I went back and listened to the podcast with Michael Osterholm, an epidemiologist, regents professor, and director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota.

This clip has over 21 million views and it is the most watched clip ever on Joe Rogan's Podcast on Youtube.

Some takeaways from unbiased source - this is pre political driven conversation and has more weight and truth about some of the issues we're facing in July.

Q: Do masks work? How about hand sanitizer?
Answer: Go to 7:53 and MO's answer is masks and gloved largely do not work. Also mentions that hand sanitizer is good for other diseases but is largely ineffective at stopping transmission - go to 43:00 in.

Q: Closing schools?
Answer: Go to 10:20 and MO brings up the flu and goes onto say almost 40% of nurses have children, who will take care of them. Kids don't spread the disease.

Q: Herd immunity?
Answer: Go to 35:00 and MO mentions that herd immunity is the only way to stop the disease without a vaccine. Brings up how long do we need to shut down? Virus will make its way through the country, never advocated for a full shutdown.

45 minutes in he mentions the mask shortage. How were we supposed to "stop the spread" if there was a PPE shortage (this even pre dates Trump)? Amazing going back and looking at the facts we had back in March and say "Trump blew this."

Full Episode is here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3URhJx0NSw&t=3500s

Compare Michael Osterholm’s March comments to Donald Trump’s March comments... and with a straight face say Trump somehow didn’t blow this response. These 2 guys were diametrically opposed in March, and quite frankly still are.

(07-29-2020 08:23 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  Compare Michael Osterholm’s March comments to Donald Trump’s March comments... and with a straight face say Trump somehow didn’t blow this response. These 2 guys were diametrically opposed in March, and quite frankly still are.

Trump did not blow this response.

You perception of reality is HIGHLY questionable at best.

(07-27-2020 03:56 PM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  I went back and listened to the podcast with Michael Osterholm, an epidemiologist, regents professor, and director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota.

This clip has over 21 million views and it is the most watched clip ever on Joe Rogan's Podcast on Youtube.

Some takeaways from unbiased source - this is pre political driven conversation and has more weight and truth about some of the issues we're facing in July.

Q: Do masks work? How about hand sanitizer?
Answer: Go to 7:53 and MO's answer is masks and gloved largely do not work. Also mentions that hand sanitizer is good for other diseases but is largely ineffective at stopping transmission - go to 43:00 in.

Q: Closing schools?
Answer: Go to 10:20 and MO brings up the flu and goes onto say almost 40% of nurses have children, who will take care of them. Kids don't spread the disease.

Q: Herd immunity?
Answer: Go to 35:00 and MO mentions that herd immunity is the only way to stop the disease without a vaccine. Brings up how long do we need to shut down? Virus will make its way through the country, never advocated for a full shutdown.

45 minutes in he mentions the mask shortage. How were we supposed to "stop the spread" if there was a PPE shortage (this even pre dates Trump)? Amazing going back and looking at the facts we had back in March and say "Trump blew this."

Full Episode is here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3URhJx0NSw&t=3500s

who'd a thunk it?!

#stillLaughing

The only people who blew anything were the governors that placed covid patients in nursing homes. There was nothing else to blow because the whole thing is hysterically overblown. Think about it in realistic terms.

Less than 1.5% of Americans have tested positive. The 4 million number sounds big, and would be if that many dollars appeared in my bank account, but it's a small number for a virus. For perspective, it has taken us 5 months to get to that number. That number is a bad week for the seasonal flu, something 10- 20% of the US population contracts every year.

Yes, there have been 150,000 deaths, but half of those have been nursing home related, impacting those that had health complications and an average age of 78.

The daily focus on this is what has been mismanaged and caused the most harm. 99.7% of the people who get this will have no different outcome or impact than 99.9% of the people who catch seasonal flu. I have said many times that if you had constant focus on the annual flu each year we could live in constant panic. Headlines like "US sets single day record for new cases with 2 million new infections".

(07-29-2020 08:31 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(07-29-2020 08:23 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  Compare Michael Osterholm’s March comments to Donald Trump’s March comments... and with a straight face say Trump somehow didn’t blow this response. These 2 guys were diametrically opposed in March, and quite frankly still are.

Trump did not blow this response.

You perception of reality is HIGHLY questionable at best.

Trump has failed in his handling of this pandemic in every possible way; and it’s why he will lose come November. His approvals on his handling of it are to the negative at roughly 30/70 percent. His only chance is for a vaccine to hit prior to November, but even then, his self-centered act is wearing thin. Trump was given a chance to rise above and lead, but he has instead proven to be too small of a person to handle the responsibility of leadership. I don’t think he can overcome that character defect in 90 days.

(07-29-2020 08:31 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(07-29-2020 08:23 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  Compare Michael Osterholm’s March comments to Donald Trump’s March comments... and with a straight face say Trump somehow didn’t blow this response. These 2 guys were diametrically opposed in March, and quite frankly still are.

Trump did not blow this response.

You perception of reality is HIGHLY questionable at best.

There's no question about how he perceives reality. Delusional at best, completely dishonest at worst...

(07-29-2020 09:21 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(07-29-2020 08:31 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(07-29-2020 08:23 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  Compare Michael Osterholm’s March comments to Donald Trump’s March comments... and with a straight face say Trump somehow didn’t blow this response. These 2 guys were diametrically opposed in March, and quite frankly still are.

Trump did not blow this response.

You perception of reality is HIGHLY questionable at best.

Trump has failed in his handling of this pandemic in every possible way; and it’s why he will lose come November. His approvals on his handling of it are to the negative at roughly 30/70 percent. His only chance is for a vaccine to hit prior to November, but even then, his self-centered act is wearing thin. Trump was given a chance to rise above and lead, but he has instead proven to be too small of a person to handle the responsibility of leadership. I don’t think he can overcome that character defect in 90 days.

Do you think the media has done a good job at covering the pandemic with facts? And do you think that media outlets have an effect on public opinion?

I'm sure you despise Fox News - why? Is it because they can influence public opinion? What about NBC, NYT, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, print media, I can go on...

(07-29-2020 09:21 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(07-29-2020 08:31 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(07-29-2020 08:23 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  Compare Michael Osterholm’s March comments to Donald Trump’s March comments... and with a straight face say Trump somehow didn’t blow this response. These 2 guys were diametrically opposed in March, and quite frankly still are.

Trump did not blow this response.

You perception of reality is HIGHLY questionable at best.

Trump has failed in his handling of this pandemic in every possible way; and it’s why he will lose come November. His approvals on his handling of it are to the negative at roughly 30/70 percent. His only chance is for a vaccine to hit prior to November, but even then, his self-centered act is wearing thin. Trump was given a chance to rise above and lead, but he has instead proven to be too small of a person to handle the responsibility of leadership. I don’t think he can overcome that character defect in 90 days.

Speaking of defects, I wonder how Biden would have handled it. Oh wait, he wouldn't have, his handlers would have because the man can barely keep a coherent thought in his mentally defective head. You want to see a fuqed up response to anything that might arise in the future, go ahead and get your half-wit elected.

(07-29-2020 09:45 AM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  

(07-29-2020 09:21 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(07-29-2020 08:31 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(07-29-2020 08:23 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  Compare Michael Osterholm’s March comments to Donald Trump’s March comments... and with a straight face say Trump somehow didn’t blow this response. These 2 guys were diametrically opposed in March, and quite frankly still are.

Trump did not blow this response.

You perception of reality is HIGHLY questionable at best.

Trump has failed in his handling of this pandemic in every possible way; and it’s why he will lose come November. His approvals on his handling of it are to the negative at roughly 30/70 percent. His only chance is for a vaccine to hit prior to November, but even then, his self-centered act is wearing thin. Trump was given a chance to rise above and lead, but he has instead proven to be too small of a person to handle the responsibility of leadership. I don’t think he can overcome that character defect in 90 days.

Do you think the media has done a good job at covering the pandemic with facts? And do you think that media outlets have an effect on public opinion?

I'm sure you despise Fox News - why? Is it because they can influence public opinion? What about NBC, NYT, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, print media, I can go on...

Cases in point:

Last month Dr's from Texas raised issue with the FDA's ruling on Hydroxychloroquine stating that in Texas when given early it was the quickest and most effective drug for the treatment of COVID 19.

Yesterday physicians from Los Angeles's emergency rooms made a public announcement pleading for the lifting of hydroxychloroquine restrictions because it is the most effective drug for the treatment of COVID 19 when given early. They noted that Fauci has not personally treated a single COVID case. They noted that the study he cited from Brazil only issued the drug to patients in the final stages of the disease and then they issued what were considered to be lethal dosages of the drug.

Both sets of Doctors (Texas and Los Angeles) have used hydroxychloroquine anyway and successfully.

They both cite that it is only because the issue has been politicized that the FDA placed the restrictions out of political motivations and both say that a 65 year old over the counter drug which has never proven problematic should never have been restricted and that such action was unprecedented.

Yet Social Media Sites, including search engines at Google and others, have taken down all links and have made accessing videos or articles about these presentations impossible to find.

Comments by Yale Epidemiologist Risch have also been ignored because they too addressed the same issues.

It would seem that Fauci, Big Pharma, and the FDA would all rather see high casualty rates due to COVID rather than use a drug that they can't profit from and to politicize the deaths and hype the situation rather than help the people.

The ignoring of all viewpoints contrary to leftist talking points by the Social Media and the MSM is the surest sign of the demise of our nation and our freedoms.

They are intentionally giving you only enough information to impair your decision making. This is intolerable and the surest sign of how far down the road we are to having a small cadre of Marxist so called intellectuals make all decisions for us.

They will stop at nothing: needless deaths, destroying people's livelihoods, and destroying our economy, all in an effort to get rid of a President who stands against their alliances with a foreign entity bent on our destruction and using their companies as a means of access through their greed to do it.

The FDA placed restrictions on the drug because clinical trials showed it no more effective than placebos and the health risks out weighed any benefit.

(07-29-2020 10:08 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  The FDA placed restrictions on the drug because clinical trials showed it no more effective than placebos and the health risks out weighed any benefit.

Yet doctors see it as beneficial.

(07-29-2020 10:08 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  The FDA placed restrictions on the drug because clinical trials showed it no more effective than placebos and the health risks out weighed any benefit.

The FDA is a bunch of bureaucrats with no concept of emergency response. They've been making a living off being right about Thalidomide for nearly 60 years. But it's an open question whether they do more good than harm.

It has showed amazing results in some anecdotal cases, which suggests strongly that there are cases where it works and cases where it doesn't, for whatever reason. That's a fairly typical drug situation, drug A works for some, drug B works for others. What we need to know is that reason.

(07-29-2020 10:42 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-29-2020 10:08 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  The FDA placed restrictions on the drug because clinical trials showed it no more effective than placebos and the health risks out weighed any benefit.

The FDA is a bunch of bureaucrats with no concept of emergency response. They've been making a living off being right about Thalidomide for nearly 60 years. But it's an open question whether they do more good than harm.

It has showed amazing results in some anecdotal cases, which suggests strongly that there are cases where it works and cases where it doesn't, for whatever reason. That's a fairly typical drug situation, drug A works for some, drug B works for others. What we need to know is that reason.

So, you dispute the clinical trials used to base their conclusion and instead rely on random anecdotal cases? Understood.

(07-29-2020 10:48 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(07-29-2020 10:42 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-29-2020 10:08 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  The FDA placed restrictions on the drug because clinical trials showed it no more effective than placebos and the health risks out weighed any benefit.

The FDA is a bunch of bureaucrats with no concept of emergency response. They've been making a living off being right about Thalidomide for nearly 60 years. But it's an open question whether they do more good than harm.
It has showed amazing results in some anecdotal cases, which suggests strongly that there are cases where it works and cases where it doesn't, for whatever reason. That's a fairly typical drug situation, drug A works for some, drug B works for others. What we need to know is that reason.

So, you dispute the clinical trials used to base their conclusion and instead rely on random anecdotal cases? Understood.

No, not at all, and I find such a blatant mischaracterization of my comments to be offensive. What I am saying is that there are sufficient anecdotal events to raise questions about the accuracy of the clinical tests. I don't rely on on either one, but when the differences are so remarkable, the evidence demands some sort of resolution.

(07-29-2020 10:54 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-29-2020 10:48 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(07-29-2020 10:42 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-29-2020 10:08 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  The FDA placed restrictions on the drug because clinical trials showed it no more effective than placebos and the health risks out weighed any benefit.

The FDA is a bunch of bureaucrats with no concept of emergency response. They've been making a living off being right about Thalidomide for nearly 60 years. But it's an open question whether they do more good than harm.
It has showed amazing results in some anecdotal cases, which suggests strongly that there are cases where it works and cases where it doesn't, for whatever reason. That's a fairly typical drug situation, drug A works for some, drug B works for others. What we need to know is that reason.

So, you dispute the clinical trials used to base their conclusion and instead rely on random anecdotal cases? Understood.

No, not at all. What I am saying is that there are sufficient anecdotal events to raise questions about the accuracy of the clinical tests. I don't rely on on either one, but when the differences are so remarkable, the evidence demands some sort of resolution.

like it would be the first time a clinical 'scientist' had ever been paid under the table with 'hush $$$'...

(07-29-2020 10:48 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(07-29-2020 10:42 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-29-2020 10:08 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  The FDA placed restrictions on the drug because clinical trials showed it no more effective than placebos and the health risks out weighed any benefit.

The FDA is a bunch of bureaucrats with no concept of emergency response. They've been making a living off being right about Thalidomide for nearly 60 years. But it's an open question whether they do more good than harm.

It has showed amazing results in some anecdotal cases, which suggests strongly that there are cases where it works and cases where it doesn't, for whatever reason. That's a fairly typical drug situation, drug A works for some, drug B works for others. What we need to know is that reason.

So, you dispute the clinical trials used to base their conclusion and instead rely on random anecdotal cases? Understood.

If it saves one life then it's worth it right? Same logic we're using for masks.

(07-29-2020 10:54 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-29-2020 10:48 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(07-29-2020 10:42 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-29-2020 10:08 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  The FDA placed restrictions on the drug because clinical trials showed it no more effective than placebos and the health risks out weighed any benefit.

The FDA is a bunch of bureaucrats with no concept of emergency response. They've been making a living off being right about Thalidomide for nearly 60 years. But it's an open question whether they do more good than harm.
It has showed amazing results in some anecdotal cases, which suggests strongly that there are cases where it works and cases where it doesn't, for whatever reason. That's a fairly typical drug situation, drug A works for some, drug B works for others. What we need to know is that reason.

So, you dispute the clinical trials used to base their conclusion and instead rely on random anecdotal cases? Understood.

No, not at all. What I am saying is that there are sufficient anecdotal events to raise questions about the accuracy of the clinical tests. I don't rely on on either one, but when the differences are so remarkable, the evidence demands some sort of resolution.

Really? and you know that how? Do you know the methodology of the trials performed? A handful of doctors, seemingly paid by conservative PACs, hardly provided sufficient “anecdotal events” to question the clinical trials referenced by the FDA.

(07-29-2020 11:05 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(07-29-2020 10:54 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-29-2020 10:48 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(07-29-2020 10:42 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-29-2020 10:08 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  The FDA placed restrictions on the drug because clinical trials showed it no more effective than placebos and the health risks out weighed any benefit.

The FDA is a bunch of bureaucrats with no concept of emergency response. They've been making a living off being right about Thalidomide for nearly 60 years. But it's an open question whether they do more good than harm.
It has showed amazing results in some anecdotal cases, which suggests strongly that there are cases where it works and cases where it doesn't, for whatever reason. That's a fairly typical drug situation, drug A works for some, drug B works for others. What we need to know is that reason.

So, you dispute the clinical trials used to base their conclusion and instead rely on random anecdotal cases? Understood.

No, not at all. What I am saying is that there are sufficient anecdotal events to raise questions about the accuracy of the clinical tests. I don't rely on on either one, but when the differences are so remarkable, the evidence demands some sort of resolution.

Really? and you know that how? Do you know the methodology of the trials performed? A handful of doctors, seemingly paid by conservative PACs, hardly provided sufficient “anecdotal events” to question the clinical trials referenced by the FDA.

You started out mischaracterizing my initial comments. Now you've gone even further. I'm not interested in trying to defend things that I didn't say.

I will say that I've never had a lot of trust and confidence in FDA, and these events haven't changed that.

And as Hambone correctly notes in the other thread, you mischaracterized not only my comments but FDA's as well.

(07-29-2020 11:07 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-29-2020 11:05 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(07-29-2020 10:54 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-29-2020 10:48 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(07-29-2020 10:42 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The FDA is a bunch of bureaucrats with no concept of emergency response. They've been making a living off being right about Thalidomide for nearly 60 years. But it's an open question whether they do more good than harm.
It has showed amazing results in some anecdotal cases, which suggests strongly that there are cases where it works and cases where it doesn't, for whatever reason. That's a fairly typical drug situation, drug A works for some, drug B works for others. What we need to know is that reason.

So, you dispute the clinical trials used to base their conclusion and instead rely on random anecdotal cases? Understood.

No, not at all. What I am saying is that there are sufficient anecdotal events to raise questions about the accuracy of the clinical tests. I don't rely on on either one, but when the differences are so remarkable, the evidence demands some sort of resolution.

Really? and you know that how? Do you know the methodology of the trials performed? A handful of doctors, seemingly paid by conservative PACs, hardly provided sufficient “anecdotal events” to question the clinical trials referenced by the FDA.

You started out mischaracterizing my initial comments. Now you've gone even further. I'm not interested in trying to defend things that I didn't say.

I will say that I've never had a lot of trust and confidence in FDA, and these events haven't changed that.

And as Hambone correctly notes in the other thread, you mischaracterized not only my comments but FDA's as well.

Two of my former roommates in College are now temporary roommates currently. (One getting a divorce) Each are supervisors at neighboring cities in my area. Spoke to one of them this morning and he told me two employees from each of the cities, two worked under one of my friends, were told to go to one of the City testing area. All four signed in and sat for 30 minutes(lunch break) and left without getting tests due to the line being so long. A couple of days later ALL FOUR received results in the mail stating they tested positive. This is no longer a myth. It is happening. Waiting for the local news to do a story on it, but I won't hold my breath. They are too busy doing stories on stuff like this.
How to tattle on restaurants