So then that would be a "no" it's not the same as that hydro bullshit they were pushing last year
The official COVID-19/Coronavirus Discussion Thread...aka I hope I don't get the Rona
- Thread starter Goldie
- Start date
So then that would be a "no" it's not the same as that hydro bullshit they were pushing last year
TheNightKing
J.A.P.A.N.
How do you draw the conclusion that you can’t trust Fauci and the CDC from that? The hospital chose to not continue the Ivermectin treatment.
And the only reason doctor’s aren’t rushing out to prescribe Ivermectin is because there’s just not enough data. Once more research and data is done and it’s proven effective for most patients, it may be recommended. But the FDA, CDC, etc. aren’t going to recommend a treatment for the general population based on anecdotal evidence and you should be glad they don’t.
What is even more strange is the fact that you would be so concerned about a vaccine that at least has FDA EUA and has been administered to half of the US but in the same breath tout the use of Ivermectin that has only been used with a small number of people comparatively.
My only suggestion, don’t let the possible corrupt business side of the vaccine cloud your judgment against the safe and effective science behind it.
Last edited:
Just one small example about something that should seem okay to speak on...
Nurses, Doctors Say They're Afraid of Retaliation If They Speak to the Media
An ER doctor in Washington state says he was fired after speaking to the press and on social media about the lack of protections for health care workers
www.google.com
I wonder how high up the chain that goes. But if they get this heat for speaking honestly about conditions, why would they feel comfy enough to talk about anything else?
B_A
I was here
People can't speak out in any professional field really about anything. That's why we have a need for whistle-blowers, which are few and far between.Just one small example about something that should seem okay to speak on...
View attachment 614264Nurses, Doctors Say They're Afraid of Retaliation If They Speak to the Media
An ER doctor in Washington state says he was fired after speaking to the press and on social media about the lack of protections for health care workers
View attachment 614265
View attachment 614266
I wonder how high up the chain that goes. But if they get this heat for speaking honestly about conditions, why would they feel comfy enough to talk about anything else?
Just one small example about something that should seem okay to speak on...
View attachment 614264Nurses, Doctors Say They're Afraid of Retaliation If They Speak to the Media
An ER doctor in Washington state says he was fired after speaking to the press and on social media about the lack of protections for health care workers
View attachment 614265
View attachment 614266
I wonder how high up the chain that goes. But if they get this heat for speaking honestly about conditions, why would they feel comfy enough to talk about anything else?
Well this article being written and having actual statements in it isn't exactly people keeping quiet. It's them saying they fear the consequences of speaking out further. So that speaks to my point that it's hard to keep massive amounts of people quiet over certain things.
NIH gives the guidelines on Covid treatment. If they say don't use this or that medication, hospitals can be found liable if they administer it.and something bad happens. So why would they take that risk?
Even if hospitals aren't acting nefariously (which i think they aren't) by remdesivir standards(which was approved), ivermectin should've been approved a long time ago.
The drug that doesn't work and has no studies or anecdotal evidence supporting it got approved, ivermectin, with plenty evidence supporting it, continues not to be.
So yes, it makes them look funny
The "silencing" would potentially take on many forms with different levels.
On something as obvious and hard to deny like lack of equipment, with the push back they receive and folks losing their jobs, it sets a precedent, especially the more crucial the claim.
There are ICU doctors claiming that they are being forced to adhere to strict treatment protocols for Covid in a standard that was never forced on them before..not allowed to "practice" (ie try diff treatments) as they would before Covid ever existed.
The claims are out there. But if we're relying on heads of agencies to support those claims, u'll never get them.
B_A
I was here
And then turn into the ol' "who you believe blah blah blah" mantra/bs.
I'm not saying to rely on the heads of agencies to report them. What I'm saying is just as these people spoke out and there were medical professionals speaking out from jump about the conditions they've been working it that it speaks to my point that for a conspiracy on a massive level the act of keeping hundreds or in this case literally thousands of people silent is a task that's damn near impossible
Therein lies the problem. There are diff people who spoke out about pretty much every perspective on how Covid came about and how it was treated or measured enforced to control it.
The problem isn't whether there is anyone there to break the silence, because they are there. The problem is whether or not it's true and how to substantiate it.
A lot of people use VAERS to justify being anti vax. It can't be substantiated though.
There were people who suggested a lab leak is more likely. They were conspiracy theorists at first....not anymore.
Who to believe, and when? Because they're already out there
This is when the credibility of the person speaking out comes into play as well. And this is why I never get why people try to undersell the importance of who is giving out information and not realizing just how much that really does matter.
I agree on credibility.
But that brings me right back to Rand Paul v Fauci on gain of function research.
He was referencing Dr Roger Ebright. But no one went past "Rand Paul bad guy, me no believe"
There was science behind what he was saying.
Same with Trump. Yes trump is a racist shit head, but the science he referenced had nothing to do with him.
Does a Dr Ebright have the authority to go at Fauci neck and effect some sort of consequence? Not at all. Does it make him less credible? Nope.
But the convo stopped at Rand Paul. Which is short sighted af.
People did look past Rand Paul...it's just that for some reason the idea that looking at the shit he was saying because he is who he is seemed to be lost.
Same with Trump. He was pushing the lab leak theory out of racism. So any info he came with was always going to be tainted by that. And faulting people for being hesitant to take in information from people like that will always seem weird as fuck. Can they be right? Sure. But should they just be taken at face value? Hell no
I know this forum isn't reflective of the outside world, but check back to the actual posts of the last Fauci/Paul drama. Multiple people responded, no one gave a shit about the actual science, just the sound bite. And then a few of y'all came for me simply for asking questions. I kept bringing up the science, y'all kept bringing up Rand Paul. This can't be disputed...at least as far as this forum goes.
This is not a good argument. Again, there was unpolitical, objective science long before Trump jumped on the train. Disregarding it because of Trump is a failure on media's part (even Washington post retracted a lab leak article after push back), and the scientific community who was scared to say anything (remember that silencing u were talking about?) And the partisan slobbers who called u a Trumper for even remotely suggesting a lab leak might be true.
It's a perfect example especially with a publication having to backtrack and retract a story regarding it. Yes it was a failure on the part of the media but you can't look at it without the context of who the loudest person was speaking about the lab leak theory and that was Trump. So the evidence may have been around before Trump but who do you think most people first heard the theory from? Given that it was Trump then it makes sense why some were hesitant to attach their name to it because again his motivation wasn't science it was racism and bigotry. That speaks 100% to the effect and importance of the messenger and how them and their reputation can taint how whatever they're saying is viewed.
This is something we clearly will never agree on. You're using the same logic that people are using with the gain of function accusation.
The science is there..if u disregard it because u came to your own conclusions after gathering as much expert opinion as u can, fine.
If u disregard it bc Rand Paul is a messenger (fuck the dozens of scientists that support this claim who's info is readily available to u online) then u are doing the same exact thing as when Trump was talking about a lab leak.
Either u deny that's happening or u deny that it is problematic and justify it bc if the messenger, science be damned.
It's the same mistake all over again.
Because you keep misinterpreting what I'm saying. For some reason you keep thinking I'm saying to deny the evidence all together because of the messenger and all I'm saying is that the messenger can taint/color how people take in whatever they're saying because of their own reputation. I never said to deny the evidence because of Rand Paul, Trump or whoever and you can search and you won't find 1 post of me saying that. What you will find is me saying that I can understand why someone would be distrustful of information they're giving out. That's not really a hard concept to grasp. It's how life works in general. We view some people as more trustworthy than others and are more or less willing to question things based on the source of said information.
If somebody told you that you can learn to shoot a jumper from Ray Allen or Rajon Rondo even though they could be teaching you the exact same shooting techniques whose advice would you be more willing to take even though they could be teaching you the exact same thing?
TheNightKing
J.A.P.A.N.
Very well put.