So when do the EUAs get pulled for the vaccines now that there is a big pharma approved treatment? How many pills will you need? They'll probably make more on the pills than the vaccines.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

---

So when do the EUAs get pulled for the vaccines now that there is a big pharma approved treatment? How many pills will you need? They'll probably make more on the pills than the vaccines.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

Yup gotta have 100 $72 pills in regimens every 5 weeks. 

Gotta keep them record profits up!

---

Pfizer briefing document for vax in kids age 5 to 11 admits their clinical trial was too underpowered to detect myocarditis. "The number of participants in the current clinical development program is too small to detect any potential risks of myocarditis associated w vax https://t.co/MbE0mG0aw0

---

Honestly, I can't believe you're linking a fact check article. What would we do without those journalists deciding scientific truth for the masses. Whoops, my bad... those journalist who found one scientist to object to this larger point.

When I clicked the link in the fact check piece the scientist was using to discredit Ivermectin, I realized I have read it already. That study looked at Ivermectin in vitro, which we both no is not an adequate substitute for how it works in the human body. Do we know how they observed Pfizer's protease inhibitor? Was it in vitro? Did you bother to look that up before posting that awesome scientific fact check? Would that even matter? Does it matter that Ivermectin binds the strongest to 3CL protease inhibitor of all the other drugs tried? Are you even trying to understand how this works or are you content to copy and paste from these neutral arbiters of truth? Your fact check paper says that the mice had high viral loads to discredit Ivermectin while simultaneously admitting the mice we not as affected by the virus. Isn't that the point?

Anyways, I'll go in a different direction. My primary claim is that the drug companies are not being forthright with us. I post a reason why, and these great fact checkers reached out to these beacons of virtue and this is how they respond: “Pfizer’s protease inhibitor is not similar to that of an animal medicine and is not the same mechanism,” a company spokesperson said in an email, noting that protease inhibitors exist for a variety of viruses, including HIV and hepatitis C virus. This spokesperson tried to say Ivermectin is an animal drug. What a joke. They know better. It's propaganda. Not only that, but they know that even though different protease inhibitors exist, that their new drug and Ivermectin target the same one, unlike some of these other ones they mentioned. Get out of here with that nonsense. You should know when you're being lied to, dude.

It's not "just one" it's a multitude from the academic world around the Country The only place Ivermectin was proven to work remains in a petri dish, in the real world it doesn't do anything. But you already knew this. Now they present a new drug and rather than being excited about the potential it's a corrupt conspiracy. Your position keeps moving more and more to the conspiracy theories and it's worrying. Maybe it's time for you to take a break before you become a crotchety old cynic like me. And it's interesting that you put something in "layman's terms", you seem to imply that you are something more than a layman yourself. Do you have a degree or experience in these studies or do you just read and report? I've wondered that for some time, you seem to read a lot which is good, but now you seem to think your reading gives you expertise enough to decry legitimate expertise who are saying that what you're saying isn't so.  I'm not an expert and I really don't pretend to be, but it seems you've graduated from internet university to full professorship.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Honestly, I can't believe you're linking a fact check article. What would we do without those journalists deciding scientific truth for the masses. Whoops, my bad... those journalist who found one scientist to object to this larger point.

When I clicked the link in the fact check piece the scientist was using to discredit Ivermectin, I realized I have read it already. That study looked at Ivermectin in vitro, which we both no is not an adequate substitute for how it works in the human body. Do we know how they observed Pfizer's protease inhibitor? Was it in vitro? Did you bother to look that up before posting that awesome scientific fact check? Would that even matter? Does it matter that Ivermectin binds the strongest to 3CL protease inhibitor of all the other drugs tried? Are you even trying to understand how this works or are you content to copy and paste from these neutral arbiters of truth? Your fact check paper says that the mice had high viral loads to discredit Ivermectin while simultaneously admitting the mice we not as affected by the virus. Isn't that the point?

Anyways, I'll go in a different direction. My primary claim is that the drug companies are not being forthright with us. I post a reason why, and these great fact checkers reached out to these beacons of virtue and this is how they respond: “Pfizer’s protease inhibitor is not similar to that of an animal medicine and is not the same mechanism,” a company spokesperson said in an email, noting that protease inhibitors exist for a variety of viruses, including HIV and hepatitis C virus. This spokesperson tried to say Ivermectin is an animal drug. What a joke. They know better. It's propaganda. Not only that, but they know that even though different protease inhibitors exist, that their new drug and Ivermectin target the same one, unlike some of these other ones they mentioned. Get out of here with that nonsense. You should know when you're being lied to, dude.

It's not "just one" it's a multitude from the academic world around the Country The only place Ivermectin was proven to work remains in a petri dish, in the real world it doesn't do anything. But you already knew this. Now they present a new drug and rather than being excited about the potential it's a corrupt conspiracy. Your position keeps moving more and more to the conspiracy theories and it's worrying. Maybe it's time for you to take a break before you become a crotchety old cynic like me. And it's interesting that you put something in "layman's terms", you seem to imply that you are something more than a layman yourself. Do you have a degrees or experience in these studies or do you just read and report? I've wondered that for some time, you seem to read a lot which is good, but now you seem to think your reading gives you expertise enough to decry legitimate expertise who are saying that what you're saying isn't so.  I'm not an expert and I really don't pretend to be, but it seems you've graduated from internet university to full professorship.

Bwahahahaha

---

Honestly, I can't believe you're linking a fact check article. What would we do without those journalists deciding scientific truth for the masses. Whoops, my bad... those journalist who found one scientist to object to this larger point.

When I clicked the link in the fact check piece the scientist was using to discredit Ivermectin, I realized I have read it already. That study looked at Ivermectin in vitro, which we both no is not an adequate substitute for how it works in the human body. Do we know how they observed Pfizer's protease inhibitor? Was it in vitro? Did you bother to look that up before posting that awesome scientific fact check? Would that even matter? Does it matter that Ivermectin binds the strongest to 3CL protease inhibitor of all the other drugs tried? Are you even trying to understand how this works or are you content to copy and paste from these neutral arbiters of truth? Your fact check paper says that the mice had high viral loads to discredit Ivermectin while simultaneously admitting the mice we not as affected by the virus. Isn't that the point?

Anyways, I'll go in a different direction. My primary claim is that the drug companies are not being forthright with us. I post a reason why, and these great fact checkers reached out to these beacons of virtue and this is how they respond: “Pfizer’s protease inhibitor is not similar to that of an animal medicine and is not the same mechanism,” a company spokesperson said in an email, noting that protease inhibitors exist for a variety of viruses, including HIV and hepatitis C virus. This spokesperson tried to say Ivermectin is an animal drug. What a joke. They know better. It's propaganda. Not only that, but they know that even though different protease inhibitors exist, that their new drug and Ivermectin target the same one, unlike some of these other ones they mentioned. Get out of here with that nonsense. You should know when you're being lied to, dude.

It's not "just one" it's a multitude from the academic world around the Country The only place Ivermectin was proven to work remains in a petri dish, in the real world it doesn't do anything. But you already knew this. Now they present a new drug and rather than being excited about the potential it's a corrupt conspiracy. Your position keeps moving more and more to the conspiracy theories and it's worrying. Maybe it's time for you to take a break before you become a crotchety old cynic like me. And it's interesting that you put something in "layman's terms", you seem to imply that you are something more than a layman yourself. Do you have a degree or experience in these studies or do you just read and report? I've wondered that for some time, you seem to read a lot which is good, but now you seem to think your reading gives you expertise enough to decry legitimate expertise who are saying that what you're saying isn't so.  I'm not an expert and I really don't pretend to be, but it seems you've graduated from internet university to full professorship.

I'll respond to this when I get more time, but it's hilarious to be that you're building a whole argument around the colloquial expression, 'layman's terms.' Is that expression reserved for professors? 

How many hours does one need to study a subject before they can be knowledgeable enough to use those words, in your opinion? Because, let's face it, I'm more well read than you on the subject. I can drag my doctor into deep waters, and he's pretty well informed. I've proven you wrong multiple times in this thread and you work in this field. Now, I get the jargon wrong at times and can't always remember the details, but, concept for concept, I'm probably more informed on this subject than anyone you know. 

As to the rest of your point, I'm just a smart dude with lots of free time. Your point about Ivermectin is wrong, and I have given you multiple studies that show it works. They are smaller, clinical studies, but the preponderance of research says it works. Your argument floats on waters muddied by corporate interest. It's a shame you're unwilling to see it fit what it is. More to follow.

---

My background is political science and international affairs. I worked at the Florida state Capitol for a while after graduation with an emphasis on research and data reporting. I know how to read research. The problem with all this stuff is that I often have to get into the weeds to see how it was done. Methodology has become a huge problem and it shows when you roll up your sleeves and get to work breaking down the data.

If it feels like I'm becoming conspiratorial, it's because I am. Big Pharma is not trustworthy, dude. Their track record of killing people for money is huge. The more I research them, the less I trust their studies. It's that simple. That doesn't mean I ignore good studies, but I have become inherently mistrusting of their intentions. I want to know why our policy response to this has been so bad and the short answer is corporate greed.

---

My background is political science and international affairs. I worked at the Florida state Capitol for a while after graduation with an emphasis on research and data reporting. I know how to read research. The problem with all this stuff is that I often have to get into the weeds to see how it was done. Methodology has become a huge problem and it shows when you roll up your sleeves and get to work breaking down the data.

If it feels like I'm becoming conspiratorial, it's because I am. Big Pharma is not trustworthy, dude. Their track record of killing people for money is huge. The more I research them, the less I trust their studies. It's that simple. That doesn't mean I ignore good studies, but I have become inherently mistrusting of their intentions. I want to know why our policy response to this has been so bad and the short answer is corporate greed.

Simple answer is lobbying and the fact that people on the boards and policy enforcement have moved between the positions so there really is no one that oversees this that isn't connected to the companies that are looking for approval.

For studies, they need to find ways that end the careers if you publish a tainted study paid by the pharma company.


Once you see inside a Big Pharma company, you understand how dependent they are on getting approval for new drugs. If they fail, even the big ones risk shutting down a bunch of their business and possibly having to sell.

---

I don't follow local news much, but saw this popup on my timeline. When did local media go the route of the fake news media?

https://www.news4jax.com/news/florida/20...tent=wjxt4

---

I don't follow local news much, but saw this popup on my timeline. When did local media go the route of the fake news media?

https://www.news4jax.com/news/florida/20...tent=wjxt4

They have been on that train for a long time

---

Anti vaxxers r a comedy fest

---

It's not "just one" it's a multitude from the academic world around the Country The only place Ivermectin was proven to work remains in a petri dish, in the real world it doesn't do anything. But you already knew this. Now they present a new drug and rather than being excited about the potential it's a corrupt conspiracy. Your position keeps moving more and more to the conspiracy theories and it's worrying. Maybe it's time for you to take a break before you become a crotchety old cynic like me. And it's interesting that you put something in "layman's terms", you seem to imply that you are something more than a layman yourself. Do you have a degree or experience in these studies or do you just read and report? I've wondered that for some time, you seem to read a lot which is good, but now you seem to think your reading gives you expertise enough to decry legitimate expertise who are saying that what you're saying isn't so.  I'm not an expert and I really don't pretend to be, but it seems you've graduated from internet university to full professorship.

I'll respond to this when I get more time, but it's hilarious to be that you're building a whole argument around the colloquial expression, 'layman's terms.' Is that expression reserved for professors? 

How many hours does one need to study a subject before they can be knowledgeable enough to use those words, in your opinion? Because, let's face it, I'm more well read than you on the subject. I can drag my doctor into deep waters, and he's pretty well informed. I've proven you wrong multiple times in this thread and you work in this field. Now, I get the jargon wrong at times and can't always remember the details, but, concept for concept, I'm probably more informed on this subject than anyone you know. 

As to the rest of your point, I'm just a smart dude with lots of free time. Your point about Ivermectin is wrong, and I have given you multiple studies that show it works. They are smaller, clinical studies, but the preponderance of research says it works. Your argument floats on waters muddied by corporate interest. It's a shame you're unwilling to see it fit what it is. More to follow.

It was just an observation, you seem to have an almost unhealthy interest in these things that's progressed toward your own form of zealotry as we've move through the pandemic. You keep saying you've proved me wrong, and yet all you've done is read and report on studies that you yourself continually disparage (unless they prove your point) as "corporate shenanigans" or some such. And yes, laymen are guys like you and me who aren't experts in the field. My field is business and I work in healthcare. I'm no scientist and don't claim to be, yet you seem to think you are because, well you read a lot of studies in your free time. That's all fine and good, I just think you're a bit carried away with what you think you know versus what you actually know. I'm sure your inflated sense of self-worth contributes as well, as you said you're a smart guy who thinks he's always proving everyone else wrong about...well, everything. Even the actual experts in the field who continually disagree with your conclusions, like Ivermectin working on Covid.

---

My background is political science and international affairs. I worked at the Florida state Capitol for a while after graduation with an emphasis on research and data reporting. I know how to read research. The problem with all this stuff is that I often have to get into the weeds to see how it was done. Methodology has become a huge problem and it shows when you roll up your sleeves and get to work breaking down the data.

If it feels like I'm becoming conspiratorial, it's because I am. Big Pharma is not trustworthy, dude. Their track record of killing people for money is huge. The more I research them, the less I trust their studies. It's that simple. That doesn't mean I ignore good studies, but I have become inherently mistrusting of their intentions. I want to know why our policy response to this has been so bad and the short answer is corporate greed.

I agree that Big Pharma is greedy, I just struggle with your new position that anyone who disagrees with you is in their pocket.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Anti vaxxers r a comedy fest

So are newbies with 54 posts.

---

Anti vaxxers r a comedy fest

So are newbies with 54 posts.

I dont think my post count is anything to roast about lol.

Im on here cause i enjoy staying up to date with team news, info and even the live game threads.

Hell, it aint even the main sport i follow mate, i ledgit only watch jags games...any other game dont intrest me..apart from the superbowl ofcourse

So yea..go to buggery  

---

I'll respond to this when I get more time, but it's hilarious to be that you're building a whole argument around the colloquial expression, 'layman's terms.' Is that expression reserved for professors? 

How many hours does one need to study a subject before they can be knowledgeable enough to use those words, in your opinion? Because, let's face it, I'm more well read than you on the subject. I can drag my doctor into deep waters, and he's pretty well informed. I've proven you wrong multiple times in this thread and you work in this field. Now, I get the jargon wrong at times and can't always remember the details, but, concept for concept, I'm probably more informed on this subject than anyone you know. 

As to the rest of your point, I'm just a smart dude with lots of free time. Your point about Ivermectin is wrong, and I have given you multiple studies that show it works. They are smaller, clinical studies, but the preponderance of research says it works. Your argument floats on waters muddied by corporate interest. It's a shame you're unwilling to see it fit what it is. More to follow.

It was just an observation, you seem to have an almost unhealthy interest in these things that's progressed toward your own form of zealotry as we've move through the pandemic. You keep saying you've proved me wrong, and yet all you've done is read and report on studies that you yourself continually disparage (unless they prove your point) as "corporate shenanigans" or some such. And yes, laymen are guys like you and me who aren't experts in the field. My field is business and I work in healthcare. I'm no scientist and don't claim to be, yet you seem to think you are because, well you read a lot of studies in your free time. That's all fine and good, I just think you're a bit carried away with what you think you know versus what you actually know. I'm sure your inflated sense of self-worth contributes as well, as you said you're a smart guy who thinks he's always proving everyone else wrong about...well, everything. Even the actual experts in the field who continually disagree with your conclusions, like Ivermectin working on Covid.

---

My background is political science and international affairs. I worked at the Florida state Capitol for a while after graduation with an emphasis on research and data reporting. I know how to read research. The problem with all this stuff is that I often have to get into the weeds to see how it was done. Methodology has become a huge problem and it shows when you roll up your sleeves and get to work breaking down the data.

If it feels like I'm becoming conspiratorial, it's because I am. Big Pharma is not trustworthy, dude. Their track record of killing people for money is huge. The more I research them, the less I trust their studies. It's that simple. That doesn't mean I ignore good studies, but I have become inherently mistrusting of their intentions. I want to know why our policy response to this has been so bad and the short answer is corporate greed.

I agree that Big Pharma is greedy, I just struggle with your new position that anyone who disagrees with you is in their pocket.

This whole post is one giant mischaracterization. It shows why you and I are butting heads. You are not addressing the substance of my argument. You are addressing a caricature of my argument. 

I will address three key components of this post. 

Laymen's terms is an expression. It means reducing a complex idea to a simple one. I watched 3 different videos over 20 minutes each in an attempt to understand the mechanisms by which these new drugs work. Do you know how long it would take me to explain all of the mechanisms involved? It's complicated. I didn't say "for the laypeople out there," as if I were above anyone. I said, "to put it in layman's terms," which is to say that I am reducing this idea to something much simpler that anyone should be able to understand. It's weird to me you are camping out there like you struck gold or something. It's a simple figure of speech.

---

Accidentally posted, so I'll continue my other two points in another post.

---

The tea leaves must be showing Biden getting shutdown in court. My company moved the date to some time in January, no hard date, and this is for a federal contractor which still has the 12/8 date.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

---

The second two points go together anyways, so this probably worked out.

Firstly, I am fully aware of the dunning kruger effect. I have said this many times before. I am not an expert at all, and talking with an expert would be and should be enlightening. I have no doubt they would say I ask good questions on some things, and laugh at my inability to understand other things. I have no delusions about where I am in this process. That said, I have talked with many, many doctors. I have talked with more than one administrator. Hell, a majority of my circle of friends are in the health care industry. I am not asking bad questions. I am asking good questions and they can't answer them. What I find, more often than not, is that I will get corrected, but on the details, not the concepts. Occasionally, I have to adjust my way of thinking because I have the concept down wrong, and I have no problems doing that. You don't answer most of my questions, even though you think you do. You are good at mischaracterizing me, though. Observe:

you seem to have an almost unhealthy interest

Do you define the level of interest that is healthy? On the most transformative disease in my lifetime? Which resulted in the most stringent response to a disease we've ever experienced? Nope.

progressed toward your own form of zealotry

Do you define zealotry? Is there some measuring stick you use to categorize a person in that manner? Where'd you find that info? 

I'm no scientist and don't claim to be, yet you seem to think you are

Did I ever say I was a scientist? Have I cited actually scientific data to support most of my positions? Yup. That's how we make informed decisions.

I just think you're a bit carried away with what you think you know versus what you actually know

More speculation. This is a great argument you're having, btw. Look at all these facts you're using. 

I'm sure your inflated sense of self-worth contributes as well

Tell me more, Dr. Psychologist.

You keep saying you've proved me wrong, and yet all you've done is read and report on studies that you yourself continually disparage (unless they prove your point) as "corporate shenanigans" or some such

Saved this one for last, because it's the most concrete argument you are making in this post and it's easily disprovable. I have considered many studies you've posted. I have never dismissed any findings outright, but pointed out why they are not prima facie evidence for the policy that's being made. That's important. You can't seem to get that straight. Likewise, I have ALWAYS accepted your position when a study was not peer reviewed or had a double blind, and I have never posted a study that I realized had a conflict or a flaw in it's methodology. When it's pointed out to me, I am completely understanding as to why someone shouldn't trust it. 

As to proving you wrong, I have NEVER said I was right and you were wrong because of a scientific paper. You have been wrong because you have blindly followed the official position on something only to watch THEM change their position once the evidence becomes absolutely overwhelming that they were wrong. This has happened at least 4 times since you and I have been debating (maybe more), and the reason I was right and you were wrong is that I was following the science before it became politicized, and you were reacting to the information you were given. I ignore studies with cherry picked data, and if I see several clinical data that arrive at the same conclusion and use good methodology, I favor that over institutional studies that are doing the opposite. I could go back and show you the times you were 100% wrong and have had to change your position, but I don't care enough to do it. It's there if anyone wants to look.

---

But no one does care to look, that's kind of the point of saying you are borderline unhealthy with this obsession to prove me wrong about everything. It's why you instantly disparage any actual scientist who doesn't agree with your position as you did yesterday. Because you know more than they do, no matter "who" they happen to be at the moment. I enjoyed our discussions about this topic, but I bailed when it became clear that you are way more invested in your position that I am in mine. It's why you cannot let go of the Ivermectin thing and are now firmly attached to the false position that the new medication is just Ivermectin rebranded even though it's been presented by actual certified experts that it isn't. Because they must be wrong because you are right. Just like why you just took the time to go line by line through my statement, because you can't be wrong, even when discussing something that can't really be disproven like someone else's opinion. It's obsessive.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

The only thing that I want to "prove" you wrong about is unnecessarily firing 400 people. I think it's wrong. Outside of that, you're giving yourself too much credit. I don't care what you say unless it provides good info. Like, I'm open to learning something about Ivermectin, but that whole article doesn't say anything. It quotes a scientist quoting a paper I read several months ago, and it quotes the spokesperson for Pfizer making it seem like Ivermectin is a medicine for animals. Is it? Can we start there? Is it dishonest for the spokesperson of Pfizer to characterize Ivermectin that way?

---

Anti vaxxers r a comedy fest

Unthinking participants in a world wide medical experiment are a stupid fest.

---

"Remember Red, Hope is a good thing. Maybe the best of things. And no good thing ever dies."  - Andy Dufresne, The Shawshank Redemption