Java Jive wrote:
> 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?

Because I think that what he wrote needs wider distribution. The
multiple links were links to the images that compliment the story,
so I included them inline.

>>>>> 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.

Data from Wuhan, which was available BEFORE either of those articles
was published said that ventilators don't work, that he majority of
those put on them DIE.

>> 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:

Trump mentioned it. Then, the entire Left that went batshit insane
over it like they always do.

> [* 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.

It's been used in HUMANS for DECADES, and is safer than aspirin.

> 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."

But now we have this: https://ivmmeta.com/

> 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."

LOL! But yet remdesivir is still used, is of questionable efficacy,
with even more serious side-effects.

And there's also this: https://hcqmeta.com/

> ... 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

What I post is "fake news" but the Huffington Post isn't?

LMAO!

>>>>>> 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.

It's a 40 year old study that is still uncontroverted.

>> 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.

The Danish study on masks covering 6,000 was out last November. Masks
provided no statistically significant improvement in outcomes. Presumably
the 66,000-person study on cloth masks is still being done.

>>>>> 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.

At the smaller end, the aerosols you exhale go out the sides of a
surgical 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.

LOL! Your self-assessment is highly inflated.

>>>>> 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] ...

LMAO! Why don't you post your emailed complaints here so I can laugh
at them some more?

>>> 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.

We're NEVER going to be rid of Covid-19. There are animal reservoirs,
and the virus is constantly mutating, which if allowed to do so naturally
will result in a virus that is far less lethal. Then vax is already
useless, and for young healthy people, is a greater risk than Covid ever
was.

>>> 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.

This "resurgence" was a SINGLE CASE! You could have quarantined the
sick individual for two weeks without locking down the whole country.

>>>>>> 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,

LOL! You're simply projecting here.

> or even just your anti-social selfishness, as to why you should be
> locked up in your home.

So you DO want to lock people in their homes forever.

>> 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.

LOL! You're a fool. We don't demand that people who've had measles
get vaccinated against measles.

> 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.

More infectious, perhaps. Deadlier, no. That's NOT how viruses work.

>>>>> 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!

LOL! It is you who brought up "no scientific proof" regarding the
existence of God. My claims about God are NOT based on "scientific
proof" (the term itself is actually a misnomer).

>>>>>> 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.

Do totalitarian leftists (communists and others) force their will upon
people? Yes or no.