jbluhm86

Seeing as how Robert E Lee and Stonewall were leaders of armies which fought an armed rebellion against the United States - the very definition of treason - Wendy's tweet is a prime example of needing to think about your tweet before sending it. But, as a Reds fan, the concept of a Reds-Guardians rivalry doesn't seem to have the same oomph as a Reds-Indians one.

Is there a bunch of nonsense of the same amplitude from the far right as there is from the far left? Absolutely. But, what do you make of the possibility that the MSM today is so far to the left, that anything remotely to the right of their position automatically gets chucked into the "Alt Right" bin?

"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth". - Exodus 20:4

WLWT News 5: The day 'Touchdown Jesus' was torched by lightning

Gore and the PMRC.

The Wall remains undefeated.

Should the Klan open a privately funded school? I think most people, including myself, would be appalled by the thought of it. Could they? Theoretically, I believe they can and have the right to do so, if they wish. Since private schools are not funded by the government, I think they have a far greater leeway on what they teach. Personally speaking, I despise CRT; I believe it's a mind cancer and I would not want any of my children being taught that tripe. But I also think the same thing about religious-based private schools teaching nonsense like Young Earth and Creationism. But, they too are not publicly funded by tax dollars, so all I can do is shug and say it's not for me. Privately funded schools are double-edged swords like that.

Here you go.

Btw, Dr Robert Malone, the scientist who invented the mRNA technology which is being used in the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, has come out and publicly questioned the safety of the vaccine, saying that the spike protein RNA being put in the mRNA vector of the vaccine is potentially dangerous and cytotoxic. So is the vaccine effective? More or less. But effectiveness isn't always coupled with safe.

I feel like you and I are having two different conversations, and I'm not quite sure where your hostility is coming from. In your comment that I replied to above, you said that pharmaceutical companies should be doing a bunch of research on generics like ivermectin and HCQ to test their effectiveness; I agreed and gave my opinion on why I believe that they are not, as it would affect their profit margins. Secondly, you asked me to provide a couple peer review studies which indicate the effectiveness of ivermectin in the treatment of Covid-19, which I did. Nowhere in anything that I provided did I state that generics are miracle drugs which would magically cure covid-19 overnight. You are correct that some studies showed inconclusive results, but there are others which showed a positive benefit which, logically, one would think warrant follow-up studies and larger clinical trials, which have conspicuously not happened. Finally, nowhere in anything I wrote did I "rag" on covid vaccines. I work for a company who's producing the vaccines and have received my two shots, so I have firsthand knowledge on them. By most accounts, they are a great benefit in helping the fight against covid. But, I'm also not blind in believing that they are 100% effective in treating people, nor do we know potential long term side effects from their use. Most medicines and vaccines are developed and tested for well over a decade before they are introduced and approved for public use; these vaccines went from research paper to needles-in-arms in less than a year. The fact that they are being used under emergency authorization by the FDA and the fact that pharma companies have limited to no liability for future effects coming from the usage of the vaccine is concerning. I believe that we need to fight the virus on multiple fronts and not just solely rely on experimental vaccines. This includes generics which have been through longer R&D phases, been on the market longer, and have a more clearly defined safety profile.

4-5 posts down on the first page. But I don't think discussing ivermectin is too far of an aside from hydroxychloroquine. It's still a conversation of the effectiveness of using inexpensive generic drugs in the treatment of covid-19.

Use of Ivermectin Is Associated With Lower Mortality in Hospitalized Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019: The Ivermectin in COVID Nineteen Study Role of ivermectin in the prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection among healthcare workers in India: A matched case-control study The effect of early treatment with ivermectin on viral load, symptoms and humoral response in patients with non-severe COVID-19: A pilot, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial A five-day course of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 may reduce the duration of illness Inhaled route and anti-inflammatory action of ivermectin: Do they hold promise in fighting against COVID-19? A COVID-19 prophylaxis? Lower incidence associated with prophylactic administration of ivermectin

And why should pharmaceutical companies be doing that? What incentives do they have to do that? They're getting billions in guarenteed money from governments across the world, with little to no liability on them, to make vaccines that net them 3-4x the money that making a generic $4 pill would make them. I don't understand why it's so hard for people these days to take off the rose-colored sunglasses and view the world how it actually is, and not how they want it to be. I'm sure that pharmaceutical companies do want to help people, but that isn't at the top of their list. Making money is. You have panicked governments across the world writing pharma companies damn near blank checks to make vaccines that may or may not be effective at stopping covid-19, yet you're expecting that pharma companies should be investing their own money on the side to see if a simple generic drug that costs a quarter of what they're already getting paid to make works? And, knowing all this, people still get all sceptical hippo eyes over the suggestion that pharma companies may be trying to bury the lead on ivermectin? I may have been born at night, but I wasn't born last night. I've been around the sun on this rock long enough to understand people and their motivations to make money.

You get what you pay for, man. At the end of the day, regardless of party affiliation, the buck stops with the electorate who puts these fools in office and keeps them in office.

The fact that covid-19 vaccines have been touted as a panacea that completely prevents getting sick shows the lack of scientific education in this country. The covid-19 vaccine is effective at preventing someone from dying of the virus, but much like other vaccines, it's not 100% effective. People get flu shots every year and still get sick from the flu and some still die. Vaccines are harm reduction, not impervious shields. That's why I think it's criminal that other drugs like ivermectin, which can be used in conjunction with vaccines and other treatments to prevent or reduce covid symptoms, is not being given more attention and funding for research.

To be fair, Republicans do the same thing all the time when they have majority in Congress and are wanting to put someone in the Supreme Court. Nominating and confirming Justices is the prerogative of whoever currently holds power in the Presidency and in Congress.

Vintage '86, homie. Viagra was a little after my time.

Look at it this way, Larry: the pharma companies producing the Covid-19 vaccine are charging anywhere from $4-$20 per dose; many of which require two doses to be effective. That's billions of dollars in profit that they're getting from just the US alone, not to mention the money they get from other countries around the world. The companies making the vaccine have little to no liability if their vaccine is ineffective or causes dangerous side effects, so they don't have to worry about accruing fines if their shit is bunk or harmful, unlike other medicines. And each companies' vaccine is under patent to them, which enhances their profits even more. So why would pharma companies be interested in doing clinical trials on an off-patent, generic drug that anyone can make and sells for significantly less than the vaccines that they're producing? There's little to no financial incentive for them to do so. That's also why the US and many other western countries are in a bind right now with having shortages of basic antibiotics and generic medicines: they make little to no money making them domestically, so they moved their production overseas to China where the low production costs there let them turn a profit. He'll, penicillin is one of the most basic and effective antibiotics ever discovered, and the last US company which made it domestically closed in 2004. Full disclosure: the company I work for is a contactor for one of the major pharma players making the Covid-19 vaccine, so I got to peak behind the curtain and can see how the sausage is made to a certain level.

Except that ivermectin is a generic drug that is off patent; it goes for roughly $4 a pill. Pharmaceutical companies are just like companies in any other industry; their goal is to make a profit. On-patent medicine sells for quite alot more than generic drugs, and can only be made by the pharma company that holds the patent and other companies that they contract out to. Faced with choosing between producing a generic medication for little profit and can be made by anyone, or, selling a medication that can bring in substantially more money and can only be made by the patent holder, what course of action do you think pharmaceutical companies would take? It wouldn't surprise me at all for pharma companies to try to suppress continued research and clinical trials into an off-patent generic drug. Btw, the fact that a medication starts out as veterinary drug is pretty inconsequential. Many drugs that are developed start out as such until clinical trials demonstrate their usefulness in treating humans. It happens all the time. And using a medicine to treat something that it wasn't originally designed for happens all the time too. Pfizer was a middle of the road pharma company in the 90s until they found out that their failed heart medicine was excellent for giving Baby Boomers erections, and now they're in the top 5 largest pharma companies in the world.

Here you go:

Foreign Affairs:America is not ready for a war with China - How to Get the Pentagon to Focus on the Real Threats

Although I've never been anti-vaccine, I never really thought to get them in my early 20s. Then, when I was 24, I came down with the flu which ended up progressing to full blown pneumonia, which laid me up in the hospital for 4 days. Now I get the flu vaccine every year. Do I still get the flu, even though I get the shot? Yes. But, it's never been bad enough to put me into the hospital again. Seems like a good trade off to me.

I mean, it's not like inheriting the best economy in human history and proceeding to flush it down the toilet and leaving future generations to clean up your mess, but, sure; chalk up an idiot Millennial winning the Darwin award for noshing on pre-work out sups and offing herself as a "W".