It either didn't go far enough or went way too far. There's a sweet spot where you get bullied just enough to take the edges off but not so much that you end up turning into a completely psychotic freak like these people.
For how many years have these people been railing against this kind of logic? How many times have they said that just because a chemical is used for some industrial process doesn’t mean it’s unsafe in medication?
Suddenly that all flies out the window to support mRNA.
Twitter is removing anti-vaccine accounts
Of course anti-vaccine doesn’t even mean anti-vaccine. It means anti-these vaccines which we must push.
Ivermectin is also a very safe and effective antiparasitic treatment for farm animals, bird breeders, and indeed humans stuck with several afflictions.
For instance it's very effective, safe, and with a high compliance to treatment against scabies. Compliance to treatment is high because it's so simple and side effects are rare.
It used to be very popular and effective against head lice too, but improper use ( like sub-lethal for parasites doses selecting more resistant lice), especially in shampoos, made it less effective.
SJWs are very much anti-science anytime science dosen't support their political position.
To argue devil's advocate, how many standard GPs are at cutting edge of the science and how many follow a flowchart of if condition A, prescribe drug B?
Not really devil's advocate, your point makes a lot of sense. What I found strange is that he pretended that the "wishes" of the doctor matter at all. It's supposed to be the wishes of the patient that matter.
I’ve been to Psychiatrists their DeEpLy ScIeNtIfIc process is to look at the back of whichever medication flyer they want to prescribe and verbally do a Cosmo quiz style Q & A which determines if the pill is for you.
LOL as if fucking Adderall, Ritalin, Xanax is routinely questioned by these geniuses.
how many standard GPs are at cutting edge of the science
None of them, or they wouldn't be lowly GPs.
how many follow a flowchart of if condition A, prescribe drug B?
Every one of them that I've ever interacted with.
Every time I see a GP, it takes a multiple appointments that consist of me repeating myself and waiting for them to reach the same conclusion my googling lead me to months ago.
Growing up, my dad called GP's Quacks. Now I know why.
They could probably be replaced by AI tomorrow and we'd be better off.
Growing up, my dad called GP's Quacks. Now I know why. They could probably be replaced by AI tomorrow and we'd be better off.
Careful, it has been repeatedly shown that the smarter an AI is and the more data it gets to analyse, the more racist it becomes. Something about not having the human sensibilities to pretend certain inconvenient truths weren't so.
I recently went to one who failed at the first step of the flowchart :
"Is the patient a woman."
The answer was no, but she prescribed a useless medication for a condition I didn't have, and didn't adress the actual problem.
Conceiling power level, but it was, to pick a comparable example, as silly as insisting it's breast cancer when your patient is a male, complaining about chest pain, and the tissue samples are not cancerous.
"Yo, likely have [condition]. I'd prefer to be perscribed [medication] for it. Take a look to confirm my suspicions or if you think something else would be better off for it" is really the most you need to interact with scrip-pushers.
Hypochondriacs would have an issue with that method of interaction, but for most people, it's probably sufficient. "Ear hurts, it burns about eardrum-in depth, probably infected. Gimme a z-pack and I'll be off."
Once again, the apparent argument from the left that the children belong to them, you just pay for it all.
I'm all for holding the parents responsible when they screw up, but this is presumptively asserting that a child's parents get to look after their own children only if they've good and do as they're told by the state.
Bret and Heather Weinstein are evolutionary biologists, scientists, who are very well-informed on the pros/cons of the vaccine and ivermectin. I’m sure “Gay Dave” knows better though; these people are obviously monsters for disagreeing with “Gay Dave”.
imagine being a practicing doctor with 30 years experience whos online medical advice is removed by a 24 year old soyboy with ear plugs, a nose ring, skinny jeans, and an undercut haircut who knows medical advice better than you.
Imagine this is the world you live in, its pathetically sad.
If only we could use hydrochloroquinine which would cost pennies but unfortunately we have to spend a trillion dollars on these big pharma experiments, it's the only way.
"Also, my great grand uncle's nephew's best friend's sister's dog died of this and she was strong enough to beat you up, so you better watch what you say or you could get pissed on by that dog."
"Reports from in vitro studies suggest that ivermectin acts by inhibiting the host importin alpha/beta-1 nuclear transport proteins, which are part of a key intracellular transport process that viruses hijack to enhance infection by suppressing the host’s antiviral response." -Some random google search, I dunno, source is the NIH.
So that implies the thought process is "virus stops something that produces immune response, Ivermectin stops virus from stopping that process while it does its own thing that is mostly unrelated, and the body begins a more immediate immune response, leading to quicker/safer recovery."
As most data says Ivermectin use doesn't matter much in people who were already sick, only those healthy did it make any difference, this theory makes loose sense, since by the time you're notably sick, the body is already producing immune responses, the virus already has a foothold, but obviously not a lot of study is done on it.
Here is a study analysis of Ivermectic treatments. Very effective as pre-exposure prevention and post-infection symptoms reduction and mortality reduction.
The paper also summarizes results from laboratory studies on how Ivermectin interferes with SARS-2 virus infection and replication mechanisms.
It has something to do with the way it inhibits the way the virus transports as a convenient side-effect of the drug. If you're interested, Bret and Heather explain it in Dark Horse Podcast #80.
Another vote for Bring Back Bullying. It never went far enough.
Many of these people were the bully, and can now pretend to be the savior while destroying your life.
Gay Dave has had his ass beaten more times than it's been fucked.
If only he got the combo treatment... one Gadaffi special, and we'd be rid of him.
It either didn't go far enough or went way too far. There's a sweet spot where you get bullied just enough to take the edges off but not so much that you end up turning into a completely psychotic freak like these people.
For how many years have these people been railing against this kind of logic? How many times have they said that just because a chemical is used for some industrial process doesn’t mean it’s unsafe in medication?
Suddenly that all flies out the window to support mRNA.
Of course anti-vaccine doesn’t even mean anti-vaccine. It means anti-these vaccines which we must push.
Ivermectin is also a very safe and effective antiparasitic treatment for farm animals, bird breeders, and indeed humans stuck with several afflictions.
For instance it's very effective, safe, and with a high compliance to treatment against scabies. Compliance to treatment is high because it's so simple and side effects are rare.
It used to be very popular and effective against head lice too, but improper use ( like sub-lethal for parasites doses selecting more resistant lice), especially in shampoos, made it less effective.
SJWs are very much anti-science anytime science dosen't support their political position.
"I was only pretending to be evil."
To argue devil's advocate, how many standard GPs are at cutting edge of the science and how many follow a flowchart of if condition A, prescribe drug B?
Not really devil's advocate, your point makes a lot of sense. What I found strange is that he pretended that the "wishes" of the doctor matter at all. It's supposed to be the wishes of the patient that matter.
In a perfect world, your Doctor would act with your best medical interests at heart and would be the preferred authority on matters medical.
But we do not live in such a world.
I’ve been to Psychiatrists their DeEpLy ScIeNtIfIc process is to look at the back of whichever medication flyer they want to prescribe and verbally do a Cosmo quiz style Q & A which determines if the pill is for you.
LOL as if fucking Adderall, Ritalin, Xanax is routinely questioned by these geniuses.
Psychiatry is the easiest field of medicine to get into. So makes sense.
None of them, or they wouldn't be lowly GPs.
Every one of them that I've ever interacted with.
Every time I see a GP, it takes a multiple appointments that consist of me repeating myself and waiting for them to reach the same conclusion my googling lead me to months ago.
Growing up, my dad called GP's Quacks. Now I know why. They could probably be replaced by AI tomorrow and we'd be better off.
Careful, it has been repeatedly shown that the smarter an AI is and the more data it gets to analyse, the more racist it becomes. Something about not having the human sensibilities to pretend certain inconvenient truths weren't so.
I recently went to one who failed at the first step of the flowchart :
"Is the patient a woman."
The answer was no, but she prescribed a useless medication for a condition I didn't have, and didn't adress the actual problem.
Conceiling power level, but it was, to pick a comparable example, as silly as insisting it's breast cancer when your patient is a male, complaining about chest pain, and the tissue samples are not cancerous.
Some GPs make extremely stupid mistakes.
"Yo, likely have [condition]. I'd prefer to be perscribed [medication] for it. Take a look to confirm my suspicions or if you think something else would be better off for it" is really the most you need to interact with scrip-pushers.
Hypochondriacs would have an issue with that method of interaction, but for most people, it's probably sufficient. "Ear hurts, it burns about eardrum-in depth, probably infected. Gimme a z-pack and I'll be off."
Once again, the apparent argument from the left that the children belong to them, you just pay for it all.
I'm all for holding the parents responsible when they screw up, but this is presumptively asserting that a child's parents get to look after their own children only if they've good and do as they're told by the state.
Kindly piss off.
"Kindly"? Fuck that. "Eat shit and die"
Bret and Heather Weinstein are evolutionary biologists, scientists, who are very well-informed on the pros/cons of the vaccine and ivermectin. I’m sure “Gay Dave” knows better though; these people are obviously monsters for disagreeing with “Gay Dave”.
imagine being a practicing doctor with 30 years experience whos online medical advice is removed by a 24 year old soyboy with ear plugs, a nose ring, skinny jeans, and an undercut haircut who knows medical advice better than you.
Imagine this is the world you live in, its pathetically sad.
And a nitter link: https://nitter.pussthecat.org/BretWeinstein/status/1398751185411002368
If only we could use hydrochloroquinine which would cost pennies but unfortunately we have to spend a trillion dollars on these big pharma experiments, it's the only way.
"Also, my great grand uncle's nephew's best friend's sister's dog died of this and she was strong enough to beat you up, so you better watch what you say or you could get pissed on by that dog."
Meh. It's Endemic.
We'll all get some version of it at some point. Same as we do with the flu. I'll probably live.
I bet this faggot thinks giving testosterone to 5 year old girls is acceptable.
Gay Dave is Gay
There's so much misinformation out there i have no idea whats going on in those tweets
"Reports from in vitro studies suggest that ivermectin acts by inhibiting the host importin alpha/beta-1 nuclear transport proteins, which are part of a key intracellular transport process that viruses hijack to enhance infection by suppressing the host’s antiviral response." -Some random google search, I dunno, source is the NIH.
So that implies the thought process is "virus stops something that produces immune response, Ivermectin stops virus from stopping that process while it does its own thing that is mostly unrelated, and the body begins a more immediate immune response, leading to quicker/safer recovery."
As most data says Ivermectin use doesn't matter much in people who were already sick, only those healthy did it make any difference, this theory makes loose sense, since by the time you're notably sick, the body is already producing immune responses, the virus already has a foothold, but obviously not a lot of study is done on it.
But those that push it are.
Here is a study analysis of Ivermectic treatments. Very effective as pre-exposure prevention and post-infection symptoms reduction and mortality reduction.
The paper also summarizes results from laboratory studies on how Ivermectin interferes with SARS-2 virus infection and replication mechanisms.
Link : https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/
It has something to do with the way it inhibits the way the virus transports as a convenient side-effect of the drug. If you're interested, Bret and Heather explain it in Dark Horse Podcast #80.