(10-26-2026 05:17 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(10-26-2026 05:05 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-26-2026 05:00 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(10-26-2026 04:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-26-2026 04:19 PM)BirdHawkEagle Wrote:  Just confirmed:

Chicken horse man believes in everything the Democrat Party tells him and believes it all to be true.

He tells you everything you need to know with his Avatar. It is literally a horse's ass on two legs. Why does everyone act so surprised when he delivers what he advertises.

I don't even need an absurd avatar to convey I can be a horse's ass on two legs. I'll just flat-out say it.

Bullshite! If you were half the stud you claim to be you would at least have three!

"Three Legs" Bill suggests a rough-and-tumble gun-slinging outlaw from the American West, circa 1880.

Sounds more like Bungalow Bill.

(10-26-2026 02:59 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(10-26-2026 02:05 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(10-26-2026 02:02 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-26-2026 01:56 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(10-26-2026 10:47 AM)VA49er Wrote:  The dude wearing the Viking costume tried to topple the United States Constitution all by himself!

This might be the time to announce that the man wearing the Viking costume ...

... was Bill Dazzle.

I just want to know what in the hell happened to your brother Razzle Dazzle?

Razzle Dazzle is to cousin Bill Dazzle what pro wrassler Sonny "Roughhouse" Fargo was to brother Jerry Fargo. Only an occasional appearance is made.

Fun fact (and as I mentioned in a previous post): Sonny Fargo's given name was Jack Lewis Faggart.

I sincerely wish somebody on this board would start referring to me as Bill Faggart.

Beautiful. Those were some good times.

(10-26-2026 03:44 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-26-2026 03:36 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(10-26-2026 12:15 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-26-2026 10:47 AM)VA49er Wrote:  The dude wearing the Viking costume tried to topple the United States Constitution all by himself!

Said no one ever, especially me, who wasn't just trying to diminish J6 like you are. Weak.

lol, pretty sure most Dems, which you are not as you say, are 100% behind the notion that 1/6 was some crazy event in which people tried to topple the US govt. That's what they think, no matter how asinine.

No, not really. They were just trying to stop congress from doing their job, which they did, if only for a few hours. That's not trying to topple the Constitution...whatever that even means...nor is it trying to overthrow the government.

You spend too much time listening to right wing characterizations of the left instead of actually listening to the left. You should work on that.

That being said, of course you will always find fringes on both sides who will take everything to the extreme in order to push some narrative. Stop acting like that's the norm or consensus.

"They were just trying to stop congress from doing their job"

Keep believing that lie. It was all of pelosi's plan to stop the other states from telling them that they had some problems with their elections (votes) in their state and need to go back and fix the steal. It was a pretty good plan. Rile up the people outside the Capital, throw in some bad actors. And just like that, the two big doors open and they let the people in. They stop the process in the chamber to go run and hide. When they came back they did not let the people from the states that had a problem with the votes in their states speak. Pretty good plan if you think about it when you blame the other side with what happened that day.

And that old Ray boy was all in to. This was one of the biggest cover ups in our life time.

(10-26-2026 05:21 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-26-2026 05:17 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(10-26-2026 05:05 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-26-2026 05:00 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(10-26-2026 04:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  He tells you everything you need to know with his Avatar. It is literally a horse's ass on two legs. Why does everyone act so surprised when he delivers what he advertises.

I don't even need an absurd avatar to convey I can be a horse's ass on two legs. I'll just flat-out say it.

Bullshite! If you were half the stud you claim to be you would at least have three!

"Three Legs" Bill suggests a rough-and-tumble gun-slinging outlaw from the American West, circa 1880.

Sounds more like Bungalow Bill.

A fantastic song — one of many from one of my all-time favorite musical acts.

(10-26-2026 04:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-26-2026 03:56 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(10-26-2026 03:44 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-26-2026 03:36 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(10-26-2026 12:15 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Said no one ever, especially me, who wasn't just trying to diminish J6 like you are. Weak.

lol, pretty sure most Dems, which you are not as you say, are 100% behind the notion that 1/6 was some crazy event in which people tried to topple the US govt. That's what they think, no matter how asinine.

No, not really. They were just trying to stop congress from doing their job, which they did, if only for a few hours. That's not trying to topple the Constitution...whatever that even means...nor is it trying to overthrow the government.

You spend too much time listening to right wing characterizations of the left instead of actually listening to the left. You should work on that.

That being said, of course you will always find fringes on both sides who will take everything to the extreme in order to push some narrative. Stop acting like that's the norm or consensus.

What a load of BS that is.

The entire MSM and the entire left wing screamed from the hilltops that our government was nearly overthrown and our democracy nearly fell forever and burned the constitution to the ground.

The totally absurd overselling of that event was a line of BS for the ages.

Perhaps first in intensely bogus assertions, but certainly second to the scammed hysteria of COVID 19 where Ivermectin was kept away from needy patients, respirators were used to the detriment of patients, masks they now admit were ineffective were mandatory, schools were closed and those who died from arrhythmias caused by the vaccine were mostly young and healthy, and all of it to steal an election and make 3 Big Pharma companies billions and at taxpayer expense. And for an infectious virus spread by touch the only thing that was needed were gloves, but hey you can't hide the faces of shoplifters and looters with a bunch of gloves! The left is owed an ass whipping of monumental proportions for the atrocities they wrought against their fellow citizens, and I'm not talking posters and misled neighbors, but the media who trumpeted the lies, and the politicians which profited by it. And Fauci,..., he committed crimes against humanity!

Talk about loads of !

(10-26-2026 04:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  ...Ivermectin was kept away from needy patients

Yeah, because it was ineffective.

From Claude:

Quote:No. Ivermectin has not been shown to be effective against COVID-19 in good-quality evidence.

Where the idea came from

A 2020 lab study in Australia found that ivermectin reduced SARS-CoV-2 replication in cell culture. The concentrations used were far higher than what can be safely reached in human blood with approved doses.

Several small, early clinical studies and meta-analyses seemed to show benefit. Many of these studies were low quality, and some were seriously flawed or fraudulent. The most influential, an Egyptian preprint (Elgazzar), was withdrawn in 2021 over data integrity problems. When such studies were removed, the apparent benefit largely disappeared.

What large, well-designed trials found

ACTIV-6 (US): Ivermectin did not shorten time to recovery in outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19. This held across the doses tested.

TOGETHER (Brazil): Ivermectin did not reduce hospitalization or prolonged ER observation in high-risk outpatients.

COVID-OUT (US): Ivermectin did not prevent hypoxemia, ER visits, hospitalization, or death.

PRINCIPLE (UK): Ivermectin may have sped up self-reported recovery by a small amount. It did not reduce hospitalizations or deaths.

What the reviews concluded

Cochrane and other systematic reviews found no reliable evidence that ivermectin reduces mortality, hospitalization, or symptom duration. Cochrane rated the evidence as low to moderate certainty, and its authors said ivermectin should not be used outside of trials.

The WHO, NIH, FDA, and EMA all recommended against using it for COVID-19 outside of clinical trials.

Safety

At approved doses ivermectin is generally safe, and it is a valuable drug for parasitic diseases such as river blindness and scabies.

Some people took veterinary formulations or high doses during the pandemic. This led to poisonings, with symptoms such as vomiting, confusion, and neurological effects.

Ivermectin's anti-COVID effect was plausible in early lab work. But it didn't hold up once large, rigorous trials were done.

(10-26-2026 04:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  ...masks they now admit were ineffective were mandatory

Masks are/were not ineffective. Were they foolproof, of course not. And N95 masks were definitely more effective (close to 95% on airborne particles) than homemade cloth masks or store bought polypropylene masks.

Which all relates to your next load of nonfiction and conspiratorial nonsense:

(10-26-2026 04:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  ...And for an infectious virus spread by touch the only thing that was needed were gloves, but hey you can't hide the faces of shoplifters and looters with a bunch of gloves!

Covid was mostly spread via airborne particles, NOT touch. I suppose you don't trust the Mayo Clinic?

Quote:The virus that causes COVID-19 spreads mainly through the air when a person coughs, sneezes, sings, talks or breathes. Virus particles can drift in the air and be inhaled, especially in crowded places with poor airflow. Face masks or respirators are products that cover the nose, mouth and chin. Most research finds that these products can slow the spread of the virus that causes COVID-19 when they are worn consistently, fit properly and are worn correctly.

Wear a mask if you have symptoms of illness, if you are near others who are sick or if you're in a crowded indoor area. This is especially important if COVID-19 illness rates in your area are high.

But face masks aren't safe for everyone. Don't put a mask on anyone who has trouble breathing or is unconscious or otherwise unable to remove the mask without help. And don't put masks on children younger than age 2.

How well do face masks protect against COVID-19?

(10-26-2026 04:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  ...those who died from arrhythmias caused by the vaccine were mostly young and healthy

Not only was arrhythmias rare, but there more cases from getting covid than from getting a vaccine!

Quote:When compared with non-vaccinated patients, the Pfizer vaccine was associated with non-statistically significant lower RR of arrhythmia (RR = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.74 to 1.04), according to Barda et al. They also demonstrated that vaccination against SARA-CoV-2 was associated with substantially lower RR of arrhythmia compared to infected patients, who showed a significantly high RR of arrhythmia (RR = 3.83, 95% CI: 3.07 to 4.95; 166.1 events per 100,000 persons) [40].

This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis that investigate the incidence rate of arrhythmia following COVID-19 vaccines. However, we acknowledge that our study has some limitations, including the small number of included studies, the significant heterogeneity, the inability to conduct a subgroup analysis for all vaccines, and the lack of head-to-head comparison in the majority of the included studies.

In conclusion, the current evidence shows that the IR of cardiac arrhythmia post-COVID-19 vaccination is rare and ranges between 1 and 76 per 10,000. mRNA vaccines, including Moderna and Pfizer, were associated with a higher IR of arrhythmia compared to vector-based vaccines.

Risks of Cardiac Arrhythmia Associated with COVID-19 Vaccination: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

And there is NO evidence that there was any significant amount of deaths from arrhythmias that were caused by the vaccine. Not to mention when deaths did occur, they were NOT among young people, but rather older people. Same goes with your health claim...there's no evidence young healthy people were the most susceptible to this. None!

Lastly...

(10-26-2026 04:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  ...and all of it to steal an election.

STILL with this nonsense? With all the certainties you pretend to always speak in, you sure do throw out some whoppers with zero credibility or sourcing behind them.

I will always trust what other people say, Tom.

I will never trust anything that you say.

For those with apparently rocks in their skull...

I didn't say anything.

The Mayo Clinic did.
The WHO, NIH, FDA, and EMA did.
The National Library of Medicine did.

But hey, my cousin's nephew's brother's friend's dad said he took Ivermectin and it cured him but his aunt's sister's grandfather's great grand child was a healthy strapping young lad but he died from an arrhythmia the day after he got a vaccine poke.

So I'll go with that!

None of us right wingers trust anything the government says anymore, Tom.

If you still believe everything the government tells you, then you are the one with the rock in your skull.

Not us on the right.

(10-27-2026 09:21 AM)BirdHawkEagle Wrote:  None of us right wingers trust anything the government says anymore, Tom.

If you still believe everything the government tells you, then you are the one with the rock in your skull.

Not us on the right.

Yep, there's a reason multiple countries on multiple continents used ivermectin during covid. Did it cure it, obviously not, but did it help in some aspect, yes, which is why countries used it.

(10-27-2026 09:23 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(10-27-2026 09:21 AM)BirdHawkEagle Wrote:  None of us right wingers trust anything the government says anymore, Tom.

If you still believe everything the government tells you, then you are the one with the rock in your skull.

Not us on the right.

Yep, there's a reason multiple countries on multiple continents used ivermectin during covid. Did it cure it, obviously not, but did it help in some aspect, yes, which is why countries used it.

Again,

Common sense > critical thinking

Critical thinking is just double speak for left wing propaganda.

(10-27-2026 09:12 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  For those with apparently rocks in their skull...

I didn't say anything.

The Mayo Clinic did.
The WHO, NIH, FDA, and EMA did.
The National Library of Medicine did.

But hey, my cousin's nephew's brother's friend's dad said he took Ivermectin and it cured him but his aunt's sister's grandfather's great grand child was a healthy strapping young lad but he died from an arrhythmia the day after he got a vaccine poke.

So I'll go with that!

And they all lied because the were afraid to take a different path than the W.H.O. which is corrupt as hell, and the C.D.C.

But there are respectable groups and researchers which have now come forth to admit that ivermectin relieved the congestive issues which led to pneumonic deaths in COVID patients and was therefore successful in preventing deaths. It wasn't a cure for the COVID 19 manmade and wholly unnatural virus which utilized viruses from pangolins and horseshoe bats, two species that exist separately in nature thousands of miles apart. But believe whatever you wish Tom, but towing the party line with a closed mind and spouting the usual tripe isn't an enlightening position from which to speak.

(10-27-2026 09:26 AM)BirdHawkEagle Wrote:  

(10-27-2026 09:23 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(10-27-2026 09:21 AM)BirdHawkEagle Wrote:  None of us right wingers trust anything the government says anymore, Tom.

If you still believe everything the government tells you, then you are the one with the rock in your skull.

Not us on the right.

Yep, there's a reason multiple countries on multiple continents used ivermectin during covid. Did it cure it, obviously not, but did it help in some aspect, yes, which is why countries used it.

Again,

Common sense > critical thinking

Critical thinking is just double speak for left wing propaganda.

Yet you swallow every single piece of “information” maga feeds you. And you trust all the organization when your side is in power like good little propagandists.

Critical thinking? Don’t think you understand the word.

(10-27-2026 09:27 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-27-2026 09:12 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  For those with apparently rocks in their skull...

I didn't say anything.

The Mayo Clinic did.
The WHO, NIH, FDA, and EMA did.
The National Library of Medicine did.

But hey, my cousin's nephew's brother's friend's dad said he took Ivermectin and it cured him but his aunt's sister's grandfather's great grand child was a healthy strapping young lad but he died from an arrhythmia the day after he got a vaccine poke.

So I'll go with that!

And they all lied because the were afraid to take a different path than the W.H.O. which is corrupt as hell, and the C.D.C.

But there are respectable groups and researchers which have now come forth to admit that ivermectin relieved the congestive issues which led to pneumonic deaths in COVID patients and was therefore successful in preventing deaths. It wasn't a cure for the COVID 19 manmade and wholly unnatural virus which utilized viruses from pangolins and horseshoe bats, two species that exist separately in nature thousands of miles apart. But believe whatever you wish Tom, but towing the party line with a closed mind and spouting the usual tripe isn't an enlightening position from which to speak.

I only tow the line of facts and evidence. Doesn't have a ******* thing to do with any party.

I notice you haven't cited any of those respectable studies or research papers yet so we could check their veracity. Perhaps you could? FYI - I've checked several high quality AI LLM's and they can't find one.

The closest I see to your claim is from GPT-5.6 Terra:

Quote:The clinical language matters here: COVID pneumonia can involve viral lung injury, inflammation, clotting, low oxygen, and sometimes fluid overload from heart or kidney problems. Ivermectin is an antiparasitic medicine, not a diuretic, anticoagulant, or established treatment for pulmonary edema/congestive heart failure. Its approved pharmacologic action is against parasite nerve and muscle channels, so "it relieved congestion" is not an accepted explanation for preventing COVID pneumonia deaths. (accessdata.fda.gov)

Accordingly, the WHO recommends ivermectin for COVID-19 only in clinical trials, and the FDA has not approved or authorized it to treat or prevent COVID-19. (who.int)

So the fair answer is: yes, some credentialed researchers and physician groups have claimed it saved lives; no, there is not a respectable evidence-based consensus—or reliable clinical evidence—that validates the specific claim that it relieved congestive lung issues and thereby prevented COVID deaths.

Hey chickenhorse,

I've never been a part of the MAGA movement.

Nor do I trust any the Republican Party does.

Yet you believe everything your party tells you, and you swallow the taint like it's water from the Fountain of Youth.

You're not fooling me.

(10-27-2026 09:27 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-27-2026 09:12 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  For those with apparently rocks in their skull...

I didn't say anything.

The Mayo Clinic did.
The WHO, NIH, FDA, and EMA did.
The National Library of Medicine did.

But hey, my cousin's nephew's brother's friend's dad said he took Ivermectin and it cured him but his aunt's sister's grandfather's great grand child was a healthy strapping young lad but he died from an arrhythmia the day after he got a vaccine poke.

So I'll go with that!

And they all lied because the were afraid to take a different path than the W.H.O. which is corrupt as hell, and the C.D.C.

But there are respectable groups and researchers which have now come forth to admit that ivermectin relieved the congestive issues which led to pneumonic deaths in COVID patients and was therefore successful in preventing deaths. It wasn't a cure for the COVID 19 manmade and wholly unnatural virus which utilized viruses from pangolins and horseshoe bats, two species that exist separately in nature thousands of miles apart. But believe whatever you wish Tom, but towing the party line with a closed mind and spouting the usual tripe isn't an enlightening position from which to speak.

That's all he does.

He tows the party line, but says he doesn't support it.

He's a liar and a hypocrite.

(10-27-2026 09:12 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  For those with apparently rocks in their skull...

I didn't say anything.

The Mayo Clinic did.
The WHO, NIH, FDA, and EMA did.
The National Library of Medicine did.

But hey, my cousin's nephew's brother's friend's dad said he took Ivermectin and it cured him but his aunt's sister's grandfather's great grand child was a healthy strapping young lad but he died from an arrhythmia the day after he got a vaccine poke.

So I'll go with that!

After all the things I have seen with organizations like those, I dont believe anything they say and neither should you. They all have agendas and will prioritize their agendas over everything else. I am not for or against ivermectin nor for or against vaccines.

They sincerely believe if you're not a radical card carrying leftist then you're MAGA. Not that they even know what MAGA means in the first place.

(10-27-2026 09:43 AM)BirdHawkEagle Wrote:  

(10-27-2026 09:27 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-27-2026 09:12 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  For those with apparently rocks in their skull...

I didn't say anything.

The Mayo Clinic did.
The WHO, NIH, FDA, and EMA did.
The National Library of Medicine did.

But hey, my cousin's nephew's brother's friend's dad said he took Ivermectin and it cured him but his aunt's sister's grandfather's great grand child was a healthy strapping young lad but he died from an arrhythmia the day after he got a vaccine poke.

So I'll go with that!

And they all lied because the were afraid to take a different path than the W.H.O. which is corrupt as hell, and the C.D.C.

But there are respectable groups and researchers which have now come forth to admit that ivermectin relieved the congestive issues which led to pneumonic deaths in COVID patients and was therefore successful in preventing deaths. It wasn't a cure for the COVID 19 manmade and wholly unnatural virus which utilized viruses from pangolins and horseshoe bats, two species that exist separately in nature thousands of miles apart. But believe whatever you wish Tom, but towing the party line with a closed mind and spouting the usual tripe isn't an enlightening position from which to speak.

That's all he does.

He tows the party line, but says he doesn't support it.

He's a liar and a hypocrite.

Herein resides the main issue for this forum. My response was about the information and the actual retraction by Doctors of the lie put out about ivermectin (an $8 over the counter drug) which stood to interfere with the billions made in mRNA shots which proved to be lethal via arrhythmias to some younger (think 20 something) healthy people. The shots were rushed into use without proper testing due to the crisis created in the Wuhan lab.

Your post attacks the poster, not what he said, but the poster.

I've been wading through a shitpile of reported posts from the left and right coming from this forum and doing so while I have a daughter in a health crisis, a son in law who just lost his father, and after I made it clear in that "How do you want this forum moderated" thread that wild west with bans for AUP violations was my preference.

If you want to get into the verbal version of playground fights I simply don't give a damn! Paying attention to bad actors mixing it up with other bad actors isn't how I want to spend my time on this forum. If it makes some of you feel better to count coup by verbal assault and it doesn't cross into the forbidden territory of violating the board's prohibition against racist and sexist speech, threats, and isn't spam, then have at it.

But if you want to be able to discuss and argue over issues and want moderation then attacking the poster without addressing the topic is going to your asses banned!

IS THAT CLEAR?

Speaking of ivermectin there are reports and testimony from people who have/had cancer and were cured by a combination of ivermectin and fenbendazole. I understand that there are relatives of some of you who have cancer and are struggling with it. Maybe they could look into it. Why not try it, what is there to lose? Hopefully, the cancer.

Ps, I told my SIL about this study and I didn't get a response. She has a form of brain cancer and I hope her stubborness (because I'm a Rep and she hates Reps) doesn't stop her from trying it. It's all on her now.

(10-27-2026 09:54 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Herein resides the main issue for this forum. My response was about the information and the actual retraction by Doctors of the lie put out about ivermectin (an $8 over the counter drug) which stood to interfere with the billions made in mRNA shots which proved to be lethal via arrhythmias to some younger (think 20 something) healthy people. The shots were rushed into use without proper testing due to the crisis created in the Wuhan lab.

Herein resides the issue with you on this.

NOWHERE is there, nor did you, provide any evidence or credible information to support your conclusion that "actual retraction by Doctors of the lie put out about Ivermectin."

I've done the research. I cannot find anything from anyone credible or who conducted a credible study that supports your conclusion that it did anything to warrant usage for Covid beyond other case studies. The FDA...who you claim rushed through the Covid vaccines...has still to this day not approved it for use for Covid. Why not? Much of their time since this has been in the news was under the auspices of a trump administration.

And again, where is the proof or evidence of this? I can find nothing to support this claim:

(10-27-2026 09:54 AM)JRsec Wrote:  ...mRNA shots which proved to be lethal via arrhythmias to some younger (think 20 something) healthy people.

Sorry but, there is just nothing anywhere to support that statement that this was any sort of substantive problem. I'm sure there was likely a few cases, but that's certainly no logical reason to act like it was wide spread as you seem to claim. Certainly nothing outside of the typical adverse affects that come from any medical procedure or treatment.

Lastly, I have no opinion of whether it came from a lab or was man made because there has never been any actual conclusion reached and I don't have the expertise to make any such conclusion. You, seem to think there was, and you're certainly entitled that opinion. However, that does not make it a known fact.