Top Ad

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bad news on the COVID-19 front

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by crm3006 View Post
    Here ya go, honk the phony, whiny nine, etc......
    Click image for larger version

Name:	116295138_10219800808348185_3648221252949458146_n chloroquine.jpg
Views:	39
Size:	79.6 KB
ID:	740700
    There you go again '06!😀!
    Confusing them with fact!
    That only causes anger and confusion among our resident libtards!🤯💥😥

    Comment


    • Originally posted by FirstBubba View Post

      There you go again '06!😀!
      Confusing them with fact!
      That only causes anger and confusion among our resident libtards!🤯💥😥
      Crm: That source you cited is worthless.

      Okay, you want to trust your life to a now outdated preliminary study of a different disease done on monkeys fifteen years ago, be my guest. Several recent randomized studies on humans have shown the drug is of no value for treating this variation and in fact may pose serious health hazards for some patients.


      The basic principle of science is to never stop investigating. Keep exploring. At one point "research" showed cocaine to be the magic cure-all of everything from headaches to prostrate cancer. It's why Coca-Cola originally contained the stuff. As well as just about every patent medicine. But we know better now. Yes, cocaine does have medicinal value (anaesthetic for eye surgery in particular), but further studies have shown for the most part its curative values were exaggerated or not fully understood and that it has serious side effects (addiction). Times change. Drug treatments change.

      I understand why you don't grasp the basic principles of science. Obviously your professional career or life experiences didn't involve much in the way of education. That's unfortunate. My first postgraduate work was in the sciences and I essentially have a second BA in biology. Taught it for years. I'm always glad to be of assistance to those who are not so educationally endowed. You're welcome.
      Last edited by Ontario Honker Hunter; 07-31-2020, 08:26 AM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by FirstBubba View Post
        There you go again '06!😀!
        Confusing them with fact!
        That only causes anger and confusion among our resident libtards!🤯💥😥


        That source you cited is worthless.
        ....blah blah, blah ... why Coca-Cola originally contained the stuff (cocaine). (Duh! Thought everybody knew that!) .... blah, blah, blah .... I'm always glad to be of assistance to those who are not so educationally endowed. You're welcome.

        I rest my case!😃
        Dislike and disdain for others who don't agree with them.



        Comment


        • As a published field biologist, I would like to add that observational science has value. If you observe positive outcomes over time the observed effect is true. Hydroxychloroquine is effective against corona virus. It is not a bring 99 year olds suffering from terminal lung cancer and the Chinese flu cure. For most people, it is a tool to shorten the time and severity of the infection. As a biologist, this is obvious to me and to many Doctors practicing in the US and around the world.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by labrador12 View Post
            As a published field biologist, I would like to add that observational science has value. If you observe positive outcomes over time the observed effect is true. Hydroxychloroquine is effective against corona virus. It is not a bring 99 year olds suffering from terminal lung cancer and the Chinese flu cure. For most people, it is a tool to shorten the time and severity of the infection. As a biologist, this is obvious to me and to many Doctors practicing in the US and around the world.
            Did anyone, besides me, notice that the "libtards in residence" were quick to attack the one doctor with the "funny accent and foreign origin" as a lunatic, but failed to mention any of the other doctors!?

            The "Resident Libtards" also agreed that the doctors video should have been removed from social media, but fail to acknowledge that the censors removing the video have NO MEDICAL TRAINING!🤔
            Geez! So glad "social media" has no political bias!🤦‍♂️

            Comment


            • Here ya go Honk, another hydroxy supporting article for you to ignore!

              https://www.americanthinker.com/arti...ver_pitch.html

              Comment


              • The Honkster ignores over 50 years of data demonstrating the safety of the drug and explains that his opinion is scientific. I believe ludicrous is the proper term for his opinion of hydroxychloroquine safety record.
                Last edited by labrador12; 07-31-2020, 09:19 AM. Reason: Mis spelling

                Comment


                • Originally posted by labrador12 View Post
                  As a published field biologist, I would like to add that observational science has value. If you observe positive outcomes over time the observed effect is true. Hydroxychloroquine is effective against corona virus. It is not a bring 99 year olds suffering from terminal lung cancer and the Chinese flu cure. For most people, it is a tool to shorten the time and severity of the infection. As a biologist, this is obvious to me and to many Doctors practicing in the US and around the world.
                  Observational science may have value ... if the subjects/behavior being studied are not selected, purposely or inadvertently, for a desired outcome. Avoiding this is the purpose of randomized studies and rigorous peer reviews. Sometimes the researcher is blind to his own bias. An extra set of eyes, or several sets of eyes, can be illuminating. Just before I was headed to work in Alaska twelve years ago, a paper I had presented at a conference was selected for possible publication in an important scholarly journal, contingent upon the usual approval of a peer review. So with my permission it went out to three professors in the field. The first reviewer loved it. "Don't change a thing. This could make a great book, blah, blah, blah." Hmmm. I knew it wasn't THAT good. Next reviewer bombed it. But her criticism seemed pointless and much just didn't make sense. Though reviewers remain anonymous, it was clear this one was a feminist and English was not her first language (possibly francophone). I was concerned because I didn't know how to satisfy critism that didn't make sense. Because I didn't have time to sort out her nonsense before leaving for the Far North, I was considering withdrawing. But the editor (a great gal) told me not to worry ... yet. The third review was the gem. He/she thought it was a great piece with an intriguing thesis but had a few suggestions on how to trim, refocus, and clarify. Very productive. My concern was length (it ran to sixteen pages when published) but the editor and both reviewers said don't chop it. I still see it being cited on line and showing up in syllibus reading lists (most recently for a course at an Australian university).

                  Dr Risch choosing to publish in a medical journal where he sat on the editorial board is just not acceptable. No doubt he selected the peers to review his piece. There is at least the appearance that he would influence their selection ... and their judgement. That's professionally a no-no and shoots the article's (and journal's) credibility in the arse before the manuscript even went to the reviewers. It's clear it was not properly reviewed or its shortcomings (particularly the known questionable studies he cited) would have been pointed out to him before publication. Or they were and he ignored them ... which as editor would be his prerogative.
                  Last edited by Ontario Honker Hunter; 07-31-2020, 11:14 AM.

                  Comment


                  • This is not an obscure academic issue. This is a worldwide pandemic. Hydroxychloroquine has been shown to be a safe, its available over the counter without a prescription in some countries, effective if taken early by most or at least a large percentage of people. The effort to attack the drug is unprecedented and political. Its causing unnecessary sickness and death. I would not hesitate to take the drug and would take it to prevent the disease while travelling. We are living in a Kurt Schlicter novel, and I don't mean that in a good way.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by labrador12 View Post
                      The Honkster ignores over 50 years of data demonstrating the safety of the drug and explains that his opinion is scientific. I believe ludicrous is the proper term for his opinion of hydroxychloroquine safety record.
                      It's not my opinion. I have no expertise in the field. I'm only relating the expert opinions expressed in recent scholarly literature based on the most recent studies and verified by the USFDA, WHO, etc.

                      I presume as a "field biologist" you mean that you collected specimens/data. A technician is not neccessarily a scientist.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by labrador12 View Post
                        This is not an obscure academic issue. This is a worldwide pandemic. Hydroxychloroquine has been shown to be a safe, its available over the counter without a prescription in some countries, effective if taken early by most or at least a large percentage of people. The effort to attack the drug is unprecedented and political. Its causing unnecessary sickness and death. I would not hesitate to take the drug and would take it to prevent the disease while travelling. We are living in a Kurt Schlicter novel, and I don't mean that in a good way.
                        No, you're wrong. Recent unbiased carefully reviewed studies done internationally have confirmed that early conclusions/suspicions of the drugs usefulness were drawn from anecdotal evidence and/or sloppy (even possibly fraudulent) science. The known potential risks of serious adverse side effects outweighs even any remotely possible benefits of treating COVID-19 patients or potential patients with the drug. At best it is extremely questionable if the drug has any value at all for treating this pandemic. On the other hand, the potential risks of dangerous side effects are well documented and even the drug's misguided advocates don't argue that fact. Known dangerous side effects outweighs remote possible benefits ... every time. That's medical science. Has nothing to do with politics.

                        The most dangerous side effect is promoting a false hope in the midst of a pandemic that has turned the world economically and socially upside down. People are desperate for a quick fix. They are frightened by the unknown. That's natural. But individuals are not just gambling with their own health when they throw away masks, travel quarantine, and social distancing for a false hope. They are gambling with the world's health. The lives of everyone.
                        Last edited by Ontario Honker Hunter; 07-31-2020, 11:21 AM.

                        Comment


                        • You are wrong. Your reasoning is not correct. There is too much data, too many years of safe usage, for you to proclaim the issue settled as you describe it. The facts on the ground can't be denied, unless your Trump Delusion Complex is clouding your mind. I was researching hydroxychloroquine before Trump mentioned it. Having a BA in Biology I researched the virus as soon as I heard about it. I don't care that Trump has an opinion on the drug. I'm more impressed by the hospital results that I see and the Dr opinions that I read.

                          Comment


                          • honk the phony: Obviously your professional career or life experiences didn't involve much in the way of education. That's unfortunate. My first postgraduate work was in the sciences and I essentially have a second BA in biology. Taught it for years. I'm always glad to be of assistance to those who are not so educationally endowed.

                            I would to be so quick to denigrate anybody else's education or life experience, were I you, honk the phony. Just because some of us do not constantly blow our own horn and march in a one man parade titled "here comes the might honk" does not mean we are all more ignorant than honk the phony. You have an undeserved opinion that you must be smarter, better educated, and a cut above anyone else on the forum, because you are the honkster. News flash, honk the phony, you are not even half as smart or "edumacated" as you think you are. Your posts scream your inexperience and ignorance on certain subjects like a neon sign. Let us just go through a few of your ludicrous outdoor faux pas, for the record:
                            1. You advocate dull knives.
                            2. You had no idea how to correctly assemble the recoil rings on your Browning Auto 5, nor sense enough to googol the schematics.
                            3. A simple googol search, in fact, seems to confound you.
                            4. You have so little muzzle discipline, you cannot keep brush, trash, and snow out of your sight hood, muzzle and action.
                            5. You have no knowledge of "bean hole" or Dutch oven cooking, scolding about open fires. No open fires involved, tenderfoot.
                            6. You have no use for binoculars, advocating the use of your rifle scope for spotting. When called out, you feebly respond that you "remove the bolt!"
                            7. You disregard the advice of an African PH, and instead, carry the loads you think you need. BTW, who was right? Now, when the subject comes up, you were "charged by a buffalo." Yeah, un-huh.
                            8. You claim MP service, but have no idea how to clear your weapon on entering an MP station or Provost Marshal's office. (No wonder you never advanced past Spc 4)
                            9. You claim to be an old time horseman, then show a picture of a nester-bait saddle that no self respecting horse would even carry. (Fake picture, honk?)
                            ​​​​​​​10. You claim to be a professor of history, and now conveniently, biology, but don't know the difference in secede and succeed. (Actually, professor, you didn't even spell succeed right. I reckon spelling wasn't one of your many subjects in your "educational endowment.")

                            You tend to get on your high horse and try to belittle anyone and everyone who does not agree with the world according to honk, but cannot accept even the least bit of criticism or correction from anyone else. Even when the facts prove you to be wrong.
                            I could probably list about fifteen or twenty more things you have misstated or gotten wrong, over the years, but do you get the impression that some of us just somewhat doubt your bona fides? You just add up to one thing, honkster. PHONY.


                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by crm3006 View Post
                              honk the phony: Obviously your professional career or life experiences didn't involve much in the way of education. That's unfortunate. My first postgraduate work was in the sciences and I essentially have a second BA in biology. Taught it for years. I'm always glad to be of assistance to those who are not so educationally endowed.

                              I would to be so quick to denigrate anybody else's education or life experience, were I you, honk the phony. Just because some of us do not constantly blow our own horn and march in a one man parade titled "here comes the might honk" does not mean we are all more ignorant than honk the phony. You have an undeserved opinion that you must be smarter, better educated, and a cut above anyone else on the forum, because you are the honkster. News flash, honk the phony, you are not even half as smart or "edumacated" as you think you are. Your posts scream your inexperience and ignorance on certain subjects like a neon sign. Let us just go through a few of your ludicrous outdoor faux pas, for the record:
                              1. You advocate dull knives.
                              2. You had no idea how to correctly assemble the recoil rings on your Browning Auto 5, nor sense enough to googol the schematics.
                              3. A simple googol search, in fact, seems to confound you.
                              4. You have so little muzzle discipline, you cannot keep brush, trash, and snow out of your sight hood, muzzle and action.
                              5. You have no knowledge of "bean hole" or Dutch oven cooking, scolding about open fires. No open fires involved, tenderfoot.
                              6. You have no use for binoculars, advocating the use of your rifle scope for spotting. When called out, you feebly respond that you "remove the bolt!"
                              7. You disregard the advice of an African PH, and instead, carry the loads you think you need. BTW, who was right? Now, when the subject comes up, you were "charged by a buffalo." Yeah, un-huh.
                              8. You claim MP service, but have no idea how to clear your weapon on entering an MP station or Provost Marshal's office. (No wonder you never advanced past Spc 4)
                              9. You claim to be an old time horseman, then show a picture of a nester-bait saddle that no self respecting horse would even carry. (Fake picture, honk?)
                              10. You claim to be a professor of history, and now conveniently, biology, but don't know the difference in secede and succeed. (Actually, professor, you didn't even spell succeed right. I reckon spelling wasn't one of your many subjects in your "educational endowment.")

                              You tend to get on your high horse and try to belittle anyone and everyone who does not agree with the world according to honk, but cannot accept even the least bit of criticism or correction from anyone else. Even when the facts prove you to be wrong.
                              I could probably list about fifteen or twenty more things you have misstated or gotten wrong, over the years, but do you get the impression that some of us just somewhat doubt your bona fides? You just add up to one thing, honkster. PHONY.

                              Let's not forget a "feller" with a PhD and a BA in biology placing questionable produce on the floor of a supermarket so as to create a slip hazard!

                              Comment


                              • Is the Honkster honestly trying to argue that hydroxychloroquine hasn't been used as a drug to prevent malaria for a half a century? How many tens of millions of users, how many decades of use are needed before safety can be assured? In what universe do you dwell in which the obvious usefulness of and safety of this drug isn't
                                proven?

                                Comment

                                Welcome!

                                Collapse

                                Welcome to Field and Streams's Answers section. Here you will find hunting, fishing, and survival tips from the editors of Field and Stream, as well as recommendations from readers like yourself.

                                If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ for information on posting and navigating the forums.

                                And don't forget to check out the latest reviews on guns and outdoor gear on fieldandstream.com.

                                Right Rail 1

                                Collapse

                                Top Active Users

                                Collapse

                                There are no top active users.

                                Right Rail 2

                                Collapse

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                • Reply to 16 Years
                                  by Ontario Honker Hunter
                                  Newsweek again? When did that magazine become a tabloid gossip rag? Used to be a reputable outfit. ...
                                  Today, 07:14 PM
                                • 16 Years
                                  by jhjimbo
                                  So, if Biden wins the White House will have been under the control of black/brown for up to 16 years, yet they only represent about 13% of the population...
                                  08-12-2020, 09:20 PM
                                • Reply to No-Drill Adjustable Cheek Riser
                                  by Ontario Honker Hunter
                                  Mine didn't slip around. I seem to recall some grippy stuff on the inside? Actually fit very tight.

                                  My beef with neoprene is it can become
                                  ...
                                  Today, 07:02 PM
                                • No-Drill Adjustable Cheek Riser
                                  by Buckshott00
                                  Jury's still out on the Prism Scope vs. the Holograph. I invite you guys to check out my pictures and review and cast a vote.

                                  I've got...
                                  Yesterday, 04:45 PM
                                • Reply to 16 Years
                                  by PigHunter
                                  Jim, there's no way that would be allowed on a modern construction site. Those holes were a potential death trap without something shoring up the sides....
                                  Today, 06:57 PM

                                Right Rail 3

                                Collapse

                                Footer Ad

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X