All things CoronaVirus

[wgdsr]

https://twitter.com/meidastouch/status/ ... 58688?s=21

any idea if they ever explained why masks are mandatory and what they said?

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://twitter.com/meidastouch/status/ ... 58688?s=21

any idea if they ever explained why masks are mandatory and what they said?

No. A tenor saxophone player that I follow on Twitter had this in his feed. I don’t look for this crap on social media….(other than when I am looking for something funny on YouTube).



He’s excellent.

[tech37]

Fauci stating the obvious...

https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectious ... definition

Asked whether a $3.2 billion program will be enough to incentivize drugmakers, Fauci hinted that he anticipates more funding down the line.
"Nothing convinces the source of resources to give more resources than success," he said. "If we come up with success, I think we'll get more."

That's great but before you spend all that time and money... in the meantime, how about approving Ivermectin off-label?

https://www.jpost.com/health-science/is ... day-675612

https://covid19criticalcare.com/ivermec ... vermectin/

[Kismet]

Fauci stating the obvious...

https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectious ... definition

Asked whether a $3.2 billion program will be enough to incentivize drugmakers, Fauci hinted that he anticipates more funding down the line.
"Nothing convinces the source of resources to give more resources than success," he said. "If we come up with success, I think we'll get more."

That's great but before you spend all that time and money... in the meantime, how about approving Ivermectin off-label?

https://www.jpost.com/health-science/is ... day-675612

https://covid19criticalcare.com/ivermec ... vermectin/

Maybe check the data again first

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02081-w

"Flawed Invermectin preprint highlights challenges of COVID drug studies
The study’s withdrawal from a preprint platform deals a blow to the anti-parasite drug’s chances as a COVID treatment, researchers say."

[tech37]

Fauci stating the obvious...

https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectious ... definition

Asked whether a $3.2 billion program will be enough to incentivize drugmakers, Fauci hinted that he anticipates more funding down the line.
"Nothing convinces the source of resources to give more resources than success," he said. "If we come up with success, I think we'll get more."

That's great but before you spend all that time and money... in the meantime, how about approving Ivermectin off-label?

https://www.jpost.com/health-science/is ... day-675612

https://covid19criticalcare.com/ivermec ... vermectin/

Maybe check the data again first

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02081-w

"Flawed Invermectin preprint highlights challenges of COVID drug studies
The study’s withdrawal from a preprint platform deals a blow to the anti-parasite drug’s chances as a COVID treatment, researchers say."

Nature is a good source, no doubt...

If you're open to it, have the time, patience, and interest, listen to this podcast that gives a different perspective specifically dealing with this "flawed" study:

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/d ... 0529189232

Rightly or wrongly (so far, wrongly, IMO), the medical establishment is hell bent on blocking the use of Ivermectin regarding Covid. Any claims in the media should be considered in that context.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Fauci stating the obvious...

https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectious ... definition

Asked whether a $3.2 billion program will be enough to incentivize drugmakers, Fauci hinted that he anticipates more funding down the line.
"Nothing convinces the source of resources to give more resources than success," he said. "If we come up with success, I think we'll get more."

That's great but before you spend all that time and money... in the meantime, how about approving Ivermectin off-label?

https://www.jpost.com/health-science/is ... day-675612

https://covid19criticalcare.com/ivermec ... vermectin/

Maybe check the data again first

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02081-w

"Flawed Invermectin preprint highlights challenges of COVID drug studies
The study’s withdrawal from a preprint platform deals a blow to the anti-parasite drug’s chances as a COVID treatment, researchers say."

Nature is a good source, no doubt...

If you're open to it, have the time, patience, and interest, listen to this podcast that gives a different perspective specifically dealing with this "flawed" study:

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/d ... 0529189232

Rightly or wrongly, the medical establishment is hell bent on blocking the use of Ivermectin regarding Covid. Any claims in the media should be considered in that context.

Is it Weinstein again?

[Kismet]

Fauci stating the obvious...

https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectious ... definition

Asked whether a $3.2 billion program will be enough to incentivize drugmakers, Fauci hinted that he anticipates more funding down the line.
"Nothing convinces the source of resources to give more resources than success," he said. "If we come up with success, I think we'll get more."

That's great but before you spend all that time and money... in the meantime, how about approving Ivermectin off-label?

https://www.jpost.com/health-science/is ... day-675612

https://covid19criticalcare.com/ivermec ... vermectin/

Maybe check the data again first

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02081-w

"Flawed Invermectin preprint highlights challenges of COVID drug studies
The study’s withdrawal from a preprint platform deals a blow to the anti-parasite drug’s chances as a COVID treatment, researchers say."

Nature is a good source, no doubt...

If you're open to it, have the time, patience, and interest, listen to this podcast that gives a different perspective specifically dealing with this "flawed" study:

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/d ... 0529189232

Rightly or wrongly, the medical establishment is hell bent on blocking the use of Ivermectin regarding Covid. Any claims in the media should be considered in that context.

So, are you saying the potentially flawed data should just be ignored and fulll steam ahead?

Why would the medical establishment be motivated to not not endorse a potential effective treatment?

[tech37]

Fauci stating the obvious...

https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectious ... definition

Asked whether a $3.2 billion program will be enough to incentivize drugmakers, Fauci hinted that he anticipates more funding down the line.
"Nothing convinces the source of resources to give more resources than success," he said. "If we come up with success, I think we'll get more."

That's great but before you spend all that time and money... in the meantime, how about approving Ivermectin off-label?

https://www.jpost.com/health-science/is ... day-675612

https://covid19criticalcare.com/ivermec ... vermectin/

Maybe check the data again first

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02081-w

"Flawed Invermectin preprint highlights challenges of COVID drug studies
The study’s withdrawal from a preprint platform deals a blow to the anti-parasite drug’s chances as a COVID treatment, researchers say."

Nature is a good source, no doubt...

If you're open to it, have the time, patience, and interest, listen to this podcast that gives a different perspective specifically dealing with this "flawed" study:

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/d ... 0529189232

Rightly or wrongly (so far, wrongly IMO), the medical establishment is hell bent on blocking the use of Ivermectin regarding Covid. Any claims in the media should be considered in that context.

So, are you saying the potentially flawed data should just be ignored and fulll steam ahead?
The podcast explains this. You can either listen or not.

Why would the medical establishment be motivated to not not endorse a potential effective treatment?
I have posted my opinions on here weeks/months ago in regards. Sorry you missed it. Watch out for Delta kismet...

[Typical Lax Dad]

Fauci stating the obvious...

https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectious ... definition

Asked whether a $3.2 billion program will be enough to incentivize drugmakers, Fauci hinted that he anticipates more funding down the line.
"Nothing convinces the source of resources to give more resources than success," he said. "If we come up with success, I think we'll get more."

That's great but before you spend all that time and money... in the meantime, how about approving Ivermectin off-label?

https://www.jpost.com/health-science/is ... day-675612

https://covid19criticalcare.com/ivermec ... vermectin/

Maybe check the data again first

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02081-w

"Flawed Invermectin preprint highlights challenges of COVID drug studies
The study’s withdrawal from a preprint platform deals a blow to the anti-parasite drug’s chances as a COVID treatment, researchers say."

Nature is a good source, no doubt...

If you're open to it, have the time, patience, and interest, listen to this podcast that gives a different perspective specifically dealing with this "flawed" study:

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/d ... 0529189232

Rightly or wrongly, the medical establishment is hell bent on blocking the use of Ivermectin regarding Covid. Any claims in the media should be considered in that context.

So, are you saying the potentially flawed data should just be ignored and fulll steam ahead?

Why would the medical establishment be motivated to not not endorse a potential effective treatment?

Because Weinstein says so?

[MDlaxfan76]

It's circular.

If you buy the notion that all researchers who are in the vast majority mainstream of peer-reviewed science are corrupted by Big Pharma and Big Health, then of course they, as the peer-reviewers, will reject studies that don't conform with what makes the most money for Big Pharma and Big Health, and the only honest researchers are those who submit studies that flout 'orthodoxy' regardless of whether the studies are 'flawed' or not repeatable by others...

It's all corrupt...

[Typical Lax Dad]

It's circular.

If you buy the notion that all researchers who are in the vast majority mainstream of peer-reviewed science are corrupted by Big Pharma and Big Health, then of course they, as the peer-reviewers, will reject studies that don't conform with what makes the most money for Big Pharma and Big Health, and the only honest researchers are those who submit studies that flout 'orthodoxy' regardless of whether the studies are 'flawed' or not repeatable by others...

It's all corrupt...

Just clicked on podcast. As I predicted Brett Weinstein.

[Kismet]

Fauci stating the obvious...

https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectious ... definition

Asked whether a $3.2 billion program will be enough to incentivize drugmakers, Fauci hinted that he anticipates more funding down the line.
"Nothing convinces the source of resources to give more resources than success," he said. "If we come up with success, I think we'll get more."

That's great but before you spend all that time and money... in the meantime, how about approving Ivermectin off-label?

https://www.jpost.com/health-science/is ... day-675612

https://covid19criticalcare.com/ivermec ... vermectin/

Maybe check the data again first

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02081-w

"Flawed Invermectin preprint highlights challenges of COVID drug studies
The study’s withdrawal from a preprint platform deals a blow to the anti-parasite drug’s chances as a COVID treatment, researchers say."

Nature is a good source, no doubt...

If you're open to it, have the time, patience, and interest, listen to this podcast that gives a different perspective specifically dealing with this "flawed" study:

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/d ... 0529189232

Rightly or wrongly (so far, wrongly, IMO), the medical establishment is hell bent on blocking the use of Ivermectin regarding Covid. Any claims in the media should be considered in that context.

OK. I listened. It appears to me that these are HIS opinions (and some research on him indicates he has lots of opinions that are also not backed up by reviewed studies and facts). Starting to look a lot like another hydroxychloroquine fantasy IMHO.

Why should anyone believe him as opposed to anyone else with a contrary view that are supported by data?

Lastly, he makes no credible case why we should all ignore the medical establishment view many of which are supported with data. I could not find any specific data that supports his hypothesis.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Fauci stating the obvious...

https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectious ... definition

Asked whether a $3.2 billion program will be enough to incentivize drugmakers, Fauci hinted that he anticipates more funding down the line.
"Nothing convinces the source of resources to give more resources than success," he said. "If we come up with success, I think we'll get more."

That's great but before you spend all that time and money... in the meantime, how about approving Ivermectin off-label?

https://www.jpost.com/health-science/is ... day-675612

https://covid19criticalcare.com/ivermec ... vermectin/

Maybe check the data again first

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02081-w

"Flawed Invermectin preprint highlights challenges of COVID drug studies
The study’s withdrawal from a preprint platform deals a blow to the anti-parasite drug’s chances as a COVID treatment, researchers say."

Nature is a good source, no doubt...

If you're open to it, have the time, patience, and interest, listen to this podcast that gives a different perspective specifically dealing with this "flawed" study:

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/d ... 0529189232

Rightly or wrongly (so far, wrongly, IMO), the medical establishment is hell bent on blocking the use of Ivermectin regarding Covid. Any claims in the media should be considered in that context.

OK. I listened. It appears to me that these are HIS opinions (and some research on him indicates he has lots of opinions that are also not backed up by reviewed studies and facts). Starting to look a lot like another hydroxychloroquine fantasy IMHO.

Why should anyone believe him as opposed to anyone else with a contrary view that are supported by data?

Lastly, he makes no credible case why we should all ignore the medical establishment view many of which are supported with data. I could not find any specific data that supports his hypothesis.

You just don’t get it. Why listen to the “so called experts” when you can listen to Weinstein. People that don’t work in your field are just as qualified to do your job as you are.

[tech37]

Fauci stating the obvious...

https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectious ... definition

Asked whether a $3.2 billion program will be enough to incentivize drugmakers, Fauci hinted that he anticipates more funding down the line.
"Nothing convinces the source of resources to give more resources than success," he said. "If we come up with success, I think we'll get more."

That's great but before you spend all that time and money... in the meantime, how about approving Ivermectin off-label?

https://www.jpost.com/health-science/is ... day-675612

https://covid19criticalcare.com/ivermec ... vermectin/

Maybe check the data again first

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02081-w

"Flawed Invermectin preprint highlights challenges of COVID drug studies
The study’s withdrawal from a preprint platform deals a blow to the anti-parasite drug’s chances as a COVID treatment, researchers say."

Nature is a good source, no doubt...

If you're open to it, have the time, patience, and interest, listen to this podcast that gives a different perspective specifically dealing with this "flawed" study:

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/d ... 0529189232

Rightly or wrongly (so far, wrongly, IMO), the medical establishment is hell bent on blocking the use of Ivermectin regarding Covid. Any claims in the media should be considered in that context.

OK. I listened. It appears to me that these are HIS opinions (and some research on him indicates he has lots of opinions that are also not backed up by reviewed studies and facts). Starting to look a lot like another hydroxychloroquine fantasy IMHO.
Fine, and that's your humble opinion. That's a standard reaction...not surprised.

Why should anyone believe him as opposed to anyone else with a contrary view that are supported by data?
You shouldn't of course (based on this small sample) unless you've been following him and the people he has interviewed/debated over the past 18 months. You would have a lot of catching up to do if interested in order to gain a more informed opinion.

Lastly, he makes no credible case why we should all ignore the medical establishment view many of which are supported with data. I could not find any specific data that supports his hypothesis.
Not sure what you consider "data." Who's data, what data? If you casually believe Fauci and the medical bureaucracy without considering other POVs, go for it... that's your prerogative of course.

[MDlaxfan76]

All "opinions" are equal...

[Typical Lax Dad]

All "opinions" are equal...

https://www.theguardian.com/science/202 ... l-concerns

But Weinstein and Joe Rogan are all over it. Get a good study and hopefully it is an effective therapeutic.

[tech37]

All "opinions" are equal...

https://www.theguardian.com/science/202 ... l-concerns

Try to follow dude.

[Typical Lax Dad]

All "opinions" are equal...

https://www.theguardian.com/science/202 ... l-concerns

Try to follow dude.

You “following” Weinstein is enough following for all of us, Dude.

https://www.precisionvaccinations.com/2 ... lisher?amp

The U.S. FDA has received reports of COVID-19 patients who have required medical support and been hospitalized after self-medicating with Ivermectin.

[MDlaxfan76]

Yikes, looks like outright fraud.
The Guardian's description of the specific "ethical" issues is very revealing...ouch.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Yikes, looks like outright fraud.
The Guardian's description of the specific "ethical" issues is very revealing...ouch.

That’s meaningless. Just their opinion. You have to go back and follow all of the Bret Weinstein podcasts to follow it. Drug approval protocols are rigged.