One odd trend in this thread among the regs (other than not being able to name another poster who qualifies as a good poster) is the pattern of claims like "anyone reading this can see it is crystal clear" when nobody else supports what is apparently "crystal clear."

How about this - what other posters do you think would consider you a good and productive contributor within this thread?

caveat that i haven't watched all that much media coverage on the ivermectin craze, and only initially heard about it by word of mouth.

seems like people are buying the animal meds and then dosing at the recommended dose for a 1000 pound horse. dosing between species is incredibly variable, as some things can be tolerated by cats in large doses but only in small doses in humans. the research that has already been done on ivermectin for covid clearly shows that the needed concentration for any sort of antiviral activity is higher than a safe dose for humans. none of the people taking it could be bothered to realize this however, and now there are ERs across the country that have to deal with idiot overdose patients.

honestly random drugs having unintended positive properties aren't all that rare. doxycycline has some antiviral properties even though it's an antibiotic, and has been shown to affect a number of coronaviruses. the problem is in almost all cases those properties aren't better than other drugs already on the market. its completely worthwhile to investigate safe drugs to find unintended properties, but when the medicine then tells you that those properties only exist at concentrations that are unsafe, you need to not overdose on a ****ing dewormer.

you want a drug that works? try GS-441524. it's the active compound of the prodrug remdesivir, is tolerated in INCREDIBLY high doses in humans and animals (as opposed to remdesivir itself, which has bad cytotoxicity values and has consistently been underdosed in hospital settings), has broad anti-corona activity that has already been in the literature for around a decade, and best of all, there is a literal big pharma conspiracy by the higher ups at gilead sciences to not pursue it because the patent runs out a few years sooner than remdesivir. get your hands on some of that when you get the sniffles and i can guarantee you won't be sick for long.

i see a lot of people arguing what things are masculine traits or feminine traits, but he's the first one i've ever seen to make it straight up dickishness vs kindness.

The bolded is obviously absurd fiction but if you're incapable of embarrassment, why not double down?
I can literally explain to you that your whole schtick has been idiotic spin and then spell it out to you and it still flies completely over your head. Point by point, topic by topic, post by post. You're in your own reality

"Tell us again how your political views make you more masculine."

There's you missing the entire point and proudly not understanding anything again. As if it wasn't intuitive to anyone with social skills better than a robot, your political views don't make you masculine

Your temperament and personality is largely heritable. It shapes your beliefs values, world view, and politics. People with social skills and pattern recognition grasp this without even thinking about it. Like you called me an archetypal "knuckle dragger" referencing a type of person, most normal people have noticed the temperamentally feminine men in the emotional state of a teenager making up the woke community. Their politics and beliefs are downstream of their personality profile

I just explained to you and showed you the further left you go on the political spectrum the more temperamentally feminine qualities grow. This isn't one study or some obscure theory. Political tests along with big 5 personality tests have been conducted in the sample size of millions. You can predict peoples political belief with their personality. As was just flown over your head, as you move further to the left you get higher instances of reported mental illness. In that group of mentally unwell you get elevated traits of neuroticism and agreeableness, which, magic, also happen to be two of the greatest differences between men and women. Anyone capable of connecting basic dots can see the far left men have feminine personalities. But something something the appearance of laura ingraham shapes my entire worldview. bravo

I'm sure you'll screw all of this up and get it backwards. Have fun

Also did you or did you not just join the all star cast of mountroy and shuffle who said they were quitting the thread only to waterboard everyone again? I may be a genius but my memory isn't photographic

You did not explain anything, you ham-fistedly made some statements that only shows how bad you are at establishing a hypothesis via argumentation.

All I have done since then is mock you for it.

The above is just more of the same.

Any argument that references the masculinity of newsreaders, which you absolutely did, however much you want to hand wave it away, is looooooool, moron. That is the highlight of your terrible exegeses but its all in the same ballpark.

So a dose of ~0.2-0.6mg/kg is higher than a safe dose? Because that's what's generally recommended by actual doctors using this on patients.

Do you have a source for your claim?

Your entire line of insult boils down to 'feminine bad' 'masculine good', 'nah nah you guys are feminine just like the CNN anchors' while elevating the masculinity of the female Fox hosts.

You can deny your clear incel leanings but you can't hide them.

Overdoses from anti-parasite drug ivermectin overwhelm rural Oklahoma hospitals - leaving gunshot victims waiting for emergency rooms

- Hospitals in rural southeast Oklahoma are struggling with a surge of ivermectin overdose patients

- So many patients are coming in with overdoses of the horse-grade medicine that other serious injuries - like gunshot wounds - have to wait

- Ivermectin is FDA approved for human use fighting some parasite-related conditions, but has not demonstrated that it can fight viruses in humans

- Many are purchasing versions of the drug meant for horses and other large animals, where doses are dangerous for humans

i don't need one, as the highest approved dose by the FDA is 200ug/kg based on their own review of the safety parameters. if you want to argue that the FDA is being overly cautious, you are the one that needs to show research.

hey let's not be too hasty, he might not be an incel. he might just be a garden variety old school bigot.

Lol. What a clown.

Demands others show research and provides none to back up his own claims.

Here's some research for you.

So it's completely safe in the correct (human) formulation/dosages and is proven effective against covid in multiple studies. See below.

44 peer reviewed studies, 31 randomized trials, all the source docs.

https://ivmmeta.com/

Simple google searches of reviews of that website that tells you everything you want to believe reveals it for what it really is. Still, feel free to take that drug for anything you like if that is what you prefer. No difference to anyone else unless you overdose and take up a spot in the ER that someone else needed.

no, that's how the world works. i don't need to post studies that show normal humans have two kidneys, hydrogen atoms have one electron, and the sun runs on fusion. these are called easily verifiable facts and citations are not needed. similarly, i don't need to cite the fact that the FDA has established the maximum safe dose of ivermectin at 200ug/kg. just because you don't know an easily verifiable fact doesn't mean other people need to source it for you. as the person trying to argue against an easily verifiable fact, you are the one that has to provide the contrary research. that onus is solely on you.

yes, fully agree. ivermectin is a great dewormer and is a staple in modern medicine. i have never claimed anything otherwise. wonderful drug.

at doses higher than the FDA approved safe dosage in in vitro studies. because of this, you need to do two things: prove the FDA wrong by citing studies that show ivermectin has a higher safety limit and provide in vivo studies showing similar results to the in vitro studies.

i'm familiar with this website and have grazed over it a few times and haven't been super impressed, but have at least been intrigued. many of the cited papers have problems with sample size, heterogeneity, peer review, and confirmation bias.

there are currently legitimate studies underway on ivermectin and covid, but the data now is not great as of now. maybe that will change, maybe it won't, but the current hysteria over this drug is insane.

jump on the GS-441524 bandwagon, you'll find there's a lot more data backing that one up.

I actually don't understand why we treat the ivermectin hospitalizations. Seems -EV for the world as a whole. There should be a "denied" stamp they can get when it comes up.

This denied stamp, maybe not a stamp, you speak of is coming for more than this, give it at least a year

Nah, not in countries with socialized medicine as easily as you want to fulfill your Shuffle lite doom predictions.

Now in the USA#1 where medicine is a business - that may very well be a different story if (or when) insurance companies stop paying for Covid treatments for un-vaccinated people. The irony is that most American anti-vaxxers would hate to have any form of socialized medicine, so it will be interesting to see the reactions when their choices cause insurance companies to look at their actuarial tables and go - nah, we aint paying anymore starting on this date.

I am not sure if this scenario quite fills your government overlording doom type thing as its simply an insurance business making changes as needed, much like how car insurance companies charge different rates for people depending on their driving record, where they live etc. How can US health insurance companies not look at unvaccinated people (perhaps with adjustments based on age) as a horribe investment going forward. Guess it is already starting (kind of)

https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberth...h=6c5a9552bd9a

Monte I'm not a doomsdayer. And I'm in the fortunate position of barely giving ashit abt what happens as long as I can fly. I have a lockdown proof career and in a couple weeks I'll be on an isolated beach as Ontario prepares for its next lockdown

Went from 2 weeks to flatten the curve to vaccines required to dine in. If you think this is the end of the trajectory then good for you. As long as the unvaccinated continue to perpetuate this then things will escalate, not stay the same

Well, you predict Ontario will go into another general lockdown in the near future. I predict they will not (barring a new crazy variant that makes vaccines useless). I know how I have done with predictions on 2+2, so guess we will see if history repeats itself. I did well when I followed my general strategy last month in predicting the opposite of Shuffle when he said the markets would collapse in August, but I am the first to admit that is hardly a earth changing approach, despite how correct it tends to be.

Do I think un-vaccinated will face a bunch of obstacles (outside their curious choice to go for the natural form of inoculation)? Sure, and as I mentioned in an earlier post - it will be mainly un-vaccinated that will get hit by hospital bills in the USA as their insurance companies alter what they cover. Un-vaccinated are bad business, so I can definitely see it getting Orwellian for them in a sense, and while they will create some interesting beliefs as they ingest their horse paste (or whatever the next non-vaccine miracle cure will be) - I do not see the whole society shutting down for their benefit.

I was going to post proper links showing how bad that site was and the studies it quoted, but will just quote the above and say, spot on.

Oh well, at worst I'll be worm free. So it's not all bad.

Technically he is obese.

The thing is this is exactly how free market capitalist think it should work and it does work. The market will price the cost of not getting vaccinated and people will decide accordingly.

Socialised solutions are politically far superior imo but there's pros and cons of both.

I suspect many of the unvaccinated Americans will not casually say "yeah this is how it works and should work" when they get a huge hospital bill. Add to that that most will not bother thinking about it until it is too late because they trust their immune system or are self medicating or whatever.

I get what you are saying in a theoretical sense, but in reality it will play out like the Mike Tyson quote of "Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the mouth."

https://twitter.com/albertbourla/sta...168558081?s=21

Hopefully this gets approved and works well because it’s really needed.