LaxPower Back-Up Stick

a fan wrote: ↑Mon Feb 21, 2022 8:00 pm

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Mon Feb 21, 2022 6:37 pm Should he reveal who he is, we all know precisely what would happen to him, correct?

Would it surprise anyone if the FBI came knocking on his door at 6 am with 40 heavily armed gestapo, taking him away for a no-bond detainer?

Yes, it would surprise me. It's Bill Gates who will show up, Pete. And he's coming to chip your dog, so he can track him.

youthathletics wrote: ↑Mon Feb 21, 2022 9:56 am

dislaxxic wrote: ↑Mon Feb 21, 2022 8:45 am Report on the morning news about a new study that shows those that have had C-19 have a 72% increase in chance of heart disease...anyone know anything about that??

..

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-n ... -rcna15608

Terrifying. I hope this isn't accurate.

a fan wrote: ↑Mon Feb 21, 2022 8:10 pm

youthathletics wrote: ↑Mon Feb 21, 2022 9:56 am

dislaxxic wrote: ↑Mon Feb 21, 2022 8:45 am Report on the morning news about a new study that shows those that have had C-19 have a 72% increase in chance of heart disease...anyone know anything about that??

..

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-n ... -rcna15608

Terrifying. I hope this isn't accurate.

.. I have seen multiple sources for this since Friday.

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Mon Feb 21, 2022 6:37 pm

RedFromMI wrote: ↑Mon Feb 21, 2022 5:03 pm

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Mon Feb 21, 2022 4:22 pm Wow.

An anonymous scientist collected photos of the children media/doctors deemed "healthy" who died of or with COVID. The atrocity here is that the media & medical community have turned their backs on these children and others by ignoring the real problem-obesity. (See photo in tweets).

The left's political correctness is killing children.

Among the worst parts of the whole debacle is that the measures implemented to quell the spread of covid (isolation, staying at home) have actually caused more childhood obesity. Not to mention the rising rates of depression in children, which will certainly, over the long run, lead to more of them becoming obese or having other problems that affect one's health (ie substance abuse issues).

https://twitter.com/leftylockdowns1/sta ... 10880?s=21

Despicable.

"Anonymous" scientist who appears to be afraid to actually reveal who he is? Looks like dreamed up misinformation to me (a trained scientist). There is not necessarily any identification of who these children are - and why would images of them be made public anyway? Not by any health provider as these disclosures would be violations of HIPAA.

Junk information that should be treated as nonsense data until appropriately documented. (And any pictures would still not likely appear in a real journal article).

How gullible do you think we are? How gullible are YOU?

Should he reveal who he is, we all know precisely what would happen to him, correct?

Would it surprise anyone if the FBI came knocking on his door at 6 am with 40 heavily armed gestapo, taking him away for a no-bond detainer?

That’s where we are now with the left in America, abusing the various law enforcement agencies for their political bidding.

But the good news is the elections are around the corner! As long as Democrats don’t interfere with democracy, this election shall be historic. Let’s go!

Meanwhile, his overarching point that obesity kills is indisputable.

The “scientist” had families from all around the country send him candid photos of their dead kids…..he then decided to post them “anonymously”. Seems plausible.

Wow. Sadly they’re all overweight but we should be grateful that only ten children have died.

Great news. A number of studies reporting in the last few weeks indicate that the T-cells of 4 available vaccines all provide strong protection against the COVID virus, independent of variant and it is thought that all four could handle any future variant. Also the B-cells produce more robust anti-bodies over time that become more likely to handle a previously unseen variant. Indications are that the protection provided by the vaccines could last much longer than we had dare hope earlier. The same seems to be the case for protection provided by infection, that you are protected for a longer time period than earlier thought to be the case.

The reporting is a little confusing, complicated, so read it yourself. It will probably take reading the papers to really understand the ins and outs.

What occurs to me immediately is why do some people get recurring cases? This is not exactly uncommon. I suspect it has to do with their specific genetic make up.

wgdsr wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 6:54 am https://wset.com/news/coronavirus/iverm ... treatments

Heads are going to explode if the find a positive outcome.

wgdsr wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 6:54 am https://wset.com/news/coronavirus/iverm ... treatments

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Mon Feb 21, 2022 8:24 pm

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Mon Feb 21, 2022 6:37 pm

RedFromMI wrote: ↑Mon Feb 21, 2022 5:03 pm

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Mon Feb 21, 2022 4:22 pm Wow.

An anonymous scientist collected photos of the children media/doctors deemed "healthy" who died of or with COVID. The atrocity here is that the media & medical community have turned their backs on these children and others by ignoring the real problem-obesity. (See photo in tweets).

The left's political correctness is killing children.

Among the worst parts of the whole debacle is that the measures implemented to quell the spread of covid (isolation, staying at home) have actually caused more childhood obesity. Not to mention the rising rates of depression in children, which will certainly, over the long run, lead to more of them becoming obese or having other problems that affect one's health (ie substance abuse issues).

https://twitter.com/leftylockdowns1/sta ... 10880?s=21

Despicable.

"Anonymous" scientist who appears to be afraid to actually reveal who he is? Looks like dreamed up misinformation to me (a trained scientist). There is not necessarily any identification of who these children are - and why would images of them be made public anyway? Not by any health provider as these disclosures would be violations of HIPAA.

Junk information that should be treated as nonsense data until appropriately documented. (And any pictures would still not likely appear in a real journal article).

How gullible do you think we are? How gullible are YOU?

Should he reveal who he is, we all know precisely what would happen to him, correct?

Would it surprise anyone if the FBI came knocking on his door at 6 am with 40 heavily armed gestapo, taking him away for a no-bond detainer?

That’s where we are now with the left in America, abusing the various law enforcement agencies for their political bidding.

But the good news is the elections are around the corner! As long as Democrats don’t interfere with democracy, this election shall be historic. Let’s go!

Meanwhile, his overarching point that obesity kills is indisputable.

The “scientist” had families from all around the country send him candid photos of their dead kids…..he then decided to post them “anonymously”. Seems plausible.

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 7:58 am

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Mon Feb 21, 2022 8:24 pm

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Mon Feb 21, 2022 6:37 pm

RedFromMI wrote: ↑Mon Feb 21, 2022 5:03 pm

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Mon Feb 21, 2022 4:22 pm Wow.

An anonymous scientist collected photos of the children media/doctors deemed "healthy" who died of or with COVID. The atrocity here is that the media & medical community have turned their backs on these children and others by ignoring the real problem-obesity. (See photo in tweets).

The left's political correctness is killing children.

Among the worst parts of the whole debacle is that the measures implemented to quell the spread of covid (isolation, staying at home) have actually caused more childhood obesity. Not to mention the rising rates of depression in children, which will certainly, over the long run, lead to more of them becoming obese or having other problems that affect one's health (ie substance abuse issues).

https://twitter.com/leftylockdowns1/sta ... 10880?s=21

Despicable.

"Anonymous" scientist who appears to be afraid to actually reveal who he is? Looks like dreamed up misinformation to me (a trained scientist). There is not necessarily any identification of who these children are - and why would images of them be made public anyway? Not by any health provider as these disclosures would be violations of HIPAA.

Junk information that should be treated as nonsense data until appropriately documented. (And any pictures would still not likely appear in a real journal article).

How gullible do you think we are? How gullible are YOU?

Should he reveal who he is, we all know precisely what would happen to him, correct?

Would it surprise anyone if the FBI came knocking on his door at 6 am with 40 heavily armed gestapo, taking him away for a no-bond detainer?

That’s where we are now with the left in America, abusing the various law enforcement agencies for their political bidding.

But the good news is the elections are around the corner! As long as Democrats don’t interfere with democracy, this election shall be historic. Let’s go!

Meanwhile, his overarching point that obesity kills is indisputable.

The “scientist” had families from all around the country send him candid photos of their dead kids…..he then decided to post them “anonymously”. Seems plausible.

He probably forgot to list the names.

youthathletics wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 7:17 am

wgdsr wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 6:54 am https://wset.com/news/coronavirus/iverm ... treatments

Heads are going to explode if the find a positive outcome.

Not really. It would be one positive outcome and a lot of ineffective outcomes. Which would just mean more studies are needed.

If it's yet another study showing it's not effective in the real world, will you accept it?

NattyBohChamps04 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 8:52 am

youthathletics wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 7:17 am

wgdsr wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 6:54 am https://wset.com/news/coronavirus/iverm ... treatments

Heads are going to explode if the find a positive outcome.

Not really. It would be one positive outcome and a lot of ineffective outcomes. Which would just mean more studies are needed.

If it's yet another study showing it's not effective in the real world, will you accept it?

if your standard is "effective", there have been plenty of both. any (all?) rcts have been small, not noteworthy. so "low or very low certainty". effective or not isn't the vernacular. and any other non rcts don't really count unless it's masks.

i suspect this one won't be any different. so we'll accept it for what it is. maybe merck found some more pills to send out to principle.

NattyBohChamps04 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 8:52 am

youthathletics wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 7:17 am

wgdsr wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 6:54 am https://wset.com/news/coronavirus/iverm ... treatments

Heads are going to explode if the find a positive outcome.

Not really. It would be one positive outcome and a lot of ineffective outcomes. Which would just mean more studies are needed.

If it's yet another study showing it's not effective in the real world, will you accept it?

wgdsr wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 9:16 am

NattyBohChamps04 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 8:52 am

youthathletics wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 7:17 am

wgdsr wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 6:54 am https://wset.com/news/coronavirus/iverm ... treatments

Heads are going to explode if the find a positive outcome.

Not really. It would be one positive outcome and a lot of ineffective outcomes. Which would just mean more studies are needed.

If it's yet another study showing it's not effective in the real world, will you accept it?

if your standard is "effective", there have been plenty of both. any (all?) rcts have been small, not noteworthy. so "low or very low certainty". effective or not isn't the vernacular. and any other non rcts don't really count unless it's masks.

i suspect this one won't be any different. so we'll accept it for what it is. maybe merck found some more pills to send out to principle.

I'd love to read the studies where ivermectin was effective at reducing or treating COVID in actual people, not just a lab environment.

"low or very low certainty" is also not necessarily the vernacular for statistical analysis.

Small studies can be extremely noteworthy at just few dozen participants. A lot of factors involved.

youthathletics wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 9:27 am

NattyBohChamps04 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 8:52 am

youthathletics wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 7:17 am

wgdsr wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 6:54 am https://wset.com/news/coronavirus/iverm ... treatments

Heads are going to explode if the find a positive outcome.

Not really. It would be one positive outcome and a lot of ineffective outcomes. Which would just mean more studies are needed.

If it's yet another study showing it's not effective in the real world, will you accept it?

I'll take that as a no, you won't accept it. Gotcha.

Cute gif

wgdsr wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 9:16 am

NattyBohChamps04 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 8:52 am

youthathletics wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 7:17 am

wgdsr wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 6:54 am https://wset.com/news/coronavirus/iverm ... treatments

Heads are going to explode if the find a positive outcome.

Not really. It would be one positive outcome and a lot of ineffective outcomes. Which would just mean more studies are needed.

If it's yet another study showing it's not effective in the real world, will you accept it?

if your standard is "effective", there have been plenty of both. any (all?) rcts have been small, not noteworthy. so "low or very low certainty". effective or not isn't the vernacular. and any other non rcts don't really count unless it's masks.

i suspect this one won't be any different. so we'll accept it for what it is. maybe merck found some more pills to send out to principle.

Here is the latest: make of it what you will.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamain ... le/2789362

wgdsr wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 9:16 am

NattyBohChamps04 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 8:52 am

youthathletics wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 7:17 am

wgdsr wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 6:54 am https://wset.com/news/coronavirus/iverm ... treatments

Heads are going to explode if the find a positive outcome.

Not really. It would be one positive outcome and a lot of ineffective outcomes. Which would just mean more studies are needed.

If it's yet another study showing it's not effective in the real world, will you accept it?

if your standard is "effective", there have been plenty of both. any (all?) rcts have been small, not noteworthy. so "low or very low certainty". effective or not isn't the vernacular. and any other non rcts don't really count unless it's masks.

i suspect this one won't be any different. so we'll accept it for what it is. maybe merck found some more pills to send out to principle.

Masks don’t stop the spread of germs. We all know that now.

NattyBohChamps04 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 9:38 am

wgdsr wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 9:16 am

NattyBohChamps04 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 8:52 am

youthathletics wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 7:17 am

wgdsr wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 6:54 am https://wset.com/news/coronavirus/iverm ... treatments

Heads are going to explode if the find a positive outcome.

Not really. It would be one positive outcome and a lot of ineffective outcomes. Which would just mean more studies are needed.

If it's yet another study showing it's not effective in the real world, will you accept it?

if your standard is "effective", there have been plenty of both. any (all?) rcts have been small, not noteworthy. so "low or very low certainty". effective or not isn't the vernacular. and any other non rcts don't really count unless it's masks.

i suspect this one won't be any different. so we'll accept it for what it is. maybe merck found some more pills to send out to principle.

I'd love to read the studies where ivermectin was effective at reducing or treating COVID in actual people, not just a lab environment.

"low or very low certainty" is also not necessarily the vernacular for statistical analysis.

Small studies can be extremely noteworthy at just few dozen participants. A lot of factors involved.

i googled "ivermectin study effective".
here are the first 3 links:
https://journals.lww.com/americantherap ... 20evidence).
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34318930/
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamain ... le/2789362
you can likely find more info in further links? and as an example, from the first link, they have i think 24 rcts in there that you might browse. sounds like a lot of work, but have at it.

in real news, anyone hear whether pfizer therapeutic has been hitting the shelves? access to peeps u know?

wgdsr wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 10:03 am

NattyBohChamps04 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 9:38 am

wgdsr wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 9:16 am

NattyBohChamps04 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 8:52 am

youthathletics wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 7:17 am

wgdsr wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 6:54 am https://wset.com/news/coronavirus/iverm ... treatments

Heads are going to explode if the find a positive outcome.

Not really. It would be one positive outcome and a lot of ineffective outcomes. Which would just mean more studies are needed.

If it's yet another study showing it's not effective in the real world, will you accept it?

if your standard is "effective", there have been plenty of both. any (all?) rcts have been small, not noteworthy. so "low or very low certainty". effective or not isn't the vernacular. and any other non rcts don't really count unless it's masks.

i suspect this one won't be any different. so we'll accept it for what it is. maybe merck found some more pills to send out to principle.

I'd love to read the studies where ivermectin was effective at reducing or treating COVID in actual people, not just a lab environment.

"low or very low certainty" is also not necessarily the vernacular for statistical analysis.

Small studies can be extremely noteworthy at just few dozen participants. A lot of factors involved.

i googled "ivermectin study effective".
here are the first 3 links:
https://journals.lww.com/americantherap ... 20evidence).
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34318930/
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamain ... le/2789362
you can likely find more info in further links? and as an example, from the first link, they have i think 24 rcts in there that you might browse. sounds like a lot of work, but have at it.

in real news, anyone hear whether pfizer therapeutic has been hitting the shelves? access to peeps u know?

I wonder why Ivermectin hasn’t been green lit as the go to therapeutic?