On Mon 20 Sep at 2:28pm Tom Pain wrote:
They've got some wicked snakes in India and they don't need oiling. Uttar Pradesh province with almost the same population as the States is now 'rona free. 5% faxed but using horse pills on the people, they've got rid of it. Is that proof enough?
On Mon 20 Sep at 2:56pm Dave wrote:
That is an amzingly low infection rate but is 241 million really almost the same as 333 million?
Check it out here »
On Mon 20 Sep at 3:04pm Green Sleeves wrote:
No, its simply not sufficient when it comes to human health and an infectious disease. More research and going beyond flawed observational studies is the key if its going to form part of the drugs available to fight covid.
Its not "snake oil", as we all know what it is now, its a de-worming medication used predominantly in animals, and sometimes in humans. Now it may help with fighting covid, but there is not enough evidence or logic to support that, and the studies that have been done are not stringent enough to support the claims to the point where they should drop all other treatments in its place (which HAVE gone through rigorous testing).
If you have more confidence in a pill that is not totally scientifically proven to fight covid (and intended for a very different purpose), rather than a vaccine programme administered to hundreds of millions of people that has, then you might have to question why you feel so strongly against the vaccines and why you seem to lower the bar when it comes to ivermectin (on covid, i don't care if you have ringworm).
Also, you should answer my previous question. Why don't you have the AZ vaccine given that your main concern over the vaccines was the mRNA aspect? You've downplayed the pandemic throughout, insisted its no danger, yet you seem to be getting very excited about a possible other treatment for covid outside of the vaccines, and only show contempt and skepticism for ALL the vaccines.
On Mon 20 Sep at 3:22pm Green Sleeves wrote:
Also worth noting that its not just India that have trialed Ivermectin to treat covid. Brazil bought tens of millions of doses and did not see any change in death rates - “the shape of COVID curves did not exhibit any modification when comparing groups of treated and untreated people from the same area”.
Zimbabwe championed ivermectin earlier on in the year as covid deaths fell, but then they rose again later to a similar level despite the continual use of the drug.
Its not to say there is no value for using ivermectin, but its reckless to cite inconclusive or debunked studies and trash other proven genuine treatments. More studies and trials need to take place. We know how dumb some people are, and they are the ones in most jeopardy, who have bought into the narrative that vaccines are a hoax, or dangerous and change your DNA etc, This has led to some of them trying to source ivermectin outside of a doctor, as an alternative to treat covid. This is clearly unwise, but we know how gullible some people are. They associate "masks" and vaccines as some sort of conspiracy created by the "state" to control them, which then clouds their judgement on that actual point and the efficacy of masks and vaccines.
On Mon 20 Sep at 4:05pm Dave wrote:
Still very interesting that their infection rate is around 17 a day though given that their population is over 3 times that of the UK with its 'World beating' PPE and Test and Trace program
On Mon 20 Sep at 5:05pm Tom Pain wrote:
Why bother to risk a vaccine against a disease that the average age of it's victims is 82 and the average age of death is 81in England? Am I not seeing something? Don't say "to protect others" because the opposite is true. Vaxed people carry a higher viral load than the unvaxed if they get it. Here's a question that's puzzled me- Why were all deaths of people credited to the 'rona if they died within 4 weeks of testing positive no matter what they died of? Why are deaths of the vaccinated up to 3 weeks post vax, counted as unvaccinated? And as far asdrug trials are concerned, how many times has Pfizer been found guilty of fiddling the results, and most of the rest of them too?
On Mon 20 Sep at 5:36pm Woman in Whitecoat wrote:
Tom. You need to get out more.
On Mon 20 Sep at 6:19pm Green Sleeves wrote:
No, TP, just no. While its possible that some can carry a larger viral load and be vaccinated, but its mostly just not the case at all and the vaccines are able to reduce spread. Its not going to contain it entirely, but it definitely has been shown to reduce the virus spreading - same applies to wearing a mask. You're simply parroting more debunked claims rather than scientifically proven results. I understand you want it to fail and for you to be right all along, but you have chosen the path where you are desperately and selectively seeking out one bogus claim after another.
Again, downplaying the virus and saying it only kills old folks....yes, and so what? You suddenly don't appreciate the elderly? Its also been known to seriously impact younger people without underlying health conditions....and besides, many people over about 30 have some "underlying health conditions" anyway! You are the kind of person who won't believe it until it bites them - or a close relative, and until then you'll arrogantly dismiss protective face masks and vaccines which HAVE saved tens thousands of lives in the UK alone already. All for the price of a "small, sharp scratch" feeling on the arm (we're yet to develop scales and forked tongues us vaccinated sheeple).
Stop repeating the same debunked stuff peddled by some of the biggest conmen in the world. You might be quite right to show mistrust to someone like Bill Gates, but have you seen the types of individuals involved in the anti-vaccine and anti-mask movements? Think January 6th Capitol Building, and you'll have your allies in mind. I'm not saying that people who are often profoundly wrong and on the wrong side of history time and time again are unreliable but.....ok, yes i am actually saying that.
On Mon 20 Sep at 6:22pm Green Sleeves wrote:
@woman in white coat - NO!! Don't encourage him to go outside, he's a risk, as well as a super-spreader as it is! I feel the best course of action is to send him to the gulags for some re-education.
Although we're probably already on that "slippery slope" in TP's mind.
On Mon 20 Sep at 7:24pm David Stanley wrote:
I don't know enough about anything to comment as I'm not educated but all I can say is thanks to Tom as he keeps this forum going almost singlehandedly.
On Mon 20 Sep at 7:25pm Green Sleeves wrote:
Also, the vaccine takes about 2 weeks to start working, and the full benefits are about 2 weeks after the 2nd jab. I think 3 weeks doesnt sound unreasonable in terms of the vaccinated threshold used in the covid death statistics.
On Mon 20 Sep at 8:13pm IDM wrote:
TP - 20 Sept 15-05
Yes, I agree. The within 28 days count is a bit silly; and of course many genuine covid deaths within the 28 days will not be picked up. This is yet one more example of why inter-country comparisons are so dodgy. But, of course, within a particular country (if it keeps its, perhaps, idiotic counting the same) reductions in infection or death rates will still indicate that it is getting something right.
On Mon 20 Sep at 8:17pm IDM wrote:
Green Sleeves - 20 Sep 19-25
Yes, I agree. Three weeks is a defensible figure given our knowledge at the moment.
On Mon 20 Sep at 9:22pm Father Hackett wrote:
On Mon 20 Sep at 9:32pm Tom Pain wrote:
W in WC Oh I've been out alright, and been spotted in my scanty attire, huffing through letter boxes, super spreading all over town. Spreading health from a natural immune system, uncompromised by tunnel vision aimed jabs. Thanks for the offer but I might be too hot to handle though, rich in vitamin D from sunlight- hence my economy of raiment (neat,eh). I knew that Milo Minderbinder aka Dreamer aka IDM had the uncanny ability to turn anything upside down back to front and make it incomprehensible and he's done it again. Mind you Greenie's no slouch at casuistry either, Jesuit education? Thing is, how could you tell if it was the jab what done the dirty deed in under 3 weeks? Basically the way it's set up, the morona casualties will be overcounted and the jab's undercounted, but I'm sure Minderbinder can make that Tuesday minus September equals a piano, what larks Master Pip. Oh the Capitol building! Surely you're not pretending to believe that charade? Davy Crockett, Erik Bloodaxe, Ivan the Terrible and Minnie Mouse storm the home of the brave after being let in by a friendly policeman? I suppose it's heartening to know some people believe in Father Christmas in these cynical times, but really!
On Mon 20 Sep at 9:48pm Green Sleeves wrote:
Tom, your contributions are always welcome and a great source of amusement here. You truly are cuckoo for cocoa puffs. As a stoner, I thought I could come out with some wackadoodle stuff....but you take the top prize there.
I hope your inevitable covid infection is as uneventful as you expect it to be. I genuinely mean that. I had the old kent variant before i got vaccinated, and it was deeply unpleasant and wouldn't wish it upon anyone, especially to those older than myself. Perhaps you already caught it but was asymptomatic. That would probably be the best outcome I guess if you're not going to use conventional treatment/vaccines. Coronavirus stopped me vaping weed for about a week - shows how serious it hit me!
On Mon 20 Sep at 11:40pm Tom Pain wrote:
Well it did SOME good then. I was briefly with someone in December 2019 who had a nasty virus and looked terrible. I chatted for a while wondering if it was wise but I'm far too much much of a gentleman to forsake a lady in distress!! Later in 2020 I was visiting a very close relation in hospital with all the symptoms a day or two before the news broke. It was months before I put 2 and 2 together - it was probably the pestilence. At the time I felt a bit run down but it was a stressful situation, visiting hospital in the cold wet winter nights and returning to empty shops like East Berlin in the cold war, so I thought nothing of it. I must be resistant to this strain of virus but I eat strategically, take vitamin supplements and exercise bit. Quite seriously, I think a lot of fuss is being made of nothing out of the ordinary but some serious financial and/or political power play is afoot and there's nothing new about that.
On Tue 21 Sep at 11:04am Woman in Whitecoat wrote:
So the whole world is in on the conspiracy? Lol. I never thought care in the community was a good idea.
On Tue 21 Sep at 11:27am Green Sleeves wrote:
Vitamin supplements? Wow, more snake oil, and from a billion dollar industry that claims to provide all ones nutritional needs in one magic pill. I personally think that people who take vitamin pills regularly are those that knowingly have a poor diet and can't be bothered to do anything about it and hope that one pill solves all. I'm not saying there are no benefits to supplementing with vitamins in tablet form, but its no good substitute for the more complex nutritional values from vitamins within foods and how the body processes them.
Anyways, "a lot of fuss out of the ordinary"? If you had worked at any hospital over the last 18 months, you simply wouldn't be saying that. Its not just a "seasonal flu", i doubt Boris Johnson would end up on a ventilator from catching the man-flu, ICU's totally stacked and the number of excess deaths be so high if it were nothing beyond the ordinary.
Also, why don't you take a covid antibody test? See if you might have caught it when you thought you did, or perhaps more recently. Or have you a strong view against the antibody test where you wouldn't even take the test it in fear it would capture some "data" that the Rothschild Global Government would use against you in the future?
On Tue 21 Sep at 9:36pm Tom Pain wrote:
If you call the WORLD health organisation a conspiracy, which you might note, I didn't, it's not going to be limited to Lewes and Offham is it. What do you think they do, sit around playing doctors and nurses? Wild Bill Gates and the pharmaceutical mafia aren't gonna shell out the big funding bucks for nothing are they? And you think I ought to get out a bit! Greenie, have you heard the expression- Lies, damned lies and statistics? The term excess deaths refers to the difference between summer and winter figures, but it's amazing how you can mislead people using unexplained esoteric terminology. The bed occupancy statistics for 2020 were lower than 2019 if you examine them, not that anyone will. It's so much more fun throwing around terms like conspiracy theorist, denier and whatever term is the fashion than researching for yourself. If you want to know what's going on, find out about the government's order for huge quantities of midazolam before the pandemic. Find out what it's used for and it's not for worming the pony. Then Oh White Coated Wonders, do a bit of wondering.
On Tue 21 Sep at 10:38pm Father Hackett wrote:
Only one word
On Wed 22 Sep at 11:01am Tom Pain wrote:
It's hard to figure out which denomination you belong to Father Hackett, but I confess to wishing it was the Trappists.
On Wed 22 Sep at 1:15pm Green Sleeves wrote:
TP, i suppose its not all that hard to manipulate or view figures to fit ones own agenda. Every side of the argument will try to mislead in that regard, just to varying levels. We should be merciful that during lockdowns and mask mandates, the "good old" flu was suppressed to an extent not seen in previous years. As for hospital beds being free, does it not occur to you that many hospitals were locked down for routine appointments/surgery? Instead, the hospital ICUs capacity were limited, because covid patients were packing them out in a way not seen before. This was the issue with lack of available "beds".
Excess deaths in the UK were higher in 2020 than in previous 5 years, and that was due to covid deaths. Actual hospital deaths fell, as people who may/would have died in hospital died instead at their private residence, or in care homes (which saw large increases). You have every right to interpret stats as you wish, but the majority of experts in the field of medicine have a general consensus that deaths are up due to covid19, and the raw data is there for them to see that. I can see why you'd think there could be bias, but have you never considered you may have your own bias and interpretation, and that could be flawed as well? You seem so sure its a conspiracy (or whatever softer word you'd like to call it), yet every time you have presented "evidence", I've been disappointed with your findings - there is little scientific rigour that i'd hope for it to be reliable. It makes me also feel uncomfortable that a large proportion of the anti-vax, covid-denier groups are fully of opportunistic right-wing (predominantly) grifters and bad actors. This does not fill me with confidence, neither should it you, and yet you're still comfortable siding with them.
On Wed 22 Sep at 2:29pm Tom Pain wrote:
You're quite right, deaths in 2020 were higher than the previous 5 years. Before 2015 they were higher, rising gradually, the further you go back. Memory deteriorates with age I know but I can't recall any lockdowns in the days of yore. No mask mandates in shops and certainly no nightly propaganda broadcasts by the government advertising the daily death toll. We've just had the worst summer for years; it might be better next year, it might be worse, in which case should we look forward to compulsory overcoat mandates? I'm surprised that you haven't noticed that the real right wing are moving in a very fascistic manner. The attack on small to medium business is gaining momentum, the divide between the global plutocracy and the rest of us is widening with increasing speed. Do you think it's a coincidence? Is the highest death rate for five years is a good reason to accept a totalitarian government ruling by decree? If you think that's left wing you might as well change your name to Mussolini. His description of fascism was the merging of corporations with the state. We're already there.
On Wed 22 Sep at 3:53pm Father Hackett wrote:
Bless you my son even if you have been sampling the communion wine in copious amounts.
On Wed 22 Sep at 10:48pm Basil wrote:
'credited to the 'rona' - Odd that. 'the 'rona' takes up less space and as much breath as 'corona' so why say 'the 'rona'? Is it meant to be 'cute'?
On Thu 23 Sep at 8:30am Green Sleeves wrote:
2020 deaths clearly spiked due to coronavirus. It was the most deaths in a single year since 1918 in the UK. It wasnt like it was some unexplainable 15% hike in deaths in one year that left doctors scratching their heads as to why more people were dying. It was coronavirus, simple as that. The gradual variances in deaths over the past 20 or 30 years never saw an obvious spike like it did from 2019 to 2020. At least not without an obvious cause such as world war 1, world war 2 and the "Spanish" flu pandemic.
Your BS will continued to be called out. You cant slip in lies and then hope nobody notices with your zany sense of humour distracting from the subtler falsehoods and misleading information.
On Thu 23 Sep at 12:46pm Tom Pain wrote:
No Bas, I think you know I don't do cute. It's a device used to avoid censoring by algorithms which is widespread these days, if not on this forum. Oh greenie, you've used that 1918 canard before. Such mendacity gives the lie to your later fraudulent accusations, hypocrite, baseless slanderer, fork tongued, small ale rascal! As you well know, the population was much smaller then. Like your fellows in the gutter press, you pick out statistics with no other intent than to deceive by muddling the
On Thu 23 Sep at 2:26pm Green Sleeves wrote:
Yes, in 1918 there was a smaller population, so therefore 611k deaths in 1918 compared with 608k in 2020 (and the 2nd highest in recorded british history) has a bunch of caveats attached to it, and it clearly cost the UK population a lot more compared to today, no argument from me, and I'm happy to make that clear. Thats why I initially didn't go back that far, and used 5-10 years, as medical advances, and population aren't as drastic as 100 years ago for obvious reasons. We didn't have a National Health Service back then either for starters (and just came out of a war and with another global pandemic hitting), but i still think its a significant stat to say that its the highest year on record of deaths aside from 1918. Its a clear spike and down to covid, which was the biggest cause of recorded deaths in England and Wales in 2020. In 2021 it may be slightly less, but probably will biggest cause of death again. We may be able to punt it down the list for 2022 if the vaccine roll-out continues its trajectory of success and we don't get some mutated strain. So far, so good.
On Thu 23 Sep at 7:41pm Tom Pain wrote:
Bizarre, the ones I looked at showed the figures going down and down for at least the last thirty years, I don't remember exactly but they were higher every year before 2015 than last year, the year of doom. But then they all are now, we should have all drowned under rising seas and burned to a crisp as well from rising temperatures. People believe what the TV tells them no matter how contradictory. All I aim to do is say that there are alternative opinions, other experts who don't fit the agenda's marketed narrative and, in spite of your and others ceaseless deriding assertions, I don't recall ever mentioning a conspiracy. It's all in the open, to be read by anyone who wants to find out what's going on. Agenda 21, World Government, depopulation, deindustrialization, all that stuff, clearly laid out and published.
On Thu 23 Sep at 10:42pm Green Sleeves wrote:
One could say "alternative facts".....climate change is a hoax, i know so because the fossil fuel industry told me.
You just talk a little crazy sometimes. Eccentric would be the kindest way of putting it. Its mildly endearing, but it tends to come across as a bit loony tunes. I like the idea of the world government though, i think Ed Miliband should be the leader. That dude completed Manic Miner on the ZX Spectrum. Respect.
On Fri 24 Sep at 12:33pm Woman in Whitecoat wrote:
Are there any normal people on this forum? Or is it a requirement to talk testicles.
On Fri 24 Sep at 3:25pm Tom Pain wrote:
Funnily enough I haven't spoken to the fossil fuel industry, or they to me. Your personal remarks about my sanity are becoming as repetitive as they are ill informed, dreary and crass. May I suggest you address yourself to W in WC in these matters, you both seem to share an interest in malicious tittle tattle.
On Fri 24 Sep at 5:27pm Green Sleeves wrote:
I only question your sanity because you keep uttering absurd, irrational and debunked things time and time again. Its not like you've evolved your opinion on covid, you've double-downed on it. As well as numerous other political and social issues. I'm not closed minded, but I refuse to take seriously some of the strange things you have said on this forum.
On Fri 24 Sep at 11:01pm Tom Pain wrote:
Who pays the debunkers salaries? I've not seen anything to change my opinion. I know two people who might have had it and I know someone vaxed who's in a bad way, others who are not. The vax casualty can't get any help from the NHS; doctors turn a deaf ear to any mention of possible vax damage and refuse to acknowledge the possibility. This is the reality, they are in denial. They've been sold a pup and are incapable of admitting it. I call it as I see it, so do you. We've seen different things, what I've seen makes your opinions absurd, irrational and utterly debunked. So cut the looney tunes and accept other people as equally sentient as yourself.
On Sat 25 Sep at 10:15am Green Sleeves wrote:
The debunking salaries were probably paid off by some chap with a jewish surname, right?
I guess we will just continue this into more threads of you getting overly excited about selected anecdotes that fit your narrative, whilst ignoring other peoples anecdotal and personal experiences that differ, as well as of course the overwhelming scientific evidence that now goes into 6 billion administered vaccines.
On Sat 25 Sep at 9:38pm Tom Pain wrote:
I find your first remark utterly vile and if I were running this forum I would ban you. You are either using me to make statements of your own by default or slandering me. Whichever it is, it is beneath conrempt. I'm afraid you have shown yourself for what you are.