What happened to Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin?

You… because you’re a democrat?

Meh, it’s more than that;

You have Cartels creating armed outposts on the border that shoot at Americans, you have foot traffic across private property, and people’s buildings being broken into by desperate people.

There is a security issue on the border; the right is correct about that.
“Open borders” is an epithet, but I don’t blame them for using it.

You’re asking for indication of intent; what about de facto effects?

If the left’s energy is simply pointed at border agents for being “too cruel”, demanding exceptions be made to the law for every caravan who appears, and nothing goes to enforcement, won’t the result be the same as the “open border” the right fears?

And again, I say this as someone whose on the side of the immigrants. I see everything here as being symptomatic of not having a clear, transparent immigration system that lets people in on a reasonable time frame. We’ve incentivized migrants to look for exploits, or ways to avoid the law, as on a human factors level anyone in their position would.

It’s just, along with that, we also have tail-end problems. Cartels who act with impunity where we really shouldn’t let them, and property owners who are disproportionately affected by the foot traffic.

Those problems are no less real, anyone would have a right to be concerned about them.

1 Like

There ARE people in the US, and serious people too, who believe in Open Borders. The problem is, most of them or the most intellectually coherent, are on the Right – or what is conventionally called the Right. They’re the Libertarians, the ‘Marxists of the Right’, who, like Marxists, are in the grips of an Ideology, which can override common sense.

Here’s an example, from the libertarian Cato Institute:[ https://www.cato.org/blog/14-most-common-arguments-against-immigration-why-theyre-wrong ]

Or here: [https://www.lp.org/issues/immigration/] The market will take care of everything, you see.

(Although conservatism is best thought of as a disposition, not an ideology, nevertheless an ideology is a very handy thing: it saves you the trouble of thinking about each problem. So, many conservatives have appropriated libertarian economics, without thinking much about it. Do they really, like the libertarians, want to auction off the National Parks? Or abolish Social Security and Medicare?)

Now, ‘Open Borders’ is a scare term. No serious politician will use the phrase in a positive way, at least not at the moment … a few Democrats will, but not yet the majority. Just substitute ‘Effectively unlimited immigration’ for it when trying to determine a politician’s real stance.

Most Democratic politicians will say, of course, that they are ‘in principle’ for border security and effective immigration control – and in the not-too-distant past, they meant it [http://www.4president.us/issues/clinton1996/clinton1996immigration.htm ] … but now their activist base is effectively against any real immigration control, and they yield to this sentiment.

As the Democratic Socialists of America grow in influence within the Democratic Party – they’ve already taken it over in Nevada and are getting more and more of their people elected as Democrats – we will see this hypocrisy change: [https://www.dsausa.org/working-groups/immigrants-rights-working-group/] Do read that link, Democrats: it’s your future.

It’s like Southern Democrats 70 years ago. Not a single Democratic Congressman or Senator from the Deep South would stand up and say, “Lynching is good, we need more of it.” But since a strong minority (?.. I’m trying to be kind to my fellow Southerners here) of their constitutents enjoyed a good lynching, they would not vote for anything that might stop it. So they were effectively pro-lynching.

It’s true that among the ranks of the radical Left – both organized [including the DSA, above] and unorganized – ‘Open Borders’ is an absolutely orthodox position. “No Borders, No Wall, No USA at All!” is their chant.

Progressive politicians, as they raise the bail money for the arrested violent rioters, or release them without charge, may be a bit embarrassed by this … but they are acutely aware that the argument against mass Third World immigration – which is what we are talking about – gets uncomfortably close to the most Capital of all Thoughtcrimes, RACISM!!!

And all good progressives know that all cultures are equal … at best. (Australians are now being taught that Aborigines have been doing science for thousands of years … laughable, but they have to pretend to believe it … otherwise, they’re … RACISTS!)

So, under the rule of progressives, we can except tepid lip-service to enforcing border security … and a steady increase in Third World immigrants who, conveniently, will mainly vote Democratic.

And please note: the Chamber-of-Commerce Party, otherwise known as the Republicans, obeys its Donor Class. And some of them are very happy to have cheap, compliant, non-union workers in their fields and chicken-gutting plants. So when we hear Republicans sputter about the border … we can ask, “Where’ve you been for the last thirty years, Charlie?” and allow ourselves a cynical smile.

1 Like

1 I suppose I can’t prove causation vs. correlation, but I’ll laugh if you tell me that all this is just a coincidence with Biden in the White House.
2 How well is it being enforced? If he ships half or even two-thirds of them back (which he didn’t do until this week, and this crap has been going on for months), that still leaves thousands coming in. And I don’t mean just to the bridge. Even his own staff didn’t have an answer for how many. The only reason Biden is deporting them is to get them away from the cameras.
3 My patootie…

So am I.

Joe Biden. Kamala Harris. Maxine Waters. Proof in the links I provided, and also in testimony that they came here because Biden green-lighted them.

1 Like

I debunked your claims and honestly that took quite a long time gathering all that info and putting it together.

If you think that the current state of vaccines isn’t supported by the science, either you find the info yourself, or find a credible source that’s done it for you and post it.

That wasn’t the question (not in this thread anyway); the question was whether Ivermectin and other prophylaxes drugs have been overlooked as therapeutic responses.

And the answer is that science doesn’t know, as we’ve yet to fully analyze the question.

That has less to do with the veracity of the vaccines inherently, and more to do with “what were the incentives of the people making the decision not to study this more thoroughly?”

And again, the vaccine EA requirement stipulating that these drugs could not be an option, and many of these drugs also having gone generic years ago, brings up a pertinent question of if there were moral hazards involved.

1 Like

Got a source on this? I hadn’t heard it before and would like to read more.

This thread has split into two, or perhaps, like the Chinese virus, mutated. This post is about effectively unlimited immigration.

Actually, the US should imitate Patooka’s country here, in spirit. Although Australia suffers from the same disease the US does, with respect to Lefties destroying its education system with absurd Politically Correct nonsense, it does have a pretty robust way of dealing with illegal immigrants – of course the Left hates it, but it’s too popular to directly abolish. Look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sovereign_Borders

It’s wrong to think that social transformations – like opening up countries to mass Third World immigration, which will change their character permanently – is the result of some conscious decision taken by a small group of people.

That’s the influence of Hollywood, with its hundreds of movies where a Hero defeats a Bad Guy and the Bad Guy’s organization. Think James Bond and the various villains he overcomes – the villain typically has a secret HQ under a volcano on an island. But society doesn’t work that way.

Western society, compared to all others, including societies which are descended from great civilizations (the Indians, Persians, Arabs, Chinese) has been immensely successful. Not because of some arrangement of the genes of its inhabitants … historical accident meant that it “got there first” in finding the winning combination of a relatively free market, rule of law, and science.

Now its ruling elite in the US has decided to give up on having its own nation, and to go global – that’s where its income is coming from. Its intelligentsia, which runs its cultral apparatus, has extended the growing compassion and kindness of advanced civilization into self-hate: its our fault that the Third World, and Third-World-descended people in the advanced countries, are poor and backwards.

This development – essentially, the commission of national suicide – inevitably is reflected among politicians, who are not ideologues – who don’t ‘think big’ at all – but just respond to the pressures of their activist base.

So poor old Joe Biden isn’t for ‘Open Borders’ consciously … to the extent that ‘consciousness’ can be used to describe what remain of his thought processes. Nor are really sharp cookies like Elizabeth Warren … they just repond to their activist base, many of the most vocal of whom ARE for open borders – see my post with the link the Democratic Socialists of America, rapidly growing within the Democrats.

They ‘triangulate’, to use Bill Clinton’s term. Officially, they are for ‘secure borders’. In practice, not.

Gotcha, a couple points here.

  1. My guess is that an “alternative” in this case is an approved vaccine. Symptomatic treatments as opposed to innoculation. For instance, they wouldn’t now give an EUA to a new vaccine because we already have approved ones.

  2. That explanation makes sense because there has been many NIH funded studies on symptomatic treatments for COVID-19 including those on ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. Popular at the moment is that monoclonal antibody treatment.

In all, I think you may have it backwards. Rather than preventing the funding of alternatives, it simply says an emergency authorization can’t be given if there is an approved alternative. Which makes sense, emergency authorization is inherently less stringent, so you wouldn’t fast track the approval it for the general population if alternatives existed.

And I acknowledged that and even pointed out that there is a study being done an Oxford University that trying to get a more definitive answer to the question, right now.

I was responding to:

And the fact that the list of “studies” weren’t peer reviewed and therefore lacked any sort of authority on the topic.

I’ll ad mit I don’t know much about whether Ivermectin is being overlooked or not, or whether it’s a reasonable treatment for COVID.

But my point is, anyone that claims it is, if full of crap because we don’t know.

Republicans??? They are presently whipping votes for the atrocious Democrat Infrastructure bill. Both political parties are in the middle of a slow, painful re-alignment.

You’re absolutely correct. I did despise the Operation Sovereign Borders initiative, as I thought it was a crappier version of John Howard’s Pacific Island Solution. Neither of which address the problem. It also wasn’t as successful as wiki points it out to be.

To add a bit of context, Australia had a Federal election in 2013. and the Coalition came into power. (A switch from Democrat to Republican if you would prefer a US analogue). In the lead up to the election, every newspaper owned by News Ltd posted a tally every Friday slamming the Rudd Government on the number of illegal boats that arrived each week. For the Daily Telegraph, the author was a guy named Ray Hadley, for The Australian it was Miranda Devine (yes the exact same Miranda Devine from FOX). Newspapers and Sky News were pretty much the unofficial mouthpiece of the Liberals/Nationals and as such could circumvent election laws and still campaign for Tony Abbott up till election day (not sure what it is like in the US but it is illegal to show any political ads a week prior to an election. Editorial pieces from journalists on the other hand…)

Unsurprisingly, Tony Abbott won the election. The Labor Government was, as the kids say today, a fustercluck and deserved to lose. Once the Abbott Government was formed two very interesting things happened:

1)Newspapers and Sky News stopped reporting on a weekly basis the number of boat arrivals.

2)The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner suffered severe cutbacks, making Freedom of information requests near impossible to occur. Also, the Department of Immigration stopped reporting any boat arrivals, citing the need to maintain security.

So was Operation Sovereign Borders successful? The real answer is that no one will ever know. Pages 20-21 of the report I previously linked show that because the Government didn’t disclose any figures, didn’t show any transparency (unlike the previous government) and made FOI request so difficult to be irrelevant, very little of the Government claims can be verified. The only thing that is not in doubt was that:

Irregular migration to Australia had begun to lessen prior to the coalition government’s election. This is a complex issue involving a reduction of push factors in Afghanistan and Iraq and earlier government policies.

Factor in a media that’s in the pocket of the Government, and you’ve got an immigration department that can claim whatever they want.

But that is not my biggest gripe with Operation Sovereign Borders. My biggest issue with it, and it’s subsequent actions, is how they privatised Australian border security. And it is basically my biggest gripe with any conservative government. They will sell out their duties to a company at a rate that is always, always more expensive to the taxpayer and when things inevitably go wrong, they shirk their responsibility. Manus Island Detention Centre is rife with allegations of rape and torture and Naru wasn’t much better. And the Government’s response each time boiled down to, “take it up with the company we hired to do our job for us - it’s not our problem”

I know my views on immigration are to the left and are atypical even for Australians. That’s in part because growing up, our neighbours were refugees from the Soviet Union who sought asylum in the late 70s and I briefly worked alongside this guy. in the mid 90s (who incidentally has a thicker Australian accent than I do). So I’ll vote how I vote and simply shut up unless asked. But the one thing I find reprehensible and will always call out is when Governments attempt to absolve their responsibility by passing the buck to the private sector; usually with a lot of graft involved.

Basically, my attitude to immigration is this - it is cheaper (and more profitable in the long run) to spend resources to process, integrate and find work for asylum seekers so that they can be taxed than it is phallus waving about border security. It also makes it easier for border patrol to focus on the more dangerous smuggling like drugs/weapons etc.

And I have yet to see a single politician in any country campaign on such a platform.

There is a smarter way of saying that then. The perception of Democrats being weak on national security is a long effective trope.

Intent. SendGop believes Democrat politicians are actively campaigning to eliminate borders. That’s like saying the Republican Party is the party of White Nationalism because of Steve King and Paul Gossar. Both statements are hyperbolic crap.

If the right wants to make that argument, I want to see their work, and I would like to see their receipts. At the moment, they’re acting like the junkie who wants a refund for the TV they stole and are being called out on it.

And border police could action those more efficiently if as you said “a clear, transparent immigration system that lets people in on a reasonable time frame” existed.

Well, the problem is when quantity turns into quality, as the Marxists say.

Social pressure is very strong. If a single person from Absurdistan immigrates to another country, he or she will, over time probably ‘assimilate’ – absorb its culture and values. Or his/her children will.

If ten million Absurdistanis come, it’s another story. They will bring their culture and values with them, concentrate geographically, and assimilation will not happen.

And culture is important. Some cultures are far more advanced – and better – than others. The culture of white Australians is literally thousands of years in advance of that of your Aboriginals, and far better by every measure of human welfare.

How much better it would be for them, if their communities were dispersed, and each Aboriginal family moved to a majority-culture neighborhood, and got off welfare.

So … if one Somali immigrates to Australia, fine. If a million do, you’re in trouble. Ask the Swedes.

So let me get this straight.

This is a fact: the vaccine you tout does NOT make anyone immune from getting covid. It only alleviates symptoms to make getting the virus more bearable. It has not undergone the mandatory testing period of at least 8 years. Nobody knows what the long term effects will be. Everyone getting the vax is a human guinea pig and I repeat the vaccine does not make anyone immune from getting covid which as far as I know means it’s not actually a vaccine. It’s just a temporary fix to make all the scared people feel better about themselves and their 99.9999% chances of survival.

When there are actual proven treatments available you shrug them off. Why? … ???

Because the only way to survive the coof is by getting your Trump vax?

Please elaborate.

Said another way, if we had the vaccine when COVID hit, it would have reduced the number of deaths in this country from 630,000 down to about 6,300.

But yes, the SARS virus which this virus is one of (as is the common cold) isn’t possible to be immune from at this point.

I’m not certain it matters, but that’s a good question. Honestly, I don’t know if that’s true or not, but it’s a good question.

Why do you think that’s important? Why do you think the 8 year timeline is in place?

Because they aren’t proven, and as I pointed out, HC can is known to be harmful.

Yeah, so if the entire population of the US, every man woman and child got COVID, that would result in 33,000 deaths with a 99.9999% survival rate.

We know 20 times as many people have died and less than 330,000,000 million have been infected.

You’re math is a little off.

You almost got it right here.

Snake oil? Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin are not approved, studies showing their effectiveness are not peer reviewed. Right?

WHY?

You’re right it’s corporations capitalizing on ignorance. Follow the money: there are no fortunes to be made in therapeutics like Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin. There is plenty of money in vaccines that do not deliver the results as promised.

Big Pharma and Medical Journals are working hand in hand. Big Pharma pays a lot of their bills.

https://rumble.com/vmgect-physicians-being-blocked-from-publishing-vital-information-about-their-covi.html

Well, because that’s not how science works. If studies are done to lend evidence to a hypothesis. Lack of evidence doesn’t prove something is false, rather, that nothing has proved it true, yet.

There is nothing that has shown that there is evidence that HC or Ivermectin works.

Well, then you’d have to believe that corporations run the governments of every nation on earth since the US is not the only nation that is capable of doing science.

Remember there are many nations of the world that would be delighted to find a simple cure.

I’ve also pointed out that right now, there is a large scale study that’s being done to look at the efficacy of Ivermectin. And if it turns out that it is an effective treatment, awesome. Just remember, I never said it wasn’t, just that, at this point claims about it being an effective treatment weren’t shown to be true despite the claims to the contrary.

I’ll admit there are definitely problems in the process. Before the internet the process was almost entirely in the hands of academics who understood the process and treated it with a lot more care and respect that it get’s today.

Right now there are dozens of so-called “Journals” that look very academic and impressive, but they aren’t. Their fake and don’t mean a thing. It’s an internet meme meant to look impressive to the average Joe without any of the validity.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00733-5

That said, it’s amazing the hubris of the average American who believes all science happens here in the US. Or that significant discoveries are only made here, or that US operations run the world.

The fact is you’d have to believe that no one else anywhere has incentives to find alternate cures.

Its not a question its a fact. And the only people at risk of dying of covid are the severely unhealthy or obese. And instead of suggesting people exercise and change their diets you suggest they inject some gene altering untested mystery syrum into their veins to they can become politically correct.

1 Like