Those numbers are skewed because of higher infant mortality in the 1920s.


100 years from now we won't be seeing productive 90 year olds as we see productive 65 year olds today. Just won't happen biologically.


So you are wrong about that unfortunately.

LOL

Go and get some counselling dude. You've got some major anger management issues. It's not good for you.

you'd think they might dump their collective mental resources into a 10 year old antiviral that was specifically developed in the search for treatments of previous coronavirus outbreaks that is intentionally being withheld from further trials by a pharma giant instead of diving head first into a compound that doesn't seem to work that just ends up giving merck free money.

butnah.

stop being a lying piece of **** and my anger issues go away you ****ing ******.

I've been following Brazil's numbers for over a year. They appear to be turning a corner. It's not India or China where the numbers are a flat out lie. Yes they do less testing, but their numbers were obv huge and have been declining steadily for well over a month now

Monteroy,

I always find your posts interesting, if not always accurate, so I took a look.

Here's the quote pulled verbatim directly from your link:

Kind of looks like what was quoted here earlier:

Sure looks like the actual quote?

Yeah, Moneteroy is an habitual liar and a troll.

Why he's allowed to continually troll this thread I have no idea.

Yeah it just keeps coming up over and over. There is an attempt to shape a narrative so that people are justified in hating each other. People love feeling righteous as they act like a miserable hater. Interestingly enough Dawkins described a lot of whats going on with memetics which are like an idea virus.

The actual size of the issue in people buying livestock ivermectin on the internet is miniscule but look at how we've seen the narrative and fake stories grow and get re-shaped (fake news) in to the justification of hatred

CNN green lighting children (aka young experts on science and liberty) expressing righteous hatred. The same organization who portrayed a smirking kid in a maga hat as a racist with a punchable face while being harassed by a life loser with meth mouth





hundreds of thousands of seconds imo

I'm not a fan of tight moderation but when you're this r-tarded you deserve a brief time out to reflect on just how consistently awful your posting has been


What's interesting is the same cast of dolts parroting the transparently idiotic narratives being spoon fed to them about ivermectin are the same dolts that are still in fantasy world about a trump interview that occurred on video. You actually have to live in your own reality to come up with all these wacky interpretations and narratives

Its like watching jerry springer and seeing the failures in life reflexively spring in to fight-mode when they ring the bell. They don't actually think, they let other people do that for them

HE SPLICED MULTIPLE QUOTES TOGETHER FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF BEING A DISINGENUOUS ****.

EASILY.

VERIFIABLE.

FACTS.

Can you please show me the splicing of quotes and compare them with what was actually said? Apparently I'm missing something.

you quoted the quote in your post and said "This literally did not happen". Then when I fact checked using Monteroy's link the quote in question was right there in black and white.

YOU LITERALLY FAILED TO READ WHAT I ****ING WROTE YOU WORTHLESS WASTE OF ****ING LIFE.

HE SPLICED TWO ****ING QUOTES TOGETHER FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF MISLEADING OTHER PEOPLE.

YOU TOOK HIS ****ING BAIT YOU WORTHLESS IDIOT.

WHAT THE **** IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE.

EASILY.

VERIFIABLE.

FACTS.

is a spliced pair of statements.

Yeah, looking back it is different from Rick's abbreviated quote to Bobby's transcript. It really doesn't change the meaning at all though since it just omits some additional rambling in the middle.

Whatever, there's plenty of dumb **** Trump said that I'm not quite sure why your so worked up over a shortened quote.

Carry on

The actual mis-quote was given by that poster was not either of the ones you listed. It was

Trump: "There were very fine people on both sides, & I'm not talking about the Neo-nazis and white supremacists because they should be condemned totally."

Well, Trump is always a verbal mess, but the mis-quote as presented as real does give a different message as well as it makes it seem much more forceful of how Trump "condemns" the white supremacists. He did that later in a second answer and it was amid a lot of Trump style waffling he does to say something but not overly mean it, so it is fair to say the mis-quote can be interpreted differently than how it was actually said. His latest one was when he got booed when saying the crowd should probably take the vaccine and then immediately stressed how much he respected and loved their freedom to choose. I guess I did not look at that whole package as a PSA for vaccination. Perhaps you did.

No idea why that one guy (who I think is pitching a different cure) is going so nuts or why you, the vitamin D kid and Joan Valdez cared so much about my post. I simply said it was a mis-quote (which it was) and posted a link to the actual transcript. I never really cared too much about this as a debate point because to me it was standard Trump behavior.



Life expectancy of 1 year olds is approaching 20 years higher today than it was then, and you would have to go back to the mid 1800s to see the life expectancy of 1 year olds to see the 60+ crowd in 1920. Seriously, the retirement age in 1920 was not 65.


I know you are your biggest supporter of your theory, but your expertise seems to be based on a quick chat you had with a buddy once. Granted lots of people are popping medications these days based on similar input, but for now I do not put a massive amount of weight on it, though odds are we will not be able to see who is right in the end.

I see you still have not filled in the details of your theory by saying at which age a human, in your opinion, ceases to be of value to society, and what your suggestion would be with humans that reach that age. Why are you so afraid to provide the details behind this theory of yours that you share with such pride.

Tien, I am not attacking you with this. Just pointing out that you should not speak on a topic like this as if absolute fact.

You are entitled to have a strong BELIEF and saying 'as a betting man, I would bet it won't happen' is fine but as soon as you state it as fact you are the one who is wrong.


Do you understand evolution HAS figured out aging and immortality already?

No that does not mean science will be able to decode it and even if they do that they will be able to apply it to mankind but it is certainly within the realm of feasibility.

We have reached our life spans in this multi thousand year time period. Its capped at this point in time and foreseeable future.

If we evolve to look and feel like 20 years old by the time we hit 50 it will take tens of thousands of years of evolution to do so, where the humans that live the longest are the ones breeding.

The only thing that can change that is gene manipulation like the movie Gattaca. Maybe thats not too far away but its quite unethical. Where rich countries with gene technology are creating super humans before birth.

Well, good chance there will be developments in general health that do not involve science fiction from a while ago. Things usually play out differently and more organically.

Anyway, you still have not stated the details of your theory, one in which you are extremely proud given how often you quote yourself. At what age do you believe currently a human ceases to be of value to society and what should society do about it when a human reaches that age. These should be easy questions for you to answer in a direct manner given how much you believe in yourself in this general topic and your take on it.

There's huge mistake people make about how things change. It's mostly gradual but with leaps that are profound.

So far we live longer because of a reduction in infant mortality and basically watering/sheltering people. At some point and it's likely to be soon, science will tackle aging and that's not people living to be very old it's people not getting old at such a fast rate. So it wont be a smoothish increase in how long people live as old people, there will be a jump where we simply dont age anywhere near as fast (if at all)*.

It's similar to AI/automation where some cling to the idea that new jobs are created as the old jobs are automated. That ends as we enter the age of automating basic human abilites as then the AI/automation can increasingly adapt to do the new jobs faster than humans can.


*Have to mention my copyrighted Brain Modelling Disorder that will be discovered shortly after

God i really hate people who speak like you do.

it is such tragic hubris and arrogance of "this makes sense to me and therefore nothing else is probable or possible".

Nothing personal but you should work on that. Nothing wrong with saying 'I am pretty sure' or 'as a betting man I would bet...', but stating what you do as if factual just means you do not understand what a fact is nor how the scientific process works.

Again even if you bet (and turn out to be right), no amount of results based thinking would make your statements less wrong.

This is one of the most fundamental errors people continually make where they allow their confidence in an outcome to convince themselves they have facts on their side when they have no such thing.

Questions with the end mind to troll don't deserve responses that's why.


Remember, you are only taking a break here to post zero value responses (in your own words) while you print millions on bonus whoring strategies.

Good post and agreed.

Gene editing which can be done now using Crispr technology will almost certainly lead to extension in life spans simply by eliminating pre birth, many of the diseases that tend to be the main ones, that take people out as they age.

We already had one Chinese scientist jailed for venturing into this (thus far) taboo area, and there is no putting that Pandora back in the box. It will happen again and become a mainstay of the BlackMarket medical market, imo.


I also think they will develop many tweaks that will have the physical effects of slowing aging.

I hope this gets you all excited for the future as BC's Vaccine Passport Digital Card is in and here is available now and here is mine just downloaded minus of course the personal identifying info, I removed.

How is it misleading? It's literally the same paragraph and he points out the very fine people he's talking about aren't the neo-nazis or white supremacists.

Man you are mad dude. Here I fixed the quote for you.

Trump: "There were very fine people on both sides... & I'm not talking about the Neo-nazis and white supremacists because they should be condemned totally."



Biden's initial campaign announcement was based on a lie. Doesn't give the whole quote, just a snippet. But I'm the one trying to mislead people? Lol gtfoh liar. Keep drinking that corporate media kool-aid you nincompoop.

For those of you with Cuepee on ignore.