Abortion Basically Illegal In Texas Now

[B-Man]

 

 

 

 

6 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

If you want the abuse to continue, take it to the other thread. 

This is for abortions. 

Not that the left's smear campaign against HCQ couldn't be considered one.

 

I will try again..........

 

 

No, Texas's New Law Does Not Ban Abortions - Or Even A Majority Of Them

 

 

After the Supreme Court declined the ACLU’s request to block SB8, the new Texas law, which bans abortion after a baby’s heartbeat is detected, went into effect in the state immediately.  Almost predictably, the left went into a total meltdown, suggesting that this was an all-out ban on abortions, which it very much isn’t. 

 

Liberals and Progressives alike complained that this law was somehow an affront to women everywhere (you know, after they have spent the last four years telling us to call them “birthing persons”), claiming that the majority of abortions occur after a heartbeat is detected.

 

Well, that’s just not true.  In fact, the vast majority of abortions occur within the first 10 weeks of pregnancy, and a plurality within the first six weeks.

 

According to Abort83.com, a site that compiles abortion statistics, a maximum of 40.5% of abortions occurs within the first six weeks of pregnancy, which in Texas are all still legal.  In weeks 7-9, another 37.5% of abortions take place. In total, 78% of all abortions take place before the beginning of week 10.

 

While heartbeats can possibly be detected as early as weeks 6 or 7, WebMD states that the majority of doctors don’t test until after eight weeks with ultrasound, and not until 12 weeks with fetal doppler. If we attribute half of the week 7-9 abortions as a split, that would be 18.75%. That would suggest that 59.25% of all abortions occur before a heartbeat is even detected, which, again, is still legal in Texas.

 

While the law contains a requirement for doctors to verify a heartbeat before an abortion is performed, it does not specify how that verification must take place. If doctors chose to verify by doppler (and you know there will be some who want to skirt the intent of the law, just like this despicable clinic Mike Miller wrote about), it would extend the potential for abortions past 10 weeks, leading to the potential of 80% of the abortions taking place previously to continue.

 

 

https://redstate.com/scotthounsell/2021/09/03/no-the-texas-law-does-not-ban-abortions-or-even-a-majority-of-them-n437269

 

https://www.abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_statistics/

[Tiberius]

 

Quote

Update: Mexico’s supreme court voted unanimously Tuesday to decriminalize abortion. The court’s decision makes Mexico the most populous country in Latin America to permit the procedure.

GOP is more backward than the people they are trying to build the stupid wall to keep out 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/09/07/mexico-abortion-supreme-court/

[All_Pro_Bills]

56 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

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? 

My question was explain away the results in India with some other factor that caused cases and deaths to plummet?  Don't have one?  Don't worry.  Pfizer is working on a 3CL Protease Inhibitor anti-viral that will soon start clinical trials.  And I'm certain it will get accelerated approval which is more than I can say for about 1/2 dozen treatment applications the FDA is currently sitting on.  Functionally their protease inhibitor has properties consistent with medications like Ivermectin but you can be assured it will be a lot more expensive to produce and use. 

So soon Twitter and Facebook will authorize you to believe  and defend what I just stated as "information" and "fact" which is the vaccine program needs to be augmented by an effective anti-viral treatment. 

Edited September 7, 2021 by All_Pro_Bills

[SectionC3]

49 minutes ago, Doc said:

GUT...PUNCH.

 

If you want the abuse to continue, take it to the other thread.  This is for abortions.  Not that the left's smear campaign against HCQ couldn't be considered one.

 

You’ve proven you can use large fonts.  Now, what about the science, “Doc?”

16 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

My question was explain away the results in India with some other factor that caused cases and deaths to plummet?  Don't have one?  Don't worry.  Pfizer is working on a 3CL Protease Inhibitor anti-viral that will soon start clinical trials.  And I'm certain it will get accelerated approval which is more than I can say for about 1/2 dozen treatment applications the FDA is currently sitting on.  Functionally their protease inhibitor has properties consistent with medications like Ivermectin but you can be assured it will be a lot more expensive to produce and use. 

So soon Twitter and Facebook will authorize you to believe  and defend what I just stated as "information" and "fact" which is the vaccine program needs to be augmented by an effective anti-viral treatment. 

 

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.  

[SoCal Deek]

31 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

 

GOP is more backward than the people they are trying to build the stupid wall to keep out 

 

Tibs: How clueless do you have to be to comment on The Wall given the current state of affairs at the southern border? Brilliant 

[Doc]

4 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Tibs: How clueless do you have to be to comment on The Wall given the current state of affairs at the southern border? Brilliant 

 

What do they care?  The more illegals who can vote Dem, the better!

[ComradeKayAdams]

On 9/6/2021 at 12:07 PM, Governor said:

All politics is local Kay. We may very well be close to a checkmate nationally, but we’re getting killed at the local and state level, Governorships, etc., and we’re seeing the effects of that today. This is what happens when a party gets distracted by social issues and gets away from a strong meat and potatoes economic message.

 

The courts are their last stand and I’m in “believe it when I see it mode” as far them going crazy and straying away from national opinion on any one issue.

 

LOVE the bolded…Thomas Frank’s “Listen, Liberal” is my political Bible!

 

Your point that “all politics is local” has merit, of course, but every district in every state consists of a mix of red people and blue people. When a political party aggressively pushes back on a hot-button policy stance that has 70%+ approval, that can enflame enough of the electorate to change the colors of purple, light red, and light blue localities.

 

In light of recent current events and the gleeful reactions from right wingers in support of this vile bill, I simply can’t agree with your last sentence. We have to take their threats to undermine Roe v. Wade at the state level very seriously. Current Democrats need to nip this in the bud, or dangerously progressive females like myself will find our own candidates in the primaries who can. For starters, I want a renewed dialogue on court packing, Supreme Court term limits, and codifying Roe v. Wade with a federal law.

 

On 9/6/2021 at 2:25 PM, B-Man said:

REMINDER for this page also,  that the Title of this thread is incredibly wrong.

 

The Left knows this false, but wants the "controversy"...................their concern is votes, not women's rights.

 

No, Texas's New Law Does Not Ban Abortions - Or Even A Majority Of Them

 

The priority of Texas SB 8 is to financially destroy the state’s abortion clinic services, not to criminalize abortions after 6 weeks.

 

I’m supposed to be here for the 2021 Buffalo Bills talk. But if the PPP boys want a serious and open-minded discussion on abortion, then I will participate. Just say the word. As a forewarning, it may get uncomfortable:

 

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

1 hour ago, ComradeKayAdams said:

 

LOVE the bolded…Thomas Frank’s “Listen, Liberal” is my political Bible!

 

Your point that “all politics is local” has merit, of course, but every district in every state consists of a mix of red people and blue people. When a political party aggressively pushes back on a hot-button policy stance that has 70%+ approval, that can enflame enough of the electorate to change the colors of purple, light red, and light blue localities.

 

In light of recent current events and the gleeful reactions from right wingers in support of this vile bill, I simply can’t agree with your last sentence. We have to take their threats to undermine Roe v. Wade at the state level very seriously. Current Democrats need to nip this in the bud, or dangerously progressive females like myself will find our own candidates in the primaries who can. For starters, I want a renewed dialogue on court packing, Supreme Court term limits, and codifying Roe v. Wade with a federal law.

 

 

The priority of Texas SB 8 is to financially destroy the state’s abortion clinic services, not to criminalize abortions after 6 weeks.

 

I’m supposed to be here for the 2021 Buffalo Bills talk. But if the PPP boys want a serious and open-minded discussion on abortion, then I will participate. Just say the word. As a forewarning, it may get uncomfortable:

 

 

You’re right of course.  If the collective, say, were to choose to allow abortion on demand up to, say, an hour or two  after birth, the ball would roll down hill, crushing anyone (male or female) in its path who opposed it.  In some ways, we’re already there. 
 

I think the other side of the argument is that simply because the collective wants to see that sort of option does not mean you submit and acquiesce.  On the religious front, it violates deeply held beliefs that transcend the earthly realm.  On the moral plane, some believe that at some point before the baby comes out the belly button that a separate life is created and should be protected.  

 

Why, if one felt this way, would they ever submit simply because some mean folks got mean(er)?

 

And on the threat of court packing, geesh, ComradeMeanie, to many conservatives, it’s a forgone conclusion that dem and left leaning folks are already planning that.  Same with disarming the American people.  Same with perpetually open borders.  Same with CRT.  Same. Same. Same.  It’s no different than your argument that “Texas law = crush abortion business”, is it?  I’m usually certain that people are less concerned about where we are and much more concerned with what comes next. 
 

You’re apparently pro-abortion when a woman decides it’s the right choice.  Some here are pro-life with no exemptions.  A whole bunch of many are probably stuck somewhere at a dusty Day’s Inn on a moderately fertile archipelago, trying to figure not so much where  life begins, but more where common sense ends and medieval spine crushing begins. 
 

What’s really (and in my head I’m thinking it sounds like reeeeeeeeeealy)to talk about?  
 

 

 

[B-Man]

 

 

You Can't Trust the Narrative on the Texas Abortion Law

 

https://ewerickson.substack.com/p/you-cant-trust-the-narrative-on-the

 

 

 

[Big Blitz]

 

[Governor]

15 hours ago, ComradeKayAdams said:

 

LOVE the bolded…Thomas Frank’s “Listen, Liberal” is my political Bible!

 

Your point that “all politics is local” has merit, of course, but every district in every state consists of a mix of red people and blue people. When a political party aggressively pushes back on a hot-button policy stance that has 70%+ approval, that can enflame enough of the electorate to change the colors of purple, light red, and light blue localities.

 

In light of recent current events and the gleeful reactions from right wingers in support of this vile bill, I simply can’t agree with your last sentence. We have to take their threats to undermine Roe v. Wade at the state level very seriously. Current Democrats need to nip this in the bud, or dangerously progressive females like myself will find our own candidates in the primaries who can. For starters, I want a renewed dialogue on court packing, Supreme Court term limits, and codifying Roe v. Wade with a federal law.

 

 

The priority of Texas SB 8 is to financially destroy the state’s abortion clinic services, not to criminalize abortions after 6 weeks.

 

I’m supposed to be here for the 2021 Buffalo Bills talk. But if the PPP boys want a serious and open-minded discussion on abortion, then I will participate. Just say the word. As a forewarning, it may get uncomfortable:

 

 

I really don’t understand the right’s strategy here. Trump already has a huge problem with non-white women but now they go and piss away their lead with white women?

 

Every GOP candidate is going to be asked if they agree with the Texas law and that would be disastrous in a whole lot of districts. There’s probably a dozen House seats in swing districts that would stay blue, especially those seats being held by moderate women, like mine.

 

It really feels like Trump’s people are behind this approach. Someone shows them a poll showing evangelical turnout was lower, they respond with abortion to energize them, not realizing that it also energizes the Dem base at a time where we’d usually be lulled to sleep before a midterm.

 

 

 

Edited September 8, 2021 by Governor

[SoCal Deek]

44 minutes ago, Governor said:

I really don’t understand the right’s strategy here. Trump already has a huge problem with non-white women but now they go and piss away their lead with white women?

 

Every GOP candidate is going to be asked if they agree with the Texas law and that would be disastrous in a whole lot of districts. There’s probably a dozen House seats in swing districts that would stay blue, especially those seats being held by moderate women, like mine.

 

It really feels like Trump’s people are behind this approach. Someone shows them a poll showing evangelical turnout was lower, they respond with abortion to energize them, not realizing that it also energizes the Dem base at a time where we’d usually be lulled to sleep before a midterm.

 

 

 

The reason you don’t understand Republicans is because you’re too busy trying to turn everyone into Democrats. Make sense? 

[Governor]

2 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

The reason you don’t understand Republicans is because you’re too busy trying to turn everyone into Democrats. Make sense? 

You’re doing it wrong! There aren’t enough R votes out there to win elections when D’s have a reason to show up.

[SoCal Deek]

4 minutes ago, Governor said:

You’re doing it wrong! There aren’t enough R votes out there to win elections when D’s have a reason to show up.

I’m not ‘doing’ anything. I just pointed out the error in your thinking. No offense intended. 

[Governor]

45 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

I’m not ‘doing’ anything. I just pointed out the error in your thinking. No offense intended. 

Elections are won and lost over turnout and the tiny sliver of undecided voters which you need to flip to you.

 
The GOP then leads with:

 

Voter suppression laws

Then follows it up with abortion.

 

Lol.

 

I know one thing for sure. DeSantis is not at all happy with Abbott right now. He’s totally backed into a corner on this.

Edited September 8, 2021 by Governor

[Doc]

3 hours ago, Governor said:

I really don’t understand the right’s strategy here. Trump already has a huge problem with non-white women but now they go and piss away their lead with white women?

 

Every GOP candidate is going to be asked if they agree with the Texas law and that would be disastrous in a whole lot of districts. There’s probably a dozen House seats in swing districts that would stay blue, especially those seats being held by moderate women, like mine.

 

It really feels like Trump’s people are behind this approach. Someone shows them a poll showing evangelical turnout was lower, they respond with abortion to energize them, not realizing that it also energizes the Dem base at a time where we’d usually be lulled to sleep before a midterm.

 

The white women who would have a problem with Texas' new law already vote Dem anyway.  It's not going to change much.

[SoCal Deek]

2 hours ago, Governor said:

Elections are won and lost over turnout and the tiny sliver of undecided voters which you need to flip to you.

 
The GOP then leads with:

 

Voter suppression laws

Then follows it up with abortion.

 

Lol.

 

I know one thing for sure. DeSantis is not at all happy with Abbott right now. He’s totally backed into a corner on this.

You do realize some people actually stand on principles they believe strongly about, right?

[Governor]

22 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

You do realize some people actually stand on principles they believe strongly about, right?

Those aren’t the voters you need to be reaching right now. Anti-choice voter’s already vote R regardless of what happens.

 

If Trump actually announces a run before the midterms, none of this will matter. Dems would then hold serve.

 

This guy just won’t be happy until he takes the whole party down with him. Trump even flirting a run before the midterms puts every close district in jeopardy.

 

What a mess you have!

Edited September 8, 2021 by Governor

[Tiberius]

19 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

You do realize some people actually stand on principles they believe strongly about, right?

HA HA HA HA!!

[Governor]

55 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

The white women who would have a problem with Texas' new law already vote Dem anyway.  It's not going to change much.

This is why you lose.

 

Majorities of both men and women express support for legal abortion, though women are somewhat more likely than men to hold this view (62% vs. 56%).

 

Now, 55 percent of white women voted for Trump in 2020. It’s basically the only demographic that stuck with him.

 

Now, try to imagine who those voters actually are in places like Pennsylvania, Florida, Michigan, Wisconsin, etc.

 

Are all of those white women anti-abortion?
No, they definitely aren’t.
 

Even a 2 percent shift in white women towards D’s basically puts all of those states out of reach for R’s. That number would likely be much higher.

 

Edited September 8, 2021 by Governor

[Westside]

On 9/7/2021 at 7:09 AM, SectionC3 said:

You could, you know, show us the science.  Especially since so many people still die as a result of this virus. Your miracle cure could save lives.  Might even get you a prize.  You could be the 2022 winner of the Nobel for physiology or medicine.  The world demands no less, “Doc.”

Show the science that it doesn’t help. I don’t care about your “feelz” either.

Either put up or shut up!

[SectionC3]

8 minutes ago, Bidens_basement said:

Show the science that it doesn’t help. I don’t care about your “feelz” either.

Either put up or shut up!

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

[Tenhigh]

20 hours ago, SectionC3 said:

 

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.  

What is your argument exactly, that HCQ (with or without Azithromycin) was not ever considered a viable treatment?  Or that the medical community shouldn't try to leverage existing drugs to treat new conditions?  Its hard to really understand why your being so douchy, other than the fact that you clearly hate Doc. 

[Westside]

1 hour ago, SectionC3 said:

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

Still no proof, you make a claim, back it up.

[SectionC3]

2 hours ago, Tenhigh said:

What is your argument exactly, that HCQ (with or without Azithromycin) was not ever considered a viable treatment?  Or that the medical community shouldn't try to leverage existing drugs to treat new conditions?  Its hard to really understand why your being so douchy, other than the fact that you clearly hate Doc. 

 

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.  

Edited September 8, 2021 by SectionC3

[Doc]

Only a fool keeps talking when he's just been given a facial. 

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

7 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

 

“….nonpartisan institutions like the FDA and the CDC…”

 

All the rest aside this is a HIGHLY naive perception. 

 

Federal institutions like the FDA and CDC are as impartial as those who run them. They can be very political and very partisan particularly dependent upon where they have allies. 

[Tenhigh]

28 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

 

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.  

Actually I recall quite a bit of documentation from credible sources talking about the possibility of HCQ being a viable treatment for Covid.  In vitro it showed a lot of antiviral properties, and at the time it was as close as we had for a treatment for a GLOBAL PANDEMIC. Your "false narrative" claim is ironically a false narrative in and of itself, and essentially just Monday morning quarterbacking. There was nothing saying that it was a snake oil solution at any time.  It's an effective drug with several uses, unfortunately clinically Covid 19 treatment doesn't seem to be one of them. For the record, I have never heard Doc tell anyone they shouldn't wear a mask or get vaccinated.   

 

And if stalking a guy around a message board with the same attack several times a day doesn't quantify as douchbaggery to you, you may want to reconsider your position. 

[Doc]

8 minutes ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

All the rest aside this is a HIGHLY naive perception. 

 

Federal institutions like the FDA and CDC are as impartial as those who run them. They can be very political and very partisan particularly dependent upon where they have allies. 

 

They've become highly political and only a naive fool would say otherwise, much less write it down.  Why do you think the FDA waited until after the election to announce that vaccines were on their way at the end of the year?

[SoCal Deek]

16 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

They've become highly political and only a naive fool would say otherwise, much less write it down.  Why do you think the FDA waited until after the election to announce that vaccines were on their way at the end of the year?

I'd put it a little differently. All of these DC based Federal Departments are only interested in one thing....growing their budget so they can hire more staff. They'll support whichever side aligns with that core mission statement.

[Doc]

Just now, SoCal Deek said:

I'd put it a little differently. All of these DC based Federal Departments are only interested in one thing....growing their budget so they can hire more staff. They'll support whichever side aligns with that core mission statement.

 

That's still politics.

[SoCal Deek]

Just now, Doc said:

 

That's still politics.

It is, but it's really more about agenda.  Their agenda is not conservative or liberal.  Their agenda is to grow their department. It's at the very core of how you get to be $30 TRILLION in debt.

[Doc]

1 minute ago, SoCal Deek said:

It is, but it's really more about agenda.  Their agenda is not conservative or liberal.  Their agenda is to grow their department. It's at the very core of how you get to be $30 TRILLION in debt.

 

But if they believe the Dems will give them more money, they're actively choosing a political party.

[SectionC3]

42 minutes ago, Tenhigh said:

Actually I recall quite a bit of documentation from credible sources talking about the possibility of HCQ being a viable treatment for Covid.  In vitro it showed a lot of antiviral properties, and at the time it was as close as we had for a treatment for a GLOBAL PANDEMIC. Your "false narrative" claim is ironically a false narrative in and of itself, and essentially just Monday morning quarterbacking. There was nothing saying that it was a snake oil solution at any time.  It's an effective drug with several uses, unfortunately clinically Covid 19 treatment doesn't seem to be one of them. For the record, I have never heard Doc tell anyone they shouldn't wear a mask or get vaccinated.   

 

And if stalking a guy around a message board with the same attack several times a day doesn't quantify as douchbaggery to you, you may want to reconsider your position. 

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. 

42 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

They've become highly political and only a naive fool would say otherwise, much less write it down.  Why do you think the FDA waited until after the election to announce that vaccines were on their way at the end of the year?

It wasn’t the FDA’s announcement to make.  It was Pfizer’s announcement to make.  Another “Doc” theory debunked. 

Edited September 8, 2021 by SectionC3

[SoCal Deek]

8 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

But if they believe the Dems will give them more money, they're actively choosing a political party.

But that isn't always true from Department to Department. It will blow back and forth with each new election. The Swamp remains the problem.

[Doc]

10 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

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. 

 

Debunked.  Tell us again how dangerous and unsciency HCQ was again, chump.  No, better yet, tell Tony, your so-called hero.

[Tenhigh]

12 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

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. 

 

Here are some articles from a simple.  You should probably reconsider calling  ANYONE an internet fool.  

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7102549/

Conclusion

Despite its small sample size, our survey shows that hydroxychloroquine treatment is significantly associated with viral load reduction/disappearance in COVID-19 patients and its effect is reinforced by azithromycin.

 

 

https://www.rcpjournals.org/content/clinmedicine/20/3/278

Wang et al carried out a study investigating the antiviral effects on SARS-CoV-2 of several drugs, some of which had previously been used against SARS or MERS. These included ribavirin, penciclovir, nitazonanide, nafamostat, remdesivir and favipiravir as well as chloroquine. These compounds were tested against SARS-CoV-2 in vitro, to assess the cytotoxicity, virus yield and infection rates. They found that chloroquine was effective at reducing viral yield in cell supernatant and additionally did so when the cells were treated 1 hour before infection as well as 2 hours post infection.22 Further investigation by this group focused on the antiviral effects of hydroxychloroquine, as this is a more widely utilised and better tolerated chloroquine derivative. They found that hydroxychloroquine was similarly effective at inhibiting viral infection both before and after viral entry.20

Yao et al found that both chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine reduced viral replication of SARS-CoV-2 in a dose-dependent manner, but the EC50 values for hydroxychloroquine were lower than those for chloroquine, suggesting that hydroxychloroquine was more efficacious. In addition hydroxychloroquine was a more potent antiviral than chloroquine when the cells were pre-treated with the drug before viral infection.23

 

 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32373993/

Results: For this study, we identified a total of 09 published articles: 03 clinical trials with sample size 150; 03 in vitro studies and 03 expert consensus reports. These studies were all suggestive that chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine can successfully treat COVID-19 infections. We found that COVID-19 infections are highly pandemic in countries where malaria is least pandemic and are least pandemic in nations where malaria is highly pandemic.

Conclusions: Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine have antiviral characteristics in vitro. The findings support the hypothesis that these drugs have efficacy in the treatment of COVID-19. People are currently using these drugs for malaria. It is reasonable, given the hypothetical benefit of these two drugs, that they are now being tested in clinical trials to assess their effectiveness to combat this global health crisis.

[BillStime]

GQP: all about division

 

 

[B-Man]

3 minutes ago, BillStime said:

 

 

 

 

What a perfect example of what a weak poster uses for an 'argument'

 

I provide two sources earlier that prove that this new law doesn't even stop most Texas abortions, as a way of furthering any discussion.

 

Billstime provides a ranting joker as "proof"

 

 

Amazing.

[Orlando Tim]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/straight-line-us-racial-segregation-101534714.html

 

This article is pathetically bad. It finds information to support a forgone thought but ignores the two biggest facts: Planned Parenthood was built by Margaret Sanger to suppress the black community and the fact that eliminating abortion will increase drastically the number of black kids in our country. From 2009-2017 the number of black children aborted vs the number born was about even, if this law was nationwide those numbers would never be close again.