COVID-19 ... how we cope :)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Sid Belzberg View Post

    I did answer it, if you are unable to read that is your problem, not mine.
    No, Sid. I made a comment about Big Pharma and you responded to that. My question had to do with Dr. Kory. Kory reportedly (see wiki text below) referred to Ivermectin as miraculous with respect to its impact on covid. If Dr. Kory was correct, then why, after 14 months, has no credible medical/health organization (e.g. NEJM, CDC, JHU) come forward to support his position?


    Pierre Kory is an American critical care physician who gained attention during the COVID-19 pandemic for advocating widespread off-label use of certain drugs as treatments for COVID-19, as president and co-founder of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC).[1][2] Kory testified twice to the U.S. Senate regarding COVID-19. During his testimony in December 2020, Kory erroneously claimed that the antiparasitic medication ivermectin was a "wonder drug" with "miraculous effectiveness" against COVID-19.[3]
    "We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office." - Aesop
    "Only the dead have seen the end of war." - Plato
    "If once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination." - Thomas De Quincey

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Peter McKillop View Post

      No, Sid. I made a comment about Big Pharma and you responded to that. My question had to do with Dr. Kory. Kory reportedly (see wiki text below) referred to Ivermectin as miraculous with respect to its impact on covid. If Dr. Kory was correct, then why, after 14 months, has no credible medical/health organization (e.g. NEJM, CDC, JHU) come forward to support his position?
      p.s. If your position is that hundreds, if not thousands, of scientists and physicians have been bullied by Big Pharma into being afraid to acknowledge Ivermectin as a miraculous treatment for covid, then your position is ludicrous.
      "We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office." - Aesop
      "Only the dead have seen the end of war." - Plato
      "If once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination." - Thomas De Quincey

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Peter McKillop View Post

        p.s. If your position is that hundreds, if not thousands, of scientists and physicians have been bullied by Big Pharma into being afraid to acknowledge Ivermectin as a miraculous treatment for covid, then your position is ludicrous.
        Peter, the evidence of my position is frankly overwhelming and is in fact the corpus of an entire book. it is way beyond the scope of what I can post in this forum hence as I said before the book outlines the evidence of my position. You are welcome to email me and I can send you the file if you don't want to buy the book.
        https://www.amazon.com/Real-Anthony-...s%2C191&sr=8-1

        Attached Files
        Last edited by Sid Belzberg; Monday, 21st February, 2022, 10:42 AM.

        Comment


        • Super congrats to all the various law enforcement agencies who have reclaimed our city of Ottawa!

          And huge thanks to our PM Justin Trudeau for being there when we needed him most!

          Time this Spring for Ottawa to throw a massive city wide party!

          Again, thanks!

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Neil Frarey View Post
            Super congrats to all the various law enforcement agencies who have reclaimed our city of Ottawa!

            And huge thanks to our PM Justin Trudeau for being there when we needed him most!

            Time this Spring for Ottawa to throw a massive city wide party!

            Again, thanks!
            Profound professionalism on the part of the police, yes. Trudeau hid his head in the sand for three weeks and allowed the situation to get worse and worse, but he finally did what was needed. Any opposition to the invoking of the Act is bad, selfish politics. I took many walks over to the protest/occupation and observed it and its genius participants carefully, and I also noted the effect that they were having upon the entire city and the local residents. Anyone who says this was not an emergency is wrong, dead wrong. We are still in serious trouble, we are becoming more and more like America. We need statesmen and women, not gutless and shortsighted politicians.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Brad Thomson View Post

              Profound professionalism on the part of the police, yes. Trudeau hid his head in the sand for three weeks and allowed the situation to get worse and worse, but he finally did what was needed. Any opposition to the invoking of the Act is bad, selfish politics. I took many walks over to the protest/occupation and observed it and its genius participants carefully, and I also noted the effect that they were having upon the entire city and the local residents. Anyone who says this was not an emergency is wrong, dead wrong. We are still in serious trouble, we are becoming more and more like America. We need statesmen and women, not gutless and shortsighted politicians.

              I would like to ask a question, and in asking it, I would prefer that the actual protest and all its effects on Ottawa (and other cities) be put aside. Because this question is not about the protest itself.

              The question is: did the truckers have a legitimate argument that they should not be subject to vaccine mandates?

              Comment


              • COVID-19 and PCR Testing

                The nose swab PCR test for COVID-19 is an accurate and reliable test for diagnosing COVID-19. A positive test means you likely have COVID-19. A negative test means you probably did not have COVID-19 at the time of the test.

                https://my.clevelandclinic.org/healt...nd-pcr-testing

                I am OK with Truckers coming into Canada from USA needing a vaccine mandate.

                But for Truckers unwilling to obtain the mandate, I think that the alternative of a rapid PCR Negative Test at the border, at the Trucker's expense, should have been offered.

                Bob A

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Bob Armstrong View Post
                  COVID-19 and PCR Testing

                  The nose swab PCR test for COVID-19 is an accurate and reliable test for diagnosing COVID-19. A positive test means you likely have COVID-19. A negative test means you probably did not have COVID-19 at the time of the test.

                  https://my.clevelandclinic.org/healt...nd-pcr-testing

                  I am OK with Truckers coming into Canada from USA needing a vaccine mandate.

                  But for Truckers unwilling to obtain the mandate, I think that the alternative of a rapid PCR Negative Test at the border, at the Trucker's expense, should have been offered.

                  Bob A
                  Hi Bob and Pargat,
                  Bob, the PCR test you speak of was discontinued by the CDC at the end of the year last year as it does not distinguish between the flu virus and COVID and furthermore, is overly sensitive causing a massive number of false positives. The WHO also recommended that a positive PCR test result on its own is insufficient to conclude someone has COVID and a person should also exhibit symptoms.
                  Finally, the swabs they use to put up people's noses coated with ethylene oxide some believe are in themselves health hazards.
                  Given the vaccines do not stop infection or transmission and that the Omicron is about as virulent as a normal cold and gives people superior natural immunity vaccine mandates makes absolutely no sense. Indeed Denmark, Sweden, Norway and many other countries and even some Canadian provinces have now abandoned or are abandoning all COVID restrictions,

                  Forcing anyone to any of the above procedures without full informed consent violates international law and specifically the Nuremberg code. In the UK Anna De Buisseret an expert on international law and biowarfare and medical ethics has suggested the following notice of liability to be given to those forcing any medical procedure on others that violates all medical oaths that physicians must swear going back to the Hippocratic oath of the 5th century BC. The document in itself is a wonderful history of universal human rights and Sarscovid2.
                  https://covid-crime.org/wp-content/u...021_11_183.pdf
                  Last edited by Sid Belzberg; Monday, 21st February, 2022, 08:40 AM.

                  Comment


                  • ..........
                    Last edited by Sam Sharpe; Saturday, 5th November, 2022, 07:33 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Here is an interesting article on the recent Bangladesh mask study where the investigators recently made all of the data they collected available on Github. https://gitlab.com/emily-crawford/bd-mask-rct When the data they neglected to disclose is included it actually shows that masks are completely useless in preventing transmission of COVID2. This makes sense as in 40 years of RCTs with masks this is the first one that concluded that masks work in preventing viral transmission when all other RCT studies showed they did not. Here is an article where the author plots the data and shows the Bangladesh study deliberately omitted data that went against the pro mask narrative they were promoting.

                      https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/b...utm_source=url

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Pargat Perrer View Post
                        The question is: did the truckers have a legitimate argument that they should not be subject to vaccine mandates?
                        It depends upon where one draws the line. In Canada we want to give individuals as much freedom as possible, but the collective does have the right/obligation to protect itself from the individual. Thus murder, bank robbery and many other activities are deemed illegal. It is important to note that if everyone were free to murder, then no one would be free to not be murdered. Then there would be no collective rights at all, which would mean that there were also no individual rights at all. Thus freedom can only exist when it restricts itself, restrictions are the very essence and definition of freedom. And so again, the question is where to draw the line. The problem is that this is often a matter of opinion and debate. Everyone who is sane agrees that we should not be free to murder, only the insane would argue that we should be mandated by the state as to what to eat for dinner, or which hockey team to root for. Now, does the collective have the right/obligation to tell individuals that if they are not vaccinated they cannot work, or go into certain stores, gyms, theatres, restaurants and so forth? Once more, it depends upon where one draws the line. And again, reasonable people can disagree on this. So what do we do? We have two choices. We allow these decisions to be made by dictators, or we allow these decisions to be made by democratically elected representatives. Most of us prefer the latter. But what if we disagree with them? Simple, we legally protest and we vote them out of office come the next election. In the meantime, we should obey the laws and respect the decisions of our elected representatives, and we should expect to be stopped by law enforcement agencies if we do not. For if we do not comply with the decisions of legally elected representatives then we will risk descending at least into dictatorship, where we will lose many of our freedoms, or possibly into anarchy, where we will lose all of our freedoms completely. America is very close to this now, and Canada is not too far behind.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Sid Belzberg View Post


                          Yes Bob, I sincerely hope you do learn how to do that. You remind of the priests who bemoaned the invention of the Guttenberg printing press.
                          Thanks Sid, this was good for my morning chuckle. I was picturing myself as a monk in a medieval castle carefully reprinting the Bible by hand. You do realize the Bible was the first major publication for the Gutenberg printing press.

                          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-5W...seumoftheBible

                          And now more that 600 years later, we are still fact checking it!

                          I suspect we will be fact checking the internet for almost as long.

                          Anyhow, the more I learn, the more I realize how little I know.
                          If I keep learning long enough, eventually I will know nothing at all.
                          Oops, wait a minute.
                          More coffee.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Bob Gillanders View Post

                            Thanks Sid, this was good for my morning chuckle. I was picturing myself as a monk in a medieval castle carefully reprinting the Bible by hand. You do realize the Bible was the first major publication for the Gutenberg printing press.

                            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-5W...seumoftheBible

                            And now more that 600 years later, we are still fact checking it!

                            I suspect we will be fact checking the internet for almost as long.

                            Anyhow, the more I learn, the more I realize how little I know.
                            If I keep learning long enough, eventually I will know nothing at all.
                            Oops, wait a minute.
                            More coffee.
                            Thanks, Bob,
                            That was the thing, the priests did not want the masses to have the same knowledge they did of the bible. I had no idea that 600 years later that is still being fact-checked, touche!
                            Best,
                            Sid

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Sid Belzberg View Post
                              That was the thing, the priests did not want the masses to have the same knowledge they did of the bible.
                              Yes. The invention of the Trinity was also a scam. It is not at all supported by scripture and was concocted so that God was deemed to be completely mysterious, three and yet one at the same time, which is a contradiction in terms, so that only the Priests could "understand", and thereby control the masses and pick their pockets and force them to live in fear of eternal damnation if they did not comply. The French Catholic priest/philosopher, Nicholas Malebranche, denied the Trinity in his metaphysical works and so the Pope banned his books. Today both the Mormons and the Jehovah's Witnesses reject the absurdity of the Trinity, deeming God to be One, and therefore at least logically possible, if not actual.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Brad Thomson View Post

                                It depends upon where one draws the line. In Canada we want to give individuals as much freedom as possible, but the collective does have the right/obligation to protect itself from the individual. Thus murder, bank robbery and many other activities are deemed illegal. It is important to note that if everyone were free to murder, then no one would be free to not be murdered. Then there would be no collective rights at all, which would mean that there were also no individual rights at all. Thus freedom can only exist when it restricts itself, restrictions are the very essence and definition of freedom. And so again, the question is where to draw the line. The problem is that this is often a matter of opinion and debate. Everyone who is sane agrees that we should not be free to murder, only the insane would argue that we should be mandated by the state as to what to eat for dinner, or which hockey team to root for. Now, does the collective have the right/obligation to tell individuals that if they are not vaccinated they cannot work, or go into certain stores, gyms, theatres, restaurants and so forth? Once more, it depends upon where one draws the line. And again, reasonable people can disagree on this. So what do we do? We have two choices. We allow these decisions to be made by dictators, or we allow these decisions to be made by democratically elected representatives. Most of us prefer the latter. But what if we disagree with them? Simple, we legally protest and we vote them out of office come the next election. In the meantime, we should obey the laws and respect the decisions of our elected representatives, and we should expect to be stopped by law enforcement agencies if we do not. For if we do not comply with the decisions of legally elected representatives then we will risk descending at least into dictatorship, where we will lose many of our freedoms, or possibly into anarchy, where we will lose all of our freedoms completely. America is very close to this now, and Canada is not too far behind.

                                An excellent summary Brad, and it exposes the real weakness of democracy in the 21st century. It is TOO SLOW. It may have worked fine in 18th century, even in 19th century, but now in the 21st century things are happening so fast and furious that we need something better than voting every 4 or 5 years. Perhaps what we really need is for the registered voters to be able to vote on issues directly, as they come up. Do away with elected representatives altogether. It is truly pathetic to be voting a person into office, when no one really knows what that person will do once he or she gets there, because we don't know what biases that person operates under and whether that person will vote for or against when specific issues that come up.

                                Just as one example: what % of people who voted for Trudeau in the last election actually knew he would enact a vaccine mandate for truckers? The true number is probably in single digits.

                                This modern scheme would require extensive measures against voting fraud, but in this electronic age it is far from impossible.

                                We could call it Digital Democracy. Bob Armstrong, what do you think about that?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X