All things CoronaVirus

[PizzaSnake]

Shocking!!


https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2 ... table-main





Making 'Murica Great Again

[tech37]

Important podcast (sans politics) from Bret Weinstein, which includes the inventor of mRNA vaccine technology.

Many of you here won't like what you hear, unfortunately. IMO, it's "truth and reality" re the current state of Covid-19.

Hopefully the podcast is not removed from the youtube platform...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_NNTVJzqtY

Do you mean that a guy constantly acting like a jerk is really difficult to listen to?

Or is there something else to glean from 3 hours of this cat interrupting and shouting over the actual expert?

Perfect example of "killing the messenger' on your part. Yes, I agree the man was obnoxious and I have to wonder if Weinstein regrets having him on. But then, BW did have the yellow card ready... so it seems he knew what to expect.

Kirsch, despite his dubious delivery, has a lot of info to convey, and I would bet that much of his over zealousness behavior is due to the exasperation he feels based on his findings. He should only be working behind the scenes though...that is obvious.

"a lot of info to convey" suggests that it's credible info. The "messenger" is quite suspect. Thus, how seriously should we take the "info"?
"convey" suggests nothing of the kind. That's merely your interpretation.

Huh? That's your word, not mine...direct quote. I just didn't find him to be credible...obnoxious too.

"suggests that it's credible" are your words... convey (yes, my word) does not suggest anything. I never said his info was "credible," that remains to be seen. I will keep an open mind and would suggest you do same.

I found much of the discussion interesting, but Kirsch made it very difficult to take him or his "info" seriously, despite the efforts of the actual expert to do so.
Nonsense. If Kirsch's info is such a problem, why didn't Dr. Moore, your "actual expert," take him to task? And I suppose it was lost on you with your way of interpreting things that Dr. Moore, on at least 2 or 3 occasions during the podcast, agreed with what Kirsch was saying.

Nope, Dr. Moore, no relation to me, is a polite, reserved scientist who was there to have a civil discussion...not a fight. And in a civil discussion one tries to find opportunities to agree with the other person. It also adds to credibility when one actually disagrees...for instance, Dr. Moore, had no difficulty agreeing that corners were cut, steps skipped, in bringing the vaccines into usage. Just totally different conclusion on what that means, why it happened, and its current implications. The latter all the more credible because he found something with which he could agree...Kirsch made little to no such efforts, unless he was agreeing with Weinstein. Multiple examples of that approach. Not lost on me in the slightest.

It's quite obvious the two men do not like each other and perhaps another reason why BW had the yellow prepared in advance. I already said I found Kirsch obnoxious but I'm not letting that tarnish an otherwise informative podcast. All three including Moore, used the words "canceled" and suppressed" regarding how the medical establishment has been silent despite the efficacy data of Ivermectin used on Covid patients.

I did find the openness to this possibility of using ivermectin prophylactically to be interesting, given that the health experts more generally are quite opposed.

https://www.pharmaceutical-technology.c ... political/
The article you linked is biased toward the medical establishment, which includes CDC, NIH, WHO, etc... all those mainstream politicized institutions whom you believe are the so-called "health experts."

Yikes, it's "biased" because the actual scientists and public health experts are involved??? In some folks worlds, and maybe you are one such tech, anything those darned CDC, NIH, FDA, WHO, you know, the guys and gals at the top of their profession, agree with should be rejected...but quacks and pillow salesmen and electrical engineers should be considered more authoritative...yikes.

You haven't learned much have you? You came out with that same sort of BS a couple years ago when some of us pointed out that people running the FBI were rotten at the top. You resisted that idea until you no longer could.

I'll post this site again since these other health experts, working outside the mainstream, are on the Covid front line helping to solve problems while the establishment gets bogged down in bureaucracy, politics, and perhaps even deception/lies.

https://covid19criticalcare.com/

Saw it; not actual "public health experts"...just because 'outside the mainstream' doesn't mean they are to be believed over those in the" mainstream"...I have absolutely nothing against folks trying to see if they can find something the "mainstream" has missed, but I do have an enormous issue with suggesting that they have some superior capability to do so.

Call it whatever you like but these doctors are treating patients with, a safer, far less expensive but effective therapeutic for Covid, and the data, woldwide, seems to bear that out. The medical establishment wants to push Remdesivir and you can't even have access until you're practically dead. Perfect...

And the hypocrisy of Kirsch is revealed by his pushing for FDA approval for drugs without rigorous testing yet screams bloody murder that vaccines that have actually undergone extensive trials have been approved under emergency authorization because they skipped some steps that would normally be undertaken in less of a crisis

Look, I am not anti-vaxx... I got my J&J in early April. We've already discussed that there is no way of knowing if there will be long-term effects with any of these novel vaccines but if these people can show that there have been/are many more unreported short-term effects, including deaths, then obviously the public needs to know.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Shocking!!


https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2 ... table-main





Making 'Murica Great Again

That’s impossible!

[MDlaxfan76]

Important podcast (sans politics) from Bret Weinstein, which includes the inventor of mRNA vaccine technology.

Many of you here won't like what you hear, unfortunately. IMO, it's "truth and reality" re the current state of Covid-19.

Hopefully the podcast is not removed from the youtube platform...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_NNTVJzqtY

Do you mean that a guy constantly acting like a jerk is really difficult to listen to?

Or is there something else to glean from 3 hours of this cat interrupting and shouting over the actual expert?

Perfect example of "killing the messenger' on your part. Yes, I agree the man was obnoxious and I have to wonder if Weinstein regrets having him on. But then, BW did have the yellow card ready... so it seems he knew what to expect.

Kirsch, despite his dubious delivery, has a lot of info to convey, and I would bet that much of his over zealousness behavior is due to the exasperation he feels based on his findings. He should only be working behind the scenes though...that is obvious.

"a lot of info to convey" suggests that it's credible info. The "messenger" is quite suspect. Thus, how seriously should we take the "info"?
"convey" suggests nothing of the kind. That's merely your interpretation.

Huh? That's your word, not mine...direct quote. I just didn't find him to be credible...obnoxious too.

"suggests that it's credible" are your words... convey (yes, my word) does not suggest anything. I never said his info was "credible," that remains to be seen. I will keep an open mind and would suggest you do same.

okay, so you're 'open' to his "info" not being credible? Great, that's all I was saying...his behavior in talking over and interrupting the actual expert makes it very, very hard to hear his 'info' as actually credible...not that it shouldn't be considered, just that it requires a degree of extra skepticism...in contrast with the notion that simply because it comes from outside the "mainstream" it should be given special weight. Nope, quite the opposite.

I found much of the discussion interesting, but Kirsch made it very difficult to take him or his "info" seriously, despite the efforts of the actual expert to do so.
Nonsense. If Kirsch's info is such a problem, why didn't Dr. Moore, your "actual expert," take him to task? And I suppose it was lost on you with your way of interpreting things that Dr. Moore, on at least 2 or 3 occasions during the podcast, agreed with what Kirsch was saying.

Nope, Dr. Moore, no relation to me, is a polite, reserved scientist who was there to have a civil discussion...not a fight. And in a civil discussion one tries to find opportunities to agree with the other person. It also adds to credibility when one actually disagrees...for instance, Dr. Moore, had no difficulty agreeing that corners were cut, steps skipped, in bringing the vaccines into usage. Just totally different conclusion on what that means, why it happened, and its current implications. The latter all the more credible because he found something with which he could agree...Kirsch made little to no such efforts, unless he was agreeing with Weinstein. Multiple examples of that approach. Not lost on me in the slightest.

It's quite obvious the two men do not like each other and perhaps another reason why BW had the yellow prepared in advance. I already said I found Kirsch obnoxious but I'm not letting that tarnish an otherwise informative podcast. All three including Moore, used the words "canceled" and suppressed" regarding how the medical establishment has been silent despite the efficacy data of Ivermectin used on Covid patients.

I didn't say that nothing was interesting, just not sure I'd call anything Kirsch had to say "informative"...unless one thinks hyperbole and conspiracy is "informative". But where Moore engaged and found agreement was indeed interesting. And yes, it's clear that there was enormous pressure on the FDA to rush approval of the vaccines...as I described. And keeping their mouths shut about any unconfirmed concerns so that there wouldn't be undue resistance to getting vaccinated would be expected. Moore says there was such pressure...I believe him.

I did find the openness to this possibility of using ivermectin prophylactically to be interesting, given that the health experts more generally are quite opposed.

https://www.pharmaceutical-technology.c ... political/
The article you linked is biased toward the medical establishment, which includes CDC, NIH, WHO, etc... all those mainstream politicized institutions whom you believe are the so-called "health experts."

Yikes, it's "biased" because the actual scientists and public health experts are involved??? In some folks worlds, and maybe you are one such tech, anything those darned CDC, NIH, FDA, WHO, you know, the guys and gals at the top of their profession, agree with should be rejected...but quacks and pillow salesmen and electrical engineers should be considered more authoritative...yikes.

You haven't learned much have you? You came out with that same sort of BS a couple years ago when some of us pointed out that people running the FBI were rotten at the top. You resisted that idea until you no longer could.

Excuse me? I learned what exactly about the FBI being "rotten at the top"???
Nope, quite the opposite.
Human, yes, but quite well intentioned patriots in their work.
But hey, I've always been open to the possibility that someone or even a small group of people could have broken rules. But "rotten at the top", not remotely close to accurate...opposed to corruption and authoritarians? Yup.

Why would you think I came away thinking differently?

I'll post this site again since these other health experts, working outside the mainstream, are on the Covid front line helping to solve problems while the establishment gets bogged down in bureaucracy, politics, and perhaps even deception/lies.

https://covid19criticalcare.com/

Saw it; not actual "public health experts"...just because 'outside the mainstream' doesn't mean they are to be believed over those in the" mainstream"...I have absolutely nothing against folks trying to see if they can find something the "mainstream" has missed, but I do have an enormous issue with suggesting that they have some superior capability to do so.

Call it whatever you like but these doctors are treating patients with, a safer, far less expensive but effective therapeutic for Covid, and the data, woldwide, seems to bear that out. The medical establishment wants to push Remdesivir and you can't even have access until you're practically dead. Perfect...

Huh? These are the same sorts of cats pushing HCQ, now pushing other "therapeutic" without actual full testing...yet complaining, wild-eyed, about the vaccines jumping some steps in animals...total hypocrites. Again, I'm all for doing the actual controlled testing to see if a therapeutic can help, and under what circumstances it should be used, and identifying any others where it shouldn't. Go for it. But don't sell it as cure-all in the meantime, that's just snake oil sales, preying on gullibility and fear.

And the hypocrisy of Kirsch is revealed by his pushing for FDA approval for drugs without rigorous testing yet screams bloody murder that vaccines that have actually undergone extensive trials have been approved under emergency authorization because they skipped some steps that would normally be undertaken in less of a crisis

Look, I am not anti-vaxx... I got my J&J in early April. We've already discussed that there is no way of knowing if there will be long-term effects with any of these novel vaccines but if these people can show that there have been/are many more unreported short-term effects, including deaths, then obviously the public needs to know.

I'm 100% for full transparency, but I don't buy anything these sorts of fear mongers and snake oil salesmen spew as credible.

Listen, I blame the lack of serious tracking of every single vaccination and its effects on the Trump Administration and Congress. If they had prioritized funding of a national distribution and tracking system, which would have been quite doable, we wouldn't be in this situation of not having the sorts of non-anecdotal data. We'd also be in a position to target reaching people who had not yet been vaccinated. And we'd be in a position to have a vaccine passport that could be used for travel and access to crowded situations.

But they did not prioritize it...Now, to opinion, I believe the Trump political folks didn't want the responsibility. They wanted credit for a vaccine, but no responsibility.

Edit, Congress provided plenty of funding...they just didn't insist on exactly how the $ should be spent in this instance. The Trump Admin had ample money, but they didn't prioritize this part of the effort. And it was indeed their responsibility to do so.

[tech37]

I'm 100% for full transparency, but I don't buy anything these sorts of fear mongers and snake oil salesmen spew as credible.

Listen, I blame the lack of serious tracking of every single vaccination and its effects on the Trump Administration and Congress. If they had prioritized funding of a national distribution and tracking system, which would have been quite doable, we wouldn't be in this situation of not having the sorts of non-anecdotal data. We'd also be in a position to target reaching people who had not yet been vaccinated. And we'd be in a position to have a vaccine passport that could be used for travel and access to crowded situations.

But they did not prioritize it...Now, to opinion, I believe the Trump political folks didn't want the responsibility. They wanted credit for a vaccine, but no responsibility.

Edit, Congress provided plenty of funding...they just didn't insist on exactly how the $ should be spent in this instance. The Trump Admin had ample money, but they didn't prioritize this part of the effort. And it was indeed their responsibility to do so.

So which is it? You're blaming the last administration for a shoddy tracking system and yet when someone questions the reported data, they're a "fear monger and snake oil salesman"? You sure seem confused?

As mentioned earlier, I'll keep an open mind to all of this and you can express your knee-jerkness.

Speaking of knee-jerk, wonder where you came up with "snake oil salesman"? jhu72 lashes out when something annoys or scares him. He must be sitting on a pile of Pfizer/Gilead stock and the thought of low-cost Ivermectin cutting into the Remdesevir market has him sweating

[Typical Lax Dad]

I'm 100% for full transparency, but I don't buy anything these sorts of fear mongers and snake oil salesmen spew as credible.

Listen, I blame the lack of serious tracking of every single vaccination and its effects on the Trump Administration and Congress. If they had prioritized funding of a national distribution and tracking system, which would have been quite doable, we wouldn't be in this situation of not having the sorts of non-anecdotal data. We'd also be in a position to target reaching people who had not yet been vaccinated. And we'd be in a position to have a vaccine passport that could be used for travel and access to crowded situations.

But they did not prioritize it...Now, to opinion, I believe the Trump political folks didn't want the responsibility. They wanted credit for a vaccine, but no responsibility.

Edit, Congress provided plenty of funding...they just didn't insist on exactly how the $ should be spent in this instance. The Trump Admin had ample money, but they didn't prioritize this part of the effort. And it was indeed their responsibility to do so.

So which is it? You're blaming the last administration for a shoddy tracking system and yet when someone questions the reported data, they're a "fear monger and snake oil salesman"? You sure seem confused?

As mentioned earlier, I'll keep an open mind to all of this and you can express your knee-jerkness.

Speaking of knee-jerk, wonder where you came up with "snake oil salesman"? jhu72 lashes out when something annoys or scares him. He must be sitting on a pile of Pfizer/Gilead stock and the thought of low-cost Ivermectin cutting into the Remdesevir market has him sweating

600,000+ deaths in a year is all I need to know.

[MDlaxfan76]

I'm 100% for full transparency, but I don't buy anything these sorts of fear mongers and snake oil salesmen spew as credible.

Listen, I blame the lack of serious tracking of every single vaccination and its effects on the Trump Administration and Congress. If they had prioritized funding of a national distribution and tracking system, which would have been quite doable, we wouldn't be in this situation of not having the sorts of non-anecdotal data. We'd also be in a position to target reaching people who had not yet been vaccinated. And we'd be in a position to have a vaccine passport that could be used for travel and access to crowded situations.

But they did not prioritize it...Now, to opinion, I believe the Trump political folks didn't want the responsibility. They wanted credit for a vaccine, but no responsibility.

Edit, Congress provided plenty of funding...they just didn't insist on exactly how the $ should be spent in this instance. The Trump Admin had ample money, but they didn't prioritize this part of the effort. And it was indeed their responsibility to do so.

So which is it? You're blaming the last administration for a shoddy tracking system and yet when someone questions the reported data, they're a "fear monger and snake oil salesman"? You sure seem confused?

As mentioned earlier, I'll keep an open mind to all of this and you can express your knee-jerkness.

Speaking of knee-jerk, wonder where you came up with "snake oil salesman"? jhu72 lashes out when something annoys or scares him. He must be sitting on a pile of Pfizer/Gilead stock and the thought of low-cost Ivermectin cutting into the Remdesevir market has him sweating

I think you're confusing 72 with our gator Petey...how you could get them mixed up, I dunno, but Petey was the one flacking Gilead. Had we all have invested when he was doing so, we'd have lost a bundle. Kinda similar to every other prediction he's made, whether in lax or otherwise on these threads...I think he's batting close to zero on predictions at this point. Really, really hard to be so consistently wrong, but one would do well betting on black if Petey bets on red.

Dr. Moore's comments on this were credible and reserved.
The obnoxious non-expert was not.
Very different approaches and motivations.

And yes, I was early and frequent in my expressed concern about the Trump Admin's failures to plan the distribution and tracking of the vaccine...I was hoping they actually were going to do far better, but the reality proved to be that they screwed the pooch as was feared they'd do.

So, this certainly opens the door for critique over the inability to know for certain the degree to which serious issues arise, beyond the large scale tests they originally did...in which they did track responses closely.

And Dr. Moore's critique was fair and reasonable.

[Brooklyn]

600,000+ deaths in a year is all I need to know.

It's official = 600,000 Americans dead due to tRUMP virus:


https://news.yahoo.com/covid-19-death-t ... 14308.html


Covid-19 death toll in the United States surpasses 600,000


As of Tuesday, more than 600,000 Americans have died of Covid-19.

According to the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Research Center, the death toll from the novel coronavirus in the United States now stands at 600,138 – more than in any other country.

The rate at which Americans are dying of the virus, however, has considerably slowed in recent months. In mid-January, when the pandemic reached its deadliest peak in the US, the country was recording an average of about 3,300 deaths per day. Today that rate is about 330.

That decrease is largely due to the three Covid-19 vaccines finding their way into Americans’ arms. As of this week, 53 per cent of all Americans have received at least one dose of a vaccine, either from Pfizer, Moderna, or Johnson & Johnson.

Even so, the number of deaths in the US is disproportionately high. The next highest death toll is in India, which has more than four times America’s population. In that country, 377,031 people have died of the virus – less than two-thirds of the US number.

The number is also a reminder of the shocking toll Covid has taken on the US, where the virus first arrived less than a year and a half ago. The first American to die of Covid-19 passed away on 29 February. By mid-April, it was killing more than 2,000 Americans a day. By the end of May, it had killed more than 100,000 Americans total.

However, the time between such grim milestones has significantly expanded. When the country reached 500,000 deaths, it had only been about a month since it had reached 400,000. Getting from 500,000 to 600,000 deaths took about four months.

The number of infections in the US has also plummeted. In January, the country reported an average of over 250,000 new Covid cases per day. Today that number is about 14,000.

NY lifts more COVID-19 rules as it hits vaccination mark

Disability cannot be an afterthought when building back from Covid -19

New York lifts Covid restrictions after reaching goal of 70% adults vaccinated

US COVID-19 deaths hit 600,000, equal to yearly cancer toll

Covid was circulating in five US states as early as December 2019, new research suggests.





Congratulations to those of you who love being Republicans. You got your wish.

[wgdsr]

glad we beat europe. it was looking like we were gonna get smoked for awhile there.

[jhu72]

I'm 100% for full transparency, but I don't buy anything these sorts of fear mongers and snake oil salesmen spew as credible.

Listen, I blame the lack of serious tracking of every single vaccination and its effects on the Trump Administration and Congress. If they had prioritized funding of a national distribution and tracking system, which would have been quite doable, we wouldn't be in this situation of not having the sorts of non-anecdotal data. We'd also be in a position to target reaching people who had not yet been vaccinated. And we'd be in a position to have a vaccine passport that could be used for travel and access to crowded situations.

But they did not prioritize it...Now, to opinion, I believe the Trump political folks didn't want the responsibility. They wanted credit for a vaccine, but no responsibility.

Edit, Congress provided plenty of funding...they just didn't insist on exactly how the $ should be spent in this instance. The Trump Admin had ample money, but they didn't prioritize this part of the effort. And it was indeed their responsibility to do so.

So which is it? You're blaming the last administration for a shoddy tracking system and yet when someone questions the reported data, they're a "fear monger and snake oil salesman"? You sure seem confused?

As mentioned earlier, I'll keep an open mind to all of this and you can express your knee-jerkness.

Speaking of knee-jerk, wonder where you came up with "snake oil salesman"? jhu72 lashes out when something annoys or scares him. He must be sitting on a pile of Pfizer/Gilead stock and the thought of low-cost Ivermectin cutting into the Remdesevir market has him sweating

... not annoyed at anything other than clowns trying to sell as true a conspiracy theory they found on youtube. Its pretty clear you did not engage brain when watching your 3 hour infomercial.

[jhu72]

Redfield doesn't just think a lab leak is the source of COVID, he believes Chinese scientists supercharged it.

[jhu72]

Cause of anomalous clotting with COVID determined.

[tech37]

I think you're confusing 72 with our gator Petey...how you could get them mixed up, I dunno, but Petey was the one flacking Gilead. Had we all have invested when he was doing so, we'd have lost a bundle. Kinda similar to every other prediction he's made, whether in lax or otherwise on these threads...I think he's batting close to zero on predictions at this point. Really, really hard to be so consistently wrong, but one would do well betting on black if Petey bets on red.

Dr. Moore's comments on this were credible and reserved.
The obnoxious non-expert was not.
Very different approaches and motivations.

And yes, I was early and frequent in my expressed concern about the Trump Admin's failures to plan the distribution and tracking of the vaccine...I was hoping they actually were going to do far better, but the reality proved to be that they screwed the pooch as was feared they'd do.

So, this certainly opens the door for critique over the inability to know for certain the degree to which serious issues arise, beyond the large scale tests they originally did...in which they did track responses closely.

And Dr. Moore's critique was fair and reasonable.

Ha! I certainly am not confusing 72 with Peter Brown! I remember PB was touting a stock months ago, but at this point, I couldn't tell you whether it was Gilead or not. I was simply trying to inject a little humor within the context of 72's threatened stance. That said, the establishment's push for Remdesevir may have a financial motive. I think a single patient protocol costs more than 3k, and that's just the cost of the medicine alone.

What if the "obnoxious non-expert" is right?

Come on... you can only speculate about motivations. Don't know how you arrive at the proclaimed certainty you often do... if it's simply your opinion, why not state that?

Weinstein is fair and reasonable as well and neither he nor Moore took Kirsch to task on his information/claims. These guys took a real risk, their reputations on the line, meeting to podcast issues that may have them "canceled" in any number of ways. They didn't gather to be polite to one another, that's BS. If what Kirsch presented (in poor fashion, as I've admitted) was improbable, then both Weinstein and Moore would have taken it apart or not invited him at all. I'm pretty sure they knew just what he would present prior to their podcast. That's my opinion BTW.

[jhu72]

A reasonable proposal from a not generally reasonable source.

[RedFromMI]

Another article on the possibility of a lab origin for the pandemic…

https://t.co/kL53rihAYN

[Typical Lax Dad]

Good article on long haul research

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41592-021-01145-z

[Peter Brown]

Masks are disgusting. Let’s just say you’re better off without them.

https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/horowitz ... s-bacteria

The lab used a method called proteomics to extract proteins from the masks and sequence them. The analysis detected the following 11 alarmingly dangerous pathogens on the masks:

Streptococcus pneumoniae (pneumonia)
Mycobacterium tuberculosis (tuberculosis)
Neisseria meningitidis (meningitis, sepsis)
Acanthamoeba polyphaga (keratitis and granulomatous amebic encephalitis)
Acinetobacter baumanni (pneumonia, bloodstream infections, meningitis, UTIs — resistant to antibiotics)
Escherichia coli (food poisoning)
Borrelia burgdorferi (causes Lyme disease)
Corynebacterium diphtheriae (diphtheria)
Legionella pneumophila (Legionnaires' disease)
Staphylococcus pyogenes serotype M3 (severe infections — high morbidity rates)
Staphylococcus aureus (meningitis, sepsis)

[Brooklyn]

^ even if this myth was true it would be better if such germs were found on the mask surface (which can be washed immediately after each use) than in your lungs where it cannot be purged so readily

[Peter Brown]

^ even if this myth was true it would be better if such germs were found on the mask surface (which can be washed immediately after each use) than in your lungs where it cannot be purged so readily

Because kids don’t invert their masks all day long or anything.

Let immune systems develop.

Why are Democrats so anti-science?

[Brooklyn]

Why are Democrats so anti-science?