Gupta admitted that it wasn't true I see. But not while he's ever on CNN I bet. Gotta keep that propaganda going for the left.packgrad said:
Joe Rogan goes in on Sanjay Gupta, CNN, and FDA about Ivermectin "horse dewormer" propaganda.
https://vm.tiktok.com/ZM8FtVXTE/
Coronavirus
2,790,417 Views |
20375 Replies |
Last: 14 hrs ago by Werewolf
In laws who are both 83 had their boosters yesterday. One has a headache the other has some congestion. Wife and myself are scheduled to get ours when I get back from the FSU game in early November
If you are fully vaccinated against Covid the next step to improve your immunity may be to actually catch the virus. #COVID19Aus https://t.co/ho2uPtk953
— The Courier-Mail (@couriermail) October 10, 2021
Society has already established what it's willing to accept as far as deaths related to influenza. I can't imagine there being mask mandates for the seasonal flu. Although I get the logic, I don't think anyone would be willing to go there politically. It'd be like mandating crash helmets in cars or limiting consumption of pork rinds (p.s.: bleah!).
I am curious if the mRNA vaccine production process has any impact on flu vaccines, though. Isn't the development time for mRNA a lot faster than traditional vaccines? That could take some guesswork out of the annual flu vaccine process and make them more effective. Maybe that could be the big silver lining coming from Covid.
I am curious if the mRNA vaccine production process has any impact on flu vaccines, though. Isn't the development time for mRNA a lot faster than traditional vaccines? That could take some guesswork out of the annual flu vaccine process and make them more effective. Maybe that could be the big silver lining coming from Covid.
I'm fully vaccinated, but I seriously doubt that I'm going down the booster path since I'm not currently in any of the high risk categories. I've historically had an extremely high natural immunity to flus and other viruses and the last thing that I want to do is **** that up. I think I'm going to be smart and bet on myself for the time being going forward from here. Maybe there will be real evidence (instead of political theatre) down the road that will change my mind again, but it's not out there right now - that I can promise you.
TheStorm said:
I'm fully vaccinated, but I seriously doubt that I'm going down the booster path since I'm not currently in any of the high risk categories. I've historically had an extremely high natural immunity to flus and other viruses and the last thing that I want to do is **** that up. I think I'm going to be smart and bet on myself for the time being going forward from here. Maybe there will be real evidence (instead of political theatre) down the road that will change my mind again, but it's not out there right now - that I can promise you.
We are actually scheduled on a Friday so in case we have adverse reactions we will have the weekend to feel like ***** I had no reactions to the 1st two but my wife had a few days after the 2nd where she was under the weather
I think you are a little older than me (probably not as much as you think thoughGlasswolf said:TheStorm said:
I'm fully vaccinated, but I seriously doubt that I'm going down the booster path since I'm not currently in any of the high risk categories. I've historically had an extremely high natural immunity to flus and other viruses and the last thing that I want to do is **** that up. I think I'm going to be smart and bet on myself for the time being going forward from here. Maybe there will be real evidence (instead of political theatre) down the road that will change my mind again, but it's not out there right now - that I can promise you.
We are actually scheduled on a Friday so in case we have adverse reactions we will have the weekend to feel like ***** I had no reactions to the 1st two but my wife had a few days after the 2nd where she was under the weather
). I respect you having the opportunity to decide what is best for you and your wife and I hope that you have a very smooth weekend after you do so. It's too bad that a lot of people in this country don't get to make decisions for themselves and their families anymore. dogplasma said:
Society has already established what it's willing to accept as far as deaths related to influenza. I can't imagine there being mask mandates for the seasonal flu. Although I get the logic, I don't think anyone would be willing to go there politically. It'd be like mandating crash helmets in cars or limiting consumption of pork rinds (p.s.: bleah!).
I am curious if the mRNA vaccine production process has any impact on flu vaccines, though. Isn't the development time for mRNA a lot faster than traditional vaccines? That could take some guesswork out of the annual flu vaccine process and make them more effective. Maybe that could be the big silver lining coming from Covid.
If eliminating flu was a choice all along. I'll take the Swedish choice of no mask mandates and kids in school the whole time without silly theater, it seemed to work pretty well.... since we can just 'choose' to eliminate things.
Because that is how all this works, we can just "choose" to eliminate the flu.
Do these reporters and epidemiologists ever actually go and look outside their own damn windows?
These policies have failed SO miserably at containing COVID that these people are desperate in their faith to find something to justify all the sunk costs and lies.
So they rely on a massive post hoc fallacy, but they can't even get the timeline right since their 'followed event' (disappearance of the flu) occurs BEFORE their 'caused event' implementation of mandated NPIs (or even in places where they weren't mandated!!!)
It is sad and desperate that people have sacrificed so much for bad policies that did nothing to stop COVID, they are grasping at flu straws.
This is for the horse dewormer hysteria people...
3 million views https://t.co/tu8x0vnZdH
— Jack Posobiec 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) October 14, 2021
On the illegal or criminal immigrants…
“they built the country, the reason our economy is growing”
Joe Biden
“they built the country, the reason our economy is growing”
Joe Biden
For those who care, there is a video of Dr. John Campbell (i think his name is) discussing a pharm paper comparing and contrasting molnupiravir to ivermectin in easy to understand language. Really good i thought. I am sure somebody could post the link. I have it in an email somewhere and will look for it. If one of you gets to it before me, thank you.
Mormad, what are your thoughts on the Ivermectin studies thus far?Mormad said:
For those who care, there is a video of Dr. John Campbell (i think his name is) discussing a pharm paper comparing and contrasting molnupiravir to ivermectin in easy to understand language. Really good i thought. I am sure somebody could post the link. I have it in an email somewhere and will look for it. If one of you gets to it before me, thank you.
To me, the evidence is not there yet to warrant using it outside of a trial. It seems there is some low quality evidence showing it may be of benefit, but nothing very concrete that I have seen.
I know there is a current RCT ending in December with results next year that should end the debate one way or the other, but so far, the data seems to be very lacking. The meta-analysis of 15 trials posted on American Journal of Therapeutics combines a bunch of "low quality" evidence trials to show "moderate quality" evidence that ivermectin use would cause a large reduction in COVID-19 deaths. There seem to be so many holes in that study from start-to-finish. If we are going to question studies that find evidence that we disagree on in other areas of the pandemic, we need to fully question these as well. Again, my opinion.
A question I have is if there is any harm that can come from taking the human dosage of ivermectin. I posted my story earlier in the thread about my business partner being prescribed it for a subcutaneous worm condition, but that was a long time ago and I don't remember if he had any side effects from it. I guess the crux of what I'm asking is if there isn't any harm in taking it for covid, even if we can't currently show a therapeutic value to it, what does it hurt? Is it just because we don't want people to incorrectly take the animal version? Otherwise, we've done a lot of things over the course of the pandemic with the justification of "well, it can't hurt" so I am failing to see the hubbub, outside of what seems to be a political slant for some reason.
Just a guy on the sunshine squad.
The Gatekeeper.
Homer Dumbarse.
StateFan2001's favorite poster.
The Gatekeeper.
Homer Dumbarse.
StateFan2001's favorite poster.
IIRC, in The video from Dr Campbell above Ivermectin is very safe to take. Used effectively throughout the world for many viruses, including this one. He mentioned 2 studies that said ivermectin was effective I. Treating covid and one that was inconclusive.
" Using VigiBase, a WHO database on pharmaceutical safety data, Campbell showed that out of 3.7 billion doses given of ivermectin there have been only 5,693 reports of adverse events far fewer, according to Campbell, than the number of adverse event reports associated with amoxicillin and ibuprofen, both widely used and considered safe."
" Using VigiBase, a WHO database on pharmaceutical safety data, Campbell showed that out of 3.7 billion doses given of ivermectin there have been only 5,693 reports of adverse events far fewer, according to Campbell, than the number of adverse event reports associated with amoxicillin and ibuprofen, both widely used and considered safe."
In the current ongoing RCT for ivermectin, they are using 400 mcg/kg of body weight. The standard dose for specific parasitic illnesses are 200 mcg/kg. The studies that claim benefit were using higher than normal doses. So, yes ivermectin is very safe at a standard dose; however, the studies that claim benefit are not using those doses. This why so many medical providers are very hesitant to use the medication. If there is no or little benefit AND we have very little clue on what adverse effects could occur, why would we use it?
If you have a study that proves even small benefit without harm, then absolutely, we should prescribe it in the specific situations studied. We just do not have that, yet, until the RCT results are complete.
Same goes for Merck's antiviral. Most providers are not going to use it, even if emergency approved, without evidence that 1. it provides benefit and 2. it causes minimal to no harm. ETA: I am glad that Campbell mentioned the fact that Merck has not released any official data, only a press release. Media is fawning over it, but we have no official idea if it works yet.
If you have a study that proves even small benefit without harm, then absolutely, we should prescribe it in the specific situations studied. We just do not have that, yet, until the RCT results are complete.
Same goes for Merck's antiviral. Most providers are not going to use it, even if emergency approved, without evidence that 1. it provides benefit and 2. it causes minimal to no harm. ETA: I am glad that Campbell mentioned the fact that Merck has not released any official data, only a press release. Media is fawning over it, but we have no official idea if it works yet.
Edited by staff. Lol. Must have been a doozy…
I'm in same boat as you but may yet have to face choice between job and booster. Spouse got booster AND flu shot simultaneously 48 hours ago and she's still running come-and-go fever.TheStorm said:
I'm fully vaccinated, but I seriously doubt that I'm going down the booster path since I'm not currently in any of the high risk categories. I've historically had an extremely high natural immunity to flus and other viruses and the last thing that I want to do is **** that up. I think I'm going to be smart and bet on myself for the time being going forward from here. Maybe there will be real evidence (instead of political theatre) down the road that will change my mind again, but it's not out there right now - that I can promise you.
PackPA2015 said:
In the current ongoing RCT for ivermectin, they are using 400 mcg/kg of body weight. The standard dose for specific parasitic illnesses are 200 mcg/kg. The studies that claim benefit were using higher than normal doses. So, yes ivermectin is very safe at a standard dose; however, the studies that claim benefit are not using those doses. This why so many medical providers are very hesitant to use the medication. If there is no or little benefit AND we have very little clue on what adverse effects could occur, why would we use it?
If you have a study that proves even small benefit without harm, then absolutely, we should prescribe it in the specific situations studied. We just do not have that, yet, until the RCT results are complete.
Same goes for Merck's antiviral. Most providers are not going to use it, even if emergency approved, without evidence that 1. it provides benefit and 2. it causes minimal to no harm. ETA: I am glad that Campbell mentioned the fact that Merck has not released any official data, only a press release. Media is fawning over it, but we have no official idea if it works yet.
So, to cut to the point, the answer to my question is that we don't know if there are adverse effects of taking it at a higher dose. That's all I wanted to know, if there are known adverse effects. I'm not advocating for taking it or not.
Just a guy on the sunshine squad.
The Gatekeeper.
Homer Dumbarse.
StateFan2001's favorite poster.
The Gatekeeper.
Homer Dumbarse.
StateFan2001's favorite poster.
Yep, sorry did not mean for that to come across as negative towards you if that is how it sounded. The known side effects of taking it at a standard dose are minimal and rare - most commonly fever, itching, lymph node swelling, elevated heart rate.wilmwolf80 said:PackPA2015 said:
In the current ongoing RCT for ivermectin, they are using 400 mcg/kg of body weight. The standard dose for specific parasitic illnesses are 200 mcg/kg. The studies that claim benefit were using higher than normal doses. So, yes ivermectin is very safe at a standard dose; however, the studies that claim benefit are not using those doses. This why so many medical providers are very hesitant to use the medication. If there is no or little benefit AND we have very little clue on what adverse effects could occur, why would we use it?
If you have a study that proves even small benefit without harm, then absolutely, we should prescribe it in the specific situations studied. We just do not have that, yet, until the RCT results are complete.
Same goes for Merck's antiviral. Most providers are not going to use it, even if emergency approved, without evidence that 1. it provides benefit and 2. it causes minimal to no harm. ETA: I am glad that Campbell mentioned the fact that Merck has not released any official data, only a press release. Media is fawning over it, but we have no official idea if it works yet.
So, to cut to the point, the answer to my question is that we don't know if there are adverse effects of taking it at a higher dose. That's all I wanted to know, if there are known adverse effects. I'm not advocating for taking it or not.
TheStorm said:
Edited by staff. Lol. Must have been a doozy…
Why the Hell did this post get edited?
On the illegal or criminal immigrants…
“they built the country, the reason our economy is growing”
Joe Biden
“they built the country, the reason our economy is growing”
Joe Biden
Amazing how different science is in Scandinavia.
“We look forward to being able to receive new and old passengers with a big smile, without a face mask, on Monday. Welcome on board,” Widerøe’s director of communication and public relations, Silje Brandvoll, stated. https://t.co/oufQov8qWn
— Anthony LaMesa (@ajlamesa) October 14, 2021
PackPA2015 said:Mormad, what are your thoughts on the Ivermectin studies thus far?Mormad said:
For those who care, there is a video of Dr. John Campbell (i think his name is) discussing a pharm paper comparing and contrasting molnupiravir to ivermectin in easy to understand language. Really good i thought. I am sure somebody could post the link. I have it in an email somewhere and will look for it. If one of you gets to it before me, thank you.
To me, the evidence is not there yet to warrant using it outside of a trial. It seems there is some low quality evidence showing it may be of benefit, but nothing very concrete that I have seen.
I know there is a current RCT ending in December with results next year that should end the debate one way or the other, but so far, the data seems to be very lacking. The meta-analysis of 15 trials posted on American Journal of Therapeutics combines a bunch of "low quality" evidence trials to show "moderate quality" evidence that ivermectin use would cause a large reduction in COVID-19 deaths. There seem to be so many holes in that study from start-to-finish. If we are going to question studies that find evidence that we disagree on in other areas of the pandemic, we need to fully question these as well. Again, my opinion.
Yeah, man, i haven't read enough solid evidence to support writing that script yet (tho I'll never be charged with the duty of doing so thank goodness). Same with molnupiravir. Too many questions remain at present.
Thanks, PackMom. You are the best. Hope you are well!!
wilmwolf80 said:
A question I have is if there is any harm that can come from taking the human dosage of ivermectin. I posted my story earlier in the thread about my business partner being prescribed it for a subcutaneous worm condition, but that was a long time ago and I don't remember if he had any side effects from it. I guess the crux of what I'm asking is if there isn't any harm in taking it for covid, even if we can't currently show a therapeutic value to it, what does it hurt? Is it just because we don't want people to incorrectly take the animal version? Otherwise, we've done a lot of things over the course of the pandemic with the justification of "well, it can't hurt" so I am failing to see the hubbub, outside of what seems to be a political slant for some reason.
That's a great question. The simplest answer is that those of us in medicine are not typically ones that prescribe or treat with things that offer no proven therapeutic benefit just because it's potentially benign. There are potential harms with every treatment option, and when weighing the risk benefit ratio of particular options, if there is not a proven therapeutic benefit then the potential harms outweigh the potential benefits. Admittedly, there are some docs willing to write for ivermectin off label, but there's a reason there aren't many. And we typically don't make treatment decisions based on politics. Maybe those who currently believe the benefits of ivermectin outweigh the risks for covid treatment will be seen as brilliant pioneers in the near future. Who knows?
Mormad said:wilmwolf80 said:
A question I have is if there is any harm that can come from taking the human dosage of ivermectin. I posted my story earlier in the thread about my business partner being prescribed it for a subcutaneous worm condition, but that was a long time ago and I don't remember if he had any side effects from it. I guess the crux of what I'm asking is if there isn't any harm in taking it for covid, even if we can't currently show a therapeutic value to it, what does it hurt? Is it just because we don't want people to incorrectly take the animal version? Otherwise, we've done a lot of things over the course of the pandemic with the justification of "well, it can't hurt" so I am failing to see the hubbub, outside of what seems to be a political slant for some reason.
That's a great question. The simplest answer is that those of us in medicine are not typically ones that prescribe or treat with things that offer no proven therapeutic benefit just because it's potentially benign. There are potential harms with every treatment option, and when weighing the risk benefit ratio of particular options, if there is not a proven therapeutic benefit then the potential harms outweigh the potential benefits. Admittedly, there are some docs willing to write for ivermectin off label, but there's a reason there aren't many. And we typically don't make treatment decisions based on politics. Maybe those who currently believe the benefits of ivermectin outweigh the risks for covid treatment will be seen as brilliant pioneers in the near future. Who knows?
Forgive my ignorance on the matter, but how or why did it start getting used in the first place? Since a prescription is required, I assume that the first usage of it came from a doctor prescribing it, and I can't imagine a doctor just searching through a list of medicines and seeing that one and saying let's try that one. I assume someone saw something that lead them to believe it might be helpful.
Again, I'm not advocating for or against it's use, there just seems to be at least anecdotal evidence, if not yet scientifically confirmed, that there could maybe be some benefit there. So that is the source of my line of questions, if there was anecdotal evidence of a positive outcome and no side effects, I wouldn't see a problem with people saying why not give it a go , particularly if nothing else were working on a particular case. PA has laid out some potential side effects, so that would obviously weigh into it, which is what I was seeking the answer to with my original question.
Just a guy on the sunshine squad.
The Gatekeeper.
Homer Dumbarse.
StateFan2001's favorite poster.
The Gatekeeper.
Homer Dumbarse.
StateFan2001's favorite poster.
wilmwolf80 said:Mormad said:wilmwolf80 said:
A question I have is if there is any harm that can come from taking the human dosage of ivermectin. I posted my story earlier in the thread about my business partner being prescribed it for a subcutaneous worm condition, but that was a long time ago and I don't remember if he had any side effects from it. I guess the crux of what I'm asking is if there isn't any harm in taking it for covid, even if we can't currently show a therapeutic value to it, what does it hurt? Is it just because we don't want people to incorrectly take the animal version? Otherwise, we've done a lot of things over the course of the pandemic with the justification of "well, it can't hurt" so I am failing to see the hubbub, outside of what seems to be a political slant for some reason.
That's a great question. The simplest answer is that those of us in medicine are not typically ones that prescribe or treat with things that offer no proven therapeutic benefit just because it's potentially benign. There are potential harms with every treatment option, and when weighing the risk benefit ratio of particular options, if there is not a proven therapeutic benefit then the potential harms outweigh the potential benefits. Admittedly, there are some docs willing to write for ivermectin off label, but there's a reason there aren't many. And we typically don't make treatment decisions based on politics. Maybe those who currently believe the benefits of ivermectin outweigh the risks for covid treatment will be seen as brilliant pioneers in the near future. Who knows?
Forgive my ignorance on the matter, but how or why did it start getting used in the first place? Since a prescription is required, I assume that the first usage of it came from a doctor prescribing it, and I can't imagine a doctor just searching through a list of medicines and seeing that one and saying let's try that one. I assume someone saw something that lead them to believe it might be helpful.
Again, I'm not advocating for or against it's use, there just seems to be at least anecdotal evidence, if not yet scientifically confirmed, that there could maybe be some benefit there. So that is the source of my line of questions, if there was anecdotal evidence of a positive outcome and no side effects, I wouldn't see a problem with people saying why not give it a go , particularly if nothing else were working on a particular case. PA has laid out some potential side effects, so that would obviously weigh into it, which is what I was seeking the answer to with my original question.
We just have to be careful, as providers, what we constitute as evidence. You make such insightful points that can be hard to argue but I'll try to offer whatever insight i can. Hope this makes sense. Yes, we often stumble upon therapeutics that seem to offer a positive association for a condition's outcome without there being an intention to treat. But that association may or may not be real. If i gave my wife a throat losange and her back pain seemed to go away, and i did it 10 more times and her pain got better each time, I'd still be wrong to start giving my patients throat losanges for their back pain without it being studied. I'd be a quack. But losanges are so safe... What is the harm?
So yeah, somebody saw what they felt was a good outcome and some have used that anecdotal evidence to manage their patients and because many patients get better, it can potentially be wrongly associated with good outcomes. Which is why it's being studied, rightfully so ... But little actual benefit thus far and so there's little evidence to suggest the anecdotal outcomes are the real benefit of ivermectin despite our desires for an easy, inexpensive, relatively safe oral med to treat covid. Believe me, i WANT it to work. But I'm not gonna hang my hat on it with my license and reputation on the line because somebody somewhere thinks they saw an anecdotal benefit. Like many have argued with hesitation on the vax, i think I'll await better evidence.
It is great you used that argument though. It made me smile. That argument didn't fly well for me here when arguing the benefit of masking. Essentially no risk of physical harm, but millions of little anecdotal interactions between doctor and patient in which the doc didn't get it. Positive association between an extremely benign "therapeutic" and outcome. But is that evidence? So why not give it a go, even if not scientifically confirmed and studies don't really show benefit? Maybe that is a little window into my frustrations arguing the benefits of masking (not mandates) early in the course of this whole thing. Even if a little apples to oranges. (I'll hate myself for even bringing that up I'm sure lol)
Anyway, that's the way i think about it for now
Edited to add: Pierre is Dr ivermectin, and if you read his disclaimers he clearly states his treatment algorithm is not an approved treatment, has not shown benefit in studies, should not be judged as such a treatment, and urges readers to "use common sense and listen to your medical doctor" about covid. And he urges masking.
Again, I'm not arguing for its use or not, I don't actually have an opinion on that at all. It just piqued my curiosity when all the stuff starting coming out about not taking horse medicine, since I knew from my own personal anecdote that it was in fact available for humans. To my lay person understanding, it doesn't really make sense that it would work for covid, so I'm just trying to figure out how it even got started being used for that, and what adverse effects there might be for using it for that purpose. And yes, my query was worded that way on purpose given previous discussions.
Just a guy on the sunshine squad.
The Gatekeeper.
Homer Dumbarse.
StateFan2001's favorite poster.
The Gatekeeper.
Homer Dumbarse.
StateFan2001's favorite poster.
wilmwolf80 said:
Again, I'm not arguing for its use or not, I don't actually have an opinion on that at all. It just piqued my curiosity when all the stuff starting coming out about not taking horse medicine, since I knew from my own personal anecdote that it was in fact available for humans. To my lay person understanding, it doesn't really make sense that it would work for covid, so I'm just trying to figure out how it even got started being used for that, and what adverse effects there might be for using it for that purpose. And yes, my query was worded that way on purpose given previous discussions.
Yeah i get it. That's what i was trying to discuss, but not doing a good job i guess.
The horse medicine stuff is political social media horsesht imho
The video by Campbell discusses your question pretty well i think. He discusses its mechanism of action and how it works in vitro for covid, among lots of other things.
All good, it's been a fruitful discussion, thank you for your input as always.
Just a guy on the sunshine squad.
The Gatekeeper.
Homer Dumbarse.
StateFan2001's favorite poster.
The Gatekeeper.
Homer Dumbarse.
StateFan2001's favorite poster.
it worth it to listen to the whole episode of you have a free three hours. It was a very good conversationcaryking said:
This is for the horse dewormer hysteria people...3 million views https://t.co/tu8x0vnZdH
— Jack Posobiec 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) October 14, 2021
I've probably heard about an hour of it. I don't listen to Joe Rogan much; however, he can be a very good interviewer. I think the area around Gupta is very good. As much as we have pushed the vax narrative, perhaps for the good, we, as a country, are truly missing the treatment side of this coronavirus.hokiewolf said:it worth it to listen to the whole episode of you have a free three hours. It was a very good conversationcaryking said:
This is for the horse dewormer hysteria people...3 million views https://t.co/tu8x0vnZdH
— Jack Posobiec 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) October 14, 2021
Joe is pointing out the true misinformation happening in the media, especially CNN.
I have made comments about this before, only to get a couple of hacks, on here, calling it the same damn thing! Horse dewormer. These comments, prove to me, people are just so damn sold on the media narrative...
On the illegal or criminal immigrants…
“they built the country, the reason our economy is growing”
Joe Biden
“they built the country, the reason our economy is growing”
Joe Biden
For Democrats, it's all political. Remove all mandates.
Newsom is now asking a Court of Appeals to remove the vaccine mandate for a union that gave him $1.75 million. Every other mandate needs to go immediately.
— Kevin Kiley (@KevinKileyCA) October 15, 2021
I think it just speaks to the politicization of this pandemic, which was weaponized by the media and the democratic party as a deterrent to reelecting Donald Trump. What is curious about all of this, is it's continued after the election. I don't really know why that is happening.
All treatments should be looked at to treat Covid. Yes, being vaccinated is a huge part of that. I don't know why there isn't room for other treatments to be considered. For instance, I am vaccinated, but I have a plan worked out with my Dr. incase I do get Covid.
All treatments should be looked at to treat Covid. Yes, being vaccinated is a huge part of that. I don't know why there isn't room for other treatments to be considered. For instance, I am vaccinated, but I have a plan worked out with my Dr. incase I do get Covid.
I think it just speaks to the politicization of this pandemic, which was weaponized by the media and the democratic party as a deterrent to reelecting Donald Trump.hokiewolf said:
I think it just speaks to the politicization of this pandemic, which was weaponized by the media and the democratic party as a deterrent to reelecting Donald Trump. What is curious about all of this, is it's continued after the election. I don't really know why that is happening.
All treatments should be looked at to treat Covid. Yes, being vaccinated is a huge part of that. I don't know why there isn't room for other treatments to be considered. For instance, I am vaccinated, but I have a plan worked out with my Dr. incase I do get Covid.
Actually, its not just about the pandemic and its not just about Trump. If the media can so easily lie about Ivermectin, then, rest assured, they can lie about anything. Shall I continue?
On the illegal or criminal immigrants…
“they built the country, the reason our economy is growing”
Joe Biden
“they built the country, the reason our economy is growing”
Joe Biden
If every person, on this board, can't see what is really happening here, then, I hope nobody from your family tree ever runs for any political seat..packgrad said:
For Democrats, it's all political. Remove all mandates.Newsom is now asking a Court of Appeals to remove the vaccine mandate for a union that gave him $1.75 million. Every other mandate needs to go immediately.
— Kevin Kiley (@KevinKileyCA) October 15, 2021
On the illegal or criminal immigrants…
“they built the country, the reason our economy is growing”
Joe Biden
“they built the country, the reason our economy is growing”
Joe Biden
Featured Stories
See All
8:34
22h ago
632
IPS IN 5: Spend Your Money How You Want To Spend It
by James Henderson
11:05
1d ago
742
POSTGAME HOOPS TALK: Rider
by James Henderson
6:19
1d ago
682
IPS IN 5: Takeaways From The Rider Win
by James Henderson
9:04
2d ago
856
Kevin Keatts: "Our Week Was Well Spent"
by Daniel Wilson
4:24
2d ago
466
LOCKER ROOM REPORT: Wolfpack Players
by Rob McLamb