Comments by "Harry Stoddard" (@HarryS77) on "HasanAbi" channel.

  1.  @hamchurger4566  Definitely unrelated.
    1
  2. I don't understand this lib reference.
    1
  3. Thomas has been horny for this for decades.
    1
  4. Wasn't there that time he cussed out Jaime?
    1
  5.  @briano9397  Please educate me senpai! Show me how Andersen fabricated his research into the covid genome! I want to learn!
    1
  6.  @SmthIcanNvrHave  There are no long term negative effects to vaccines. Any negative reactions you might have will show up within a few months at most. After all this time, that's been the case for the serious side effects, like myocarditis, pericarditis, and blood clots. We won't see people spontaneously develop negative reactions years down the line: there's nothing for the body to react negatively to; the vaccine components are shed quickly, and you aren't getting vaccinated daily. Vaccine side effects are being closely monitored. That's how we know about the very rare side effects that have occurred.
    1
  7.  @sawtoothiandi  No, Brahmin's point is that there's actual evidence that monoclonal antibodies work. The same can't be said for ivermectin. Rogan may not want to admit that he's part of the elite that has access to treatments beyond what his audience is allowed. It's more on brand to act like there's a conspiracy to keep a free wonder drug from the public...even though that drug is readily available... Further weakening your point is the fact that there already exists a proven safe and effective way to prevent covid, and it costs you nothing.
    1
  8.  @sawtoothiandi  If you're following ivermectin on sites like ivnmeta, you're getting a very skewed picture of the data. The paper you quoted (but didn't cite, for some reason) doesn't look like a serious paper. No authors are listed, that I can see. It has some cute graphics. It's a piece of polemical advocacy, devoting large sections to debating anonymous twitter personalities. This isn't something any serious medical journal would publish; rather, it's been designed to kind of look to the layman like a scientific paper. The authors, whoever they are, insist that controlling for study quality is manipulative, even though it's standard practice, and proclaim that they include ALL studies in the interest of fairness. That's not how good science works. Go read the Cochrane review. The other comments you spammed aren't worth addressing. Please stick to the topic.
    1
  9.  @sawtoothiandi  Again, you're all over the place trying to defend a position that can't be supported by evidence. It's incredibly tedious to try to have a conversation with someone who generates 4 or 5 extra excuses and tangents every time one addresses a particular topic. You quoted a pseudoscientific paper that was really just a piece of poorly-disguised polemicism. No serious medical journal would publish it, and I'm not going to take it seriously either. I've already pointed out a few of the ridiculous claims it makes. I don't understand the point you're making about vaccinated people being hospitalized. So what? We've always known that would happen. No one said the vaccines are magic. One thing I've noticed is that ivermectin advocates and anti-vaxxers love throwing out the fact that vaccinated people can and do end up hospitalized. You at least concede that it's at a lower rate. But you don't mention how much lower. That's important. Also important is the rate of vaccinated hospitalizations against the rate of vaccination in the population.
    1
  10.  @sawtoothiandi  This is yet another example of you bouncing around to other topics—right after I said that's what you're doing. We've been over this. Your comment is a post hoc fallacy. The reason we have studies is to ascertain causality. You can't zero in on your pet cure and determine causation by temporal proximity, without looking at confounding factors, other interventions, etc. YOU'RE the one who has to explain it—scientifically. It's not my job to refute speculation. You didn't even mention what population you were talking about. Please stop wasting my time if this is how you're going to continue.
    1
  11.  @sawtoothiandi  I'm saying they aren't reliable sources. They're advocacy groups, ones with a clear bias and few scruples in pushing for ivermectin. Read the Cochrane review.
    1
  12.  @Syakirin57  Like, how do you incredulously post about Dr. Li-Meng's smoking gun genetic evidence (not peer reviewed, of course) one moment and the next say we have to be highly skeptical of everything because...MkUltra? https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/02/12/china-covid-misinformation-li-meng-yan/ So no, there aren't "two sides" when it comes to the genetic evidence, not at the moment anyway.
    1
  13.  @Syakirin57  You're pathetic lol. Google your own "evidence" next time.
    1
  14.  @Syakirin57  I guess when you can't muster an argument, just ad hom as hard as you can.
    1
  15. 18:07 Chuck Hagel, another Republican. 20:40 John McCain hagiography. 23:02 "That's just who he is." "CounterPunch’s editors have listened to vivid accounts by the recipient of just such advances, this staffer of another senator being accosted by Biden in the well of the senate in the weeks immediately following his first wife’s fatal car accident." https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/04/28/biden-the-lout/
    1
  16.  @Simfight  The "unedited" video. Lol I can watch the video and see Ethan's right there. He just doesn't have the camera on him when Sam's talking. You can clearly hear him talking at points. How is it "running away" when he's literally right there? Running away is cutting the feed and pouting about it. Lol cope dude. Was Sam's intellect too much for Crowder? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
    1
  17.  @skinniemcfats5292  Sam: [Enters chat] Crowder: [Runs away]
    1
  18.  @husseinpoliphilo  "Possible alternatives." SARS-COV-2 wasn't created by GOF. Stop peddling this outdated conspiracy as if it's plausible. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41564-020-0771-4
    1
  19.  @husseinpoliphilo  Sorry, you said there was evidence the virus is manmade. Can you link to these studies?
    1
  20.  @husseinpoliphilo  Still waiting on that study...
    1
  21. I love Trump's appeal to the good German voter by using random capitalized nouns.
    1
  22. Considering both have now failed up...just tragic.
    1
  23. Credo quia absurdum est!
    1
  24. Second protects the First! How dare she mention Allah!
    1
  25.  @wrestlar3246  You are aware that gay couples dont have to adopt. Right? Surely you're not that dumb.
    1
  26. If anything, this just demonstrates that we should blow up the nuclear family and reconceive communal childrearing and intentional families.
    1
  27.  @ringsofsaturnn6153  There are more important things.
    1
  28.  @ringsofsaturnn6153  No you're the weirdo.
    1
  29.  @wrestlar3246  So parents who want to and are ready to be parents make good parents regardless of their orientation. Cool, we already knew that.
    1
  30.  @wrestlar3246  And I'm sure you think we should expand sex education, contraceptive and abortion access, and other health services.
    1
  31.  @memoization_enjoyer  Yugoslavia is a good example. Even both Iraq wars were partially sold to the public on humanitarian grounds.
    1
  32.  @filipvujanovic7903  The point is that humanitarian crises are used as a pretext by the US to enforce its agenda and power. David Gibbs's book First Do No Harm is a thorough look at how the US perverts humanitarian intervention and how attempts to intervene (like how the US has been intervening in Ukraine for years if not decades) often escalate tensions into war which then become a pretext for "humanitarian" intervention.
    1
  33.  @SirPerfectful  When was the last time NATO was a threat to another country? Libya and Afghanistan spring to mind. Please, libs, either learn a minuscule bit of history or stop throwing tantrums defending your favorite imperialist nation.
    1
  34. Disarm the cops.
    1
  35.  @atryan1125  It's absolutely wild to see "leftists" supporting NATO. Propaganda is a tough thing to overcome, I guess.
    1
  36.  @Jc22345  Ok so you admit Sam would crush Crowder in a debate, hence why he's the 250 lbs black belt in this scenario. Lmfao Crowder and his goons just giving it away. If this scenario's like anything, it's when some kid gets his older brother to beat up the playground bully. Crowder's made a career out of harassing people, but he can't even debate Sam Seder? What a loser.
    1
  37.  @Jc22345  If lying in DMs is so important, why did Crowder lie about trying to book with Ethan and having a woman do his bookings? Ethan had the email and contacted the woman to verify. Weird.
    1
  38.  @LawnMowerfromHell  Competition is going to start kicking in. Any second now.
    1
  39.  @KaiserTrigger  Lol 🤣🤣🤣🤣 no one's reading that wall of text 🤣🤣🤣 keep coping loser lmfao
    1
  40. 2:20 keep smiling keep smiling keep smiling keep smiling
    1
  41. Shutting down the government during a pandemic seems like an extreme step that may backfire on Dems. The other options are possible, but they hang on a lot of ifs. Even blocking the nominee still leaves the SC a conservative majority. Democrats will have to push to reform the court through packing, term limits, elections, or total abolition. I fear a successful deferral of the nominee will lead Democrats into complacency, especially since Biden has signalled he may not pursue reforms even if the Senate confirms a new justice before inauguration.
    1
  42. Gardner, one of the Republicans that Democrats hoped would oppose the nomination process, has just said he will vote to confirm. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sen-cory-gardner-commits-to-confirming-trumps-scotus-nominee
    1
  43. Grassley has also said he will support voting on the nominee. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-09-21/grassley-supports-voting-on-trump-nominee-adding-to-gop-tally
    1
  44.  @Christopher2211-t5o  That's why people are focused on the Senate confirmation, not the nomination.
    1
  45. @12 34 It's David Dunn.
    1
  46.  @dempseyemerald2064  Which ones?
    1
  47. Flag.
    1
  48.    There's a difference, but I don't think that difference should be overstated. In reality, fascism and neoliberalism share many important, conspicuous features on their political, economic, and social structure, as writers like Raphaele Chappe and Ajay Singh Chaudhary have pointed out. I think describing neoliberalism as "policies that halfway work" is without merit. As with questions of that sort, one must always ask, work for whom, how, at the expense of what else?
    1
  49. I think that's his daddy.
    1
  50. Best interview ever. Was this before or after Portnoy sucked him off?
    1