danthewolf00
Veteran Expediter
Don't know what William Shatner (james t. Kirk) has been doing but at the ripe age of 90 he went into space and lived to talk about it.....
C19 Topics
- Thread starter muttly
- Start date
Hey did anyone see the CNN medical “expert” with letters after his name get schooled by Joe Rogan about Ivermectin and CNN lies about it?
Gupta didn’t even ask CNN why they lied about it.
“Experts”. Lol.
Here is the video. I found it on Twitter. That is why I’m linking it from there.
Warning: harsh language
Gupta didn’t even ask CNN why they lied about it.
“Experts”. Lol.
Here is the video. I found it on Twitter. That is why I’m linking it from there.
Warning: harsh language
Last edited:
That's true. It's also true that tobacco and alcohol shortens millions of lives and degrades the quaility of life for millions more. For every George Burns story, there are thousands if not millions of other stories involving suffering and early death.
I notice you do not have letters after your name. Does that make you the real expert? Does that make you the one to whom people should turn to learn the real truth about COVID-19?
A few months ago, I was at a car dealership service counter and an unmasked, loud-talking customer there said she had just tested positive for COVID-19. As she left, presumably to continue her day out and about, she said, "They told me to stay home for ten days. They don't know what they're talking about." Are people like her the real experts we should listen to?
In today's ongoing COVID-19 discussions, it is common to see people disagree who have letters or titles after their names (MD, PhD, DO, Board-Certified this, Department Head that, etc.)
Does the fact that two experts disagree neutralize the opinions of both? Does such a disagreement give lay people leave to dismiss anything an expert says and choose instead to believe what one wants, without regard to the facts?
You seem to take great pleasure in dismissing or otherwise downing the experts. If you're going to do that, how do you decide what to believe? Do you have a process or do you just go with your gut?
If someone at a truck stop announces in the hearing of others that his truck is making a funny noise, opinions will immediately be offered about what it is and what that driver should do. Another option is to post the issue on social media and hear more opinions there. Is that driver wise to pick one of the lunch counter or Facebook opinions offered and act on that, or is he wiser to consult an expert mechanic to help determine his response to the noise?
Last edited:
The point is, the real experts, with letters after their names and everything, can't agree on the scientific basics and have allowed the science to become politicized. The real experts with letters after their names have reduced their own credibility to precisely that of the woman at the dealership.
Credibility is in the eye of the beholder. I find it helpful to recognize that COVID-19 is a medical issue, social issue and political issue. And I find it helpful to note that just because someone has letters after one's name, or has a big name, he or she in not necessarily a bona fide expert in the topic being discussed (See: epistemic trespassing).
I also find it helpful to get very clear in advance about the question you are asking. Is it a medical, social or political question? That gives you a good idea of where to seek your expertise. If you're trying to answer a political question or make a political assertion, a professional politician or political operative would be a good person to consult. If it's a pandemic question, a bona fide epidemiologist would be good to listen to. If it's about my symptoms, my MD is probably best.
Booster shots for the Moderna vaccines have just been approved. Should I get one, and if so, when? Where do I go to get that answer; CNN? OAN? EO? CDC? WebMD? My MD? FDA? Somewhere else? How do I decide?
Booster shots for the Moderna vaccines have just been approved. Is this yet another example of Big Pharma putting profits first? Where do I go to get that answer? CNN? OAN? EO? CDC? WebMD? My MD? FDA? Somewhere else? How do I decide?
Booster shots for the Moderna vaccines have just been approved. Is it fair for people in rich countries to get these shots when others in poor countries have yet to be vaccinated at all? Where do I go to get that answer? CNN? OAN? EO? CDC? WebMD? My MD? FDA? Somewhere else? How do I decide?
Last edited:
A contagious virus is neither political nor social, unless you allow it to be. It's biological and medical. The virus and its biology is not going to be affected by any political or social advice you get. I wouldn't recommend getting covid-19 advice from biased news outlets, which is all of them, because they have their own particular slants and narratives they want to push. Even if the news outlet is playing it straight with no bias, you have scientific experts in the field who can't agree amongst themselves on advice, treatment or the interpretations of the data, so now you've got a non-scientific journalist's giving you their interpretation of already dubious interpretations.
Like my primary care physician said, just follow the numbers, they'll tell you what to do. If 99% of the people in hospitals with covid are unvaccinated, you should strongly consider getting vaccinated. If booster shots are reducing the number of breakthrough infections and/or the severity of symptoms, you should probably consider getting a booster. Opinions and advice from politicians or from social cues aren't needed, or, frankly, helpful if they contradict the numbers.
As for fairness, fairness doesn't really exist. It's largely an illusion. Who gets to decide what is fair? Often large numbers of people will agree to what is fair or not, but in the end its just someone's opinion. Life itself isn't fair, never has been and it never will be, despite the various attempts to make it fair. Whenever something is altered to mature or fair, someone loses. That's not fair.
Like my primary care physician said, just follow the numbers, they'll tell you what to do. If 99% of the people in hospitals with covid are unvaccinated, you should strongly consider getting vaccinated. If booster shots are reducing the number of breakthrough infections and/or the severity of symptoms, you should probably consider getting a booster. Opinions and advice from politicians or from social cues aren't needed, or, frankly, helpful if they contradict the numbers.
As for fairness, fairness doesn't really exist. It's largely an illusion. Who gets to decide what is fair? Often large numbers of people will agree to what is fair or not, but in the end its just someone's opinion. Life itself isn't fair, never has been and it never will be, despite the various attempts to make it fair. Whenever something is altered to mature or fair, someone loses. That's not fair.
CNN ran with revenue enhancement, apparently ignored the fact that invention of Ivermectin , won a Nobel
www.nobelprize.org
I feel like that revenue enhanced news is nearly impossible to avoid
The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2015
The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2015 was divided, one half jointly to William C. Campbell and Satoshi Ōmura "for their discoveries concerning a novel therapy against infections caused by roundworm parasites" and the other half to Tu Youyou "for her discoveries concerning a novel...
www.nobelprize.org
I feel like that revenue enhanced news is nearly impossible to avoid
Last edited:
Ivermectin is a human drug that is prescribed for millions of people around the world every day, and is also sometimes prescribed for horses and other animals. The same is true of Tramadol, amoxicillin, and prednisone.
Gupta MD was asked at least three times about CNN lying about ivermectin and he squirmed in his chair, blushed, deflected by referencing a goofy FDA tweet, tried to change the subject. He did everything but get in the fetal position and suck his thumb instead of answering until he finally did. And this was after admitting that he didn’t ask CNN why they would mislead people about a medicine. I don’t regard myself as an expert, nor do I proclaim to be. But many look to Gupta MD to provide honest opinion on medical information. This video illustrated how a person with letters after their name may be compromised into not being totally forthcoming about useful medical information and to dispel erroneous medical information that the “news” outlet reported. I get it. Gupta MD is payed a lot of money by his employer CNN to give his medical opinions. He understands who butters his bread. And so he danced around answering the question and thus putting the company that pays him in a bad light.
People with letters after their name can be compromised by monetary or other incentives just like anyone else.
They lie so much they lose track of their own lies.CNN ran with revenue enhancement, apparently ignored the fact that invention of Ivermectin , won a Nobel
The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2015
The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2015 was divided, one half jointly to William C. Campbell and Satoshi Ōmura "for their discoveries concerning a novel therapy against infections caused by roundworm parasites" and the other half to Tu Youyou "for her discoveries concerning a novel...
I feel like that revenue enhanced news is nearly impossible to avoid
Correct, but people's responses to the virus are both political and social. Thus the political and social COVID-19 issues.
Agreed
Agreed
That's true. The danger from ivermectin and the thing that is sending people to poison control centers is they don't know what you know about this drug. They don't understand the dosage difference for humans and horses. They don't understand that the other stuff that is in ivermectin medicine for horses is toxic to humans. Somehow, somewhere, they get the idea that it's OK for them to take ivermectin for horses and that does not turn out well.
Also, ivermectin for humans, administered in doses and formulations designed for humans, is a drug used as a treatment for parasitic worms, head lice and certain skin conditions. While quacks are claiming ivermectin is the cure for COVID-19, and while research is being done, it has not yet been determined that ivermectin is an effective COVID-10 treatment.
Last edited:
Because of how Ivermectin works (in preventing foreign organisms in the body from replicating) it's likely to be, at least in theory, somewhat effective for COVID. That's why someone thought of trying it out to see if it was any benefit. Turns out it works quite well in some individuals, and not so much in others, so there are other chemical and biological factors at play, not the least of which are viral dose and time passed since the initial infection. Ivermectin is certainly not a "cure" for covid, but it might be in effect exactly that for some individuals. I haven't seen any numbers on it, but I'd be surprised if it was markedly effective in more than 30 percent of patients.
Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19... : American Journal of Therapeutics
mortality, in secondary outcomes, and in chemoprophylaxis, among people with, or at high risk of, COVID-19 infection. Data sources: We searched bibliographic databases up to April 25, 2021. Two review authors sifted for studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Meta-analyses were...
journals.lww.com
danthewolf00
Veteran Expediter
You know I am starting to wonder who owns what drug that helps with covid-19.....is it Democrat or Republican and which drug cost more.......hmmmm
What is your reason for sharing this link? What point do you wish to make?Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19... : American Journal of Therapeutics
mortality, in secondary outcomes, and in chemoprophylaxis, among people with, or at high risk of, COVID-19 infection. Data sources: We searched bibliographic databases up to April 25, 2021. Two review authors sifted for studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Meta-analyses were...
Certain COVID-19 vaccines and monoclonal antibody treatments help with COVID-19. The companies that developed the vaccines and treatments now widely used in the U.S. are listed below. Presumably, the people who own these companies (the shareholders) own the vaccines and treatments.
Vaccine: Moderna
Vaccine: Johnson and Johnson
Vaccine: Pfizer
Monoclonal Antibody Treatment: Regeneron
Monoclonal Antibody Treatment: GlaxoSmithKline
This article discusses the companies that are making money (big money is some cases) with these vaccines. No reference is made to Democrat or Republican profits from the development and sale of these products.
From Pfizer to Moderna: who's making billions from Covid-19 vaccines?
The companies in line for the biggest windfalls – and the shareholders who have already made fortunes
The companies named above are all part of "Big Pharma." Big Pharma is well established in Washington as a powerful lobbying force and source of campaign contributions for Democrats and Republicans alike.
Pharma is showering Congress with cash, even as drug makers race to fight the coronavirus
More than two-thirds of the sitting members of Congress have accepted at least one check from the pharmaceutical industry in this election cycle. Explore the breadth of the industry's political giving in these new data visualizations from STAT.
www.statnews.com
Last edited:
This is a C19 topic informative thread.
What is your definition of a quack doctor? In your opinion if a doctor prescribes Ivermectin as a early preventative from serious sickness from the virus, are they a quack doctor?