Covid-19 related debates (argue in this thread only)

Status
Not open for further replies.
DinkumDog

DinkumDog

Kennel Immortal
2 x Gilded
Joined
May 15, 2017
Messages
23,002
Reaction score
42,474
Ah, now I remember. @likeadoggy was banned from this thread for calling those who took the vaccine ‘junkies’ - hence the new account @Tlamb so he can comment in here. Subtle :tearsofjoy:.

Anyway, Kylie Wagstaff - yes, she was the one who originally lit the fuse on Ivermectin based on some early stage results from a petri dish which doesn’t mean much. But it was posted on sewer media and the rest is history - the likes of Christensen, Kelly, Palmer etc were all over it like Dan Ferris is a McDonalds voucher. Her research assistant publicly said ‘Big Pharma doesn’t like that a cheap drug could cure the problem’ - and he’s been receiving love letters from @Rodzilla ever since :-).

Wagstaff also called the vaccines ‘poison’ - so that fits with your ‘junkie’ views. Either way, her comments on Covid have been widely discredited. Apparently there’s a study still ongoing at Monash and we’ll see the results later in 2022. Listen out for the crickets :-).
 
Rodzilla

Rodzilla

Terry Lamb 1996
Joined
Dec 22, 2004
Messages
42,604
Reaction score
6,175
DinkumDog said:
Anyway, Kylie Wagstaff - yes, she was the one who originally lit the fuse on Ivermectin based on some early stage results from a petri dish which doesn’t mean much. But it was posted on sewer media and the rest is history - the likes of Christensen, Kelly, Palmer etc were all over it like Dan Ferris is a McDonalds voucher. Her research assistant publicly said ‘Big Pharma doesn’t like that a cheap drug could cure the problem’ - and he’s been receiving love letters from @Rodzilla ever since :-).
Click to expand...
then there were 80 studies that proved ivermectin worked, countries used it and it worked, FDA had to lie and claim it was horse medicine trying to shame people away from taking it, but some states in the US are now allowing it to be bought over the counter

of course big pharma doesn't like ivermectin coming in and cock blocking their hundreds of billions of profit, don't you agree?
 
Rodzilla

Rodzilla

Terry Lamb 1996
Joined
Dec 22, 2004
Messages
42,604
Reaction score
6,175
DinkumDog said:
No, I don’t agree with anything you post :-).
Click to expand...
thats why i say you are operating in another universe, why would you think pharma doesn't want to have hundreds of billions $$$?, are they communist?, do they care so much about people?

this is like saying that Burger King doesn't mind if everybody stopped buying their burgers and moved over to a healthier option lol
 
DinkumDog

DinkumDog

Kennel Immortal
2 x Gilded
Joined
May 15, 2017
Messages
23,002
Reaction score
42,474
Rodzilla said:
thats why i say you are operating in another universe
Click to expand...
Hilarious coming from the guy who believes bullshit written in the Desert Review, fake Ivermectin labels from Wellness Forever and that somehow guys like Pierre Kory are credible. You can keep on repeating all the interweb nonsense you’ve gobbled up as much as you like - you’ve proven nothing and never will :-).

As for Pharma - they sell thousands of products that make them profitable. They’re not reliant on ‘vaccine revenue’ to be profitable. So yet another nonsense theory you parrot and the BK example is flat out dumb.
 
Rodzilla

Rodzilla

Terry Lamb 1996
Joined
Dec 22, 2004
Messages
42,604
Reaction score
6,175
DinkumDog said:
Hilarious coming from the guy who believes bullshit written in the Desert Review, fake Ivermectin labels from Wellness Forever and that somehow guys like Pierre Kory are credible. You can keep on repeating all the interweb nonsense you’ve gobbled up as much as you like - you’ve proven nothing and never will :-).
Click to expand...
the ivermectin home kit photo was real, i don't understand why you thought it was debunked, the only thing that was questioning it was why wasn't ivermectin sold at the wellness forever website, i won that argument when the idiots eventually scrambled and tried to argue that it was fake because it was printed in english and i confirmed that everything on that website is english

but don't change the subject away from you not agreeing that pharma would hate it if their vaccine profits vanished lolol, that is a really dumb way to look at it, retard level dumb
 
DinkumDog

DinkumDog

Kennel Immortal
2 x Gilded
Joined
May 15, 2017
Messages
23,002
Reaction score
42,474
Rodzilla said:
the ivermectin home kit photo was real, i don't understand why you thought it was debunked, the only thing that was questioning it was why wasn't ivermectin sold at the wellness forever website, i won that argument when the idiots eventually scrambled and tried to argue that it was fake because it was printed in english and i confirmed that everything on that website is english

but don't change the subject away from you not agreeing that pharma would hate it if their vaccine profits vanished lolol, that is a really dumb way to look at it, retard level dumb
Click to expand...
No it wasn’t real because they never sold it.
And you question others mental faculties :tearsofjoy:.
 
T

Tlamb

Banned
Joined
May 3, 2022
Messages
150
Reaction score
50
In a “pandemic”, it’s astounding that someone would try and discredit a drug already prescribed to people for decades. That at worst doesn’t work and at best is an effective, accessible treatment.

You’d have to be completely far gone to think this way. You’d have to be so brainwashed you can’t even think straight anymore.

You’d have to be a strong proponent of a vaccine that doesn’t do what “they” said it would do.

You’d have to have swallowed the horsepaste claims, regardless of the absurdity of them.

At a pure guess, you’d have to be an expert in moving the goalposts on your stance constantly, taking whichever stance suits the narrative at the time. Then excusing being wrong by citing paid for fact checks and claiming it to be so simply because you say so. Regardless of the fact that the actual data has never mirrored the forecasted data.

What a position to find yourself in, claiming the narrative as the basis for your “facts” despite being wrong at every turn.

Sheesh. Good luck with it.
 
DinkumDog

DinkumDog

Kennel Immortal
2 x Gilded
Joined
May 15, 2017
Messages
23,002
Reaction score
42,474
Tlamb said:
In a “pandemic”, it’s astounding that someone would try and discredit a drug already prescribed to people for decades. That at worst doesn’t work and at best is an effective, accessible treatment.

You’d have to be completely far gone to think this way. You’d have to be so brainwashed you can’t even think straight anymore.

You’d have to be a strong proponent of a vaccine that doesn’t do what “they” said it would do.

You’d have to have swallowed the horsepaste claims, regardless of the absurdity of them.

At a pure guess, you’d have to be an expert in moving the goalposts on your stance constantly, taking whichever stance suits the narrative at the time. Then excusing being wrong by citing paid for fact checks and claiming it to be so simply because you say so. Regardless of the fact that the actual data has never mirrored the forecasted data.

What a position to find yourself in, claiming the narrative as the basis for your “facts” despite being wrong at every turn.

Sheesh. Good luck with it.
Click to expand...
Just because a drug exists @likeadoggy doesnt mean it’s going to be effective against something it wasn’t designed for. Seriously, your conclusions - sheesh :-).
 
Rodzilla

Rodzilla

Terry Lamb 1996
Joined
Dec 22, 2004
Messages
42,604
Reaction score
6,175
DinkumDog said:
Just because a drug exists @likeadoggy doesnt mean it’s going to be effective against something it wasn’t designed for. Seriously, your conclusions - sheesh :-).
Click to expand...
thats why they tested it 80 times to see if it worked and then it worked

thats why all those countries started using it and then it worked there too, thats why some US states are going against the FDA and allowing it to be sold over the counter

ivermectin is a protease inhibitor that stops covid from replicating, the merck covid drug molnupiravir was first developed as a horse drug but i don't see anybody complaining about that

its not only ivermectin that has been suppressed, we are talking about every treatment that works
 
Hacky McAxe

Hacky McAxe

Super Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Gilded
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
37,175
Reaction score
29,710
Tlamb said:
In a “pandemic”, it’s astounding that someone would try and discredit a drug already prescribed to people for decades. That at worst doesn’t work and at best is an effective, accessible treatment.

You’d have to be completely far gone to think this way. You’d have to be so brainwashed you can’t even think straight anymore.

You’d have to be a strong proponent of a vaccine that doesn’t do what “they” said it would do.

You’d have to have swallowed the horsepaste claims, regardless of the absurdity of them.

At a pure guess, you’d have to be an expert in moving the goalposts on your stance constantly, taking whichever stance suits the narrative at the time. Then excusing being wrong by citing paid for fact checks and claiming it to be so simply because you say so. Regardless of the fact that the actual data has never mirrored the forecasted data.

What a position to find yourself in, claiming the narrative as the basis for your “facts” despite being wrong at every turn.

Sheesh. Good luck with it.
Click to expand...
It's not about discrediting it. It's about crediting it. When it comes to drug treatments you don't try to prove they don't work. You try to prove they work.

In the case of Ivermectin, it looked promising at first. Wagstaff's research showed promise. But her research was ex-vivo. Unfortunately ex-vivo and in-vitro aren't the same thing. And as Wagstaff pointed out herself, the dosage they used on Covid ex-vivo was more than a human could take without overdosing. Which is why more research was needed.

Another study came along that showed that Ivermectin was 90% effective against Covid. That was extremely promising. The study showed strong efficacy and a large sample size but... Turned out the study was a scam. A complete scam. Not only were they including people in the study who died long before the study started, but they also copy and pasted the patients hundred of times to get enough patients.

There were follow up studies but the sample sizes were so small that they couldn't give accurate data. Certain websites tried to collate the data and the websites even stated that it was epidemiologists and professors collating this data. But the data they collated is completely incompatible. Things like studies that used 20 different treatments, they counted it all as Ivermectin. Studies with completely different doses, different age categories, different health conditions, some double blind, many single blind, some not blind at all. Epidemiologists would have realised the immediate flaws in this but these websites refuse to provide any names of these so-called epidemiologists who are studying this stuff. So all we have is a bunch of incompatible data mashed together that means nothing.

Unfortunately we only have one large study on Ivermectin's efficacy against Covid and it found that Ivermectin had no effect.

This was raised with many Ivermectin proponents and their response was that it's a conspiracy to repress these drugs because big pharma wants to make money off other drugs. When it was pointed out that certain steroids have been shown to actually be effective, they are cheap available drugs with no trademark, and they are recommended by most health bodies, the Ivermectin advocates generally have no good answer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top