| Topic List | Page List: 1 |
|---|---|
| Topic | One thing I won't forgive the left for is censoring science of vax alternatives |
| joe40001 05/20/21 11:59:39 PM #33: | I wish I wasn't cynical, but the fact that there hasn't been much research on it, and the research has largely been disinsentivized by large companies, when those same companies are profiting off of the vaccine. It's sus, particularly when you are aware that ivermectin because of it's low cost isn't something companies can profit off of like they can with the modern vaccines. I know the kind of reductive assumptions people are going to make about me and the drug, and I'm largely letting people make them because from what I've seen so far it seems like there is plausible evidence to support it as being potentially safer and in the ballpark of efficacy of the regular vaccines. If I'm honest, I don't actually expect regular vaccines to be unsafe in a major way, the blood clot thing is a non-story, the only dicey thing has been that the spike protein itself might be dangerous. Anything this new has inherent risks, even by my estimation not huge ones, but still, not good reason to not allow discussion of alternative ideas too, when they can help. emblem boy posted... Sounds like you've been listening to some Bret Weinstein. Bret was the first one who made me aware. I think he has several takes that quite off, but looking into it further and other sources that seem trustworthy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19DPijOoVKE Seem to support that there is a "there" there. Remember when they advised against masks? Or said that there was 0 chance it came from a lab leak? This feels like those things. Things that in a few months people will pretend that they never doubted "yeah Ivermectin is helpful, particularly in the developing world, but nobody ever was against it." That's why it'll be nice to have this topic saved. So all the people so sure that something that has scientific evidence is some crackpot thing just because politics will have to finally maybe come to terms that you shouldn't come to scientific conclusions based on politics. I'm so sick of people being bullheadedly wrong about things just based on politics and then never acknowledging it. Where we are now: We have a drug that has effectively 0 risk and is very low cost, and it's chance that it is effective at mitigating the symptoms and spread of COVID is considerably non-zero. Why would you want to censor that? All the stubborn republicans who refuse to get vaxed likely would take this, so wouldn't it be great if it actually made a difference? We'd get to heard immunity faster! Less people would die. Why be against the discussion of that possibility in a scientific way? Anybody who has politics such that they'd rather lose lives to COVID than allow heterodox discussion has messed up priorities. --- "joe is attractive and quite the brilliant poster" - Seiichi Omori https://imgur.com/TheGsZ9 ... Copied to Clipboard! |
| Topic List | Page List: 1 |