Jackson Jambalaya

I'm currently taking, among other things, 13 3mg ivermectin tablets (no refill) per day for five days. Very regulated, prescription provided and monitored by M.D.

So, just go right ahead-on with your horse-dewormer bullshit hype, Kingfish. I suggest you look into Midol, yourself, and you KNOW what it's primary purpose was thirty years ago.

TRUST THE SCIENTISTS!!! (No, no, not these scientists, only the ones that get paid by pharmaceutical companies)

Thank you.

Here is an in-depth study on Ivermectin. It works on other RNA virus which Covid-19 is. It’s been around since the 70’s. Saved millions of people in Africa. Long long read.
https://ivmmeta.com/

Remember the AIDS epidemic. Guess who was around back them in the 80’s? You guessed it, Fauci. Remember the movie Dallas Buyers Club? Those AIDS victims had to go on the black market to buy the drugs they needed because the Govt. we’re convinced they k ew how to treat it and they weren’t changing their minds. Here is an interesting article on Dr. Death and how he was wrong then and the lies he told.
https://www.aier.org/article/fauci-was-duplicitous-on-the-aids-epidemic-too/

7:51 - I went to the website. No where do the authors of this site identify themselves. They claim to be scientists in the FAQ section but won't say who they are. They spent a lot of time on this site so what are they afraid of? On the other hand, anyone can put together a bunch of graphs and charts. Maybe it the ivermectin manufacturers?

8:24. This may help. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33227231/

@8:11am There were versions of "Dallas buyers clubs" all over the country, some gave out drugs that ended up being approved, some handed out bullshit that did nothing or harmed people.

There's a massive difference between HIV epidemic & Covid-19. People are flocking to "Dallas Buyers Clubs" for things like Ivermectin/HCQ that are dubiously efficacious when there is an extremely effective, proven, alternative. Trust me if there was an HIV vaccine at the time people that went to "Dallas Buyers clubs" would have flocked to it.

They sought out these unapproved treatments out of desperation, were seeking them out due to stupidity

Also article you linked is from Great Barrington people whose theories fell flat, at best. I'd take any take they have on Fauci with a grain of salt.

Doesn't matter. The massive gov't/media backed brainwashing of over half our country is complete. Our Vice Pres has even said they have a plan to protect the vaxxed. Lol, funny....I thought vaccines protect but now the moving Covid goalpost has hit a new low and seemingly the brainwashed can't see it. If you are vaxxed and are in fear of getting Covid and now the FLU season has strangely begun early..............please try to get your mind back so you can see what is really going on.

For all of those who want to bash those who remain skeptical of the vaccines, the science they cite, and the treatment options they choose, and instead want to hold up as absolute truth the positions taken by those who believe in the vaccines, trust the science and data provided by the CDC and governmental entities (despite corrections and changing/shifting positions because the government, regardless of which party is the majority has never been absolutely correct and has not been truthful with the citizenry), ask yourself one question:

What if your position is wrong?

For if you can't even begin to consider whether the "other side" may be right, then you shouldn't have to wonder who is intolerant

So damned what, 8:24. If they'd identified themselves at the end of every paragraph you'd simply huff and puff that "I ain't never heard of em" and you'd run long-legged into left with that one. Not just anybody can put charts together. Where are yours?

Get the Damn Shot People!

Watch the movie Contagion. It should a internet influencer toting a fake drug.

as soon as Trump reverses course on ivermectin, it will be "discovered" as efficacious

There's a massive difference between HIV epidemic & Covid-19.

Really? Both result in death.

The messenger shooters have arrived. Their sources good, your sources bad. Their opinions good, your opinions invalid.

@9:53am It's not that I see them as right or wrong, simply unfounded. The research on HCQ shows no efficacy, the research on Ivermectin shows little to no efficacy. For Ivermectin there are at least 2, that I'm aware of, large scale trials taking place. I don't hold out a lot of hope but I'm fully prepared to be wrong, in fact I hope I am.

Vaccines have seen tremendous distribution, we have over a year at this point of data on them, and months & months of large scale, large doesn't really quantify it properly, data on their efficacy/safety.

What you're comparing is Ivermectin, which has at best 2-3% efficacy in trials I've seen thus far, and vaccines which on the low end offer 40% protection from contraction, and immensely high protection against serious disease. This is not speculation, this is not "government science", literally everyone in the world is using them, the data is real. Unless you expect every single government in the entire world is in on some massive conspiracy.

tl;dr - Trying to compare the two positions is disingenuous at best.

No one is ever wrong in a group of narrcissist.

Ivermectin for covid = Laetrile for cancer?

DISCUSS!

September 13, 2021 at 9:05 AM wrote:
"8:24. This may help. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33227231/"

Help what, confuse people? This was done last year by some residents and they themselves said it was scant evidence from very few patients and far from definitive information. From the abstract:

"However, this should be inferred cautiously as the quality of evidence is very low. Currently, many clinical trials are on-going, and definitive evidence for repurposing this drug for COVID-19 patients will emerge only in the future."

And the "many clinical trials" are repeatedly showing that Ivermectin simply isn't an effective treatment for COVID-19. There have been several full-blown studies from around the world in the last month or two that all say that Ivermectin simply is not an effective treatment for COVID-19. It doesn't mean Ivermection isn't a wonderful drug for certain things but it does mean that it isn't a wonder drug for things well outside its pharmacologic application and range. And for those who won't accept that fact, it was and is perfectly legal for a doctor to prescribe it for "off-label" use in Mississippi. In proper dosage, it won't save you but it won't hurt most people - it just won't do anything at all.

The real problem is too much information being read by people who have no knowledge or context in anything remotely related to what they are reading. Pre-prints get put up all the time. Many are never printed, extensively edited, retracted, etc. Citing to pre-print repositories is exactly like citing the Internet Archive's "Wayback Machine" and claiming "it was on the 'net, so it MUST be true!" In this case, it doesn't appear these residents had any agenda but they were simply reporting some limited anecdotal information and being very clear about it all.

One thing to consider: those who would attempt to put forth such things to convince "the public" are asking you to put your faith in 3-4 medical residents and their uncontrolled purely anecdotal observations on a handful of patients over a year ago (and which they themselves said was of very low confidence) versus 1000s of doctors and scientists around the world on millions of patients over the last 18 months in tightly-controlled studies.

Forget COVID for a moment. If you went to your doctor three years ago because of chest pains (or a sprained ankle - whatever), and he or she said, "I just read this small, informal article that said an anti-parasitic (or raw ground chicken guts and cat litter - whatever) might help. Most doctors and scientists say it won't work and in the amounts the proponents claim is necessary, it is dangerous. But whaddya say, wanna give it a try?...," you would have immediately left and found a new, sane doctor. If some random idiot on the internet told you to ignore your doctor because they are part of some vast conspiracy and just go eat some livestock dewormer, you'd have ignored them as crazy or dangerous. But when you substitute "COVID-19" for any - any - other ailment or injury, you say to yourself, "I like the way you think! That is exactly what I'm gonna do!"

10:37 You wrote: "Vaccines have seen tremendous distribution, we have over a year at this point of data on them, and months & months of large scale, large doesn't really quantify it properly, data on their efficacy/SAFETY." (Emphasis added)

I'm fairly certain that, if asked, you'd also downplay the validity of the government-compiled Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) Otherwise, you'd be incapable of making the above claim.

While the "vaccines" appear to be fairly efficacious (at least at first), there's a strong case to be made that they're less than safe.......and in the long run, who knows? (It appears the mRNA component may be safe, but it's the protection/transport mechanism that seems to be so troublesome)

It's easy to see why a drug that's had a 40 year run, and 4 billion doses given, is so attractive vs a new, experimental drug that has no long-term data associated with it.

Wow. Weinstein and Heying's professional qualifications seem impeccable. I may ask for their medical opinions for a hangnail but not much else.

Joe has lots of other conspiracy theorists on all the time. Multiple people have used his platform to say NASA faked all of the moon landings.

Rogan is not a serious thinker, and he traffics in misinformation.

He's a BJJ black belt, and I love his fight commentary.

But he's not a serious thinker by any stretch.

"The striking thing to note, in the case of Dr. Weinstein, is how his reasoning shifts depending on whether ivermectin is being discussed or the mRNA COVID vaccines. Large, well-conducted mRNA trials are dismissed out of hand whereas anecdotes or wild speculation and false claims are elevated to the level of meaningful data. The role of systematic reviews and meta-analysis are overstated and misunderstood whereas false claims by misleading "experts" are passed off as evidence contradicting his earlier assertions regarding evidentiary hierarchies."

Yet another contrarian argument rather than science or facts. The fuel for conspiracy theorists nationwide.

If you, like Joe or Kim, saw dozens of people drop with brains splattered out by a sniper, and then got lucky enough to have a flesh wound, you'd be reviewing your cover and body armor and hoping for a counter sniper, not doubling down on quack cures and a pothead CTE podcaster for your medical advice.

But, fools rush in where angels fear to tread.

"... Dr. Weinstein..."

This is not universal but it does seem that a large number of people who cite to PhDs as "doctors" are the very same ones who make "she isn't REALLY a DOCTOR..." comments about Jill Biden. Weinstein isn't a medical doctor, he is a PhD with no substantive medical or virology education, training, or experience. More importantly, when he, ahem, got demonetized from YouTube, he claimed he was merely an entertainer and was not attempting to offer medical advice of any kind.

The simple fact is that while someone with an earned PhD is properly styled as "Dr." in many settings (I'll leave honorary degrees alone here), it is disingenuous to imply they are a medical doctor if discussing medicine, just as it would be to style an MD as "Dr." to imply a PhD in physics (or art history or...) if and when that MD offers opinions about subjects not related to the MD. That's why credentials in scientific writings are (properly) styled, "Fred Flintstone, PhD" or "Wilma Flintstone, MD" rather than "Dr. Fred Flintstone" (and no, not "Dr. Fred Flintstone, PhD/MD"). Just another of the long list of things that serious MDs and PhDs spot instantly to tell them either the person doing the citing doesn't know what they are talking about, or worse, the person offering the information cited is not to be taken seriously.

this whole ivermec thing stemmed from the fact that an ole boy had a case of the crabs, which ivermec will cure the hell out of, and had to explain to his wife why he was taking it. I feel a little stuffy honey. Think i got the rona. might was to take a little shot of this wormer to get rid of it.

Honestly, my single biggest concern about this whole shot issue has been just how hard the government has pushed the shot, while at the same time, done everything they could to silence any questions or discussion about it. It's almost universal how any questions or comments about the shot are immediately downplayed, marginalized, etc. by the shot proponents. That's a HUGE red flag to me. I can make up my own mind, but when information is hidden from me, I can't abide that.

@11:45am You said "I'm fairly certain that, if asked, you'd also downplay the validity of the government-compiled Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) Otherwise, you'd be incapable of making the above claim."

You do understand how this system works correct, and the weight that reports to it carry?

We're sitting at 7,439 deaths currently, well over 350 million doses have been administered. This is 0.002% (easily accessible data). Now if you understand how VAERS works you probably also understand that likely many of those deaths have 0% to do with the vaccination.

This is tremendously low, these vaccines are incredibly safe. Even if you're a loon & truly believe all 7500 deaths are directly related to vaccine (you understand nothing of VAERS) then that is still incredibly low compared to the death rate of the disease its treating. 7500 vs. 700,000.

2:25PM wrote:

"Honestly, my single biggest concern about this whole shot issue has been just how hard the government has pushed the shot, while at the same time, done everything they could to silence any questions or discussion about it. It's almost universal how any questions or comments about the shot are immediately downplayed, marginalized, etc. by the shot proponents."

On its face, a reasonable position. There has been a lot of changing information from doctors and the government but I can tell you that at least as far as the doctors, it is common with something like SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19. While much of the general science and medicine is long- and well-understood, the particulars were not early on.

Think of it like a knowledgeable and experienced mechanic who spent his life specializing in muscle cars of the 60s, but also generally kept up with developments in more-modern cars, including a fair familiarity with electronic diagnosis tools. He knows 90+% of what he would need to know to fix the "guts" of any car, from a 1965 Mustang or 1967 Firebird to a 2021 Lexus, Mercedes, or Porsche. No, he can't quote from memory the firing order of the Toyota XYZ123 engine like he can for a small-block GM or a 351C, but a quick look at a reference and he's good to go.

Well, that is broadly like a new virus. We know a lot about viruses and it doesn't take long to discover the particulars - but - in the early stages, all we have is "best info currently available." Combine that with the "internet age" in which any- and everyone can get the raw info and data, but only a comparative few know what it means contextually, add a bunch of people who don't understand it but still are twisting it for their own ends (political, financial, etc., and that includes both the Trump and Biden campaigns and candidates) and it is a recipe for, well, this disaster.

It isn't that doctors and scientists are trying to silence questions, it just that there aren't enough hours in the century to address everything, almost all of it from people who simply have no frame of reference for any of it. Plus, neither the medical/science side or the "public" side has any experience discussing such things with each other. Basically no one asks highly technical questions of their doctor (or mechanic or engineer or plumber or...).

(cont)

If you need cardiac surgery, you don't ask what instruments, techniques, etc. Do you care if a Debakey or a Cooley is used, and if so, why? Do you really want or could you even have a 2 or 3 hour knowledgeable, in-depth discussion - in med terms - about this:

"...11 patients with COA were identified to have inadequate collaterals based on preoperative examination and intraoperative arterial monitoring and test clamp. Left thoracotomy with left atrium-to-descending aorta CPB was used in all. Age ranged from 4.2 to 17.4 years...3 patients had four prior transcatheter balloon dilatations...had aberrant origin of the right subclavian artery. Operative techniques included resection with extended end-to-end anastomosis (n = 6), interposition graft (n = 4), and patch repair (n = 1)...Preoperative imaging of CPB patients demonstrated absence of collaterals (n = 7), possible collaterals (n = 2), small collaterals (n = 1), and anomalous origin of the right subclavian artery (n = 1). Preoperative arm leg gradient in CPB patients was 36.0 +/- 9.0 mm Hg versus 49.9 +/- 15 mm Hg in non-CPB patients (p < 0.01). Mean distal femoral artery pressure with aortic test clamp was 34.3 +/- 4.8 mm Hg in CPB patients versus 49.8 +/- 12.4 mm Hg in non-CPB patients (p < 0.01). Mean CPB flow was 53% +/- 7.3% of calculated total flow. Cardiopulmonary bypass time ranged from 17 to 46 minutes (mean, 27.5 +/- 9.7 minutes). Aortic clamp time in CPB patients ranged from 15 to 33 minutes (mean, 21.6 +/- 6.3 minutes)...There were no other major complications in the CPB group (eg, bleeding, recurrent laryngeal nerve injury, re-COA)." Just snippets from the _abstract_ of a random article on pediatric coarctation repair I happened to grab.

It isn't that doctors don't want you to have information nor that you aren't "smart" enough to handle it, there just isn't anything remotely approaching a common language and mutual basis of understanding from which we can have a meaningful discussion about the minutiae of it all. If it makes you feel any better, lots of doctors have overpaid to have new Bavett flanges and Connuter valves installed on their vehicles.

11:59 : Joe is a multi millionaire with one of the highest ranked podcast of all time. Seems to be thinking pretty good to me pahtna.

@3:27 you actually believe that there are only 7,439 deaths reported to VAERS? How many adverse events have been reported? Have you not seen the numerous reports where deaths and adverse reactions have been logged only to be removed? The longer we go with multitudes fully vaccinated, the more we see issues with blood clots, heart conditions, and other ailments that people did not have BEFORE the vaccination. You may say it isn't due to the vaccine. But you probably also believe that 2+2=5.

@10:14am Ok, so a few things here.

1. "Have you not seen the numerous reports where deaths and adverse reactions have been logged only to be removed?"
Are you talking about the foreign deaths that were removed because that's not something we track? Or are you saying doctors are claiming their reports are being removed? I would love to see the source on this if it's the second, the first is well known & not at all concerning.

2. "The longer we go with multitudes fully vaccinated, the more we see issues with blood clots, heart conditions, and other ailments that people did not have BEFORE the vaccination."

You mean the more people that get vaccinated the more we will see adverse side effects? This is well known & expected. Vaccines have side-effects, most in the 1-5/1,000,000 range. So yes, as we see more vaccinations the more side effects we will see. Thankfully most of these are mild, unfortunately some are not. However, all of these side effects you've listed result far more often from serious covid infections than they do from vaccines.

3. "You may say it isn't due to the vaccine. But you probably also believe that 2+2=5" This ones a bit more petty than the rest but I'll respond all the same.

When you understand how things work, how they truly work, 2+2=4, when you don't it's far easier for people to muddy your perception & convince you that 2+2=5. In this case the VAERS system is an extremely well known entity established in the 90's (somewhat in late 80's)

The VAERS system has a lot of limitations, due to the nature of reporting systems like VAERS, there are 100% issues with underreporting, false reports, etc. but generally speaking the # of deaths reported are going to be larger than the actual vaccine related deaths. When you inoculate billions of people inevitably you're going to run into people that were just going to die one way or another for hundreds of different reasons totally unrelated to the vaccination.

I am selling aluminum foil, looking at the comments from this crowd I should have a banner sales day!

BTW, the Democrats are not coming for your guns either.

"I am selling aluminum foil..."

Fuck plastics, Benjamin. That's the future...and it is here today.