I'm with the consensus view on this, but the BBC, as recently as 5 days ago, wrote a report about the drug, which says that a research team at Oxford University are going to include it in a trial of various Covid treatments.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-57570377

The suggestion, from a spokesman for the study, is that they aren't sure if it works, but are sure of it's relative safety.

What was the argument about, again?

Also, to be quite clear, spreading disinformation about the lab leak theory doesn’t necessarily mean stating that it escaping from a lab is a possibility at all, as you seem to have interpreted it as.

This Weinstein character might have been pointing to debunked studies to support the theory, or claiming that something is proof that isn’t or one of any number of things that could be spreading disinformation aside from simply stating that it’s a possibility.

dynamiteReady wrote:

I'm with the consensus view on this, but the BBC, as recently as 5 days ago, wrote a report about the drug, which says that a research team at Oxford University are going to include it in a trial of various Covid treatments. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-57570377 The suggestion, from a spokesman for the study, is that they aren't sure if it works, but are sure of it's relative safety. What was the argument about, again?

It may well work, and be a decent drug after testing has been done. The issue currently appears to stem from the fact that tests aren't broad or rigorous enough to advocate for its safety yet. It's not really a weird stuff thread thing. Just typical pharmaceutical stuff that some bad eggs have jumped on. 

Apparently Bill Maher has SLAMMED tech giants for limiting info on ivermectin. Same Bill Maher who wasn't going to get vaxxed cos of his suspicions, we can't trust 'em guys (it's ok he got vaxxed in the end when someone on his staff got COVID whoops).

DrewMerson wrote:

Tempy wrote:

It's not really a weird stuff thread thing.

Is anything?

Yossarian wrote:

Joe Rogan!

Holy fucking shit dude. The article describes the human uses first, with a link to a separate article that describes the human applications in much greater detail, then goes on to talk about the veterinary applications (admittedly, the delineation could have been clearer, but again, this is clearly linked to an article which explains the uses of the drug in much greater detail). Because of this and because they said something you disagree with about a Weinstein, you’re willing to dismiss a detailed, in depth, scholarly article, filled with references before you even finish reading the fucking thing? Fucking hell man, sort your shit out.

You have a go at me for not finishing a lengthy scholarly article and you dont read my few lines of a forum post? lol

You read what you think is an issue and jump on it.
Im think im pretty done with the thread for now, I think its utterly fucking futile to post in here in future but i will answer this one. 


Look again at my reply.

I mentioned the VERY first line of the header said NOTHING about human applications. It mentioned only veterinary.  I MYSELF mentioned in my reply that your article described human applications further down. I made that point because it left a really sour taste in my mouth. From the outset, the article is positioning the drug as questionable.
Whether it actually is or not I've no idea, however, we all know at this stage how articles work. Put the message you to be seen in the headlines/ first paragraphs as your readers will drop off the further down into detail you go.
As a demonstration, I pointed at Liv's post underneath mine that said something like the drug was used on horses and would kill humans. Was he being funny? maybe I dont know. 

AT NO POINT DID I DISMISS THE ARTICLE. I said I simply had not finished reading it. I had to go back to work and gave my points on the content that I had read.
There is room for the article to be 100% correct and for me not to like the way its written. Thats allowed. Just because I found two things I didn't like doesn't invalidate the whole article ffs.

Regarding Weinstein, yet again you (willfully??) misunderstand me. I don't give a flying fuck about Weinstein or the people having a go at him. I could not care less. What I was actually pointing out was that the article you linked was bringing up the lab leak as disinformation and some cuckoo conspiracy theory promoted by this nutjob Weinstein. Again, in my response, I talk about the lab leak theory itself, NOT Weinstein. From what I have read/heard about this I think it's a huge mistake to write this off as some idiotic conspiracy. Sounds like Weinstein being associated with it is actually damaging the theory being looked at properly.

I bring both these points up because it shows me already what the author is trying to portray. It's setting up a proponent of the drug as a fucktard and the drug itself as something more commonly used in veterinary medicine. This is before I get to read about the medical. scientific information that I presume is further down the article.


I brought this topic up in here because what was said on the Joe Rogan podcast was that this is a conspiracy theory. That the likes of Youtube etc are censoring any mention of the drug. And the possible impact such a drug might have on the big pharma companies. Again like I said in my initial post, I know all of your feelings on Weinstein (and to add, Rogan) but I know nothing about the doctor he was on with, I guess he is just guilty by association then.

Talk of a global conspiracy with big business involved and tech giants censoring? If that doesn't count as a Weird Stuff Thread thing I dont know what does.
 

I'm sick of fucking bending over backward in here to try and have a discussion. I know Im not good at communicating effectively, or at all really, which is why I try and be clear by putting disclaimers in posts, but it seems for the most part those disclaimers go ignored or Im just not believed. You guys seem to think because I mention Weinstein Im a fucking super fan or a defender of his. Im not. Im also not a defender of Rogan, I know full well he can be thick as two short planks and often cant engage in proper discussion with the guests because the subject matter is too much for him.

I literally said also that Im getting my own vaccine tomorrow. I was putting something out there for discussion. But why fucking bother when what I say means nothing to you? Im some flat earth believing, anti vaxxer then? Critique WHAT I ACTUALLY FUCKING SAID, NOT WHAT YOU THINK I SAID.

A follow up: I did miss that opening bit to be fair, but you’re still wrong about what they said about about Weinstein, and that’s still not enough to get sniffy about an article which has, in fact, been very well researched.

As an aside, that same author has written an article about the lab leak hypothesis, he doesn’t say it’s an impossibility, just that it’s so much less likely than natural origins that it’s not worthy of consideration based on the evidence we have:

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-origin-of-sars-cov-2-revisited/

SWISSGAV HES A GOD I CALLED IT OSTROGANOSOS

He's been on the horse wormers

DS and Nick chatting about horror movies pointed me to this guy.
This whole 'Iceberg' is insanity!

Long haul stuff here, whack it on like a podcast rather than trying to give it full attention.

Yeah can't knock his commitment to it.

Some of the early stuff is just so mundane I can't understand why it has even gained momentum. I guess its the whole feeding into each other stuff but christ.
I mean take Boy in a Box. Mid 20th century, body of a boy found in a box, nobody caught. Thats it. How is that worth attention over 50 years later.

Odd that nobody else saw it. And that it looks like a reflection of some lights in the window he's looking through.

Gremill wrote:

MattyJ wrote:

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/student-captures-large-ufo-hovering-24459180

Fuck that website.

Not somewhere I normally visit but it popped up on my apple news and I thought of this thread!

He doesn't even mention the obviously saucer shaped other UFO lower in the picture.