The Coronavirus Thread

[Seabass]

Dumb Republican in hospital bed barely hangs on to life after getting covid, still stubbornly refuses to get the vaccine. Infuriating. I hate these people.

Many states are facing another surge of COVID-19 cases. David Begnaud spoke with a COVID-19 patient in a Louisiana hospital who says he won't vaccinate because there are too many issues with the vaccine.

[pErvinalia]

I'll stick to dissenter to answer you seriously, but thank you very much for showing that you too, don't know what they are talking about.

Though you do seem sure they were right, or I was wrong.

Maybe if you imagine real hard, you'll know why I choose to not engage with defending their ideas. I'll give you a hint:

Some idiots, will 'show their hand', as it were, by fully opposing whatever they have said, without knowing what it was.

Knowing that, if said idiot does go look at what they've said, they'll be doing so only to refute some idea their bias has already shown them to carry.

So yeah, so far I know lots of people who are fully opposed to their ideas, no matter WHAT they are.

On this topic, I know all I need to about your (and a few others') perspective. Thanks for that.

Who's "they"? You still haven't linked the podcast.

[Cunt]

I'll stick to dissenter to answer you seriously, but thank you very much for showing that you too, don't know what they are talking about.

Though you do seem sure they were right, or I was wrong.

Maybe if you imagine real hard, you'll know why I choose to not engage with defending their ideas. I'll give you a hint:

Some idiots, will 'show their hand', as it were, by fully opposing whatever they have said, without knowing what it was.

Knowing that, if said idiot does go look at what they've said, they'll be doing so only to refute some idea their bias has already shown them to carry.

So yeah, so far I know lots of people who are fully opposed to their ideas, no matter WHAT they are.

On this topic, I know all I need to about your (and a few others') perspective. Thanks for that.

Who's "they"? You still haven't linked the podcast.

Available on all uncensored podcast platforms.

Unless you are trolling, in which case try via dissenter, you may find better responses to trolling there.

[Joe]

Says the guy who hasn't even said what podcast he's talking about. Who's trolling again?

[JimC]

Let he who is without pods cast the first stone...

[Joe]

I'm sure he just posted it on Dissenter.

[pErvinalia]

I'm thinking about getting dissenter browser so I can troll Cunt on it.

[L'Emmerdeur]

When people look to the actual science and find that the spiel looks on its face remarkably like a snake oil promotion (remember how you kept harping on about hydroxychloroquine? no?) you really have nothing to offer other than butthurt masked by sneering.

You are being nasty to poor Cnutty.

Could be seen that way. I was trying to speak in language he would not mistake. I searched out the basis for this. In what could be seen as a truly nasty move I'll link to first, an article laying out the arguments of Pierre Kory, who was interviewed in the Weinstein podcast. It's essentially a distillation of his position as put forward in the podcast and has the same title. Beware it's an email harvesting site. Any who wish to peruse the quackery of the osteopath Dr Mercola will need to sign up, so use a working email that you don't mind being spammed:

'COVID, Ivermectin and the Crime of the Century'

Those who are willing to examine that source material may find a thorough critique useful. I will observe that this all predates the withdrawal of the main study which recent ivermectin noise has touted heavily.

'Ivermectin is the new hydroxychloroquine, take 2'

A relevant quote from the above:

The narrative of Mercola’s article is eerily similar to the narratives we heard about hydroxychloroquine a year ago, namely that ivermectin is a cheap, safe, and effective drug that “they” don’t want you to know about that could have saved hundreds of thousands of lives if not for doctors’ fetish for randomized clinical trials.

For example:

Yet, despite stellar credentials and being on the frontlines treating hundreds of COVID-19 patients, they have been dismissed as “kooks on the fringe, making wild-eyed claims,” Weinstein says. How can that be? Initially, the FLCCC insisted, based on the evidence, that COVID-19 was a corticosteroid-dependent disease and that corticosteroids were a crucial part of effective treatment.

And:

Since those early days, the FLCCC has been vindicated and corticosteroids, as well as blood thinners, are now part of the standard of care for COVID-19 in many places. The same cannot be said for the remainder of the protocols, however, including the use of ivermectin, which continues to be suppressed, despite robust clinical evidence supporting its use in all phases of COVID-19.

I do like how the FLCCC claims the “brave maverick doctor” and “brave maverick scientist” role and assumes that, because Dr. Kory was on the right side of a couple of areas then he must be right about everything. I also can’t help but note that Dr. Kory, contrary to his “brave maverick” claims, was nowhere near the only one proposing the use of anticoagulants and steroids as part of the supportive treatment of severe COVID-19. These were being debated at my hospital in March 2020 (admittedly, along with hydroxychloroquine).

And, of course, Dr. Kory pulls the favorite gambit of doctors promoting dubious treatments, the “we can’t do randomized clinical trials because it’s unethical” gambit:

With regard to calls for randomized controlled trials, Kory points out that once you can see from clinical evidence that something really is working, then conducting controlled trials becomes more or less unethical, as you know you’re condemning the control group to poor outcomes or death.

And, of course, ivermectin is being “suppressed”:

As noted by Weinstein, ivermectin appears to be intentionally suppressed. It’s simply not allowed to be a go-to remedy. The obvious question is why? Don’t they want to save lives? Isn’t that why we shut down the world?

“I would have these data arguments,” Kory says. “But it’s not about the data. There’s something else. There’s [something] out there that is just squashing, distorting, suppressing the efficacy of ivermectin, and its egregious.”

Indeed, as noted by Weinstein, it’s not even difficult to prove that ivermectin is being suppressed and censored. Censorship of certain COVID-related information, such as ivermectin, is written into the community guidelines. You’re not allowed to talk about it. If you do, your post will be censored, shadow-banned or taken down. If you persist, your entire account will be taken down.

The piece in Science Based Medicine then looks at the evidence Kory is relying on and finds that it doesn't come close to withstanding scrutiny.

It all boils down to the basic problem that Tero originally cited: Though ivermectin showed significant results in an in silico study, the concentrations used in that study are not only much higher than would be achieved with approved doses of ivermectin, they are in fact not physically possible to achieve in the human bloodstream and serious attempts to do so would likely prove rather harmful to the patient. None of the dubious clinical studies came close to achieving that level of medication in the bloodstream. They didn't even try, given the toxicity which that would entail.

Moreover, in one of the papers the effect of ivermectin in inhibiting a protein that is essential to virus action in the cellular nucleus is cited as if that were significant. The problem is that SARS-CoV-2 replicates in the cytoplasm of cells, not the nucleus.

There is a lot more there. I don't blame a Canadian 'leftie' for not trying to summarise the arguments that Kory makes--it's some arcane stuff and if you don't have any background in biology it might as well be Sanskrit. The Science Based Medicine article does a decent job of explaining what the issues are, but it takes time and effort to read it, let alone following up the references.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Should read in vitro above rather than in silico. That was a different study.

[Joe]

I'm thinking about getting dissenter browser so I can troll Cunt on it.

It's a pretty good browser, but you won't find Cunt there.

He talks a good game, but unless you're on a major website, Dissenter is a big empty. Not enough attention for our boy,

[Cunt]

There is a lot more there. I don't blame a Canadian 'leftie' for not trying to summarise the arguments that Kory makes--it's some arcane stuff and if you don't have any background in biology it might as well be Sanskrit. The Science Based Medicine article does a decent job of explaining what the issues are, but it takes time and effort to read it, let alone following up the references.

So you really don't know who was being referenced?

No surprise, since while I did post the name of the lady here. Maybe you all really couldn't find it on your own, which is possible.

But remember, censorship is part of their claim. The fact that you can't find the latest on it (where they did mention the withdrawn study) is no surprise. Your betters don't want you to find it.

I'll try again.

Tess Lawrie is an MD and PHD, external analyst for the World Health Organization, and an expert in analysis of medical evidence.

Says the guy who hasn't even said what podcast he's talking about. Who's trolling again?

No need to 'troll', I was mostly interested in how you dealt with the ideas she raised. Apparently, it is to dismiss the points without knowing what they are.

Her talk with Bret Weinstein, on the Dark Horse podcast (available in your favourite podcast format) is after that study, where she discusses it's withdrawl, and its effects on her analysis.

No need though, as I have my answer, thanks. That is: You guys universally would reject it, without knowing what she claimed, based on your 'politics'. Or considering the 'science is settled', or some partisan twaddle.

I am not all that interested in your rush to go debunk her now (lots of better people will, I'm sure)

What IS interesting, is how far you will go to pretend some kind of objectivity.

Now, tell me another joke, like 'Bret Weinstein is a right-wing nutter', without showing what tricked you into believing that.

I'm thinking about getting dissenter browser so I can troll Cunt on it.

Your love of trolling is why I don't have any respect left for moderation actions around 'trolling'.

Good job, pErvinalia. Now bring your trolling out of the safe-space, and maybe I'll be even MORE impressed.

[pErvinalia]

I'm thinking about getting dissenter browser so I can troll Cunt on it.

Your love of trolling is why I don't have any respect left for moderation actions around 'trolling'.

I pretty much agree. We troll you as much as you troll us. The mods should take a more hands off approach. The moderation here isn't anything like it was back in the good ol' days.

[L'Emmerdeur]

There is a lot more there. I don't blame a Canadian 'leftie' for not trying to summarise the arguments that Kory makes--it's some arcane stuff and if you don't have any background in biology it might as well be Sanskrit. The Science Based Medicine article does a decent job of explaining what the issues are, but it takes time and effort to read it, let alone following up the references.

So you really don't know who was being referenced?

No surprise, since while I did post the name of the lady here. Maybe you all really couldn't find it on your own, which is possible.

But remember, censorship is part of their claim. The fact that you can't find the latest on it (where they did mention the withdrawn study) is no surprise. Your betters don't want you to find it.

I'll try again.

Tess Lawrie is an MD and PHD, external analyst for the World Health Organization, and an expert in analysis of medical evidence.

Lawrie would rely on the same material that Kory does. It's not as if there's some secret stash of brilliant research that Kory somehow failed to mention. The 'censorship' claim is bullshit. The research has been published. If it actually supported the efficacy of ivermectin, further studies would confirm it. The ivermectin pushers don't want that, as the Science Based Medicine article pointed out.

[JimC]

Still can't understand why you don't post a link to the material you are bringing up, Cunt. It is standard practice here.

[Cunt]

I pretty much agree. We troll you as much as you troll us. The mods should take a more hands off approach. The moderation here isn't anything like it was back in the good ol' days.

If censorship is real, and free speech is honestly dangerous, then give this another think. I might not be able to respect the decisions, but I can respect the responsibility they take on, and what they are aiming for.

It's why I don't talk about most subjects here. Don't need to underline where we disagree on things. I'm going to stay positive.

For example, I'm about to make a better post than you. (see the DIY thread)

There is a lot more there. I don't blame a Canadian 'leftie' for not trying to summarise the arguments that Kory makes--it's some arcane stuff and if you don't have any background in biology it might as well be Sanskrit. The Science Based Medicine article does a decent job of explaining what the issues are, but it takes time and effort to read it, let alone following up the references.

So you really don't know who was being referenced?

No surprise, since while I did post the name of the lady here. Maybe you all really couldn't find it on your own, which is possible.

But remember, censorship is part of their claim. The fact that you can't find the latest on it (where they did mention the withdrawn study) is no surprise. Your betters don't want you to find it.

I'll try again.

Tess Lawrie is an MD and PHD, external analyst for the World Health Organization, and an expert in analysis of medical evidence.

Lawrie would rely on the same material that Kory does. It's not as if there's some secret stash of brilliant research that Kory somehow failed to mention.

He said, insisting that he didn't need to know what he was disagreeing with...

Still can't understand why you don't post a link to the material you are bringing up, Cunt. It is standard practice here.

It's a podcast. Available on all platforms. I listed the name 'dark horse podcast', and really don't think you need help, but links could be hard.

https://www.podchaser.com/podcasts/bret ... a-94994591

This is a random one. I don't know why you want it. I do hope you look into it, but I don't need your 'work' refuting anything. There are plenty of sources for that. What I was interested in here, is how many wrote that they knew about it, and how many of those had a strong opinion, and on which points.

Of course, I wouldn't think I was going to convince anyone of anything. I doubt you think you'll convince me of anything by asking for a link you could find very easily.