Will a single game be played?

[Austrian Ben Shapiro 66]

I’ve been very much pro-mask, and pro-government message for almost the entire pandemic. But, since the vaccines have come out, the messaging around them has changed so much. Originally, they were the beginning of the end, we were going to have COVID defeated by July 4, Biden was going to save America and our long national nightmare was going to be over. If you got vaxxed, you could even lose the mask! Then Delta happened, and even if you got the magic shot, well now you must wear a mask again. You won’t die from COVID, but well still wear the mask. 
 

And in all honesty, you’d have to be a grade-A stooge to not even admit that the science has changed way too many times. Remember in March and April of 2020, we weren’t supposed to wear masks because a) only the surgical grade ones could protect you and b) those were needed for healthcare professionals. As mentioned above, the vaxx was supposed to end COVID, originally, obviously that’s not the case. That’s not even getting into the constant shift in “social distancing”, when it’s okay to do something but not okay to do another, the fact that COVID couldn’t be spread at BLM protests, but it could be at any other protests, and the many other contradictions pointed out by the friendly radio show host above. Why do kids have to wear masks in a classroom, but not at lunch as they stuff food in their mouths? Why do kids in a classroom have to wear masks, but kids in an athletic activity, gasping for air, are somehow safe? Why do we allow one thing, but not the other?

it’s frankly ridiculous. I’m vaxxed myself, and believe everyone should at least consider it. But we also have a choice to not, and to treat COVID however we as individuals see fit. CNN, the MSM, the CDC, and the rest of the elitist party have either willfully misinformed or lied outright about alternatives to COVID and created a witch-hunt after anyone who thinks outside of the approved narrative on COVID. 
 

I haven’t poured 10 years of my life into this message board so I’m sure the Tazewell County Mafia that runs this board will poo-poo my opinion, but we should be skeptical of the official narrative on COVID. Because “they” have changed this narrative every few weeks for nearly 2 years now. 
 

also just to be fair here, “the voice” not the fine Buchanan County gossip paper, but the radio talk show host, never downed the vaccine or people who got vaccinated. I know that we have people in high places here, but maybe they should reinvest in reading comprehension in between bragging about their “power”, the idea SWVA Alex Jones put forward was that we should be skeptical of the narrative. I can be skeptical that the ground beef on my $1 burrito at Taco Bell is actually ground beef, and still eat it. I can be skeptical about the vaccine or mask mandates and still decide to follow them. We have lost critical thinking skills and it shows, when we buy hook-line-and-sinker, a narrative that has changed once a month through two inept administrations. 
 

I also wouldn’t be surprised if some of y’all still believe the “official narrative” about the Iraq War and I look forward to being lectured by some bougie play-by-play man and other undesirables, on how there were WMDs in Iraq and Bush “kept us safe”. 

[Deleted Account 5,203]

This is about to get pretty deep and pretty dark, so feel free to skip this as TL;DR.

 

The premise above is that the “science” changes.  The science doesn’t, and by its definition cannot, change, so that entire argument is flawed.  Honestly, that’s a shame, because everything else flowed nicely from it.  But if the tree is poison, the fruit borne by it will also be poison.
 

What has changed is our public policy, which has been comically inept ever since the SJWs started slinging the word “xenophobe” at Trump when he banned all international travel from China on 1/27/20.  First, the world collectively freaked out and flipped the “off” switch on society.  I said at the time that the overreaction was too draconian and too brisk, but it is what it is.  Second, the narrative was “15 days to slow the spread”, which was 2 months too late.  Once the virus found its way into Washington, that was it.  Third, the narrative was “mask up” to prevent the spread.  The data backing up the idea is very sound and very stable, but it requires people to pull in the same direction.  By this time, the issue was politicized, and the Orange Man’s sociopathy and desire to create schism drew the battle lines.  Fourth, the narrative is to vaccinate, and again, there are almost a billion data points worldwide that show just how damn successful vaccination is against this scourge.  89+% of hospitalizations are unvaccinated.  97+% of ICU patients are unvaccinated.  99+% of deaths are unvaccinated.  Yet, populists spew this unsupportable narrative about “my choice” (which oddly enough, for most, is the exact opposite of their stances on abortion, etc.), despite the fact that “your choice” may very well kill someone.  At the very best, the collective “your choice” is keeping me from getting routine orthopedic work performed.

 

Science doesn’t change.  Observe, research, hypothesize, test, analyze, report.  The issue is, in a society that struggles with forgiveness and instant gratification, the Flip-Flop-Faucis and Orange Men of the world set themselves up to be gods worshipped by their theocrats.  

Too many have been duped.  Enough have been duped to where I think national discourse will not recover in my lifetime.  The powder keg was in place; COVID-19 was the fuse that lit it.

[BandanaVTDavis4321 1,717]

1 hour ago, UVAObserver said:

This is about to get pretty deep and pretty dark, so feel free to skip this as TL;DR.

 

The premise above is that the “science” changes.  The science doesn’t, and by its definition cannot, change, so that entire argument is flawed.  Honestly, that’s a shame, because everything else flowed nicely from it.  But if the tree is poison, the fruit borne by it will also be poison.
 

What has changed is our public policy, which has been comically inept ever since the SJWs started slinging the word “xenophobe” at Trump when he banned all international travel from China on 1/27/20.  First, the world collectively freaked out and flipped the “off” switch on society.  I said at the time that the overreaction was too draconian and too brisk, but it is what it is.  Second, the narrative was “15 days to slow the spread”, which was 2 months too late.  Once the virus found its way into Washington, that was it.  Third, the narrative was “mask up” to prevent the spread.  The data backing up the idea is very sound and very stable, but it requires people to pull in the same direction.  By this time, the issue was politicized, and the Orange Man’s sociopathy and desire to create schism drew the battle lines.  Fourth, the narrative is to vaccinate, and again, there are almost a billion data points worldwide that show just how damn successful vaccination is against this scourge.  89+% of hospitalizations are unvaccinated.  97+% of ICU patients are unvaccinated.  99+% of deaths are unvaccinated.  Yet, populists spew this unsupportable narrative about “my choice” (which oddly enough, for most, is the exact opposite of their stances on abortion, etc.), despite the fact that “your choice” may very well kill someone.  At the very best, the collective “your choice” is keeping me from getting routine orthopedic work performed.

 

Science doesn’t change.  Observe, research, hypothesize, test, analyze, report.  The issue is, in a society that struggles with forgiveness and instant gratification, the Flip-Flop-Faucis and Orange Men of the world set themselves up to be gods worshipped by their theocrats.  

Too many have been duped.  Enough have been duped to where I think national discourse will not recover in my lifetime.  The powder keg was in place; COVID-19 was the fuse that lit it.

Agree with your premise, but disagree with your interpretation of the words "the science changes."   When folks are referring to the statement, "the science changes," they aren't attempting to mean that literally the commingling of metallic substances when two exact same metals are mixed 10 times will come out with a different outcome or different metallic substance all 10 times.  Meaning, it's understood that science IS what it IS.  They are referring to what you stated, the lack of KNOWLEDGE yet to be discovered.  In short, the AMOUNT of knowledge (forever changing) regarding science is changing by the minute and this is often the meaning of "the science changes."  Perhaps, to be more specific, one element of the scientific process is always changing and that's OUTCOMES.  Keep in mind, much of the statements stating, "The Science Changes" is used by physicians, including Dr. Fauci who is and has been a regular with this statement.  Additionally, 4% of physicians in the US have a PhD.  That's 4 in 100.  Huge difference in a Medical Doctorate (which is a clinical or practice doctorate like a JD or PharmD) and a PhD which is Philosophical Doctorate.  PhD's make, shape, mold, discover the science and create theory and knowledge, and every other Doctorate Degree in the world that is Not a PhD is primarily a tactical applier of the Knowledge that the PhD's have created.  Outliers to the previous statement?  Sure, obviously as in your field, many JD's certainly do more than apply knowledge, they certainly can create theory, but the very nature of a PhD is to create theory or knowledge, especially in the medical and scientific fields.  It's the PhD that discovers how the pancreas works and what chemical substances mixed together form a medicine that realizes Medicine A lowers the Blood Sugar.  It's medical doctors that assess a patient and see they have Diabetes, and then prescribes the medication.  The latter part of that sentence is a given and the public understands it.  It's the first part of the sentence about the pancreas that the public is confused by.  They think the Doctor treating them somehow had time between his 22 patient per day load to go to a lab, figure out what the pancreas is, what enzymes it produces, how to find or mix certain chemical compounds to form a medicine, then figures out that medicine lowers blood sugar.  It's the PhD that did that, not the Doctor.  

I didn't mean to get off course with the PhD and Doctoral Level Stuff, but it needs emphasis because there is a huge difference in physicians like Fauci who has a Medical Doctorate Degree, but isn't a PhD.  You will not hear a PhD level educated scientist use the terms, "the science changes."   Part of the discourse in this country in the medical field over the years are that Doctors are all knowing and infallible.  This is especially true for Medical Doctors who often have had for generations, women underneath them as there inferiors and whatever the Doctor "said", it was Golden.  It was golden regardless of whether there was science behind it and he wouldn't be challenged.  If challenged, those below him could lose their jobs.  Over generations, many Medical Doctors have bought into the self righteousness that their word is Valid scientific evidence when in fact, it's considered at the PhD level, very, very, very weak evidence as its often formed without scientific experimentation.   This is one problem with Fauci which has got him into trouble over the years.  He thinks it, and boom, he says it, and he is so used to not being challenged in his normal work environment, but when you have a national pandemic and a crisis where all eyes are on you and it's no longer your inferior subjects under you viewing your practice, there is pushback.  And what do you get?  Fauci goes all to pieces.  He's rattled.  He, inside his mind, can't fathom the idea of anyone questioning him.  Afterall, he's "the Doctor" so his word means everything.  He wrote the article in JAMA in 1983 saying, actually WARNING that AIDS was EASILY transmittable to pediatric populations in the home of someone with AIDS.  Why did he say it?  There was no evidence of it.  He said it because he "thought" it was true, and had such a level of narcissism that he actually Published the Article in JAMA!!! That my friend is what is wrong with Medicine.  It's things like this that drastically confuse the public and cripple dialogue.  It creates skepticism and guess what, RIGHTfully so.

Thankfully, Medicine is going in the direction of placing far more power in the hands of the patients.  That doesn't mean turning over or placing all power in every treatment option to the patient, but it's a realization that "just because I say it doesn't make it true."  Where is the evidence?  It's kind of like the Pope or the Mormons.  And no, I am not knocking them.  I have several Catholic and Mormon friends.   I play ball at the Mormon Church regularly in Giles County.  I love em, but the knock is, the President of the Mormon Church known as the Prophet, and/or the Pope can actually supersede the Holy Scriptures.  If they say they have a revelation from God and declare it into theological law or principle, then boom, it can supersede the Holy Scriptures.  This is the knock on both of these Churches many have.  I only used religion as an analogy to what's going on in the medical field.  Dr. Fauci is likely frowned upon or considered non-competent to be in his position because he doesn't have a PhD.  A position at that high of a level requires a physician (MD or DO) as Dr. Fauci does have, and it also requires a PhD on top of it which he doesn't have.  The difference in a physician that has both (only 1 in 25) is GIGANTICLY large compared to the 24 out of 25 who don't.  It's a whole other level of the understanding of the scientific process.  For example for those reading this, Medical School is 4 years of Medical School after 4 years of college.  A PhD on average, takes 6.25 years after your first four years of college. 

So, I agree with you UVA on your point and that people have been duped.  But, I believe the medical field (physicians) are largely responsible for the dialogue breakdown.  And lets face it, we would be lying to ourselves if we didn't point out a giant elephant which is politics.  It's not intertwined into nearly everything in our lives.  That hurts dialogue also.  Much of the dialogue problem is the head on confrontation of a shifting of more power in the hands of the patients versus some older generations of Medical Doctors or DO'S (both are physicans) that are not ready to give up their "all knowing" power because they were trained decades ago.  This clash is largely creating the confusion with a US population not knowing what to believe.

Only my opinion and I agree with pretty much everything you said, I just wanted to spread a medical perspective on it as also a contributing cause as I'm a Pharm D, and nope, I don't have a PhD.  I've worked with enough physicians over the years to know and see an incredibly narcissistic level of thinking held by many, not all, but many of the older physicians or one's not trained in the last 20 years.  Quick example, at my former practice, I refused to fill a prescription for a patient who had a comorbid condition that was directly a no-no.  The patient would have had a severe adverse reaction.  The physician called me and he yelled, cussed, etc.  He reported me to hospital administration.  We all had a meeting, and when the meeting concluded, the physician was found to be dead wrong in writing the initial script.  Did he apologize?  Nope.  What was his rationalization?  His rationalization was, "Because he prescribed it and if he prescribes it, Pharmacy fills it without question."  Did the Hospital Administration reprimand him?   Of course not.  He went on about his practice the next day just as usual which is so common for physicians around the country in their workplace.  There is little challenging them when they are wrong, and if they are found to be wrong, very little repercussions until there is obvious patient injury.  I'm giving this example because this is a major problem in thinking that so many physicians have.  They feel their word is simply infallible and Fauci, no matter how hard he grits his teeth in the press conferences, is cut of the same cloth.  Patients and the general population have caught on over the years more and more, and are realizing their word isn't without question.  So, you get confusion and skepticism and sadly, there is unhealthy skepticism often when the medical field is spot on and correct.  Mix that in when the medical field is initially off course, and you get massive confusion.  Only natural.. 

P.S.  I'm not sure if you are in the malpractice field or trained some in school in this area, but you know that patient harm is usually not strictly due to a one time critical event.  The one time critical event is the endpoint of what was a disaster filled process in the performance of routine practice before the critical event occurred, which is often what drives the dagger home in the malpractice case.  The jury or the insurance company sees the obvious negligence that has been allowed to fester and prolong long before the event occured.

[bucfan64 307]

https://www.theblaze.com/news/ivermectin-covid-treatment-new-study?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

[Gridiron60 2,555]

19 minutes ago, bucfan64 said:

https://www.theblaze.com/news/ivermectin-covid-treatment-new-study?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

“I need some new conspiracy theories because all my other ones have come true. “ I saw that on a t-shirt and thought about a lot of things some of us said about Covid & treatments and were castigated but now we’re learning a lot of us were more right than wrong. 

[Deleted Account 5,203]

8 hours ago, bucfan64 said:

https://www.theblaze.com/news/ivermectin-covid-treatment-new-study?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

The Blaze.  Yeah, that’s impartial.  🤣

 

Google “confirmation bias”.

[Mountain Football 1,532]

37 minutes ago, UVAObserver said:

The Blaze.  Yeah, that’s impartial.  🤣

 

Google “confirmation bias”.

You trust Google? Lol

What news source should we be using?

[sixcat 2,919]

24 minutes ago, Mountain Football said:

What news source should we be using?

Newsy

[Ryan4VT 4,553]

1 hour ago, Mountain Football said:

You trust Google? Lol

What news source should we be using?

AP. 

[Deleted Account 5,203]

1 hour ago, Mountain Football said:

You trust Google? Lol

What news source should we be using?

Google is a search engine.  While it can be manipulated, I don’t think it manipulates dictionaries.

 

In terms of news, I love the Media Bias Chart published by Ad Fontes Media every January and August.  Honestly, if you’re reading anything outside the center column and/or below the green dashed line, you’re reading some sort of bias.  The Blaze fits both of those (and I believe the bias chart is actually too kind to The Blaze):

 

https://twitter.com/adfontesmedia/status/1481395650273153026?s=21&t=d77OOkHGPunyPLJrkxcuaQ

[BandanaVTDavis4321 1,717]

3 hours ago, UVAObserver said:

The Blaze.  Yeah, that’s impartial.  🤣

 

Google “confirmation bias”.

No dog in the fight, but the Blaze didn't do the study.  The Bluefield Daily or Bristol Herald could have "reported" it.  That has zero to do with who did the study or what journal is was published in and who did the peer reviewing.  The study was performed in Brazil and published in Cureus Medical Journal.  This study is pretty powerful; however, it still doesn't do enough to describe data collection methods which are suspect in parts of Brazil.  Ivermectin appears to have great benefit in reducing mortality rate in severe Covid cases.   Ivermectin appears to have zero benefit in reducing mortality rate in mild to moderate Covid cases.  The answer that everyone was debating fell....as usual, somewhere in the middle.  Here is the original Ivermectin Cureus Link

https://www.cureus.com/articles/111851-regular-use-of-ivermectin-as-prophylaxis-for-covid-19-led-up-to-a-92-reduction-in-covid-19-mortality-rate-in-a-dose-response-manner-results-of-a-prospective-observational-study-of-a-strictly-controlled-population-of-88012-subjects

Below is a link to a Summary of the Duke Study that found no benefit in early-mild to mod Covid.  All studies have some kind of flaw.  The knock on this one could be a suspect sample size, but overall, a powerful study.  

https://corporate.dukehealth.org/news/study-finds-no-benefit-taking-ivermectin-covid-19-symptoms#:~:text=DURHAM%2C N.C. – A study led,and participants taking a placebo.

[bucfan64 307]

6 hours ago, BandanaVTDavis4321 said:

No dog in the fight, but the Blaze didn't do the study.  The Bluefield Daily or Bristol Herald could have "reported" it.  That has zero to do with who did the study or what journal is was published in and who did the peer reviewing.  The study was performed in Brazil and published in Cureus Medical Journal.  This study is pretty powerful; however, it still doesn't do enough to describe data collection methods which are suspect in parts of Brazil.  Ivermectin appears to have great benefit in reducing mortality rate in severe Covid cases.   Ivermectin appears to have zero benefit in reducing mortality rate in mild to moderate Covid cases.  The answer that everyone was debating fell....as usual, somewhere in the middle.  Here is the original Ivermectin Cureus Link

https://www.cureus.com/articles/111851-regular-use-of-ivermectin-as-prophylaxis-for-covid-19-led-up-to-a-92-reduction-in-covid-19-mortality-rate-in-a-dose-response-manner-results-of-a-prospective-observational-study-of-a-strictly-controlled-population-of-88012-subjects

Below is a link to a Summary of the Duke Study that found no benefit in early-mild to mod Covid.  All studies have some kind of flaw.  The knock on this one could be a suspect sample size, but overall, a powerful study.  

https://corporate.dukehealth.org/news/study-finds-no-benefit-taking-ivermectin-covid-19-symptoms#:~:text=DURHAM%2C N.C. – A study led,and participants taking a placebo.

Well stated, Bandana.....

 

None are so blind as those who refuse to see! 

Let's see a peer reviewed study by a Medical Journal or the experts on the SWVASports Football forum? Who should we believe?

[bucfan64 307]

9 hours ago, UVAObserver said:

The Blaze.  Yeah, that’s impartial.  🤣

 

Google “confirmation bias”.

Attack the source that reported it, nice attempt at distraction. It is a peer reviewed study, it does not matter who reports it!

[sixcat 2,919]

12 minutes ago, bucfan64 said:

It is a peer reviewed study, it does not matter who reports it!

Tell me you don't understand confirmation bias without telling me you don't understand confirmation bias!!!

[bucfan64 307]

7 minutes ago, sixcat said:

Tell me you don't understand confirmation bias without telling me you don't understand confirmation bias!!!

Tell me you didn't read the thread, without telling me you didn't read the thread.

[bucfan64 307]

10 minutes ago, sixcat said:

Tell me you don't understand confirmation bias without telling me you don't understand confirmation bias!!!

So, Oberserver and the gang attack the source of the report, The Blaze, Google, et al. and in doing so, attempt to discredit a Peer Reviewed Study because of the source that shared it. Pretty stupid logic!

That shit doesn't work with me.

[sixcat 2,919]

Just a quick tour around the Google machines tells me this doctor is a quack and is backdoor dealing his way into medical journals. The source of any scientific data matters, whether it's peer-reviewed or not. In this case, Dr. Flavio Cadegiani has been accused of bribery among many other shady dealings to convince medical journals to publish his findings. Link below. 

https://retractionwatch.com/2022/06/10/researcher-attacks-journal-for-retracting-his-paper-on-covid-19-drug/

 

PolitiFact fact checkers have denounced the findings with noted worldwide scientific community outrage. Link below.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/jan/28/facebook-posts/study-brazil-ivermectin-covid-19-prevention-flawed/

 

"The Blaze" article linked by @bucfan64 even has a paragraph that reads "An observational study with the size and level of analysis as ours is hardly achieved and infeasable to be conducted as a randomized clinical trial." I question anything that says "Oh, we're peer-reviewed but it can't be replicated as a clinical trial." 

 

Just because you want something to be true, doesn't make it so. Hence the term confirmation bias!!!

[bucfan64 307]

6 minutes ago, sixcat said:

Just a quick tour around the Google machines tells me this doctor is a quack and is backdoor dealing his way into medical journals. The source of any scientific data matters, whether it's peer-reviewed or not. In this case, Dr. Flavio Cadegiani has been accused of bribery among many other shady dealings to convince medical journals to publish his findings. Link below. 

https://retractionwatch.com/2022/06/10/researcher-attacks-journal-for-retracting-his-paper-on-covid-19-drug/

 

PolitiFact fact checkers have denounced the findings with noted worldwide scientific community outrage. Link below.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/jan/28/facebook-posts/study-brazil-ivermectin-covid-19-prevention-flawed/

 

"The Blaze" article linked by @bucfan64 even has a paragraph that reads "An observational study with the size and level of analysis as ours is hardly achieved and infeasable to be conducted as a randomized clinical trial." I question anything that says "Oh, we're peer-reviewed but it can't be replicated as a clinical trial." 

 

Just because you want something to be true, doesn't make it so. Hence the term confirmation bias!!!

Sorry, all of those sources your cited are biased. Perfect example of confirmation bias. 

See what I did there? Two can play this game.

[Mountain Football 1,532]

Hey @sixcat a quick tour around the Google machines tells me that these "top QB prospects"  from this area that are often mentioned on this board is not accurate either!😂😂😂 

 

[Gfan 155]

Arguing over covid is so 2021. Can’t we move on to something more in vogue. How about pronouns, Mar-largo raids, or Biden’s speech background choices!

[bucfan64 307]

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/fda-misled-public-ivermectin-accountable-144900899.html?guccounter=1

FDA walking back its Ivermectin B.S. 

This is what you call some grade A gaslighting by the FDA. 

 

 

[Gridiron60 2,555]

1 hour ago, bucfan64 said:

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/fda-misled-public-ivermectin-accountable-144900899.html?guccounter=1

FDA walking back its Ivermectin B.S. 

This is what you call some grade A gaslighting by the FDA. 

 

 

They knew Vitamin D worked.
They knew Ivermectin worked.
They knew natural immunity worked.
They knew masks didn't work.
They knew social distancing didn't work. 
They knew children were at the lowest risk and obese people were at the highest. 
They knew the vaccine would not prevent transmission. 
 

We could literally do this all day long.
 

The FDA has lost all credibility. The.End.