Daylight63
Verified User
So you are saying whatever it is you do is made up 100% of liars.
That's fine. I'm OK with that. It makes sense.
The Covid Jab Jive: a gentle reminder
- Thread starter Taichiliberal
- Start date
So you are saying whatever it is you do is made up 100% of liars.
That's fine. I'm OK with that. It makes sense.
Daylight63
Verified User
Daylight63
Verified User
Why dox yourself?
Daylight63
Verified User
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
rather than follow the silly (and patented) tactic of the right wing trolls to hijack a thread, I would be very interested in your response to this: https://www.justplainpolitics.com/threads/the-covid-jab-jive-a-gentle-reminder.222489/post-6200742
Daylight63
Verified User
"Conclusions: As the main finding, although Ivermectin, Chloroquine/Hydroxychloroquine, and Azithromycin might have mechanistic effects against SARS-CoV-2 infection, most phase III clinical trials observed no treatment benefit in patients with COVID-19, underscoring the need for robust phase III clinical trials."
Efficacy of Ivermectin, Chloroquine/Hydroxychloroquine, and Azithromycin in Managing COVID-19: A Systematic Review of Phase III Clinical Trials
Background: During the coronavirus disease (COVID)-19 pandemic several drugs were used to manage the patients mainly those with a severe phenotype. Potential drugs were used off-label and major concerns arose from their applicability to managing the health crisis highlighting the importance of...Sansone, N.M.S.; Boschiero, M.N.; Marson, F.A.L. Efficacy of Ivermectin, Chloroquine/Hydroxychloroquine, and Azithromycin in Managing COVID-19: A Systematic Review of Phase III Clinical Trials. Biomedicines 2024, 12, 2206. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines12102206
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Ahh, but from your source: "We did not include pre-print studies ... We excluded the following article types: (i) not related to COVID-19; (ii) not phase III clinical trial; (iii) did not use any of the studied drugs (CQ/HCQ, Ivermectin or Azithromycin) orally or intravenous; (iv) retracted articles; (v) was not published in English; (vi) did not comprise the date range of the study (COVID-19 pandemic onset to December 2023); (vii) did not evaluate inpatients with COVID-19; (viii) prophylaxis studies; (ix) if we did not have access to the article; (x) if the trial was not registered in online platforms (such as clinicaltrials.com); and (xi) did not present the outcome of interest. In addition, the complete selection of the studies is presented in the result section per drug included in the review.""Conclusions: As the main finding, although Ivermectin, Chloroquine/Hydroxychloroquine, and Azithromycin might have mechanistic effects against SARS-CoV-2 infection, most phase III clinical trials observed no treatment benefit in patients with COVID-19, underscoring the need for robust phase III clinical trials."
Efficacy of Ivermectin, Chloroquine/Hydroxychloroquine, and Azithromycin in Managing COVID-19: A Systematic Review of Phase III Clinical Trials
Background: During the coronavirus disease (COVID)-19 pandemic several drugs were used to manage the patients mainly those with a severe phenotype. Potential drugs were used off-label and major concerns arose from their applicability to managing the health crisis highlighting the importance of...
Sansone, N.M.S.; Boschiero, M.N.; Marson, F.A.L. Efficacy of Ivermectin, Chloroquine/Hydroxychloroquine, and Azithromycin in Managing COVID-19: A Systematic Review of Phase III Clinical Trials. Biomedicines 2024, 12, 2206. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines12102206
From my source: We excluded reports that only examined HCQ as a means to decrease transmission of coronavirus because our focus was on demonstrated clinical efficacy. Reports were analysed for efficacy, type of study, time of intervention with HCQ during the COVID-19 disease course and adverse events. Our final search was performed 3 August 2020.www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2052297520301281?via%3Dihub
Checkerboard Strangler
Well-known member
HOW ANTIVAXXERS SOUND to the rest of us:
"I once almost choked to death while eating food. I did my own research and discovered that I am not alone.
Thousands of people choke every year while eating, and hundreds of those people die. Thats why I don't feed my kids.
Its dangerous.
Now plenty of people will point out that food supposedly "prevents starvation," and that might be true, but Its not fair to completely ignore all the dangers food poses, like choking, allergies, gingivitis, and garlic breath.
I'm just saying, do your own research and decide what you think is best for your kids. If you choose to give your kids potentially deadly food, thats your problem, but as a parent, I don't think the government has any right to tell me that I need to feed my kids."
"I once almost choked to death while eating food. I did my own research and discovered that I am not alone.
Thousands of people choke every year while eating, and hundreds of those people die. Thats why I don't feed my kids.
Its dangerous.
Now plenty of people will point out that food supposedly "prevents starvation," and that might be true, but Its not fair to completely ignore all the dangers food poses, like choking, allergies, gingivitis, and garlic breath.
I'm just saying, do your own research and decide what you think is best for your kids. If you choose to give your kids potentially deadly food, thats your problem, but as a parent, I don't think the government has any right to tell me that I need to feed my kids."
Some people learn slowly....even after all that we have seen they still dont get it.
Checkerboard Strangler
Well-known member
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Checkerboard Strangler is just a silly troll thirsty for attention. I don't feed trolls, hence his permanent place on the ignore list.
Daylight63
Verified User
This is the blessing and the curse of the internet.
A LOT of great information for the educated diluted with a FUCKTON more disinformation leads to people whose only qualification for interpreting the science is the ability to hit keys on a keyboard.
As a scientist it is hard to see people bluster so loudly on topics that CLEARLY they don't understand. The real danger are those people who are NOT scientifically literate thinking the moron who does his own research is ONTO SOMETHING. ANd they don't have the tools to be able to tell shit from shinola.
The experts lie to us constantly.
Daylight63
Verified User
No they don't.
Experts can lie and on occasion do. But the key here is that the way YOU know you've been lied to is if the information doesn't align with your preferences. That's not solid reasoning.
For instance: it is HIGHLY unlikely you have expertise (or even basic knowledge) of many of the technical topics you discuss. Are you a virologist? No, you are not. As such HOW ON EARTH COULD YOU EVER UNDERSTAND AN ACTUAL VIROLOGY SCIENCE ARTICLE?
I say that as someone who has spent about 30+ years as an R&D scientist. I know my lane. It's not virology. But I also know that the ability to understand the scientific details is not easily grasped by those with no scientific background. It's simply too complex. I, personally, would NEVER disagree with the majority of virologists.
I simply don't have the standing or knowledge to do so. So why do you think you do? I mean probably the most mathematically intensive thing you do is summarize quarterly sales figures on an Excel spreadsheet. What on earth do you know about design of experiment, statistics, virology, biology, etc?
This cannard that "experts lie all the time" is just corrosive bullshit.
Here's my general rule of thumb: If you claim this or that field is overrun by lying money-grubbing evil bastards then it must mean that the field YOU ARE IN is also made up of that.
If you aren't willing to say the second part, you can't really say the first.
Letting the experts run things has been a complete disaster. I just a few minutes ago read the following which explains some of why:
Arnaud Bertrand
@RnaudBertrand
Subscribe
This is quite a surprising study by Princeton and Harvard researchers that reveals a striking disconnect in Washington: while public discourse about China is extremely hawkish, many foreign policy experts privately hold far more moderate views - but feel pressured to keep quiet about them.Here's a link to the study: https://rorytruex.com/underpressureThey interviewed over 50 foreign policy professionals and surveyed nearly 500, and the responses are actually far more diverse than I'd have expected given the narrative that hawkishness on China is a bipartisan consensus in Washington.For instance when surveyed anonymously, only a fourth (27%) of respondents view past engagement policies with China as a failure, and just a third (34.24%) support a policy of containment towards China. The immense majority (93.24%) reject the notion that the U.S. should engage in a new Cold War against China. Really not what you'd expect when you listen to the public discourse...What's particularly revealing, and might explain this disconnect between public discourse about China and what these experts actually believe in private, is that about a quarter of these professionals reported feeling pressure to express more hawkish views on China than they actually hold. The researchers also identified a common practice they call "discourse mirroring," where experts strategically adopt hawkish language and acknowledge threats before making more moderate points. Many reported avoiding terms like "engagement" entirely, viewing them as career-limiting. As one interviewee put it, expressing more confrontational positions on China was simply "the safest career strategy" in Washington.In short the study shows that rather than a genuine hawkish consensus on China, we're seeing the effects of professional pressure creating the appearance of one. Many people feel compelled to demonstrate their hawkish credentials to maintain professional credibility but they don't genuinely believe it.This obviously raises very troubling and immensely consequential questions: to what degree is Washington talking itself into hostility with this kind of echo chamber phenomenon, as opposed to crafting policy based on genuine strategic assessment?
Daylight63
Verified User
Again, WHY do YOU think YOU have the ability to understand the science as a whole?
Sure you can find one or two people who say this or that, but YOU HAVE NO WAY TO TELL WHO IS RIGHT AND WHO IS WRONG.
You simply DON'T have that ability. I've got MUCH more education in the sciences than you do and even I know when to step aside and let the experts talk.