Coronavirus - Doomsday

[lod001 1,344]

5 minutes ago, TimmySmith said:

You are going to force "lyin' tim" to make an appearance. 

Yeah. This really has to all be a simulation. I'm even battling the antifaguy fucktards like 'icon'. That worthless pile of sh1t could be the dumbest fucktard over there. I punched capella right in the face and he ran away. Woulda thought he got enough when I destroyed his jameis stinkston doll. The level of retardation over there is off the charts, so much so their biggest retard, timschoshit couldn't deal with it and ran from the politics forum and won't go back.

[TimHauck 2,906]

56 minutes ago, lod001 said:

I was going by his 'ivermectin does not work' tweet which is now gone. Maybe he will grow a brain and figure it out.

Dr. Pierre Kory would set this guy straight if he really wanted the answer. He either knows that or is way too dumb to research it.

this one?

 

 

[TimHauck 2,906]

41 minutes ago, lod001 said:

You asked for this Tim. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8248252/

https://search.nih.gov/search?utf8=✓&affiliate=nih&query=ivermectin&commit=Search

Not sure why I bother since i know you won't agree. You will did and did and dig for even one word in the study to cling to your hopes that you will be right about Ivermectin.

This isn't a study, it's a meta analysis and includes the Elgazzar study which has been retracted.  Next.  

 

 

[BudBro 183]

8 hours ago, TimHauck said:

Also it kinda sounded like she didn’t really “need” the other supplies, she just bought them so it wouldn’t seem like she was buying the Ivermectin for herself. Maybe that’s more evidence the story is fake, I don’t own a horse so I’m not sure how often one needs to buy horse supplies.

I’m not saying I think the story is definitely true, but it’s possible.     Honestly though I’m surprised the horse version has become the most popular to talk about, since not that many people have horses.  It’s a common dog heartworm pill too.  Maybe because you still need a vet prescription for that, but pretty much anyone with a dog can get it.

The people that take your money don't inquire as to whether or not you have a horse.  They purchased inventory at a cost, then price it to make a profit when they sell. it.  It's what makes the world turn.  If you purchase a broom from the same store, they don't inquire if you have dirt. 

I would suggest horse paste is purchased more often because of "ease of use."  It is marked in pounds, and notched to provide the proper amount of product that is needed.  If you know how much you weigh, you know how much to dispense.

[lod001 1,344]

4 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

This isn't a study, it's a meta analysis and includes the Elgazzar study which has been retracted.  Next.  

 

 

Like I said. You are hopeless. 

[TimHauck 2,906]

1 minute ago, lod001 said:

Like I said. You are hopeless. 

Cool, go ahead and keep believing fraudulent studies then.

[BudBro 183]

5 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

This isn't a study, it's a meta analysis and includes the Elgazzar study which has been retracted.  Next.   

 

 

All you wish to learn is available to you.

 

 

[lod001 1,344]

3 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Cool, go ahead and keep believing fraudulent studies then.

WTF do I waste time with an idiot like you but here goes.

Explain the now 12 for 12 on giving ivermectin to people hooked up to ventilators and the hospital waiting for them to die. If you need info, go see Pierre Kory's twitter.

[lod001 1,344]

16 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

this one?

 

 

Nope. He had a tweet that said 'ivermectin does not work'.

[lod001 1,344]

Eat it dickhead.

 

[TimHauck 2,906]

8 minutes ago, lod001 said:

Nope. He had a tweet that said 'ivermectin does not work'.

This one?

 

For the record, I've never said that "Ivermectin doesn't work."  Was honestly just looking for some good evidence, and I am open to reading it if there is any.   But anecdotes and fraudulent studies aren't evidence. 

Just started watching those videos BudBro, thanks for sharing.

[lod001 1,344]

15 minutes ago, lod001 said:

WTF do I waste time with an idiot like you but here goes.

Explain the now 12 for 12 on giving ivermectin to people hooked up to ventilators and the hospital waiting for them to die. If you need info, go see Pierre Kory's twitter.

So you are not going to answer the question.

[TimmySmith 2,782]

2 minutes ago, lod001 said:

So you are not going to answer the question.

His handlers are pretty strict on what he's allowed to answer. 

[jerryskids 6,827]

28 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

This isn't a study, it's a meta analysis and includes the Elgazzar study which has been retracted.  Next.  

 

 

So if I understand, a meta analysis includes one study which has been retracted, and you dismiss the rest of the studies in the analysis?  Really?

[TimHauck 2,906]

19 minutes ago, lod001 said:

Explain the now 12 for 12 on giving ivermectin to people hooked up to ventilators and the hospital waiting for them to die. If you need info, go see Pierre Kory's twitter.

link?

all I see is this -

 

So 10/11, not 12/12 but still pretty good.  Still just an anecdote though.   Did the person that he lost the court order on die? 

[TimHauck 2,906]

2 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

So if I understand, a meta analysis includes one study which has been retracted, and you dismiss the rest of the studies in the analysis?  Really?

I'm not dismissing the rest of the studies, I'm dismissing the sum of the studies which is dependent on the retracted one.    If lod thinks one of the other individual studies are good I'll read it.  But he hasn't done that. 

 

 

[jerryskids 6,827]

17 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

I'm not dismissing the rest of the studies, I'm dismissing the sum of the studies which is dependent on the retracted one.    If lod thinks one of the other individual studies are good I'll read it.  But he hasn't done that. 

 

 

Reading through those tweets it looks like "primary benefit" is "reduction in deaths."  So removing the questionable study lowers the reduction in deaths to ONLY 44%, it is still statistically significant but only MARGINALLY so, and based on this the media is painting Ivermectin as a horse dewormer that Trumptards are OD'ing on? 

[lod001 1,344]

26 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

link?

all I see is this -

 

So 10/11, not 12/12 but still pretty good.  Still just an anecdote though.   Did the person that he lost the court order on die? 

My mistake, 10 for 11. No idea on #11. So in your opinion, they all would have magically survived anyway? 

[TimHauck 2,906]

4 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Reading through those tweets it looks like "primary benefit" is "reduction in deaths."  So removing the questionable study lowers the reduction in deaths to ONLY 44%, it is still statistically significant but only MARGINALLY so, and based on this the media is painting Ivermectin as a horse dewormer that Trumptards are OD'ing on? 

Some of the math formulas are definitely over my head, but I think that was his initial point yes.   He also says there was a new study done after that meta analysis that brings down the numbers further if included, and he was questioning another one of the studies that was included as well.

Which is likely at least part of the reason why "Angry Cardiologist" wasn't interested in reading meta analyses either.   

But I agree the "Trumpers are poisoning themselves with horse dewormer" narrative is dumb and largely untrue (but not completely). 

Overall, I'd say I'm in the camp of "it probably can't hurt," but my issue is the people that are pushing it as a replacement for the vaccine (like lod).

 

[TimHauck 2,906]

7 hours ago, Reality said:

Thread, Fauci exposed. 

 

Is there really anything new here?   I thought Fauci's defense was mostly just hanging onto a very specific definition of "gain of function."  I haven't seen the 900 pages but this twitter thread is just taking Ebright's word for it - are there any screenshots somewhere?

[jerryskids 6,827]

5 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Is there really anything new here?   I thought Fauci's defense was mostly just hanging onto a very specific definition of "gain of function."  I haven't seen the 900 pages but this twitter thread is just taking Ebright's word for it - are there any screenshots somewhere?

I always figured Fauci's defense was the money laundering through companies like Eco-Health Alliance.  Which reminds me, exactly what function does Eco-Health perform?  We give them money and... they give it to China for research, minus their vig?  Does their website say "we launder money so you can have plausible deniability on all of that nasty research you want to do but don't want to trace back to you"?   

[TimHauck 2,906]

27 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

I always figured Fauci's defense was the money laundering through companies like Eco-Health Alliance.  Which reminds me, exactly what function does Eco-Health perform?  We give them money and... they give it to China for research, minus their vig?  Does their website say "we launder money so you can have plausible deniability on all of that nasty research you want to do but don't want to trace back to you"?   

Pretty sure his defense was that he's saying it was not "gain of function" research based on whatever he's saying the definition is.

For example, no clue who this person is, but this seems to be a screenshot of one of the 900 pages and specifically says Gain of Function research as defined here is prohibited:

 

 

[Fireballer 2,642]

 

[KSB2424 3,148]

I have no idea if it works or not but saying its a horse pill is false advertising and #fakenews.

It's been given to humans forever, just google it on WebMD.  

[jerryskids 6,827]

7 minutes ago, Fireballer said:

 

But... they used protection to define immunity, and they haven't changed immunity.  So by the transitive property (if A=B and B=C then A=C), then a vaccine provides protection=immunity.   

[TimHauck 2,906]

9 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

But... they used protection to define immunity, and they haven't changed immunity.  So by the transitive property (if A=B and B=C then A=C), then a vaccine provides protection=immunity.   

So the definition of “vaccination” includes “vaccine”? Isn’t that against the rules of the English language?

[jerryskids 6,827]

9 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

So the definition of “vaccination” includes “vaccine”? Isn’t that against the rules of the English language?

They should have stopped at "vaccination:  The act of introducing a vaccine into the body."  But thankfully they didn't, so we know they are trying to change the rules mid game. 

[Gepetto 1,371]

Would you dorks stop putting twitter posts in here, thanks.

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,356]

My doctor suggested I take cough syrup and ibuprofen as well

why are those not banned if there is no study following the effectiveness vs covid

sometimes medicine just damn well makes you feel better

 

[Fireballer 2,642]

1 minute ago, Gepetto said:

Would you dorks stop putting twitter posts in here, thanks.

Would you dorks stop clicking on Twitter posts that you don't want to see, thanks.

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,356]

Gain of Function research done

Fauci committed perjury

nobody cares

 

[lod001 1,344]

This would be comical if it wasn't so fockin sick. 

CDC vaccine definition in 2018: A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but can also be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.

Vaccination: The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.

CDC vaccine definition 2021: A preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but some can be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.

Vaccination: The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce protection from a specific disease.

Since the garbage doesn't provide immunity, they changed the definition to fit the garbage.

By pulling this BS, they didn't realize that makes ivermectin and any other treatment, a vaccine.

 

[lod001 1,344]

1 minute ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

Gain of Function research done

Fauci committed perjury

nobody cares

 

asshats that suck fauci still wont see the crap hes pulling off on them. 

[lod001 1,344]

11 minutes ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

My doctor suggested I take cough syrup and ibuprofen as well

why are those not banned if there is no study following the effectiveness vs covid

sometimes medicine just damn well makes you feel better

 

Since he recommended those, they are now classified as vaccines.

[KSB2424 3,148]

34 minutes ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

Gain of Function research done

Fauci committed perjury

nobody cares

 

It's amazing.  This should be the greatest news story since 9/11.  

[KSB2424 3,148]

I don't think Facui and the rest "meant' to do this but it went wildly wrong and is now covering up his tracks.

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,356]

11 minutes ago, KSB2424 said:

I don't think Facui and the rest "meant' to do this but it went wildly wrong and is now covering up his tracks.

I absolutely think he meant to do this, he did the same exact thing with Aids medication

hes a lying politician and has been for 40 years

 

[lod001 1,344]

36 minutes ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

I absolutely think he meant to do this, he did the same exact thing with Aids medication

hes a lying politician and has been for 40 years

 

The POS is enemy #1.

https://cdn.digitalobservermedia.com/yourobserver.com/pdfs/The-Drug-that-Cracked-Covid-by-Michael-Capuzzo.pdf

[Fireballer 2,642]

 

[lod001 1,344]

A year long study. But hey, keep pumping that sh1t into you will we watch and see what kind of damage it's doing to your body.