Stupid Shit in Tijuana

[ScatManDoo]

It makes me chuckle. How much do we hear about big oil milking every red cent out of us? Or big banks? Or defense contractors. But somehow, we believe big pharma is the beacon of corporate ethics. LMAO.

One thing I'm certain of is to follow the money. Is Pfizer, that great shining star of ethos, skipping all profits while selling billions of doses? LOL. But someone posted this isn't about the money.

If it's not about money, why is Peter Daszak worried more about covering his own tail vs getting to the bottom of greatest infectious challenge in human history? And why is Fauci aiding in this coverup? Hmmm. Could it be money? Nah.

But here again, facts don't matter. Most aren't even curious. Because people prefer to say this is a political issue. It is anything but. It is an existential issue.

Typical empty post.

Mentions facts, but provides no facts.

Just empty accusations.

[Dcrist0527]

I am sure this has nothing to do with the 300+ million given to Merck in Dec to make the next Ivermectin under patent or the 1+ billion agreement they got to make the next Ivermectin once it is done with clinical trials.

They have 1. 5 billion dollars in reasons to tell people not to take Ivermectin. Besides the fact Ivermectin is out of patent protection and anyone can make it.

It makes me chuckle. How much do we hear about big oil milking every red cent out of us? Or big banks? Or defense contractors. But somehow, we believe big pharma is the beacon of corporate ethics. LMAO.

One thing I'm certain of is to follow the money. Is Pfizer, that great shining star of ethos, skipping all profits while selling billions of doses? LOL. But someone posted this isn't about the money.

If it's not about money, why is Peter Daszak worried more about covering his own tail vs getting to the bottom of greatest infectious challenge in human history? And why is Fauci aiding in this coverup? Hmmm. Could it be money? Nah.

But here again, facts don't matter. Most aren't even curious. Because people prefer to say this is a political issue. It is anything but. It is an existential issue.

[Dcrist0527]

it is amazing how much news it not being reported by the big news sources like CBS, NBC / MSNBC, Fox and others.

I come from the exact opposite end of the spectrum. But this is absolutely the issue at hand. Everyone hates the division in this country. But why is it so? Because people scurry into their own corners to listen to their preferred outlet. It's red vs blue. The media bias is atrocious. To say CNN likes Obama or Fox likes Trump is not even close to the issue. The problem is, as Hadez points out, the topics these networks choose to report on. If you watch both outlets, you'd swear we were not even on the same planet. The same could be said for Google. Facebook. Twitter. How many COVID-related things were removed from Facebook or Twitter and deemed as misinformation. Only to be proven true! And big tech continues on, unchecked. Everyone has an agenda. And when your news source has an agenda, you are being used and manipulated. Call it a conspiracy theory. But the facts have never been more obvious. Ignore it at your peril.

[Gregyyr]

A couple years ago I was on the other side of this on a different health issue. I thought no way in the USA would life saving treatment be withheld. If nothing people would pay big money for it. My point of views do not come from the same point of views people would typically seem my recent conclusions. My friend who I was arguing with about the health system laughs because we both got to the same point of being skeptical of the health system but I got there from a "left" point of view. I do consider myself progressive but not "left" but I do understand how to some those labels mean the same thing.

If people get their news from the independent sources, smaller cooperate sources who allow their reporters to say whatever they want or even some of the people from established sources like Josh Rogin of the Washington Post it is amazing how much news it not being reported by the big news sources like CBS, NBC / MSNBC, Fox and others.

When listening to real journalists who cite their sources it becomes obvious quickly how the Establishment Health System is far more about making profit on a hundreds of millions of people level and less about actually saving lives..

The Healthcare system is "interesting" in the US. It wasn't till I started traveling internationally to see how it's kind of messed up in many ways. I have a pre-exiting condition that is kind of a joke as it's never bugged me in over 50 years and didn't know I had it and it may never cause any medical issues. But it got put on a medical record and I have been denied health insurance because of it. There maybe some company that I could get insurance from with crazy high rates.

I started looking into getting health care overseas once I retire etc. A lot of good options are available. Many of my coworkers have Simsa down in Tijuana for their families and they are very happy with the care and I am thinking of doing that once I retire. Here is a great video clip from a Expat who travels the world and gives advice on health care, money management, best places to retire etc. (truth is I don't want to "retire" to a location. I love to travel so this whole topic of "retire to "x" country is a bit of a joke to me. I don't want to just go to one country to die.

https://youtu.be/koYN-Da9Qnw

G.

[Hadez]

A couple years ago I was on the other side of this on a different health issue. I thought no way in the USA would life saving treatment be withheld. If nothing people would pay big money for it. My point of views do not come from the same point of views people would typically seem my recent conclusions. My friend who I was arguing with about the health system laughs because we both got to the same point of being skeptical of the health system but I got there from a "left" point of view. I do consider myself progressive but not "left" but I do understand how to some those labels mean the same thing.

If people get their news from the independent sources, smaller cooperate sources who allow their reporters to say whatever they want or even some of the people from established sources like Josh Rogin of the Washington Post it is amazing how much news it not being reported by the big news sources like CBS, NBC / MSNBC, Fox and others.

When listening to real journalists who cite their sources it becomes obvious quickly how the Establishment Health System is far more about making profit on a hundreds of millions of people level and less about actually saving lives. The Establishment Health System is more of a corporation trying to make profit filled with bureaucracy and politics trying to play cover their ass and less about being transparent system trying to save lives. The quicker people realize this the sooner maybe we as a people can get leaders to force the Establishment Health System to do their job and serve the people. Right now the whole system is full of loop holes and rules that encourage the opposite.

I could not agree more. My main point isn't to push Ivermectin (which I have never taken and do not have any plans to take) or to bad mouth the vaccines (which I have taken). You said it better than I. There are many red flags that should be concerning to anyone that is honest with themselves. Worse yet, like both you and I said, people that value "their" sources because they tell them what they want to hear are not doing themselves any good. The "horse drug" is the perfect example. Weeks ago, that's how I felt until I started researching it. It's as though some feel knowledge is a bad thing.

As I've stated a few times now, my only hope is that people start to think for themselves. As a country, we are speeding down a very dangerous road. If we allow search engines to control us, we are a lost cause. As our dear President sadly said, it is 'no longer about freedom and choice'. Scary times.

[Hadez]

I am pro Vaccine, pro immune system, pro therapy treatments, pro mask, pro front line doctors and pro nurse.

The amount of information we been fed which has been found not true is amazing yet people trust these sources blindly without thinking.

So when I say ivermectin works that point of view is not coming from an anti vax point of view. There information is out there. It is just not easy to find because youtube is banning videos and google is making the sites hard to find in google searches. I could link the various things still out there but in my experience if people are not willing to look for it they will have one reasons or another for not believing it. I would suggest people get use to getting information in areas not being controlled by big tech anyways because it is obvious they trying to control the narrative. BTW still think Covid19 came from people eating bats / animals at wet markets?

When other early treatments were being considered I went to studies away from the political environment of the USA to get information on them. The political environment in the USA controls so many points of view it is ridiculous. So much in the USA is based on money and politics and it is crazy how far the reach goes.

BTW remember when we could not touch cross walk buttons because of Covid19? The entire state of California made the cross walk buttons automatic because we could get Covid19 from touching a surface outside in the sun. These are the same people telling you not the get ivermectin. This is not the first time these people in charge made us think we could get something ridiculous from touching a surface. By all means trust these people blindly.

[Hadez]

I am sure this has nothing to do with the 300+ million given to Merck in Dec to make the next Ivermectin under patent or the 1+ billion agreement they got to make the next Ivermectin once it is done with clinical trials.

They have 1. 5 billion dollars in reasons to tell people not to take Ivermectin. Besides the fact Ivermectin is out of patent protection and anyone can make it.

People have offered suggestions. Their videos get banned from youtube, their channel gets their revenue cut by 25% and more, google filters them out of their search engine....and mainstream media convinces people this is all about a vet drug and does not even mention the human drug that won a Nobel Price in medicine.

There are currently 64 studies. Over 30 peer reviewed. Over 30 random controlled. India has taken legal action against the WHO Rep for misinformation on Ivermectin that has lead to loss of life. People in the USA have taken legal action against hospitals and won. The crazy thing is the studies are just about the first stage of Covid but there are example of people in a coma on a ventilator who have been given ivermectin and recovered. Then when moved to another part of the hospital the other doctors refused to continue the treatment and the patient regressed which lead to one of the many legal battles in which the hospital lost and the NIH eventually pulled back it recommendation AGAINST Ivermectin and went to a more neutral recommendation. To be clear there is only anecdotal evidence for this kind of treatment in later stages of COVID.

Also to be clear the established health system has put ZERO effort into verifying if Ivermectin works or not. They have put a lot of time into making sure the public thinks it does not work mean while 1.5 billion dollars has either already been invested or has been committed to making the next ivermectin which is under patent.

Ivermectin: Merck, which makes the drug, says "Don't take it! The interest in Ivermectin goes back to a single in vitro test early in the pandemic when scientists were casting around for something that might work. Ivermectin did kill the virus in vitro but only at some huge (toxic) concentration in the same way that almost any chemical would. Since then, there has been no study showing that it is effective against this virus in people. The drug's sole manufacturer says you shouldn't take it. But the main point is that no one has ever suggested a mechanism by which it might work. We know very well how the mRNA vaccines work. We know pretty well how monoclonal antibody and steroid treatments work. No one has even offered a suggestion as to how Ivermectin might work.

I feel the same way about "settled science". There is no such thing as "settled science". No real scientist will use the phrase.

[Captain Solo]

Amor,

Got to admit, John Clayton knows his stuff and is very logical, persuasive with his concise arguments. I am impressed.

It's ridiculous to see people reject logical, factual realities and subscribe to so many outrageous and crazy conspiracies.

[AmorPorFavor]

Ivermectin: Merck, which makes the drug, says "Don't take it! The interest in Ivermectin goes back to a single in vitro test early in the pandemic when scientists were casting around for something that might work. Ivermectin did kill the virus in vitro but only at some huge (toxic) concentration in the same way that almost any chemical would. Since then, there has been no study showing that it is effective against this virus in people. The drug's sole manufacturer says you shouldn't take it. But the main point is that no one has ever suggested a mechanism by which it might work. We know very well how the mRNA vaccines work. We know pretty well how monoclonal antibody and steroid treatments work. No one has even offered a suggestion as to how Ivermectin might work.

I feel the same way about "settled science". There is no such thing as "settled science". No real scientist will use the phrase.

Amazing. Something very intelligent in stupid shit in Tijuana.

[John Clayton]

...Ivermectin has been used and prescribed for human consumption. Or...at makes my skin crawl, it's "settled science"...

Ivermectin: Merck, which makes the drug, says "Don't take it! The interest in Ivermectin goes back to a single in vitro test early in the pandemic when scientists were casting around for something that might work. Ivermectin did kill the virus in vitro but only at some huge (toxic) concentration in the same way that almost any chemical would. Since then, there has been no study showing that it is effective against this virus in people. The drug's sole manufacturer says you shouldn't take it. But the main point is that no one has ever suggested a mechanism by which it might work. We know very well how the mRNA vaccines work. We know pretty well how monoclonal antibody and steroid treatments work. No one has even offered a suggestion as to how Ivermectin might work.

I feel the same way about "settled science". There is no such thing as "settled science". No real scientist will use the phrase.

[WombatEd2]

No one gets paid if Ivermectin is the answer.

It isn't. All the experts say it isn't. Which makes the rest of your elaborate conspiracy theory moot.

[Dcrist0527]

It depends on whether you believe in statistics (I do). True, the lipid encapsulation of the mRNA is maybe only three or four years old; however, synthetic mRNA has been around for thirty years with years of successful animal and human trials. We've had trials of other mRNA vaccines (like flu and zika) with the lipid encapsulation for several year before COV-2 SARS. But I wasn't referring to the delivery method. The way these vaccines work is inherently safer and many times more effective than vaccines based on an inactivated or attenutated viruses. However, my main point is how do you propose this vaccine would cause long term harm? Can you (anyone) even suggest a mechanism by which this would occur?

BTW, Tucker Carlson is famous for suggesting (always said with a quizzical demeanor) unknown linkages between two completely unrelated events (e. G. , George Soros and 2016 election fraud).

Clearly, you are more well-versed on this than I. So I won't claim to be more knowledgeable. But I also never proposed this vaccine would cause long term problems. I could not say that with any more certainty than one could say it will not. No one has had this vaccine for a year, let alone long term.

I still return to my earlier point. Not speaking of you directly but just a small percentage of the general public even know the basic difference between J&J and Pfizer. But to the same extent, most don't know that Ivermectin has been used and prescribed for human consumption. Or why. My larger point is that we are lazy. We take a talking point from Cooper or Carlson, or a meme from social media, and it becomes an unchallenged fact. Or to repeat a phrase that makes my skin crawl, it's "settled science". When we lose our curiosity from sheer laziness and just accept what our leaders or experts sell us, we're doomed. That was the point Hadez made. Control Google and you control a population.

Not going to take the bait re: Soros. LOL I'm certain you and I ar[Deleted by Admin]e at opposite ends of the political spectrum. And I've already used up more than my fair share of bandwidth on a hooker board about my beliefs. I do respect your knowledge, information and style. If and when we ever bump into each other, I owe you a few beers.

[John Clayton]

...I'm not saying these vaccines are dangerous. But to claim this application is a well-tested process is just dishonest.

It depends on whether you believe in statistics (I do). True, the lipid encapsulation of the mRNA is maybe only three or four years old; however, synthetic mRNA has been around for thirty years with years of successful animal and human trials. We've had trials of other mRNA vaccines (like flu and zika) with the lipid encapsulation for several year before COV-2 SARS. But I wasn't referring to the delivery method. The way these vaccines work is inherently safer and many times more effective than vaccines based on an inactivated or attenutated viruses. However, my main point is how do you propose this vaccine would cause long term harm? Can you (anyone) even suggest a mechanism by which this would occur?

BTW, Tucker Carlson is famous for suggesting (always said with a quizzical demeanor) unknown linkages between two completely unrelated events (e. G. , George Soros and 2016 election fraud).

[Dcrist0527]

You could say the same thing about driving a Tesla -- they haven't been around that long, so how do we know they don't cause health problems in the long term? The answer is mechanism (or a plausible mechanism) by which it would occur. The safety and mechanism of how this vaccine works are better understood than just about anything humans have ever created.

This is a stupid Tucker Carlson question, "...and how do we really know Teslas will not cause our children to wither and die? They simply haven't been around long enough to know for certain. I'm just asking the question. Isn't it better to be informed? Why is the MSM supressing this question? And what about electric mountain bikes -- could they cause tooth decay?

Your points are perfectly valid as they pertain to mRNA technologies. However, the technology is merely the method. It's not as though an mRNA vaccine is interchangeable. If we were to utilize mRNA for zika or rabies, it is an entirely different vaccine.

I'm not sure what the Tucker Carlson reference is. I don't watch or listen to him so maybe its relevance is lost on me. But the analogy is poor. Before Tesla's were put on the actual road, they performed road tests on closed circuits. Producing and distributing mRNA vaccines have never been tested in humans in a similar manner.

I'm not saying these vaccines are dangerous. But to claim this application is a well-tested process is just dishonest.

[John Clayton]

...To say definitively that this vaccine is safe and thoroughly tested is just lunacy. It hasn't been in existence for a year. Long term testing is quite literally impossible...

You could say the same thing about driving a Tesla -- they haven't been around that long, so how do we know they don't cause health problems in the long term? The answer is mechanism (or a plausible mechanism) by which it would occur. The safety and mechanism of how this vaccine works are better understood than just about anything humans have ever created.

This is a stupid Tucker Carlson question, "...and how do we really know Teslas will not cause our children to wither and die? They simply haven't been around long enough to know for certain. I'm just asking the question. Isn't it better to be informed? Why is the MSM supressing this question? And what about electric mountain bikes -- could they cause tooth decay?