[__ Science __ ] Ivermectin used in New York Hospitals

[Barbarian]

The fact that the study is completely void of all foundational health or age of patients being compared one to the other , which you cannot dispute is the evidence .

Free just showed you otherwise. Why deny the obvious?

 

[7thMoon]

It lists the ingredients. You just didn't read very carefully.

What biologicals does it list?

As you learned earlier, there are no organisms in mRNA vaccines.

There isn't supposed to be DNA or biologicals in the vaccines, and moreover viruses in vaccines are plainly microorganism toxins. And since antibodies aren't used in the vax, I can only conclude that the goal is to reproduce antigens using bacteria.

 

[7thMoon]

And viruses affecting bacteria are called "phages" not "viruses."

Again, whatever.

No. Viruses exploit specific features of the cell surface to enter a bacterium.

That's because viruses tend to be RNA and DNA, and bacteria are very susceptible to reproducing and making them.

 

[Barbarian]

Again, whatever.

That's what your source said...
"Views and opinions expressed on The Ben Armstrong Show are solely those of the host and do not necessarily represent those of The New American. TNA is not responsible for, and does not verify the accuracy of, any information presented."

Dr. Malone: Vaccine Delivers Short Fragments of DNA

This show previously aired on 10/30/2023This bombshell news that the vax really does contain short fragments of DNA has some lawyers salivating. This could lead to proven fraud, and that the FDA was lied to. Lawsuits would then be allowed to go forward against Big Pharma.DISCLAIMER: Views and...

thenewamerican.com

They're peddling fairy tales and put that disclaimer at the bottom to avoid legal liability for lying. And it works because a lot of people lack the care to read carefully.

 

[7thMoon]

That's what your source said...
"Views and opinions expressed on The Ben Armstrong Show are solely those of the host and do not necessarily represent those of The New American. TNA is not responsible for, and does not verify the accuracy of, any information presented."

You are quoting real life.

 

[7thMoon]

They're peddling fairy tales and put that disclaimer at the bottom to avoid legal liability for lying. And it works because a lot of people lack the care to read carefully.

Cry me a river. They are defending their 2nd amendment rights with such a disclaimer.

 

[Barbarian]

Cry me a river. They are defending their 2nd amendment rights with such a disclaimer.

What does denying responsibility for peddling fake stories have to do with the 2nd Amendment?

That's because viruses tend to be RNA and DNA

What else would they be?

 

[7thMoon]

What does denying responsibility for peddling fake stories have to do with the 2nd Amendment?

They didn't say the stories are fake. It is a warning to understand them carefully.

What else would they be?

Fair enough.

 

[7thMoon]

What does denying responsibility for peddling fake stories have to do with the 2nd Amendment?

Oops, I meant the 1st amendment. erm, I apologize.

 

[Barbarian]

Oops, I meant the 1st amendment. erm, I apologize.

Although in the United States, truth is an absolute defense, the First Amendment provides no protection for libel or slander. Hence the guys peddling those stories put in a disclaimer to try to protect themselves from the consequences of lying about it.

 

[7thMoon]

Although in the United States, truth is an absolute defense, the First Amendment provides no protection for libel or slander. Hence the guys peddling those stories put in a disclaimer to try to protect themselves from the consequences of lying about it.

No, the disclaimer is in case they are mistaken. The liability is limited if the other party is guilty. No journalist or media corporation has sued the New American so far, because they know that they wouldn't win.

 

[1pet2_9]

3 pages later and I still fail to see the point of this thread. That points to me in the direction of disinformation, and not information.

I don't really care about trump, conspiracy theories, or anything. I see (and care) that there is a claim that Ivermectin was allowed in a hospital. Okay...is there truth to that? And if so, what evidence supports its use, and for what? I already know this claim that Ivermectin has few side effects is absurd, because I already know full and well what it does to my pets when I administer it to them every month--even at the right dose, and for the usual reason. It has side effects. Come on.

And I see all this talk about mRNA vaccines--which has nothing to do with Ivermectin. Again, disinformation.

 

[Barbarian]

I don't really care about trump, conspiracy theories, or anything.

So you're peddling them because you don't care?

I see (and care) that there is a claim that Ivermectin was allowed in a hospital.

For one thing it has authorized medical uses. Just not for COVID-19 infections. As you learned it doesn't work for that purpose.

New England Journal of Medicine

May 5, 2022
N Engl J Med 2022; 386:1721-1731
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2115869

Conclusions​

Treatment with ivermectin did not result in a lower incidence of medical admission to a hospital due to progression of Covid-19 or of prolonged emergency department observation among outpatients with an early diagnosis of Covid-19. (Funded by FastGrants and the Rainwater Charitable Foundation; TOGETHER ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04727424. opens in new tab.)

Your source?
A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency, and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact-checked on a per article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources.

• Overall, we rate Rumble Right Biased and Questionable based on the promotion of right-wing propaganda and conspiracy theories and false information, use of poor sources, and a lack of transparency.

Kinda says it all.

 

[Free]

You are quoting real life.

Barbarian is real life.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian is real life.

 

[7thMoon]

So you're peddling them because you don't care?

I can't help it, if you don't understand their sarcasm.

 

[7thMoon]

A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency, and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact-checked on a per article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources.

• Overall, we rate Rumble Right Biased and Questionable based on the promotion of right-wing propaganda and conspiracy theories and false information, use of poor sources, and a lack of transparency.

You don't read the other side's sources; thus, you have no claim in this matter.

 

[Barbarian]

You don't read the other side's sources;

If you don't read the other side's sources, you miss stuff. But I do check on things like that. As you learned, Rumble was peddling fake stories; that's why they put up a disclaimer to protect themselves from the consequences of their behavior.

thus, you have no claim in this matter.

Maybe you don't actually know what I know about immunology and infection...

 

[7thMoon]

If you don't read the other side's sources, you miss stuff. But I do check on things like that. As you learned, Rumble was peddling fake stories; that's why they put up a disclaimer to protect themselves from the consequences of their behavior.

You don't read both sides.

Maybe you don't actually know what I know about immunology and infection...

Or maybe you are not as smart as you think you are...

 

[Barbarian]

You don't read both sides.

Of course I do. How do you think I knew how unreliable Rumble is?

Maybe you don't actually know what I know about immunology and infection...

Or maybe you are not as smart as you think you are...

You're confusing intelligence and knowledge. How smart I might be, isn't what gives me the advantage here. It's a couple of decades studying and working in immunology that makes the difference.