On 01/09/2021 04:11, A Voice in the Wilderness? wrote:
>
> Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> On 31/08/2021 00:55, A Voice in the Wilderness? wrote:
>>>
>>> Java Jive wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 30/08/2021 02:05, A Voice in the Wilderness? wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [Fake news URL removed to prevent it being boosted in search engines]
>>>
>>> Andrew Anglin and his site are banned from everything. Why would
>>> you even bother?
>>
>> In that case, Andrew, why would you be linking to a site that nobody trusts?
>> Unless, of course, you want to boost your own site's rankings?
>
> I'm not Andrew Anglin.

Then why did you link multiple times to his site, and almost exclusively
to his site, when you yourself acknowledged that "Andrew Anglin and his
site are banned from everything"? Why would you be trying to boost the
rankings of a condemned and banned site if you are not its owner?

>>>> If it's a hoax, how come all those people died?
>>>
>>> Murder by the government. Specifically, putting many of them on
>>> ventilators that were known to not work, and withholding drugs
>>> that may very well have saved them.
>>
>> Where is your *EVIDENCE* for this wild and paranoid assertion, liar?
>
> https://apnews.com/article/health-us-news-ap-top-news-international-news-virus-outbreak-8ccd325c2be9bf454c2128dcb7bd616d
>
> https://thehill.com/changing-america/well-being/medical-advances/494274-nearly-half-of-all-patients-placed-on

No those are not evidence for your wild and paranoid claim; both are
about doctors learning to treat a new disease better in the early stages
of the pandemic, neither supply any evidence at all for your claimed
"Murder by the government". So, as everyone reading will have known,
probably including yourself, that was just another of your absurd and
paranoid lies.

> Both ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine have been politicized by the
> Left, and has been withheld from patients, despite there being strong
> and moderate evidence, respectively, as to their early treatment
> potential.

No, they were politicised by the right, specifically by Trump pushing
them on zero evidential basis, most 'studies' being quoted in support of
either having absurdly small sample sizes*, while around the world
independent studies with large enough sample sizes have not found any
benefit from either:

[* It cannot be overemphasised that where a drug or other intervention
has a very low percentage claimed benefit, studies require sample sizes
of many thousands or tens of thousands before any conclusions can be drawn.]

Ivermectin is an ANIMAL drug used to tread parasitic worms.

https://www.fda.gov/animal-veterinary/product-safety-information/fda-letter-stakeholders-do-not-use-ivermectin-intended-animals-treatment-covid-19-humans

"FDA Letter to Stakeholders: Do Not Use Ivermectin Intended for Animals
as Treatment for COVID-19 in Humans

The FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine has recently become aware of
increased public visibility of the antiparasitic drug ivermectin after
the announcement of a research article that described the effect of
ivermectin on SARS-CoV-2 in a laboratory setting. The Antiviral Research
pre-publication paper, “The FDA-approved drug ivermectin inhibits the
replication of SARS-CoV-2 in vitroExternal Link Disclaimer,” documents
how SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) responded to ivermectin
when exposed in a petri dish. This type of study is commonly used in the
early stages of drug development. Ivermectin was not given to people or
animals in this study. Additional testing is needed to determine whether
ivermectin might be safe or effective to prevent or treat coronavirus or
COVID-19."

So that's the FDA itself, under Trump's own Presidency, saying don't use
this animal drug on humans.

Hydroxychloroquine was even more highly politicised by Trump, despite
from quite early days being proven ineffective, this report from August
last year mentions those earlier results:

Science In Action 28/08/2020
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3cszh0s

The bulk of the programme covers Convalescent Plasma Therapy (CPT) -
another medical treatment whose efficacy or otherwise was then under
risk of being obscured by the unfortunate political intervention of
Trump - but includes this exchange between presenter Roland Pease and
guest scientific commentator Martin Landray, Professor of Medicine and
Epidemiology at Nuffield Department of Population Health, Oxford
University, who was then and probably still is conducting randomised
control trials of various covid-19 treatments, including CPT:

13:32

RP: "I was interested because one of your first results was with
hydroxychloroquine, which was one of those early hopes, I guess, in the
treatment options, and you were pretty quickly able, actually, to say
that wasn't doing any good; dexamethasone, an anti-inflammatory, was one
that you actually called out very quickly as being beneficial [asks
about numbers so far in trial for CPT]"

ML: "We're not close to those sorts of numbers at the moment, each of
those required several thousand patients. There are some lessons there
though: Hydroxychloroquine, a good scientific basis for thinking it
might be effective, actually quite a lot of expectation and no little
hype, if you like, that it might be effective, very widely used on the
basis of essentially no evidence, do the randomised trials, and it turns
out it doesn't work for patients in hospital. Dexamethasone, by
contrast, there was a lot of scepticism about that, whether that would
work, whether suppressing the body's immune system when it's trying to
fight a virus would really be a good thing, or might even be a harmful
thing; we did the trial and it turned out to be a remarkably effective
drug reducing the risk of mortality, of death, by about a third of the
people on ventilators. So I think what that tells us is, you can have
good theory, you can have good scientific understanding and rationale,
you can even have high expectation, but it's not until you get the
information from the randomised trial that you really know what's going
on, which treatments are really effective and which are not."

Or take this about HCL:

https://www.fda.gov/emergency-preparedness-and-response/mcm-legal-regulatory-and-policy-framework/emergency-use-authorization#coviddrugs

"On June 15, 2020, based on FDA’s continued review of the scientific
evidence available for hydroxychloroquine sulfate (HCQ) and chloroquine
phosphate (CQ) to treat covid-19, FDA has determined that the statutory
criteria for EUA as outlined in Section 564(c)(2) of the Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act are no longer met. Specifically, FDA has determined that
CQ and HCQ are unlikely to be effective in treating covid-19 for the
authorized uses in the EUA. Additionally, in light of ongoing serious
cardiac adverse events and other serious side effects, the known and
potential benefits of CQ and HCQ no longer outweigh the known and
potential risks for the authorized use. This warrants revocation of the
EUA for HCQ and CQ for the treatment of covid-19."

.... and clicking the links there eventually leads to (PDF) statements
directly contradicting widespread claims ...

"- We now believe that the suggested dosing regimens for CQ and HCQ as
detailed in the Fact Sheets are unlikely to produce an antiviral effect.
- Earlier observations of decreased viral shedding with HCQ or CQ
treatment have not been consistently replicated and recent data from a
randomized controlled trial assessing probability of negative conversion
showed no difference between HCQ and standard of care alone."

So why did Trump intervene in favour of HCL? He read and believed fake
news put out by liars like you! This is how HCL made it into the news
(my caps):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misinformation_related_to_the_2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_pandemic

On 11 March, Adrian Bye, a tech startup leader who is not a doctor,
suggested to cryptocurrency investors Gregory Rigano and James Todaro
that “chloroquine will keep most people out of hospital." (BYE LATER
ADMITTED THAT HE HAD REACHED THIS CONCLUSION THROUGH "PHILOSOPHY" RATHER
THAN MEDICAL RESEARCH.) Two days later, Rigano and Todaro promoted
chloroquine in a self-published article THAT FALSELY CLAIMED AFFILIATION
WITH THREE INSTITUTIONS. Google removed the article.[349]"

If you want a fuller version of this story, read this, it's a both
fascinating but also highly alarming study in exactly how much of the
fake news shit that you wallow in gets started:

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/trump-hydroxychloroquine-coronavirus-fox-news_n_5ebaffdbc5b65b5fd63dac80?ri18n=true&guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9kdWNrZHVja2dvLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAB3eNpl0id2L2KS4kYyOCY9EINBe91aS1GZBCky_UVmsfNS6ITIFWufaa78W0rnXU9M2nXkNULWUsifGXWCEZ-uQZOjnFmj7xtQFDUsbct2Vn2PL7jTL-GDCAsIZ5ECuCRzok7AS4F8A_aP9dioKtptDTbQ_OLyDcEWI9H65pooP

>>>>> The health authorities have been wrong about absolutely everything, and
>>>>> if the censorship policy was that no one is allowed to disagree with the
>>>>> government and media, then back in early 2020, you would have been
>>>>> censored for saying people should wear masks, as at that time, the
>>>>> government and media were telling people not to wear masks.
>>>>
>>>> It is a simple fact that wearing masks helps prevent infection,
>>>
>>> No it doesn't.
>>
>> Liar.  See the evidence still linked below.
>
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2493952/pdf/annrcse01509-0009.pdf

Pertains to a seemingly rather unethical study of the temporary disuse
of masks in an operating theatre, which by definition is already anyway
a clean hygienic space, so not really a measure of very different types
of mask used during a pandemic in the community by the community when in
a crowded public space such as a bus or a shop.

> https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub5/full

These are studies of other studies, so don't add any new evidence in and
of themselves, and the sample sizes of the other studies quoted are
rather on the low side [My caps] ...

"Authors' conclusions

THE HIGH RISK OF BIAS IN THE TRIALS, VARIATION IN OUTCOME MEASUREMENT,
AND RELATIVELY LOW COMPLIANCE WITH THE INTERVENTIONS DURING THE STUDIES
HAMPER DRAWING FIRM CONCLUSIONS AND GENERALISING THE FINDINGS TO THE
CURRENT COVID‐19 PANDEMIC.

There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks. The low‐moderate
certainty of the evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is
limited, and that the true effect may be different from the observed
estimate of the effect. [etc]

THERE IS A NEED FOR LARGE, WELL-DESIGNED RCTs addressing the
effectiveness of many of these interventions in multiple settings and
populations, especially in those most at risk of ARIs."

So rather inconclusive. The result of the 72,000 cohort trial mentioned
earlier in the paper will probably be more useful. Meanwhile, see again
the video of unmistakable physical evidence as well as the other
evidence given below.

>>>> mostly from the
>>>> wearer to others, less so from others to the wearer, so it's a "I'll scratch
>>>> your back if you'll scratch mine" thing, I wear a mask to protect you, you
>>>> should wear a mask to protect me.
>>>>
>>>> Visualizing Speech-Generated Oral Fluid Droplets with Laser Light Scattering
>>>> https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2007800
>>>>
>>>> 8 dangerous COVID-19 face mask myths you need to stop believing
>>>> https://www.cnet.com/health/8-dangerous-covid-19-face-mask-myths-you-need-to-stop-believing/
>>>
>>> Droplets fall to the ground in front of whoever emits them.
>>
>> But how soon depends on their size, larger droplets fall quite quickly, but
>> smaller droplets can continue in the air for some time, thus ...
>
> Droplets are NOT the primary means of transmission.

Droplets range in size across a continuum from those visible to the
naked eye, which fall to the ground comparatively quickly, down to
aerosols, which can remain suspended in the air for some time, and while
it can be convenient to divide them into these two extremes for
discussion purposes, it should always be remembered that reality is
different. A useful percentage of those particles at the smaller end of
the continuum can be caught on exhalation by a properly fitted and worn
mask.

>>> The virus is also airborne.
>>
>> ... and, as no-one is going around licking the ground, it is this that is
>> important, which is why wearing masks helps to prevent infection.
>
> No it doesn't. See above.

Yes it does, see above.

>>>> Mass censorship is not the issue here.  In no country in the world is there has
>>>> there ever been such a thing as free speech.  All countries in the world have
>>>> laws governing what may or may not be said, and one of the most common
>>>> underlying principles of such laws is a requirement for truth.
>>>
>>> LOL!
>>>
>>> You of course mean, 'a requirement for official lies'.
>>
>> I mean a requirement simply to tell the truth, which clearly you do not.
>
> So who gets to decide what is the truth?

Certainly not you or anyone as deranged as you.

>>>> The censorship only of those who lie
>>>
>>> Questioning the official narrative is not "lying".
>>
>> However, going against scientific research that proves otherwise is lying, and
>> that is what you are doing, lying.
>>
>>> Do you believe that Big Brother should be the arbiter of what is
>>> and isn't the truth?
>>
>> Whoever it should be, it clearly shouldn't be you or anyone like you.
>
> Neither should it be you.

In the particular case of your deranged and off-topic postings here, it
is people who have a balanced rather than an extremist view, such as
myself and others who think like me, who will be complaining about your
lies to your usenet server, just as it is other Reddit users who
complain about lies on Reddit.

>>>> Up til now, New Zealand has contained this virus probably better than any other
>>>> country, certainly better than the UK or the US or most other western nations.
>>>> Today, sadly, it has been reported that Australia reached its 1000th death,
>>>> while the UK has had over 132,000 and a few days ago when I last looked on a
>>>> population basis had the 21st worst death rate in the world.  Would that we had
>>>> been governed even half as intelligently as New Zealand or even Australia!
>>>
>>> New Zealand is an isolated island, and is run by a horse. Not an
>>> example of intelligent governing.
>>
>> New Zealand is run by a woman whose intelligence and understanding far exceeds
>> most western leaders,
>
> LOL! Like most women, the horse is a hysteric and believes it to be
> possible for people to live life with ZERO risk whatsoever.

Misogyny noted, and will be reported to a b u s e @ m i x m i n . n e t
and is further proof that [restoring the evaded full quote] ...

>> a woman whose intelligence and understanding far exceeds
>> most western leaders, and leaves your own in pre-history by comparison.

.... though actually what I meant to write was more like "leaves your own
in pre-human evolutionary history by comparison"

>> Australia, though an island, can hardly be described as isolated.  Korea is not
>> isolated at all, on the contrary as a business and commercial hub it is a good
>> match in the east for the UK in the west, but while our death rate is 197.3 per
>> 110k and the US's 194.3, theirs is just 4.5, Australia's 4.0, and New Zealand's
>> 0.5.  That tells you all you need to know about what happens when proven liars
>> and incompetent buffoons like BlowJob, Trump, and yourself, are put in charge of
>> a country.
>>
>>> Do you think people should be locked in their homes until the end
>>> of time?
>>
>> Another attempt to pull emotional levers rather than argue rationally.
>
> Evasion noted.

I didn't evade it, I answered it below, so that's another lie.

>> There are times when it is necessary to keep people at home for their own and
>> others' greater safety, for example in time of war.  Until the last few months
>> or so, the UK annual death rate from covid-19 was exceeding that during each of
>> the 6 years of WW2, so if curfew is considered acceptable in war, it should be
>> considered acceptable for covid-19.  However, as a result of the vaccination
>> drive, the UK, as most western nations, are not locked in their homes now, so
>> why are you still asking this damn fool question?
>
> We're talking about New Zealand, which you're holding up as a model.
>
> They are currently in a strict lockdown.

Yes, because they have had a resurgence of the virus and don't yet have
a high enough proportion of the population who have acquired immunity,
through vaccination or from getting infected and having recovered, to be
able to just let it rip.

>>>>> We are grown men. We have a right to make our own decisions about what
>>>>> we do, about what we read, about what we think. Even if there was a
>>>>> deadly virus, that would not change. If we allow all of our freedoms to
>>>>> be taken away because of a virus, we never had those freedoms in the
>>>>> first place, and they can now be suspended for any other reason.
>>>>
>>>> If you lived alone in the world, that would be a reasonable argument, but like
>>>> it or not you have to share this world with nearly 8 billion other people, and
>>>> therefore there are times when your personal freedoms are impositions on other
>>>> people's freedom, and your so-called 'rights' have to be balanced against the
>>>> equally valid 'rights' of others. Didn't your parents teach you these
>>>> infantilely obvious points when you were a toddler?
>>
>> I take it that's a 'no' then, and that your parents spoilt you by allowing you
>> to be a selfish shit.
>
> You don't have a right to enforce your belief that I be locked in my
> home for the rest of my life because someone might get the god damn
> flu.

As you know very well it's not flu, it's covid-19 and much more deadly
than flu, and anyway there would seem to be other perfectly good reasons
relating to your sanity, or even just your anti-social selfishness, as
to why you should be locked up in your home.

> If you're so concerned about getting sick, it is you who must make
> the choice to remain in your home.

I do indeed make such choices, like everyone else in the world, but I
have some good evidence to believe that I've actually had this disease,
and have since been double vaxxed anyway, so I'm not too concerned.

What I am concerned about is that the UK death rate has now climbed back
above the seasonal average for the five years preceding the pandemic,
which means that people are beginning to die unnecessarily again, while
despite this some younger people are irresponsibly still not coming
forward for vaccination, and thus are acting as a repository for the
disease to remain and evolve, possibly into a strain that is more
deadly, or just even more infectious.

>>>> You have no scientific proof that such an unlikely thing as 'God' exists,
>>>
>>> Okay, now we all know who we're dealing with here.
>>>
>>> Provide "scientific proof" that YOU exist.
>>
>> You're reading my posts, so if I don't exist, neither do you.
>
> That is not scientific proof.

Duh! Neither are your claims about God, that's the whole point, dumbass!

>>>>> These people who worship
>>>>> authority are obsessed with forcing their will on the rest of us, and
>>>>> there is no point at which they will stop. They will happily put us in
>>>>> camps or simply kill us.
>>>>
>>>> Where is your *EVIDENCE* for this wild and paranoid claim?
>>>
>>> The entire history of the 20th century.
>>
>> No, the claim is specific and the attempted justification laughably vague, so
>> it's clear that, as everyone probably including yourself knew all along, you
>> have no justification whatsoever  -  it's just another propaganda lie.
>
> You demand something more specific? Does the USSR and all the other
> communist regimes of the 20th century jog your memory?

Communism is entirely unrelated to and therefore not evidence for your
wild and paranoid claim that "These people who worship authority are
obsessed with forcing their will on the rest of us, and there is no
point at which they will stop. They will happily put us in camps or
simply kill us", so obviously this was just another of your absurd and
paranoid lies.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk