Jump to content

Robert J Anderson

Members
  • Posts

    179
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Robert J Anderson

  1. I do care about the deaths and am not advocating just to do nothing. However, this is always used to justify the draconian measures we've been facing over the last year and one-half, disallowing questioning of our governments' responses. The question we should be asking is whether our reaction was the correct one or not, was it to the right degree or not. Should we do what New Zealand and Australia have done, where the countries lock down over a few cases? This is why treatments are so important and not just putting all our eggs into one basket. The media disinformation about ivermectin doesn't help. The science is never settled and our government leaders are fallible, subject to conflicts of interest, just like anyone. Perhaps the better course was to let the majority of the population get the virus, treat it, and then let them enjoy their immunity, an immunity that is many times better than the limited protection offered from the vaccines. In conjunction, take care of those affected like we have been doing, except, if patients want to take experimental treatments and doctors prescribe it, then let them do it. Texas hospitals recently banned ivermectin, why? If it has a chance of working and is safe if the proper dose is used, then why not let people use it? It makes no sense and may be the cause of an unnecessary loss of life.
  2. https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/hospitalization-7-day-trend/utah Here it is.
  3. Show me that Johns Hopkins is lying. Why do you always default to the corona virus is half full? We are dealing with a virus that 99.7% survive.
  4. Here is the DN article where the UofU hospital spokesperson said the icu capacity was at 99% (October 22, 2020). https://www.deseret.com/utah/2020/10/23/21530444/coronavirus-covid19-new-cases-hospitalizations-deaths-salt-lake-city-university-of-utah-hospital However, take a look at the Johns Hopkins data for Utah for the same week: https://www.deseret.com/utah/2020/10/23/21530444/coronavirus-covid19-new-cases-hospitalizations-deaths-salt-lake-city-university-of-utah-hospital If you hover over the week for Oct 22, 2020, the ICU capacity was at 64% statewide. So, perhaps it is true that UofU had 99% capacity, but without letting the people know that other hospitals weren't as strained, perhaps a true picture would have been shown.
  5. Maybe yes, maybe no. Remember how the UofU exaggerated their numbers in October of last year, saying they were overcapacity when the other hospitals could have easily taken the supposed overflow? It was done out of a noble lie type of excuse, but still was misleading and the DN ran with the story. Of course, Johns Hopkins could be wrong, but so could the Utah Health Department. I wonder where each get their numbers?
  6. Here is what Johns Hopkins says about current hospital capacity in Utah: https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/region/us/utah The Johns Hopkins data says current ICU capacity is at 73% two weeks ago and 71% one week ago.
  7. Looks like you have to get a subscription. Perhaps you could simply give some bullets on why Weinstein is a quack? I know he was interviewed by Rogan, the horsepaste lover, and Dr. Malone, another supposed "quack," probably labeled as such due to not religiously following the narrative. So, what does Mr. Harris say specifically about Dr. Weinstein?
  8. I was vaccinated, so, doesn't that give me some social credit, enough to talk about alternatives? Or, is it total dedication to the vaccine team or banishment? Also, you appear to be a little emotional about this as evidenced by your last sentence. Why? The vaccines don't stop the spread, don't prevent someone from getting it, just lessen the symptoms supposedly, except that may not be so true for delta and the other variants. Anyway, why so emotional if I read you correctly? Shouldn't we always be discussing and entertaining alternatives in these matters?
  9. Not surprising USA Today made a mistake on ivermectin, exaggerating the horsepaste narrative. It seems to be part of the push against anything non-vaccine treatments for covid-19.
  10. Tell that to the breathless media that are too busy to fact-check the stories they do or spread on social media about ivermectin.
  11. You can't simply provide it again? My guess is that it is based on the discredited AP and Rolling Stone hysteria and that is why you are shying away from this. I don't get why you are digging in your heals on this discredited narrative, if that is the case. I don't know about using ivermectin as a prophylactic. I'm not a doctor. But why not try it out on willing patients? There are experts like Dr. Bret Weinstein who are using it as a prophylactic. Why not have a big study on this and other possible remedies? We did this for the vaccine and approved Pfizer's in record time. Why not do the same thing for ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine or other repurposed drugs?
  12. https://data.jconline.com/covid-19-hospital-capacity/facility/intermountain-medical-center/460010/ The data don't seem to back the over capacity narrative. Could you supply the data on this? Also, if this is the case, perhaps allowing doctors to prescribe it would solve the problem? We rushed the vaccine to market, yet are slow walking anything non-vaccine related.
  13. The first two shots worked and so we need a third and perhaps a fourth because the first two were so effective? https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/israels-grim-covid-data-suggests-vaccines-alone-wont-stop-pandemic/ar-AANJIxp You know we wouldn't be having this conversation if the vaccines stopped the spread better and worked better. Natural immunity still outshines what Pharma can do. https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/312538 Maybe exposure is the answer and stopping the prevention of doctors trying different treatments for those who contract the illness? Do you have any data on who is actually getting really sick? Is it still primarily the aged and people with other health problems? Also, we still use the questionable PCR test and so how do we really know if the flu isn't coming back? And this is my main question: Why the resistance to other treatments? You are too ready to jump on the stories about how billybob in MS overdosed on horsepaste (turned out to be an exaggerated, media hyped story). Theoretically, if there are treatments that work, but aren't called vaccines, would you support them? What if the treatments were so effective that the vaccine was rendered unnecessary. Would you still support the non-vaccine treatments?
  14. Where do you get this? Also, does IHC break down the numbers by age?
  15. Seems the AP did the same thing: https://sharylattkisson.com/2021/09/another-ivermectin-story-and-false-reporting-this-time-by-ap/ I wonder if this story will meet the same fate? https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/health/ivermectin-poison-control-calls-triple-in-washington-despite-multiple-warnings-against-use-for-covid-19-treatment/ What do you think is going on here? I would think that people would hail any possible treatment as a good thing. Instead we get these fake news stories, breathlessly pushed by the media. First Hydroxychloroquin was demonized, now ivermectin. Can't the vaccines take a little competition? Perhaps the dismal record has something to do with it. The third shot isn't working in Israel. https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/311368
  16. Like the debunked Rolling Stone article? I'd like to see how many are actually calling the poison control centers. "Swamping" probably means a few people calling, it being exaggerated in the reporting, and then other media/social media hype and further exaggeration.
  17. My point is that the pharmaceutical industry has a lot of influence over doctors, media, and congress and so it isn't surprising that there is a concerted attack on a cheap competitor to the vaccines.
  18. Here is something to chew on about how pharma pushes its wares on doctors and us: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2720029 They also like to contribute to congress: https://khn.org/news/campaign/ This is a program from 2003 about regulatory capture of the FDA: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/prescription/ Here is an article from 2015: https://slate.com/technology/2015/02/fda-inspections-fraud-fabrication-and-scientific-misconduct-are-hidden-from-the-public-and-doctors.html It is still going on today: https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-regulatory-capture-of-the-fda/ So, ivermectin gets branded as a horse medicine when it is used and approved for use in humans: https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-should-not-use-ivermectin-treat-or-prevent-covid-19 I guess you can wave your hand at it by calling it conspiracy theory to think that money/regulatory capture might corrupt.
  19. Something else is going on here, especially given how poorly the vaccines are working against the delta variant. If someone is facing a potentially death causing illness and at that point the vaccine won't/can't save you and you may have already got the vaccine, so why not try something that is already approved? Haha, it is also a horse de-wormer, haha, and billy bob might have taken it, hoho hehe. But there are doctors that believe and have patients to prove that it works. Why not let them take it? What harm is there to you to let someone, after informed consent, to be part of an ivermectin experiment with their doctor? We applauded those in the vaccine trials. Who cares if someone in Alabama uses this or that, so long as they are informed by a doctor and the doctor prescribes it? Yet, there is this concerted effort to dissuade use simply because it is cheap and might convince some otherwise healthy people to not get vaccinated. I say let the people control their own health in concert with their doctor. This campaign against ivermectin is clearly because of the fear of competition with the vaccine narrative.
  20. I got vaccinated but am wondering why the bad press over a possible non-vaccine cure. The Tokyo Medical Association recommends it. https://halturnerradioshow.com/index.php/en/news-page/world/breaking-news-chairman-of-tokyo-medical-association-tells-doctors-to-prescribe-ivermectin-for-covid-treatment India had great results using ivermectin: https://www.thedesertreview.com/news/national/ivermectin-obliterates-97-percent-of-delhi-cases/article_6a3be6b2-c31f-11eb-836d-2722d2325a08.html Recently Joe Rogan got covid and used ivermectin among other medications and was over it in a couple of days. At a proper dose, it is both safe and seems to be effective. Yet the media is beside itself when it is discussed as if it is being paid by their biggest advertiser to fight against the competition. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/gunshot-victims-horse-dewormer-ivermectin-oklahoma-hospitals-covid-1220608/ Shouldn't we be looking everywhere for a solution to this? Everywhere except that devil ivermectin that doesn't have any adverse side effects and is cheap? I'd rather not go on the booster shot treadmill if there is an alternative. So, study away is the correct thing to do and while scientists are at it, perhaps they should study why the safe and effective vaccine needs booster shots.
  21. You are the one who brought up the religious angle in your attempt to guilt me into not questioning the consensus. I think good science always questions the supposed consensus. That is how progress is made. Also, we need to stop the trend of bullying and cancelling those who disagree. Opposition in all things, even in the scientific realm, keeps us honest. The science is never settled. Perhaps the vaccines could be made to be better, cover the variants better, perhaps stop transmission like other vaccines do? Maybe we jumped on the vaccine bandwagon too early? These questions need to be discussed and researched. It looks like this is becoming like the flu shot where the pharmaceutical companies cannot keep up with the continually mutating virus. Other methods in attacking this need to be researched and not automatically, emotionally discounted like we see with ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine.
  22. Sometimes the consensus is wrong. The consensus is against us as members. Most don't belong to our church, but we are continuing the effort. Scientists and even prophets are fallible. The consensus among doctors used to be to prescribe bleeding. Our leaders have said some questionable things in the past and then changed when new light and knowledge was given. Newtonian physics, in part, gave way to Einstein. Also, there are other studies on mask effectiveness and the flu virus prior to the push to mask everyone. California v. Florida numbers showed that mask mandates didn't affect the infection numbers. Maybe aerosol transmission is what drives this? Would you be willing to admit that perhaps the mask mandates were an over-reaction to a disease that has a less than 1% mortality rate and mostly affects people in a mild fashion? Also, it looks like having and surviving the mild covid-19 illness provides better protection than the vaccines. Are you ready for the third, fourth and fifth dose? I'm not. Maybe the better approach was to allow infection and take care of those immunocompromised?
  23. The research exists and should be factored into what the consensus is. If it turns out that even though masks stop droplet transmission but don't stop aerosol transmission, perhaps aerosol transmission is enough to drive the numbers we see. That's the implication of this research. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.18.21257385v1 This hasn't been peer reviewed yet but should be.
  24. Yeah, the consensus says masks work, but "work" is ambiguous at this point. I think the better question now is how much the masks slow the spread, if at all, and whether aerosol transmission is the controlling factor in the spread. If masks reduce the primary mode of droplet transmission yet don't stop aerosol transmission, does it matter? If you are in an indoor work setting/grocery store, etc., where people are masked, eventually you will be exposed to the aerosol transmission because aerosols aren't stopped. Has it been determined whether aerosol transmission is sufficient to drive the infection numbers? This study seems to say that the numbers aren't changed regardless of mask mandates, pointing to perhaps aerosol transmission driving the bus. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.18.21257385v1
×
×
  • Create New...