Comments by "CynicalBroadcast" (@CynicalBastard) on "Jordan Peterson DEBUNKED In Real Time For Pushing Ivermectin" video.

Data is not being misinterpreted. The CV-panels are outmoded crap. You people are delusional. No one is going to wait for the CV-panels proscriptions. IVM shows results as a prophylactic...and you people want to LITERALLY cover that up. Really...something is wrong with you all. And it's called being a technocrat.
2
@TheColdFrontmusic Maybe Youtube shouldn't be such a moron, blocking perfectly legitimate posts...got brute force the algo somehow. Anyways, metaanalysis on IVM in 2020 showed it has use as a prophylactic. I don't care what CV-panels say. They are not really an authority on medicine. [...]
2
@PunkShockRock They either don't know what they are doing, or are in such a wreak to "prevent a panic", they forgot to let go of the proverbial 'panic button', when science caught up with reality. [...]
2
@CanadianClassStruggle Metaanalysis in 2020 it had use as a prophylactic. I don't care what CV-panels say, nor if they are going to coerce people: but either way, I am pretty sure I'm talking about another paper than this latest one being talked about, anyway. A paper subtitled "A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines". That is the only relevant paper, here. And plus, maybe Youtube should fix it's algo, and have it stop brute blocking legal comments: than it wouldn't have this problem with people like me telling it to go screw itself. [...]
2
@jeffreycarman2185 Problem is people want a hail mary pass or nothing at all. I am saying that medicine is medicine is medicine...if it works, even a little, it works...why waste the opportunity to use medicine that can help people, even a little? if it improves their chances of survival, even a little bit...why should it be ignored? for the sake of people's curiosity being charged with finding a fool-proof and full solution [and instant cure] where there is none? or some kind of miracle thru vacs., where there is none? People seem to really be banking on this notion of "just take a fourth booster, and wait for the omicron vacs." when people are dying in hospitals. It seems to me, you'd want any and everything you can throw at this disease, no? Plus, yes, the study, the meta-analysis I am referring to, took those exclusion criteria into account.
2
@ComradeYinkai Not really. But not Russian. I'm fucking French. But alas. IVM has a use as a prophylactic...it's in the 2020 metaanalysis...sorry. I don't care what the CV-panels say for the sake of some 80 yr old boomer idiot who might down exorbitant amounts without recommendation [prescription] from any doctor.
1
Data is not being misinterpreted. The CV-panels are outmoded crap. You people are delusional. No one is going to wait for the CV-panels proscriptions. IVM shows results as a prophylactic...and you people want to LITERALLY cover that up. Really...something is wrong with you all. And it's called being a technocrat.
1
Data is not being misinterpreted. The CV-panels are outmoded crap. You people are delusional. No one is going to wait for the CV-panels proscriptions. IVM shows results as a prophylactic...and you people want to LITERALLY cover that up. Really...something is wrong with you all. And it's called being a technocrat.
1
@SirPerfectful Metaanalysis in 2020 it had use as a prophylactic. I don't care what CV-panels say, nor if they are going to coerce people: but either way, I am pretty sure I'm talking about another paper than this latest one being talked about, anyway. A paper subtitled "A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines". That is the only relevant paper, here.
1
@callum6224 That's not what happened.
1
@callum6224 "A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines" - Just see for yourself. It's got efficacy as a prophylactic. It should be available to people [doctors] to use: not denied for the sake political expedients, and for the sake of some old fools who "might" OD on IVM [unlikely, but they take up resources, right?, if they end up in the emergency room].
1
@cleveryoutubename8568 It's defined on wikitionary just fine.
1
@cleveryoutubename8568 What? Look, I'll explain the notion I have about you people, and your love of technocracy. You people HATE...the rabble...and you'd rather the world be done with this rabble, and just have a state apparatus headed up by some "enlightened" experts to literally take up government. And therefore, I don't like you.
1
@mloftus8618 Ivermectin makes no money. So you are wrong on that front. The "grifters", as they are called, are playing the same game as every other pusher of ideology. What? they have to keep their opinions secret? in a society which advocates that you get by best by marketing yourself (cf. Hasan Piker)? Fact is, just by "being" the way they are, and saying "I got sick and took this, and it didn't kill me, and was given to me by a medical professional", I don't see the problem with that: save for, maybe, if I was extend an olive branch, it's problematic, at least, from the standpoint of being braggadocious: but that's about it...it's not "helpful" , but like I said, even by just "being" what they are, someone who will "try anything and see what works", they prove that the vacs. isn't the end all be all of treatment. And medicine is about treatment (cf. gender reassignment)...not JUST about cures. [...]
1
@richardgrier8968 Yeah, a PROPHYLACTIC doesn't work that way. It's to treat symptomatic pressure (lessens potential critical pathogenic complications). It doesn't prevent contracting anything. You must AT LEAST KNOW what a prophylactic is, and in case Trump [of course] didn't know what a prophylactic is and what it actually does, he probably misspoke. In fact, surely, he must have. [...]
1
@richardgrier8968 PS: There are some pre-exposure prophylaxis treatments: but IVM isn't one of them. IVM is a 'protective' treatment.
1
@richardgrier8968 Yes, a PREVENTATIVE. You can now go look up 'preventative', and get back to me. You literally have to' guess again'. Preventative: Preventing, hindering, or acting as an obstacle to [for emphasis: pathogenic response] Carried out to deter military aggression. [Not relevant] Slowing the development of an illness; prophylactic. [SLOWING THE DEVELOPMENT - not curing it - of an illness [ie., pathogenicity]
1
@richardgrier8968 - Yes, "Pathogenic - (pathology) Able to cause (harmful) disease." - IS PREGNANCY A DISEASE!? No, it isn't. So stop worrying about what connotation you think is missing, unless you wanna contact a certain dictionary or something and complain and ply at them to add something to their list of word definitions. A prophylactic is supposed to lessen pathogenic stress, symptomatic pressure [disease, ailment] . "Prophylactic - (medicine) Prevention of, or protective treatment for, disease." We getting it, yet?
1
@richardgrier8968 Yes...DEATH. It's to prevent DEATH. To prevent SYMPTOMATIC PRESSURE EXERTED ON THE BODY. To prevent PATHGENICITY. [All caps, for emphasis. Not shouting.]
1
@richardgrier8968 No. Not at all. IVM shows indications for moderate CV symptoms: not severe. But it doesn't hurt. Unless you are a fool who is self-treating himself, causing a dumb sort of conversion disorder, not only in dummies, but then CV-panels have to placate to the fears of these dummies ["everyone will have cv" - then later "the latest double-blind studies" - oh yeah, the people who DIDN'T get v-cd, and who didn't contract CV. Lo and behold...a lie was revealed]. [...]
1
@richardgrier8968 I don't have a problem with vaccines. How they were used, and how state ethics were conflated with medical ethics (thus canceling actual medical ethics out), though...that is a different matter. A: people were selfish, only thinking of themselves, and weren't thinking rationally, and didn't consider they data and the changing processes in considerations of said data, as such, producing confusion, chaos, and political upheaval, mostly for the sake of their own political axe to grind, using the notion of a bothersome public perception, and the material exigency of CV, as a cudgel.
1
Data is not being misinterpreted. The CV-panels are outmoded crap. You people are delusional. No one is going to wait for the CV-panels proscriptions. IVM shows results as a prophylactic...and you people want to LITERALLY cover that up. Really...something is wrong with you all. And it's called being a technocrat.
1
Data is not being misinterpreted. The CV-panels are outmoded crap. You people are delusional. No one is going to wait for the CV-panels proscriptions. IVM shows results as a prophylactic...and you people want to LITERALLY cover that up. Really...something is wrong with you all. And it's called being a technocrat.
1
Data is not being misinterpreted. The CV-panels are outmoded crap. You people are delusional. No one is going to wait for the CV-panels proscriptions. IVM shows results as a prophylactic...and you people want to LITERALLY cover that up. Really...something is wrong with you all. And it's called being a technocrat.
1
@furiousapplesack Metaanalysis in 2020 it had use as a prophylactic. I don't care what CV-panels say, nor if they are going to coerce people: but either way, I am pretty sure I'm talking about another paper than this latest one being talked about, anyway. A paper subtitled "A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines". That is the only relevant paper, here.
1
@PunkShockRock You all tend to do this.
1
@PunkShockRock Have superficial basis for the accounts of historical, philosophic, knowledge, from sources from the knowledgeable. You [all] often claim to "know something" and can "evidence" it, but you tend to evince your lack of knowledge, more than anything; even regarding the actual people/things you are even referencing. [...]
1
@PunkShockRock Both on the left, and the right. None of you know what you are ever talking about, none of you know the positions actual academics take [it's hilarious, cause the left always loves this "trust the experts" crap, but then refuse to listen to theorists and philosophers, at the top of their class: or, you guys just don't know your references, or have outmoded ones, to support your hypotheses]. The right is worse, in this regard, but the left, too, does this. [...]
1
@PunkShockRock Why do I address you like I do? so I can address your ideals; which you share with others. So you should know about that. Plus, people tend, especially on the left, to group people into monolithic contextual divisions. [...]
1