Interesting News, Articles & Stuff

[florduh]

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 [2]. 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 [8], 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 [34,35] and used without serious AEs in the three high-dose COVID-19 treatment studies noted above [34,36,37]. 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.

The only study there recommending IVM came to that conclusion by squinting at statistics like excess deaths in areas with higher IVM usage. That's not how you determine if a specific drug works for a specific disease. Numerous other variables could explain these population wide differences in deaths. If IVM is an effective COVID treatment, a randomized control trial will demonstrate exactly that. Unfortunately...

Effect of Ivermectin on Time to Resolution of Symptoms Among Adults With Mild COVID-19A Randomized Clinical Trial​

"Among adults with mild COVID-19, a 5-day course of ivermectin, compared with placebo, did not significantly improve the time to resolution of symptoms. The findings do not support the use of ivermectin for treatment of mild COVID-19, although larger trials may be needed to understand the effects of ivermectin on other clinically relevant outcomes."

Ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials​

"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."

The good news is, none of us need to worry about this. If someone gets a bad enough case of COVID that they maybe want to try ivermectin, they should be getting advice from their doctor. Just do what the doctor recommends. Exactly like you'd do with any other serious medical issue. Medical science isn't perfect but it's the best we have at this point.

 

[Ramahs]

Yeah, we know...Ivermectin is a stupid idea, and doesn't treat covid.

Tell us something we don't already know (at least for the non dumb-asses among us humans), lol.

 

[macbill]

Here’s How We Could Brighten Clouds to Cool the Earth

"Ship tracks" over the ocean reveal a new strategy to fight climate change

spectrum.ieee.org

 

[macbill]

America has remained unusually vaccine sceptical

Only Russians are more likely to express reservations about the covid-19 jab

www.economist.com

 

[florduh]

Iran is a month away from having nuclear fuel for nuclear weapon

Iran is just a month away from amassing sufficient nuclear fuel to create a single nuclear weapon, as needs to secure a nuclear agreement with US and allies intensify.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[macbill]

That was $276 Million Well Spent

Failed Recall of Gavin Newsom Cost California Taxpayers $276 Million

Earlier cost estimates were revised over the summer after the state legislature approved a bill allowing the recall election date to be moved up.

www.newsweek.com

 

[florduh]

I've always thought cops who make simple marijuana possession arrests are kind of scumbags. But fellow stoners would often defend cops by saying some version of this: "cops don't really have a choice. They're there to enforce the law, regardless of how stupid specific laws might be. I'm sure many cops think it's stupid that weed's illegal, but they can't pick and choose what laws to enforce"

Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco: 'I will not enforce vaccine mandate'

Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco says he will not enforce any type of COVID-19 vaccination mandate on employees of the sheriff's department.

abc7.com

 

[macbill]

1 in every 500 US residents have died of Covid-19 | CNN

The United States has reached another grim milestone in its fight against the devastating Covid-19 pandemic: 1 in 500 Americans have died from coronavirus since the nation's first reported infection.

www.cnn.com

 

[BrianTL]

I've always thought cops who make simple marijuana possession arrests are kind of scumbags. But fellow stoners would often defend cops by saying some version of this: "cops don't really have a choice. They're there to enforce the law, regardless of how stupid specific laws might be. I'm sure many cops think it's stupid that weed's illegal, but they can't pick and choose what laws to enforce"

Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco: 'I will not enforce vaccine mandate'

Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco says he will not enforce any type of COVID-19 vaccination mandate on employees of the sheriff's department.

abc7.com

I would imagine the argument against that comparison would basically go down the constitutional vs unconstitutional path

Although in my experience (Pre-NY going Legal) cops dont enforce MJ laws to begin with unless its street dealer type, or driving while blatantly smoking / getting pulled over obviously stoned/reeking of weed... just not sure the parallel is there

This would be more along the lines of a Sheriff dept. announcing they wont be participating in a gov. mandated firearm confiscation

 

[florduh]

I would imagine the argument against that comparison would basically go down the constitutional vs unconstitutional path

Although in my experience (Pre-NY going Legal) cops dont enforce MJ laws to begin with unless its street dealer type, or driving while blatantly smoking / getting pulled over obviously stoned/reeking of weed... just not sure the parallel is there

This would be more along the lines of a Sheriff dept. announcing they wont be participating in a gov. mandated firearm confiscation

But a County Sheriff isn't the arbiter of what's Constitutional or not. He didn't say, "If the Supreme Court rules this new OSHA requirement is unconstitutional, I will not enforce it". Because, that would go without saying. The OSHA requirement just wouldn't exist.

To me, it sounds like the Sheriff is saying "I intend to violate the Occupational Safety and Health Act." Because he disagrees with it, or how it's being implemented. This flies in the face of this "the law's the law" attitude cops have had about weed for decades.

 

[BrianTL]

But a County Sheriff isn't the arbiter of what's Constitutional or not. He didn't say, "If the Supreme Court rules this new OSHA requirement is unconstitutional, I will not enforce it". Because, that would go without saying. The OSHA requirement just wouldn't exist.

To me, it sounds like the Sheriff is saying "I intend to violate the Occupational Safety and Health Act." Because he disagrees with it, or how it's being implemented. This flies in the face of this "the law's the law" attitude cops have had about weed for decades.

Wasn't insinuating they are the arbiter, just assuming thats what the argument would be. I wasn't even saying its right or wrong. Same thing with the gun shit...plenty of Sherrifs/LEO agencies have made public statements saying its unconstitutional and wouldn't enforce it, without any SCOTUS rulings supporting that it is or isnt constitutional.

But of course is SCOTUS were to decide it was unconstitutional, that would make this whole thing null and void anyway.

 

[macbill]

 

[Ramahs]

Either way, the fact remains that this piece of shit sheriff is refusing to enforce the most basic rules that we need to help keep people safe. The blood of those who die is on his hands now.

Can't we prosecute him for this bullshit? At minimum (bare minimum) he deserves to lose his job.

 

[florduh]

USA! USA!

Either way, the fact remains that this piece of shit sheriff is refusing to enforce the most basic rules that we need to help keep people safe. The blood of those who die is on his hands now.

Can't we prosecute him for this bullshit? At minimum (bare minimum) he deserves to lose his job.

This is particularly nuts given how many cops have died of COVID. Hundreds. Way more than 9/11. Way more than any shooting. If cops were being murdered at the same rate as they're dying of COVID, we'd have fucking martial law in this country.

 

[BrianTL]

The other interesting thing (to me) is I believe that most (if not all) Sherriff's are elected by the public, which to me essentially makes them politicians - they will do what they believe their constituents want/what will get them re elected. This is why most "political" Law Enforcement guys you see on TV are Sherriff's, they can pretty much speak freely and only have to answer to their constituents. In order for a Sherriff to lose his job, he would typically have to be voted out, or other measures taken for an "impeachment" - if that would even be the right term for that scenario, I have no idea.

As opposed to a Police Commissioner or Chief, which is typically appointed by the the elected official (or a group of other gov. officials) of that city/town/whatever. Naturally they also want to keep their jobs and will do what they can to appease those who keep them employed. They are a lot more "restricted" about what they can do/say/etc, as everything reflects on the mayor's (or whoevers) office.

That said I dont think anybody's blood would be on his hands... Vaccines and masks work wonderfully, so if the unvaccinated die, their blood is on their own hands.

 

[florduh]

There is nothing new under the sun

 

[BrianTL]

Lol coincidentally or not, but I have always thought seatbelt laws are silly. Sure, federally require them as OEM equipment, I'm all for that. Every new vehicle being manufactured with the intent of being licensed for road use should be required to have a seatbelt. However, If the individual chooses not to utilize said provided equipment and launches himself through a windshield... darwin and all of that. By now if you haven't figured out seatbelts save lives, a $200 ticket wont fix that. Of course those that want to wear a seatbelt will, and they will be much more likely to survive an impact or rollover, but I dont see the benefit by penalizing those who chose otherwise. It's that whole mandate thing.

If you get pulled over for a "seatbelt" violation, IMO it is 100% a fishing excursion.

I dont wear a seatbelt on my motorcycle, because there obviously are none and that would be ridiculous. There has been times I've ridden though states that don't have helmet laws, and I've occasionally chosen to go without a helmet, while other times I've kept it on. There's that pesky personal choice again.

One last confession. In my truck you only get two warnings from the seatbelt system, so I never wear one. I'm not that manly tho because when my girlfriend rides with me she usually yells at me and I say "yes, dear" and wear it. Most other cars I can't deal with the dinging, so on it goes.

 

[macbill]

Coughs and lethargy: Lions, tigers at Washington zoo catch COVID

Six lions and three tigers at the National Zoo in Washington have tested positive for Covid-19 and are undergoing treatment after falling unwell, the zoo said Friday."Last weekend, animal keepers observed decreased appetites, coughing, sneezing and lethargy" in six African lions, a Sumatran...

www.rawstory.com

 

[florduh]

Lol coincidentally or not, but I have always thought seatbelt laws are silly. Sure, federally require them as OEM equipment, I'm all for that. Every new vehicle being manufactured with the intent of being licensed for road use should be required to have a seatbelt. However, If the individual chooses not to utilize said provided equipment and launches himself through a windshield... darwin and all of that. By now if you haven't figured out seatbelts save lives, a $200 ticket wont fix that. Of course those that want to wear a seatbelt will, and they will be much more likely to survive an impact or rollover, but I dont see the benefit by penalizing those who chose otherwise. It's that whole mandate thing.

If you get pulled over for a "seatbelt" violation, IMO it is 100% a fishing excursion.

I dont wear a seatbelt on my motorcycle, because there obviously are none and that would be ridiculous. There has been times I've ridden though states that don't have helmet laws, and I've occasionally chosen to go without a helmet, while other times I've kept it on. There's that pesky personal choice again.

One last confession. In my truck you only get two warnings from the seatbelt system, so I never wear one. I'm not that manly tho because when my girlfriend rides with me she usually yells at me and I say "yes, dear" and wear it. Most other cars I can't deal with the dinging, so on it goes.

I don't really know how I feel about seatbelt laws. Maybe they're a good idea, maybe they're not. I'm generally not a fan of giving cops yet another excuse to pull people over. Like you said, the dinging has made it a non-issue for me. Since the option is wear my seatbelt, or be driven fully insane...not really a tough decision.

But I will say this. If people refusing to wear a seatbelt caused the corporations who run my grocery store and gym to require every customer entering their business to wear something like this:

...I'd for sure support extremely strict seatbelt mandate laws.

I was also kind of curious about how many traffic deaths there are per year. It's about 38,000. The same number died of COVID last month. I wonder what would happen if there were 600k+ traffic deaths per year.

 

[BrianTL]

I was also kind of curious about how many traffic deaths there are per year. It's about 38,000. The same number died of COVID last month. I wonder what would happen if there were 600k+ traffic deaths per year.

Quite honestly I am shocked that it's only 38K. I would have guessed at least 100K. I would have bet the over at 60K.

 

[macbill]

Cars and roads are safer now. We lost almost the number people to car deaths/year as all years of Vietnam War (58,000).

 

[florduh]

After they murdered an aide worker and his family, including 7 children, the US military lied and said a "secondary explosion" caused "collateral damage". Not the drone strike. Until reporters figured out this was all bullshit. It only took the NYT like a day to prove conclusively that the guy they murdered was a humanitarian aide worker who was approved for a US visa. But US Intel couldn't figure it this out before we pulled the trigger? Fucking pathetic.

And keep in mind, this is how bad we are at this at the END of our 20 year "war on terror". How many kids were we accidentally turning into skeletons back in the day, 10-15 years ago?

Hey, but at least General McKenzie here is "sorry".

US general admits drone strike near Afghan airport that killed 10 was a 'mistake'

At least seven children were killed in the strike.

abcnews.go.com

 

[macbill]

 

[florduh]

Climate change: IPCC report is 'code red for humanity'

Heating from humans has caused irreparable damage to the Earth that may get worse in coming decades.

www.bbc.com

Human activity is changing the climate in unprecedented and sometimes irreversible ways, a major UN scientific report has said.
The landmark study warns of increasingly extreme heatwaves, droughts and flooding, and a key temperature limit being broken in just over a decade.

The report "is a code red for humanity", says the UN chief.

But scientists say a catastrophe can be avoided if the world acts fast. There is hope that deep cuts in emissions of greenhouse gases could stabilise rising temperatures.

Biden Administration Says IPCC 'Does Not Present Sufficient Cause' to End Offshore Drilling

Environmentalists slam the White House for brushing off the IPCC report and expanding offshore drilling.

gizmodo.com

President Joe Biden has been touring climate-ravaged areas of America, warning that climate change is a “code red” emergency for the planet. And yet, his administration has continued to boost fossil fuel projects and is now preparing to vastly expand offshore drilling.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1323803946167734272

 

[Cheebsy]

We're all fucking doomed if the US, China, and India don't tow the line! I think the US might, eventually, but it's going to take some time to pursaude those fast expanding economies.