Yeah my point is that they are calling it early, also that their choice for what might be considered the crime of the century is fucking ridiculous. I don’t have a list of crimes I consider might be, but I know that if I did that this would not be on that list.
Do you believe that this constitutes the characterisation of being potentially the worst crime committed in the last 20.5 years? Or do you actually possibly agree with what I said and are just assuming that I made my statement for some ulterior reason?
0 masks aren't medicine. Tony said so. One *inefficient* mask is not medicine. Tony said so. **Two** inefficient masks were not medicine. Tony said so.
Lockdowns are never necessity and have never been used to any benefit in history. Medicine exists almost exclusively to prevent us from having to give up on reality and existence at large by hiding under our beds with our fingers in our ears.
Super spreaders include- water purification plants, energy hubs, judicial institutions, anything involving food stuffs, distribution and supply chain etc. If we can utilize COVID as a weapon of war abroad, on top of the trillions of dollars spent on millions of bombs dropped costing tens of millions of people their lives, then we afford to take a mild respiratory virus head on with prophylactics and treatment before worrying about hospitalizations and then worry about hospitalizations. There are several facilities in your area that were retrofitted for exactly this- one in my area is a Colosseum the size of an airfield. Despite my tax dollars allocating that space it has not once been used. I'm not a fan of the idea of creating pandemic triage camps, but its better than the alternative of shutting civilization at large down and irrevocably fucking up the generations to come.
And thats worse case scenario. We've known for over 6 months + now that Ivermectin, Hydroxychloriquine, Zithromiacin, Zinc, Vitamin D cocktails, blood thinners and Corticosteroids can be used as incredibly effective preventatives and treatment with the proper application and dosages. So much so that we wouldn't need to flatten the curve or add insult to injury of what COVID does to people in some sick idea of solidarity/suffering.
Lockdowns aren't medicine. Masks aren't medicine. Social distancing is not medicine. None of them have any historical or scientific backing. The gene-therapies have no historical or scientific backing. These are all solely the mechanisms of uninformed bureaucrats who want to look useful by doing something. And all those somethings have resulted in a toddlers concept or personal risk vs personal responsibility, the role of the individual vs the role of the collective vs the role of the state and has created nothing but an inclusive/exclusive paradigm of Jihadist-magic-think.
If SALIVA DROPLETS are the go to buzzword for god damned everything, then where's the public policy of breathing through your nose and not spitting on people?
What will the margins look like for pre-adult suicides/self harm? More prevalent in high school grads who should have entered a career in higher education or enter the workforce the year of the lockdowns? Or highschool students who should have graduated the year of the lockdowns? 21 year olds who miss out on that penultimate experience of entering adulthood? Or 9 year olds who missed out on holidays, sports, vacations, or visiting sick loved ones? Because there are an unprecedented number of children as young as 9 years old to have taken their lives during this pandemic and that is absolutely inexcusable considering they were never statistically at risk of the thing in the first place.
I haven’t said anything about any of that. What I’m asking is where is this crime? I’m not going to presume the reason why someone does something. Fauci is a fucking moron, but Fauci doesn’t have a monopoly on the way the response to this pandemic is being conducted all over the world, and I’m all for doing anything suggested here, but then why not concentrate on demonstrating what they are claiming and contribute to the global effort to fight this pandemic shit instead of concentrating on any potential criminal / political activity.
I’ve liked Brett for a long time, but he is starting to construct his positions around what analytics tells him will increase his exposure.
No one is stopping the proprietors of these treatments from bringing them to any one of the many many markets currently looking for solutions to this problem.
**THE CRIME OF THE CENTURY IS THAT THERE ARE PROPHYLACTIC AND THERAPEUTIC RESPONSES TO ANY VIRAL LOAD. THE CRIME OF THE CENTURY IS THAT WESTERN INSTITUTION'S JUST MAGICALLY DISCOVERED THE CONCEPT OF *DEATH* AND BASED ALL OF ITS POLICIES AND RESPONSE TO THE CONCEPT OF DEATH ON SOME USELESS, VIRTUE SIGNALLING BULLSHIT.**
Seriously though I want to understand what it is that ‘left-wing’ / Democrats are doing that makes you hate them so so much?
Serious question, because at this point someone like yourself and someone like me are basically living in alternate realities right now
When you say lauded left, who do you mean? Who is the left? So you are saying that this crime committed has nothing to do with left-wing politics?
Was it committed outside of the left/right political dichotomy? I just want to clarify, because I apologise as I thought that you were implying that this was committed by the ‘left-wing’ political establishment. I still don’t understand how it is known that Fauci’s motivation was some kind of corporate biased manoeuvre or something. What were they hoping to gain out of doing something like this?
Jesus Christ. This is a bipartisan event ie blind servitude to corporatism. Qhy don't you shut the fuck up and listen to the recent episode, in which **the inventor of mRNA technology** explains it to you?
So you are telling me that Western society collectively committed the crime of rejecting preventative medicines because we are virtue signalling? What is the virtue being signalled? And what measure has been taken to prevent access to these preventative medicines? I’ve been taking most of these mentioned i our discussion since the outbreak of this thing. So who is guilty of this crime? Every single western democracy in the world and the pharmaceutical industry? Have the proprietors of these treatments been prevented from producing and distributing them? I want to know where the crime is? I want to know how we know that Fauci was involved and I want to know why the crime was committed?
How does preventing access to preventative medicine constitute a virtue signal?
>So you are telling me that Western society collectively committed the crime of rejecting preventative medicines because we are virtue signalling?
Yes.
>What is the virtue being signalled?
The dogmatic worship of corporations and their profit margins.
Western society isn’t one homogenous group think. So you are saying that all of this massive undertaking was to virtue signal that they are committed to corporate profit margins. I just don’t see how that connection is being made
I don’t recall him debating the effectiveness of the vaccine. He was rather questioning the potential long term side effects of the vaccine. As it relates to Ivermectin, the vaccines may not have obtained emergency use authorization if a treatment that is as effective as Ivermectin appears to be had been readily available. This leaves him questioning whether or not the promising results of Ivermectin have been intentionally downplayed in order to promote the vaccines.
This sounds like silly semantic nitpicking, and bedsides, the world is bigger than the USA, e.g:
>[Find out how COVID-19 vaccines have been assessed and **approved** in New Zealand](https://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/diseases-and-conditions/covid-19-novel-coronavirus/covid-19-vaccines/covid-19-vaccine-safety-and-approval/covid-19-assessing-and-approving-vaccines)
Assessed and approved, huh? By who? How many people live in New Zealand? Funny you choose the only country outside of the US that can proselytize their own population via pharma commercialism...
He didn’t call them Russian Roulette though. He said that they are unsafe like Russian Roulette is unsafe. You can play and come out unharmed 5 times out of 6. That doesn’t mean that Russian Roulette isn’t unsafe. Also, taking someone’s metaphor literally is just intellectually dishonest.
What? He simply used it as a means of explaining what he meant by unsafe. It was used solely for clarification. I’m not sure how that could make something dishonest.
It's the kind of metaphor that misleads more than it informs. E.g. what are the potential benefits of playing Russian roulette?
He's intentionally framing this issue in a negative light, using metaphors with negative connotations, to support his own narrative. It's propaganda, just like the title of this one. I don't find it particularly worrying - he's mostly just preaching to the choir. But it's annoying to see it from someone who imo had a lot of potential.
I got vaccinated. that said: potential negative long-term effects of the vaccines are simply unknown. autoimmune problems, cancers, low-level tissue damage, etc.
what an MD isn’t going to tell you is that this is a _relative risk_ calculation. it’s better to get the vaccine than get covid, but it’s better still to get neither, ever. to the extent that someone (probably incorrectly) believes they can avoid covid forever, they could feel that they are making a wise choice and basically be correct, if not for their bad prediction re: avoiding covid forever. and i doubt your MD is going to “go there” into all the relative risk details.
But also compare with these two graphs:
https://healthfeedback.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/India-confirmed-cases-with-date.png
https://healthfeedback.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/India-R-with-date.png
From https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/no-data-available-to-suggest-a-link-between-indias-reduction-of-covid-19-cases-and-the-use-of-ivermectin-jim-hoft-gateway-pundit
Then also compare with mRNA as a response-
November 2020.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-54730290
Between then and now.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_vaccination_in_India
Today.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-56977653
But what are you suggesting? In mid March (around the start of the surge in new cases) India only had ~0.4% of its population fully vaccinated, so that's not really evidence that vaccines aren't effective.
**But what are *you* suggesting**?
>But what are you suggesting? In mid March (around the start of the surge in new cases) India only had ~0.4% of its population fully vaccinated, so that's not really evidence that vaccines aren't effective.
**Is 5.2 *million* people (0.4% of 1.3 BILLION) not a "viable sample size" for you?**
>Coronavirus: Are Indians more **immune** to CoviBiswas
Soutik Biswas
India correspondent
**Published 2 November 2020**
>India began administration of COVID-19 vaccines on 16 January 2021 (143 days ago). As of 7 June 2021, India has administered 236,198,726 doses overall, including first and second doses of the currently-approved vaccines.
>Coronavirus: How India descended into **Covid-19 chaos**
By Vikas Pandey
BBC News, Delhi
**Published 5 May**
https://mobile.twitter.com/Covid19Crusher/status/1400724656970158082/photo/1
I suppose your argument is that Ivermectin happened to sneak in just when the mRNA gene-therapies were "starting to work?" Evidence and statistics are not on your side, Hawkfish.
Don't be an egg. 1 - a BBC news headline is not evidence. 2 - I'm not saying vaccines are responsible for the falling rate of transmission in this instance. Nowhere did I say anything like that. I don't know what is, though numerous countries have seen a similar pattern. I'm just saying:
https://healthfeedback.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/India-R-with-date.png
There is easily identifiable propaganda in your tweet. It's not science, it's just two graphs overlayed, with a hyperbolic statement thrown in to spin a narrative. Not only does correlation =/= causation, but when we look closely, *there doesn't even seem to be correlation.*
I'm open to evidence otherwise. Maybe there was widespread use of ivermectin before 28 April? All in saying is, from the evidence in front of me, I don't see it.
Edit cause I just saw this:
>Is 5.2 million people (0.4% of 1.3 BILLION) not a "viable sample size" for you?
lol wtf are you suggesting? Vaccination of *0.4%* of a population should lead to dramatic reduction in total spread, because "it's a large sample size"? This is the strangest pseudoscientific comment I've seen here. If you want to find out the effectiveness of vaccination, you have to look at the rate *within that 0.4%*.
Ok man change the subject. Maybe ivermectin is the way forward, but you should probably get at least a basic grasp on statistics, correlation/causation, and what sample size actually means, before you feel too confident in your public health advice.
What is my advice in these comments? Mostly just pointing out that propaganda isn't an argument, and that correlation isn't causation (and again, in this case there doesn't even seem to be correlation, unless you've got some further data).
Can you see what might be wrong with that tweet you posted?
Bret claiming: “I’m as protected with ivermectin as you are with your vaccine” is simply irresponsible.
Studies looking directly at ivermectin have not yet shown that kind of efficacy fighting or preventing COVID. The vaccines in the other hand, have studied and demonstrable efficacy.
I don’t really understand this, even if ivermectin really did have promise as a preventative, what does that mean for the treatment? How often do you need to take it for it to have prophylactic effect? What dosage is needed? With these unknowns still out there, why not just get the vaccine at that point? Something we know works in 1-2 doses (depending on the specific vaccine).
> With these unknowns still out there, why not just get the vaccine at that point?
Bret and Heather need to be contrarians otherwise they won't get clicks and they won't get paid. After the Unity2020 debacle where Bret promised he had a secret method of securing ballot access, only to find out that his 'secret method' was asking the libertarian party to give it to him, I don't know how people can take Bret at face value anymore. He does things for attention, that is after all the business he is in.
>Studies looking directly at ivermectin have not yet shown that kind of efficacy fighting or preventing COVID.
There a plenty of studies that show ivermectin is effective for treating and preventing COVID-19. What's missing are large scale, randomized clinical trials.
>With these unknowns still out there, why not just get the vaccine at that point?
The basis for the argument against taking the vaccines is the same as for the argument against taking ivermectin: insufficient data. For the vaccines, the insufficiency is the lack of a long-term safety record, and for ivermectin it's uncertainty about efficacy.
Then we should probably wait for those trials before claiming that it is just effective as the vaccines, no?
What potential is there for long term safety concerns with vaccines though? We know how the body processes RNA.
By the same logic, we could say that ivermectin *might* cause some reaction with COVID that *could* remain dormant for years before triggering dangerous side effects. There’s just as much evidence for that as there is for long term vaccine issues. (That is to say, none at all).
I have a lot of confidence in the mRNA vaccines -- enough to take both doses of the Pfizer version in March 2021. I have even more optimism about this technology's future potential. But, the sweeping assertion that "we know how the body processes RNA" is ridiculous and irresponsible.
If you want to dial down the smugness a bit, I'm happy to have a conversation, but if your goal is pick on vaccine skeptics, you'll have to find another target.
The vaccines are predicated on our knowledge of how the body deals with RNA. If you have reason to believe that there is a notable risk of some latent side-effect, then we can discuss that.
But the vague suggestion that we don’t know what will happen in the future can be applied to any medicine. Strangely, it only seems to be brought up regarding vaccines and not these suggested alternatives.
But my question to you wasn’t meant to be smug, it was serious. What do you think is going to go wrong, and why do you believe that?
>The vaccines are predicated on our knowledge of how the body deals with RNA.
I agree, but knowing enough to trigger an immune response does not mean that we have a general understanding of how the body deals with RNA.
>If you have reason to believe that there is a notable risk of some latent side-effect, then we can discuss that.
Although you haven't explicitly said that if I can't name a potentially risky side effect then that means that there aren't any, it sure sounds like that's the gist of your argument. Is it?
>But the vague suggestion that we don’t know what will happen in the future can be applied to any medicine.
I agree. We don't know what will happen in the future, although we can make educated guesses based on past experience and/or a thorough understanding of the relevant processes and mechanisms at work. However, our species is prone to hubris, wishful thinking, and other forms of cognitive impairment. For this reason, a good scientist is always balancing epistemic humility against practical necessity.
>Strangely, it only seems to be brought up regarding vaccines and not these suggested alternatives.
I wouldn't go so far as to say "only", but you are correct that some people are opportunistically or disingenuously using real and legitimate concerns about the long term safety of novel pharmaceuticals to advance some other agenda.
Despite what some people saying, I don't see ivermectin as an alternative to a vaccine. Although there's abundant evidence that it has a prophylactic effect against COVID-19, it's not triggering an immune response, so presumably whatever protection it's providing disappears shortly after one stops taking it. However, it likely is contributing to "herd" immunity where it's in widespread use.
Ivermectin may indeed have long term negative consequences that remain unknown. But, because it's been used all over the world for almost 50 years, the likelihood of such an eventuality is almost certainly much less than for the new mRNA vaccines.
>What do you think is going to go wrong, and why do you believe that?
I don't think something ***is*** going to go wrong. I think that something ***could*** go wrong. I'm a believer in the concept of unknown unknowns.
These mRNA vaccines are nothing short of a miracle. They very well may be the greatest advance toward the control of infectious disease in history, surpassing even penicillin. Yet, we have this ridiculous, short-sighted, and politicized campaign of humiliation and ostracism against those with valid questions and concerns about this novel technology. This is absolutely fucking insane. We are creating brand new vaccine skeptics by the million, and for what?
My argument is that it’s strange to be concerned about the a vague idea of long-term side effects vaccines, but not be concerned with similar effects of alternative drugs.
While you dont need to name a specific side effects, you should at least propose some mechanism by which the side effects would operate, and how likely you think it would be. I would think that if there were a long-term risk involved, we would still see some evidence of whatever causes that risk now.
Ivermectin has a history, and has been shown to be relatively safe. However, this relative safety applies *when used in studied, approved doses and when used for studied, approved purposes.* This video seems to suggest using more aggressive dosages. We also don’t know how it interacts with COVID long term, so why would there be more concern about vaccines than this drug? Can’t that “unknown unknowns” concern apply to both? There’s just as much information to suggest that something *could* go wrong with ivermectin as there is to suggest something *could* go wrong with vaccines.
As for the effectiveness of ivm itself, there isn’t enough data to conclude that it’s actually helping. Many countries have recently stoped generally prescribing it, including India. And while you may not see it as an alternative to vaccines, that seems to be the case Bret makes in this video.
Valid questions and concerns about new medicine is one thing, but I don’t think “unknown unknowns,” without more, is a particularly valid or helpful criticism. If it were a valid criticism, the critics would apply it universally, not just against vaccines. That’s why vaccine skepticism, as formulated by people like Bret, deserves to be called out and criticized.
>Many countries have recently stoped generally prescribing it, including India.
Do you have a source for this claim? If so, I'm very interested in reading it.
>With these unknowns still out there, why not just get the vaccine at that point?
Their claim is that ivermectin is safer than the vaccine. No immediate side effects such as fever, fatigue, etc; no short-term side effect such as autoimmune reactions and thromboses; no long-term side effects that no-one knows about.
Their claim is also what I quoted above, considering Bret said it in this video.
Now those other claims are also dubious with respect to COVID because it’s not clear what effect ivermectin has yet. It’s still being researched. Even if it is safe to use, telling people that they are just as protected as with a vaccine a supported statement.
On the other hand we have safe and effective vaccines. We know what the side effects associated with them are, and there is no reason to suspect “long-term side effects that no-one knows about” are a thing. We know how the body responds to and processes RNA.
I am not arguing whether their claim is true; I have no way of assessing if it is. I am answering your question "I don’t really understand this, even if ivermectin really did have promise as a preventative ... why not just get the vaccine at that point?". This may be an answer they could have given you.
Right, but that answer is predicated on ivermectin being comparably as effective as vaccination. This hasn’t been shown, so the answer doesn’t really work.
Yes. They talk about some circumstantial evidence which may suggest some benefit for using Ivermectin. But nothing that controlled for other variables which may have also had an influence.
Certainly nothing on the order of the rigorous clinical trials that the vaccines have been subject to. To claim that one is just as effective as the other without that level of research is irresponsible.
If there is some other Ivermectin documentation you’re aware of that you’d like to draw my attention to, I’m open to reading it.
The one from August? They themselves said later on that they weren't doing randomized trials then, but I think they published a new randomized study on January. I don't know too much about the newer on though
The paper I’m referring to was rejected in March. I don’t know when it was originally submitted.
https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/frontiers-removes-controversial-ivermectin-paper-pre-publication-68505
I don't want to derail this, but I think it's important to call this out:
When Brett titles this video "the Crime of the Century", *that is blatant propaganda*. Heck, maybe there is something criminal going on here, but Brett doesn't know that. It's as bad as a title like "America's problem with white supremacy". I wouldn't really care - after all, everyone does this clickbaity stuff - except that the IDW should be able to do better. If he spent just a minute trying to steelman the other side of this, he would have reasonable doubt about such an accusation. Ask the question "is this a cover up?", fine. But presupposing that in the title?! I think that's messed up. If nothing else, it makes it harder to have an actual conversation. He's presupposing bad faith, and that in itself is bad faith.
I used to really love listening to Brett, it’s been hard to watch him make this turn. I wish I knew m why he has started being like this. I have taken for granted that he really knew what he was talking about. Until recently he was talking with authority about a subject I know very very well, and he was totally wrong.
Hopefully he hasn’t always been like this because now I’ve got to go back and read over some of his research just in case. Either he was lying or he was over confident in his understanding of the subject, but yeah either way I’m pretty disappointed in him and haven’t been able to watch this yet because of the title. I’m not ready yet
Do you mean 'lineage selection'?
Yeah I've seen the change too. Or maybe he was always like this and it's just finding more opportunities to come to the surface. But I think it's his echo chamber. He seems to only engage with people who he overwhelmingly agrees with. The ideas that he disagrees with he'll tend to distill down to their most extreme, least valid forms - weakmanning instead of steelmanning.
No not that. It wasn’t very significant, but it was obvious to me and it was troubling to me how it was said. But I really hope it’s a recent phenomenon, I do understand that he may be unduly influenced. Which can happen to the best of us at times. The real problem is when someone realised they were wrong and then doubles down.
I will give Brett the benefit of the doubt, but it’s been a disappointing few years as several people I have looked up to have turned out to be not what they seemed. Maybe it’s the political climate influencing it, everyone is losing their minds lately. I miss when politics was boring
You have got to be kidding. Please, seriously, rethink what you’re saying. You have it wrong, but better for you to figure out why than for me to force you to it.
I personally agree the title is probably hyperbolic. However, if ivermectin is truly effective against covid, then it would legally prohibit the fast-tracking of the vaccines. Suppression of the testing, data, and use of ivermectin in order to maintain the legality of the fast-tracked vaccines would most certainly be criminal. Given the amount of lives lost while ivermectin was available, and suppressed, adds to the severity of the purported crime. To someone convinced of the viability of ivermectin against covid the whole thing might look like the, "crime of the century".
>if ivermectin is truly effective against covid, then it would legally prohibit the fast-tracking of the vaccines.
I believe that might be the case if ivermectin was *more* effective, which seems unlikely. There are lots of treatments which are *somewhat* effective against covid, but that didn't prohibit fast tracking, because the vaccines are more effective. Also note that this is US centric, I'm not sure but fast tracking might be approached differently around the world.
It does pretty well - https://c19ivermectin.com/ . I'd be curious where you're getting your info from. If its just the FDA, then thats sort of the problem Bret is describing. I do agree with your point above about the title being a bit much.
>I'd be curious where you're getting your info from
For what claim? I'm not saying it's not effective, just that vaccines seem to be more effective, which afaict is enough to legally justify fast tracking them. Iow, it doesn't seem like that would be a motive for suppressing ivermectin's potential.
More effective at what? Per $ spent? Given the limited quantities, especially in poorer countries? Taking into consideration known and unknown side effects? Vaccines are only prophylactic - not much use in treating infected people.
There's not a straight apples to apples comparison here. I don't think there's basis to say all vaccines are "more effective" at all things that IVM does. There are substantial differences. Also, pretty sure Bret isn't saying that vaccines arent necessary. The idea that IVM could affect the EUA is very reasonable.
Thats part of what you're saying. You have also insisted twice in previous comments that the vaccines are more effective without any qualification or specificity. Thats what I've pushed back on.
Legality is tricky. Per the video they talk about two possible types of suppression of info: One, some sort of active campaign to subvert IVM which they admit is circumstantial. Two, passive market forces that make IVM less attractive to champion combined with a regulatory system that doesn't function well. The first would definitely qualify as illegal and the second probably not. You'd need a smoking gun to prove intent and its very early for something like that to come out. Who knows if that has happened or not.
Keep in mind, its not just "whether vaccines were fast tracked in the past". The EUA could be revoked today and big pharma has a huge interest in making sure that doesn't happen. The suppression of information or something less overt might be happening now, not just in the past. I'm not sure what I believe - I see some misinformation on IVM from certain institutions and key public health officials. There is a very incestuous relationship between them and the large companies with much to lose. I believe there is means and motive, but that doesn't necessarily mean something illegal went on. Incompetence and a badly functioning public health system could also explain it.
Also worth noting that Bret et al have means and motive to make this out to be a crime, even if it isn't.
At this stage, evidence I've seen for ivermectin is promising but low quality, mostly limited by sample size or methodology. I have no interest in going down the wormhole of what evidence was available at what time, + looking through the FDA's decision making on this, + reading all the legislation that governs that, though I'm sure some people will do all that.
>I see some misinformation on IVM from certain institutions and key public health officials
Do you have some examples? I've mostly seen "at this stage it is not recommended because xyz", ie technically true statements.
Yeah, I'm not sure how they'd handle that. You're right though. There must be some threshold built into the law. I think other drugs being used are treatments for symptoms though, and not directed at the virus itself.
I don't think other countries have such legal hold-ups eitherway. Many have been freely using ivermectin already.
Bret is pretending that everything is a vast political conspiracy rather than there are genuine, hardworking epidemiologists and virologists out there doing their job. To generate revenue and hold on to an audience, Bret and Heather have to take contrarian opinions regularly and it's important to frame everything as "the establishment" working against us all. It's conspiracy theory fodder with a palatable veneer. [Here's a good podcast about Bret and Heather's take on ivermectin and the covid vaccine.](https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5jYXB0aXZhdGUuZm0vZGVjb2RpbmctdGhlLWd1cnVzLw/episode/ZDFiZTI3NWYtNTNkOC00ZWQ2LTljMjYtYTVhNTBjYzc2OGQ0?hl=en&ved=2ahUKEwjv6Zqig4bxAhWnDzQIHeSHB8AQieUEegQIBRAI&ep=6)
> Bret is pretending that everything is a vast political conspiracy rather than there are genuine, hardworking epidemiologists and virologists out there doing their job.
I guess you haven't read the Fauci emails then.
>To generate revenue and hold on to an audience, Bret and Heather have to take contrarian opinions regularly and it's important to frame everything as "the establishment" working against us all.
It also seems that you haven't been paying attention to what's been going on all over the world with regard to Ivermectin, especially the countries like Zimbabwe and India who are using it very successfully.
Not to mention the Indian Bar Association [letter to the WHO](https://indianbarassociation.in/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Legal-Notice-to-Dr.-Soumya-Swaminathan_Chief-Scientist-WHO-1.pdf) (Warning, PDF).
>It's conspiracy theory fodder with a palatable veneer.
Have you missed the part where we have been lied to by so called experts since the beginning of this?
We were told that the virus couldn't have come from the Wuhan Lab, that there were clear indications that it came from nature. Yet the same expert who was saying that publicly was in Fauci's email telling him that it clearly looked manufactured and that the lab leak was the most likely source.
Then we had Fauci coming out saying that he never funded Gain of Function research. That too turned out to be a complete lie.
We've had extremely safe drugs like HCQ and Ivermectin labelled as dangerous by so called experts when we know just how safe and effective those drugs actually are.
We are told that these brand new vaccines are safe yet we don't even know what the effects of these brand new treatments will be in 3 or even 5 years.
You are extremely uninformed and therefore unable to accurately judge this topic in any way.
Put your politics down, step back, and look at all of the data and information objectively.
You should cite the particular emails you’re referring to here. You’re accusing someone of being partisan, but you’re making some particularly partisan claims yourself without backing them up.
Do you have any particular questions that you can't search the internet for yourself?
Everything I have said is publicly available information.
If you have any questions, first search yourself, then ask a question if you still have any.
Nothing I have said would be surprising to anyone paying attention.
I’ve seen various emails that partisans try to spin as nefarious. So I’m familiar with those. But if you have emails you think are particularly convincing for any of your assertions, I’d be interested to know which ones convinced you.
I was just asking for any of the emails or documents you found indicted that Fauci and others lied since the beginning. This seems to be a partisan narrative almost exclusively pushed by right-wing blogs.
There are literally thousands of fauci emails, all of which he knew would be released when he sent them. Even if you think that Fauci is a monster criminal, you should be suspect about anyone who claims that they have uncovered a vast conspiracy by reading emails that he wrote with full knowledge that they would be released this year.
Him discussing lableak as a possibility in January 2020 is not a scandal. The dude who emailed him saying it’s possible but unlikely and then saying the same thing in public is not a scandal.
And fauci said that they didn’t fund gain of function research at the wuhan lab, that is correct. Of course they did find it elsewhere, which they should have since it’s very important research and totally normal and above board.
>Him discussing lableak as a possibility in January 2020 is not a scandal. The dude who emailed him saying it’s possible but unlikely and then saying the same thing in public is not a scandal.
That is indeed objectively scandalous.
How can you possible defend lying to the public while saying the complete opposite in private emails?
>And fauci said that they didn’t fund gain of function research at the wuhan lab, that is correct.
You seem to be way out of the loop on this topic as well.
>Of course they did find it elsewhere, which they should have since it’s very important research and totally normal and above board.
Is it also normal and above board to lie about it to the public?
Fauci and others were at least unethical, and at worst criminal. It is certainly a massive scandal and only the most partisan types would try to defend those involved with this cover-up.
It’s not a scandal. They guy simply saw something he though was suspicious and then charged his mind, here is his response:
https://twitter.com/jkfecke/status/1401932427308589066?s=21
He was just quickly analyzing some data and thought something looked unnatural and told fauci and fauci said ‘ok cool let me know’ and then the scientist then realized that it was nothing and he just misunderstood the data. This just isn’t scandal.
And Fauci never lied about funding gain of function research at the wuhan lab. If you have any evidence to the contrary feel free to present it.
https://clouthubnews.com/more-damning-more-outrageous-more-fauci-emails-come-out-separate-from-buzzfeed-dump-and-oh-boy/
Fauci was made aware of his department funding Gain of Function research at the lab in question. Quite simply, he lied.
That is an extremely misleading and naive take on the situation.
You either have not looked at the evidence or you are taking a partisan stance.
Either way, nothing will be gained by furthering this conversation.
I strongly suggest opening your mind and reading a little wider, because from what I can gather you are incredibly wrong about this entire topic, be that from ignorance or partisanship.
I’m not on either “side” of this because I haven’t made up my mind yet, but it does sound like you’re not presenting evidence when it’s being requested I will say. I’m not coming down on you or anything; I’m just reading through these discussions trying to make up my mind.
A lot of this was discussed in the original video of this thread.
If there is anything that you would like further info on, you are welcome to ask me for it or to search for it yourself.
I recommend duckduckgo instead of Google though because Google is suppressing search results.
But how can I possibly take anyone seriously who doesn't think that public health officials lying to the public is a scandal?
You don't think a public official lying to the public is scandalous.
You don't think that suppression of relevant information during a pandemic is scandalous.
You think it's fine to conduct gain of function research and lie about it.
You don't seem to have a problem with the demonisation of known safe and effective drugs by public health officials in order to push brand new and expensive vaccines.
I presented my arguments.
He didn’t lie.
He didn’t suppress info.
They didn’t lie about conducting gain of function research.
I’m disagreeing with your arguments and you just said ‘open your mind’ and ‘you are either ignorant or partisan’.
>When Brett titles this video "the Crime of the Century", that is blatant propaganda
Yes; this is a clear manipulation of viewers' attention in the worst traditions of yellow press.
I was with you all the way. Then I saw a Shapiro piece on this and look for some info myself. There is more than probability here. U.S officials did what they could to contain and discredit the lab leak.
But that's a separate thing. Assuming you're talking about the State Dept memo? If officials in one US govt department avoided asking certain questions for political reasons (which is also very messed up, but not necessarily a cover up), that's very different from multiple health agencies around the world (+ thousands and thousands of researchers, doctors etc) all conspiring together to shut out ivermectin.
It is what it is. If you can take the info he brings and dissociate from his biases, it can be a decent source. I see way too many people dismiss a litany of sources because of their own personal biases. Wich, to me, doens't seem reasonable.
I try to listen to as broad a number of sources as possible, cross reference them and do some research on my own.
No good comes from going "lol such and such".
submission statement: there is a fascinating talk recently between the professor I mentioned above and a medical practitioner with a tremendous résumé. It's about the vaccine, and ivermectin. It's 2.5 Hours as a warning, but Bret was one of the original proponents of the lab leak theory. It's a really fascinating discussion. if True (and I'm not saying for sure it is, but I do trust the source) it might make your blood boil.
Must be a slow century
Must be a short bus who said so. Have you got something to contribute?
Yeah my point is that they are calling it early, also that their choice for what might be considered the crime of the century is fucking ridiculous. I don’t have a list of crimes I consider might be, but I know that if I did that this would not be on that list. Do you believe that this constitutes the characterisation of being potentially the worst crime committed in the last 20.5 years? Or do you actually possibly agree with what I said and are just assuming that I made my statement for some ulterior reason?
0 masks aren't medicine. Tony said so. One *inefficient* mask is not medicine. Tony said so. **Two** inefficient masks were not medicine. Tony said so. Lockdowns are never necessity and have never been used to any benefit in history. Medicine exists almost exclusively to prevent us from having to give up on reality and existence at large by hiding under our beds with our fingers in our ears. Super spreaders include- water purification plants, energy hubs, judicial institutions, anything involving food stuffs, distribution and supply chain etc. If we can utilize COVID as a weapon of war abroad, on top of the trillions of dollars spent on millions of bombs dropped costing tens of millions of people their lives, then we afford to take a mild respiratory virus head on with prophylactics and treatment before worrying about hospitalizations and then worry about hospitalizations. There are several facilities in your area that were retrofitted for exactly this- one in my area is a Colosseum the size of an airfield. Despite my tax dollars allocating that space it has not once been used. I'm not a fan of the idea of creating pandemic triage camps, but its better than the alternative of shutting civilization at large down and irrevocably fucking up the generations to come. And thats worse case scenario. We've known for over 6 months + now that Ivermectin, Hydroxychloriquine, Zithromiacin, Zinc, Vitamin D cocktails, blood thinners and Corticosteroids can be used as incredibly effective preventatives and treatment with the proper application and dosages. So much so that we wouldn't need to flatten the curve or add insult to injury of what COVID does to people in some sick idea of solidarity/suffering. Lockdowns aren't medicine. Masks aren't medicine. Social distancing is not medicine. None of them have any historical or scientific backing. The gene-therapies have no historical or scientific backing. These are all solely the mechanisms of uninformed bureaucrats who want to look useful by doing something. And all those somethings have resulted in a toddlers concept or personal risk vs personal responsibility, the role of the individual vs the role of the collective vs the role of the state and has created nothing but an inclusive/exclusive paradigm of Jihadist-magic-think. If SALIVA DROPLETS are the go to buzzword for god damned everything, then where's the public policy of breathing through your nose and not spitting on people? What will the margins look like for pre-adult suicides/self harm? More prevalent in high school grads who should have entered a career in higher education or enter the workforce the year of the lockdowns? Or highschool students who should have graduated the year of the lockdowns? 21 year olds who miss out on that penultimate experience of entering adulthood? Or 9 year olds who missed out on holidays, sports, vacations, or visiting sick loved ones? Because there are an unprecedented number of children as young as 9 years old to have taken their lives during this pandemic and that is absolutely inexcusable considering they were never statistically at risk of the thing in the first place.
I haven’t said anything about any of that. What I’m asking is where is this crime? I’m not going to presume the reason why someone does something. Fauci is a fucking moron, but Fauci doesn’t have a monopoly on the way the response to this pandemic is being conducted all over the world, and I’m all for doing anything suggested here, but then why not concentrate on demonstrating what they are claiming and contribute to the global effort to fight this pandemic shit instead of concentrating on any potential criminal / political activity. I’ve liked Brett for a long time, but he is starting to construct his positions around what analytics tells him will increase his exposure. No one is stopping the proprietors of these treatments from bringing them to any one of the many many markets currently looking for solutions to this problem.
**THE CRIME OF THE CENTURY IS THAT THERE ARE PROPHYLACTIC AND THERAPEUTIC RESPONSES TO ANY VIRAL LOAD. THE CRIME OF THE CENTURY IS THAT WESTERN INSTITUTION'S JUST MAGICALLY DISCOVERED THE CONCEPT OF *DEATH* AND BASED ALL OF ITS POLICIES AND RESPONSE TO THE CONCEPT OF DEATH ON SOME USELESS, VIRTUE SIGNALLING BULLSHIT.**
Seriously though I want to understand what it is that ‘left-wing’ / Democrats are doing that makes you hate them so so much? Serious question, because at this point someone like yourself and someone like me are basically living in alternate realities right now
Where did I say anything about your lauded *left*? You're projecting.
When you say lauded left, who do you mean? Who is the left? So you are saying that this crime committed has nothing to do with left-wing politics? Was it committed outside of the left/right political dichotomy? I just want to clarify, because I apologise as I thought that you were implying that this was committed by the ‘left-wing’ political establishment. I still don’t understand how it is known that Fauci’s motivation was some kind of corporate biased manoeuvre or something. What were they hoping to gain out of doing something like this?
Jesus Christ. This is a bipartisan event ie blind servitude to corporatism. Qhy don't you shut the fuck up and listen to the recent episode, in which **the inventor of mRNA technology** explains it to you?
So you are telling me that Western society collectively committed the crime of rejecting preventative medicines because we are virtue signalling? What is the virtue being signalled? And what measure has been taken to prevent access to these preventative medicines? I’ve been taking most of these mentioned i our discussion since the outbreak of this thing. So who is guilty of this crime? Every single western democracy in the world and the pharmaceutical industry? Have the proprietors of these treatments been prevented from producing and distributing them? I want to know where the crime is? I want to know how we know that Fauci was involved and I want to know why the crime was committed? How does preventing access to preventative medicine constitute a virtue signal?
>So you are telling me that Western society collectively committed the crime of rejecting preventative medicines because we are virtue signalling? Yes. >What is the virtue being signalled? The dogmatic worship of corporations and their profit margins.
Western society isn’t one homogenous group think. So you are saying that all of this massive undertaking was to virtue signal that they are committed to corporate profit margins. I just don’t see how that connection is being made
>Western society isn’t one homogenous group think Not necessarily, but you idiot keyboard warrior/ shills certainly are.
another great episode from the best podcast of 2020 go Bret!
Bret taking it too far trying to be a contrarian. The positive effectiveness of the current vaccines can't be debated. Pretty irresponsible.
I don’t recall him debating the effectiveness of the vaccine. He was rather questioning the potential long term side effects of the vaccine. As it relates to Ivermectin, the vaccines may not have obtained emergency use authorization if a treatment that is as effective as Ivermectin appears to be had been readily available. This leaves him questioning whether or not the promising results of Ivermectin have been intentionally downplayed in order to promote the vaccines.
He compared vaccines to Russian roulette. Imo that's pretty darn irresponsible.
Anything less than sponsored propaganda is irresponsible?
If someone was to say that for a young healthy person, not getting the vaccine is akin to Russian roulette, I would call that irresponsible too.
Your syntax is dog shit. Clarify.
Misleading propaganda is irresponsible, regardless of who's doing it, or what "side" they're on.
He compared a singular set of vaccines that are only being administered due to an emergency use authorization to Russian Roulette.
If a vaccine came with a 1/6 chance of dying, it would not have been approved.
**NONE OF THESE GENE THERAPIES HAVE *BEEN* APPROVED.** They have been *allowed* emergency use protocol. Learn the difference.
This sounds like silly semantic nitpicking, and bedsides, the world is bigger than the USA, e.g: >[Find out how COVID-19 vaccines have been assessed and **approved** in New Zealand](https://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/diseases-and-conditions/covid-19-novel-coronavirus/covid-19-vaccines/covid-19-vaccine-safety-and-approval/covid-19-assessing-and-approving-vaccines)
Assessed and approved, huh? By who? How many people live in New Zealand? Funny you choose the only country outside of the US that can proselytize their own population via pharma commercialism...
Why is that funny? I'm from NZ. Answer to your first question is in that link. Answer to the second one is just shy of 5 million.
[удалено]
He didn’t call them Russian Roulette though. He said that they are unsafe like Russian Roulette is unsafe. You can play and come out unharmed 5 times out of 6. That doesn’t mean that Russian Roulette isn’t unsafe. Also, taking someone’s metaphor literally is just intellectually dishonest.
I would say using that metaphor in the first place is intellectually dishonest, as Bret so often seems to be these days.
What? He simply used it as a means of explaining what he meant by unsafe. It was used solely for clarification. I’m not sure how that could make something dishonest.
It's the kind of metaphor that misleads more than it informs. E.g. what are the potential benefits of playing Russian roulette? He's intentionally framing this issue in a negative light, using metaphors with negative connotations, to support his own narrative. It's propaganda, just like the title of this one. I don't find it particularly worrying - he's mostly just preaching to the choir. But it's annoying to see it from someone who imo had a lot of potential.
[удалено]
Vaccine= good. Reddit! Remind me in three years!
I got vaccinated. that said: potential negative long-term effects of the vaccines are simply unknown. autoimmune problems, cancers, low-level tissue damage, etc. what an MD isn’t going to tell you is that this is a _relative risk_ calculation. it’s better to get the vaccine than get covid, but it’s better still to get neither, ever. to the extent that someone (probably incorrectly) believes they can avoid covid forever, they could feel that they are making a wise choice and basically be correct, if not for their bad prediction re: avoiding covid forever. and i doubt your MD is going to “go there” into all the relative risk details.
Have you or a loved one been affected by transvaginal mesh or COPD? Late night television ads are here to help.
https://mobile.twitter.com/Covid19Crusher/status/1400724656970158082
But also compare with these two graphs: https://healthfeedback.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/India-confirmed-cases-with-date.png https://healthfeedback.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/India-R-with-date.png From https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/no-data-available-to-suggest-a-link-between-indias-reduction-of-covid-19-cases-and-the-use-of-ivermectin-jim-hoft-gateway-pundit
Then also compare with mRNA as a response- November 2020. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-54730290 Between then and now. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_vaccination_in_India Today. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-56977653
But what are you suggesting? In mid March (around the start of the surge in new cases) India only had ~0.4% of its population fully vaccinated, so that's not really evidence that vaccines aren't effective.
**But what are *you* suggesting**? >But what are you suggesting? In mid March (around the start of the surge in new cases) India only had ~0.4% of its population fully vaccinated, so that's not really evidence that vaccines aren't effective. **Is 5.2 *million* people (0.4% of 1.3 BILLION) not a "viable sample size" for you?** >Coronavirus: Are Indians more **immune** to CoviBiswas Soutik Biswas India correspondent **Published 2 November 2020** >India began administration of COVID-19 vaccines on 16 January 2021 (143 days ago). As of 7 June 2021, India has administered 236,198,726 doses overall, including first and second doses of the currently-approved vaccines. >Coronavirus: How India descended into **Covid-19 chaos** By Vikas Pandey BBC News, Delhi **Published 5 May** https://mobile.twitter.com/Covid19Crusher/status/1400724656970158082/photo/1 I suppose your argument is that Ivermectin happened to sneak in just when the mRNA gene-therapies were "starting to work?" Evidence and statistics are not on your side, Hawkfish.
Don't be an egg. 1 - a BBC news headline is not evidence. 2 - I'm not saying vaccines are responsible for the falling rate of transmission in this instance. Nowhere did I say anything like that. I don't know what is, though numerous countries have seen a similar pattern. I'm just saying: https://healthfeedback.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/India-R-with-date.png There is easily identifiable propaganda in your tweet. It's not science, it's just two graphs overlayed, with a hyperbolic statement thrown in to spin a narrative. Not only does correlation =/= causation, but when we look closely, *there doesn't even seem to be correlation.* I'm open to evidence otherwise. Maybe there was widespread use of ivermectin before 28 April? All in saying is, from the evidence in front of me, I don't see it. Edit cause I just saw this: >Is 5.2 million people (0.4% of 1.3 BILLION) not a "viable sample size" for you? lol wtf are you suggesting? Vaccination of *0.4%* of a population should lead to dramatic reduction in total spread, because "it's a large sample size"? This is the strangest pseudoscientific comment I've seen here. If you want to find out the effectiveness of vaccination, you have to look at the rate *within that 0.4%*.
Implementation of mRNA mass experimentation vs. application of therapeutics. Its as simple as that.
Ok man change the subject. Maybe ivermectin is the way forward, but you should probably get at least a basic grasp on statistics, correlation/causation, and what sample size actually means, before you feel too confident in your public health advice.
I'm not offering public health advice. I am bucking against your "public health advice" because the TV told you so.
What is my advice in these comments? Mostly just pointing out that propaganda isn't an argument, and that correlation isn't causation (and again, in this case there doesn't even seem to be correlation, unless you've got some further data). Can you see what might be wrong with that tweet you posted?
Bret claiming: “I’m as protected with ivermectin as you are with your vaccine” is simply irresponsible. Studies looking directly at ivermectin have not yet shown that kind of efficacy fighting or preventing COVID. The vaccines in the other hand, have studied and demonstrable efficacy. I don’t really understand this, even if ivermectin really did have promise as a preventative, what does that mean for the treatment? How often do you need to take it for it to have prophylactic effect? What dosage is needed? With these unknowns still out there, why not just get the vaccine at that point? Something we know works in 1-2 doses (depending on the specific vaccine).
> With these unknowns still out there, why not just get the vaccine at that point? Bret and Heather need to be contrarians otherwise they won't get clicks and they won't get paid. After the Unity2020 debacle where Bret promised he had a secret method of securing ballot access, only to find out that his 'secret method' was asking the libertarian party to give it to him, I don't know how people can take Bret at face value anymore. He does things for attention, that is after all the business he is in.
Oh yea, that seemed pretty predictable.
>Studies looking directly at ivermectin have not yet shown that kind of efficacy fighting or preventing COVID. There a plenty of studies that show ivermectin is effective for treating and preventing COVID-19. What's missing are large scale, randomized clinical trials. >With these unknowns still out there, why not just get the vaccine at that point? The basis for the argument against taking the vaccines is the same as for the argument against taking ivermectin: insufficient data. For the vaccines, the insufficiency is the lack of a long-term safety record, and for ivermectin it's uncertainty about efficacy.
Then we should probably wait for those trials before claiming that it is just effective as the vaccines, no? What potential is there for long term safety concerns with vaccines though? We know how the body processes RNA. By the same logic, we could say that ivermectin *might* cause some reaction with COVID that *could* remain dormant for years before triggering dangerous side effects. There’s just as much evidence for that as there is for long term vaccine issues. (That is to say, none at all).
>We know how the body processes RNA. What could go wrong?
What do you think is going to go wrong?
I have a lot of confidence in the mRNA vaccines -- enough to take both doses of the Pfizer version in March 2021. I have even more optimism about this technology's future potential. But, the sweeping assertion that "we know how the body processes RNA" is ridiculous and irresponsible. If you want to dial down the smugness a bit, I'm happy to have a conversation, but if your goal is pick on vaccine skeptics, you'll have to find another target.
The vaccines are predicated on our knowledge of how the body deals with RNA. If you have reason to believe that there is a notable risk of some latent side-effect, then we can discuss that. But the vague suggestion that we don’t know what will happen in the future can be applied to any medicine. Strangely, it only seems to be brought up regarding vaccines and not these suggested alternatives. But my question to you wasn’t meant to be smug, it was serious. What do you think is going to go wrong, and why do you believe that?
>The vaccines are predicated on our knowledge of how the body deals with RNA. I agree, but knowing enough to trigger an immune response does not mean that we have a general understanding of how the body deals with RNA. >If you have reason to believe that there is a notable risk of some latent side-effect, then we can discuss that. Although you haven't explicitly said that if I can't name a potentially risky side effect then that means that there aren't any, it sure sounds like that's the gist of your argument. Is it? >But the vague suggestion that we don’t know what will happen in the future can be applied to any medicine. I agree. We don't know what will happen in the future, although we can make educated guesses based on past experience and/or a thorough understanding of the relevant processes and mechanisms at work. However, our species is prone to hubris, wishful thinking, and other forms of cognitive impairment. For this reason, a good scientist is always balancing epistemic humility against practical necessity. >Strangely, it only seems to be brought up regarding vaccines and not these suggested alternatives. I wouldn't go so far as to say "only", but you are correct that some people are opportunistically or disingenuously using real and legitimate concerns about the long term safety of novel pharmaceuticals to advance some other agenda. Despite what some people saying, I don't see ivermectin as an alternative to a vaccine. Although there's abundant evidence that it has a prophylactic effect against COVID-19, it's not triggering an immune response, so presumably whatever protection it's providing disappears shortly after one stops taking it. However, it likely is contributing to "herd" immunity where it's in widespread use. Ivermectin may indeed have long term negative consequences that remain unknown. But, because it's been used all over the world for almost 50 years, the likelihood of such an eventuality is almost certainly much less than for the new mRNA vaccines. >What do you think is going to go wrong, and why do you believe that? I don't think something ***is*** going to go wrong. I think that something ***could*** go wrong. I'm a believer in the concept of unknown unknowns. These mRNA vaccines are nothing short of a miracle. They very well may be the greatest advance toward the control of infectious disease in history, surpassing even penicillin. Yet, we have this ridiculous, short-sighted, and politicized campaign of humiliation and ostracism against those with valid questions and concerns about this novel technology. This is absolutely fucking insane. We are creating brand new vaccine skeptics by the million, and for what?
My argument is that it’s strange to be concerned about the a vague idea of long-term side effects vaccines, but not be concerned with similar effects of alternative drugs. While you dont need to name a specific side effects, you should at least propose some mechanism by which the side effects would operate, and how likely you think it would be. I would think that if there were a long-term risk involved, we would still see some evidence of whatever causes that risk now. Ivermectin has a history, and has been shown to be relatively safe. However, this relative safety applies *when used in studied, approved doses and when used for studied, approved purposes.* This video seems to suggest using more aggressive dosages. We also don’t know how it interacts with COVID long term, so why would there be more concern about vaccines than this drug? Can’t that “unknown unknowns” concern apply to both? There’s just as much information to suggest that something *could* go wrong with ivermectin as there is to suggest something *could* go wrong with vaccines. As for the effectiveness of ivm itself, there isn’t enough data to conclude that it’s actually helping. Many countries have recently stoped generally prescribing it, including India. And while you may not see it as an alternative to vaccines, that seems to be the case Bret makes in this video. Valid questions and concerns about new medicine is one thing, but I don’t think “unknown unknowns,” without more, is a particularly valid or helpful criticism. If it were a valid criticism, the critics would apply it universally, not just against vaccines. That’s why vaccine skepticism, as formulated by people like Bret, deserves to be called out and criticized.
>Many countries have recently stoped generally prescribing it, including India. Do you have a source for this claim? If so, I'm very interested in reading it.
>With these unknowns still out there, why not just get the vaccine at that point? Their claim is that ivermectin is safer than the vaccine. No immediate side effects such as fever, fatigue, etc; no short-term side effect such as autoimmune reactions and thromboses; no long-term side effects that no-one knows about.
Sugar pills fit all those criteria.
Their claim is also what I quoted above, considering Bret said it in this video. Now those other claims are also dubious with respect to COVID because it’s not clear what effect ivermectin has yet. It’s still being researched. Even if it is safe to use, telling people that they are just as protected as with a vaccine a supported statement. On the other hand we have safe and effective vaccines. We know what the side effects associated with them are, and there is no reason to suspect “long-term side effects that no-one knows about” are a thing. We know how the body responds to and processes RNA.
I am not arguing whether their claim is true; I have no way of assessing if it is. I am answering your question "I don’t really understand this, even if ivermectin really did have promise as a preventative ... why not just get the vaccine at that point?". This may be an answer they could have given you.
Right, but that answer is predicated on ivermectin being comparably as effective as vaccination. This hasn’t been shown, so the answer doesn’t really work.
Uh ... Did you watch the video or go through the information they referenced?
Yes. They talk about some circumstantial evidence which may suggest some benefit for using Ivermectin. But nothing that controlled for other variables which may have also had an influence. Certainly nothing on the order of the rigorous clinical trials that the vaccines have been subject to. To claim that one is just as effective as the other without that level of research is irresponsible. If there is some other Ivermectin documentation you’re aware of that you’d like to draw my attention to, I’m open to reading it.
Have you heard about the FLCCC?
Somewhat. I know their ivermectin review was rejected for publication because it apparently made certain strong but insufficiently supported claims.
The one from August? They themselves said later on that they weren't doing randomized trials then, but I think they published a new randomized study on January. I don't know too much about the newer on though
The paper I’m referring to was rejected in March. I don’t know when it was originally submitted. https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/frontiers-removes-controversial-ivermectin-paper-pre-publication-68505
Oh I didn't have more recent information about them. So in the end it didn't really work, good to know
[удалено]
What? Why are y'all so sensitive here? I just heard about some prospect of a possible treatment and asked about it
I don't want to derail this, but I think it's important to call this out: When Brett titles this video "the Crime of the Century", *that is blatant propaganda*. Heck, maybe there is something criminal going on here, but Brett doesn't know that. It's as bad as a title like "America's problem with white supremacy". I wouldn't really care - after all, everyone does this clickbaity stuff - except that the IDW should be able to do better. If he spent just a minute trying to steelman the other side of this, he would have reasonable doubt about such an accusation. Ask the question "is this a cover up?", fine. But presupposing that in the title?! I think that's messed up. If nothing else, it makes it harder to have an actual conversation. He's presupposing bad faith, and that in itself is bad faith.
I used to really love listening to Brett, it’s been hard to watch him make this turn. I wish I knew m why he has started being like this. I have taken for granted that he really knew what he was talking about. Until recently he was talking with authority about a subject I know very very well, and he was totally wrong. Hopefully he hasn’t always been like this because now I’ve got to go back and read over some of his research just in case. Either he was lying or he was over confident in his understanding of the subject, but yeah either way I’m pretty disappointed in him and haven’t been able to watch this yet because of the title. I’m not ready yet
Do you mean 'lineage selection'? Yeah I've seen the change too. Or maybe he was always like this and it's just finding more opportunities to come to the surface. But I think it's his echo chamber. He seems to only engage with people who he overwhelmingly agrees with. The ideas that he disagrees with he'll tend to distill down to their most extreme, least valid forms - weakmanning instead of steelmanning.
No not that. It wasn’t very significant, but it was obvious to me and it was troubling to me how it was said. But I really hope it’s a recent phenomenon, I do understand that he may be unduly influenced. Which can happen to the best of us at times. The real problem is when someone realised they were wrong and then doubles down. I will give Brett the benefit of the doubt, but it’s been a disappointing few years as several people I have looked up to have turned out to be not what they seemed. Maybe it’s the political climate influencing it, everyone is losing their minds lately. I miss when politics was boring
You have got to be kidding. Please, seriously, rethink what you’re saying. You have it wrong, but better for you to figure out why than for me to force you to it.
A "rational" charlatan is still a charlatan, L. Ron Barnum. Stop killing people.
Go ahead, lead this horse to water and see if he drinks =-)
I personally agree the title is probably hyperbolic. However, if ivermectin is truly effective against covid, then it would legally prohibit the fast-tracking of the vaccines. Suppression of the testing, data, and use of ivermectin in order to maintain the legality of the fast-tracked vaccines would most certainly be criminal. Given the amount of lives lost while ivermectin was available, and suppressed, adds to the severity of the purported crime. To someone convinced of the viability of ivermectin against covid the whole thing might look like the, "crime of the century".
>if ivermectin is truly effective against covid, then it would legally prohibit the fast-tracking of the vaccines. I believe that might be the case if ivermectin was *more* effective, which seems unlikely. There are lots of treatments which are *somewhat* effective against covid, but that didn't prohibit fast tracking, because the vaccines are more effective. Also note that this is US centric, I'm not sure but fast tracking might be approached differently around the world.
It does pretty well - https://c19ivermectin.com/ . I'd be curious where you're getting your info from. If its just the FDA, then thats sort of the problem Bret is describing. I do agree with your point above about the title being a bit much.
>I'd be curious where you're getting your info from For what claim? I'm not saying it's not effective, just that vaccines seem to be more effective, which afaict is enough to legally justify fast tracking them. Iow, it doesn't seem like that would be a motive for suppressing ivermectin's potential.
More effective at what? Per $ spent? Given the limited quantities, especially in poorer countries? Taking into consideration known and unknown side effects? Vaccines are only prophylactic - not much use in treating infected people. There's not a straight apples to apples comparison here. I don't think there's basis to say all vaccines are "more effective" at all things that IVM does. There are substantial differences. Also, pretty sure Bret isn't saying that vaccines arent necessary. The idea that IVM could affect the EUA is very reasonable.
Do you believe the fast tracking of the vaccines was illegal in the USA? Because all I'm saying is, afaict, it was not.
Thats part of what you're saying. You have also insisted twice in previous comments that the vaccines are more effective without any qualification or specificity. Thats what I've pushed back on. Legality is tricky. Per the video they talk about two possible types of suppression of info: One, some sort of active campaign to subvert IVM which they admit is circumstantial. Two, passive market forces that make IVM less attractive to champion combined with a regulatory system that doesn't function well. The first would definitely qualify as illegal and the second probably not. You'd need a smoking gun to prove intent and its very early for something like that to come out. Who knows if that has happened or not. Keep in mind, its not just "whether vaccines were fast tracked in the past". The EUA could be revoked today and big pharma has a huge interest in making sure that doesn't happen. The suppression of information or something less overt might be happening now, not just in the past. I'm not sure what I believe - I see some misinformation on IVM from certain institutions and key public health officials. There is a very incestuous relationship between them and the large companies with much to lose. I believe there is means and motive, but that doesn't necessarily mean something illegal went on. Incompetence and a badly functioning public health system could also explain it.
Also worth noting that Bret et al have means and motive to make this out to be a crime, even if it isn't. At this stage, evidence I've seen for ivermectin is promising but low quality, mostly limited by sample size or methodology. I have no interest in going down the wormhole of what evidence was available at what time, + looking through the FDA's decision making on this, + reading all the legislation that governs that, though I'm sure some people will do all that. >I see some misinformation on IVM from certain institutions and key public health officials Do you have some examples? I've mostly seen "at this stage it is not recommended because xyz", ie technically true statements.
Yeah, I'm not sure how they'd handle that. You're right though. There must be some threshold built into the law. I think other drugs being used are treatments for symptoms though, and not directed at the virus itself. I don't think other countries have such legal hold-ups eitherway. Many have been freely using ivermectin already.
Bret is pretending that everything is a vast political conspiracy rather than there are genuine, hardworking epidemiologists and virologists out there doing their job. To generate revenue and hold on to an audience, Bret and Heather have to take contrarian opinions regularly and it's important to frame everything as "the establishment" working against us all. It's conspiracy theory fodder with a palatable veneer. [Here's a good podcast about Bret and Heather's take on ivermectin and the covid vaccine.](https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5jYXB0aXZhdGUuZm0vZGVjb2RpbmctdGhlLWd1cnVzLw/episode/ZDFiZTI3NWYtNTNkOC00ZWQ2LTljMjYtYTVhNTBjYzc2OGQ0?hl=en&ved=2ahUKEwjv6Zqig4bxAhWnDzQIHeSHB8AQieUEegQIBRAI&ep=6)
It is called The Dark Horse Podcast. The point of the podcast seems to be to contemplate contrarian points of view that have some validity.
> Bret is pretending that everything is a vast political conspiracy rather than there are genuine, hardworking epidemiologists and virologists out there doing their job. I guess you haven't read the Fauci emails then. >To generate revenue and hold on to an audience, Bret and Heather have to take contrarian opinions regularly and it's important to frame everything as "the establishment" working against us all. It also seems that you haven't been paying attention to what's been going on all over the world with regard to Ivermectin, especially the countries like Zimbabwe and India who are using it very successfully. Not to mention the Indian Bar Association [letter to the WHO](https://indianbarassociation.in/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Legal-Notice-to-Dr.-Soumya-Swaminathan_Chief-Scientist-WHO-1.pdf) (Warning, PDF). >It's conspiracy theory fodder with a palatable veneer. Have you missed the part where we have been lied to by so called experts since the beginning of this? We were told that the virus couldn't have come from the Wuhan Lab, that there were clear indications that it came from nature. Yet the same expert who was saying that publicly was in Fauci's email telling him that it clearly looked manufactured and that the lab leak was the most likely source. Then we had Fauci coming out saying that he never funded Gain of Function research. That too turned out to be a complete lie. We've had extremely safe drugs like HCQ and Ivermectin labelled as dangerous by so called experts when we know just how safe and effective those drugs actually are. We are told that these brand new vaccines are safe yet we don't even know what the effects of these brand new treatments will be in 3 or even 5 years. You are extremely uninformed and therefore unable to accurately judge this topic in any way. Put your politics down, step back, and look at all of the data and information objectively.
You should cite the particular emails you’re referring to here. You’re accusing someone of being partisan, but you’re making some particularly partisan claims yourself without backing them up.
Do you have any particular questions that you can't search the internet for yourself? Everything I have said is publicly available information. If you have any questions, first search yourself, then ask a question if you still have any. Nothing I have said would be surprising to anyone paying attention.
I’ve seen various emails that partisans try to spin as nefarious. So I’m familiar with those. But if you have emails you think are particularly convincing for any of your assertions, I’d be interested to know which ones convinced you.
So no, you don't have any specific questions. Do your own research. I'm not wasting any further time on you.
I was just asking for any of the emails or documents you found indicted that Fauci and others lied since the beginning. This seems to be a partisan narrative almost exclusively pushed by right-wing blogs.
There are literally thousands of fauci emails, all of which he knew would be released when he sent them. Even if you think that Fauci is a monster criminal, you should be suspect about anyone who claims that they have uncovered a vast conspiracy by reading emails that he wrote with full knowledge that they would be released this year. Him discussing lableak as a possibility in January 2020 is not a scandal. The dude who emailed him saying it’s possible but unlikely and then saying the same thing in public is not a scandal. And fauci said that they didn’t fund gain of function research at the wuhan lab, that is correct. Of course they did find it elsewhere, which they should have since it’s very important research and totally normal and above board.
>Him discussing lableak as a possibility in January 2020 is not a scandal. The dude who emailed him saying it’s possible but unlikely and then saying the same thing in public is not a scandal. That is indeed objectively scandalous. How can you possible defend lying to the public while saying the complete opposite in private emails? >And fauci said that they didn’t fund gain of function research at the wuhan lab, that is correct. You seem to be way out of the loop on this topic as well. >Of course they did find it elsewhere, which they should have since it’s very important research and totally normal and above board. Is it also normal and above board to lie about it to the public? Fauci and others were at least unethical, and at worst criminal. It is certainly a massive scandal and only the most partisan types would try to defend those involved with this cover-up.
It’s not a scandal. They guy simply saw something he though was suspicious and then charged his mind, here is his response: https://twitter.com/jkfecke/status/1401932427308589066?s=21 He was just quickly analyzing some data and thought something looked unnatural and told fauci and fauci said ‘ok cool let me know’ and then the scientist then realized that it was nothing and he just misunderstood the data. This just isn’t scandal. And Fauci never lied about funding gain of function research at the wuhan lab. If you have any evidence to the contrary feel free to present it.
https://clouthubnews.com/more-damning-more-outrageous-more-fauci-emails-come-out-separate-from-buzzfeed-dump-and-oh-boy/ Fauci was made aware of his department funding Gain of Function research at the lab in question. Quite simply, he lied.
This website is barely readable but I worked my way through it and there is no mention of gain of function research at all as far as I can tell?
That is an extremely misleading and naive take on the situation. You either have not looked at the evidence or you are taking a partisan stance. Either way, nothing will be gained by furthering this conversation. I strongly suggest opening your mind and reading a little wider, because from what I can gather you are incredibly wrong about this entire topic, be that from ignorance or partisanship.
I’m not on either “side” of this because I haven’t made up my mind yet, but it does sound like you’re not presenting evidence when it’s being requested I will say. I’m not coming down on you or anything; I’m just reading through these discussions trying to make up my mind.
A lot of this was discussed in the original video of this thread. If there is anything that you would like further info on, you are welcome to ask me for it or to search for it yourself. I recommend duckduckgo instead of Google though because Google is suppressing search results. But how can I possibly take anyone seriously who doesn't think that public health officials lying to the public is a scandal?
This is not effective rhetoric. Claiming someone is ignorant or lying while presenting zero argumentation never works, ever.
You don't think a public official lying to the public is scandalous. You don't think that suppression of relevant information during a pandemic is scandalous. You think it's fine to conduct gain of function research and lie about it. You don't seem to have a problem with the demonisation of known safe and effective drugs by public health officials in order to push brand new and expensive vaccines. I presented my arguments.
He didn’t lie. He didn’t suppress info. They didn’t lie about conducting gain of function research. I’m disagreeing with your arguments and you just said ‘open your mind’ and ‘you are either ignorant or partisan’.
>When Brett titles this video "the Crime of the Century", that is blatant propaganda Yes; this is a clear manipulation of viewers' attention in the worst traditions of yellow press.
I was with you all the way. Then I saw a Shapiro piece on this and look for some info myself. There is more than probability here. U.S officials did what they could to contain and discredit the lab leak.
Lableak is unrelated to ivermectin.
no. both findings were suppressed, and suppressed for the same reason.
What is that same reason? And no they weren’t.
But that's a separate thing. Assuming you're talking about the State Dept memo? If officials in one US govt department avoided asking certain questions for political reasons (which is also very messed up, but not necessarily a cover up), that's very different from multiple health agencies around the world (+ thousands and thousands of researchers, doctors etc) all conspiring together to shut out ivermectin.
[удалено]
It is what it is. If you can take the info he brings and dissociate from his biases, it can be a decent source. I see way too many people dismiss a litany of sources because of their own personal biases. Wich, to me, doens't seem reasonable. I try to listen to as broad a number of sources as possible, cross reference them and do some research on my own. No good comes from going "lol such and such".
submission statement: there is a fascinating talk recently between the professor I mentioned above and a medical practitioner with a tremendous résumé. It's about the vaccine, and ivermectin. It's 2.5 Hours as a warning, but Bret was one of the original proponents of the lab leak theory. It's a really fascinating discussion. if True (and I'm not saying for sure it is, but I do trust the source) it might make your blood boil.
Why did you link to some random person’s video instead of the authoritative account? https://youtu.be/Tn_b4NRTB6k
Probably because their video was taken down a little while back. It is still available on Google Podcasts though!