|
|
Post by rowmat on Jun 4, 2021 18:02:34 GMT -6
Well these are certainly interesting developments! It's no "development". It's always been this. Some of us always knew the truth. A lot of people fell into this propaganda trap willingly. They were wooed with suggestions of intellectual and moral superiority. The knowledge they were sold made them feel powerful in times of being powerless. They didn't want to know the truth. That's why so many got so angry at the suggestion that this was a man-created disaster. Emotional responses betrayed their facade and showed us the real feelings of doubt they were hiding behind the "science" they parroted in defense. I don't blame them for being tricked. I blame them for the venomous way they went about defending those who tricked them. People tend to be tribal by nature and the ruling class via its propaganda conduits (the MSM and social media) deliberately foments and exploits this tribalism by feeding them a diet of confirmation bias while simultaneously lying to them by omission (or just outright lying) in order to both placate and reinforce the tribe’s ideology which both media propaganda arms use to profit from while maintaining the social divide on behalf of the ruling class. As you said “they” (the tribe) collectively believe they have the moral and intellectual high ground because they know ‘the truth’ as they were informed by their authoritative news source which was confirmed by ‘fact checkers’ so that ends any further discussion. And when it’s revealed that the entire story is false it has become the norm not to acknowledge any errors, mistakes or wrong doing but instead the response is to ‘double down’ and invariably never correct the record. This is has created such a disconnect from reality that these ‘news’ providers will never publish anything that offends their audience in the slightest (as in the truth) for fear of losing subscribers and advertising ‘clicks’ which will impact their bottom line. So the truth be damned! And when occasionally the truth is told it must be opposed regardless to keep the peasants squabbling amongst themselves as they must never be allowed to look behind the curtain because the Emperors pulling the levers have no clothes. |
|
|
|
Post by seawell on Jun 5, 2021 14:55:36 GMT -6
I don't blame them for being tricked. I blame them for the venomous way they went about defending those who tricked them. This! 100% |
|
|
|
Post by rowmat on Jun 5, 2021 15:41:38 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by ehrenebbage on Jun 6, 2021 7:34:07 GMT -6
Understandable that big pharma is regarded with skepticism, and that the field of science is as prone to flaws in human nature as every other field.
But...
If ivermectin is an effective treatment it will be proven to be such by the scientific process, will be manufactured by the biggest pharmaceutical companies in the world, and will be prescribed to us by doctors.
|
|
|
|
Post by svart on Jun 6, 2021 8:11:48 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by seawell on Jun 6, 2021 9:28:01 GMT -6
Understandable that big pharma is regarded with skepticism, and that the field of science is as prone to flaws in human nature as every other field. But... If ivermectin is an effective treatment it will be proven to be such by the scientific process, will be manufactured by the biggest pharmaceutical companies in the world, and will be prescribed to us by doctors. I hope you’re right but I’m not so sure about that. HCQ & Ivermectin had 2 things working against them from the start. First, they are dirt cheap, not much money to be made compared to something like remdesivir. Second, there can be no emergency use authorization for a vaccine if their is a treatment in place that works. Two things that should not matter at all but we’ll see how it all plays out. When the former CDC director talks about getting death threats from other scientist I’d say the scientific process is completely broken at this point. |
|
|
|
Post by ehrenebbage on Jun 6, 2021 10:37:51 GMT -6
Who knows if it will happen...My point is that if there is an alternate pharmaceutical solution to be found, it will reach the world when it is vetted by the scientific process, manufactured by big pharma, and distributed by doctors.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tbone81 on Jun 6, 2021 11:22:43 GMT -6
Who knows if it will happen...My point is that if there is an alternate pharmaceutical solution to be found, it will reach the world when it is vetted by the scientific process, manufactured by big pharma, and distributed by doctors. I would hope so but am skeptical. In the real world much of what Dr’s prescribe is driven by formularies and data sheets written by the Pharmacy Dept and/or pharmaceutical companies that make the drugs. There’s simply too much info for any one Dr to know so they rely heavily on ancillary departments (pharmacy, labratory, nursing, respiratory etc) to make their decisions. Some Dr’s (the truly great ones) dig deep into the studies, examining the flaws or limitations of them. But far too many of them are average (or less than average) and just mindless read back the “recommended” treatments that are written by pharmaceutical companies. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2021 11:30:01 GMT -6
Just had the Pfizer, feel utterly drained..
|
|
|
|
Post by ehrenebbage on Jun 6, 2021 12:12:30 GMT -6
Who knows if it will happen...My point is that if there is an alternate pharmaceutical solution to be found, it will reach the world when it is vetted by the scientific process, manufactured by big pharma, and distributed by doctors. I would hope so but am skeptical. In the real world much of what Dr’s prescribe is driven by formularies and data sheets written by the Pharmacy Dept and/or pharmaceutical companies that make the drugs. There’s simply too much info for any one Dr to know so they rely heavily on ancillary departments (pharmacy, labratory, nursing, respiratory etc) to make their decisions. Some Dr’s (the truly great ones) dig deep into the studies, examining the flaws or limitations of them. But far too many of them are average (or less than average) and just mindless read back the “recommended” treatments that are written by pharmaceutical companies. I think I'm being unclear. I'm not suggesting that an alternative will or won't be found. I'm saying that if one WERE to be found, it would be rolled out via the same process. Scientific method, big pharma, doctors. In other words, why trust ivermectin and not one of the vaccines? They go through the same channels. |
|
|
|
Post by svart on Jun 6, 2021 12:15:44 GMT -6
Who knows if it will happen...My point is that if there is an alternate pharmaceutical solution to be found, it will reach the world when it is vetted by the scientific process, manufactured by big pharma, and distributed by doctors. It took almost 20 years for "science" to accept that peptic ulcers were caused by bacteria. The scientists behind the find published papers and were laughed by pharma and fellow doctors alike because it was "common knowledge" that ulcers were spontaneous results from spicy foods and stress.. The scientists then infected themselves with their bacteria, got ulcers, treated themselves with antibiotics and wrote another paper as proof. They were blacklisted from "science" by their peers for their troubles. It took another decade before enough doctors and scientists did their own experiments on treating ulcer patients with antibiotics and curing them before the slow march of "science" and the experts that resist the change that upstarts bring.. Now if you get ulcers, you take a month of antibiotics and you're cured. My grandfather had ulcers for decades until the late 90's. He had previously gone to an older doctor who refused to do anything about them. My grandfather moved down here to Georgia and got a new, younger, doctor who put him on antibiotics immediately. He was cured in a month and very angry that he'd been suffering for decades because since his old doctor "knew" best. |
|
|
|
Post by svart on Jun 6, 2021 12:18:38 GMT -6
I would hope so but am skeptical. In the real world much of what Dr’s prescribe is driven by formularies and data sheets written by the Pharmacy Dept and/or pharmaceutical companies that make the drugs. There’s simply too much info for any one Dr to know so they rely heavily on ancillary departments (pharmacy, labratory, nursing, respiratory etc) to make their decisions. Some Dr’s (the truly great ones) dig deep into the studies, examining the flaws or limitations of them. But far too many of them are average (or less than average) and just mindless read back the “recommended” treatments that are written by pharmaceutical companies. I think I'm being unclear. I'm not suggesting that an alternative will or won't be found. I'm saying that if one WERE to be found, it would be rolled out via the same process. Scientific method, big pharma, doctors. In other words, why trust ivermectin and not one of the vaccines? They go through the same channels. They didn't. The vaccines were given waivers to get around the normal processes for fast rollout. They essentially have zero going for it against them. There's no pre-determined expectations. Ivermectin has a known history which makes it much harder for people to accept using it off label. That just how science is. It resists change. |
|
|
|
Post by ehrenebbage on Jun 6, 2021 12:50:08 GMT -6
We're talking about two different things. I'm not debating the fact that there are issues with the healthcare industry. The profit motive of the provider often works agains the best interest of the patient. It's awful in many ways.
The point is that any pharmaceutical solution would be reached via the same process...doesn't matter if it takes one year or twenty. It's frustrating that your grandfather suffered as a result of the slow pace of science and its surrounding culture, but he was also cured by it.
There seems to be a conflict in the arguments being made:
1- we can't trust the vaccine because we're not sure of its long term effects yet. We should proceed slowly and carefully.
2- we don't like the pace of science because the process of studies and peer reviews is too slow and too resistant to change.
and
1- we can't trust big pharma products.
2- why don't we try this other big pharma product?
and
1- doctors and scientists are foolish and untrustworthy.
2- there's a potential alternative treatment, and we should trust it because it's endorsed by doctors and scientists.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tbone81 on Jun 6, 2021 13:02:59 GMT -6
We're talking about two different things. I'm not debating the fact that there are issues with the healthcare industry. The profit motive of the provider often works agains the best interest of the patient. It's awful in many ways. The point is that any pharmaceutical solution would be reached via the same process...doesn't matter if it takes one year or twenty. It's frustrating that your grandfather suffered as a result of the slow pace of science and its surrounding culture, but he was also cured by it. There seems to be a conflict in the arguments being made: 1- we can't trust the vaccine because we're not sure of its long term effects yet. We should proceed slowly and carefully. 2- we don't like the pace of science because the process of studies and peer reviews is too slow and too resistant to change. and 1- we can't trust big pharma products. 2- why don't we try this other big pharma product? and 1- doctors and scientists are foolish and untrustworthy. 2- there's a potential alternative treatment, and we should trust it because it's endorsed by doctors and scientists. I think the argument made by me, and others on this thread is closer to: “science is a human endeavor and therefore prone to human problems. Let’s be skeptical, not take everything at face value, take some lessons from history and be open to all voices, especially the dissenting ones (instead of deplatforming people who don’t tow the line).” I agree that sometimes these claims sound contradictory. But speaking mostly for myself, I think it’s because we’re all attempting to have a complicated and nuanced argument over the internet, instead of talking in person. Ive read through just about every post in this thread, and my conclusion is that we all “mostly” agree on “most” of this topic. Even when we’re presenting opposite sides, in heated debate. We all see things through our own lense, shaped by our own experience, knowledge, biases, ignorance etc. But regardless, just about every claim made in this thread, on either side has been VERY reasonable. It’s remarkable really. |
|
|
|
Post by svart on Jun 6, 2021 14:02:16 GMT -6
We're talking about two different things. I'm not debating the fact that there are issues with the healthcare industry. The profit motive of the provider often works agains the best interest of the patient. It's awful in many ways. The point is that any pharmaceutical solution would be reached via the same process...doesn't matter if it takes one year or twenty. It's frustrating that your grandfather suffered as a result of the slow pace of science and its surrounding culture, but he was also cured by it. There seems to be a conflict in the arguments being made: 1- we can't trust the vaccine because we're not sure of its long term effects yet. We should proceed slowly and carefully. 2- we don't like the pace of science because the process of studies and peer reviews is too slow and too resistant to change. and 1- we can't trust big pharma products. 2- why don't we try this other big pharma product? and 1- doctors and scientists are foolish and untrustworthy. 2- there's a potential alternative treatment, and we should trust it because it's endorsed by doctors and scientists. Those are exactly the types of dichotomous examples that make me a skeptic. It's not that I don't trust science to eventually get things right, it's that I don't trust when folks tell me that I'm required to trust them because they're experts. I also don't trust science to get it right in the short term because human error, politics and greed that infests it can only be filtered out over time. |
|
|
|
Post by ehrenebbage on Jun 6, 2021 14:44:28 GMT -6
Thanks for the replies, both. I'm with you in many ways. Personally, I tend to be accepting of science as a field and skeptical of how individuals might use it. I don't take everything a doctor says as a certainty, and I think of for-profit healthcare as having a significant conflict of interest.
That said, I'm still going to look to doctors and scientists in a moment like this. They're imperfect and sometimes awful, but they're better than the alternative.
Who else should we trust to lead the world through a pandemic? And by what method should they earn our trust, if not the scientific method?
|
|
|
|
Post by seawell on Jun 6, 2021 14:59:11 GMT -6
I don't think you can generalize the statements that have been made criticizing big Pharma without acknowledging the difference between Hydroxychloroquine(60 years of use), Ivermectin(40 years of use) and a mRNA vaccine(first ever use on humans). That's not exactly apples to apples. I don't think anyone here is anti-science, there are just some of us who have serious questions about whether politics and money have corrupted the science behind this pandemic. In light of some of the information that has come out over the past couple of weeks I think it's pretty clear now those concerns are not unfounded. I don't have a problem with the pace of scientific research, I want them to get it right..but..I do have a problem with certain studies and information being supressed. If ivermectin for example turns out to be a good solution then we're going to have to ask ourselves why the doctors that were saying that a year ago were silenced.
|
|
|
|
Post by ehrenebbage on Jun 6, 2021 15:35:55 GMT -6
I don't think you can generalize the statements that have been made criticizing big Pharma without acknowledging the difference between Hydroxychloroquine(60 years of use), Ivermectin(40 years of use) and a mRNA vaccine(first ever use on humans). That's not exactly apples to apples. I don't think anyone here is anti-science, there are just some of us who have serious questions about whether politics and money have corrupted the science behind this pandemic. In light of some of the information that has come out over the past couple of weeks I think it's pretty clear now those concerns are not unfounded. I don't have a problem with the pace of scientific research, I want them to get it right..but..I do have a problem with certain studies and information being supressed. If ivermectin for example turns out to be a good solution then we're going to have to ask ourselves why the doctors that were saying that a year ago were silenced. Fair enough. I certainly acknowledge that the safety concerns are different between a well-known treatment and a new one. I'm sure money and politics play a part in this. Again, for-profit healthcare is a significant conflict of interest. |
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jun 6, 2021 18:58:30 GMT -6
That said, I'm still going to look to doctors and scientists in a moment like this. They're imperfect and sometimes awful, but they're better than the alternative. Certainly. Unfortunately for those that got sick, most of the doctors and scientists with dissenting opinions from the mainstream have been bullied, cancelled, "debunked" (a joke), and made to look like conspiracy nuts, buffoons, or crooks. All thanks to mainstream media, politics and money. Even Pulitzer Prize willing doctors / researchers. IMO, it's one of the most criminal things that has ever happened to mankind in our lives. Somewhere, somehow there should have been middle ground between "go home, take some Tylenol, and if it gets bad enough that you can't breath or you feel like you just ran sprints - go to the hospital and they'll put you on a ventilator and THEN we'll start treating you. Oh, and I can't perscribe HCQ or Ivermectin cause the governor said we can't in this state." That's pretty much exactly what my doc said to do. Oh, and to take the vaccine - cause he took it and is still alive. (with a smile). WTF is the governor in control of my health care? Politics have no right over healthcare in my book. In hindsight, years from now, we'll be pretty certain of all these things, but to silence one perspective to fight a disease whose outcome (in large part) was vastly over exaggerated is incredibly sad. Maybe I'm a skeptic, maybe I'm conspiratorial, maybe I'm just dumb - but my BS meter is pretty dam good after being in the music biz for 40 years -- and everywhere I look - the indicators are all pointing to money and control. Neither of which I want factoring into my health care. |
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jun 6, 2021 19:25:21 GMT -6
www.foxnews.com/health/california-county-cuts-covid-death-tollA tiny, but I think telling bit of news. I suspect we will be seeing more news trending this direction over the next months / years. Also, not that it's anything scientific, but the average Covid patients in our two local hospitals are down from 140 C19 patients early in the year to 6. They have been under 10 Covid patients for a couple of months now. Deaths have really slowed down. I think people are getting early care, and if they end up in the hospital, the docs now seem to be able to fight things more effectively. Or maybe all the folks with co-morbidities have already died off? Not sure, but it's trending WAY down around here. Masks still get worn by vacationers, but most of the locals haven't been wearing them for a couple of months.
|
|
|
|
Post by seawell on Jun 6, 2021 20:24:45 GMT -6
That said, I'm still going to look to doctors and scientists in a moment like this. They're imperfect and sometimes awful, but they're better than the alternative. Certainly. Unfortunately for those that got sick, most of the doctors and scientists with dissenting opinions from the mainstream have been bullied, cancelled, "debunked" (a joke), and made to look like conspiracy nuts, buffoons, or crooks. All thanks to mainstream media, politics and money. Even Pulitzer Prize willing doctors / researchers. IMO, it's one of the most criminal things that has ever happened to mankind in our lives. Somewhere, somehow there should have been middle ground between "go home, take some Tylenol, and if it gets bad enough that you can't breath or you feel like you just ran sprints - go to the hospital and they'll put you on a ventilator and THEN we'll start treating you. Oh, and I can't perscribe HCQ or Ivermectin cause the governor said we can't in this state." That's pretty much exactly what my doc said to do. Oh, and to take the vaccine - cause he took it and is still alive. (with a smile). WTF is the governor in control of my health care? Politics have no right over healthcare in my book. In hindsight, years from now, we'll be pretty certain of all these things, but to silence one perspective to fight a disease whose outcome (in large part) was vastly over exaggerated is incredibly sad. Maybe I'm a skeptic, maybe I'm conspiratorial, maybe I'm just dumb - but my BS meter is pretty dam good after being in the music biz for 40 years -- and everywhere I look - the indicators are all pointing to money and control. Neither of which I want factoring into my health care. This is exactly what happened to a dear friend of mine last march. He was told to stay home by his doctor even though he ran a fever for 10 days straight. It makes me so furious knowing what we know now. His neighbor happened to have a pulse oximeter, brought it over and his blood oxygen level was 80 so they finally told him to come to the hospital based on that. By that time it was too late. Put him on a ventilator and he was dead less than 24 hours later. |
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jun 6, 2021 23:10:26 GMT -6
Certainly. Unfortunately for those that got sick, most of the doctors and scientists with dissenting opinions from the mainstream have been bullied, cancelled, "debunked" (a joke), and made to look like conspiracy nuts, buffoons, or crooks. All thanks to mainstream media, politics and money. Even Pulitzer Prize willing doctors / researchers. IMO, it's one of the most criminal things that has ever happened to mankind in our lives. Somewhere, somehow there should have been middle ground between "go home, take some Tylenol, and if it gets bad enough that you can't breath or you feel like you just ran sprints - go to the hospital and they'll put you on a ventilator and THEN we'll start treating you. Oh, and I can't perscribe HCQ or Ivermectin cause the governor said we can't in this state." That's pretty much exactly what my doc said to do. Oh, and to take the vaccine - cause he took it and is still alive. (with a smile). WTF is the governor in control of my health care? Politics have no right over healthcare in my book. In hindsight, years from now, we'll be pretty certain of all these things, but to silence one perspective to fight a disease whose outcome (in large part) was vastly over exaggerated is incredibly sad. Maybe I'm a skeptic, maybe I'm conspiratorial, maybe I'm just dumb - but my BS meter is pretty dam good after being in the music biz for 40 years -- and everywhere I look - the indicators are all pointing to money and control. Neither of which I want factoring into my health care. This is exactly what happened to a dear friend of mine last march. He was told to stay home by his doctor even though he ran a fever for 10 days straight. It makes me so furious knowing what we know now. His neighbor happened to have a pulse oximeter, brought it over and his blood oxygen level was 80 so they finally told him to come to the hospital based on that. By that time it was too late. Put him on a ventilator and he was dead less than 24 hours later. So sorry to hear about your friend Josh. Just a sad reminder that we are personally responsible for our own health decisions, and the doctors work for US - not vice versa. I've learned the hard way over the years that when you get sick, and end up in the hospital - you need someone advocating for you. Again, sorry for your loss..... |
|
|
|
Post by ehrenebbage on Jun 7, 2021 7:33:05 GMT -6
Certainly. Unfortunately for those that got sick, most of the doctors and scientists with dissenting opinions from the mainstream have been bullied, cancelled, "debunked" (a joke), and made to look like conspiracy nuts, buffoons, or crooks. All thanks to mainstream media, politics and money. Even Pulitzer Prize willing doctors / researchers. IMO, it's one of the most criminal things that has ever happened to mankind in our lives. Somewhere, somehow there should have been middle ground between "go home, take some Tylenol, and if it gets bad enough that you can't breath or you feel like you just ran sprints - go to the hospital and they'll put you on a ventilator and THEN we'll start treating you. Oh, and I can't perscribe HCQ or Ivermectin cause the governor said we can't in this state." That's pretty much exactly what my doc said to do. Oh, and to take the vaccine - cause he took it and is still alive. (with a smile). WTF is the governor in control of my health care? Politics have no right over healthcare in my book. In hindsight, years from now, we'll be pretty certain of all these things, but to silence one perspective to fight a disease whose outcome (in large part) was vastly over exaggerated is incredibly sad. Maybe I'm a skeptic, maybe I'm conspiratorial, maybe I'm just dumb - but my BS meter is pretty dam good after being in the music biz for 40 years -- and everywhere I look - the indicators are all pointing to money and control. Neither of which I want factoring into my health care. This is exactly what happened to a dear friend of mine last march. He was told to stay home by his doctor even though he ran a fever for 10 days straight. It makes me so furious knowing what we know now. His neighbor happened to have a pulse oximeter, brought it over and his blood oxygen level was 80 so they finally told him to come to the hospital based on that. By that time it was too late. Put him on a ventilator and he was dead less than 24 hours later. Oh man. That's heartbreaking. Really sorry to hear it. |
|
|
|
Post by svart on Jun 7, 2021 9:04:05 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by svart on Jun 7, 2021 9:26:09 GMT -6
|
|
