Science vs Christianity

Temujin

Well-known member
Hmm. Maybe that's because science was invented by the flat earther Christians of the dark ages. Their religion became your religion.
Yep, alchemy morphed into chemistry. The natural philosophers looking to prove the historical nature of Young Earth Creation, became geologists and biologists who disproved it. The difference between science and religion is that science adapts to reality and has left the magic spells behind.
 

Semmelweis Reflex

Active member
Yep, alchemy morphed into chemistry. The natural philosophers looking to prove the historical nature of Young Earth Creation, became geologists and biologists who disproved it. The difference between science and religion is that science adapts to reality and has left the magic spells behind.

Exactly! You're almost there. you have all of the data you need but still . . . something is missing? What is it? I voted no. Watch for the upcoming strike three.
 

Semmelweis Reflex

Active member
It's not really a yes or no question, as any drug has to be considered in terms of risks and benefits for a specific patient. Perhaps you mean, should the FDA have approved remdesivir for Covid patients at all?


Again, most drugs have side effects, which can be dangerous, so it's always a risk/benefit calculation.

What is your source for remdesivir being ineffective (ignore whether it is harmful or dangerous for this question)? See directly below, though.



RAIR is not a scientific source. Do you have a scientific study to support the above stats? Not sure if you're relying on the first study you referenced, but if you are, that's not what the study said, as I've pointed out before.


Your quote from WHO directly above comes from 2020. They updated their recommendation this year, two years after they said what you quoted directly above.

If you click on the pamphlet from WHO about remdesivir for Covid, you'll see they warn against using it for patients with kidney problems. Tell me what is not scientifically indicated in that pamplhet (the second link directly above), and what scientific study argues against it

I still don't think you get it. You have to vote, you see? Since you don't get it I'm going to give you and @The Pixie one more chance. This is strike 2. Now, strike 3 and you're out. Yes or no. That's all it takes.
 

Gus Bovona

Well-known member
I still don't think you get it. You have to vote, you see? Since you don't get it I'm going to give you and @The Pixie one more chance. This is strike 2. Now, strike 3 and you're out. Yes or no. That's all it takes.
I gave my reasons for why I saw the question as not a yes/no question; can you state your reasons why my reasons don't hold (other than just re-asserting that your question is a yes/no question)?

I even suggested an alternative question that might have been a better yes/no question. What do you think of it?

Plus, my points about RAIR not being a scientific source, and why your WHO quotation is meaningless now (because it's been updated), have not been responded to.
 

Gus Bovona

Well-known member
Quote: "WHO has issued a conditional recommendation against the use of remdesivir in hospitalized patients, regardless of disease severity, as there is currently no evidence that remdesivir improves survival and other outcomes in these patients.” - World Health Organization
Here's the most current WHO recommendations on remdesivir for Covid that I could find, from 2020 (the pamphlet I referred to earlier):
WHO-2019-nCoV-Therapeutics-Remdesivir-Poster-A-2022.1-eng.jpg
 

Semmelweis Reflex

Active member
Yeah, they changed that. Not so easy when someone doesn't do all the work for is it, Gus? Strike 3. So, the no's have it. Science and Christianity are the same. You see? If you voted what would it be based on? Science? They were paid off. That's why WHO changed their mind. Science says it's true so science is true? It's religion. I vote no. Both of them

Even if you had an argument, and you did, it would really mean anything because science, like Christianity are corrupted. I gave links to science. So what? Did I interpret it correctly? How do you know? Ask science? Full circle.

The debate is a distraction. A product of petty ego of ideologues such as we, because we already know, if we have any sense whatsoever, that both science and Christianity and everything else, is, useless.
 

Gus Bovona

Well-known member
Yeah, they changed that. Not so easy when someone doesn't do all the work for is it, Gus? Strike 3. So, the no's have it. Science and Christianity are the same. You see? If you voted what would it be based on? Science? They were paid off. That's why WHO changed their mind. Science says it's true so science is true? It's religion. I vote no. Both of them

Even if you had an argument, and you did, it would really mean anything because science, like Christianity are corrupted. I gave links to science. So what? Did I interpret it correctly? How do you know? Ask science? Full circle.

The debate is a distraction. A product of petty ego of ideologues such as we, because we already know, if we have any sense whatsoever, that both science and Christianity and everything else, is, useless.
There are several things wrong with what you wrote, but there are earlier issues on the table that you haven't addressed:

Post 273:
1. Your source actually agrees with the CDC.
2. Your source says that we cannot say that remdesivir causes kidney failure.
3. The CDC warns that kidney and liver problems may occur with remdesivir.

Post 276:
4. What is your source for remdesivir being ineffective?
5. RAIR is not a scientific source.
 

Semmelweis Reflex

Active member
It's not really a yes or no question, as any drug has to be considered in terms of risks and benefits for a specific patient.

Then it's no. If there is uncertainty the answer should be no. Is that scientific? Or would it be scientific - uh, "following the science" - to vote yes? You know they had all of the data I had and I sure as hell wouldn't vote yes.
 

Semmelweis Reflex

Active member
There are several things wrong with what you wrote, but there are earlier issues on the table that you haven't addressed:

Post 273:
1. Your source actually agrees with the CDC.

Doesn't matter. Where do they get 45% of their funding? Or WHO - what do they spend on research and development vs travel? It isn't rocket science. You're religiously devoted to a corrupted paradigm.

2. Your source says that we cannot say that remdesivir causes kidney failure.

Doesn't matter. They should vote no. It's 1% fatality vs what was it? 26 - 46%. It's a no brainer, science guy. You weigh the harm against the benefit. How would you come up with a yes? Hippocratic oath?

3. The CDC warns that kidney and liver problems may occur with remdesivir.

Doesn't matter. They have that on the insert. They don't tell the patients that. Watch the video I linked to last (I think) in the post with all the sources. That don't matter.

Post 276:
4. What is your source for remdesivir being ineffective?

Doesn't matter. Too much money and too much politics. Not enough real true science.

5. RAIR is not a scientific source.

Doesn't matter. They quoted. Look up the quote.
 
Last edited:

Gus Bovona

Well-known member
Doesn't matter. They should vote no. It's 1% fatality vs what was it? 26 - 46%. It's a no brainer, science guy. You weigh the harm against the benefit. How would you come up with a yes? Hippocratic oath?
You continue to think that that study is claiming something that it is not, despite me and Pixie (?) pointing that out to you.

Please, if you think that study claims that remdesivir was the responsible agent for that high mortality rate, as opposed to Ebola, please quote something from that study that says as much. Table 2, BTW, doesn't say what you're claiming the study say.
 

Semmelweis Reflex

Active member
You continue to think that that study is claiming something that it is not, despite me and Pixie (?) pointing that out to you.

The Pixie. You have to put @The Pixie. The two of you are in debate and science mode.

What the study shows is far more important to me than what the study says. I don't believe a word it says. Put it this way, it means to me what I would imagine the Bible means to you. And you are fixed on that stupid study. Would it make you happy if I said I was wrong? I have no problem with being wrong and admitting it, but I don't think I am. And you're arguing with me about what I think. I don't think it says Remdesivir kills people, I think it shows Fauci used the drug to kill people. Not the study, although the study was a vehicle for him to do that because it doesn't say Remdesivir kills people. But it does. I don't see how there could be any doubt about that.

Here, maybe this will make you feel better. Wait a minute, that was the Fauci Dossier, patents on Covid going back to the 1990s. Maybe only 2002, I can't remember. Better make that clear. I meant to say that I'm willing to admit that I should have been much more careful in expressing my own opinion from what was being sourced.

When I'm talking about this stuff it comes from two years of intense exploration. Countless hours of videos and articles. Only a small fraction of which I preserved. Interviews, not with conspiracy theorists, but the most highly respected doctors and scientists of our age, many of whom have had their stellar careers completely decimated by a fabricated/manipulated pandemic much like they've used for a hundred years in this country. Kansas City Missouri in 1921. Swine Flu of 1976. Sars, Ebola, Zika. Even aids. Not people like you and me who don't know what they're talking about on some religious forum. In that time I have explored medicine and inoculation going back 1000 years in China. I have combed over books by doctors going back to the times of Ignaz Semmelweis and Dr. Bill Livingston.


Please, if you think that study claims that remdesivir was the responsible agent for that high mortality rate, as opposed to Ebola, please quote something from that study that says as much. Table 2, BTW, doesn't say what you're claiming the study say.

Okay.
 
Last edited:

Gus Bovona

Well-known member
I don't think it [the study] says Remdesivir kills people . . . it doesn't say Remdesivir kills people. But it does. I don't see how there could be any doubt about that.
You're being contradictory when you say that
  • the study doesn't say remdesivir kills people [see above]
  • you previously cited the mortality rate (53.1%) of remdesivir from the study [post @215]
  • and yet claim that remdesivir kills people without citing any evidence [see above]
 

Semmelweis Reflex

Active member
Please, if you think that study claims that remdesivir was the responsible agent for that high mortality rate, as opposed to Ebola, please quote something from that study that says as much. Table 2, BTW, doesn't say what you're claiming the study say.

If medical science has been corrupted as I am thoroughly convinced it has then it isn't necessarily a question of what the study says. Remdesivir was put in the study by Anthony Fauci of the NIAID, a department of the NIH. Since this constitutes a conflict of interest Fauci had to hire an independent panel of 9 people in addition to his own panel of 9. It was the independent panel that pulled Remdesivir. Does the study say that?

As I pointed out in post #264 the study says that, and now I'm quoting: "Patients of any age, including pregnant women, were eligible if they had a positive result on RT-PCR within 3 days before screening and if they had not received other investigational agents (except experimental vaccines) within the previous 30 days. Neonates who were 7 days of age or younger were eligible if the mother had documented EVD." End quote.

What does all of that mean? Why not experimental vaccines? Because vaccines inject attenuated pathogen. (look up memory, T and B cells) Does an RT-PCR test determine a person is symptomatic, meaning having the disease? Sick? In danger of dying from Ebola? Does a neonate 7 days old who's mother had documented EVD mean they are sick and possibly dying from Ebola? Because I'm not a professional but I don't think so. For the reasons I gave in that same post. They were looking for the presence of the Ebola virus. As I said, the test will read positive up to at least 12 weeks. Infection doesn't necessarily mean symptomatic. If the cycle threshold is high enough it will find just about anything you want and therefore, nothing, really. You can be infected and not have the disease. Unless you have symptoms you don't have it. You might have had it. You may have only been infected and not had it etc. Where does that come from. The guy who invented the PCR test, Kary B Mullis, himself said here about Fauci "the man thinks you can take a blood sample and stick it under an electron microscope and if it's got a virus in there you'll know it. He doesn't understand electron microscopy and he doesn't understand medicine." And here he explains how the PCR test, used in both the Ebola study and the Covid-19 "Plandemic" were overestimated in the way I've described. Meaningless. So, the question becomes, was the patients in the African Ebola study in danger of dying from the disease, or was the qualification for entrance in the study merely have the presence of something like the Ebola virus, including neonates who never had it. Do you see? You seem to think "well, PCR test, that means they had Ebola and were possibly going to die." This causes you, I think, to misinterpret the study.

So, does the study say they were symptomatic? Does it say that they were sick from Ebola at the time of the study?

But then you open a whole other can of worms, including, does the study on the efficacy of a drug, like Remdesivir, involve the measure of the drug's death rate? Can you distinguish the symptoms of the disease from possible side effects, including death, by the drug? What is the all cause mortality? As I've repeatedly stated, respiratory viruses have never caused acute kidney failure. Never. It doesn't do that. What is the evidence that Remdesivir very possibly does? Again, does the study say people treated with Remdesivir died of acute kidney failure? From Remdesivir?

What that study says about these things aren't relevant to me in this context because I only want to establish that Fauci abused science by using the medication to exaggerate the "Plandemic" and make trillions of dollars for the healthcare industry. And also because it can be so easily misinterpreted. Much like the Bible. When I watch Fauci on television interviews and especially with Rand Paul's interrogation - I'm on Paul's side. I want him to lock that [expletive] away. But he doesn't seem to understand that Fauci is telling the truth, in a sense, just in a roundabout way. In a way that seems designed to deceive the public or their representatives. Paul seems to understand this but always gets it wrong. And he's a doctor. True, I am not a doctor or scientists. So, you get my opinion but I don't think it's an uninformed one. It has been a while. I stopped that exploration a few months back and I took in a lot of information and my memory isn't that great, so take that as it is.

By the way, I stated in my earliest posts in this thread on Remdesivir that healthcare workers, specifically nurses, gave Remdesivir the nickname "runmurderisnear." I remembered that wrong. It's actually "run-death-is-near."
 

Semmelweis Reflex

Active member
You're being contradictory when you say that
  • the study doesn't say remdesivir kills people [see above]
  • you previously cited the mortality rate (53.1%) of remdesivir from the study [post @215]
  • and yet claim that remdesivir kills people without citing any evidence [see above]

I think people, and especially fundamentalist militant atheists, who I think are twits in general, don't understand fully what that means because they take everything very strictly literal. Almost like a robot. Like certainty is their comfort blanket, crutch, faith, religion, etc.

All drugs kill people. The doctors and nurses told me after my quadruple bi-pass that my heart probably wouldn't kill me, the drugs would. Why? Because I was only 41. Most people are much older. My cardiologist gave me a medication that gave me kidney disease. Does it give it to everyone? No. But it does some.

It's the same thing in the Bible. An atheist here, I think it was The Pixie (but I'm not sure) was astounded when he said to me that the Bible says something, I don't remember what it was and I'm not going to look for it, and my response was it doesn't matter what the Bible says. Of course it matters! he said.

No, because the Bible is a translation and, though it says something it doesn't necessarily mean that. For example, Jesus died on a cross? No. Sinners go to hell? Yes, but who sins and what exactly is hell?

I made the mistake of assuming you science minded people know what I'm talking about. Apparently you don't. I also made the mistake of paraphrasing the study then adding my own observation without clearly separating the two. I'm making an effort not to do that. I should have said the study was cited by Fauci in a memo to use the lethal Remdesivir. Linked my source and then said Remdesivir kills people or causes acute kidney failure. And other things.

Remdesivir does kill people, it does cause organ failure and other things, especially acute kidney failure. That's my claim. If you want to refute it do so of your own accord. I think I've provided all the evidence I need to establish that. I'm not going to do your work. But here's the something to consider. Is there a conflict of interest? Google invested in the pharmaceutical industry? Do they censor and suppress information? Doctors, do they know only what the pharmaceutical corporations tell them? I told my doctor that I think the beta blockers and statins he had me on were destroying my brain. Well look it up. I told him I have mental confusion and short term memory loss. He said they don't cause that. The insert gives those as side effects.

It's weird to me that no one asked about the other study, the one by Gilead Sciences, that Fauci used.
 

Gus Bovona

Well-known member
I think people, and especially fundamentalist militant atheists, who I think are twits in general, don't understand fully what that means because they take everything very strictly literal. Almost like a robot. Like certainty is their comfort blanket, crutch, faith, religion, etc.

All drugs kill people. The doctors and nurses told me after my quadruple bi-pass that my heart probably wouldn't kill me, the drugs would. Why? Because I was only 41. Most people are much older. My cardiologist gave me a medication that gave me kidney disease. Does it give it to everyone? No. But it does some.

It's the same thing in the Bible. An atheist here, I think it was The Pixie (but I'm not sure) was astounded when he said to me that the Bible says something, I don't remember what it was and I'm not going to look for it, and my response was it doesn't matter what the Bible says. Of course it matters! he said.

No, because the Bible is a translation and, though it says something it doesn't necessarily mean that. For example, Jesus died on a cross? No. Sinners go to hell? Yes, but who sins and what exactly is hell?

I made the mistake of assuming you science minded people know what I'm talking about. Apparently you don't. I also made the mistake of paraphrasing the study then adding my own observation without clearly separating the two. I'm making an effort not to do that. I should have said the study was cited by Fauci in a memo to use the lethal Remdesivir. Linked my source and then said Remdesivir kills people or causes acute kidney failure. And other things.

Remdesivir does kill people, it does cause organ failure and other things, especially acute kidney failure. That's my claim. If you want to refute it do so of your own accord. I think I've provided all the evidence I need to establish that. I'm not going to do your work. But here's the something to consider. Is there a conflict of interest? Google invested in the pharmaceutical industry? Do they censor and suppress information? Doctors, do they know only what the pharmaceutical corporations tell them? I told my doctor that I think the beta blockers and statins he had me on were destroying my brain. Well look it up. I told him I have mental confusion and short term memory loss. He said they don't cause that. The insert gives those as side effects.

It's weird to me that no one asked about the other study, the one by Gilead Sciences, that Fauci used.
1. Nothing in your reply addressed your contradictory statements that I mentioned.

2. It's not my responsibility to refute your claim, it's your responsibility to establish it, and you have not quoted here anything from any scientific source that says that remdesivir is responsible for killing people beyond when contra-indicated

3. "Remdesivir does kill people" is a trivial claim: water kills people, but everyone takes water everyday.

I'm finished with this conversation with you, I don't see how we can have a back and forth.
 

Semmelweis Reflex

Active member
I made the mistake of assuming you science minded people know what I'm talking about. Apparently you don't. I also made the mistake of paraphrasing the study then adding my own observation without clearly separating the two. I'm making an effort not to do that. I should have said the study was cited by Fauci in a memo to use the lethal Remdesivir. Linked my source and then said Remdesivir kills people or causes acute kidney failure. And other things.

I screwed it up again. I shouldn't have used the word lethal in the paraphrase.
 
Top