Political memes, Posters, Funny Pics, Etc.

[SDHornet]

Nope, not a miss, because those people who are mocking the doctor are saying it's DANGEROUS and killing people. With no proof. Summary of the video:

She's treated 350+ patients with HQ, Zinc and a Z-Pac. She's batting 1,000. Not a SINGLE PATIENT lost. Patients as old as 92. Gave every Dr & Nurse a prophylactic dose and not a SINGLE Dr or Nurse has gotten sick.

She's either really lucky, or maybe onto something?

And now Fakebook, Twitter, and Youtube, totally in bed with the left, have undertaken a massive censorship campaign trying to suppress this video, with Twitter going so far as to ban people who retweet the viral video of the doc, which got up to 20+ million views. Because we can't have anyone questioning the fear mongering over the China Virus.

Anyone not thinking Big Tech was going to start censoring conservatives or right leaning people leading up the election have had their heads in the sand.

[Ibanez]

I don’t know them. Or their credentials. How can you trust that they actually are??


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, you’re right. I’m sure they’re all just crisis actors.

I didn't say crisis actors. I'm saying that you can't show me a video of a bunch of random people and expect me to believe them and their credentials. I can post a video of myself in a white coat and stand in front of a court house. Would you automatically believe that i'm a doctor (having not known me)?

[Ibanez]

Nope, not a miss, because those people who are mocking the doctor are saying it's DANGEROUS and killing people. With no proof. Summary of the video:

She's treated 350+ patients with HQ, Zinc and a Z-Pac. She's batting 1,000. Not a SINGLE PATIENT lost. Patients as old as 92. Gave every Dr & Nurse a prophylactic dose and not a SINGLE Dr or Nurse has gotten sick.

She's either really lucky, or maybe onto something?

And now Fakebook, Twitter, and Youtube, totally in bed with the left, have undertaken a massive censorship campaign trying to suppress this video, with Twitter going so far as to ban people who retweet the viral video of the doc, which got up to 20+ million views. Because we can't have anyone questioning the fear mongering over the China Virus.

People have lost all critical thinking. Why should you automatically believe anything you are told or shown in a highly politicized environment?


My first clue that something was up is that my own representative, Ralph Norman, was involved.

[Ibanez]

And now Fakebook, Twitter, and Youtube, totally in bed with the left, have undertaken a massive censorship campaign trying to suppress this video, with Twitter going so far as to ban people who retweet the viral video of the doc, which got up to 20+ million views. Because we can't have anyone questioning the fear mongering over the China Virus.

Anyone not thinking Big Tech was going to start censoring conservatives or right leaning people leading up the election have had their heads in the sand.

Is that what's happening?


I never thought I'd see the GOP become the party of conspiracy theorists.

[CitadelGrad]

[Ibanez]

I don't know if they're true or not. Neither do you. We are the stuck trusting experts and doctors. Unfortunately our "leader" couldn't stop from stepping on his own dick and has politicized science and the pandemic.

I'm not a doctor. Have her treatments been peer reviewed or anything of the sort? Months ago people were touting the French study as proof (that includes people on here) and it turns out the French study was wrong. Who else is backing up her claim? The medical community as a whole seems to be against her.



https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/06 ... t-covid-19


\

According to a Public Health Epidemiologist from Yale (link below), Hydroxychloroquine works best when used early and in conjunction with other medication and supplements.

One of those studies in your linked story was in seriously ill patients-too late to be effective. The other mailed HCQ to people who had said they were in contact with others...hardly scientific. The one you quoted was HCQ by itself. None of those studies used Hydroxychloroquine like it is supposed to be used. Shocker it didn't work.

See, I actually read the shit people link. Your link didn't help your cause.

https://www.newsweek.com/key-defeating- ... on-1519535

It's an opinion piece, but he's got some good credentials and references studies where it was used properly.

When this inexpensive oral medication is given very early in the course of illness, before the virus has had time to multiply beyond control, it has shown to be highly effective, especially when given in combination with the antibiotics azithromycin or doxycycline and the nutritional supplement zinc.

I admit I didn't go in depth into everything in that article, it was the first link I saw .
That is the kind of information that needs to come out. HCQ works will in these cases but not these. We have highly politicized information and, at least what I read and hear, nothing is in context of the bigger picture.

But no, let's have a random video with unknown people who haven't presented results for independent review and take their word as the Gospel.

If you, AZ, SD, BDK, etc... are just going to believe anything you are told...then don't turn around just trust that I'm standing behind you.

[89Hen]

Anyone not thinking Big Tech was going to start censoring conservatives or right leaning people leading up the election have had their heads in the sand.

Is that what's happening?


I never thought I'd see the GOP become the party of conspiracy theorists.

It very likely is happening Sticky. Google a political topic like "Mask Debate" or "Portland Protests" and see what sources come up first. CNN, NPR, Trevor Noah and Daily Show, NBC...

[Gil Dobie]

Anyone not thinking Big Tech was going to start censoring conservatives or right leaning people leading up the election have had their heads in the sand.

Is that what's happening?


I never thought I'd see the GOP become the party of conspiracy theorists.

No Shit, bunch of sheeple, and I thought the Donks were bad with the CNN BS.

[Winterborn]

[Winterborn]

[Ibanez]

Is that what's happening?


I never thought I'd see the GOP become the party of conspiracy theorists.

It very likely is happening Sticky. Google a political topic like "Mask Debate" or "Portland Protests" and see what sources come up first. CNN, NPR, Trevor Noah and Daily Show, NBC...

They've all become lemmings. I took comfort in that the Left were the kooks and the ones that'll grab hold of conspiracy theories. I guess " trust by verify" doesn't exist anymore.

[Winterborn]

[Winterborn]

[Winterborn]

[Winterborn]

[Winterborn]

[SeattleGriz]

According to a Public Health Epidemiologist from Yale (link below), Hydroxychloroquine works best when used early and in conjunction with other medication and supplements.

One of those studies in your linked story was in seriously ill patients-too late to be effective. The other mailed HCQ to people who had said they were in contact with others...hardly scientific. The one you quoted was HCQ by itself. None of those studies used Hydroxychloroquine like it is supposed to be used. Shocker it didn't work.

See, I actually read the shit people link. Your link didn't help your cause.

https://www.newsweek.com/key-defeating- ... on-1519535

It's an opinion piece, but he's got some good credentials and references studies where it was used properly.

I admit I didn't go in depth into everything in that article, it was the first link I saw .
That is the kind of information that needs to come out. HCQ works will in these cases but not these. We have highly politicized information and, at least what I read and hear, nothing is in context of the bigger picture.

But no, let's have a random video with unknown people who haven't presented results for independent review and take their word as the Gospel.

If you, AZ, SD, BDK, etc... are just going to believe anything you are told...then don't turn around just trust that I'm standing behind you.

I didn't get a chance to watch the video, but if their methodology works, then the news should be getting out. There are some great results that haven't gotten much recognition.

You did the right thing by quoting a reputable source, it's just unfortunate they happened to use three studies that didn't meet the requirements for HCQ to work effectively. Requirements that have been stated over and over, but apparently are not being followed.

We keep hearing about the need for rigid studies, but those take time to set up. My understanding is we won't see those until around September, so in the meantime, there ARE doctors on the Frontline following the procedures for new discoveries that they always follow.

This is how new treatments work. Not shutting people down because they don't like the message or the person delivering the message.

[Ibanez]

I admit I didn't go in depth into everything in that article, it was the first link I saw .
That is the kind of information that needs to come out. HCQ works will in these cases but not these. We have highly politicized information and, at least what I read and hear, nothing is in context of the bigger picture.

But no, let's have a random video with unknown people who haven't presented results for independent review and take their word as the Gospel.

If you, AZ, SD, BDK, etc... are just going to believe anything you are told...then don't turn around just trust that I'm standing behind you.

I didn't get a chance to watch the video, but if their methodology works, then the news should be getting out. There are some great results that haven't gotten much recognition.

You did the right thing by quoting a reputable source, it's just unfortunate they happened to use three studies that didn't meet the requirements for HCQ to work effectively. Requirements that have been stated over and over, but apparently are not being followed.

We keep hearing about the need for rigid studies, but those take time to set up. My understanding is we won't see those until around September, so in the meantime, there ARE doctors on the Frontline following the procedures for new discoveries that they always follow.

This is how new treatments work. Not shutting people down because they don't like the message or the person delivering the message.

You make a good point - about the message/messenger. But you have to "trust but verify". I'm all for good news, but i'm not going to just take the word of a Doctor b/c she's being promoted by conservatives. After months of HCQ isn't good we have 1 doctor that has it working 100% of the time. They haven't shown their work. Plus the doctor is known for making dubious, wild-ass, crazy claims.

What's the harm in hearing what that video says and then saying, " That's great news! Let's verify and try to replicate the results." before we start trusting the video on the internet containing nobody we've ever heard of before today?

[89Hen]

It very likely is happening Sticky. Google a political topic like "Mask Debate" or "Portland Protests" and see what sources come up first. CNN, NPR, Trevor Noah and Daily Show, NBC...

They've all become lemmings. I took comfort in that the Left were the kooks and the ones that'll grab hold of conspiracy theories. I guess " trust by verify" doesn't exist anymore.

Sorry, not understanding your point. There seems to be mounting evidence that social media sites are treating conservatives and sources different than liberals and their sources.

[Winterborn]

They've all become lemmings. I took comfort in that the Left were the kooks and the ones that'll grab hold of conspiracy theories. I guess " trust by verify" doesn't exist anymore.

Sorry, not understanding your point. There seems to be mounting evidence that social media sites are treating conservatives and sources different than liberals and their sources.

They definitely have two standards, one official and one unofficial. There have been a few articles written about people that were in charge of such programs and while there was nothing official, just based on the people who are running the programs (much more left leaning) there is a bias creep in the policy. I do not believe that it is deliberate (outside of a certain employee imposing their interpretation of the rules on a topic) but the companies unwillingly have encouraged certain beliefs and that translates into actions.

Wired has some very good articles explaining what is going on for FB.

One day in late February of 2016, Mark Zuckerberg sent a memo to all of Facebook’s employees to address some troubling behavior in the ranks. His message pertained to some walls at the company’s Menlo Park headquarters where staffers are encouraged to scribble notes and signatures. On at least a couple of occasions, someone had crossed out the words “Black Lives Matter” and replaced them with “All Lives Matter.” Zuckerberg wanted whoever was responsible to cut it out.

“ ‘Black Lives Matter’ doesn’t mean other lives don’t,” he wrote. “We’ve never had rules around what people can write on our walls,” the memo went on. But “crossing out something means silencing speech, or that one person’s speech is more important than another’s.” The defacement, he said, was being investigated.

https://www.wired.com/story/inside-face ... s-of-hell/

[Ibanez]

They've all become lemmings. I took comfort in that the Left were the kooks and the ones that'll grab hold of conspiracy theories. I guess " trust by verify" doesn't exist anymore.

Sorry, not understanding your point. There seems to be mounting evidence that social media sites are treating conservatives and sources different than liberals and their sources.

That's my fault. I thought you were responding to something else. No, I don't disagree that the Left really has a bias. But I can still go to twitter and pull up the most vile, Right wing shit.

[Ibanez]

Sorry, not understanding your point. There seems to be mounting evidence that social media sites are treating conservatives and sources different than liberals and their sources.

They definitely have two standards, one official and one unofficial. There have been a few articles written about people that were in charge of such programs and while there was nothing official, just based on the people who are running the programs (much more left leaning) there is a bias creep in the policy. I do not believe that it is deliberate (outside of a certain employee imposing their interpretation of the rules on a topic) but the companies unwillingly have encouraged certain beliefs and that translates into actions.

Wired has some very good articles explaining what is going on for FB.

One day in late February of 2016, Mark Zuckerberg sent a memo to all of Facebook’s employees to address some troubling behavior in the ranks. His message pertained to some walls at the company’s Menlo Park headquarters where staffers are encouraged to scribble notes and signatures. On at least a couple of occasions, someone had crossed out the words “Black Lives Matter” and replaced them with “All Lives Matter.” Zuckerberg wanted whoever was responsible to cut it out.

“ ‘Black Lives Matter’ doesn’t mean other lives don’t,” he wrote. “We’ve never had rules around what people can write on our walls,” the memo went on. But “crossing out something means silencing speech, or that one person’s speech is more important than another’s.” The defacement, he said, was being investigated.

https://www.wired.com/story/inside-face ... s-of-hell/

[Winterborn]

They definitely have two standards, one official and one unofficial. There have been a few articles written about people that were in charge of such programs and while there was nothing official, just based on the people who are running the programs (much more left leaning) there is a bias creep in the policy. I do not believe that it is deliberate (outside of a certain employee imposing their interpretation of the rules on a topic) but the companies unwillingly have encouraged certain beliefs and that translates into actions.

Wired has some very good articles explaining what is going on for FB.



https://www.wired.com/story/inside-face ... s-of-hell/

The article I linked is long but well worth the read.

[UNI88]

Sorry, not understanding your point. There seems to be mounting evidence that social media sites are treating conservatives and sources different than liberals and their sources.

They definitely have two standards, one official and one unofficial. There have been a few articles written about people that were in charge of such programs and while there was nothing official, just based on the people who are running the programs (much more left leaning) there is a bias creep in the policy. I do not believe that it is deliberate (outside of a certain employee imposing their interpretation of the rules on a topic) but the companies unwillingly have encouraged certain beliefs and that translates into actions.

Wired has some very good articles explaining what is going on for FB.

One day in late February of 2016, Mark Zuckerberg sent a memo to all of Facebook’s employees to address some troubling behavior in the ranks. His message pertained to some walls at the company’s Menlo Park headquarters where staffers are encouraged to scribble notes and signatures. On at least a couple of occasions, someone had crossed out the words “Black Lives Matter” and replaced them with “All Lives Matter.” Zuckerberg wanted whoever was responsible to cut it out.

“ ‘Black Lives Matter’ doesn’t mean other lives don’t,” he wrote. “We’ve never had rules around what people can write on our walls,” the memo went on. But “crossing out something means silencing speech, or that one person’s speech is more important than another’s.” The defacement, he said, was being investigated.

https://www.wired.com/story/inside-face ... s-of-hell/

As the self appointed King Boss Man (is that misogynistic? ) of CS's ACLU, I can see how crossing out "Black Lives Matter" could be considered silencing speech. What the person should have done was write "All Lives Matter" next to it. The debate between the two and the improved understanding that can come from it is an example of the value of free speech.

[SeattleGriz]

I didn't get a chance to watch the video, but if their methodology works, then the news should be getting out. There are some great results that haven't gotten much recognition.

You did the right thing by quoting a reputable source, it's just unfortunate they happened to use three studies that didn't meet the requirements for HCQ to work effectively. Requirements that have been stated over and over, but apparently are not being followed.

We keep hearing about the need for rigid studies, but those take time to set up. My understanding is we won't see those until around September, so in the meantime, there ARE doctors on the Frontline following the procedures for new discoveries that they always follow.

This is how new treatments work. Not shutting people down because they don't like the message or the person delivering the message.

You make a good point - about the message/messenger. But you have to "trust but verify". I'm all for good news, but i'm not going to just take the word of a Doctor b/c she's being promoted by conservatives. After months of HCQ isn't good we have 1 doctor that has it working 100% of the time. They haven't shown their work. Plus the doctor is known for making dubious, wild-ass, crazy claims.

What's the harm in hearing what that video says and then saying, " That's great news! Let's verify and try to replicate the results." before we start trusting the video on the internet containing nobody we've ever heard of before today?

From what I understand, there are 5 good studies.

I'll add them to the COVID thread.