https://twitter.com/MaggieEThornton/status/1380652509405003776
@Coyote you’re doing good work🤣 I’d join you but I’m permanently suspended from Twitter. Every time I open the app there is this big banner that says “Welcome Back” but I can’t tweet and they zero’d out my followers and followed accounts.
It's just confronting fools with their own stupidity. When both had "PhD" next to their names, and can't support a single scientific claim, it mostly says our educational system is garbage. But we all knew that... 😂
🇳🇱
I disagree.
"Its not about the research links, I have read many on both side. Its the fact that you drew and incorrect conclusion about the medication as an effective general treatment, which it is not."
You have made two false assumptions.
First. That this is about treatment. It is not. It is about government, human experimentation, and harm.
Hydroxycloroquine being proven effective or not has no bearing on why it should be ban from use by the government of any country, now to the point malaria sufferers can not obtain treatment.
It is the governmental action I object to, not advocacy of the drugs effectiveness.
Second, the vaccine has shown to kill, in thousands. And, it's it's proponants who claim it's "safe" and you need to get it to be safe, that I strongly object to. It is, in fact, still an experimental drug. It has not shown to be "as safe" as hydroxycloroquine by comparison.
So my position is, denying one, an promoting the other as safe, is hypocritical. Because, it is.
It's not about which works. It's about which one the government, and the "experts" are promoting, and what lies they tell to promote it.
If it's safe, if it works, then get it approved, and have civil and criminal liability for it's effects. Promoting, and fucking "passports," and treating human rights differently to encourage the use of an experimental drug is unethical.
What's the first rule? Do no harm?
@Coyote Hydrochloride is not banned in the USA, the FDA revoked its emergency use for COVID but it is still very much allowed to be used for malaria.
I dont argue that the vaccine is an experimental drug, so that point is moot.
Have you tried to get it? Because, there's like tons of Doctors taking to TicTok even arguing with pharmacists trying to get prescriptions filled.
It's a myth that it is "very much allowed."
It's OTC in many places in the world, but it's harder than ever to get here.
What's the moral justification for not allowing it OTC?
@Coyote I am well aware of the situation with hydrochloride. Yes it is hard to get, but not because its "banned" as you imply, but because of the sudden surge for doctors getting it trying to treat COVID rather than what it is actually used for. Even though the FDA withdrew its emergency use for COVID doctors can and still prescribe it which has caused a shortage. So not only are they killing their own patients faster but they are causing the people who actually need it to have trouble getting it due to the shortage.
@Coyote and the moral justification for not allowing it OTC is 1) there isnt enough to go around 2) the diseases it is needed for arent common in the usa and 3) it can be lethal in higher doses and people may take it in desperation in a vain attempt to treat COVID and kill themselves.
"it can be lethal in higher doses and people may take it in desperation in a vain attempt to treat COVID and kill themselves."
OMG. Really? so, people are to stupid, so we must save them.
Never bought that argument for anything, not going to start with banning a medication with a long history of safe use. I think we're done.
Hydroxycloroqine has not killed as many people as the vaccine. That's just fact. If you want to stick to your guns that it's not worth using, and vaccines are ok (which ARE killing people), I don't see how this can continue.
This is about government control, not 'rona. And now they want to tell you to not do something that probably won't harm you, because it's not "proven" effective, but want you to take an "experimental" drug and sign liability waivers. Basic logic alone is all that's needed, if one is killing people and risky, and the other isn't, you can't justify using only the deadly one because "some people might be stupid."
> OMG. Really? so, people are to stupid, so we must save them.
No you just ignored all the other points and no one point can be taken seperately..
either 1) their too stupid and will kill themselves or 2) they are smart enough not to kill themselves and will in no way benefit from the dosage
Both options make it pointless to let them have the drugs and both options mean people who actually need the drug cant get it due to a shortage...
