Where's Your Line In The Sand?

R

roscoe

Well-known member
wiscoaster said:
There would have been a whole lot less lives at stake, and lost, if the public health systems had been run by me.
Click to expand...
Well, without getting into your public health qualifications, we do have an example of what I suspect you have in mind. You can read about it here:

www.foxnews.com

Sweden's pandemic experiment ends amid spiking coronavirus cases

Sweden’s Covid-19 experiment is over.
www.foxnews.com www.foxnews.com

www.bbvaopenmind.com

Sweden, the pandemic experiment without a lockdown | OpenMind

We analyze the epidemiological results of Sweden's strategy against the COVID-19 pandemic. Will it go down in history as a failure or a success?
www.bbvaopenmind.com www.bbvaopenmind.com
 
wiscoaster

wiscoaster

Well-known member
roscoe said:
....The fact that you feel like you have to hide it is a sign of paranoia. ...
Click to expand...
No, it's because mention of it has been censored by social media, YouTube and the like. I just don't know where forums stand wrt to media censorship and didn't want to take the chance of getting this board in trouble. Apparently it's not a problem here, since your post still stands.
 
Last edited:
wiscoaster

wiscoaster

Well-known member
roscoe said:
but it definitely is a strong drug with the potential to injure or kill:
Click to expand...
ya, sure, water can kill you if you take too much of it or use it inappropriately. Ivermectin is extremely safe at the proper dose, and the proper dose for Covid is well within its safe therapeutic range. I did my research first.
 
R

roscoe

Well-known member
wiscoaster said:
ya, sure, water can kill you if you take too much of it or use it inappropriately. Ivermectin is extremely safe at the proper dose, and the proper dose for Covid is well within its safe therapeutic range. I did my research first.
Click to expand...
Well, just take it easy on dosage. If it is hard on livers/kidneys, it might be something to watch out for on long-term usage.
 
R

roscoe

Well-known member
wiscoaster said:
ya, sure, water can kill you if you take too much of it or use it inappropriately. Ivermectin is extremely safe at the proper dose, and the proper dose for Covid is well within its safe therapeutic range. I did my research first.
Click to expand...
Well, you know, it's the 'Free Speech Capitol of the Internet".
 
wiscoaster

wiscoaster

Well-known member
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19

After COVID-19 emerged on U.S shores, providers began reviewing the emerging basic science, translational, and clinical data to identify potentially effective treatment options. In addition, a multitude of both novel and repurposed therapeutic agents ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Published by .... oh no!!! .... the NIH!?!?

Take special notice of the "Conclusions" paragraph.

And I'm sure even @roscoe can't marginalize the data and the 84 references.
 
Last edited:
str8_forward

str8_forward

Well-known member
wiscoaster said:
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19

After COVID-19 emerged on U.S shores, providers began reviewing the emerging basic science, translational, and clinical data to identify potentially effective treatment options. In addition, a multitude of both novel and repurposed therapeutic agents ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Published by .... oh no!!! .... the NIH!?!?

Take special notice of the "Conclusions" paragraph.

And I'm sure even @roscoe can't marginalize the data and the 84 references.
Click to expand...
Hahaha, you believe in miracles

1634578433560.png
 
R

roscoe

Well-known member
wiscoaster said:
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19

After COVID-19 emerged on U.S shores, providers began reviewing the emerging basic science, translational, and clinical data to identify potentially effective treatment options. In addition, a multitude of both novel and repurposed therapeutic agents ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Published by .... oh no!!! .... the NIH!?!?

Take special notice of the "Conclusions" paragraph.

And I'm sure even @roscoe can't marginalize the data and the 84 references.
Click to expand...
That is what my link above said. But it is not a vaccine, in that we don't know about its effect on communication of the disease. That is the key - prevent communication.
 
wiscoaster

wiscoaster

Well-known member
roscoe said:
.... That is the key - prevent communication.
Click to expand...
No, the key is cure the disease. With an effective cure, administered early in the course (as is the usual protocol for anti-virals), communication is a distant secondary issue; almost irrelevant, I'd say. We do know that vaccinated people get breakthrough infections and that they are therefore disease vectors. So vaccines are not the best answer. Give me a safe, effective therapeutic, available at first sign of symptoms, as standard of care, and I don't need a vaccine and I don't care if I get exposed, so masking and quarantining are irrelevant. Covid becomes a non-issue, just a bad cold. You're sick for a few days and then you're over it and susbsequently you're naturally immune. This medication and this protocol was available very early in the pandemic and was suppressed so that big Pharma could get their emergency authorizations for their vaccines, and now I suppose it will continue to be suppressed so that Merck can get emergency authorization for its experimental anti-viral to test on the unwitting general population. Or sacrificial lambs, rather more likely.
 
Last edited:
R

roscoe

Well-known member
wiscoaster said:
No, the key is cure the disease. With an effective cure, administered early in the course (as is the usual protocol for anti-virals), communication is a distant secondary issue; almost irrelevant, I'd say. We do know that vaccinated people get breakthrough infections and that they are therefore disease vectors. So vaccines are not the best answer. Give me a safe, effective therapeutic, available at first sign of symptoms, as standard of care, and I don't need a vaccine and I don't care if I get exposed, so masking and quarantining are irrelevant. Covid becomes a non-issue, just a bad cold. You're sick for a few days and then you're over it and susbsequently you're naturally immune. This medication and this protocol was available very early in the pandemic and was suppressed so that big Pharma could get their emergency authorizations for their vaccines, and now I suppose it will continue to be suppressed so that Merck can get emergency authorization for its experimental anti-viral to test on the unwitting general population. Or sacrificial lambs, rather more likely.
Click to expand...

This is not how we eliminated (or nearly) smallpox, polio, rubella, mumps, diphtheria, whooping cough, measles, tetanus, and Hep A and B.
 
wiscoaster

wiscoaster

Well-known member
roscoe said:
This is not how we eliminated (or nearly) smallpox, polio, rubella, mumps, diphtheria, whooping cough, measles, tetanus, and Hep A and B.
Click to expand...
Because there were no already-existing effective and safe anti-viral therapeutics for any of those at the time, therefore the comparison is invalid.
 
Last edited:
R

roscoe

Well-known member
Good Ol' Boy said:
PLEASE folks, I beg you, stop feeding the troll.

If this guy isn't a plant for the CDC he's simply retarded.

In either case its a waste of time trying explain reality to such a person.
Click to expand...

Are you sure I am the troll between the two of us? I am engaged in public debate on this forum ('The Free Speech Capitol of the Internet', remember?).

I take considerable care to make my arguments cogent, and I support them with data and analysis that is open and explicit. I use complete, grammatically correct sentences and I never make an ad hominem argument, nor result to insults. Many on this forum may disagree with my positions, but my argumentation is clear, explicit, and addressed to the argument only.

The same cannot be said about you.
 
Last edited:
G

Gridley

Member
wiscoaster said:
Yes, true, but hopefully for the benefit of other people whose minds are open....
Click to expand...
Such people needs facts, preferably with links to supporting data.

All they're going to learn from watching someone argue with a troll is that said person is smarter than the troll.
 
wiscoaster

wiscoaster

Well-known member
Gridley said:
....with links to supporting data.
Click to expand...
What I've learned from extensive online participation in public discussion forums is that: 1) other readers often don't follow links; 2) facts don't change anybody's mind if it's already made up.

A public discussion forum is a place to exchange opinions, not a place to present facts. If someone's mind is open to dissenting opinion, and if the opinion is well-presented and well-reasoned, then perhaps a person who's looking to learn the facts will be motivated by such opinions to go and seek the facts for themselves from their own sources. Facts only change a person's opinion about an issue when the facts are sought out and encountered by acts of self-discovery.
 
Last edited:
R

roscoe

Well-known member
Good Ol' Boy said:
Well then there's the scenario where people just blatantly ignore the facts.

Thats why for the sake of site resources if nothing else, its a waste of time.

Seriously everyone should just put Roscoe on ignore.
Click to expand...
Have you presented facts? I don't recollect any. Conspiracy theories, sure. (My favorite - the CDC cares enough of what the 6 people on this forum think to put a 'plant' in here).

If you can't handle informed debate, so be it. Just stick to the food threads.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top