Ámbar dies day after deadly clot shot The 3-year-old sudden cardiac arrest.

[Furion]

How about when we who have chosen to get the covid vaccines are called "sheeple" by some who are against those vaccines? Is that not a "weasely" insult? Or is that okay?

I have also seen some of the more far-righists on here call some who disagree with them about some other things--like the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol building--"sheeple." Is that also okay?

You can defend your insults, I don't care.

 

[Yakuda]

I can't do that, but I can show you that many of the studies on using ivermectin to treat civid had serious flaws in them:

Ivermectin: How false science created a Covid 'miracle' drug

Thousands worldwide have taken ivermectin to fight Covid. But what's the evidence?

www.bbc.com

For every study I read online that showed favorable results with ivermectin. I would find one where it gave no benefit, or the results were inconclusive.

There was the Together trial, where, if I remember right, ivermectin was found to be ineffective.

There is a large, randomized controlled study going on now in Oxford, England, the Principle Study, that should show, once and for all, if ivermectrin truly is efficacious in treating and preventing covid, called the Principle trial. It has been going on for 6 months. (I just found out recently that a similar large, controlled study is going on in this country, but I forgot what it is called. I think it is called Activ-6, but not sure.) It will be interesting to see the results, and it will be good finally to put the debate over it to rest.

Oh, wait, maybe this is the US trial:

Nation’s first ivermectin clinical trial now 50 percent enrolled

The Data Safety Monitoring Board’s first early futility and efficacy analysis gives the study the green light to continue MINNEAPOLIS/ST. PAUL (11/11/2021) — An ongoing COVID-19 clinical trial studying outpatient treatment with generic medications, including ivermectin, is now more than halfway...

med.umn.edu

As I have stated on here before, I think people with covid should have ivermectin available to use, if they are at home, and their doctors agree to prescribe it. It has few side effects at the proper dosage.

See that last paragraph that's all that matters. People should have it available. When they put the kibosh to ivermectin bits was clear everyone but the most rabid stabbers and morons that there was no interest in putting an bend to this "pandemic". You don't need peer reviewed articles to see that.

 

[Yakuda]

John t said:
Thanks for the compliment!

Because there is much confusion, and few facts, I wanted to post in an informational, non-adversarial manner. The wise will learn from it, but unfortunately, some will continue in their ignorance, nursing their uninformed, (possible paranoid) biases.


That's kind of an across the board insult of those that would disagree with you, which probably includes me. I'm neither ignorant, uninformed or paranoid.



You assume scientists can't be bought and studies can't be falsified.....100% of scientists agree with those funding them....and just look at the Lancet report of HCQ they had to retract because it was all a lie.....and just because you think a website is 'wingnut', how about you prove it is first.

edit Anyone who thinks this "vaccine" is effective has been compromised. Why would anyone need a stab and 4 boosters for a virus with a 99% recovery rate?

 

[Bonnie]

You can defend your insults, I don't care.

I did not insult anyone. Show me where I did so. I just asked why it is okay for some on here to call those of us who made the informed decision to get the covid vaccine "sheeple". Isn't that a "weasely" insult? If you use the search engine for sheeple, you will see how it is used all over the place by some right wingers to insult those who disagree with them about several things.

But that is all right...isn't it?

Double standard, anyone?

 

[Furion]

I just asked...

I don't care what you asked.

I was speaking with a moderator, not you.

Double standard, anyone?

Quit trying to make stuff up edit

 

[John t]

John seems to be one of those people who can't decide anything for himself and needs an "expert" to tell him what to do and think.

It is NOT about me, so cease from that banal line of reasoning.

It is God who created the science laws of EVERYTHING, which of course includes covid -19. Special creation ended in Eden, and God dis not alter His principles of life, which He created when He permitted Wuhan to create and disburse Covid 19. God is in charge, not science.

 

[Bonnie]

Oh course they do.

No, they do not. Not even remotely about what GP and Epoch News posted.

The last thing anyone needs is you or anyone else deciding what's a lie and what isn't. On top of that the last thing I will take seriously is a liar telling me I'm a liar. I am amazed about how blind people are to the dangers if the kind of censorship we see these days. It scares the daylights our if me for what lies ahead for us as a society.

I proved both those threads had false information in them. Australia never forced teenagers to get vaccinated without parental consent and Fauci never tortured and killed orphans with AIDS. That makes both of those stories lies, and those that published it liars.

I don't like censorship, either, but what scares me more than that is totally fake news being pushed as if it were the truth and people who eat it up without investigating it first, but blindly believing everything such conspiracy/fake news websites publish. Fake news can be dangerous. Fake news even led to the Spanish-American war.

There is something about how one's freedom of speech does not include yelling "Fire!" in a crowded room, causing panic and injuries, when there isn't any fire. The same could be said about freedom of the press. Fake news, as I stated, can be dangerous.

 

[Bonnie]

That is not the same thing as a citation, PLUS you just added something new to the actual words you wrote below.


This above is the quote that I replied to. Where is the Hydroxychloroquine in that sentence?

Because I perceive that

1. this discussion is going nowhere
2. we seem to be posting at each other
3. you unjustly accused me of insulting others, several times
4. you have not indicated any change your mind on that

I request you close this thread in order to prevent possible problems which no one intentionally commits in the near or far future.

Thank you for considering my request.

That is puzzling because the first mention of hydrochlorquine on here is in post no. 116 on this thread. I used the search engine and that term to determine this and these are the only mentions of it on this thread:

Search results for query: Hydroxychloroquine

forums.carm.org

I tried HCQ and got bupkiss. Too short. If it was mentioned earlier it may have been misspelled in which case, I cannot find it then, since I wouldn't know how it was misspelled.

Ah, John, here it was, I used Lancet and got this:

Ámbar dies day after deadly clot shot The 3-year-old sudden cardiac arrest.

Also the EUA is dependent on the fiction of no effective treatments. Billons of dollars are at stake, so a portion of that is used to buy off the best journalists and politicians $ can buy. Exactly. That’s why they demonize cheap, effective drugs that have been around for ages and proven safe.

forums.carm.org

So, it was called HCQ not Hydrochlorquine, on here originally. But I did find out this about the retracted Lancet study on HCQ:

The Lancet retracts large study on hydroxychloroquine

"A first-year statistics major could tell you about major flaws in the design of the analysis," one expert said.

www.nbcnews.com

The medical journal The Lancet on Thursday retracted a large study on the use of hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19 because of potential flaws in the research data. The study, published two weeks ago, found no benefit to the drug — and suggested its use may even increase the risk of death.

Thursday's retraction doesn't mean that the drug is helpful — or harmful — with respect to the coronavirus. Rather, the study authors were unable to confirm that the data set was accurate.

Researchers from Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston had worked with a health care analytics company, Surgisphere Corp., on the study.

"After publication of our Lancet article, several concerns were raised with respect to the veracity of the data and analyses conducted by Surgisphere Corporation," the study authors wrote in their retraction.

The study authors said they launched an independent review to confirm the findings, but said the company would not provide access to all of the data.

"Based on this development, we can no longer vouch for the veracity of the primary data sources," the authors wrote.

Lancet did the right thing in retracting the study, since its data from Surgisphere could not be verified.

Here is another source on this:

Coronavirus (COVID-19) Overview

COVID-19 is a new type of coronavirus that causes mild to severe cases. Here’s a quick guide on how to spot symptoms, risk factors, prevent spread of the disease, and find out what to do if you think you have it.

www.webmd.com

 

[Bonnie]

I don't care what you asked.

But I did politely ask. The fact that you refuse to answer is....telling.

I was speaking with a moderator, not you.

No, you were speaking to me here:

Bonnie said:
How about when we who have chosen to get the covid vaccines are called "sheeple" by some who are against those vaccines? Is that not a "weasely" insult? Or is that okay?

I have also seen some of the more far-righists on here call some who disagree with them about some other things--like the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol building--"sheeple." Is that also okay?

You can defend your insults, I don't care.

So, where did I insult anyone on here? I simply asked why is it okay for some on here who disagree with some others on here about the vaccines, covid, Jan. 6 riot, to be called "sheeple"...isn't that a "weaselly" insult? If you put "sheeple" in the search engine for this forum, you will see examples of this all over the place.

Quit trying to make stuff up edit

I am not making up anything, just pointing out the rather obvious double standard here. That is all.

 

[Furion]

No, you were speaking to me here:

You can defend your insults, I don't care.

I am not making up anything, just pointing out the rather obvious double standard here. That is all.

I have no idea what you are on about.

I addressed you once, and told you to defend your insults if that's what you want to do.

Edit

 

[Bonnie]

You can defend your insults, I don't care.

Again, you need to show me where I insulted anyone.

I have no idea what you are on about.

You don't, eh?

I addressed you once, and told you to defend your insults if that's what you want to do.

Except I asked you where I insulted anyone and you failed to show me where. All I did was ask if calling someone far rightists disagree with "sheeple" was a "weaselly" insult....is it? If so, why is that all right?

Shoo fly...

I will be happy to go away if you will kindly show me where I insulted anyone on here, when all I did is ask if calling some folks "sheeple" on here is a "weaselly" insult.

 

[4Him]

Again, you need to show me where I insulted anyone.


You don't, eh?


Except I asked you where I insulted anyone and you failed to show me where. All I did was ask if calling someone far rightists disagree with "sheeple" was a "weaselly" insult....is it? If so, why is that all right?

I will be happy to go away if you will kindly show me where I insulted anyone on here, when all I did is ask if calling some folks "sheeple" on here is a "weaselly" insult.

Not anymore weaslley than insinuating that anyone that reads GP hates the truth....

 

[e v e 21]

What does your so- called "science- based, peer- reviewed material" have to do with trusting God?

 

[Carol]

You are simply moving the goal posts here, and creating a false, emotionally laden conundrum. . Trusting God is an entirely different matter. Falsely, it pious sounding because it is supposedly faith-based and has no "pollution from science. WHO created the science behind Covid 19. It is God because special creation ceased before Eden. No person who knows and loves God can make the claim that Covid-19 follows different rules of creation than does everything else that God created in 6 days.

Your question is foreign to the scientific and statistical analytical patterns which God has placed EVERYTHING He created. I am attempting to present that in a simple, straight forward manner. Ultimately, it is God who creates those facts which we humans can quantify and analyze. Caqn you not see that?

Therefore, it can be argued that those who rely on anecdotal evidence, claiming that it is superior to facts are irrationally discarding and denying what God created in order to rely on superstition and "old wives' tales" from wing nut web sites. There are surely some posters here who believe that for some reason, God "changed the rules of His creation" when He permitted Covid-19 and its variants to be created in China.

Ultimately God is in control of everything, which included Covid-19, or else He is in charge of nothing. Yet it is precisely those who insist that we "just trust God" and not listen to the trained medical experts who are unlocking the mysteries of this God-created virus.

The dichotomy that you and others wish to establish is simply false, and really is dishonoring to God if you think about it for more than 30 seconds.

Guilt trips....

It is up to you disbelievers to present peer-reviewed evidence (NOT anecdotes) that can refute the peer reviewed facts we know know about Covid 19 and the vaccines.

Why do I insist on being peer-reviewed, and not from a wing nut web site? Something that is peer-reviewed conforms to a level of expert analysis recognized worldwide as a gold standard.

The world's standards.

Those scholars may be believers or not. But due to the high rigorous standards of academic analysis, they are actually doing God's work

"The work of God is this- to believe in the one he has sent."

I'm sure he isn't talking about scientists.

because they are unlocking the structures God created in Covid 19, and its variants.

Actually it's looking like humans created this bug.

 

[Furion]

Again, you need to show me where I insulted anyone.


You don't, eh?


Except I asked you where I insulted anyone and you failed to show me where. All I did was ask if calling someone far rightists disagree with "sheeple" was a "weaselly" insult....is it? If so, why is that all right?

I will be happy to go away if you will kindly show me where I insulted anyone on here, when all I did is ask if calling some folks "sheeple" on here is a "weaselly" insult.

I know you tend to think everything is about you.

If someone here makes you sad by calling you sheeple, then you can talk to them about it.

 

[Bonnie]

I know you tend to think everything is about you.

No, everything is NOT about me. But you wrote I am justifying my insults....therefore, you made it about me.

Bonnie said:
How about when we who have chosen to get the covid vaccines are called "sheeple" by some who are against those vaccines? Is that not a "weaselly" insult? Or is that okay?

I have also seen some of the more far-rightists on here call some who disagree with them about some other things--like the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol building--"sheeple." Is that also okay?

You can defend your insults, I don't care.

See the "your insults"? By writing that, you made it about me.

I am simply asking you to show me where I insulted anyone. That way, I won't do it again. Is that so hard?

If someone here makes you sad by calling you sheeple, then you can talk to them about it.

I never said it made me sad. But several different people have used the "sheeple" remark, about several different things. And I called them on it some time ago. But this is just a diversionary tactic. I have yet to hear why calling some of us "sheeple" is fine, but what John wrote about some people in general is a "weaselly" insult. What is the difference?

 

[Furion]

No, everything is NOT about me. But you wrote I am justifying my insults....therefore, you made it about me.

See the "your insults"? By writing that, you made it about me.

I am simply asking you to show me where I insulted anyone. That way, I won't do it again. Is that so hard?

I never said it made me sad. But several different people have used the "sheeple" remark, about several different things. And I called them on it some time ago. But this is just a diversionary tactic. I have yet to hear why calling some of us "sheeple" is fine, but what John wrote about some people in general is a "weaselly" insult. What is the difference?

Thanks for your post. It sounds like you need to talk with someone about it. Perhaps starting a new thread on your subject?

 

[Bonnie]

Thanks for your post. It sounds like you need to talk with someone about it. Perhaps starting a new thread on your subject?

The only person I need to talk with is you, since you claimed I was defending MY insults. I proved it by quoting what you actually wrote. Now, could you kindly show me where I issued insults on here, so I can make certain I do not do it again?

But IF you goofed, and you know I didn't insult anyone, then just admit it, and then we can move on. We all make mistakes.

 

[John t]

You can defend your insults, I don't care.

If you believe someone insulted you, that is not a matter to discuss on the open boards. Bring it to the attention of the mods through a report. But you also need to know that the mods take a dim view of those attempting to moderate other posters on the open boards. From experience, I know this.

 

[Furion]

The only person I need to talk with is you, since you claimed I was defending MY insults. I proved it by quoting what you actually wrote. Now, could you kindly show me where I issued insults on here, so I can make certain I do not do it again?

I don't believe you won't insult in the future.

But IF you goofed, and you know I didn't insult anyone, then just admit it, and then we can move on. We all make mistakes.

I'm not moving anywhere.

I'm also man enough to admit when I insult.