I appreciation your admission of your limitations, but as you know I'm not asking for an assessment of drug safety or effectiveness. Now that evil goalie has graciously pointed the way and framed the argument, I'm asking if anyone is aware of how far drug safety has been pushed (we've known for years it safe) and the effectiveness of such doses. Again, thinking people....and if Campbell is right, it's a huge scandal.
Vaccine
- Thread starter Multi Sport
- Start date
p.s. by the same token I'm surprised you are finally admitting you have no opinion about masks because you aren't an engineer or infectious disease specialist.
Do we have to go back over five months of posts? Ivermectin has been shown to be effective against other afflictions at dosages that have been shown to have little effect on covid.
You mentioned earlier that you take advice from Joe Rogan. It shows.
a. Do we have to go back over five months of posts? There have been some studies that have shown effects on patients at the doses. Some of which have been cited by Campbell himself.
b. Evil Goalie did a good framing. The question is how far have they pushed the Ivermectin doses to determine safety v. efficiency.
c. I never said I too "advice" from Joe Rogan. It's one of the sources of media I take in, same as Scott Gottlieb who I also mentioned.
If you listen closely, I mostly defer to the people who do have those qualifications. The vast majority advise me to wear a mask, so I do.
What I don’t do is post a video of some guy with a can of WD40, and claim that it proves something about how respiratory diseases spread.
Isn't Joe Rogan leading the ivermectin crusade right now? Ask Aaron Rodgers.
Ah so you just trust the majority of experts even when there is a dissenting minority. Got it...you would have been a flat earther pre Renaissance. Nice.
We need to invent a new category in the meritocracy for you: a majoritarian meritocrat or something.
did I miss a meeting where they voted on the leader? Can I attend to observe? You have dets?
Well I'm biased, but San Diego is awesome. It is definitely not LA or Bay Area. LA has turned into a shithole and the Bay Area is a failed social experiment. We have a buffer called Camp Pendleton that separates us from a lot of lunacy. San Diego is chill compared to SF/LA/OC. San Diegans biggest concern is the weather. It varies by area but most people regardless of race and economics are generally moderate. I'd also say we're more culturally integrated than most cities. Mask, no mask it doesn't matter, we mind our own business. Very little of the nanny state crap you see in NoCal. Traffic is relatively light compared to LA and SF.
San Diego is not perfect but it has a lot to offer.
p.s. if the answer is "Ivermectin helps, but very little, at least at the doses safe for human consumption, so you are much better off taking the new pills (which for comparison sake because they are more targeted are x times as effective) or getting vaccinated (which for comparison sake is x times as effective in preventing severe illness)" that would have been a great clarification to have. Then maybe, armed with these facts, Gupta goes in and doesn't get his clocked cleaned by Rogan by focusing on horse dewormer because they are talking about actual data instead of scoring political points. Maybe then some thinking people say hey I should rethink this.
But that's not what the government did. The government chose not to funnel money to prioritize Ivermectin to get this answer (instead prioritizing money to big Pharma). What's more is the government has been slow walking or maybe even trying to obscure data that shows the vaccines aren't as effective (either against transmission or serious disease [the later at least in elderly and immunocompromised]) than originally thought.
What's worse is the same problem exists with the dialogue with masks. So you have people like the Atlantic writer going around thinking masks are this wonderful talisman that will protect them and then they get all disappointed when they catch something because they've been sitting for hours on a plane next to a sick person. And you have that wonderful statement by the CDC director that masks are 80% effective...if they are 80% effective why would anyone who is scared of the mRNA vaccines (Novavax having been slow walked) change their mind and take them given the data of declining effectiveness (whether due to Delta or time)....masks are better than vaccines!!!
The public health experts have done an awful job, and Campbell's right, whatever the data eventually holds, how they've handled this has been sheer idiocy.
Galileo was an accomplished scientist and mathematician. Chair of mathematics at one of the world’s major universities. A quarter century of major publications.
So far, I don’t see any anti-mask advocate with that kind of credibility. Closest you have are the BG declaration folks- but that text is more pro-opening than anti-mask.
What you have are unqualified nutters who think that, in order to be Galileo, all you need to do is disagree.
Bruddah IZ
DA
Debate #3: Should healthy health care workers (particularly young ones <40) be mandated to receive boosters? I would argue no; evidence that this strategy will protect their patients is absent, and moreover current rates of nosocomial transmission are already so low it will be hard to improve on. The argument it is needed to ensure a work force in the winter season is undermined by mandates which result in some people being fired (i.e. further lowering work force)
Debate #4: Should the AAP and CDC continue to recommend we mask 2-year olds against the World Health Organization advice? Uh… no. We have to finally admit we never had evidence for this policy.
Debate #5: Should schools continue to have masking mandates? The CDC should have tested this policy with cluster RCT, but already the day to sunset it has come. It should end promptly.
The qualifications in those days were found in the Holy Bible.
From what I'm hearing, apparently while you are not capable of reaching an independent conclusion on a variety of subjects based on the info the experts present, whether Ivermectin or masks, who are certain capable of determining who is an expert and who is a good expert that should be listened to and who is not, particularly if said person is in the majority.
Typical of the meritocracy.
Part of the problem with experts is they don't have full information. So the epidemiologist with masks may not have the background in child psychology, the environment, or engineering to make a valid recommendation. Same with shuttering schools. Experts are so siloed, if you want to make policy based on expertise, deferring to 1 individual aint a way to do it.
Are you still upset that you are inferior to the meritocracy (whatever that is in your head)?
Galileo did not disagree with the Pope about the world being round. He disagreed that it was the center of all creation.
This isn’t just one individual. It’s darn near all of them. Is there anyone of note who argues that the general public are better off without masks?
I’ll take any epidemiologist who has 2 decades of publications and a senior position at a major research institution. Is there even one qualified person who takes that position?
If you have no grey hair on your side, then you aren’t Galileo. You’re more like the creationists who want to “teach the controversy” about evolutionary biology.
Being qualified and being right are two separate things. The last two years of "expert" opinions certainly proves that point.
Sure. Europe and many pediatricians do not believe children should be masked. There’s disagreement over the age but us health experts are in the minority
vaccinating kids is another example
but you seem to default to us and blue state authorities. How’d you reach those conclusions?
Bruddah IZ
DA
Tyrants like to justify themselves as more than that. Their meritocracy is awarded by self. The self anointed, Sowell calls them.
General public. Not just pediatric.
Is there anyone qualified who argues that we would be better off if people like you and I did not wear masks?