This is what you are doing, not us. You cut out information sources that say things you don’t like. We still read and consider all sources, we just don’t blindly trust sources known to spin based on political and social agendas.
Whenever a source “says something [we] don’t like”, we respond with what specifically we object to and why. Conversely, when a source says something you don’t like, you respond with “it’s XYZ source so its obviously fake” - even when the facts being presented are indisputably fact. The former encourages discussion and debate, the latter is all about suppressing alternate viewpoints that threaten the preferred narrative.
Stop subsidized flood insurance and people won’t be able to rebuild. Let the market sort it out without taxpayer subsidies for building in dumb places.
At the very least, they shouldn’t be allowed to rebuild (and re-insure) on the original site without adequate mitigation.
No. We cut out “information” sources with a demonstrated track record of bad reporting. It’s been demonstrated statistically–Fox viewers have a lower accuracy on what’s happening in the world than those who don’t follow any news source.
So you are saying it’s exactly as I said. Glad we finally agree. We listen to all opinions and perspectives before drawing our own conclusions, while you block out the opinions and perspectives that do not jive with your own predrawn conclusions.
Fundamentally, this comes down to whether most news is telling the truth or your cult is telling the truth and everyone else is lying. And never mind how obviously false some of the reports are.
Ivermectin is an anti-parasite drug. It doesn’t work against viruses at any usable dose. (Anything will kill the virus when used in sufficient quantity–the hard part is finding something that kills the bad stuff without killing the patient.)
And there certainly is a laptop–what your side keeps ignoring is that we have no proof the image wasn’t tampered with. You keep trying to show that it came from the laptop, something which is basically undisputed–while ignoring the fact that there is no evidence that it’s not been tampered with. There’s no way law enforcement would touch such “evidence” with a 10’ pole.
And no vaccine is perfectly safe–giving an injection isn’t perfectly safe, provoking the immune system isn’t perfectly safe. Life isn’t perfectly safe. Given what we have seen of risk numbers I would assume my first two shots the most hazardous aspect of getting vaccinated would be driving to the location. (It’s surprising how many activities this is true for.)
Nor is there a vaccine that is perfectly effective. Sometimes the body doesn’t mount enough of an immune response (this is especially true for the immunocompromised) and sometimes it slips by anyway.
Demanding that the vaccine be completely safe and effective is a strawman that can never be met, in the real world the test always must be whether a course of action is more or less dangerous than not taking the action–and in the real world we’ve seen the vaccine has killed a few, while the virus has killed a million plus (and that’s even low as cases where it causes a quickly lethal clot generally don’t get reported as Covid.)
All you’ve done is confirm they are in fact examples of obviously false reports. Your elaborations are why they were opposed in the first place, and those oppositions were put in the penalty box for promoting disinformation.
(and the point regarding the vaccine is that the trials necessary to establish safety were truncated and not completed, at least to the extent required of any other drug or vaccine in FDA history. I think (but am not certain) even now the vaccine is still being administered to some under the EUA, because the data necessary for approval is still not available. “We think it’s most likely pretty safe” was not the narrative being used.)
The problem is the scientific data gets simplified for popular consumption. You’re trying to nitpick the differences caused by this simplification.
To illustrate: “The population of the Earth is 7.8 billion people”. “Wrong! The population of the Earth is actually 7.837 billion people.”
Is the first statement false??
It’s like my example about the risk of the first two shots–I had to go into an area with bad traffic to get them. I’m sure my risk of doing so exceeded the risk of the shots. Yet we don’t normally worry about the risk of driving, we consider it a safe activity. Thus it is completely reasonable to describe an even lesser risk as “safe”.
Except here, we are talking about obviously false. Like, “There are no humans on earth”.
You are shading each example with nuance long after the fact. No one is disputing that nuance. But when these statements were made, there was no nuance involved. And no one was allowed to add any, either.
Funny these academic publications and clinical trials seem to disprove that. It works in at least some capacity against both Zika and Dengue.
No reason to suspect it might work on other viruses… Nope.
They’re only trying those viruses since there’s no Big Pharma money at stake. Mostly poor countries impacted by those viruses, so nothing lost if it works - they couldn’t pay real money anyway.
If it was shown to work on covid, there’d be $100B lost to PFE and MRNA shareholders and that would be a tragedy.
Note: “clinical efficacy of ivermectin was not observed at this dosage regimen.” That’s the problem–it might have some effect but it’s not useful at dosages that can be tolerated. You’ll kill the patient before you can kill the disease.
Every trial that actually showed it to be useful has been found to have fraud problems.
And if this was big pharma doing it why do we not see it used in places where the government dictates things–especially China. For reasons of face they won’t use the western-developed vaccines, they’re fighting a losing battle at trying to contain it, yet they’re not going to the conspiracy theory stuff.
Again, the propaganda was that it was dangerous horse medicine.
It’s a human drug with decades of evidence proving it to be safe. If the efficacy was inconclusive (as did most of the studies used against it’s use), what’s the harm of letting some people try it anyways? There was literally no known treatment at the time, yet such a persistence in actively denying it’s use - preferring people face this deadly emergency with no help, rather than try to get an advantage with a drug with decades of safe use.
That’s the issue:
“I think Ivermectin might work!”
“No, it doesnt!”
“I want to try it anyways, instead of just sitting here doing nothing!”
“Absolutely not! It’s Horse dewormer”
“It’s a drug safely used by millions of people over decades of time.”
“Doesnt matter, it isnt safe for you!”
“My doctor is going to give it to me anyways!”
“Your doctor must loose his license for being so reckless!”
…and on and on and on…
Once again you’re trying to play gotcha with stuff you don’t understand. Medicines aren’t “safe”, they are less hazardous than whatever they are meant to deal with.
Ivermectin was tried. Other than some bogus studies it was found useless. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t cause the usual harm it causes. Once it’s been shown ineffective it’s inappropriate for a doctor to use it.
What’s even worse is when people go buy the horse versions–same drug, different dose.
I mean, it’s too bad we aren’t cows instead of pro ivermectin sheep. Because ivermectin was shown to work on a range of cow respiratory viruses in safe concentrations.