SectionC3

Sounds like fair use to me.

Hoax.

Who said that I hate anything? Seems like you’re projecting. What is it that you hate?

Really? Thanks. I didn’t think you’d be good at making friends. Figured you were always three quarters in the bag on that crappy whiskey of yours, gnawing on an ivermectin bar, and running around in your MAGA hat yelling at clouds and minorities.

Hmmm. It’s not the fonts I’m afraid of. I’m a little concerned that you would be grabby if we here to hug it out. So I think it’s best you give the hug to someone else.

Where are you on the free hug issue? I’d focus more on spreading joy than using large letters. We all know it’s the AAPS. You don’t have to send it via private message.

Irony. “Doc” calling someone else a moron on the issue of HCQ. Have a gnaw on some more HCQ. Good for your taste buds and for your malaria.

Tell you what. You’re right about the joy of hugs. Go hug a homeless or addicted or grieving person today and we’ll call it even. Give my hug to them. Hoax. I won’t. But of you think of any other new hoaxes, let me know. Laughs are good.

You forgot to post links showing that the promise of which you speak was rejected by June of last year. So there’s that.

Interesting. I hadn’t heard of the Russian hoax until now. I’ll have to look into it.

Is that a new hoax of yours?

Thanks for the advice. I’ll pass on the hug. And, as always, I’ll do as I please, here and elsewhere. As soon as “Doc” owns up to his bogus advice and bogus position, I’ll let this go. Until then, it’s important to remind readers how wrong he was and is on this issue.

Cool. French study disavowed by publisher two weeks after print. FDA revoked emergency use authorization for HCQ in mid-June of last year. So why does “Doc” still promote the drug as an effective COVID-19 prophylactic and treatment? And therein lies the problem. You seem triggered today. I hope you have a nice day.

I’d like to see your “documentation” from “credible” sources. And, for what it’s worth, even if HCQ was possibly viable in the early stage of this it shouldn’t have been promoted as a “game changer” based on Trump’s “feeling” about the drug. It also shouldn’t have been touted as a prophylactic (with zinc and fairy dust and a Z-pac!) by our resident “Doc.” It should have been tested, and stronger, more reliable approaches should have been encouraged. They were not. Today, we have Internet fools like “Doc” yammering about gut punches and facials and the effectiveness of HCQ and Ivermectin as COVID treatments when literally none of those things is true. Not a single one. It’s dangerous and irresponsible. And, the infirm nature of the position is evidenced not only by the fact that there is no science to support the hypotheses, but by the fact that none of these self-styled fools put their names and professional reputations behind the treatments. It wasn’t the FDA’s announcement to make. It was Pfizer’s announcement to make. Another “Doc” theory debunked.

I don’t hate anyone. And I’m not douchy. I’m also not the one who promoted the false narrative that HCQ was an effective treatment for COVID. In point of fact, those are the douche bags and the people with whom you should be concerned. The ungrounded belief in HCQ, in addition to undermining public trust in nonpartisan institutions like the FDA and the CDC, contributed to casual behavior that precipitated the mess in which we’re in right now. The same thing is happening with Ivermectin. It might work. It might not. But it should not be relied upon in any setting other than clinical trial/right to try because it is an unproven approach to COVID. Fools like “Doc” have put us in a place where we induce and encourage reliance on BS miracle cures (HCQ has no clinical success with respect to COVID, but “Doc” took enough “to keep himself safe”’ from that virus; jury is out on Ivermectin, but only indicia of success is a flawed study) instead of doing the simple things that benefit everyone: get a vax, wear a mask, respect each other, and work together to get our people and our economy out of this mess.

And that’s the logic that had people squeezing Lysol on their innards last year.

I think it’s gate 7. Visitors side, tunnel end zone. That’s the one you’re looking for.

Very, very, very few.

not me. I’ve had days where I cruised in, even if the game was sold out. They probably had 50k fans last week - maybe 65% capacity - and the wait was long by the cemetery entrance. Half of the metal detectors at one of he gates were unstaffed. Get away from Abbott road. Those are the worst. Try gate 7 in the back part the cemetery.

It was bad at the preseason game. They were obviously and grossly understaffed. Took way too long to get into the stadium.

You’ve proven you can use large fonts. Now, what about the science, “Doc?” Let’s see the study. Looks like you’re referring to the study that was withdrawn from publication due to data manipulation and plagiarism. So we await the science to support the Ivermectin claim.

It depends on whether this is a ratings period. They usually can’t go on vacation during what’s called a “book.” Not sure if fall book has started yet. If it hasn’t, then it’s actually best for him to go now. And, in any event, I think he’s at some fantasy sports nonsense this week. So maybe they let him go even if they are in a book.

Believe it or not, they’re an improvement over the prior host.

Hoax. Fauci never touted anything. The agency that he led simply published a study about HCQ 15 years before COVID-19. And, as noted and as still is unaddressed by “Doc,” that study did not involve human trials. So, we continue to await the “science” that supports your garbage opinions about your garbage treatments, “Doc.” Feel free to stop changing the subject and show your cards any time you wish. Got a study? Or are you referring to the one that wasn’t published because of concerns about flawed data?

Big Blitz at least gave us a study from 2005 about use of the subject drug in animals that (obviously) couldn’t consider the virus in question. (That’s the penultimate post to which you referred.). You’ve given us nothing recent about the efficacy of HCQ in humans with respect to COVID-19. So, you can repeat your Q platitudes and insults. and pretend you have science to support your garbage position about the garbage treatments that you promote. Or, you could give us the science that supports your view that HCQ and Ivermectin are effective treatments for COVID-19. Dealer’s choice, “Doc.”