85SugarVol
I prefer the tumult of Liberty
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2010
- Messages
- 32,114
- Likes
- 62,927
And the charge is lead by the guy who doesn’t know what a cult is. I posted the definition from an old textbook once and he still argues that it’s wrongI know “cult” has been the buzzword on the forum this week. But seriously, there is definitely a Covid cult. These people have lost it! There is no reason whatsoever that anyone could seriously state that we need to start masking up our entire family in our homes right now!
25% of democrats said kids should be taken from parents. If that's true, let that sink in.You mean quarantine camps, right? Right?
View attachment 569231
A textbook? Nah bruh. You gotta post links to Teenvogue.com if you want to prove something to that guy lol.And the charge is lead by the guy who doesn’t know what a cult is. I posted the definition from an old textbook once and he still argues that it’s wrong
You mean quarantine camps, right? Right?
View attachment 569231
45% of Democrats surveyed wanted people confined in camps.Houston, we have a problem…
Over 15% of respondents were ok with taking a child away from unvaccinated parents. ~ 30% of Democrats!!!
Over 30% of respondents wanted the un axed locked in their houses. Almost 60% of Democrats!! That’s 3 out of every 5.
Most people’s natural inclination is to mandate their preferences. Another reason for a small and weak federal government.
I believe the point is the FDA tried to interfere with doctor-patient relationship, prevent doctors from prescribing ivermectin and doctors feared losing their license, therefore 3 doctors sued the FDA:That doesn’t say the FDA endorsed Ivermectin for Covid treatment.
It says the FDA admitted they can’t stop Drs from prescribing ivermectin to treat Covid.
The FDA would eat glass before they endorsed ivermectin at this point.
Horse paste?I believe the point is the FDA tried to interfere with doctor-patient relationship, prevent doctors from prescribing ivermectin and doctors feared losing their license, therefore 3 doctors sued the FDA:
The case was brought by three doctors who allege the FDA unlawfully interfered with their practice of medicine with the statements.
A federal judge dismissed the case in 2022, prompting an appeal.
“The fundamental issue in this case is straightforward. After the FDA approves the human drug for sale, does it then have the authority to interfere with how that drug is used within the doctor-patient relationship? The answer is no,” Jared Kelson, representing the doctors, told the appeals court.
Now the FDA has done a 180 from interfering with doctors prescribing ivermectin to saying it's ok for doctors to have the freedom to prescribe it for covid. The fact that the FDA is now saying it is ok for doctors to use ivermectin for covid the same thing as endorsing its use for covid? Yes? No? Maybe I am reading it differently from how you read it.
- CV19 does not pose serious risk to the younger, healthy population
- closing down schools and extracurricular activities will not end a respiratory pandemic and will cause a number of harmful effects on children (educational loss, mental health problems, decreased physical fitness)
- the wiser initial approach should have been to protect those at risk while allowing the young/healthy population to develop natural immunity, hopefully shortening the pandemic and decreasing the opportunity for variants to emerge
- mRNA shots will not eliminate a respiratory virus nor prevent mutations, and they could even increase the development of new variants
- mRNA shots have both known and possibly unknown adverse effects
- cloth and surgical masks do not effectively stop the transmission of respiratory viruses, and they may cause adverse effects if worn for prolonged amounts of time
- the CV19 virus had very strange features, and both these and its area of origin strongly suggest that it was engineered
- our own government and its agencies have repeatedly lied about the origin of the virus, control methods, the testing and safety of vaccines, and the eventual outcome of the pandemic
- several safe treatment modalities have been shown to effective in certain trials, but they have been disparaged and mislabeled by the government, largely due to influence by large pharmaceutical corporations
- ivermectin is an extremely safe medication, won the nobel prize for treatment of human parasitic infections, has previously been shown to have antiviral properties, and could be useful in treating CV19 infection
The FDA needs to stay in its lane. They got way outside it.I believe the point is the FDA tried to interfere with doctor-patient relationship, prevent doctors from prescribing ivermectin and doctors feared losing their license, therefore 3 doctors sued the FDA:
The case was brought by three doctors who allege the FDA unlawfully interfered with their practice of medicine with the statements.
A federal judge dismissed the case in 2022, prompting an appeal.
“The fundamental issue in this case is straightforward. After the FDA approves the human drug for sale, does it then have the authority to interfere with how that drug is used within the doctor-patient relationship? The answer is no,” Jared Kelson, representing the doctors, told the appeals court.
Now the FDA has done a 180 from interfering with doctors prescribing ivermectin to saying it's ok for doctors to have the freedom to prescribe it for covid. The fact that the FDA is now saying it is ok for doctors to use ivermectin for covid the same thing as endorsing its use for covid? Yes? No? Maybe I am reading it differently from how you read it.
“Rasmussen is a hotbed of racist, far right-wing hate”Up for debate on how real Rasmussen is..ha ha, but yikes.....
“Rasmussen is a hotbed of racist, far right-wing hate”
- Turbo (probably)
FiveThirtyEight rates them as R+1.4
Monmouth is D+2.1
Pew is D+0.7
Gallup is R+0.6
WAPO is D+0.8
NY Times is D+1.0
Change Research D+2.8
Harris is R+1.0
They are pretty mainstream. With a grade of ‘B’
Every pollster referenced above has a tilt.They are mainstream with a slight R tilt....
As long as the way the question was worded wasn't complete BS (which they've done in the past), I can't fathom the D response....