(03-15-2021 12:54 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-01-2021 05:04 PM)solohawks Wrote:  My kids pediatrician got paid $450 to do his routine vaccines by the insurance. He got paid $150 for the wellness visit itself.

I'm not against vaccines, but they are big business and moneymakers

So, I'll put you down as IN FAVOR of universal health insurance then?

I dont understand your logic behind that jump, but Ill be happy to talk about my perspectives on that topic.

(03-15-2021 12:57 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(03-15-2021 12:54 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-01-2021 05:04 PM)solohawks Wrote:  My kids pediatrician got paid $450 to do his routine vaccines by the insurance. He got paid $150 for the wellness visit itself.

I'm not against vaccines, but they are big business and moneymakers

So, I'll put you down as IN FAVOR of universal health insurance then?

I dont understand your logic behind that jump, but Ill be happy to talk about my perspectives on that topic.

b/c you're not on ignore....

that's what little troll biatches do....

(03-15-2021 02:41 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

I can only hope their BoD dies in pain....

Oops! Don't expect it to remain available, but since it's from Lefty The Weather Channel, might be worth a look for the deniers...

Immediate Use of Ivermectin Medicine Globally Can End COVID-19 Pandemic: Scientists
By IANS May 7, 2021 TWC India

Quote: A peer-reviewed research has claimed that global ivermectin use can end the COVID-19 pandemic, as the medicine significantly reduces the risk of contracting the deadly respiratory disease when used regularly.

The common antiparasitic ivermectin is being touted as a miracle cure for COVID-19 by doctors and campaigners the world over.

Peer reviewed by medical experts that included three US government senior scientists and published in the American Journal of Therapeutics, the research is the most comprehensive review of the available data taken from clinical, in vitro, animal, and real-world studies.

Led by the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), a group of medical and scientific experts reviewed published peer-reviewed studies, manuscripts, expert meta-analyses, and epidemiological analyses of regions with ivermectin distribution efforts all showing that ivermectin is an effective prophylaxis and treatment for COVID-19.

“We did the work that the medical authorities failed to do, we conducted the most comprehensive review of the available data on ivermectin,” said Pierre Kory, MD, president and chief medical officer of the FLCCC. “We applied the gold standard to qualify the data reviewed before concluding that ivermectin can end this pandemic.”

A focus of the manuscript was on the 27 controlled trials available in January 2021, 15 of which were randomised controlled trials (RCT’s).

COVID-19 patient receives ivermectin drug from Elmhurst Hospital after judge’s order https://t.co/Itgz0VOVzF

— Jack Posobiec (@JackPosobiec) May 10, 2021

It's simple. Fauci has nothing to gain from informing people they can simply use Ivermectin.

It's dog heartworm medicine; around $35 a bottle and it is enough to treat a couple thousand of dogs (or your own for the 2 years the expiration date allows and then buy a new one)
It's also good for cat ear mites........

This might be a good thing for the Antifa types who have issues with parasitic worms and Covid, since antifa types are themselves parasites.

Ask yourselves this question: How does a heart worm pill work for coronabug?? Is it a parasite?

Everything being politicized today, even science and medicine. Doctors and scientists can't publish study results and have their social media accounts suspended if they report findings or discuss treatments that run counter to the "correct" political narrative and propaganda. Case in point, that study on the ineffectiveness of masks from the NIH website that GP recently reported on was actually withdrawn from the website, after 4 months of being there, once people started to notice and share it.

There is a Scribd copy saved in this article about the lefty Stanford Study on Mask Ineffectiveness. They took it down, but Here's the link (scroll down inn the article for the Scibd copy):

Stanford study results: Facemasks INEFFECTIVE to block transmission covid19 actually CAN CAUSE HEALTH DETERIORATION PREMATURE DEATH

No need for a scary "vaccine" that may or may not work.
No need for masks.

Ivermectin and hydroxy are cheap and readily available, so big pharma and big gov say no. One might bet money these are effective against new strains too, effective against every known strain..

Big brother wants to shut this down.

They don't seem to want an effective treatment. The virus is a vector for the vaccines which in turn is a vector for a totalitarian system of control (vaccine passports) which will eventually be linked to your finances and a "social credit score" i.e. the China model. HCQ has been used for well over 50 years by tourists casually as a prophylactic against malaria....but now its suddenly a "deadly drug". The gaslighting here is nothing less than CRIMINAL and it resulted in many dead old people. The people involved in this scam belong in prison.

I've seen lots of videos of doctors and researchers pointing out this same thing about these very same drugs. I'd point you to them but they always get taken down quickly. The problem is, those drugs don't advanced the endgame.

I've read they are using the anti-parasitic drug in India. I hope it works out for them.

You're assuming that anything you read about the situation in India is the truth.

(03-01-2021 12:53 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  I finally found the article I’d seen which had the charts of the decline in the infectious diseases through the 1900’s – which isn’t attributable to vaccines.

Here it is – published in 2019: The Impact of Vaccines on Mortality Decline Since 1900—According to Published Science

I seems this article is important enough to save – people are CONSTANTLY trying to say that vaccines are what saved the world……from infectious diseases like polio…measles, etc.

Quote:Since 1900, there’s been a 74% decline in mortality rates in developed countries, largely due to a marked decrease in deaths from infectious diseases. How much of this decline was due to vaccines? The history and data provide clear answers that matter greatly in today’s vitriolic debate about vaccines.

Since 1900, the mortality rate in America and other first-world countries has declined by roughly 74%, creating a dramatic improvement in quality of life and life expectancy for Americans.

The simple question: “How did this happen?”

Why did the mortality rate decline so precipitously? If you listen to vaccine promoters, the answer is simple: vaccines saved us. What’s crazy about this narrative is how easy it is to disprove, the data is hiding in plain sight. The fact that this easily-proven-false narrative persists, however, tells us a lot about the world we live in, and I hope will encourage parents to reconsider the veracity of many of the narratives they’ve been fed about vaccines, and do their own primary research.

...But what if most of the history about the role vaccines played in declining mortality isn’t even true?

“…we had accepted some half truths and had stopped searching for the whole truths. The principal half truths were that medical research had stamped out the great killers of the past —tuberculosis, diphtheria, pneumonia, puerperal sepsis, etc. —and that medical research and our superior system of medical care were major factors extending life expectancy, thus providing the American people with the highest level of health available in the world. That these are half truths is known but is perhaps not as well known as it should be.”

...“This decline in rates of certain disorders, correlated roughly with socioeconomic circumstances, is merely the most important happening in the history of the health of man, yet we have only the vaguest and most general notions about how it happened and by what mechanisms socioeconomic improvement and decreased rates of certain diseases run in parallel.”

...understanding WHY infectious diseases had declined so dramatically in the U.S. (as well as other first world countries). Was it nutrition? Sanitary methods? A reduction in home crowding? (We’ve since learned the answer to all three questions is, “Yes.”)

also related info link:
Infectious Diseases and Social Change by the former President of the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

from: The Journal of Infectious Diseases, Volume 123, Issue 1, January 1971, Pages 110–114, https://doi.org/10.1093/infdis/123.1.110
Published: 01 January 1971

1977: McKinlay & McKinlay: The most famous study you’ve never heard of

Quote:...their study warned against the very behavior we are now seeing in the world of vaccines. Namely, they warned that a group of profiteers might take more credit for the results of an intervention (vaccines) than the intervention deserves, and then use those fake results to create a world where their product must be used by everyone. Seriously, they predicted that this would happen. (It’s worth noting that the McKinlay Study used to be required reading at every medical school.)

…they warned that a group of profiteers might take more credit for the results of an intervention (vaccines) than the intervention deserves, and then use those fake results to create a world where their product must be used by everyone.

Published in 1977 in The Millbank Memorial Fund Quarterly, the McKinlay’s study was titled, “The Questionable Contribution of Medical Measures to the Decline of Mortality in the United States in the Twentieth Century.” The study clearly proved, with data, something that the McKinlay’s acknowledged might be viewed by some as medical “heresy.” Namely:

“that the introduction of specific medical measures and/or the expansion of medical services are generally NOT responsible for most of the modern decline in mortality.”

By “medical measures,” the McKinlay’s really meant ANYTHING modern medicine had come up with, whether that was antibiotics, vaccines, new prescription drugs, whatever. The McKinlay’s 23-page study really should be read cover to cover, but in a nutshell the McKinlay’s sought to analyze how much of an impact medical interventions (antibiotics, surgery, vaccines) had on this massive decline in mortality rates between 1900 and 1970:



Here are some of the major points their paper made:

92.3% of the mortality rate decline happened between 1900 and 1950 [before most vaccines existed]
Medical measures “appear to have contributed little to the overall decline in mortality in the United States since about 1900–having in many instances been introduced several decades after a marked decline had already set in and having no detectable influence in most instances.”

And, here’s the two doozies…

The paper makes two points that I really want to highlight, because they are so important. The first one concerns vaccines. They write:

“Even if it were assumed that this change was entirely due to the vaccines, then only about one percent of the decline following interventions for the diseases considered here could be attributed to medical measures. Rather more conservatively, if we attribute some of the subsequent fall in the death rates for pneumonia, influenza, whooping cough, and diphtheria to medical measures, then perhaps 3.5 percent of the fall in the overall death rate can be explained through medical intervention in the major infectious diseases considered here. Indeed, given that it is precisely for these diseases that medicine claims most success in lowering mortality, 3.5 percent probably represents a reasonable upper-limit estimate of the total contribution of medical measures to the decline in mortality in the United States since 1900.”

In plain English: of the total decline in mortality since 1900, that 74% number I keep mentioning, vaccines (and other medical interventions like antibiotics) were responsible for somewhere between 1% and 3.5% of that decline. Said differently, at least 96.5% of the decline (and likely more than that since their numbers included ALL medical interventions, not ONLY vaccines) had NOTHING to do with vaccines.

You don’t get to say you saved humanity if, at most, you were responsible for 3.5% of the decline in mortality rates since 1900 (and probably closer to 1%).

And then the McKinlay’s wrote something that made me laugh out loud, because it’s the thing we are seeing every day in today’s vaccine-hyped world:

“It is not uncommon today for biotechnological knowledge and specific medical interventions to be invoked as the major reason for most of the modern (twentieth century) decline in mortality. Responsibility for this decline is often claimed by, or ascribed to, the present-day major beneficiaries of this prevailing explanation.”

Sound familiar?

GoodOwl, what do they attribute the decline in mortality to if not vaccines and medical intervention? I've it often claimed that it was due to sanitation. Just curious.

(05-10-2021 11:32 AM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(03-01-2021 12:53 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  I finally found the article I’d seen which had the charts of the decline in the infectious diseases through the 1900’s – which isn’t attributable to vaccines.

Here it is – published in 2019: The Impact of Vaccines on Mortality Decline Since 1900—According to Published Science

I seems this article is important enough to save – people are CONSTANTLY trying to say that vaccines are what saved the world……from infectious diseases like polio…measles, etc.

Quote:Since 1900, there’s been a 74% decline in mortality rates in developed countries, largely due to a marked decrease in deaths from infectious diseases. How much of this decline was due to vaccines? The history and data provide clear answers that matter greatly in today’s vitriolic debate about vaccines.

Since 1900, the mortality rate in America and other first-world countries has declined by roughly 74%, creating a dramatic improvement in quality of life and life expectancy for Americans.

The simple question: “How did this happen?”

Why did the mortality rate decline so precipitously? If you listen to vaccine promoters, the answer is simple: vaccines saved us. What’s crazy about this narrative is how easy it is to disprove, the data is hiding in plain sight. The fact that this easily-proven-false narrative persists, however, tells us a lot about the world we live in, and I hope will encourage parents to reconsider the veracity of many of the narratives they’ve been fed about vaccines, and do their own primary research.

...But what if most of the history about the role vaccines played in declining mortality isn’t even true?

“…we had accepted some half truths and had stopped searching for the whole truths. The principal half truths were that medical research had stamped out the great killers of the past —tuberculosis, diphtheria, pneumonia, puerperal sepsis, etc. —and that medical research and our superior system of medical care were major factors extending life expectancy, thus providing the American people with the highest level of health available in the world. That these are half truths is known but is perhaps not as well known as it should be.”

...“This decline in rates of certain disorders, correlated roughly with socioeconomic circumstances, is merely the most important happening in the history of the health of man, yet we have only the vaguest and most general notions about how it happened and by what mechanisms socioeconomic improvement and decreased rates of certain diseases run in parallel.”

...understanding WHY infectious diseases had declined so dramatically in the U.S. (as well as other first world countries). Was it nutrition? Sanitary methods? A reduction in home crowding? (We’ve since learned the answer to all three questions is, “Yes.”)

also related info link:
Infectious Diseases and Social Change by the former President of the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

from: The Journal of Infectious Diseases, Volume 123, Issue 1, January 1971, Pages 110–114, https://doi.org/10.1093/infdis/123.1.110
Published: 01 January 1971

1977: McKinlay & McKinlay: The most famous study you’ve never heard of

Quote:...their study warned against the very behavior we are now seeing in the world of vaccines. Namely, they warned that a group of profiteers might take more credit for the results of an intervention (vaccines) than the intervention deserves, and then use those fake results to create a world where their product must be used by everyone. Seriously, they predicted that this would happen. (It’s worth noting that the McKinlay Study used to be required reading at every medical school.)

…they warned that a group of profiteers might take more credit for the results of an intervention (vaccines) than the intervention deserves, and then use those fake results to create a world where their product must be used by everyone.

Published in 1977 in The Millbank Memorial Fund Quarterly, the McKinlay’s study was titled, “The Questionable Contribution of Medical Measures to the Decline of Mortality in the United States in the Twentieth Century.” The study clearly proved, with data, something that the McKinlay’s acknowledged might be viewed by some as medical “heresy.” Namely:

“that the introduction of specific medical measures and/or the expansion of medical services are generally NOT responsible for most of the modern decline in mortality.”

By “medical measures,” the McKinlay’s really meant ANYTHING modern medicine had come up with, whether that was antibiotics, vaccines, new prescription drugs, whatever. The McKinlay’s 23-page study really should be read cover to cover, but in a nutshell the McKinlay’s sought to analyze how much of an impact medical interventions (antibiotics, surgery, vaccines) had on this massive decline in mortality rates between 1900 and 1970:



Here are some of the major points their paper made:

92.3% of the mortality rate decline happened between 1900 and 1950 [before most vaccines existed]
Medical measures “appear to have contributed little to the overall decline in mortality in the United States since about 1900–having in many instances been introduced several decades after a marked decline had already set in and having no detectable influence in most instances.”

And, here’s the two doozies…

The paper makes two points that I really want to highlight, because they are so important. The first one concerns vaccines. They write:

“Even if it were assumed that this change was entirely due to the vaccines, then only about one percent of the decline following interventions for the diseases considered here could be attributed to medical measures. Rather more conservatively, if we attribute some of the subsequent fall in the death rates for pneumonia, influenza, whooping cough, and diphtheria to medical measures, then perhaps 3.5 percent of the fall in the overall death rate can be explained through medical intervention in the major infectious diseases considered here. Indeed, given that it is precisely for these diseases that medicine claims most success in lowering mortality, 3.5 percent probably represents a reasonable upper-limit estimate of the total contribution of medical measures to the decline in mortality in the United States since 1900.”

In plain English: of the total decline in mortality since 1900, that 74% number I keep mentioning, vaccines (and other medical interventions like antibiotics) were responsible for somewhere between 1% and 3.5% of that decline. Said differently, at least 96.5% of the decline (and likely more than that since their numbers included ALL medical interventions, not ONLY vaccines) had NOTHING to do with vaccines.

You don’t get to say you saved humanity if, at most, you were responsible for 3.5% of the decline in mortality rates since 1900 (and probably closer to 1%).

And then the McKinlay’s wrote something that made me laugh out loud, because it’s the thing we are seeing every day in today’s vaccine-hyped world:

“It is not uncommon today for biotechnological knowledge and specific medical interventions to be invoked as the major reason for most of the modern (twentieth century) decline in mortality. Responsibility for this decline is often claimed by, or ascribed to, the present-day major beneficiaries of this prevailing explanation.”

Sound familiar?

GoodOwl, what do they attribute the decline in mortality to if not vaccines and medical intervention? I've it often claimed that it was due to sanitation. Just curious.

Infant mortality.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtm...%20%283%20

https://www.pbs.org/fmc/timeline/dmortality.htm

Table 1
Note: To print large tables and graphs users may have to change their printer settings to landscape and use a small font size.
TABLE 1. Percentage reduction in infant, neonatal, and postneonatal mortality, by year -- United States,
1915-1997*
Percentage reduction in mortality
Year Infant (aged 0-364 days) Neonatal (aged 0-27 days) Postneonatal (aged 28-364 days)
1915-1919 13% 7% 19%
1920-1929 21% 11% 31%
1930-1939 26% 18% 35%
1940-1949 33% 26% 46%
1950-1959 10% 7% 15%
1960-1969 20% 17% 27%
1970-1979 35% 41% 14%
1980-1989 22% 27% 12%
1990-1997 22% 17% 29%
1915-1997 93% 89% 96%
* Percentage reduction is calculated as the reduction from the first year of the time period to the last year of the time period.

For white women, life expectancy at birth rose from 51 years in 1900 to 80 years in 1996. For white men, life expectancy at birth rose from 48 years in 1900 to 74 years in 1996.

Modern medicine in general. People survive all kinds of stuff they didn't used to survive. Stuff you can't be vaccinated for.

(05-10-2021 11:32 AM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(03-01-2021 12:53 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  ...“This decline in rates of certain disorders, correlated roughly with socioeconomic circumstances, is merely the most important happening in the history of the health of man, yet we have only the vaguest and most general notions about how it happened and by what mechanisms socioeconomic improvement and decreased rates of certain diseases run in parallel.”

...understanding WHY infectious diseases had declined so dramatically in the U.S. (as well as other first world countries). Was it nutrition? Sanitary methods? A reduction in home crowding? (We’ve since learned the answer to all three questions is, “Yes.”)

GoodOwl, what do they attribute the decline in mortality to if not vaccines and medical intervention? I've it often claimed that it was due to sanitation. Just curious.
[/quote]

I believe the two above-quoted paragraphs from my post about this are a good starting point to answer your question. It sure makes the phrase 'trust but verify' seem more meaningful. Many of us take 'for granted' the establishment idea that vaccines saved the world. It's just that it is not necessarily really so when you begin to look more closely, which is the point above.

Now, we see the same establishment assumptions about the new "vaccine" and masks that peer-reviewed studies show there are other ways of handling the virus/parasite that might be safer, more cost-effective and more effective period than the approach being taken by those in power. Many people are waking up to their internal BS radars they have turned off for too long and beginning to realize so many lies they just take for granted might not really be as true as being told.

One certainly has to wonder just why the leaders and main-stream media are so reluctant to get all these scientific facts and peer-reviewed info out there for everyone to have a chance to see for themselves. And just why was something like the Stanford Study on masks that said Mandatory Masks were the exact WRONG way to fight this situation suddenly disappeared? They were Left-wing, after all. Ooops. they said the wrong thing, even though it was the truth. Wrong seems > Truth in the minds of the out-of-control power-mongers and users. Only when some truth is preserved as in the Scribd in the linked article just above can people have a chance to see it for themselves. You won't find it on CNN or MSCCP. Why is that? I suppose because they don't believe in Science and Scientific Facts.

(05-10-2021 11:20 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  You're assuming that anything you read about the situation in India is the truth.

My spouse works with people in India. What you read probably understates the situation. You've got Covid combined with poor sanitation practices, extreme poverty and a weak health care system.

(03-15-2021 12:54 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-01-2021 05:04 PM)solohawks Wrote:  My kids pediatrician got paid $450 to do his routine vaccines by the insurance. He got paid $150 for the wellness visit itself.

I'm not against vaccines, but they are big business and moneymakers

So, I'll put you down as IN FAVOR of universal health insurance then?

I notice the winkie here Tom, but comments like this completely mislead and damage your message.... because you seem to be cramming an argument into a situation for which it has ABSOLUTELY NO application.

The presence or not of Universal insurance has nothing to do with 'what doctors get paid'. CMS (and adjustments from it) have existed since Medicare was created. The $450 and $150 he's talking about 'happened' before the ACA, With the ACA and would continue under 'universal health insurance'.

(05-10-2021 12:01 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-10-2021 11:20 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  You're assuming that anything you read about the situation in India is the truth.

My spouse works with people in India. What you read probably understates the situation. You've got Covid combined with poor sanitation practices, extreme poverty and a weak health care system.

I work with people in India

(03-02-2021 11:38 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(03-02-2021 11:33 AM)UofMTigerTim Wrote:  

(03-01-2021 04:47 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-01-2021 01:20 PM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  Indoor plumbing pretty much wiped out polio on its own...

Antibiotics.

The scary part of the story is the rise of resistant bacteria. Much of our miraculous surgeries would be very, very risky if we no longer had effective antibiotics.

This. and....... The biggest factor of all.

Infant mortality rates.

Just imagine how much lower those could be if the Left didn't enjoy and encourage the willful mortality of half of all minority infants.

(05-10-2021 12:01 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-10-2021 11:20 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  You're assuming that anything you read about the situation in India is the truth.

My spouse works with people in India. What you read probably understates the situation. You've got Covid combined with poor sanitation practices, extreme poverty and a weak health care system.

And major cities in India are majorly overcrowded.

(03-15-2021 12:20 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(03-02-2021 11:41 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  The reason J&J and everyone else in the mega pharma world are jumping into the Covid vaccine biz is they know this is going to be a new annual vaccine ala the annual flu.

This is going to make the influenza $$ look like child’s play because there are a lot of dummies out there.

That and the Feds will be paying for everyone

When the Feds pay, costs are outrageous.

Lots of profit to be made

Exactly how college tuitions, universities, and useless degrees became a giant money making scheme.

So, Owl the only real question you should ask yourself is the Covid shot really a vaccine in the true sense of a vaccine? If not, which it isn't your argument is a moot point.

(05-10-2021 12:01 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-10-2021 11:20 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  You're assuming that anything you read about the situation in India is the truth.

My spouse works with people in India. What you read probably understates the situation. You've got Covid combined with poor sanitation practices, extreme poverty and a weak health care system.

https://www.sundayguardianlive.com/news/...healthcare

India spends just 1.26 % of its GDP on public health care.

Compare this with countries like the United Kingdom, Netherlands, New Zealand, Finland and Australia where all these countries spend over 9% of their total GDP in public healthcare system, while countries like the United States spends over 16% of their GDP in public healthcare, and Japan, Canada, France, Germany and Switzerland spend about 10% of their total GDP on public healthcare.

Even some of the developing countries of the world have more contribution towards the public healthcare system with regards to their GDP compared to India. For example, Brazil has a total budget of over 8% of its total GDP towards public healthcare expenditure. Even neighbouring countries like Bangladesh and Pakistan have over 3% of their GDP going towards public healthcare system.

India's numbers are almost certainly under-reported. But even if you take their numbers at face value, they will probably pass the U.S. in number of cases by late June/early July. Their death total will likely remain below that of the U.S., but I believe their death totals as much as I believe China's.