Rants and Raves

[RogerOver]

Some would say the entire nation lost when Trump lost. Now we all will suffer, just as the tyrants want. Even you my democratic brother.

Some would. There's only about 30% hardcore drumpfers out there. They're just noisy. It's always sort of head shaking to see someone refer to Biden as a "tyrant" but drumpf? Just a loving old guy that wants to help everyone. LOL.

[Redruger069]

I like one at home, and something to carry around with me. Feel vindicated? Show the damn flag!

Some would say the entire nation lost when Trump lost. Now we all will suffer, just as the tyrants want. Even you my democratic brother.

[RogerOver]

Why feel undermined? Show the damn flag! It'll be flying next to our nation's flag on Veterans Day. Available on Amazon.

I like one at home, and something to carry around with me. Feel vindicated? Show the damn flag!

[Niteluvr]

Some other examples of the armed forces feeling undermined by this administration:

https://taskandpurpose.com/news/army...over-vaccines/

https://www.wnd.com/2021/08/navy-com...curity-threat/

Point #1 on Commander Furman's list above is exactly what I've been talking about with risk assessment. Some people get it.

Why feel undermined? Show the damn flag! It'll be flying next to our nation's flag on Veterans Day. Available on Amazon.

[Aaron Hamlet]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/selling...er-11632338003

One year later, after initially denying the story, Politico now confirms the Hunter Biden laptop story about the Biden family being for sale was authentic, despite the so-called "trusted and credible" sources hailed on here squashing the story and decrying its credibility. This was squashed in the days leading up to the election in order to aid Biden's campaign, something that never would have been done for the other party.

Yet another prime example of why this administration and the main stream media has zero credibility. This is one of the most corrupt administrations in history, and certainly the most inept reporting we've ever had. And people wonder why there are so many conspiracy theories? You reap what you sow.

https://youtu.be/E_h70Q1qA2c?t=55

[RogerOver]

Suck your own dick you queer motherfucker. One day, if I ever meet you, you are fucking toast.

Is "you are fucking toast" quck code for "I really want to suck your dick?" It's difficult to keep up, what with all the shit you say is gonna happen that never does. Maybe someday I'll speak 'Dumbfuck' and be able to understand.

But at any rate, I told you, that's not my thing. Maybe if your sister hits me up, you can watch. But I'm worried she only has one eye from the inbreeding. I'm sure she's chaste though, and only accepting family members.

[HobbyMan51]

The top one. Where his wife decides the world needs to know all about her hubby's principles and sacrifice. Yes, I've been following the story for a few days. It's offered a few eye-roll opportunities for me.

Dude. So you "personally" want to come suck my dick? As much as I love watch qucks like you demean yourselves, I'm not gay like you are. I'll be happy to have a nice BBC guy standing by as a proxy. I understand they enjoy letting christian identity, white, racist turds like you suck their dicks.

Suck your own dick you queer motherfucker. One day, if I ever meet you, you are fucking toast.

[TheRabbit]

You asked for peer-reviewed research, of which I'd already given multiple examples, and I gave you that. You asked for reputable sources, of which I'd already given multiple examples, and I gave you a publication from the NIH site. You know as well as I do the purpose of peer-review is to weed-out false scientific data and premises, and yet you reject what the medical community did not because in your opinion "it's most likely fraudulent". Ok, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it, even if it goes against that of the peer-reviewed community.

The purpose of peer review is to weed out false scientific data and premises. Which is why they weeded out the Elgazzar study. It was withdrawn. The peers reviewed it and found it wanting. It engaged in plagiarization:

A medical student in London, Jack Lawrence, was among the first to identify serious concerns about the paper, leading to the retraction. He first became aware of the Elgazzar preprint when it was assigned to him by one of his lecturers for an assignment that formed part of his master's degree. He found the introduction section of the paper appeared to have been almost entirely plagiarised.

It appeared that the authors had run entire paragraphs from press releases and websites about ivermectin and Covid-19 through a thesaurus to change key words. "Humorously, this led to them changing 'severe acute respiratory syndrome' to 'extreme intense respiratory syndrome' on one occasion," Lawrence said.

The author claims about the study pool did not align with their raw data:

"The authors claimed to have done the study only on 18-80 year olds, but at least three patients in the dataset were under 18," Lawrence said.

"The authors claimed they conducted the study between the 8th of June and 20th of September 2020, however most of the patients who died were admitted into hospital and died before the 8th of June according to the raw data. The data was also terribly formatted, and includes one patient who left hospital on the non-existent date of 31/06/2020. ".

"In their paper, the authors claim that four out of 100 patients died in their standard treatment group for mild and moderate Covid-19," Lawrence said. "According to the original data, the number was 0, the same as the ivermectin treatment group. In their ivermectin treatment group for severe Covid-19, the authors claim two patients died, but the number in their raw data is four. ".

And many of the patients listed were obvious clones of other records:

"The main error is that at least 79 of the patient records are obvious clones of other records," Brown told the Guardian. "It's certainly the hardest to explain away as innocent error, especially since the clones aren't even pure copies. There are signs that they have tried to change one or two fields to make them look more natural. ".

You can find a fuller list of the errors here.

The Elgazzar study was withdrawn after it was rejected by its peers, something that is very rare, as in like 1 out of every 2500 papers thereabouts gets withdrawn.

And without the Elgazzar study, there is zero evidence in favor of ivermectin:

"Because the Elgazzar study is so large, and so massively positive showing a 90% reduction in mortality it hugely skews the evidence in favour of ivermectin," Meyerowitz-Katz said.

"If you remove this one study from the scientific literature, suddenly there are very few positive randomised control trials of ivermectin for Covid-19. Indeed, if you get rid of just this research, most meta-analyses that have found positive results would have their conclusions entirely reversed. ".

Which in turn belies the question. If the Elgazzar study is true, then why has no other study been able to replicate it? Why does every other study on ivermectin, when averaged out, amount to "no effect"? It being such a massive unreplicable outlier would be a topic of concern even if the paper wasn't laden with obvious blatant malfeasance.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/...hical-concerns

https://grftr.news/why-was-a-major-s...ust-retracted/

[RogerOver]

Which one are you talking about? Or did you even bother to read?

The top one. Where his wife decides the world needs to know all about her hubby's principles and sacrifice. Yes, I've been following the story for a few days. It's offered a few eye-roll opportunities for me.

The usual puerile drivel from you. We won't lose forever. You know it too. If I can I will personally make sure you know it.

Dude. So you "personally" want to come suck my dick? As much as I love watch qucks like you demean yourselves, I'm not gay like you are. I'll be happy to have a nice BBC guy standing by as a proxy. I understand they enjoy letting christian identity, white, racist turds like you suck their dicks.

[I Luv Emall]

We're all better off with that fucker out of the armed forces. Hope it shakes out all the assholes that think like he does.

Which one are you talking about? Or did you even bother to read?

[I Luv Emall]

You asked for peer-reviewed research, of which I'd already given multiple examples, and I gave you that. You asked for reputable sources, of which I'd already given multiple examples, and I gave you a publication from the NIH site. You know as well as I do the purpose of peer-review is to weed-out false scientific data and premises, and yet you reject what the medical community did not because in your opinion "it's most likely fraudulent". Ok, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it, even if it goes against that of the peer-reviewed community. I can relate to it, because as I'm sure you've picked up on, I'm a skeptic myself. I think the real-world data also demonstrates otherwise, and I've given examples of that here and it can be seen by looking at the regions of India that used Ivermectin vs. The regions that did not. It's quite dramatic. But like the vaccines, I don't think there's much point in us arguing, because we have our opinions and only time is going to tell the story and change those opinions. In any event, even if we don't agree, I can respect that you've laid out your rationale and the basis for it.

Regarding your elite argument, I'll say again we really have no idea what the elite are actually doing. I will note that Congress and the Executives exempted themselves from the vaccine mandate- I found that quite hypocritical. We do know Trump got the monoclonol antibodies, and we know several elites that have also gotten those. Because of the campaign that's been waged against it, everyone is afraid to admit to using Ivermectin, as just like you did, they are made fun of for taking "horse medicine". This is an intentional shame and disinformation campaign on the administration's and media's part, and it was obviously effective on you, based on your earlier condemning posts where you clearly knew nothing about the facts of ivermectin except what you heard from the media.

Let's let time tell the story.

Its "nothing new, the information has been out there" is because it already investigated and dismissed:

The problem is, if you look at those large, aggregate models, and remove just this single study, ivermectin loses almost all of its purported benefit. Take the recent meta-analysis by Bryant et al. That has been all over the news they found a 62% reduction in risk of death for people who were treated with ivermectin compared to controls when combining randomized trials.

However, if you remove the Elgazzar paper from their model, and rerun it, the benefit goes from 62% to 52%, and largely loses its statistical significance. There's no benefit seen whatsoever for people who have severe COVID-19, and the confidence intervals for people with mild and moderate disease become extremely wide.

Moreover, if you include another study that was published after the Bryant meta-analysis came out, which found no benefit for ivermectin on death, the benefits seen in the model entirely disappear. For another recent meta-analysis, simply excluding Elgazzar is enough to remove the positive effect entirely.

The "proof" of Ivermectin's efficacy comes entirely from the Bryant meta-analysis of studies, but if you exclude the Elgazzar study, or even include one additional study, the effect disappears.

https://gidmk.medium.com/is-ivermect...h-5cc079278602

https://bmcinfectdis.biomedcentral.c...1-06348-5#Sec2

https://journals.lww.com/americanthe...ment_of.7.aspx

https://mobile.twitter.com/GidMK/sta...218448896?s=20

If you run enough studies, the odds are that one of them will eventually show an effect even if there isn't one. Then you just need to cherrypick and limit the meta-analysis to disproportionately reflect those studies. Except its not even that:

The Elgazzar study is most likely fraudulent and bears all the hallmarks of such. Where the Elgazzar study is the big keystone Ivermectin study that other scientific papers build off of. There is no vast consensus of studies for Ivermectin, just the Elgazzar study, the Bryant meta-study that cites Elgazzar, and other papers citing one or both of them in turn.

However there is a much simpler test, one I've mentioned before, for handling conspiracy theories, and that is to look at what the plutocrats who rule society do. Ask yourself. How many elected officials have gotten vaccinated? Then ask yourself, how many have taken Ivermectin? To my knowledge the answer to the former is "a lot" and the answer to the latter is "little to none, even including those who actually got Covid-19". If there was a miracle cure-all, the plutocrats would take it. The plutocrats got vaccinated and didn't take ivermectin. Ergo, vaccination is the miracle cure, not ivermectin.

Note for comparison the mono-clonal antibodies you mention. Regeneron's expensive experimental drug did in fact got grabbed for use by the rich at the first available opportunity. No one disputes that they work. The issue is that they aren't a miracle cure. Regeneron's treatment costs something like $1,600 a use, can only be used on those who already have it, and when used mitigates the effects of Covid-19 moreso than curing it outright. Vaccination by comparison is free, drastically reduces the odds of getting it in the first place thus building up herd immunity, and drastically reduces the chances of death if you do get it.

Mono-clonal antibodies are a useful complement to vaccination by filling in the gaps on the rare occasions where Covid-19 gets lucky, but they're no substitute for it. The more people that get vaccines, the fewer people that will get sick or especially very sick, which allows for scarce and expensive treatments like mono-clonal antibodies to be targeted on those unlucky few that got sick regardless of vaccination.

So no I don't think I will be eating Crow any time soon.😁

[HobbyMan51]

You're frustrated from all the losing that you've been experiencing. How none of the stupid shit you've been saying all along has materialized in any way.

Chin up skippy. We'll need you looking upwards while pissing on your sad, oddly shaped noggin.

The usual puerile drivel from you. We won't lose forever. You know it too. If I can I will personally make sure you know it.

[RogerOver]

Some other examples of the armed forces feeling undermined by this administration:

https://taskandpurpose.com/news/army...over-vaccines/

https://www.wnd.com/2021/08/navy-com...curity-threat/

Point #1 on Commander Furman's list above is exactly what I've been talking about with risk assessment. Some people get it.

We're all better off with that fucker out of the armed forces. Hope it shakes out all the assholes that think like he does.

[TheRabbit]

From the NIH website, for which Fauci works, and the American Journal of Therapeutics comes a peer-reviewed study that concludes "The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally. ".

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art..._campaign=Good+News+Friday+-+Sept+24+(344287948)&utm_content=.

For all those who accused me of spreading false information from unreliable sources, I'd say it's time to eat some crow. In reality, this is nothing new, the information has been out there, but you have to do a little work to get past the censorship and bias, and not just believe what you hear from this administration and the main stream media. Why anyone would do that with the credibility they have, I can't fathom. There have been many peer-reviewed studies that concluded the same thing, along with many well-renowned scientists, medical experts, and countries. Only this administration's and the media's censorship and bias has prevented fair and objective analysis from taking place, and deprived COVID paitents of effective treatment that could have saved many lives by now. Big box pharmacists have even been refusing to fill Ivermectin Rxs based on the discouragement from this administration. Many Drs have expressed frustration and anger at this administration trying to deprive their patients of their recommended treatment, and putting their patients' lives at risk against their guidance. This administration wants total control of your life, already has total control of the media, and is using it to brainwash people to achieve their objectives.

This is not the only therapeutic that has been discouraged by this administration in order to push their vaccines. Monoclonal antibodies are another, and despite the claims, there is plenty of availability and they are not that expensive, and both of those concerns would be even further addressed with encouragement from this administration instead of discouragement. Hell, the gorillas at Zoo Atlanta were able to get this treatment, you can't tell me it's not available for people. All of this is being done so that vaccines appear to be the only answer, and it's being done at the expense of lives that could be saved with effective treatments (both vaccinated and unvaccinated).

Its "nothing new, the information has been out there" is because it already investigated and dismissed:

The problem is, if you look at those large, aggregate models, and remove just this single study, ivermectin loses almost all of its purported benefit. Take the recent meta-analysis by Bryant et al. That has been all over the news they found a 62% reduction in risk of death for people who were treated with ivermectin compared to controls when combining randomized trials.

However, if you remove the Elgazzar paper from their model, and rerun it, the benefit goes from 62% to 52%, and largely loses its statistical significance. There's no benefit seen whatsoever for people who have severe COVID-19, and the confidence intervals for people with mild and moderate disease become extremely wide.

Moreover, if you include another study that was published after the Bryant meta-analysis came out, which found no benefit for ivermectin on death, the benefits seen in the model entirely disappear. For another recent meta-analysis, simply excluding Elgazzar is enough to remove the positive effect entirely.

The "proof" of Ivermectin's efficacy comes entirely from the Bryant meta-analysis of studies, but if you exclude the Elgazzar study, or even include one additional study, the effect disappears.

https://gidmk.medium.com/is-ivermect...h-5cc079278602

https://bmcinfectdis.biomedcentral.c...1-06348-5#Sec2

https://journals.lww.com/americanthe...ment_of.7.aspx

https://mobile.twitter.com/GidMK/sta...218448896?s=20

If you run enough studies, the odds are that one of them will eventually show an effect even if there isn't one. Then you just need to cherrypick and limit the meta-analysis to disproportionately reflect those studies. Except its not even that:

The Elgazzar study is most likely fraudulent and bears all the hallmarks of such. Where the Elgazzar study is the big keystone Ivermectin study that other scientific papers build off of. There is no vast consensus of studies for Ivermectin, just the Elgazzar study, the Bryant meta-study that cites Elgazzar, and other papers citing one or both of them in turn.

However there is a much simpler test, one I've mentioned before, for handling conspiracy theories, and that is to look at what the plutocrats who rule society do. Ask yourself. How many elected officials have gotten vaccinated? Then ask yourself, how many have taken Ivermectin? To my knowledge the answer to the former is "a lot" and the answer to the latter is "little to none, even including those who actually got Covid-19". If there was a miracle cure-all, the plutocrats would take it. The plutocrats got vaccinated and didn't take ivermectin. Ergo, vaccination is the miracle cure, not ivermectin.

Note for comparison the mono-clonal antibodies you mention. Regeneron's expensive experimental drug did in fact got grabbed for use by the rich at the first available opportunity. No one disputes that they work. The issue is that they aren't a miracle cure. Regeneron's treatment costs something like $1,600 a use, can only be used on those who already have it, and when used mitigates the effects of Covid-19 moreso than curing it outright. Vaccination by comparison is free, drastically reduces the odds of getting it in the first place thus building up herd immunity, and drastically reduces the chances of death if you do get it.

Mono-clonal antibodies are a useful complement to vaccination by filling in the gaps on the rare occasions where Covid-19 gets lucky, but they're no substitute for it. The more people that get vaccines, the fewer people that will get sick or especially very sick, which allows for scarce and expensive treatments like mono-clonal antibodies to be targeted on those unlucky few that got sick regardless of vaccination.

So no I don't think I will be eating Crow any time soon.😁

[I Luv Emall]

Some other examples of the armed forces feeling undermined by this administration:

https://taskandpurpose.com/news/army...over-vaccines/

https://www.wnd.com/2021/08/navy-com...curity-threat/

Point #1 on Commander Furman's list above is exactly what I've been talking about with risk assessment. Some people get it.

Well, my post was not about Trump, but since you brought him up, I can't say I recall him ever undermining the armed forces or the police or the border agents the way this administration has done. Can you honestly say that?

Just curious, but can anyone think of a person who previously worked for President Trump who he hasn't thrown under the bus a half a dozen times or so?