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?
Source: I've traveled to India many times in the past and remember hearing something along those lines wrt anti-malarials. It's been a while so I don't remember the exact details. Basically restrictions on anti-malarials are nothing new stateside. Its been restricted to some degree since at least the 2000s, just offhand. :shrug:
They werent banned here, they just were no longer approved for treatment of covid. Moreover since doctors were using it to try to treat covd without positive effect it caused a shortage and thus can be hard to get world wide for treatment of malaria now.
But no its not banned for treating malaria, but it is no longer approved for treating COVID.
you guys think this is a fake? I don't know what to make of it yet:
https://tucson.claims/@Coyote/posts/A65YKOpo22wR41IEbI
I have no way of knowing or saying if the woman is faking or telling the truth. Based ont he placement of the electrodes on her head I would say it looks legit as that does appear to be the proper placement for the electrodes.
With that said hundreds of thousands of people get anurisms every day. Start giving out a vaccine it is inevitable someone somewhere is going to have an annurism the same day as the vaccine. So in and of itself this isnt evidence that there is any connection to the vaccine, its just evidence that the world is a big place.
That said there **is** some legitimate risk of blood clot from the AZ vaccine. It isnt enough for most countries to pull the vaccine but its enough for germany to say it is no longer approved for people who arent at high risk of death from COVID, so it is a real concern. That said I havent heard anything of J&J being associated to blood clots, which could cause an aneurysm potentially. So it is at least possible that J&J vaccine caused this, but even if it did that doesnt neccesarly mean the vaccine is bad, if it is a side effect and the side effect is extremely rare it may be a reasonable risk for most people.
In the end the answer is... right now we dont have any evidence to think the J&J vaccine caused it, but its always possible, but if it turns out to be the case its likely to be extremely rare.
"In the end the answer is... right now we dont have any evidence to think the J&J vaccine caused it, but its always possible, but if it turns out to be the case its likely to be extremely rare."
Yes, about where I landed, but I guess I'm starting to think, this is a person who has came out in public, and it'd be interesting if there was a public followup of any kind, because the ban/repost was a bit of a red flag to me, so I got curious.
But, in the end, even if we did know how she was today, odds are, we still would have little to no evidence of causation, just a correlation data point.
You can almost never draw causation when it comes to medications and single cases. We just dont have the means. We do it with statistical correlation and that means looking at large groups of people.
Ideally what should happen, and what usually does happen. Is her hospital visit is flagged when it is seen it happened right after a vaccine and is added to the FDA database of all people who had serious medical issues with a potential but unknown link to the virus. Then if enough people show the same problems, enough that it is higher than the background rate, then they will usually look into it more deeply and look at better data and do better studies and either pull the vaccine or add it as a warning and a side effect.
Thats exactly how it went down with AZ, blood clots were seen to be happening at a higher rate than usual, was concluded it was due to the AZ vaccine,a nd it was added as a warning to the drug and some countries adjusted their approach to administering it as a result.
One person will never tell you anything useful though.
This is enough data for me to say, "I can stay home, wait for approval."
https://www.medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?TABLE=ON&GROUP1=CAT&EVENTS=ON&VAX=COVID19
However, if there is possible risk, personal preference should be allowed to dictate if I choose to stay home, minimize exposure and risk, and hold off on the vaccine. I don't see a need to limit my rights with a passport, or a regulation, and honestly, post covid, the mask mandate has MADE me stay home because it's hard to breath... I mean, am I no longer a citizen? That's kind of my whole scope, drilling in and out of timelines, from the science to the politics, as often as I can, to learn all I can.
