The Market Ticker
Rss Icon RSS available
"Since the Constitution is now ignored the age-old practice of corruption of blood has been reinstated" - Tickerguy
You are not signed on; if you are a visitor please register for a free account!
Posting in this area at this time is restricted; see the FAQ.
The Market Ticker Read Message in MaskHoles
User: Not logged on
Top Forum Top Login FAQ Register Clear Cookie
User Info Jail All These Mothert****ers NOW in forum [MaskHoles]
Tickerguy
Posts: 167307
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List Ignore this thread
The FDA and Fauci pulled this same **** with AIDS, PCP and Bactrim in the 1980s.

30,000 people died as a DIRECT result.

ENOUGH ******NIT.

Enough.

No more.

Not one more ******ned day.

No more ****ing masks.

No more ****ing constraints.

No more ****ing bull**** about there being "no treatments."

IT IS A ******NED LIE AND I WANT HEADS ON PLATES.

The Study wrote..
RESULTS: Of the 7,892 symptomatic PCR-confirmed COVID-19 patients who visited the ambulatory fever clinics during the study period, 5,541 had verified clinical outcomes at day 28 (1,817 patients in the HCQ group vs 3,724 in the SC group). At baseline, patients who received HCQ therapy were more likely to be males who did not have hypertension or chronic lung disease compared to the SC group. No major differences were noted regarding other comorbid conditions. All patients were presenting with active complaints; however, the HCQ groups had higher rates of symptoms compared to the SC group (fever: 84% vs 66.3, headache: 49.8 vs 37.4, cough: 44.5 vs 35.6, respectively). Early HCQ-based therapy was associated with a lower hospital admission within 28-days compared to SC alone (9.4% compared to 16.6%, RRR 43%, p-value <0.001). The composite outcome of ICU admission and/or mortality at 28-days was also lower in the HCQ group compared to the SC (1.2% compared to 2.6%, RRR 54%, p-value 0.001).

Adjusting for age, gender, and major comorbid conditions, a multivariate logistic regression model showed a decrease in the odds of hospitalisation in patients who received HCQ compared to SC alone (adjusted OR 0.57 [95% CI 0.47-0.69], p-value <0.001). The composite outcome of ICU admission and/or mortality was also lower for the HCQ group compared to the SC group controlling for potential confounders (adjusted OR 0.55 [95% CI 0.34-0.91], p-value 0.019).

That is a roughly FIFTY PERCENT decrease in hospitalizations and deaths through early outpatient use.

HALF.

And a P value -- the odds of random chance being responsible for the outcome -- of ONE IN A THOUSAND.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/....

REPEAT: I WANT HEADS; THIS WAS AND REMAINS MASS-MURDER.

----------
If you will not force justice to be done by any means necessary when over 100,000 are murdered by political hacks from both parties do not complain or expect my help when you or someone you love dies at their hand. -- Me

Asimov
Posts: 118891
Incept: 2007-08-26

East Tennessee
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
So it's fauci's what? Second or third run at being a mass murderer for profit?

----------
It's justifiably immoral to deal morally with an immoral entity.

Festina lente.
Tickerguy
Posts: 167307
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
I want corruption of blood back.

----------
If you will not force justice to be done by any means necessary when over 100,000 are murdered by political hacks from both parties do not complain or expect my help when you or someone you love dies at their hand. -- Me
Asimov
Posts: 118891
Incept: 2007-08-26

East Tennessee
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
It wouldn't make any more difference now than it did when it was around. The reason that ever was a thing was simply to make sure a son or something didn't come back for revenge at a later time. It wasn't ever about punishment or anything like that.

Revenge... maybe.

I don't want revenge, there's no way to repay thousands of lives lost. I just want them gone.

----------
It's justifiably immoral to deal morally with an immoral entity.

Festina lente.
Tickerguy
Posts: 167307
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Ah @Asimov, but this is why it happened the second time around. It is precisely because that ********** did not pay the last time that he did it again, and THIS time it was worth at least THREE TIMES as many lives as the last time around.

It's similar to catching Hitler murdering 100 or 10,000 Jews for the gold in their teeth and letting him get away with it. What's his next trick? Six million. Who's responsible for that? He is for the murders, but if we caught him after he did the first 100 or 10,000 and let him go THEN WE ARE MONSTERS TOO FOR NOT ERASING HIS BLOODLINE AND SENDING A VERY STRONG SIGNAL TO ANYONE WHO THINKS OF THAT **** THAT THEY WILL WATCH THEIR CHILDREN, GRANDCHILDREN, PARENTS AND SPOUSE ROAST RIGHT BEFORE THEY DO.

You see there IS a value to public and VERY NASTY punishments for severe criminality like this -- when we're talking about tens of thousands of dead bodies, not one or two.

If we had done it the LAST TIME with AIDS, PCP and Bactrim do you think it would have happened THIS TIME?

I absolutely guarantee you Fauci wouldn't have done it because he and his entire filthy blood line would have been DEAD!

And anyone else who THOUGHT about it would have remembered what happened to him and his entire family right in living color in the middle of the Washington Mall.

This is the key argument for Capital Punishment. It is not about retribution. It is not about revenge. It is about the fact that you will never commit ANOTHER murder. My ONLY qualm with is that we have convicted plenty of people who didn't do it, and THAT is why I have an issue with it as it stands today.

Ordinary murder is, well, ordinary. For that I'm ok with ordinary punishment. But I still maintain that public hanging or a public ride on Ole Sparky beats this bull**** private crap we do now, and for the same reason.

When it comes to truly heinous, outrageously corrupt bull**** and direct action that kills tens of thousands? Oh yeah, I want it to be nasty and public. And not for the purpose of revenge either. None of my close relatives were killed this time around NOR LAST TIME.

I want it for one reason and one reason only: IT HAS DETERRENT VALUE IF YOU KNOW YOUR ENTIRE BLOODLINE WILL BE EXECUTED IN FRONT OF YOU, AND THEN YOU GO LAST if ANYONE thinks of trying that **** again.

----------
If you will not force justice to be done by any means necessary when over 100,000 are murdered by political hacks from both parties do not complain or expect my help when you or someone you love dies at their hand. -- Me

Asimov
Posts: 118891
Incept: 2007-08-26

East Tennessee
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
I don't think that somebody willing to murder people for profit, especially in these numbers, is going to be disincentivised by any punishment greater than death for themselves. They obviously don't care about anybody else. Historically, many of them that are in a position of power go after their own family first anyway.

I'm all for capital punishment, particularly public executions, not hidden like we have in our society. I don't think it's really a punishment though, I think it's insurance that particular person can never do it again. If it helps keep others from doing it, well, great, but sociopaths like that rarely think they are going to be punished for their crimes - if they even think they are crimes to begin with.

If I get a vote, my vote will be a simple and fast *PUBLIC* death for the guilty party and nothing else.

Now if we get into the subject of somebody who has committed a horrible crime that touches me personally, my feelings about inflicting pain before death *MIGHT* change. I'm not sure that they would, but I can see how they might. However, that's very strictly personal and has nothing to do with public punishments being enacted by society as a whole.

Society, as a whole, should never normalize punishing the innocent for another's crime OR using torture as a punishment prior to death. Not to protect the person who did the crime from pain, I honestly don't care about that. It's to protect society as a whole from feeling like this is normal. Look at iran or saudi for what behavior like this looks like when normalized. Or look at any sacked town throughout history and the depraved actions of winning armies. Our founding fathers knew that people blooded in war were not the ones that should be patrolling our streets for this very reason. If you make horrible behavior the norm in a society, it's the norm for everybody, everywhere.

I don't want to live, or have my kids live, in a society where behavior like that is accepted. It's not acceptable for the criminals to act with callous disregard for humanity and it's not acceptable for the ones handing out punishments to act that way either.

I don't know that I'm right. This is just how I think and feel.

----------
It's justifiably immoral to deal morally with an immoral entity.

Festina lente.
Tickerguy
Posts: 167307
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Consider that Fauci installed his WIFE in the funding chain for the NIH.

And they funded the Wuhan lab.

And that funding happened AFTER the AIDS fiasco.

Still think he gives no **** about anyone else? Or that it wouldn't have mattered?

I disagree that it's callous disregard. To the contrary it is a very public warning to anyone else contemplating such an act and as such shows GREAT regard for the least of humanity, who tend to get ****ed most often by monsters like this.

----------
If you will not force justice to be done by any means necessary when over 100,000 are murdered by political hacks from both parties do not complain or expect my help when you or someone you love dies at their hand. -- Me

Asimov
Posts: 118891
Incept: 2007-08-26

East Tennessee
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
She's probably as guilty as he is and should probably hang at his side for the current crap. Had he been executed along with other guilty parties after the AIDS bull****, and his wife was among those guilty, then she should have been then too. If she was innocent at the time, I don't imagine she would have been in a position to be involved in anything this time, without him.

A (imaginary in this case) young child of theirs is not guilty, and should not be hung along side them. But that's exactly what corruption of the blood says should happen.

----------
It's justifiably immoral to deal morally with an immoral entity.

Festina lente.
Tickerguy
Posts: 167307
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
@Asimov I understand the reasoning, but you're missing mine.

You presume that a power-drunk ********** is flat-out psychotic and thus his or her child has no value to them. That's only true in the movies (e.g. "Joker".)

In the real world people who are that cracked are incapable of forming the sort of complex, evil and exploitation-based planning that leads to this sort of mass-death.

There is a specific sort of personality that is capable of this sort of thing. Power and control are their stock in trade; they're simply incapable of seeing other humans as their equal or, God Forbid, better than they are at anything. But -- their own "family" is the exception.

Where do you think the Law of War comes from? Ever hear the lectures or see the written material given to service members? I have. It takes you about 30 seconds to figure out, if you're a thinking person, why that material was developed, refined, was codified into actual international law and is presented.

It has exactly nothing to do with the "hope" that the other side will treat those members of OUR armed forces who surrender with compassion, although that is one of the PRIME reasons presented for compliance.

It is simply this: Every one of the people involved in passing, promoting and insisting on such has family members and others they care about and love. They all know that with the exception of the President and his or her immediate family in any nation it is flatly-impossible, given the multiplicative factor involved once you start including other than the direct legislators and such, to provide any sort of actual security to all of them. There are simply too many of them and the constraints one must live under to remain "in the bubble" are unacceptable to virtually everyone.
Nobody will do it.


This in turn means that if I am, for example, a member of the PLA in China it is trivially easy for a rival nation to "get" my 7 year old child in school, and said person can do so in a way that will bring incredible anguish to me. A cup of gasoline and a match are enough; it requires literal pennies on the part of the person(s) who want said politician to suffer. The prohibitions have nothing to do with humanity at all; if I am in a position to take actions that will lead to a nuclear holocaust such a claim is utter horse****. It is entirely about preventing ONE THING and ONE THING ONLY -- **MY** pain at my child being roasted alive and live-streamed where I can see it.

It is for the SAME REASON that "Hell" is threatened; there is no evidence for it. However, it is convenient to prevent you, knowing you're condemned (e.g. you have terminal cancer) from deciding that the people who ****ed you in the ass 10 years ago are all going to meet their maker at approximately the same time you do. In other words it is all about trying to make sure you never are in a situation where you have nothing to lose.

Do remember that when it comes to War the claim of so-called philosophers is that it is a continuation of politics by other means. Well, perhaps. But ALSO remember that when it comes to war the objective isn't so much to make the other bastard die for his country as is ALSO commonly claimed -- it is to make him sue for peace. Why? Because the only other option is to kill them all; as long as there is ONE person willing to fight left the war continues.

This, of course, is directly in conflict with all of the so-called "rules of war." Proportionality, tailoring of missions to minimize or eliminate non-combatant casualties, not hitting a medical facility or personnel, etc.

The fastest way to make a group that is at war sue for peace is to make clear that you will inflict the most-ridiculous and insufferable pain on them until they do so. A dead person cannot sue for peace; they're dead.

Why did we nuke Hiroshima instead of setting it off to be very visible from Tokyo yet not flatten the city? Certainly there would have been NO DOUBT what we had if we had done the latter. No, we did it because of the psychological value of flattening an entire city with one blast -- to scare the living Hell out of every Japanese.

The intent was to make very clear to the world that continued attempts to fight were suicidal for all members of the society, not just the soldiers. In other words the intent was to inflict BIBLICAL-SCALE mass-punishment.
A THREAT was insufficient -- the pain had to ACTUALLY HAPPEN.


Which, by the way, violates all of said modern "Rules of War", and those rules existed at the time too. Yet we did it anyway and we won by doing exactly that. Twice, just to make sure it was understood that no, that was not a one-off; we have more of them and we will keep roasting your children until you sue for peace.

Why did the terrorists hit two CIVILIAN buildings on 9/11? The Pentagon was a legitimate military target by any description and rationale you care to use. So was the Capitol (or the White House for that matter.) The twin towers were not.

Notice which got the greatest outrage of the target package selected by the terrorists.

The point of terrorism is to terrorize. By terrorizing you obtain the objective, which is to destroy the will of the other side. The reason it leads to such outrage is that it is a "flip the table" form of war where the antagonists are willing to make Johnny watch his father be faced with the choice of being burned alive or jump from the 80th floor.

That's why.

----------
If you will not force justice to be done by any means necessary when over 100,000 are murdered by political hacks from both parties do not complain or expect my help when you or someone you love dies at their hand. -- Me

Asimov
Posts: 118891
Incept: 2007-08-26

East Tennessee
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Maybe it really is a matter of wartime vs peacetime. If that's the case, I guess I don't really have any choice but to agree.

Since this particular mass murderer seems to have been working as part of the government, maybe that is how we need to look at it. That's going to be a hard pill to swallow but I guess civil war always is.

----------
It's justifiably immoral to deal morally with an immoral entity.

Festina lente.
Tickerguy
Posts: 167307
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
@Asimov -- Yep.

Government may be a necessary evil but when you allow it to expand beyond the "necessary" part all that's left is the evil.

Look at what's going on around you. The people imposing "mask mandates" know ******n well they're worthless. If not they'd be using them on their own AT A LEVEL OF PARANOIA EXCEEDING THAT OF HANDLING THE DEMON CORE. Nearly ALL of these people are older and stacked full of medical conditions that make them exceptionally brittle compared with the average 60 year old American. Yet as soon as Fauci thought the cameras were off in the briefing off came the mask. They weren't off. Notice how nobody brings that up anymore?

Or how about Pelosi and her hairdo? She's not old and thus at special risk? Like Hell she isn't.

If the issue is that young people don't get it bad but could give it to Grandma then how come it doesn't apply to the rioters? Do they not have Grandmas in rough proportion to everyone else?

Fauci HIMSELF said during the time of SARS that HCQ was both a prophylaxis AND a cure. He was right by the way. Does either work on everyone? Nope; there is not a single disease where one particular drug or other treatment is 100% effective. As a society we'd give our left testicle for something that kept you out of the hospital 50% of the time and cost $2.00 at retail for the entire course of treatment; literally the price of a bottle of aspirin or a cheeseburger at McDonalds'. We're talking about tens of thousands of dollars not spent PER PERSON who the drug works on, and a HUGE part of that money, if it is spent, comes right out of the government's tax revenues. In other words WERE YOU NOT JOKER-LEVEL EVIL AND WORKED FOR THE GOVERNMENT YOU WOULD BE ALL OVER THIS LIKE STINK ON **** BECAUSE THE BUDGET IMPACT ALONE IS LIKELY IN THE TENS OR EVEN HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS.

Well, we have that. The data is clear. Early intervention at first medical contact, with a p value of 0.001 (that is, one in a thousand odds that the result was due to random chance) did exactly that, and the confidence interval is both quite tight and gets nowhere near 1.0. Even on the outside edge of the 1SD curve, taking out all statistical abnormalities due to comorbidity differences, it's a 30% reduction.

That is utterly huge. It's unheard of. If you had a cancer treatment that was outpatient and 3 to 5 times out of 10 cured the cancer without having to go into the hospital at all you'd win a Nobel and be elevated to the stature of Pasteur.

This is EXACTLY THE SAME THING we found in the 1980s with PCP and AIDS. A person who got PCP once and had AIDS was ******n nearly-certain to get it again and it was VERY likely to kill him the second time around. 30,000 people WERE killed by it over a roughly five-year period of time. In 1977 it was discovered that Leukemia patients, who also have trashed immune systems, were prevented from getting PCP if they were given Bactrim, an inexpensive combination of off-patent drugs. It didn't prevent EVERY infection but it prevented a LOT of them and, as with AIDS patients, if you got PCP when undergoing treatment for Leukemia it was VERY likely to kill you. This, in fact, is one of the reasons that in the 1980s Leukemia had a HUGE chunk of its mortality chopped out from under it and became a MUCH more survivable disease.

There was utterly NO REASON not to give Bactrim to anyone with AIDS who had PCP once as an ongoing prophylaxis. Did it have side effects? Sure. All drugs do. So what? Remember these were people who were on a conveyor belt to a morgue; there WAS NO MANAGEMENT over the long term. While they were going to die, with essential certainty, we literally let them choke to death from a preventable disease that we knew how to keep from infecting them at a cost of about a dollar a day.

And just like now, if you went into the hospital with PCP it was tens of thousands of dollars that were made by the hospital, doctors and everyone else, all colluding with the government.

They literally roasted you to death for money.

Just like they're doing now.

Tell me again why we the people should not treat this as meriting an August 6th, 1945 style response, especially considering that it is a repeated performance.

----------
If you will not force justice to be done by any means necessary when over 100,000 are murdered by political hacks from both parties do not complain or expect my help when you or someone you love dies at their hand. -- Me
Asimov
Posts: 118891
Incept: 2007-08-26

East Tennessee
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Until what has been done is public knowledge, nothing will be done and anything done by an individual will just get him/her labeled a crackpot. Making this public knowledge is going to be REALLY hard because anything somebody doesn't like or believe just gets labeled "fake news" now.

Everybody has their own opinions and everybody thinks they are correct. Anything that doesn't sync with their world view gets dismissed.... THAT is what we need to overcome first.

How can we do that in this age of misinformation and entertainment-as-news? So many generations that don't have the time or aren't willing to spend the time to actually learn about the issues at hand, but at the flip of a finger can see their own biases and beliefs encouraged and reinforced.

Not going to happen, is it?

Sheep.

----------
It's justifiably immoral to deal morally with an immoral entity.

Festina lente.
Asimov
Posts: 118891
Incept: 2007-08-26

East Tennessee
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
I can't seem to get this out of my head.

What are the options for actually informing people that have no interest in going out of their way to learn? The ones who are interested, but not taking the time to do the research? Twitter/facebook/etc simply aren't options because of the noise. MSM isn't an option because it's already controlled and being used to change our way of life, our very thought processes.

What can we do? You have market ticker karl, and it's great, but it's also sorta insular, not many new eyes. I'm not sure why. Too cerebral? I would say it's too confrontational/abusive, but it didn't used to be that way. Besides, this isn't a job one person can do. At least not one person that doesn't have massive resources.

Is there room for another type of social media? Something new and different... something that can't be taken over by the screaming karens or overwhelmed with inane bull****? Something that can't turn into 4chan and be abhorred?

But it has to be useful to massive numbers of people at the same time...

Maybe more of reddit style? ...Or something where up and down votes are given a weighting based on who is doing the voting?

I loved how the news subforum was here back at the peak of TF activity. Lots of discussion about what the news actually meant and your moderation kept it sane. We need that, but without all the weight and responsibility of moderation on one person. But that's just for news....

I think our world needs a new type of social media. One where "social" isn't a horrible repellent dumpster fire of a word. Where stupidity simply can't get the attention it does in the current social medias. Remove that attention and it'll fade into the background.

Sigh. "In a perfect world"... Well, we don't have a perfect world, we need something that functions to remove chaos and entropy. Distilling quality out of the morass that is the current methods being used to mold people's opinions.

Consider how facebook was formed. It was explicitly designed to be addictive and to feed information into their system so it could be used and profited from. What if the goals had NOT been profit? Where would it have gone? What might it be today?

Past time? Too late? Maybe... but if we can come up with some sort of system that would function to make people BETTER instead of making them worse, it has to be worth while. Doesn't it?

Sheep need a shepard when they are free ranging, but they don't need to be force fed.

----------
It's justifiably immoral to deal morally with an immoral entity.

Festina lente.
Mannfm11
Posts: 6555
Incept: 2009-02-28

DFW, Tx
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
KD wrote..
Government may be a necessary evil but when you allow it to expand beyond the "necessary" part all that's left is the evil.


If the public only understood this one. You hit that quote out of the park. There are so many crooks in government now, only the innocent and competition need rear prosecution.

----------
The only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectable.---John Kenneth Galbraith
Top Forum Top Login FAQ Register Clear Cookie