Coronavirus Outbreak

[Ken]

I think there actually is a great deal of scientific evidence that hormone therapy works as advertised. Doctors who recommend it for transgender care do so knowing that it does work. And patients who take it know this as well, and are also informed of side effects. Just like with any other medication.

You word this very carefully. I never said it didn’t work to cause changes. I said it causes reproductive issues. Some states have restricted this under the same logic as not being able to vote or enlist in the military. If an adult wishes to take hormonal therapy, that is their business.
The issues are with time, regret, permanent damage, permanent medical dependency and as I said, there isn’t the data supporting reduction in suicide risk nor is there longitudinal studies.
When was the last time the doctor informed you of all the risks of a specific antibiotic? If you are honest, you know this doesn’t always happen and some places are very poor at educating children on life long risks that come from taking hormones. We don’t even have good data sets for long term risks for long term users, just vague things.
This is besides the point and diverting the focus. Medical boards do and have determined recommended treatments and will censor for deviation. I don’t see a point in arguing with you further as you keep changing and diverting down bunny trails.

They should be informed of the actual science and possible side effects

Yet you keep side stepping the point that this wasn’t done.

That is different from regulatory bodies like medical boards who are actually regulating doctors not patients. Medical boards are not involved in prohibiting patients from taking anything. They regulate the standards of care undertaken by doctors. And it is their job to establish professional standards and to ensure that those standards are upheld.

That is where you are wrong. Read the rest after the bold, it’s self explanatory.

First of all, yes, hormones and transgender surgery does affect reproductivity. Anyone seeking those therapies obviously knows this and is well informed of that. So do vasectomies and tubal ligations and other medications. In fact, hormones are commonly prescribed to women to regulate their periods or even stop them. And other drugs also affect reproductive health. Chemotherapy drugs can cause infertility. So people who choose to seek such treatments should be informed of this (and they are) but then it should ultimately be their choice.

As for minors? As long as they are old enough to make informed choices with the help of their parents and medical professionals I see no reason why the coercive power of the state needs to get involved. I think most people who obsess about this subject are doing so for religious reasons and are frankly hypocrites because they don't obsess about all the far more dangerous things that affect children from firearms to highways to the food supply.

And yes, I do draw a distinction between medical care provided by licensed medical professionals and what people are free to do basically do what they want. There is no law against you taking Ivermectin or drinking bleach for that matter. Or using some medieval herbal balm. Medical boards should and do regulate quackery and sanction physicians who are providing quack advice and treatments. And regulate physicians who are using their authority as physicians to lie to the public. But they don't have the authority to prevent people from doing their own thing.

And people who are seeking medical advice should be informed as to what therapies are actually scientifically demonstrated to be effective, and which are not. Which is part of the purpose of the FDA and medical boards.

[Robert]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/arti ... gests.html

Covid lockdowns were no more effective at controlling the pandemic than letting people adapt their own behaviour to the threat, a major Oxford University-backed study suggests.

Researchers modelled virus death and unemployment rates in response to different pandemic policies.

Results showed imposing blanket shutdowns, which forced people to stay home and closed essential shops, squashed fatality rates for the virus.

However, leaving people to adapt their own behaviour — similar to the controversial approach used in Sweden — was just as effective, data revealed.

Experts concluded that both policies led to 'similar trade-offs' for people's health and the economy, with both approaches triggering huge job losses.

[Ken]

I'm not sure why they compared Sweden to the UK which are very different countries in terms of demographics. Unfortunately the Daily Mail doesn't provide any links to the actual study and google doesn't bring anything up. So we can't answer that question. The better comparison would be between Sweden and Norway which have very similar demographics and share the longest land border in Europe. But also took very different social approaches to managing the pandemic. When we generate the same graph between those two countries we get the following:



The two big spikes were pre-vaccine. After the vaccine became available the two countries looked more similar. Which suggests to me that social measures are far more important when you have unvaccinated populations.

In terms of aggregate death rates for the whole pandemic we find that Sweden ended the pandemic with a grand total of 25,395 COVID deaths for an aggregate death rate of 2,485 per 100,000. (https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/)

Norway ended the pandemic with a grand total of 5,732 COVID deaths for an aggregate death rate of 1,040 per 100,000

If Sweden had simply matched Norway in terms of COVID death rate, they would only have lost 10,628 people instead of 25,395. That seems significant to me. That is a death rate that is nearly 2.5-times lower.

In any event, the Daily Mail Article reports that:

The researchers said strict non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) — lockdowns, social distancing and face masks — were 'critical' to reducing the spread of Covid...

However, they noted that individuals changing their behaviour of their own accord — such as by minimising contacts and less frequent trips to shops or restaurants — could have also minimised deaths while having less impact on the economy

From what I know about Swedes, they are probably much better at acting responsibly on their own than most other countries. For example, these are a people who recycle 99% of their recyclable waste and have the most successful and comprehensive home recycling and kitchen waste composting program in the world. So they are very good at doing what they are told. Unlike Brits or Americans.

[Robert]

[Grace]

Easy answer. Ivermectin and Hydroxycloroquine didn't come from China. Fentanyl does.

[JimFoxvog]

Any evidence that the premise it true?

[Robert]

Any evidence that the premise it true?

The CDC and FDA along with Dr Fauci did everything they could to make them unavailable and used a lot of fearmongering about them. This had to be done for the EUA to be allowed for the vaccinations to be fast tracked. They could not get an EUA if there was alternative treatments.

These are some of the revelations that came out of the Twitter Files. The US government was telling social media who to censer and shadow ban. They were keeping any alternative options off the table. I know here the hits I took when I kept presenting them as options.

"Trust the science" is a way to shut down decent and the exact opposite way "science" works.

[Ken]

First of all the CDC and Fauci (who ran the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases which is party of NIH) had nothing to do with regulating ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. That falls under the jurisdiction of the FDA. Both Fauci and the CDC warned against taking those drugs for COVID because they were ineffective. As was their duty to inform the public. But that is as far as it went.

Likewise, the FDA didn't do anything either. Both drugs have long been approved for other purposes. And doctors have always been free to prescribe them off-label. None of that changed during the pandemic. What the FDA didn't do was approve it for use as a COVID therapy because (1) there was insufficient evidence for them to do so, and (2) none of the manufacturers of those drugs even requested that they do so. In fact, they advised against it.

If doctors and hospitals rightly chose not to prescribe those drugs to sick COVID patents it is because they were following sound medicine and not falling sway to internet misinformation and pseudoscience.

None of it had the slightest thing to do with approval of the vaccines. In fact there is no legal connection between vaccine EUAs and alternative treatments, or restriction on issuing of EUAs if there are alternative therapies. And ivermectin didn't get popular until long after the EUAs for the vaccines were approved. https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-c ... 3264912929

[Josh]

If doctors and hospitals rightly chose not to prescribe those drugs to sick COVID patents it is because they were following sound medicine and not falling sway to internet misinformation and pseudoscience.

Doctors who wanted to prescribe ivm and hcq had to face pharmacies ordered not to distribute it. Sorry, but your fantasy of "doctors and hospitals rightly chose not to..." is just that, a fantasy. Many doctors wanted to, but faced intense pressure to prevent patients from having access to these life-saving medicines.

[Robert]

Both Fauci and the CDC warned against taking those drugs for COVID because they were ineffective.

This is not what the research showed. Both had antiviral properties. I read the research, all done years before Covid. They were not cures, but therapeutics, same as the "vaccine" seems to be.