What's new

Hydroxchlorquine - solution or not?

That's the exact kind of thinking that doesn't belong in a lab or making health decisions.

Your contention is that Grinchen Hitmer, whom you undoubtedly hate, now asking for HCQ is a reason to use it. That kind of Boomer retard mentality is the entire problem with the conservative movement.

What, you think that because Whitmer is covering her bases, that means it MUST be real? The goddamned story is from MARCH for fuck's sake, well before we had loads of studies indicating it doesn't do shit.

Honestly, I don't give a fuck, but it's not a solution.

science isn't politics you Pantifa retard. Oh wait, you're a 'conservative'.

I'm pretty sure the right thing to do is the opposite of what you post you nitwit.
 
What you believe are the trials of HQC and the back-data of it. There is a lot of good data out there.

HQC is not shown to be an effective treatment.

It doesn't matter that 100,000 doctors say it's 100% effective.
It doesn't matter than the media and Lefties hate it.
It doesn't matter if Italy is using it.

ALL THAT MATTERS is whether HQC shows itself to have an effect in data. It does not show this.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.105...=featured_home

https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news...oxychloroquine

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020...event-covid-19

etc.

The problem with all of this is that these are eliminative trials: they only show that HCQ is not effective in their trials. So the question becomes:

When does the absence of evidence constitute evidence of absence?

So the question is, when do we decide that HCQ is not effective based on the absence of evidence that it is?

For me, that's two months ago. HCQ may be able to calm down the 'cytokine storm' or in other ways keep the immune system from over-reacting. Really, that's where we should be going with this. Keep the immune system from over-reacting while also allowing it to fight the virus.

In a way, we are in the position of trying to use the Wisconsin Protocol for rabies (which is unproven).

https://www.jwatch.org/fw20070420000...rotocol-failed

The Dr. on Tucker Carlson literally referenced the studies I posted above:

15:16
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6IvG0VyV6U

I made the post before he was on.

He said the exact same thing I said, in some words.

FOXNEWS STOP PLAIGARIZING ME!
 
I don't know if it works or not of course. I am not a doctor.

I do know that the hysteria with this drug is laughable. Some are out there crying that Trump is advising people to take a deadly drug. That is like saying that if you have a headache and take Pepto you could die. It may not work, but it isn't going to make you sick and die. Total Fake News. HCC is one of the safest drugs around with little to no side effects from what doctors say.

I also know this. IF it is proven that HCC helps or cures COVID, there are people that would rather die than take it and be saved by Trump's drug.

I hope there are a lot of them.
 
they are private businesses. isn't it their right to refuse whatever they want?

why arn't the newspapers running the story? why is social media the only place this bullshit is thriving in? Ohh right. big pharma.

No, it's not their right, you are making a dishonest argument. Because social media companies use public infrastructure to conduct their business, they are obligated to give equal time.

These are laws that are on the books, and it's why you see a Congressman from the opposite party given time to speak after a SOTU address by the President.

These laws are simply not being enforced. The 1996 Telecommunications act makes the internet part of the original 1933 Communications Act.

It's also why bandwidth for cell phones is auctioned off by the government. The People own that bandwidth.

No one is doing anything about it b/c the Left loves to control people, and the Right loves to bitch like a bunch of victims.
 
Would 97% be better for you?

if so, the disease has a 97% survival rate as is. it isn't wholly unlikely that, if this provides even some general benefit, that this particular Dr could have an overall 100% covid survival rate. though with enough time that is unlikely to remain true


yes. however the quack doctor got up and said her medicine is 100%. thats never the case in life.
 
No, it's not their right, you are making a dishonest argument. Because social media companies use public infrastructure to conduct their business, they are obligated to give equal time.

These are laws that are on the books, and it's why you see a Congressman from the opposite party given time to speak after a SOTU address by the President.

These laws are simply not being enforced. The 1996 Telecommunications act makes the internet part of the original 1933 Communications Act.

It's also why bandwidth for cell phones is auctioned off by the government. The People own that bandwidth.

No one is doing anything about it b/c the Left loves to control people, and the Right loves to bitch like a bunch of victims.


social media is not a broadcast station. they're not obligated to give equal time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule so unless congress changes the law its legal for them to censor whatever they want.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine is dead so it doesnt remotely apply.


your strawman argument about cell phone frequency isn't even remotely related.

I do agree with your last statement. it works in reverse as well.
 
what is the other side saying?

they aren't saying "it works 0% of the time" and, really very few of the one side are saying 100%, though they do generate the media hits.

There are a massive amount saying "well, we don't know" but hell, they are trying all kinds of shit based on "don't know". if it works for some folks and they have low risk factors for complication due to drug interaction or other disease, why is there such a massive campaign to be totally dismissive of it?


i'm saying we don't know.

yesterdays doctor of the week said it works 100%.
 
In NC, prescribers can prescribe to themselves, I'm not sure about other places.

Doctors all over here wrote themselves prescriptions for HCQ so they'd have it just in case. So much so the pharmacies were running out and told them to quit. The silent majority thinks it works. Again, the loudest in the room play politics.
 
social media is not a broadcast station. they're not obligated to give equal time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule so unless congress changes the law its legal for them to censor whatever they want.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine is dead so it doesnt remotely apply.


your strawman argument about cell phone frequency isn't even remotely related.

I do agree with your last statement. it works in reverse as well.

That's all bad spirited nonsense of course. Free Speech is not a clause in an entertainment contract. Basically you're arguing for 'designer drugs': because the Law doesn't exactly specify the communication spectrum involved, suddenly all protections for Free Speech disappear.

By your measure, homes aren't protected from search and seizure because the address isn't mentioned in a Law book.

BoR protections are not logical AND gates, they are logical ORs. That means ANY condition satisfies the protection. I.e., a US Citizen is speaking on a platform that is publicly funded, they have a right to Free Speech and cannot be censored.

Congress can and should make laws protecting Free Speech on the internet, but that doesn't mean the President doesn't have a more wiggle room to sanction Twit, FB, and Googs for their sins.
 
That's all bad spirited nonsense of course. Free Speech is not a clause in an entertainment contract. Basically you're arguing for 'designer drugs': because the Law doesn't exactly specify the communication spectrum involved, suddenly all protections for Free Speech disappear.

By your measure, homes aren't protected from search and seizure because the address isn't mentioned in a Law book.

BoR protections are not logical AND gates, they are logical ORs. That means ANY condition satisfies the protection. I.e., a US Citizen is speaking on a platform that is publicly funded, they have a right to Free Speech and cannot be censored.

Congress can and should make laws protecting Free Speech on the internet, but that doesn't mean the President doesn't have a more wiggle room to sanction Twit, FB, and Googs for their sins.

at what point does an internet based media platform become beholden to free speech? that is the part i'm most curious about regarding the federal 'challange' to the twitter blocking and such. YouTube, Twitter, Facebook have all been in the spotlight at one point or another, but does that also apply to heavy handed moderation of place like Irate or Democratic Underground? They are all based on the same federally regulated of sorts medium.
 
at what point does an internet based media platform become beholden to free speech? that is the part i'm most curious about regarding the federal 'challange' to the twitter blocking and such. YouTube, Twitter, Facebook have all been in the spotlight at one point or another, but does that also apply to heavy handed moderation of place like Irate or Democratic Underground? They are all based on the same federally regulated of sorts medium.

Right, that has to be hashed out, there is no blanket solution to this. There never was for broadcast media as well. There's built-in guidance: Democratic Underground has their bias literally in their name. Facebook is a generic, everybody platform that depends on marketing their product to everyone to do business. By design, Facebook has a lot more users than DU. Then for FB to turn around and censor those users because FB programmers are a bunch of Leftists is dishonest. They are the default Town Hall, use public infrastructure to offer an Everyman product, but they're not playing by Everyman's rules.

Trump has plenty of room right now to move on the 'default town halls' without those specified metrics. He should do this to prompt legislation in Congress. Congress will not be able to bias this one way or the other: Trump is moving on it because it's precedented:

You cannot use public infrastructure on the default town hall to make a profit by censoring political opinions you don't like.

The whole "muh private business" argument is the exact type of retarded blanket dismissal usually found on the Right, but Lefties are using it because they DELIBERATELY targeted big social media because they KNEW it was the Town Hall. Their dismissal IS the admission of that. It's dishonest as fuck.

FB, Twit, and Google are all monopolies as well. FB and Twitter are not the same, and each holds Monopoly or Oligopoly power in the marketplace of free speech.

Democratic Underground is not a monopoly or part of an oligopoly. There are a million biased sites meant for each political viewpoint. In a free market, Rightist ideas will usually win, but there is no problem with DU banning some Righties off their platform because Righties have other places to talk, like 4pol, irate, or Facebook.

Here's something interesting:

NLnpks3.png
 
at what point does an internet based media platform become beholden to free speech? that is the part i'm most curious about regarding the federal 'challange' to the twitter blocking and such. YouTube, Twitter, Facebook have all been in the spotlight at one point or another, but does that also apply to heavy handed moderation of place like Irate or Democratic Underground? They are all based on the same federally regulated of sorts medium.

I was in the "it's private business let them do what they want" and kind of still am camp, but I heard it explained in a way that made sense: the internet and social media platforms have become the public square. Would you support people being rounded up in the public square for speaking their mind and having their message suppressed? Most people would say no. A place like social media could be seen as the same thing in these modern times. Interesting climate we are in right mow that's for sure!

As for HCQ, from what I have seen a lot of these trials fucked up in not using zinc. Zinc is very effective at suppressing viruses like this, and HCQ opened up channels in the cell for zinc to enter and prevent the virus from replicating in the cell. Not a doctor, just the way it was explained by doctors in my own research. I cant believe there is this much division and hoopla over drugs.
 
they are private businesses. isn't it their right to refuse whatever they want?

why arn't the newspapers running the story? why is social media the only place this bullshit is thriving in? Ohh right. big pharma.

Courts will eventually decide that if they have that right to unfairly censor one side of an argument.
 
You cannot use public infrastructure on the default town hall to make a profit by censoring political opinions you don't like.

The whole "muh private business" argument is the exact type of retarded blanket dismissal usually found on the Right, but Lefties are using it because they DELIBERATELY targeted big social media because they KNEW it was the Town Hall. Their dismissal IS the admission of that. It's dishonest as fuck.

FB, Twit, and Google are all monopolies as well. FB and Twitter are not the same, and each holds Monopoly or Oligopoly power in the marketplace of free speech.

Democratic Underground is not a monopoly or part of an oligopoly. There are a million biased sites meant for each political viewpoint. In a free market, Rightist ideas will usually win, but there is no problem with DU banning some Righties off their platform because Righties have other places to talk, like 4pol, irate, or Facebook.

Here's something interesting:
[edit out large screen grab]

I agree that you cannot use the public infrastructure and the abuse of it led to the current telecoms myriad of rules and regulations that did, at a certain point, overstep their bounds and should be pulled back somewhat. Even if it is just to say we want to end the massive data mining and wholesale copying of communication for "later purpose use" that has been going on for over 50 years, at the least.

that's what will be interesting about seeing if it changes. the nice thing about considering "big tech" individual platforms as NOT the public space, is that we can move on and migrate with the times. nearly nobody would be talking about this particular video if it were not censored, in that conflict it has brought massive attention. facebook didn't overtake myspace as defining what "social media" was overnight. facebook is in clear decline, at very least in the US. twitter has taken up the mantle of the thing to use since trump came about, but it will also start to decline as people realize "twitter commentary" isn't fucking journalism. it too will decline, naturally. Going to "other" media and HIGHLIGHITING these abuses is what drives that. DJT JR. is going to sell a fuckton of books over this etc.

for the interesting 4pol post, it starts off reasonably and makes some good points about it being naturally abandoned by the 'dissenters' but his notions that libertarians must or should end up as white nationalists or national socialists, if they want to be non-race based, is wholly absurd. race-qualified humanity is fucking stupid and it is pretty damaging. I don't have the desire to go there and chastise a bunch of fuckwits over there, but they seem to be doing a good job making themselves look like fuckwits, so that is fine with me. I am MORE than happy knowing that they have a platform to say what they want so that others can reach their own conclusions. they are no better than any other [race] nationalist and, as we see with the Texan "libertarian" killed over pointing a gun at a car he was blocking while protesting in support of BLM, race nationalism and liberty for all cause are highly attractive to people capable of only partial thought who desperately want to shed responsibility for their actions onto some "other".

Just because they are attractive, doesn't mean they are good. race nationalists are collectivists, every form of collectivist ideology is wholly at odds with individualism and liberty which is and should be the pitch of libertarians. JoJo is a shit ambassador for the brand, yet again :(
 
I was in the "it's private business let them do what they want" and kind of still am camp, but I heard it explained in a way that made sense: the internet and social media platforms have become the public square. Would you support people being rounded up in the public square for speaking their mind and having their message suppressed? Most people would say no. A place like social media could be seen as the same thing in these modern times. Interesting climate we are in right mow that's for sure!

As for HCQ, from what I have seen a lot of these trials fucked up in not using zinc. Zinc is very effective at suppressing viruses like this, and HCQ opened up channels in the cell for zinc to enter and prevent the virus from replicating in the cell. Not a doctor, just the way it was explained by doctors in my own research. I cant believe there is this much division and hoopla over drugs.


if the internet is public square than we need to get net neutrality in place. we can't have it both ways here. we can't hold social media to this public square and still allow traffic shaping to occur on the carriers.
 
at what point does an internet based media platform become beholden to free speech? that is the part i'm most curious about regarding the federal 'challange' to the twitter blocking and such. YouTube, Twitter, Facebook have all been in the spotlight at one point or another, but does that also apply to heavy handed moderation of place like Irate or Democratic Underground? They are all based on the same federally regulated of sorts medium.


and how does net neutrality fit into this discussion. Either its free, open and equal, or its not.
 
That's all bad spirited nonsense of course. Free Speech is not a clause in an entertainment contract. Basically you're arguing for 'designer drugs': because the Law doesn't exactly specify the communication spectrum involved, suddenly all protections for Free Speech disappear.

By your measure, homes aren't protected from search and seizure because the address isn't mentioned in a Law book.

BoR protections are not logical AND gates, they are logical ORs. That means ANY condition satisfies the protection. I.e., a US Citizen is speaking on a platform that is publicly funded, they have a right to Free Speech and cannot be censored.

Congress can and should make laws protecting Free Speech on the internet, but that doesn't mean the President doesn't have a more wiggle room to sanction Twit, FB, and Googs for their sins.


sanction them how? what wiggle room? its private enterprise. the gov't cannot step in without impacting 1a.
 
I agree that you cannot use the public infrastructure and the abuse of it led to the current telecoms myriad of rules and regulations that did, at a certain point, overstep their bounds and should be pulled back somewhat. Even if it is just to say we want to end the massive data mining and wholesale copying of communication for "later purpose use" that has been going on for over 50 years, at the least.

that's what will be interesting about seeing if it changes. the nice thing about considering "big tech" individual platforms as NOT the public space, is that we can move on and migrate with the times. nearly nobody would be talking about this particular video if it were not censored, in that conflict it has brought massive attention. facebook didn't overtake myspace as defining what "social media" was overnight. facebook is in clear decline, at very least in the US. twitter has taken up the mantle of the thing to use since trump came about, but it will also start to decline as people realize "twitter commentary" isn't fucking journalism. it too will decline, naturally. Going to "other" media and HIGHLIGHITING these abuses is what drives that. DJT JR. is going to sell a fuckton of books over this etc.

for the interesting 4pol post, it starts off reasonably and makes some good points about it being naturally abandoned by the 'dissenters' but his notions that libertarians must or should end up as white nationalists or national socialists, if they want to be non-race based, is wholly absurd. race-qualified humanity is fucking stupid and it is pretty damaging. I don't have the desire to go there and chastise a bunch of fuckwits over there, but they seem to be doing a good job making themselves look like fuckwits, so that is fine with me. I am MORE than happy knowing that they have a platform to say what they want so that others can reach their own conclusions. they are no better than any other [race] nationalist and, as we see with the Texan "libertarian" killed over pointing a gun at a car he was blocking while protesting in support of BLM, race nationalism and liberty for all cause are highly attractive to people capable of only partial thought who desperately want to shed responsibility for their actions onto some "other".

Just because they are attractive, doesn't mean they are good. race nationalists are collectivists, every form of collectivist ideology is wholly at odds with individualism and liberty which is and should be the pitch of libertarians. JoJo is a shit ambassador for the brand, yet again :(

You naturally glommed onto the race aspect of the 4pol post, which was really about the evolution of free speech on a given platform. I kind of figured you'd strain yourself on that point, and you did.

The point of the post is that 4pol did not kick people off for hating racists or being Commies. They left on their own. They also had somewhere else to go.

By default, you cannot leave Google, which is a government-sanctioned search monopoly with vast power. And by default you cannot leave FB and Twitter.

"facebook didn't overtake myspace as defining what "social media" was overnight. facebook is in clear decline, at very least in the US. twitter has taken up the mantle of the thing to use since trump came about, but it will also start to decline as people realize "twitter commentary" isn't fucking journalism. it too will decline, naturally."

Reports of Facebook's death are greatly exaggerated. MySpace was the largest social media platform for 20 months. Facebook has been the largest social media platform for 9 years.




Your idea that FB must certainly decline and be replaced is Gambler's Fallacy. Just because something happened before, does not mean it will happen again. Facebook isn't going anywhere, you are seriously out of date with that. It might, but there is no natural cycle as you are contending. Hopefully the visual will help you see it. People stopped saying "Facebook will die soon!" about 6 years ago :lmao:

Twitter has in no way 'replaced' FB, they are completely different platforms. Twitter popularized a new TYPE of social media, FB competes with that with IG.

Just because Twitter is down the scale does not mean it's 'losing influence'. Far from it, it's just that other platforms are rising up, usually for outside US. In the US, Facebook, with Instagram and Whatsapp, is BY FAR the king of social media. Twitter and Google are right there.

So, to cap off this history lesson, Facebook (with instagram and whatsapp), Google, and Twitter are the Big 3 of social media. They have been for years, they are not going anywhere, and overall, their influence is GROWING.

Unfortunately I've used up the post because of a common (and old) misconception about how we let Facebook go because "soon it will be replaced". We're past the age of Olds and Studebaker and Nash and Chevrolet and Ford and Chrysler and Dodge and Plymouth and Pierce Arrow and Duesenberg and Cadillac and Packard and DeSoto and Tucker and all the others, and we are in the age of the Big 3.
 
and the right is parading that doctor around like she's the second coming of christ right now.

meh, she isn't the first to say she's had success with the stuff, if it weren't for the censoring it would already have fallen off the cycle. specifically, "big tech" didn't say they removed the video over "dangerous claims about the drugs" they zeroed in on her saying that masks were not effective, that is the part that violated their false covid triggers.

it is pretty well documented that general population masking is not highly or very or strongly or moderately effective, even proponents with any sort of credibility say "may" and "slight" and "marginal" when speaking solely in terms of viral transmission reduction while ignoring or generally failing to acknowledge negative masking associations. Hell, the way the laws and mandates are set up, compliance masks are certainly further into the "not" and "negligible" side of the spectrum for reducing viral transmission.

it isn't so much that masks don't work, it is that the laws are absurd and dangerous.
 
Top Back Refresh