms of extremes, that much is clear.     You disregard a 1% death rate as insignificant.    An average in the USA of over 1000 deaths per day for 2 years, with many peaks much higher, and that is WITH restrictions and vaccines.     

Your attitude is callous and pathetic and you also give no proofs of what you continue to promote as your truth, which in fact, is just the opposite of truth. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It will be years before the true toll of this pandemic is known. I wonder if telling people who have lost loved ones that they were part of the 1% will give any consolation to them. You have also neglected to add the people who were unable to get life saving operations and treatments because hospitals are clogged with Covid patients. You have also neglected to address the debilitating symptoms of Long Covid. But, hey, only 1% are really affected according to you. Selfish and callous are words that fit. Wear 'em.

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

18 minutes ago, mudgirl said:

Seems like if Ivermectin was a cure for Covid, Merck, the pharmaceutical company that produces the stuff would be touting it. After all, they stand to make billions on it if it was a cure for Covid.

Instead, they have stated that it has  no benefit in regard to Covid, as proven through many studies, and have said not to take it for Covid.

It's an antiparasitic, not an antiviral.

I love the way people go on about how the vaccinations are some big conspiracy between the govt. and pharmaceutical giants, to sell more drugs, yet when a pharmaceutical giant tells people not to buy their product because it has no benefit, the same people somehow think they're lying. 

Cognitive dissonance anyone?

Yes. The cognitive dissonance IS quite apparent. I don't really post here any longer. The false dichotomy which the mandatory-vaxxers and the flat-earthers present is too reductive for a valuable exchange. But I can't abide this level of misinformation.

First, ivermectin was discovered in the 1980s by Satoshi Omura of Kitasato University. William Campbell of Merck soon thereafter identified its key compounds. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivermectin#History. Merck's patent EXPIRED in 1996. https://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/82/8/562.pdf. So, no, Merck is NOT poised to make "billions" from ivermectin if it were effective against Covid. Indian and Chinese labs can produce ivermectin quite economically, thank you.

Second, Merck quickly began developing a novel Covid treatment, now named molnupiravir, which is  now subject to an EUA and patent protection. https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/coronavirus-covid-19-update-fda-authorizes-additional-oral-antiviral-treatment-covid-19-certain. If you cannot fathom why a pharmaceutical company might publicly disclaim the efficacity of a older, non-patented medication in favor of one which is patent protected, I don't know what to say.

Third, studies have demonstrated ivermectin an effective anti-viral in vitro. I won't bother with links here - dispute it at the risk of your own credibility. Meta-analyses have also shown a positive correlation in human subjects - though several (i.e., not all) of the included studies or samples were subsequently withdrawn or corrected. https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/fulltext/2021/08000/ivermectin_for_prevention_and_treatment_of.7.aspx To be clear, I do not know whether ivermectin is effective against Covid. However, I do know that no pharmaceutical company has a financial incentive (the only one about which they care) to conduct the double blind placebo controlled studies which the Covid-addled crowd says they crave.

Fourth, I am unaware of a medical or pharmaceutical principle which precludes an anti-parasitic from also acting as an anti-viral. I am, however, aware of more than adequate examples of multi-use medications and generations of very effective off-label use of both preexisting and novel drugs. You should be, too.

So, instead of casting flaccid stones against a drug showing some undefined promise, you might begin questioning your own preconceptions, belief in the for-profit pharmaceutical industry, and deference to governmental authority. Or just keep spouting things, like this, so ridiculous only those who already drink the Kool-Aide are convinced.

Finally, it's irrelevant to the issue of ivermectin but I've had two shots (Moderna) and voted for Trump exactly zero times. It's not about politics to me - it's about truth.

 

  • Like 4
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, dichosalocura said:

Remember 99% survival rate is hardly a pandemic.  

The Covid death rate in Mexico is 7%. 

13 hours ago, Kiko said:
14 hours ago, dichosalocura said:

 

I will always wonder if the governments of the world did nothing over the last two years and today we had 50,000,000 deaths instead of 5,500,000 deaths

The death count is now up to over 5,700,000. Another 200,000 people have died of Covid in the past week.

Those who consider this no big deal are sickos.

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

12 hours ago, Sorn said:

Yes. The cognitive dissonance IS quite apparent. I don't really post here any longer. The false dichotomy which the mandatory-vaxxers and the flat-earthers present is too reductive for a valuable exchange. But I can't abide this level of misinformation.

First, ivermectin was discovered in the 1980s by Satoshi Omura of Kitasato University. William Campbell of Merck soon thereafter identified its key compounds. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivermectin#History. Merck's patent EXPIRED in 1996. https://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/82/8/562.pdf. So, no, Merck is NOT poised to make "billions" from ivermectin if it were effective against Covid. Indian and Chinese labs can produce ivermectin quite economically, thank you.

Second, Merck quickly began developing a novel Covid treatment, now named molnupiravir, which is  now subject to an EUA and patent protection. https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/coronavirus-covid-19-update-fda-authorizes-additional-oral-antiviral-treatment-covid-19-certain. If you cannot fathom why a pharmaceutical company might publicly disclaim the efficacity of a older, non-patented medication in favor of one which is patent protected, I don't know what to say.

Third, studies have demonstrated ivermectin an effective anti-viral in vitro. I won't bother with links here - dispute it at the risk of your own credibility. Meta-analyses have also shown a positive correlation in human subjects - though several (i.e., not all) of the included studies or samples were subsequently withdrawn or corrected. https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/fulltext/2021/08000/ivermectin_for_prevention_and_treatment_of.7.aspx To be clear, I do not know whether ivermectin is effective against Covid. However, I do know that no pharmaceutical company has a financial incentive (the only one about which they care) to conduct the double blind placebo controlled studies which the Covid-addled crowd says they crave.

Fourth, I am unaware of a medical or pharmaceutical principle which precludes an anti-parasitic from also acting as an anti-viral. I am, however, aware of more than adequate examples of multi-use medications and generations of very effective off-label use of both preexisting and novel drugs. You should be, too.

So, instead of casting flaccid stones against a drug showing some undefined promise, you might begin questioning your own preconceptions, belief in the for-profit pharmaceutical industry, and deference to governmental authority. Or just keep spouting things, like this, so ridiculous only those who already drink the Kool-Aide are convinced.

Finally, it's irrelevant to the issue of ivermectin but I've had two shots (Moderna) and voted for Trump exactly zero times. It's not about politics to me - it's about truth.

 

I admire the way you managed to put down every poster on the board that is following the enduring pandemic and hoping for a finish to it soon. 😔

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The article was more of the same old stuff, however the comments are golden.

There is still a lot of misinformation about the vaccines  and a lot of cover up on the waning protection on them.

Most of these articles never mention the ever increasing people that have been vaccinated being in serious conditions in the hospitals.

What is promoted is the continuous need to get vaccinated, however I wonder how many vaccines it will take before people get the hint they are flawed and people are the big guinea pig experiment. I'm guessing they will go above 10 vaccines and even then it will never stop.

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

5 hours ago, southernguy said:

The article was more of the same old stuff,

No, it is actually quite new info, which you probably didn't even read, you jumped right to the stupid comments section.

I'm sure many southerners who are more responsible and aware of things, are wishing you'd change your moniker.      

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, virgo lady said:

I'm sure many southerners who are more responsible and aware of things, are wishing you'd change your moniker.      

Yep, check out Trae Crowder's youtube videos and his comments section. There are plenty of southerners with their heads screwed on straight.

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

4 hours ago, virgo lady said:

No, it is actually quite new info, which you probably didn't even read, you jumped right to the stupid comments section.

I'm sure many southerners who are more responsible and aware of things, are wishing you'd change your moniker.      

Hopefully you have quoted the right person this time. If not the Great White Knight will come out and show its stuff, with all of his grasp.

I am a Woman who graduated from Collage in the South when that in itself was quite the task. I then worked in a Northern State. This name calling gains none of us.


Unless any of you has the credentials to call out Johns Hopkins, and say it is false science,......Just stop your pompous finger pointing. Yes both sides have made mistakes.  Science does count! Those who have said that the most on this board, seem to be the least open minded.

Johns Hopkins professor blasts his college and media for downplaying study on COVID lockdowns | Daily Mail Online

 

Another view on todays facts:

 

Lockdowns only reduced COVID deaths by 0.2 per cent, Johns Hopkins study finds (msn.com)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SunnyDaze said:

call out Johns Hopkins, and say it is false science

This article and / or the report it references, has more holes in it than Swiss Cheese.   Just a few of them here:

First of all, it was done by economists, not by scientists, health professionals or epidemiologists.   

Second, just look at the key chart in it, deaths per capita.   The countries with the most restrictions (Canada, Australia) have had massively fewer deaths than USA, UK, and the rest.      

Third, more political spin by twisting the good name of Johns Hopkins for political gain....just see below in this same article.....the $%&/()ic clown Rand Paul says "no effect" from mandates, right after the paragraph showing a significant benefit just from one thing like closing non-essential stores.  

However, closing nonessential shops was found to be the most effective intervention, leading to a 10.6 per cent drop in virus fatalities. 

'I hope we'll learn from this the study,' Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said on Fox News Wednesday. 'There was no correlation between any of the mandates the government put in place and any change in the incidence of the disease.' 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just finished reading both articles and also found them full of holes. This is the quote that is most glaring to me.

Quote

The Johns Hopkins researchers only wanted to study death rates: They discarded any study that examined the effect of lockdowns on hospitalizations or case rates

Quote

Jennifer Grant, an infectious diseases physician at the University of British Columbia, told the National Post that focusing only on mortality is a “crude” measure. “There are other elements of lockdown that should be considered … hospital over-load and general burden of disease, including the need for hospitalization in those who fall ill and long-term consequences for the infected,” she said.

Now, would somebody please take a look at this graphic and explain their conclusion of 0.2%  to me? Furthermore, the border was only closed to non-essential traffic not ALL traffic. IF people listened, distanced, wore masks and took this seriously, there wouldn't be a need for any lockdowns. But stupid humans do what stupid humans do. They don't listen to people who are far more knowledgeable about such things. Now we have life saving vaccines and they still don't f&%^ing listen.

53680829-10471265-A_new_report_led_by_a_Johns_Hopkins_University_economist_found_t-a-3_1643869511356.jpg.6327b64ceb743e54bbe7190a374b1eb1.jpg

  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...