For me science trumps ideology, all day every day. To say that someone like me gets to keep my job after a J&J jab (actual), while a poor schmuck has better natural immunity loses his, ain't science it is laziness and arbitrary. See, there are things we can agree on. Now if, Rolo was making the natural immunity argument and has serology studies showed high antibody counts, it would be a game changer for me. Fundamental fairness demands it. (Though he would remain insubordinate). But oh! That right, he tried the bogus religious dodge instead.
Wilner
- Thread starter westtoeast
- Start date
Are you really suggesting that a man who was willing and actively attempted to subvert democracy to stay in power is a better alternative? I lived in Spain under the Franco dictatorship when I was small, people lived in abject fear of the guardia civil and the knock on the door. Even if Trump got the trains to run on time, like Mussolini, a feeble incompetent boob like Biden is far better than your cult of personality dictatorship which Trump attempted to usher in. A feeble boob dies or you vote him out. You pick yourself up, dust yourself off, and pick up the pieces of your life. When elections don't count, you are perpetually forced to pay homage to a thug just to survive, ever fearfully of been denounced.
I
I will tell you what my hill isn’t . One where 105 players rely on me, coaching families and their families rely on me, and all I have to do is make a sacrifice of doing something he has done for himself and his kids, take a shot. For what reason … cause he doesn’t believe he needs it.
It's not the narcissist or the old fool that scares me. It's the people with which they surround themselves that scares me.
But that's only if you buy all that sciency stuff. If I were you I'd do your own research. They're handing out PHDs in various scientific fields on Google right now and if you've stayed in a Holiday Inn express, they'll throw in a bonus bachelor's of your choosing
I wouldn't totally discount the "alternate treatments" objections. Studies are actually showing that ivermectin - for some reason - does have a positive impact on COVID outcomes, but it's still not being seriously looked at as a treatment.
Which studies are these?
Ivermectin has shown antiviral activity in a Petri dish but that’s about it. The biggest problem is that it is very poorly absorbed systemically - which is actually a property that helps make it effective vs intestinal parasites. It has been used off label for scabies ( in conjunction with topical permethrin), which requires it to be systemically absorbed, which again, it’s lousy at. The evidence for it’s efficacy in scabies Is highly suspect.
Last edited:
I'll have to go find them again. I'd found a few probably a month ago that showed small- to medium-scale positive results in clinical settings. They weren't well explained, and were at varying dose rates, so they all recommended further study to gain clarity, but they had showed reduced length of hospitalization and reductions in mortality.
Part of the problem with these smaller studies is that they are too underpowered and the results are not significant enough statistically to rule out chance alone for their results. Or they are poorly conducted. Or there is bias. Someone here posted a study a few weeks ago where the study authors claimed no conflicts of interested. It took me no time to find who funded the study - a pharmaceutical company that manufactured generics and one of the generic products they manufactured and sold was ivermectin - rendering the study all but worthless: the authors had flat out lied. Im sure if I had the time and made the effort I would have found many other shortcomings in this particular study.
Also too there have been touted studies that claimed to show the positive efficacy of ivermectin however it turned many of the patients with positive results in these studies were also treated with dexamethasone - which we know works vs covid. Again, another failure. I could go on…
… that said it cannot be emphasized enough that a substances effectiveness as a treatment option should be scientifically plausible before we go crazy throwing it at the wall to see if it sticks. Ivermectin just doesn’t meet this basic criteria based on its limitations on how it is absorbed alone. Lots of crap will kill cancer but can you deliver enough of it to where it needs to go? Are there physical, chemical and metabolic limitations that prevent the drug from reaching the site of action? Without causing harm or killing the patient?
Also consider that there are lots of ethically bankrupt prescribers diagnosing people for covid on FaceTime for an out of pocket fee and writing prescriptions for ivermectin and other drugs in combination that make no sense ( azithromycin, doxycycline, fenofibrate and other nonsense). Some of these unethical prescribers are making a crap ton of money taking advantage of people gullible enough to fork over cash for a tele-visit and an ivermectin prescription.
But, the thing about small studies is that they can show what should be done in a larger study. I agree that there's sometimes manipulation of results, but none of the ones I read said "Ivermectin kills COVID, everyone should take it with their cheerios." I'd be extremely wary of studies that did that. They all gave cautious summaries that said "this needs further study." A measured conclusion - backed up by a reasonable amount of correlation - deserves a closer look.
A lot of the small-scale, test-tube studies have suggested that the dose required for Ivermectin to be effective against COVID would destroy the kidneys & liver. But some of these observational studies indicate that that isn't true.
I think it's worth looking at in a controlled way, rather than just looking at the test tube study and getting a blanket "NOPE" from CDC/WHO.
It wasn't a sacrifice - it was just doing the right thing to begin with.
The sacrifice was made by others - like the ancient Mayans offering up a virgin to the gods.
If you can find a virgin in Pullman, sure.
The clock tower is still red, right?
A lot of people talk about doing the right thing, but how many are willing to lose their job based on principle in this day and age?
Again, kudos to you and Flat as well.
I've had to walk away from bad guys a couple times in my career. It's just better that way. Karma has a weird way of ultimately making things right.
Sometimes it just takes a long long time for that to come to pass. In this particular case, it was about 10 years. And then it was so obvious, there was vindication.
Similar threads
