Bologna
(zombie) Woof.
Florida changed its COVID-19 data, creating an ‘artificial decline’ in recent deaths
and in other news:
Last edited:
Interesting News, Articles & Stuff
- Thread starter Summer
- Start date
and in other news:
florduh
Well-Known Member
Amazon actively recruiting weed smokers as delivery drivers to overcome severe shortage
Amazon is actively recruiting cannabis users to overcome a severe shortage in delivery drivers.The online retailer has told its delivery partners to prominently state they don't screen applicants for weed use, according to communications obtained by Bloomberg, but some of the company's...
www.rawstory.com
Bologna
(zombie) Woof.
Not testing for LEGAL products in your system = actively recruiting...? Haha, yeah, lord knows "weed smokers" are pounding the bricks looking for work like always...Amazon actively recruiting weed smokers as delivery drivers to overcome severe shortage
Amazon is actively recruiting cannabis users to overcome a severe shortage in delivery drivers.The online retailer has told its delivery partners to prominently state they don't screen applicants for weed use, according to communications obtained by Bloomberg, but some of the company's...
Oh, and they should've said 420%, not 400.... dummies!
florduh
Well-Known Member
New post-9/11 wars cost estimate: $8 trillion
The US military role in Afghanistan is over, but the costs will continue to mount as the forever wars rage on.
responsiblestatecraft.org
8 trillion dollars. Nearly a million humans directly killed. All for absolutely nothing.
And in case you think it's over...
Lawmakers pave way for $1.2 trillion in new military spending over next 10 years
A $23.9 billion addition to the NDAA would have a greater longterm impact than Congress wants to acknowledge.
responsiblestatecraft.org
That's NEW spending. Almost entirely on unnecessary bullshit.
TikTokers flood Texas abortion whistleblower site with Shrek memes, fake reports and porn
Critics of Texas’s new law have been filing hundreds of fake reports to the whistleblowing website in hopes of crashing it
www.theguardian.com
florduh
Well-Known Member
I've gotta say, this Texas law makes sense to me. America just lost a war to the Taliban. It's only logical that we take on some of the policies of the victors. The Taliban also had a policy of encouraging snitching on your neighbors for violating obscure religious laws. Texas is just doing the same thing with Christian Sharia.
Tranquility
Well-Known Member
We have in this nation this element of domestic slavery. It is a matter of absolute certainty that it is a disturbing element. It is the opinion of all the great men who have expressed an opinion upon it, that it is a dangerous element. We keep up a controversy in regard to it. That controversy necessarily springs from difference of opinion, and if we can learn exactly---can reduce to the lowest elements---what that difference of opinion is, we perhaps shall be better prepared for discussing the different systems of policy that we would propose in regard to that disturbing element. I suggest that the difference of opinion, reduced to its lowest terms, is no other than the difference between the men who think slavery a wrong and those who do not think it wrong. The Republican party think it wrong---we think it is a moral, a social and a political wrong. We think it is a wrong not confining itself merely to the persons or the States where it exists, but that it is a wrong in its tendency, to say the least, that extends itself to the existence of the whole nation. Because we think it wrong, we propose a course of policy that shall deal with it as a wrong. We deal with it as with any other wrong, in so far as we can prevent its growing any larger, and so deal with it that in the run of time there may be some promise of an end to it. We have a due regard to the actual presence of it amongst us and the difficulties of getting rid of it in any satisfactory way, and all the constitutional obligations thrown about it. I suppose that in reference both to its actual existence in the nation, and to our constitutional obligations, we have no right at all to disturb it in the States where it exists, and we profess that we have no more inclination to disturb it than we have the right to do it. We go further than that; we don't propose to disturb it where, in one instance, we think the Constitution would permit us. We think the Constitution would permit us to disturb it in the District of Columbia. Still we do not propose to do that, unless it should be in terms which I don't suppose the nation is very likely soon to agree to---the terms of making the emancipation gradual and compensating the unwilling owners. Where we suppose we have the constitutional right, we restrain ourselves in reference to the actual existence of the institution and the difficulties thrown about it. We also oppose it as an evil so far as it seeks to spread itself. We insist on the policy that shall restrict it to its present limits. We don't suppose that in doing this we violate anything due to the actual presence of the institution, or anything due to the constitutional guarantees thrown around it.
--Abraham Lincoln in 6th Lincoln/Douglas debates (about another group Democrats/Republicans disagreed upon)
Bologna
(zombie) Woof.
Planck
believes in Dog
That makes me wonder when paragraphs were invented.
Laughing so hard tears are streaming down my cheeks.
florduh
Well-Known Member
If you're going to make a desperate person risk their life to bring you treats in the middle of a hurricane, please tip them. Well.
A New York City food-delivery worker who rode for an hour through Hurricane Ida says he earned $5 for the job
- A food-delivery worker said he traveled for an hour through storm weather and only made $5.
- Some delivery services offered workers peak pricing to deliver goods during the storm, workers said.
- The record floods have been linked to at least 42 deaths in the Northeast.
florduh
Well-Known Member
Happy Labor Day!
www.dailyposter.com
The Labor Day Graph That Says It All
A reminder that if we hope to ever rebuild an economy that works for everyone, we need a much stronger labor movement.
www.dailyposter.com
Ivermectin story correction
FOR THE RECORD: A national story regarding Ivermectin and a study regarding its effect on men’s reproductive health that KTSM published, has been removed from our website. Concerns ove…
www.ktsm.com
florduh
Well-Known Member
Ivermectin story correction
FOR THE RECORD: A national story regarding Ivermectin and a study regarding its effect on men’s reproductive health that KTSM published, has been removed from our website. Concerns ove…
Defenders of Ivermectin are pointing out that this study is flawed. They're correct.
Does Ivermectin Cause Sterility in Men?
One study purportedly found that 85% of men who were given the anti-parasitic were sterile following the research period.
I do find this whole thing funny though. Because they have no problem using similarly dubious studies to promote ivermectin as a COVID treatment. And we're not out of the woods yet on ivermectin causing infertility in men. A better designed rat study from a few years back demonstrated that ivermectin shrank the rat's balls and deformed their sperm.
I also find this whole saga both hilarious and infuriating because it seems everyone just forgot about fucking hydroxychloroquine. A few, poorly designed studies suggested hydroxychloroquine is an effective COVID treatment. This caused various hucksters to promote it as a miracle cure. But later, far better designed randomized control trials proved conclusively that hydroxychloroquine is basically useless for COVID.
Now, many of the same hucksters are using cherrypicked data to promote ivermectin for COVID. To quote a great thinker:
Tranquility
Well-Known Member
It's worse than that in the 2011 study
https://www.scholarsresearchlibrary...tions-of-nigerian-onchocerciasis-patients.pdf
From the Abstract:
So, if you're in the category of those who have onchocerciasis (River blindness from parasite), about 90.4% chance of having "sterilization" (word used in article) to the point of not having normal enough sperm to be selected in the study. They were given ivermectin. Depending on when in the disease process they were, couldn't you say those dosed with ivermectin had an improvement in the risk profile? I mean, 90.6% of similar men have abnormal sperm before ivermectin and then only 85% have it after.
But, I'm sure the decade old study that reinforces stereotypes when you misinterpret it and apply it to those you disagree with is important reporting.
Modernly, while vaccination is always a first choice even if we require new definitions of what such a thing is supposed to accomplish, why would a bunch of people who violate federal law regarding some drugs care if others violate similar laws on other drugs? (No, intensive care at hospitals were not overwhelmed by ivermectin side effects. That has already been subject to an "update" by Rolling Stone.)
Finally, while correlation is not causation, there is something weird in Africa. (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33795896/)
(From a different study than above at https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.26.21254377v1.full.pdf)
florduh
Well-Known Member
It's worse than that in the 2011 study
https://www.scholarsresearchlibrary...tions-of-nigerian-onchocerciasis-patients.pdf
From the Abstract:
So, if you're in the category of those who have onchocerciasis (River blindness from parasite), about 90.4% chance of having "sterilization" (word used in article) to the point of not having normal enough sperm to be selected in the study. They were given ivermectin. Depending on when in the disease process they were, couldn't you say those dosed with ivermectin had an improvement in the risk profile? I mean, 90.6% of similar men have abnormal sperm before ivermectin and then only 85% have it after.
But, I'm sure the decade old study that reinforces stereotypes when you misinterpret it and apply it to those you disagree with is important reporting.
Modernly, while vaccination is always a first choice even if we require new definitions of what such a thing is supposed to accomplish, why would a bunch of people who violate federal law regarding some drugs care if others violate similar laws on other drugs? (No, intensive care at hospitals were not overwhelmed by ivermectin side effects. That has already been subject to an "update" by Rolling Stone.)
Finally, while correlation is not causation, there is something weird in Africa. (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33795896/)
(From a different study than above at https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.26.21254377v1.full.pdf)
It's certainly possible that parasitic infections cause male fertility issues. But in the rat study, Ivermectin alone shrank the testes and deformed sperm. I'm not sure if any analogous human studies exist. But I certainly wouldn't conduct one on myself with supplies bought at an animal feed store.
That's the rub, for me anyway. Don't conduct your own clinical trials on yourself. It's extremely risky. Definitely riskier than taking the vaccine. I don't want to see anyone hurt themselves based on something dumb they saw on YouTube.
The only way to determine if a drug works for a specific disease is to conduct a randomized control trial. Otherwise there's too many variables to account for. To the best of my knowledge, every RCT on Ivermectin conducted so far shows no benefit for COVID patients. Which is probably why the American Medical Association, American Pharmacists Association, and American Society of Health-System Pharmacists all "strongly oppose the ordering, prescribing, or dispensing of ivermectin to prevent or treat COVID-19 outside of a clinical trial."
Tranquility
Well-Known Member
Then, I guess you have made the personal balancing of the risks and rewards of the ivermectin path fall clearly into the "don't take it" category. That does not seem unreasonable--especially if you are vaccinated.
But...are you so sure of your balancing to require under penalty of law that no one else is allowed to calculate differently?
florduh
Well-Known Member
I don't think people who incorrectly evaluate the risks of vaccines vs getting a bad case of COVID should be thrown in jail. I don't have a big problem with making their lives a little less convenient though. Our hospitals were so full in August, over a year after all this bullshit started, that I had to boil my drinking water for a few days. They needed the water purification oxygen for serious COVID cases. Almost all of whom were unvaccinated.
I also still have to wear a mask at my gym. In September of 2021. Because we're still getting 9/11 level casualties every couple days. I believe, mostly among the unvaccinated. And I don't think we've really appreciated how all of this is driving healthcare workers slowly insane. They're the ones who have had to clean up this mess, every day for a year and a half.
Is it really unconscionable to shift some of the inconvenience towards people who aren't good at evaluating risks? I don't think so. It's really hot in Florida, and I'm tired of wearing a mask at the gym.
I also still have to wear a mask at my gym. In September of 2021. Because we're still getting 9/11 level casualties every couple days. I believe, mostly among the unvaccinated. And I don't think we've really appreciated how all of this is driving healthcare workers slowly insane. They're the ones who have had to clean up this mess, every day for a year and a half.
Is it really unconscionable to shift some of the inconvenience towards people who aren't good at evaluating risks? I don't think so. It's really hot in Florida, and I'm tired of wearing a mask at the gym.
florduh
Well-Known Member
America's last act in her longest war: murdering an aid worker and 9 other people, including several children. And then lying about it.
www.nytimes.com
Video: How a U.S. Drone Strike Killed the Wrong Person
A week after a New York Times visual investigation, the U.S. military admitted to a tragic mistake in an Aug. 29 drone strike in Kabul that killed 10 civilians, including an aid worker and seven children.
1nd3cEnt
Well-Known Member
Ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
(2021, Jun 28) [SOC] standard of care; [RCT] randomized controlled trial; [AE] adverse event;
Background: We systematically assessed benefits and harms of the use of ivermectin (IVM) in COVID-19 patients.
Conclusions: In comparison to SOC or placebo, IVM did not reduce all-cause mortality, length of stay or viral clearance in RCTs in COVID-19 patients with mostly mild disease. IVM did not have an effect on AEs or severe AEs. IVM is not a viable option to treat COVID-19 patients.
Ivermectin for preventing and treating COVID-19
(2021, Jul 28)
Background: Ivermectin, an antiparasitic agent used to treat parasitic infestations, inhibits the replication of viruses in vitro. The molecular hypothesis of ivermectin's antiviral mode of action suggests an inhibitory effect on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) replication in the early stages of infection. Currently, evidence on efficacy and safety of ivermectin for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 treatment is conflicting.
Conclusions: Based on the current very low- to low-certainty evidence, we are uncertain about the efficacy and safety of ivermectin used to treat or prevent COVID-19. The completed studies are small and few are considered high quality. Several studies are underway that may produce clearer answers in review updates. Overall, the reliable evidence available does not support the use ivermectin for treatment or prevention of COVID-19 outside of well-designed randomized trials.
Ivermectin: a multifaceted drug of Nobel prize-honoured distinction with indicated efficacy against a new global scourge, COVID-19
(2021, Aug 3)
Introduction: Recently, Dr Satoshi Omura, the Nobel co-laureate for the discovery of IVM, and colleagues conducted a comprehensive review of IVM clinical activity against COVID-19, concluding that the preponderance of the evidence demonstrated major reductions in mortality and morbidity. Our review of that evidence, updated with consideration of several new studies, supports the same conclusion.
Conclusions: We believe that the evidence to date supports the worldwide extension of IVM treatments for COVID-19, complementary to immunizations. The indicated biological mechanism of IVM, competitive binding with SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, is likely non-epitope specific, as reviewed, possibly yielding full efficacy against emerging viral mutant strains. IVM has been safely used in 3.7 billion doses since 1987, well tolerated even at much greater than standard doses and used without serious AEs in the three high-dose COVID-19 treatment studies noted above. In the current international emergency of COVID-19, with mutant viral strains, vaccination refusals and potentially waning immunities over months presenting new challenges, IVM can be an effective component of the mix of therapeutics deployed against this pandemic.
Mother Jones senior editor Kiera Butler [@kieraevebutler] on how Ivermectin became so politicized
(2021, Sept 10) [No available transcript]
(2021, Jun 28) [SOC] standard of care; [RCT] randomized controlled trial; [AE] adverse event;
Background: We systematically assessed benefits and harms of the use of ivermectin (IVM) in COVID-19 patients.
Conclusions: In comparison to SOC or placebo, IVM did not reduce all-cause mortality, length of stay or viral clearance in RCTs in COVID-19 patients with mostly mild disease. IVM did not have an effect on AEs or severe AEs. IVM is not a viable option to treat COVID-19 patients.
Ivermectin for preventing and treating COVID-19
(2021, Jul 28)
Background: Ivermectin, an antiparasitic agent used to treat parasitic infestations, inhibits the replication of viruses in vitro. The molecular hypothesis of ivermectin's antiviral mode of action suggests an inhibitory effect on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) replication in the early stages of infection. Currently, evidence on efficacy and safety of ivermectin for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 treatment is conflicting.
Conclusions: Based on the current very low- to low-certainty evidence, we are uncertain about the efficacy and safety of ivermectin used to treat or prevent COVID-19. The completed studies are small and few are considered high quality. Several studies are underway that may produce clearer answers in review updates. Overall, the reliable evidence available does not support the use ivermectin for treatment or prevention of COVID-19 outside of well-designed randomized trials.
Ivermectin: a multifaceted drug of Nobel prize-honoured distinction with indicated efficacy against a new global scourge, COVID-19
(2021, Aug 3)
Introduction: Recently, Dr Satoshi Omura, the Nobel co-laureate for the discovery of IVM, and colleagues conducted a comprehensive review of IVM clinical activity against COVID-19, concluding that the preponderance of the evidence demonstrated major reductions in mortality and morbidity. Our review of that evidence, updated with consideration of several new studies, supports the same conclusion.
Conclusions: We believe that the evidence to date supports the worldwide extension of IVM treatments for COVID-19, complementary to immunizations. The indicated biological mechanism of IVM, competitive binding with SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, is likely non-epitope specific, as reviewed, possibly yielding full efficacy against emerging viral mutant strains. IVM has been safely used in 3.7 billion doses since 1987, well tolerated even at much greater than standard doses and used without serious AEs in the three high-dose COVID-19 treatment studies noted above. In the current international emergency of COVID-19, with mutant viral strains, vaccination refusals and potentially waning immunities over months presenting new challenges, IVM can be an effective component of the mix of therapeutics deployed against this pandemic.
Mother Jones senior editor Kiera Butler [@kieraevebutler] on how Ivermectin became so politicized
(2021, Sept 10) [No available transcript]
Last edited: