Using observer11 logic we could argue that since life itself is terminal it can’t be claimed that anyone ever has died of anything because they were all going to die anyways.
Pat Chun accused of verbal assault...by a Pullman councilman.
- Thread starter CougPatrol
- Start date
Epidemiologic Analyses on Ivermectin in COVID-19
The Latest Results of Ivermectin’s Success in Treating Outbreaks of COVID-19 including charts and data by Juan Chamie.
covid19criticalcare.com
Effectiveness of Adding a Mask Recommendation to Other Public Health Measures to Prevent SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Danish Mask Wearers: A Randomized Controlled Trial: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 174, No 3
Background: Observational evidence suggests that mask wearing mitigates transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). It is uncertain if this observed association arises through protection of uninfected wearers (protective effect), via reduced transmission from...
www.acpjournals.org
562 references still waiting on a response.
Researching and assessing alternate treatment forms is actually following 'the science'. In all his replies, WilliePharmaPimp has come with nothing but name-calling and all the feels. Nothing substantitve whatsover. Yet actually looking at differing points of view, alternate treatments, statistical data based on varying approaches around the world is unscientific?!? Really? Why? The very nature of science is seeking the answers to questions and not accepting the status quo, Willie. Why is that so difficult to understand? Rather than dismiss and deride it, defend your position.
Again, why is it so important to the pro-mandate people that those who choose not to inject themselves based on a coercive state mandate comply with said mandate? Very clearly, the vaccine doesn't prevent transmission - even between vaxxed and unvaxxed. Is it a control issue? Do you gain some sense of self righteousness?
And feel free just once to cite where I or anyone on the anti-mandate side has ever denegrated those making the choice to inject themselves. You can't - because that's a personal health decision from which they can bear the rewards or consequences.
You all still don't know whether I've been vaccinated. And I'm under no compulsion to reveal that to some rando on the internet. Kind of shoots all your assumptions to hell if I am, though, doesn't it?
Last edited:
Neat. And yet there is still no clinical evidence for the efficacy of ivermectin against covid.
Epidemiologic Analyses on Ivermectin in COVID-19
The Latest Results of Ivermectin’s Success in Treating Outbreaks of COVID-19 including charts and data by Juan Chamie.
Effectiveness of Adding a Mask Recommendation to Other Public Health Measures to Prevent SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Danish Mask Wearers: A Randomized Controlled Trial: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 174, No 3
Background: Observational evidence suggests that mask wearing mitigates transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). It is uncertain if this observed association arises through protection of uninfected wearers (protective effect), via reduced transmission from...www.acpjournals.org
562 references still waiting on a response.
Researching and assessing alternate treatment forms is actually following 'the science'. In all his replies, WilliePharmaPimp has come with nothing but name-calling and all the feels. Nothing substantitve whatsover. Yet actually looking at differing points of view, alternate treatments, statistical data based on varying approaches around the world is unscientific?!? Really? Why? The very nature of science is seeking the answers to questions and not accepting the status quo, Willie. Why is that so difficult to understand? Rather than dismiss and deride it, defend your position.
Again, why is it so important to the pro-mandate people that those who choose not to inject themselves based on a coercive state mandate comply with said mandate? Very clearly, the vaccine doesn't prevent transmission - even between vaxxed and unvaxxed. Is it a control issue? Do you gain some sense of self righteousness?
And feel free just once to cite where I or anyone on the anti-mandate side has ever denegrated those making the choice to inject themselves. You can't - because that's a personal health decision from which they can bear the rewards or consequences.
You all still don't know whether I've been vaccinated. And I'm under no compulsion to reveal that to some rando on the internet. Kind of shoots all your assumptions to hell if I am, though, doesn't it?
But if you want to continue to be a shill for “BigPharma” by promoting sales of ivermectin, knock yourself out.
Obs 11, when you say:
"Very clearly, the vaccine doesn't prevent transmission - even between vaxxed and unvaxxed."
Do you mean that exactly as the plain reading seems? Like, not ANY prevention? Or do you simply mean to suggest it isn't fool-proof?
And by extension, are you implying all these alternatives are equally effective in preventing the spread?
"Very clearly, the vaccine doesn't prevent transmission - even between vaxxed and unvaxxed."
Do you mean that exactly as the plain reading seems? Like, not ANY prevention? Or do you simply mean to suggest it isn't fool-proof?
And by extension, are you implying all these alternatives are equally effective in preventing the spread?
Yay for you!! Gosh you're like a Covid knight in shining armor! Without you, the human race would just die out but alas, we have WeeWillieSimp to save us all. We are forever in your debt.
If it doesn't prevent the spread or prevent contraction AND developing symptoms, does it matter? It doesn't work like your DemiGod Fauci has preached.
I can live with either/or.
I can't live with absolutes - and that is entirely the whole point of this exercise. The absolute certainty by which one side of this discussion suggest their 'science' is the end all/be all. It simply isn't.
And the question remains - why is that side so obsessed with forcing their basic premise and ultimate conclusion on others?
Well when you're just a mouthpiece for CDC, the tunnel vision ignorance as to the application of science in this idiotic administration, staying the course is all you can do.
Because Covid is terminal? Maybe if we just had like 10 more boosters we could "Stop the Spread!!"?
Well, okay, i understand i suppose. But your second paragraph is a bit of a strawman. It's more of "The best available evidence and best available method of getting to the most likely truth". Taihtsat
My variables to getting to my 'truth' are likely way different than yours. Why is that wrong for me? Do I tell you what to eat or drink? Or who to marry or with whom or what flavor on the sex spectrum in which to engage in nookie? Those are your choices based on whatever criteria you deem as important.
If you haven't watched Aaron Rodgers very thoughtful interview with Pat MacAfee, you should do so in its entirety. And those who come away still maintaining a strict my way or the highway approach, there's really not much more I can say about that.
Or you can go down the but but seatbelts angle which is kind of the standard go-to simplistic mindset. It's not going to change my philosophy in the slightest. You should do you.
Sheep like Krusty, Willie and the like don't do that. Its their way or no way at all because "Da gubormint tells me to". Oh and that really awesome vaccine mandate that Uncle Joe is peddling will go down in flames. It will be only a matter of time when Ol' Inslee's mandate will suffer the same demise. You know, precedent being the foundation of our legal system and all. I wonder then if Rolo won't have to "settle"? If the mandate is reversed, would the reversal be retrospective? Oh man will it be a complete sh!tshow for the state of WA if it were.
The problem when someone says, "what about" is that you are saying that you (and we) don't have a responsibility to deal with issues in our own house because someone else is doing the same thing or worse. Bringing China into the discussion is nothing more than an attempt to distract from the conversation.
FWIW, if you don't believe that George Washington and just about all of the other founding fathers were white supremacists.....you are willfully ignorant of the situation. If you don't believe that the founding fathers worked very hard to make sure that they were the ones making decisions while the ignorant non-landowners, slaves and women were limited in their ability to effect change......you need to brush up on your history. Every facet of our government was planned with checks and balances that limited the odds that the ignorant masses could screw things up for the folks setting up the government. Our founding fathers did a lot of good things, but just like today, they had ulterior motives for a lot of their decisions and many of those involved keeping slaves powerless and enslaved.
You'll note I never used the phrase "What about ...?" I asked why we think the US is uniquely guilty of this. Why is the US different than any other country? I ask this not to say "See! They do it too!" but to say "See! We overcame the same notions that others have had!" It is *not* an excuse for the US not to improve. But to 1) show that racism isn't just about white supremacy and 2) to show that we have overcome what other nations have not. The fact that you read into it an excuse not to do anything is irrelevant to my point.
(BTW, I'll note again that this is not about the Chinese discriminating against anyone. Look it up.)
Now, the fact that the founders may have held notions that some races are inferior is tangential to the creation of the Declaration and the Constitution. The ideas captured in the Declaration or Constitution do not mention race. If they were as racially motivated as the 1619 project and others here state, then it hardly makes sense that such notions would be left out. Further, such notions were not unique to the United States. Nor are such notions limited to those of European founding.
The point here is not that there were white supremacists at the founding. Everyone agrees that there were. The point here is that despite there being white supremacists, the founding documents of the United States clearly espouse equality. The fact that this was ignored by much of the leadership early in the republic's history and the radical change that has occurred since then is proof that the founding is not racist in nature. And this is further demonstrated by the fact that the only mention of race in the Constitution is the 15th amendment which was in response to the Black Codes and others' twisting of the Constitution.
The problem, as I see it, is that many consider the US as inherently racist, or at least founded on racist principles, because white supremacy existed--perhaps was even prevalent--at the time of the founding. They way I see it is that the founding documents were absent such ideas despite its prevalence at the time. And it is precisely that fact that we have been able to make so much progress in civil rights. And this is not to say we don't have more work to do--certainly we do--but to deny the very idea that the US was founded on racism.
Now, you seem to think that the Constitution was intentionally constructed so that "the ignorant masses could screw things up for the folks setting up the government." It is this perspective that assumes things about the minds of the founders. This is assuming the worst of people. And by assuming the worst we set up institutions for failure. No institution can survive without trust. And by destroying the foundation, this would lead to destruction of the country itself. I pray that such a notion is never sincerely held by any significant portion of the populace.
I'm sure I'm not alone in this sentiment, but my opinion is that the ignorant masses are the government...and that's been true for decades.
I think its more nuanced than that. We are a representative democracy. Representatives make laws, not the masses. Were we a pure democracy, perhaps your statement would be more true. Which might explain the last couple of presidential elections .....
yeah dude the federalist society is totally an unbiased and honest source of information.
Pure ad hominem. I'm guessing you didn't even go to the link to see who the speakers were much less hear what they had to say.
True…but I don’t think many of our elected representatives truly have any interest in representing anyone but themselves.
I may be missing what you really intended, but i think most representatives clearly are representing their constituents otherwise they wouldn't get re-elected, certainly with the way many of the district's are drawn.
Cathy McMorris-Rogers knows exactly who her voters are, as does Jim Jordan as does AOC. Taihtsat
I think I agree with most of your sentiment: that the aspirational words of our founding documents have led us to where we are today - a more equal and equitable society and that that struggle continues. That doesn't mean that what I said back in #180 isn't true.
"If i said a major foundation of this nation was built, was embedded and based on white supremacy, what specifically would anyone here take issue with?"
And further, that it took a lot of work and supreme court rulings and marches and federal troops and congressional action to get to where we are today BECAUSE racial impediments were baked into the cake outside of words in the documents. A lot of CRT is based on this premise: racial prejudice was baked in. I happen to accept that premise. Teaching the history of that - in depth - im all for. Teaching it specifically the way CRT advocates, not so sure. Taihtsat
We agree more than we might seem “It took a lot of work and supreme court rulings and marches and federal troops and congressional action to get to where we are today BECAUSE racial impediments” were baked into men. The men were the “cake outside the words in the documents.”
But that’s not saying anything new. Or unique. Man has always been broken—since day one. What does CRT or the CRT Foundry say that we didn’t already know?
Perhaps we are too “krusty” to see it their way. But I think they think they have something new to say. And I think others think they are saying something new. If all CRT is saying is “A bunch of flawed men founded the country,” then I say “ Duh!” But I don’t think that’s all they mean. And the 1619 project, Kendi, et al, do think they are saying more than that.
And that’s where the disconnect lies.
You are right I definitely did not waste my time reading right wing nutjob BS.
It's why cancel culture exists. It's why news media outlets are constantly bombarding viewers with the notion that white supremacy is everywhere and if you have white skin, you are de facto a racist. Never have I seen more disgusting racism displayed by lunatics of the left after the election of the Lt Gov Winsome Sears in VA. The party of "Hey vote for me and I will eliminate racism!" then goes on to excoriate, racially of course, a person who just made history in a state where they had a governor who black-faced himself in a picture standing next to a person in a KKK costume. Talk about tone deaf while looking the other way. Liberalism is the real virus plaguing this country.
The Federalist Society was founded in 1982 by students at Yale Law, Harvard Law and U of Chicago Law schools.
All historical bastions of right wing nutjobs.
Carry on.
May we presume that your private school education made you fixate on public school education?
BTW, still waiting for your response on whether you'd prefer to share air with someone that is tested periodically or share air with someone that is not. Care to answer?
I didn’t start the public school education silliness - reread the thread.
BTW, still waiting for you to answer the question:
Does the science support that testing alone provides protection equal to that of vaccination?
Last edited:
Not to line jump dgibbons - but you have 562 questions to answer prior to that.
To date: there is no clinical evidence that demonstrates efficacy of ivermectin vs covid. It could be 562,000,000 whatevers but until a credible well conducted clinical trial demonstrates such you and your band of Nigel West Dickens’ have got nothing.
It’s a shame that you have chosen to let feelings guide you over facts. And to steal from Krusty, that is all I have to say about that.
I'm the one linking sources, studies, protocols, data. And you're the one tossing out the feels and, apparently, now want to take your ball and go home.
If I'm not confused, aren't you supposedly the internet nuclear brain surgeon rocket scientist guy with fancy degrees? Should be pretty easy to boil it down to layman's terms on why all the alternative treatments and other countries who are turning their back on vaccines are bunk.
I've always felt this question misses the mark. The answer is "it depends". Am I a vaccinated person sharing the air with someone who isn't vaccinated and is being tested periodically vs. sharing the air with someone whom is vaccinated?I'd rather be vaccinated sharing the air with someone whom is also vaccinated. To me, that is the best solution. Taihtsat
Are you implying, or is it your belief that all these alternatives (zinc, Ivermectin, vitamin d) are equally effective (or superior) in preventing the spread of covid as the vaccines?
Because the vaccines have shown to be effective in reducing transmission, shortening illness and preventing to a great amount hospitalizations and death.
Similar threads
