Merv's Politically Incorrect Audio Blog

Since today is my birthday, can we debate the benefits of not wearing a shirt and have your chest hairs breathe the fresh air?

I will not be body shamed by being free as the wind.

 

I want to "epic" just this part of your post.

 

I want to ask you, if I have 1000 vaccinated people and 100 unvaccinated ones, and both groups follow the same rules of conduct about social distancing etc, and in each group five die of covid, what does that tell me about the efficacy of the vaccine?

 

Happy Birthday @YMO,

did you get a perm for your breast hair for the occasion or are sporting natural curls? I cannot compete with you very few breast hair and it is already grey.

 

Nope, I shampoo it. Thanks for asking.

 

Now, I still think I'm right but I'll let tis go. It seems to upset some people. I could do this all day and you will all suffer thru it.

Back to the gist of the thread topic.

Tua Tagovailoa is overrated and will never be an effective NFL quarterback. He is just too short to see the field and may very well have undiagnosed vision problems and makes bad decisions.
The Dolphins post Marino qb void is ongoing....

 

Free the nipple

 

Very much like the Lions' entire team void since...1958 was it? It's a bit mental how some teams can be losers forever even with multiple front office and team roster turnovers.

 

Did anybody else hear that rumour that @YMO wears a chest wig?

Shhh! Dear reader: I'm only telling you because I know you won't tell anyone else. And you won't tell @YMO that I told you. Right?

Seriously: be shirtless. Shirtless people smell less. Sweat naturally evaporates instead of growing stinky bacteria.

 

What I said:

“shares a curious similarity in function.”

From your own link:

“There may be similarities in how they work, but the two drugs are structurally very different.”

Obviously they can’t be the same drug, you can’t take an already patent free drug and make billions from it. What you can do is smear the much cheaper “competition” as something unfit for human use despite the fact that it’s widely used to treat human disease and apparently effective against covid.

 

Like this study?
https://www.theguardian.com/science...vid-treatment-withdrawn-over-ethical-concerns

Also:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01535-y

 

There’s a huge incentive to downplay the effectiveness of a drug that doesn’t make anybody any money. Ask yourself this: if ivermectin is so ineffective why are Pfizer and Merck rushing their own protease inhibitors to fight covid to market? And how much blood is on the hands of all the useful idiots who were pushing the “horse dewormer” narrative?

 

You know where else you can find protease inhibitors? In your f'ing stomach, to stop your digestive enzymes from working once your stomach has done its job. Good luck using that to treat covid.
The problem with protease inhibitors is that they need to provide a better fit to the shape of the protease that they are targeting to be more effective, so the chemical structure is important. Ivermectin was designed to target parasite proteases which bear some similarities to covid proteases, so yes it would have some effect in a petri dish, but it would still be less effective than a chemical that was specifically designed to deal with covid proteases.

Here's how your question sounds to me:
Ask yourself this: if the Loxjie P20 is so boring why are EC and DNA building tube amps?

 

On one hand you've got actual evidence that the studies are flawed, on the other hand you've got vague suspicions that someone would benefit from making the studies look bad (nevermind that other people would benefit from making the studies look good). So what wins, actual evidence or vague suspicions?

 

That's actually not as outlandish as it seems. It has been observed that 15% of the population simply does not get infected no matter the level of exposure. The current hypothesis is that this is a result of a healthy microbiome, the gut.
Still a work in progress and no treatment has been suggested yet. It would be interesting if one is developed. Unlikely as big pharma will never work on it because there is no profit from a treatment that may be available from any grocery store, and they will likely suppress it with their control of msm and politicians.

 

You know what I don't get? Where's all the money from big pharma and politicians in science? I mean, there must be some payoff for scientists to keep publishing marketing brochures for vaccines.

 

Bugger me for getting sucked back in, in less than 24 hours. I'm very weak.

Protease inhibitors are an enormous class of drugs, covering everything from general broad-spectrum digestive enzyme inhibitors, to very specific and potent inhibitors of individual proteases.

The oral Pfizer drug is designed to block a very specific protease within the COVID virus, that stops it from being able to replicate. It does not affect any proteases our own cells need to survive. The chances of you just finding a drug like this in a natural product and being able to provide it cheaply aren't much different from expecting juice cleanses to cure cancer.

Ivermectin can act as a general protease inhibitor. It is not specific for any replication pathway within the COVID virus, and also inhibits proteases your own cells need to survive. In doses high enough to properly prevent viral replication, it has massive off-target effects that will also make you very sick.

I also note the Merck drug announced yesterday is very specific, targeting something called viral RNA-dependent RNA polymerase. Basically, it causes catastrophic mutations as the virus replicates, resulting in the replicants being non-functional.

Clinical trial results FAR better than even the most optimistic estimates of hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, zinc, vitamin D, invermectin, etc. But still only capable of cutting death in half, meaning it is about one-tenth to one-twentieth the efficacy of the mRNA vaccines. But the point stands, these drugs work well with minimal side effects because they are specific to COVID.

I sure as shit haven't seen my drug company cheque yet. Those bastards keep promising to pay me off, but nothing.

(just so we're 100% clear, this is sarcasm)

Drug companies, maybe. But what about all the scientists and doctors who actually run the trials, who want nothing more than to save people's lives? All the government-funded research that wants a cure as fast and as cheap as possible? The drug companies simply don't have the resources to buy off all these people.

If the existing treatments worked, real doctors would be using them, and there would be convincing data to support it. The data is really not convincing, short of extreme cherry-picking of low quality studies.

 

All that stuff about pharma companies and their profits... yeah, I know... but I am still excited about the prospect that Merk has a (possibly over-the-counter) anti-covid drug. The crux is pricing and availability.

crossposted...

I know it's a sample of one, but I do know someone who works for Merk, designing clinical trials*. I'm sure he gets paid well enough (which is something I believe that everyone is entitled to go for) but I also know that he loves the job, and believes that he is better, and more effective, at it than he would be being a physician.


*Probably not this one: I don't have a clue what he is actually working on.