He was after all the only one who both wanted Brexit and believed he could make a success of it!
Brexit, for once some facts.
- Thread starter flecc
- Start date
So far in fact that the Germans copied Russian tank designs?
And as the war progressed their aircraft were at least on a par much the same as ours were
Come off it
Much discussion about Atomic Weapons in Germany ...and the general consensus is they did not have the industrial capacity to do it. By the time they had Jets, it was too late and they did not have the industrial capacity to make more than a few moreover they had no fuel ... RAF Lancasters caused enough problems.... While Germany could make and design good kit, they are very limited in production . Strategically had they continued to bomb British airfields and aircraft production they might have won the air battle of Britain. But Their decision to attack cities lost them that edge. On one level they failed to consolidate their gains in western Europe before marching East.
Agreed. Point was OG's ludicrous claim Russians could have won war without help from US/UK/Commonwealth.
The Nazis did have jet fighters. But it seems that they pushed towards using derivatives as bombers - unsuccessfully.
It was another of Hitlers directives. They wanted the me 262 as a pure fighter. Hitler insisted its development was towards fighter bomber roll,a task it was not ideal for at all. (short range and bomber racks slowed it significantly)
When used as a fighter against Bomber streams it was almost invincible. Had 150mph advantage over escorts(mustangs) and carried a superb Canon. Limited numbers, lack of spares and Hitlers insistence of it being misused all negated what could have been an incredible effect.
The Russian Stormavitch would have been no competition for it.... Had they had infrastructure, which Allies had bombed to uselessness. (not to mention lack of fuel caused by allied bombing)
I'm afraid going to have to disagree on all counts. The evidence I've seen from impartial, unbiased sources tells me its safe and effective and I don't believe you can use the " its like using antibiotics to treat a viral infection" analogy because we know that certain substances can work in different modalities.
Look, lets use a bit of common sense and logic here:
We know governments lie and/or manipulate facts and statistics to suit agendas.
We know that ALL the pharmaceutical companies who are rolling out these vaccines and making billions in profit, have ALL been successfully prosecuted multiple times in the past for not only causing harm to people by their products, but more importantly, they have been caught lying, deliberately withholding information about side effects, bribing people to keep quiet, manipulating study data to hide true adverse reaction data. The list goes on and on. Their principle goal (in fact, its their legal duty!) as companies is to make money. Period.
Therefore the default mindset one should have on pretty much ALL information governments or pharmaceutical companies give you, should be one of immense caution and mistrust. It might cause some cognitive dissonance realising that these people actually DON'T have your best interests at heart (I'm a bit dim here, and it took me many years to realise this - trusting fool as I was), but doing some research and investigating of historical facts will tell you this if you do enough digging.
On the other hand, you have experienced, qualified, sometimes even highly published, frontline doctors all over the world, that have no financial interests at all in these cheap, safe, repurposed drugs such as Ivermectin, but are simply doing what most doctors have as a priority - looking after their patients wellbeing. And they are reporting that they are using these treatments extremely successfully.
Why would you not trust the information coming from these doctors and instead be listening to the sources that have vested interests or are heavily influenced by them
???
Anti gravity is a Tory invention
"The Chancellor of the Exchequer has this day appointed the Rt Hon Owen William Paterson to be Steward and Bailiff of the Manor of Northstead. "
"The Chancellor of the Exchequer has this day appointed the Rt Hon Owen William Paterson to be Steward and Bailiff of the Manor of Northstead. "
why? because common sense tells me not to trust experimental medicine until they are properly trialled. Until their acting mechanism is well understood, I treat all the studies with skepticism.
If you are interested in the chemistry of antivirals, here are those that we mentioned in this discussion:
Ivermectin:
The new Pfizer covid treatment seen on BBC today PF-07321332:
Molnupiravir:
Last edited:
GI JOE ... Lets use a bit of common sense here as well. Conspiracy Theories get one so far and no further . Reality and facts then intrude. Unless you have post grad and current research experience in Pharmaceutical sciences , immunology etc ..you are out of your depth in this type of discussion. I freely accept that my knowledge base does not include these disciplines. So unless you can put up and show , its time to fold.
Which means that the Nazis did make lots of mistakes, and did numerous stupid things, even if only because they followed their leaders.
Yet the more we look, the more we see medicines which have not been properly trialled. (And how they actually work is often not understood.)
I haven't looked for a while, but not that far back, no-one could explain how paracetamol works.
Nor have proper trials ever shown that the most widely used thyroid hormone medicine, levothyroxine, is even as good as the products which were already in use (various forms of desiccated animal thyroid). And the majority of formulations contain excipients which have been well and truly demonstrated to cause issues and have been warned against. For example, levothyroxine itself can be degraded by Maillard reactions with lactose and produce many poorly identified and characterised breakdown products.
Amitriptyline has magically transformed from a none-too-effective anti-depressant into a pain relief medicine. Also used for insomnia with no evidence that it even works, let alone any proper trials, nor understanding of even a putative mechanism.
We even see non-medicines being pushed without adequate evidence. Like Graded Exercise Therapy for chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS, also known as myalgic encephalomyelitis). (Subject of very recent recantation by NICE.)
Where did you find any impartial and unbiased sources?
Afraid that even if the authors try hard to acheive that, it is probably impossible to reach.
Well that's excellent. A very sensible approach. I take it from that then you must have been and still are extremely un-trusting of the current Covid Vaccinations, because they certainly aren't "properly trialled"
But I am confused about your hesitancy about Ivermectin though. Its been administered to humans something like over 3 billion times over the last 40 years or so. In certain countries, people take it all their life on a regular basis as a prophylactic/insurance policy. Even if it doesn't work against Covid, any risks from taking it are virtually non existent. And if there are practicing doctors out there that ARE administering it and seeing results, its almost a no-brainer to be giving it a go! (and lets remember that SOME countries actually ARE using it against Covid, and their governments are issuing 'health packs' that contain various medications (including Ivermectin) and vitamins/minerals to help people recover)
Its indeed good to be skeptical, but realise that science is mostly making best guesses based on the currently available data. Virtually nothing is FULLY understood, so it then depends on the definition of 'well'.
It therefore follows that if observational data is showing effectiveness, one would be foolish to discount it just because science hasn't yet reached the point of 'well understood'. You don't have to understand something for it to still work.
Actually, I'm personally not particularly interested in the detailed molecular structure of the drugs. That seems like a distraction from the larger issues that are important such as does a treatment have efficacy, might it cause harm, is it cost effective, if it does work but is being deliberately suppressed, why? etc etc.
Ok, fair enough. Let me try and rephrase my comment. It would be something like:
"sources that don't have any financial or career influencing involvement in the actual product being discussed"
Please explain what conspiracy theories you are referring to here?
Nope. That's a ridiculous thing to say. By that logic, everyone who doesn't have post grad and current research experience in Economics, Political Science etc should butt out of this whole Brexit thread because they are out of their depth in that kind of discussion !
1. Conspiracy theory ... You STATE ...not Imply that the Big Pharma are lying about the value of a specific drug. that is conspiracy theory stuff.
2. No... If one does not even understand the vocabulary about what is being discussed one cannot even follow the argument. Economics and the softer social studies are no where as well developed in logic than the hard sciences. Moreover, the Brexit discussion relates to something many of us in the real world know a lot about . travel, paying taxes, being or not being in employment buying or not buying goods, delays on deliveries
At last! A Discworld reference!Can I go with Offler the Crocodile God that you sacrifice fried sausages to?
Offler get the rising holy essence of the sausages and the supplicant gets to eat their mortal remains.
(That's why frying sausages always smell better than they taste!)
Now that's proper worship for you!
We could have continued with something like Project Orion:
Project Orion (nuclear propulsion) - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Five loaves and two fish to feed 5000? Jesus was a Tory.Well that means they are very much cheaper than the average Tory MP, but you voted for them, and they cocked up the NHS