On 31 Aug 2023 at 8:16pm Tom Pain wrote:
In 2020 ten states in Peru used ivermectin during the covid 19 tribulation. There was a 74% reduction in excess deaths in comparison with where it was not used. Doctors there think the pantodemic could have ended in October of that year. I wonder if the capture of the WHO by the pharmaceutical industry and the billions in profits from their hastily produced jabs had any anything to do with situation? Follow the science, it's at last been peer reviewed. Better late than never?
On 1 Sep 2023 at 8:52am Nevillman wrote:
Can you provide a link to a peer reviewed study please Tom. I've just spent a while googling this and can find no peer reviewed results in which anyone says that ivermectin should be used to treat or reduce the effects of COVID. The studies that suggest it does lead to a reduction in deaths have been seriously questioned and there do seem to be a number of studies in which the conclusion is that it is no use at all.
You are suggesting a huge conspiracy involving many scientists to support a cover up like this.
Please feel free to dose up on ivermectin Tom. I shall stick with the vaccine myself.
On 1 Sep 2023 at 9:14am Green Sleeves wrote:
LOL ivermectin. I know its a real anti-parasitic drug, and has been used to treat both animals and humans for many years.....but I think the covidiots kind of ruined its reputation. As whenever i hear the word "ivermectin", it just conjures up images of clowns like TP, Russell Brand and Joe Rogan getting excited about it, and how its the cure for covid (a disease, which most ivermectin nuts claimed was fake or just a seasonal flu anyway.....so not sure why they'd be so keen to take horse antiparasite pills but hey.....thats the alt-right for you).
What a troll job.
On 1 Sep 2023 at 1:59pm Tom Pain wrote:
Cureus journal of medical science- it's a laugh a minute.
On 1 Sep 2023 at 3:38pm Nevillman wrote:
I'd never come across this journal but a little research into it reveals a great many reservations about it and the reliability of articles that appear in it. Try googling is cureus a reputable journal and ignore the responses from cureus and it's publisher.
Also, peer reviewed does not necessarily mean correct. There appear to be far more peer reviewed studies saying that ivermectin does not work. The WHO must be paying off a lot of doctors Tom.
On 1 Sep 2023 at 4:11pm Green Sleeves wrote:
I wonder if TP takes ivermectin now whenever he gets a small cold. I thought your immune system negated any need for anything from the world of pharmaceuticals....why use any medication at all? Why you bigging up Ivermectin and yet all other drugs are the work of the devil (or Bill gates)
You are just so peculiar and full of inconsistencies in logic. I guess that tends to be a prerequisite for conspiracy loons....but somehow I find it adorable.
On 1 Sep 2023 at 7:33pm Tom Pain wrote:
I suppose those 70% are dreadfully upset about not dying and the doctors are going for political correctness training.
On 1 Sep 2023 at 9:07pm Nevillman wrote:
What 70%?
On 1 Sep 2023 at 11:31pm Green Sleeves wrote:
Suddenly "excess deaths" means something. I thought covid wasn't causing any excess deaths to begin with, according to TP?
So we have a miracle, wonder-drug, for a disease that people in Davos made up to control the global population and keep them indoors watching the TV....hard to keep up with your logic.
On 2 Sep 2023 at 8:11pm Tom Pain wrote:
74, if it makes you feel any better.
On 3 Sep 2023 at 10:42am Nevillman wrote:
I didn't realise you were talking about the excess deaths that weren't Tom. If only the doctors hadn't been taken in by the WHO and pharmaceutical industry there would have been 74% fewer deaths from COVID. This will be huge news once it gets out as they don't control the press. Well done for helping to publicise it Tom. I look forward to the huge scandal as news of the millions of unnecessary deaths and suffering caused by lockdown becomes better known.
On 3 Sep 2023 at 11:59am Green Sleeves wrote:
Yea just imagine, had everyone taken the horse pills, there wouldn't have been anywhere near 7m excess deaths. The only victims in all of this would be the parasites.
On 4 Sep 2023 at 8:41am Nevillman wrote:
It doesn't look like this story has made it into the press again. You really would have thought that with a "peer reviewed" study like this revealing that millions died unnecessarily of COVID and the rest of us in unnecessary lockdown some paper would be running something on it. Are all the journalists in on the conspiracy as well Tom?
On 4 Sep 2023 at 2:14pm Green Sleeves wrote:
Tom, serious question, did NASA land on the moon with astronauts in 1969? Or are the lack of stars in the pictures and the wobbly American flag sufficient for you to be convinced the moon landings were faked?
On 5 Sep 2023 at 4:15pm Tom Pain wrote:
You, serious? That is funny. Why ask me? You spend all your time telling the forum what I think. The fact that it's totally false has never bothered you before. Seriously, do you believe the cureus study is fake and invented by c-o-n-s-p-i-r-a-c-y-t-h-e-o-r-i-s-t-s? Do you really think they exist?
On 5 Sep 2023 at 7:55pm Green Sleeves wrote:
I'm almost certain that NASA landed on the moon (and multiple times). In fact, I came to the "almost certain" conclusion after investigating all the "hoax" claims related to moon landings. In the end, you go where the credible evidence is, rather than the silly de-bunkable stuff that only sounds good when no science expert is there to challenge it properly.
"Cureus" wikipedia page doesn't exactly fill me with confidence as a reliable source, given its list of controversies. But maybe wikipedia are the bad guys. Hard to tell who is these days. I haven't seen any compelling evidence to suggest that ivermectin is a cure for coronavirus, just a lot of dubious claims from dubious people. Maybe we just have different standards when it comes to evidence.
On 6 Sep 2023 at 8:30am Nevillman wrote:
Who exactly is spending "all your time telling the forum what I think" Tom? I don't see any evidence to support that view from green or me. I regularly ask you to clarify your views as many of your posts seem confused and unclear eg I don't think you have made it clear if you believe man landed on the moon.
I don't think the ivermectin study reported in cureus is fake but I think it is highly likely that the scientific methods it is using are not as rigorous as they could be. I think it is highly unlikely that ivermectin could have been used to treat and control COVID. If there was any good proof to support this view it would be such massive news.
Conspiracy theorists do exist but they don't like using the term. Believing that there are nefarious groups behind plots is probably quite a normal response for many people. It doesn't make them right. You believe that the WHO was behind a plot to suppress ivermectin. There is no evidence to support this at all. You are a conspiracy theorist.
On 6 Sep 2023 at 8:46am Green Sleeves wrote:
Tom should clarify his positions on these things, so that we can stop speculating on his behalf for cheap laughs!
I'm curious (not cureous) to know! I'm guessing you're not that far down the brain-rot road in thinking the earth is flat?! But yea, what about NASA moon landings in the 60s and 70s? Did the Indians land on the moons south pole? Is there an ancient alien civilisation site on the dark side of the moon, which has since re-located to earth and can now be found in a town in the Swiss Alps?
Is Elvis still alive, and currently held in an underground bunker with Walt Disney and Tupac? Queen Elizabeth II is now in her real reptillian form. Sorry TP, just having lots of fun. Love ya.
On 6 Sep 2023 at 10:01am Tom Pain wrote:
It would be on the news! What a lovely thought, dream on, conspiracy deniers, carb-dio-phobes ,lockdown lovers and sneeze-hysteriacs. I have no interest in the moon landings and no opinions to debate with people who demand to know who peer reviewed something and the say peer reviews aren't necessarily correct. Why ask? And spare me an answer, please. Have you heard of the CIA project Mockingbird, by the way?
On 6 Sep 2023 at 11:28am Nevillman wrote:
I've just looked up mockingbird which was an alleged plot by the CIA to manipulate the American media in the early days of the cold war. The conclusion seems to be that either it didn't exist or if it did, soon got leaked to the press who blew the whistle on it.
This is essentially the problem with all conspiracy theories. It is inconceivable to me that a plot requiring many people like faking the moon landings, covering up the cure for COVID or bombing the twin towers doesn't have at least one person who will go to the media and reveal the truth. The only people who do know the "truth" seem to be people like Tom or nutjobs.
On 6 Sep 2023 at 12:27pm Green Sleeves wrote:
"like Tom or nutjobs" 
There is no doubt that mainstream news is fairly narrow and limited, but fortunately, people do have access to non-mainstream sources as well. Tom Pain thinks he's the only one on this forum who has access to the deep dark web, as well as ancient textbooks in underground lairs of the Freemasons.
On 6 Sep 2023 at 2:01pm Nevillman wrote:
Do you really think that if one of the papers had evidence to suggest that COVID could have been avoided if only the WHO had not suppressed ivermectin because of big pharma then they would not run with it?
You may regard mainstream media as narrow and limited but get real. The papers are in competition with each other for readers and the best stories.
On 6 Sep 2023 at 8:07pm Tom Pain wrote:
The only competition the press has is who can sink lowest first. Sleevie thinks he's the only one on the forum.
On 6 Sep 2023 at 8:16pm Nevillman wrote:
Both statements complete nonsense.
On 6 Sep 2023 at 8:42pm Green Sleeves wrote:
LOL the papers are in competition with each other? The print media is predominantly controlled by a handful of very wealthy people (mostly right wing or in the corporate class), and newspapers are thankfully dying out in any case. It has been pretty close to "establishment" politics, despite that not always best representing the country. The mainstream media treated Jeremy Corbyn and Ed Miliband like garbage, even the BBC and the Guardian played their part in the propaganda against them. Can't help but feel the country suffered twice because of this media onslaught on anything that was remotely left-wing Labour.
They'll give Starmer a much easier ride because a) he's being a good boy and demonising the left-wing by purging them from the party, b) a safe/soft alternative to Rishi Sunak with broadly un-radical status quo policies or pitching towards protecting the corporate class like the tory-lites "New Labour" tend to do. Yes, Labour will win the election, but Labour will do probably only a little bit better than what these absolute current charlatans have done to the country. Oh and c) because yea the Tories are totally unelectable at this point with political chaos at every turn. Unfortunately, we need someone radical and progressive to transform the country, and we won't get that with either Starmer or Sunak.
On 7 Sep 2023 at 9:02am Tom Pain wrote:
Blimey, sleevies got that right, pity he doesn't keep his head when he's analysing the tom of his gammoniac and malicious imagination. As for Nev's comment: can you provide reputable references, peer reviews and a fat chequer's fact check for your erudite statement?
On 7 Sep 2023 at 10:00am Nevillman wrote:
Most papers are owned by right wing very wealthy people who support the Tory party but that does not mean there is not a free press. There are papers to the left of centre and anyone who wants to start a paper can do so. Most people who want to buy newspapers seem to like "establishment"papers. I'm no happier about that than you green but there you are. The right wing papers are in competition with each other and try their hardest to take readers from each other. Look at the MP expenses scandal which broke in the telegraph. The Mail will try to avoid stories involving too much Tory sleaze but even they have to print them eventually and if enough people wanted to buy left wing papers they would be there.
You try to blame the Tory media for the failure of milliband and Corbyn. I disagree. They were both weak candidates for prime minister chosen because the labour party on both occasions had a desperately flawed leadership election process giving power firstly to the block union vote and then to self selected members with extreme views. With the dominance of TV over the press they both had every chance to put over their views and their characters but we're unable to do so as they did not convince as potential prime ministers.
On 7 Sep 2023 at 10:12am Green Sleeves wrote:
That's exactly what the BBC and Guardian were telling us all those years, how they didn't get a labour leader right wing or establishment enough, instead it was chosen by "extremists" or those evil Unions. Of course the establishment and corporate class don't want someone pro Unions, as that reflects the workers....rather than elite party donors. Who was the Labour Party created for? I think the name of the party tends to be a giveaway...
On 7 Sep 2023 at 10:52am Nevillman wrote:
I didn't need the guardian of BBC to tell me how the labour party elected its leader. It was plain to see. You may want the labour party to continue to be dominated by the unions or left wing extremists but I would prefer it to be a party with a chance of winning and implementing policies that do not just support a wealthy minority. You may want it to go back to its roots and be the party of the unions but the majority of the electorate don't and neither do I.
On 7 Sep 2023 at 1:48pm Green Sleeves wrote:
You should be careful for what you wish for, as it does appear you are just towing all the same rhetoric and lines as the establishment media and political class (including bbc, guardian, daily mail etc).Portraying Corbyn and Miliband and their support base as radical left wing extremists is exactly what they want the masses to think....even though most actually love the policies and have been crying out for progress and change. This is just status quo politics at this point....Starmer will no doubt be marginally better than what we have now with Sunak, but don't expect any change or radical reform that the country actually needs....as that would risk the ire of the establishment and corporate class.
I'm sorry you feel more fearful of progressive lefties like Corbyn. If we continue to reject the left, we always end up with the same crappy consequences or worse we get someone from the far right populism positions like Truss or BoJo. Demonising Unions is right from the right wing playbook and has been backfiring as I think people are starting to see corporate greed more clearly than ever now.
On 7 Sep 2023 at 8:49pm Tom Pain wrote:
It's funny how people get self righteous about someone deviating from the subject of their threads and then......
On 7 Sep 2023 at 10:43pm Green Sleeves wrote:
Its your nonsense thread though, so de-railing it was never going to be a question of if, but when. You want to talk about Peruvian horse pills, you got it.
On 7 Sep 2023 at 10:59pm Nevillman wrote:
We can all have different views on what a fairer and better society would be like or need to be like green based on our experience. You and I clearly differ on how to achieve it as well as what it would be like but within the current political system would probably be classified as broadly left of centre, albeit on different wings of that very broad category. As such, we both want a labour government of some type. I don't believe that either milliband of Corbyn would have been capable as prime ministers and we'll have to see whether starmer has the right stuff.
To suggest that my views on their ability was formed by my absorption of the media is inaccurate and slightly patronising. I haven't read a paper or watched the news for many years as it happens. My views are based on my observations. I appreciate the value of the unions in establishing rights for workers historically but I'm afraid now believe they are often reactionary, small minded and against the interests of most working people. I speak as a lifelong union member and one-time shop steward. That may be exactly what telegraph readers want to hear but it's my observation. I accept others may have different experiences.
On 7 Sep 2023 at 11:28pm Green Sleeves wrote:
Then you have misjudged Corbyn and probably Ed Miliband. They would have been vastly superior to what we ended up with, and what we will result in with ineffective centrists like Starmer, Wes Streeting and Rachel Reeves who appear to be committing to many of the same tory spending plans that screwed us up in the first place. U-turning on former pledges, as well as knifing their own left wing MPs in the back.
I don't sense an overwhelming national appetite for Blairites, the Starmer, David Miliband shallow types. We know how that usually ends. They jet off first opportunity of trouble, while you still have the likes of Corbyn and Ed Miliband loyally serving their constituents (where permitted). Sums up new Labour and real Labour. Snake oil salesmen vs genuine progressives. I know what feels right to me.
On 8 Sep 2023 at 9:06am Nevillman wrote:
I obviously wasn't the only one to misjudge them but maybe the labour party misjudged who the electorate would like to see as their prime minister. Totally agree they would have been better than who we ended up with though.
I stopped trying to sense the national appetite for things after the Brexit vote which I did not see coming.
I think you're wrong to categorise labour politicians you don't like as shallow types and I stopped believing that a truly socialist society was possible long ago. Politics is the art of achieving things within a broadly capitalist system and as far as I am concerned a good labour prime minister to me will firstly be one who can get elected so that they can make some attempt to make society a bit fairer.
On 8 Sep 2023 at 10:16am Tom Pain wrote:
Truss has been mentioned. Who got rid of her? It was fortunate but does it not show that Westminster Child Care aren't really in charge?
On 8 Sep 2023 at 1:25pm Green Sleeves wrote:
The media portrayed both Miliband and particularly Corbyn as "hard left" and unelectable so therefore never got elected as the media dictated that narrative and people lapped it up ignorantly. Yes, a lot of people misjudged them and this caused a lot of pain by having the alternatives and status quo. Britain paid the price for the mainstream attack on the left and its rejection. And it will continue to do so, as Starmer offers no substantial change to the status quo. Just a friendlier face that just happens to backstab and u-turn at their convenience.