Debatable. And since when has that stopped them?Idl, the country has returned to normal to a degree
Debatable. And since when has that stopped them?Idl, the country has returned to normal to a degree
living in rural bumble fuck MN I still see some crazy biden voters with masks on sanitizing everything before they touch it. fair few places haven't bothered removing the shit plastic to keep people from breathing on others. some places still have "socially distanced" areas too. If you get sick with something with symptoms similar to COVID? mandatory nasal tests and 3 days off to be sure. Boomers freak out that it can hit them harder than others. the younger generation got emotionally scarred by the reaction to it. in no way is that normal.Idl, the country has returned to normal to a degree
I have met plenty of Biden voters here in TX and not seen thatliving in rural bumble fuck MN I still see some crazy biden voters with masks on sanitizing everything before they touch it. fair few places haven't bothered removing the shit plastic to keep people from breathing on others. some places still have "socially distanced" areas too. If you get sick with something with symptoms similar to COVID? mandatory nasal tests and 3 days off to be sure. Boomers freak out that it can hit them harder than others. the younger generation got emotionally scarred by the reaction to it. in no way is that normal.
I still see people out in public, in open air, with masks on in Denver, both young and old.I have met plenty of Biden voters here in TX and not seen that
I'm not worried about that specific fear. Treaties don't supercede the constitution, and people aren't on board for another mismanaged pandemic. They might get the vax but it's just another flu shot to them at this point, even to most people advocating the vax. With only a tiny fraction of people who would tolerate (let alone support) draconian moves, they won't move. Even assuming the media play along completely (which I doubt) that still wouldn't be enough, at least for the near future.I still see people out in public, in open air, with masks on in Denver, both young and old.
The madness has lingered on in some areas, and I've even seen some news programs hyping up the 'latest variant' and 'need for new vax's for this variant'.
I actually think a repeat of the Wu Flu madness coming back full scale would likely break this nation down the lines a civil war may start on, and without clean 'breaks' at state borders even. That's why I keep worrying about Gates, Soros, and co working with the likes of Fauci and friends actually letting out another bug, possibly even one with actual legit high mortality in select populations, and getting their puppets like Biden and Trudeau to fully lockdown their nations to an almost NK level and effectively remove the US Costitution from power via 'indefinite medical veto'.
They already have that WHO 'treaty' to use to try to justify any such measures, and justify the actions to foreign powers too.
It's a fear that will probably be continuous so long as US politics follows it's current trajectory.I'm not worried about that specific fear. Treaties don't supercede the constitution, and people aren't on board for another mismanaged pandemic. They might get the vax but it's just another flu shot to them at this point, even to most people advocating the vax. With only a tiny fraction of people who would tolerate (let alone support) draconian moves, they won't move. Even assuming the media play along completely (which I doubt) that still wouldn't be enough, at least for the near future.
I guess I should ask, actually. Is this a near-future fear of yours, or are you thinking more like "this might be how it happens in a couple/few decades"?
The use of nuclear weapons on homeland soil is not technically impossible, but it is sodding improbable. Anyone daft enough to try and push the big red button would probably be stopped by their own generals!
The only way I could see a country, even one in civil war utilizing nukes against its own soil would be if either some foreign doomsday cult captured a silo (ala when Al Queda made a play at a Pakistani nuclear facility ) and launched the nuke themselves or it's an Ebola-Zaire type situation, where Mobutu said "this is too risky" and ordered napalm strikes against villages to contain the outbreak.
The odds of either happening on US soil are astronomically low.
I can see something else.
Nukes can be seen, from a certain point of view, the ultimate sign of the monopoly of force. "We, the legitimate govenment, are the ones trusted to hold the nukes!"
I can't see much chance of them being used, but that's not the major issue. Keeping external groups from being too obvious in interfering, yes. Using them as both threat and symbol? Yes.
Using them domestically? Only if a true loonie gets power. So, not impossible, but not too likely.
Sure, but the threat of their utilization also delegitimizes your regime, and you run the risk of your populace deciding, "Well shit, if they're that crazy, then what do we have to lose?" it's why you didn't see Central African dictators resorting to napalming their enemies even in genocides with the one excepted I posted above.
Brazil has shelled its own ghettos, but South America is a schizopilled continent, so.
Any civil war bad enough that one side considers nuking the other is bad enough that both sides are going to have nukes. It's why I roll my eyes out of my skull anytime someone brings up nukes in a US civil war. There are too many nuke subs, too many ICBM silos and too many USMC guarded nuclear lockers to assume one side has a monopoly on nukes. Honestly the only thing nukes would be useful for in a civil war is literally falseflagging your opponent using them.Sure, but the threat of their utilization also delegitimizes your regime, and you run the risk of your populace deciding, "Well shit, if they're that crazy, then what do we have to lose?" it's why you didn't see Central African dictators resorting to napalming their enemies even in genocides with the one excepted I posted above.
Brazil has shelled its own ghettos, but South America is a schizopilled continent, so.
Friday, 18 August 2023
The Food and Drug Administration posted on its social media accounts Friday that it still is not approving the drug ivermectin for the treatment or prevention of COVID-19.
"Although FDA has approved ivermectin for certain uses in humans and animals, it has not authorized or approved ivermectin for use in preventing or treating COVID-19, nor has the agency stated that it is safe or effective for that use," the agency said in a post on X, formerly known as Twitter, Friday.
"Health care professionals generally may choose to prescribe an approved human drug for an unapproved use when they judge that the unapproved use is medically appropriate for an individual patient."
According to the National Institutes of Health, "Ivermectin is a Food and Drug Administration-approved antiparasitic drug used to treat several neglected tropical diseases, including onchocerciasis, helminthiases, and scabies. For these indications, ivermectin has been widely used and is generally well tolerated. Ivermectin is not approved by the FDA for the treatment of any viral infection."
The NIH said that although the drug has been shown to inhibit the replication of COVID-19 cells, the dose required would be "100-fold" higher than the dosage approved for humans.
"Trials have failed to find a clinical benefit from the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 in outpatients," the NIH website said. "In TOGETHER, an adaptive platform trial conducted in Brazil, there was no apparent difference between the ivermectin and placebo arms for the primary outcome of risk of emergency department visits or hospitalization (14.7% vs. 16.4%)."
The Hill reported that several other health organizations, including the World Health Organization, the European Medicines Agency, the Infectious Diseases Society of America, and the NIH, advise against using the drug in COVID-19 cases.
The American Medical Association, the nation's largest group of doctors, recommended physicians stop prescribing the medication to treat the virus, the report said.
According to the news outlet, more than 88,000 prescriptions for ivermectin were dispensed in just one month in 2021, compared to 3,600 human prescriptions in all of 2020.
The WHO said in March 2021 that ivermectin use in treating COVID-19 yielded inconclusive evidence of effectiveness.
The organization said that pooled data from 16 randomized controlled trials determined that there was "very low certainty" that ivermectin use reduced mortality, the need for medical ventilation, hospital admission, and clinical improvement in COVID-19 patients.
FDA: Ivermectin Still Not Approved for COVID
The fact that this was brought up again as news about another Covid strain have started making the rounds reinforces my suspicions that they're preparing for COVID Panic 2.0.
FDA: Ivermectin Still Not Approved for COVID
The fact that this was brought up again as news about another Covid strain have started making the rounds reinforces my suspicions that they're preparing for COVID Panic 2.0.
Sequels never work out as well for a company as the original does.
Err…
I believe you have your threads confused, friend.
Not really; I brought up in a previous page that we're likely going to see another COVID panic and lockdowns as a way of 'fortifying the election'.Err…
I believe you have your threads confused, friend.
Can you honestly tell me that I don't have a point?