Create account

1014d · covid-19
Silentsam is wrong about a lot of things but there is no evidence that the vaccine is causing undue harm or part of a coercive agenda. People who don't understand science will say any stupid shit.
replied 1014d
LightRider is also a troll, but maybe others would like to hear this: The question about "risky" is not "is there proof it is harmful", but rather "is there proof it is not harmful".
replied 1014d
There is obviously no such proof because of warp speed. Reports of actual harm from the "vaccine" also exist. I suppose people who don't understand logic say even more stupid shit.
replied 1014d
Proving a negative is not possible you idiot fuck. Everything can be harmful potentially. Nothing is entirely safe or without risk. Evidence shows that the vaccine is more beneficial.
replied 1014d
We could all be taking Ivermectin until the trials finalize in 2023. Why not administer something with far more safety until the experimental gene therapy is proven safe?
replied 1013d
Describe how ivermectin kills a virus.
replied 1013d
It's been shown to reduce the viral load, minimize symptoms and keep people out of the hospital, much like the vaccine does. Cure? No. But it's cheap to manufacture and studied longer
replied 1013d
So you don't know how it affects the virus directly but just appeal to anecdotes and the fact that it's been around long. No real knowledge or understanding at all. Not surprising.
replied 1013d
"Tragedy of...", I find that trying to reason with trolls like lightrider is almost always just a waste of time, and I think only communities that agree on this survive. Agreed?
replied 1013d
If not, I still have another question: Do you really think lightrider was not distorting things on purpose in this little exchange you had?
replied 1012d
Some people argue for the sake of it, ego takes over and neither party takes anything meaningful from the exchange that way.
replied 1012d
I sometimes argue a bit anyway, because there may be an audience who can benefit from good rebuttals. On the flip side it often seems that I train the troll in troll-skills that way.
replied 1012d
I'm educated in debate and argumentation. I could show a number of reports from pulmonology and critical care physicians showing Ivermectin's efficacy and he'd still argue.
replied 1012d
A "reduction of symptoms", even if it were true and not a p-hack job, isn't a replacement for a vaccine and doesn't indicate "a cover-up" or a failure of medical science you dolts.
replied 1012d
Do you NOT believe our species is capable of, or willing to weaponize disease or that big pharma censors information about viable alternatives to vaccines? There's 21 billion at stake
replied 1012d
The danger that the #fuckingcapitalists present is that they will not share the vaccine with the world instead demanding profits. It breeds dangerous mutations like the Delta variant.
replied 1011d
How about not putting any research into a widely available, OTC alternative that could have been studied with the same resources the vaccines enjoyed? Oh wait, there's less profit.
replied 1011d
Again, you fucking idiot, symptom suppression isn't the goal of a vaccine! It's about immunity and stopping the spread. That's the more significant goal. Your miracle cure isn't.
replied 1011d
If you're going to hurl around insults, there's really no point having an exchange. RIGHT NOW, we can't reasonably conclude the vaccines offer immunity.
replied 1011d
Even big pharma will tell you the vaccines don't offer immunity, merely a reduction in severity of symptoms and a reduction in morbidity; both of which Ivermectin might do.
replied 1011d
God are you fucking stupid. YOUR BODY IS WHAT GIVES YOU IMMUNITY. YOU NEED A VACCINE TO STIMULATE AN IMMUNE RESPONSE. IVERMECTIN CAN'T DO THAT. DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT A VACCINE IS?
replied 1011d
Lets swear at people, use upper case, and repeat stupid things that have already been shown to be wrong. That has to make us look clever right? lightrider is just a stupid little troll
replied 1011d
The fact that I know that I'm talking about is that makes me seem clever. The fact that you idiot antivaxers and covidiots don't understand shit is why you will suffer ridicule forever
replied 1011d
Not antivax, anti guinea pig is all. The patients I set up on home oxygen were all having hydroxychloroquine prescribed by the infectious disease docs with positive results too.
replied 1011d
My mother has a damaged immune system, can she still take Hydroxychloroquine if she gets Covid? She's allergic to Ivermectin. & doctors tell her she can't take vaccine either.
replied 1010d
Check out some of the research on NAC. It shouldn't be taken to mean official medical advice, I'm not a clinician.
replied 1011d
Don't ask random racists/antivaxers on the internet for medical advice. Seek a qualified medical professional for assistance.
replied 1011d
I don't think you have to explain to bregecko why she should not ask you for medical advice lightrider.
replied 1011d
burn
replied 1011d
Apparently I do have to explain. Which says more about you than me.
replied 1011d
I suppose lack of reading comprehension is also part of what "makes you seem clever" (see 4 posts back). The meaning of what I said here was quite easy to understand. bregecko got it.
replied 1011d
They weren't asking me. It's your reading comprehension that is questionable you fucking idiot. Along with with every other aspect of your mental ability.
replied 1011d
Still not getting it I see. Looking clever indeed.
replied 1011d
Yeah I get that you're trying to pin your racism and stupidity on me. It's pathetic and no one intelligent is going to fall for it. Try harder to be wittier than a 3rd grader shithead.
replied 1011d
I've been following this conversation for a long time. I haven't seen anything even remotely racist....
What did I miss? How is he a racist? Sounds like a troll copout.
replied 1011d
His post history going back years documents well his terrible opinions and shitty perspective. This conversation is a drop in the Nazi bucket.
replied 1011d
I'm curious about actual examples. At least one.
Otherwise you're making yourself look like a typical 'new age liberal' that throws the 'racist' label at any opposition. Being honest.
replied 1011d
The past of which you lie is hard to document properly. But, exactly how is this current conversation a "drop in the Nazi bucket"? What exactly did I say that was even a little "nazi"?
replied 1011d
Still not getting it. I am successfully pinning YOUR racism back on you where it belongs. You are racist against white men. I am not at all a racist. You just use that word as a weapon
replied 1011d
That still doesn't make it a substitute for a vaccine. If you are afraid of taking a vaccine that's fine but don't tell other people that they just need a bullshit cure instead.
replied 1011d
Not once did I use the word cure in any of our exchanges.
replied 1011d
To be skeptical about this NEW medical science they are testing out on the public does not make one an anti-vaxer. Even the most qualified scientists & doctors don't know yet
replied 1011d
OK, I get tempted too often to explain why stupid claims are stupid, but even I will not try to explain how that post was dumb.
replied 1011d
Oh, and a functioning immune system will also detect dangerous things, it should not need some artificial untested voodoo addition, especially when cov19 is not a real danger.
replied 1011d
Yes, I understand the mechanics of immunizations. For all you know at this point, there's no immunity. hence the reports of other people contracting it after the jab.
replied 1011d
Your argument assumes vaccine safety, which there isn't. Ivermectin could be used as a until the trials finalize. We need to establish some clear points here if you want to continue.
replied 1011d
Ivermectin isn't POSSIBLY a life saver. It's saved many lives already. In places that allow it to be used, like Florida ect.
replied 1011d
Fine, let doctors use it as they see fit. It's still not a fucking vaccine substitute nor does it have anything to do with immunity or the prevention of viral spread. Stop conflating.
replied 1011d
The vaccines don't prevent spread, the manufacturers would love to draw that conclusion but can't yet. There's a reason certain things made available over the counter though.
replied 1011d
Last I heard, the "vaccines" were only tested for preventing symptoms. I think anything beyond that is wishful thinking. Also, preventing symptoms can mean suppressing immune system.
replied 1011d
Maybe I should clarify this ("immune system" part). A fever for example is almost always a response by your immune system, it is not directly caused by stuff that attacks your body.
replied 1011d
Suppressing this fever will remove a tool in the toolbox of the body, which makes it less efficient in doing its job, which in turn, on makes you more sick. A dangerous thing to do
replied 1011d
Exactly. Many doctors have expressed their concerns about that very issue for long term after vaccines. Especially for children
replied 1011d
Yes, that's right, the only thing that can actually fight this thing might very well be suppressed by the "vaccine". The complete opposite of what you want.
replied 1011d
I agree. There's no way to know long term effects either. This type of vaccine has never been done before. Suspicious that they're pushing them so hard....
replied 1011d
In Virginia they're giving away a free gun to people as an incentive to vaccinate
Odd
replied 1011d
To people with a brain, this is an obvious red flag. Just like the super heavy censorship of truth, the bullying of people who speak up and so on. It is ridiculous at this point.
replied 1011d
Sorry. I just wanted to put the info out there. It might save someone's life.
replied 1012d
My beliefs are irrelevant. Yes it's possible but stupid to develop hyper deadly viruses because they will kill everyone not just your enemy. There is no alternative to a vaccine.
replied 1011d
replied 1011d
Yeah like I said, anecdotes aren't data. Link even asserts that real study is needed. And symptom suppression didn't indicate immune response or reduction of transmissibility.
replied 1011d
Oh, there's data there, it's not an official study though, no argument on that front. That said, there's no formal study for vaccine efficacy, until 2023.
replied 1012d
Viruses require a vaccine to be protected from them. They are different from germ based diseases. You still don't understand the mechanisms that enable the body to defend against them.
replied 1011d
Sure I do. I earned my keep in medicine for several years and have a minor in it's study. Don't just make assumptions, you might learn something.
replied 1011d
Doesn't mean you know what your talking about. Lots of quack doctors saying stupid bullshit nonsense lately. Maybe you should have studied more. What I can see is that you're confused.
replied 1011d
Share some evidence to the contrary then. I'd love to see something concrete. For now, Ivermectin could potentially be cost effective and widely disbursed while trials are running.
replied 1012d
Cover up came in the form of betraying common sense. Culpability falls on Wuhan's (CCP's) institute of virology it leaked from and united states politicians buying remote meeting stock
replied 1012d
Neither of those are relevant to the fact that the developed vaccines are largely safe/effective and that miracle drugs aren't going to save us. You still can't explain how it works.
replied 1011d
Nobody can know that these "vaccines" are safe. There have been no long term studies. Understand this and you will understand that people like lightrider are just liars.
replied 1012d
2023 is when we'll have some idea of the vaccine's safety. I know I can take Ivermectin today and have the same reduction in severity with reduced potential for side effects.
replied 1012d
It's a replacement for a unproven vaccine. Health agencies for whole countries have approved it's use. Again, Ivermectin has a documented history of safe use with minimal side effects
replied 1012d
Not a replacement. Vaccine not "unproven". There has been no significant study or peer reviewed science on ivermectin. It's the HCQ narrative all over again. People want a miracle.
replied 1011d
Never claimed it was a miracle, but you get the same reduction in symptoms that the vaccines have shown to offer without having to utilize spike proteins. HCQ was used in the hospitals
replied 1012d
The feedback on efficacy comes from clinicians that specialize in respiratory care and cardiac health. Vaccines? Big pharma spokesman and people that couldn't be bothered to research..
replied 1012d
Again, anecdotes aren't data aren't studies. If you knew anything about medical science or virology you'd understand the difference. Virologists have been studying this/ready for years
replied 1011d
The studies on vaccine efficacy aren't through until 2023 at the earliest. Given the evidence, why do you think one is any better than the other?