Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Did you know, if you rearrange the letters in Omicron you get moronic. Just saying.

(11-30-2021, 03:58 AM)The Drifter Wrote: [ -> ]Did you know, if you rearrange the letters in Omicron you get moronic. Just saying.

No it doesn't.

Omnicron doesn't give you moronic at all.

Anyone see Fauchi lose his [BLEEP] and bring up Ted Cruz and January 6th in his latest interview? I don't understand why this guy hasn't been fired.

https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousd...HxRyyyxHTE

Remember that Merck pill we were arguing about the other day. Yeah... it's effectiveness was not nearly what they claim. Only a 30% reduction in hospitalizations and deaths, which is is good, but not great.... especially not when put in perspective. The placebo group had a 9% chance of hospitalization or death. The group on molnupiravir had a 6% chance of hospitalization or death. Great job, Merck. You would think that this would cause the FDA to take a closer look, but nope. It's approved.

You still think this isn't similar to Ivermectin, FSG? My last read on the Ivermectin studies had it about a 25% reduction, but those studies aren't reliable (even though Remdisivir had the same results, too). If it makes money, it passes.

(11-30-2021, 08:15 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousd...HxRyyyxHTE

Remember that Merck pill we were arguing about the other day. Yeah... it's effectiveness was not nearly what they claim. Only a 30% reduction in hospitalizations and deaths, which is is good, but not great.... especially not when put in perspective. The placebo group had a 9% chance of hospitalization or death. The group on molnupiravir had a 6% chance of hospitalization or death. Great job, Merck. You would think that this would cause the FDA to take a closer look, but nope. It's approved.

You still think this isn't similar to Ivermectin, FSG? My last read on the Ivermectin studies had it about a 25% reduction, but those studies aren't reliable (even though Remdisivir had the same results, too). If it makes money, it passes.

It's similarly ineffective it seems.

30% isn't ineffective. It's just not what they were promising. Additionally, I'd love to see the info as it pertains to the various risk demographics.

Also, you just rolled passed that corporate corruption thing again.

(11-30-2021, 09:58 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]30% isn't ineffective. It's just not what they were promising. Additionally, I'd love to see the info as it pertains to the various risk demographics.

Also, you just rolled passed that corporate corruption thing again.

Or the FDA position is that the benefit is sufficient for an EUA for now. Any port in a storm and such.

These poor kids.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/...s-vaccine/

Biden got shutdown today. CMS mandate is banned nationwide. Federal contractor mandate is banned in 3 states today, nationwide in a day or 2. Military is not banned yet but is required to file reports for all the religious requests first thing in Jan.

Court ruled that the EUA is not the same as the nonexistent FDA approved vaccine, so that sets the precedent to then apply existing laws that say you cannot require a EUA drug in the Military unless there has been a specific override that has rules to be able to issue it. This basically stops the Military and Federal employee mandates but they will have to continue going through the courts.

Everyone is ruling it is a state issue per the 10th amendment. States and employers can mandate it legally, although not a EUA. They have to still provide and grant medical and religious exemptions.




My company still hasn't gotten back to me in 1 month now but did move the date out to 1/18.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

(12-01-2021, 12:18 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-30-2021, 09:58 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]30% isn't ineffective. It's just not what they were promising. Additionally, I'd love to see the info as it pertains to the various risk demographics.

Also, you just rolled passed that corporate corruption thing again.

Or the FDA position is that the benefit is sufficient for an EUA for now. Any port in a storm and such.

But the FDA can't do the same for Ivermectin? 

Dude. I don't care which path they take. Just be consistent. Their only consistent position is that which makes companies money. When are you going to stop being obtuse and acknowledge this for what it is? 

(12-01-2021, 08:18 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-01-2021, 12:18 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Or the FDA position is that the benefit is sufficient for an EUA for now. Any port in a storm and such.

But the FDA can't do the same for Ivermectin? 

Dude. I don't care which path they take. Just be consistent. Their only consistent position is that which makes companies money. When are you going to stop being obtuse and acknowledge this for what it is? 

Again, no, there's no evidence that's been presented to the FDA that says Ivermectin works on Covid. Not one single trial has shown it works at all. Merck, the manufacturer, says it does nothing. The Together Study already proved it does nothing. Now we've discussed the current one that will finally, hopefully, prove that once and for all to you and everyone else still on that runaway freight train.

We all knew Omicron was already here, but the first case was confirmed today in California.

(12-01-2021, 11:36 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-01-2021, 08:18 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]But the FDA can't do the same for Ivermectin? 

Dude. I don't care which path they take. Just be consistent. Their only consistent position is that which makes companies money. When are you going to stop being obtuse and acknowledge this for what it is? 

Again, no, there's no evidence that's been presented to the FDA that says Ivermectin works on Covid. Not one single trial has shown it works at all. Merck, the manufacturer, says it does nothing. The Together Study already proved it does nothing. Now we've discussed the current one that will finally, hopefully, prove that once and for all to you and everyone else still on that runaway freight train.

And you again ignore that everything you state about Ivermectin is also true for Remdesivir. What's the difference?

(12-01-2021, 06:55 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-01-2021, 11:36 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Again, no, there's no evidence that's been presented to the FDA that says Ivermectin works on Covid. Not one single trial has shown it works at all. Merck, the manufacturer, says it does nothing. The Together Study already proved it does nothing. Now we've discussed the current one that will finally, hopefully, prove that once and for all to you and everyone else still on that runaway freight train.

And you again ignore that everything you state about Ivermectin is also true for Remdesivir. What's the difference?

I dunno, did the manufacturer present evidence to the FDA that Remdesivir works? Appears that way.

Stop being so dense, dude. You really think Merck is going to support Ivermectin when they can't make any money from it? All while making another drug that does the exact same thing that they managed to get approved by the FDA? Your defense of it before was that it was SO much better than Ivermectin, which was based on a LIE. Now your discrediting Ivermectin based on the strength of Merck's testimony? The same company that just selectively released data to make it's drug seem more effective? The company that just lied to you and everyone else to get it's drug fast tracked through the approval process? The same one that is now going to charge an arm and a leg to people to take their protease inhibitor? That Merck?

You couldn't write this. I like you, dude, but this is staring you right in the face and you can't see it for some weird reason.

Look, here's the difference between me and you. I don't care if Ivermectin works or not. I really don't. If that Activ-6 study comes and and shows zero benefit, and it's a well done study, I will change my opinion. I don't have these opinions because I think I'm smarter than everyone. I have these opinions because I've spent a TON of time reading legitimate studies from around the world and you can see a pattern. Our data is tainted by corporate greed. I care that our institutions are making a mockery of science for profit. It's so obvious what's going on and either your pride or your naivety keeps you from acknowledging it. I have no idea how you can hold these leeches in such high regard.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion.

(12-01-2021, 08:04 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-01-2021, 06:55 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]And you again ignore that everything you state about Ivermectin is also true for Remdesivir. What's the difference?

I dunno, did the manufacturer present evidence to the FDA that Remdesivir works? Appears that way.

I respect your opinion on a lot of things but damn man. You gotta see that vax was a grift. They have had it ready to go since 2015 and it is causing problems no matter what you say. 

Riddle me this

How did Omicron get to Australia and NZ if the unvaxxed are not allowed to come or go. How did they get a test to California for it so quickly to find out the first person in the US, whom was fully vaxxed, has it?

Why on 11/24 did South Africa tell pharma to shove it. Suddenly there's a "New Variant" (That they skipped Xi as a name for conveniently) on 11/25 and we need to lock 'em down and ostracize them.

I think the NFL is lucky. Footballers in EU have been falling out. I think it's because of the thing those fans hate about American Football. We play, run, exert for 3-10 seconds and walk back to the huddle they run and run and run.

delta + omicron = media control

Remdesivir  + Ventilator = Death and Govt Subsidy to the hospital. Unconscionable, the fallout from this is going to be epic.