US Election

Is this the best thread ever and the other poxy international thread should be closed

  • Yes because I’m a winner

  • No because I’m a loser

Results are only viewable after voting.

Remove this Banner Ad

OneGreatClub said:
lol

He’s too busy not solving the Russian invasion of Ukraine
Click to expand...

Only one more week to go of this useless f*cking vegetable that you repeatedly told us for the last four years had all of his faculties.

How do you even show your face after you deluded yourself so badly?

 

Log in to remove this ad.

Slippery Pete said:
Oh FFS. Did the average, healthy person have access to, or even know, that anti-virals were available during the period they were being forced to take Pfizer’s poison jab to keep their jobs and get a f*cking haircut?

I must have missed all those public health messages that said “Don’t stress, if you get Covid you can just take these antivirals. No need to lose your job, your livelihood and be banned from footy games and travel over a vaccine!”

It was only after they’d forced the heart-attack jabs on everyone, as 1970crow correctly pointed out, that it was back to telling them that the vast majority of people could treat Covid at home with Panadol and Gatorade!

Which was never NOT the case, given that we knew the virus had a median death age of 83 with three co-morbidities in March 2020.
Click to expand...

Slippery Pete said:
You’re gonna use Remdesivir as a point in favour of your argument, really? You are making my argument for me.

Remdesivir was a state-sponsored Covid “treatment” that made squillions for the manufacturer, which even the WHO said didn’t work (!) and was only available to a select group of people who were practically on their death bed (and judging from a lot of reports, finished them off).

In the context of this argument about people being coerced into taking the jabs, attempting to claim those drugs were a viable alternative to that is the f*cking height of dishonesty. Those drugs, quite intentionally and quite obviously, had absolutely less than zero impact on the vaccine rollout and the government’s desperation to get as many jabs into people as possible.
Click to expand...

In the interests of sticking to the point and not following you in derailing the conversation, the question you asked was when we started trying to treat COVID with antivirals and steroids.
  • Governments were not, as you suggested, withholding these from people until after the vaccine rollout (a lie).
  • In reality, from day dot doctors around the world were trialling a range of different treatment options in an attempt to find something that would work.
  • Naturally as time passed and the evidence-base grew our understanding of what treatments should be prescribed and when for maximum benefit improved.
  • To this day based on assessments of the benefits and risks, antivirals and steroids are still only recommended to treat people at highest risk of severe illness. They're not offered to 'your average, healthy person'. That's not a conspiracy. And you can piss your pants all you like but ivermectin is still not recommended as a COVID treatment for anyone (including by its manufacturer), despite countless studies and meta-analyses. Fortunately there are no losers with this, because it doesn't f***ing work.
  • I'm not arguing that any of these treatment options were magic bullets. Vaccines definitely did the bulk of the heavy lifting in driving down COVID deaths and hospitalisations. When no vaccines were available, antivirals and steroidal treatments were shown to offer a marginal benefit for some people.
"The virus had a median death age of 83 with three co-morbidities in March 2020."
  • A point estimate is meaningless without understanding the distribution it sits in.
  • Pre-vaccine rollout while the median age of death was north of 80, under 65s were still responsible for:
    • roughly 1/3 of COVID deaths, and over 1/2 of the total life years lost.
    • over 1/2 of hospital and ICU admissions.
  • I appreciate that narcissistic psychopaths like you are ok with this outcome though.
Pharmaceutical company motivations:
  • I can only laugh at your ridiculously hypocritical assessment of pharmaceutical company motivations for the various ineffective treatments your cult recommends vs their motivations for other COVID vaccines and treatment options recommended by expert medical advisory groups. It says a lot about your own motives.
  • You’d have us believe that ivermectin/hydroxychloroquine are manufactured and sold through what? Some magical not-for-profit philanthropic fund? You don't think there were people promoting these products that stood to benefit financially from this?
  • Please enlighten us all - where exactly is the line drawn? How much money is a pharmaceutical company permitted to make off a product before they go from being ethical mom and pop family business looking out for the little guy to an unethical corrupt racket only in it to make 'squillions'?
  • I would have thought that on principle we treat all pharmaceutical companies as unethical and profit-seeking at their core until proven otherwise, but acknowledge that they also happen to make products which have saved or improved billions of lives. But that's just me.
Your contributions to this discussion are so far consistent with your track record - over opinionated and under informed on so many topics, this being the latest. You just regurgitate words you've heard on podcasts or social media with no real understanding of what any of it means.
 
Last edited:
ADL9798 said:
In the interests of sticking to the point and not following you in derailing the conversation, the question you asked was when we started trying to treat COVID with antivirals and steroids.
  • Governments were not, as you suggested, withholding these from people until after the vaccine rollout (a lie).
  • In reality, from day dot doctors around the world were trialling a range of different treatment options in an attempt to find something that would work.
  • Naturally as time passed and the evidence-base grew our understanding of what treatments should be prescribed and when for maximum benefit improved.
  • To this day based on assessments of the benefits and risks, antivirals and steroids are still only recommended to treat people at highest risk of severe illness. They're not offered to 'your average, healthy person'. That's not a conspiracy. And you can piss your pants all you like but ivermectin is still not recommended as a COVID treatment for anyone (including by its manufacturer), despite countless studies and meta-analyses. Fortunately there are no losers with this, because it doesn't f***ing work.
  • I'm not arguing that any of these treatment options were magic bullets. Vaccines definitely did the bulk of the heavy lifting in driving down COVID deaths and hospitalisations. When no vaccines were available, antivirals and steroidal treatments were shown to offer a marginal benefit for some people.
"The virus had a median death age of 83 with three co-morbidities in March 2020."
  • A point estimate is meaningless without understanding the distribution it sits in.
  • Pre-vaccine rollout while the median age of death was north of 80, under 65s were still responsible for:
    • roughly 1/3 of COVID deaths, and over 1/2 of the total life years lost.
    • over 1/2 of hospital and ICU admissions.
  • I appreciate that narcissistic psychopaths like you are ok with this outcome though.
Pharmaceutical company motivations:
  • I can only laugh at your ridiculously hypocritical assessment of pharmaceutical company motivations for the various ineffective treatments your cult recommends vs their motivations for other COVID vaccines and treatment options recommended by expert medical advisory groups. It says a lot about your own motives.
  • You’d have us believe that ivermectin/hydroxychloroquine are manufactured and sold through what? Some magical not-for-profit philanthropic fund? You don't think there were people promoting these products that stood to benefit financially from this?
  • Please enlighten us all - where exactly is the line drawn? How much money is a pharmaceutical company permitted to make off a product before they go from being ethical mom and pop family business looking out for the little guy to an unethical corrupt racket only in it to make 'squillions'?
  • I would have thought that on principle we treat all pharmaceutical companies as unethical and profit-seeking at their core until proven otherwise, but acknowledge that they also happen to make products which have saved or improved billions of lives. But that's just me.
Your contributions to this discussion are so far consistent with your track record - over opinionated and under informed on so many topics, this being the latest. You just regurgitate words you've heard on podcasts or social media with no real understanding of what any of it means.
Click to expand...

That last sentence applies to everyone of the MAGA/Trump supporters on here and a few in particular.
 
Slippery Pete said:
Oh FFS. Did the average, healthy person have access to, or even know, that anti-virals were available during the period they were being forced to take Pfizer’s poison jab to keep their jobs and get a f*cking haircut?

I must have missed all those public health messages that said “Don’t stress, if you get Covid you can just take these antivirals. No need to lose your job, your livelihood and be banned from footy games and travel over a vaccine!”

It was only after they’d forced the heart-attack jabs on everyone, as 1970crow correctly pointed out, that it was back to telling them that the vast majority of people could treat Covid at home with Panadol and Gatorade!

Which was never NOT the case, given that we knew the virus had a median death age of 83 with three co-morbidities in March 2020.
Click to expand...
Was one of the co-morbidities TDS syndrome?..just asking😁
 

Remove this Banner Ad

US Election

Back
Top