Jump to content
DOSBODS
  • Welcome to DOSBODS

     

    DOSBODS is free of any advertising.

    Ads are annoying, and - increasingly - advertising companies limit free speech online. DOSBODS Forums are completely free to use. Please create a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

     

Support for ivermectin is part of a new far right agenda


LC1
 Share

Recommended Posts

unregistered_guest

Bloody nazis! Promoting a drug which will heal genetically inferior untermenschen!

Next they'll be saying things like "Why do you allow these men who are in power to rob you step by step, openly and in secret, of one domain of your rights after another, until one day nothing, nothing at all will be left but a mechanised state system presided over by criminals and drunks? Is your spirit already so crushed by abuse that you forget it is your right—or rather, your moral duty—to eliminate this system?"

  • Agree 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, LC1 said:

This has been bubbling at the edge of my awareness for a little while now, but recently brought to the fore, and I still can't quite get my head around it...

Prompted in part by the below guardian article, that has the very interesting opening line "The efficacy of a drug being promoted by rightwing figures worldwide for treating Covid-19 is in serious doubt..."

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/jul/16/huge-study-supporting-ivermectin-as-covid-treatment-withdrawn-over-ethical-concerns

And recently reinforced by a couple of friends/family who have responded to text/email messages of mine with spookily similar responses (BBC repeater station effect?) along the lines of "Ah yeah, but you know, vested interests, ivermectin isn't proven and is being pushed by the far-right...", as if that makes any sense at all.

How can somebody make the claim that ivermectin promotion and cov19 vaccine hesitancy are "associated with a far right agenda" with a straight face? Or am I missing something obvious?

At most I would suggest that the right-leaning media are reporting on this kind of stuff, and right-leaning people also seem more willing to question the dominant narrative and see the massive risk to our freedoms. But this hardly equates to it being part of an agenda, as if it's some grand conspiracy to unleash cheap unprofitable medicines on an unsuspecting public, because reasons... :S

More likely is that this is a crass attempt to discredit by association. Same as the anti-vaxx and conspiracy theory labels. 

I thought that these people were intelligent enough to see past obvious (to me) propaganda. But this seems to be a growing narrative. 

Anyone else noticed this? Is it just me who finds it extremely bizarre, and possibly a sign of a barrel being scraped...?

When I was a kid in the NW it was common to see "National Front" skinheads hanging around being aggressive and I hated them. I never thought that I would grow up to be Far Right myself. Although I did not then and still do not have anything in common with the NF. 

  • Agree 6
  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Caravan Monster
1 hour ago, unregistered_guest said:

Bloody nazis! Promoting a drug which will heal genetically inferior untermenschen!

I've tried engaging with straightforward, easy to understand rhetorical questions. Reply rarely extends beyond  'THAT'S NOT RIGHT!' (because the grown-ups said so). It's bloody frustrating but there's really not much point in saying much more than what we are being told doesn't make much sense and I'm going my own way.

  • Agree 1
  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Talking Monkey
8 hours ago, Lightly Toasted said:

We live in a time of mutable language; Orwell's Newspeak is being implemented as we watch.

"Far right" now means "disagrees with the antidemocratic globalist agenda".

Understand the new meanings of words/phrases and it all makes sense :)

Its all full tilt Orwellian, it's everywhere

  • Agree 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thought I recognised that name. Guardian  fronting one of the same people used to debunk another ivermectin study.

The narrative bending Lawrence the medical student form the unnamed London educational establishment and the unnamed lecturer who task Lawrence with the work.

I smell a fucking large rat.They want to run a hit job and hide behind anonymity on the London side.

 

Meyerowitz-Katz

 

https://www.hartgroup.org/bbc-ivermectin/

 

 

Meyerowitz-Katz referred to Roman et al, with an almost identical but not the same title, which also claims to be a systematic review and meta-analysis. The study surveys only 1,173 patients over 10 studies, with the remaining known randomised trials arbitrarily excluded. Moreover, the article misreports published clinical trial data in a way that verges on falsification of data, as an Open Letter to the Editor-in-Chief has detailed. The initial misreporting while on the preprint server medRxiv included a farcical reversal of the treatment and control ‘arms’ of the clinical trial of Niaee et al, drawing protest from Dr Niaee himself which can still be found in the comments section of medRxiv. Unfortunately for Clinical Infectious Diseases, further misreporting (undetected by the journal’s peer reviewers) remains, in a way that renders the article worthless. Further background on the sources can be found here.

These facts seemed unknown to Meyerowitz-Katz, who presented it as a contrasting study arriving at opposite conclusions. In fact, even the highly-selected data offer a mortality risk reduction closely similar to Bryant et al, merely one with wider Confidence Intervals. Roman et al commit the elementary fallacy of supposing that lacking statistically significant evidence (in their highly selective survey) is the same thing as a positive demonstration of no benefit.

  • Agree 1
  • Informative 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Caravan Monster
1 hour ago, onlyme said:

Thought I recognised that name. Guardian  fronting one of the same people used to debunk another ivermectin study.

The narrative bending Lawrence the medical student form the unnamed London educational establishment and the unnamed lecturer who task Lawrence with the work.

I smell a fucking large rat.They want to run a hit job and hide behind anonymity on the London side.

 

Meyerowitz-Katz

 

https://www.hartgroup.org/bbc-ivermectin/

 

 

Meyerowitz-Katz referred to Roman et al, with an almost identical but not the same title, which also claims to be a systematic review and meta-analysis. The study surveys only 1,173 patients over 10 studies, with the remaining known randomised trials arbitrarily excluded. Moreover, the article misreports published clinical trial data in a way that verges on falsification of data, as an Open Letter to the Editor-in-Chief has detailed. The initial misreporting while on the preprint server medRxiv included a farcical reversal of the treatment and control ‘arms’ of the clinical trial of Niaee et al, drawing protest from Dr Niaee himself which can still be found in the comments section of medRxiv. Unfortunately for Clinical Infectious Diseases, further misreporting (undetected by the journal’s peer reviewers) remains, in a way that renders the article worthless. Further background on the sources can be found here.

These facts seemed unknown to Meyerowitz-Katz, who presented it as a contrasting study arriving at opposite conclusions. In fact, even the highly-selected data offer a mortality risk reduction closely similar to Bryant et al, merely one with wider Confidence Intervals. Roman et al commit the elementary fallacy of supposing that lacking statistically significant evidence (in their highly selective survey) is the same thing as a positive demonstration of no benefit.

Also from https://www.hartgroup.org/bbc-ivermectin/ the so-called bbc really are a bunch of cunts. How many thousands people have unnecessarily died gasping because of the push for universal vaccinations and corporate profits over cheap and effective that has been known to work since the on the ground success of the Zelenko protocol with HCQ + zinc in April (?) 2020. Media and governments are absolutely complicit in causing these deaths.

Quote

Though published by British authors — based at Dr Tess Lawrie’s Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy Ltd in Bath and the University of Newcastle — and despite these authors lacking any conflicts of interest, BBC Radio 4 made no attempt to contact any of the study authors for interview or ‘right of reply’, which is a fairness obligation under the Ofcom Broadcasting Code. Instead, Harford spoke to one Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz, an epidemiologist at the University of Wollongong in Australia.

 

  • Agree 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

invalid
20 hours ago, LC1 said:

 

At most I would suggest that the right-leaning media are reporting on this kind of stuff, and right-leaning people also seem more willing to question the dominant narrative and see the massive risk to our freedoms. But this hardly equates to it being part of an agenda, as if it's some grand conspiracy to unleash cheap unprofitable medicines on an unsuspecting public, because reasons... :S

I thought that these people were intelligent enough to see past obvious (to me) propaganda. But this seems to be a growing narrative. 

 

 

I sometimes post on a forum that is heavily biased to the left and also biased towards higher earners and probably higher intelligence/educated*.

I quite enjoy yanking their chains from time to time they are quite easy to wind up. But its also interesting to see their views, some arguments are quite well put and I think its important to step outside your echo chamber of choice every once in a while.

At the moment they are hating the fact that infections are rising in the vaccinated. Its a fact that goes against their belief and as you would expect they do all sorts to justify it - "vaccine was not meant to stop infection, just serious illness. Its the vaxxed peoples fault, its the right wing" etc, etc.

When I dropped in that PHE reported that more vaxxed died from Covid than unvaxxed they go through a similar denial when facts don't align with their beliefs - "its because its mainly old, vulnerable and end of life people that have been vaxxed, its to be expected" A while back when the discussion was about covid was mainly killing old, vulnerable and end of life people they went through all sorts of arguments as why no one should lose even 6 months of life, how even an 80 year old can expect to live for another ten years.

 

* Educated and intelligence often go together but you can certainly be educated and dumb or intelligent and uneducated. A trend I see across many forums and in real life is that those who are a bit more free thinking and intelligent tend towards right wing. 

  • Agree 5
  • Informative 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, invalid said:

At the moment they are hating the fact that infections are rising in the vaccinated. Its a fact that goes against their belief and as you would expect they do all sorts to justify it - "vaccine was not meant to stop infection, just serious illness. Its the vaxxed peoples fault, its the right wing" etc, etc.

When I dropped in that PHE reported that more vaxxed died from Covid than unvaxxed they go through a similar denial when facts don't align with their beliefs...

Interesting, and completely mirrors my recent experience, particularly with one older member of my extended family. The mental gymnastics are so impressive I had to resist the urge to ask whether he would be competing in the Japan Olympics :)

Even though all my points were made with supporting data shown, it didn't fit with his preferred narrative, to which he is clearly very emotionally attached (but would never admit this, obviously). So he studiously ignored the data and instead trawled through my old Facebook posts to find examples of me posting things he considered to be 'conspiracy theories', and then claiming that I must be getting my misinformation from people like David Icke. The double-punch was that I also need to be careful of unwittingly spreading lies about ivermectin that are part of a "far-right agenda".

All this in response to me posting the recent Talk Radio interview with evidence-based medicine specialist Tess Lawrie, and various other data showing the jabs are pretty rubbish at preventing transmission, how risk benefit differs massively for the various age cohorts, etc.

So, it seems clear to me that "far right" is simply a slur that is intended to stop any rational debate in its tracks and is, a bit like an accusation of being a racist, almost impossible to defend against. It's the kind of thing you do when you have no actual effective arguments left. In my opinion :)

  • Agree 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps the Guardian would like to categorise all words into “wings”, like the French have masculine and feminine?

Hey Guardian, can you tell me if Marmite is right wing? I’d hate to inadvertently support racism by choosing the wrong yeast based toast topping.

  • Agree 1
  • Lol 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

invalid
9 minutes ago, LC1 said:

Interesting, and completely mirrors my recent experience, particularly with one older member of my extended family. The mental gymnastics are so impressive I had to resist the urge to ask whether he would be competing in the Japan Olympics :)

Even though all my points were made with supporting data shown, it didn't fit with his preferred narrative, to which he is clearly very emotionally attached (but would never admit this, obviously). So he studiously ignored the data and instead trawled through my old Facebook posts to find examples of me posting things he considered to be 'conspiracy theories', and then claiming that I must be getting my misinformation from people like David Icke. The double-punch was that I also need to be careful of unwittingly spreading lies about ivermectin that are part of a "far-right agenda".

All this in response to me posting the recent Talk Radio interview with evidence-based medicine specialist Tess Lawrie, and various other data showing the jabs are pretty rubbish at preventing transmission, how risk benefit differs massively for the various age cohorts, etc.

So, it seems clear to me that "far right" is simply a slur that is intended to stop any rational debate in its tracks and is, a bit like an accusation of being a racist, almost impossible to defend against. It's the kind of thing you do when you have no actual effective arguments left. In my opinion :)

 

Yep, they are all the same. When proved to be wrong, all that is left is ad hominen or to ignore.

Again, 'right wing' folks tend to be a bit more objective and when presented with data they can accept it, perhaps change their mind and are more likely to say "yep, you were right and I was wrong". The lefties will never admit they are wrong, even if massively obvious, like as if you have just proved to them that 2+2 does not equal 5

Perhaps these people don't like that they have been had, duped, conned, fell for it. People will go to great lengths to justify a bad purchase or being ripped off, perhaps this is the same process.

 

  • Agree 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lightly Toasted
1 hour ago, Reck B said:

Hey Guardian, can you tell me if Marmite is right wing? I’d hate to inadvertently support racism by choosing the wrong yeast based toast topping.

Duh, Marmite is left-wing.

Obviously.

Just don't eat it with white bread -- unless it's toasted at least as well as my avatar pic.

-_-

Edited by Lightly Toasted
  • Lol 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So where can I find a copy of this right-wing agenda, and exactly how does chugging back horse wormer advance the cause?.

Or are the socialists a bit confused over what kind of parasites it kills?.

  • Lol 1
  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

unregistered_guest
2 hours ago, Reck B said:

Hey Guardian, can you tell me if Marmite is right wing? I’d hate to inadvertently support racism by choosing the wrong yeast based toast topping.

Definitely not fans of the right wing in the UK. Bizarrely enough though, despite the press attention it received at the time, there's no mention of it on the BNP or Nick Griffin's wikipedia page, and it barely scrapes a minor footnote on Marmite's page.

  • Informative 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hancock
22 hours ago, eight said:

Last time I spoke to my parents I was told that my views were shared "by a tiny minority". If that isn't straight off the BBC I'll eat several hats.

Tell them that you've turned into a transgender and are going to marry a crippled lesbian with dark skin ... see if they like your newly minded majority way of thinking!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ashestoashes
3 hours ago, Reck B said:

Perhaps the Guardian would like to categorise all words into “wings”, like the French have masculine and feminine?

Hey Guardian, can you tell me if Marmite is right wing? I’d hate to inadvertently support racism by choosing the wrong yeast based toast topping.

marmite is right wing because it promotes division in society

  • Lol 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ashestoashes

since taking ivermectin I've developed a craving for sugar lumps, are they right wing ? I'm worried about the historical links with slave plantations

Edited by ashestoashes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

unregistered_guest
8 hours ago, ashestoashes said:

since taking ivermectin I've developed a craving for sugar lumps,

Equus homo!

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mental Floss
19 hours ago, ashestoashes said:

since taking ivermectin I've developed a craving for sugar lumps, are they right wing ? I'm worried about the historical links with slave plantations

If you carry on at this rate at least you'll be able to go on holiday to Centaur Parks....

  • Informative 1
  • Lol 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Austin Allegro

I challenged someone about 'what happened to "only three weeks to flatten the curve"' and got this in response:

'That was a rash and stupid thing for that Tory to have said. It was obvious this was going to last a long time.'

I find it amazing that True Believers can both love what Johnson is doing, and yet still dislike him as an Evil Tory. Classic double-think.

:wanker:

Edited by Austin Allegro
  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bkkandrew

I look forward to this new world of political medication.

Right Wing Extremist Ivermectin for me, soppy Socialist Sertraline for you. Nazi Niacin for me, Commie Combiflam for you...

  • Lol 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...