LAGuns87

15 hours ago, Sweersa said:

Wouldn't the antibodies in him after he battles covid (assuming he survives, I hope he does) be better than any vaccine?

COVID-19 is probably the best thing to happen to Pfizer since Viagra.

T-cells not antibodies. Antibodies are just the temporary reaction. While the antibodies will disappear after a while the t-cells will not. They remain for years, possibly life. And they give you immunity to any SARS virus, if that's what you got, including the one from 10 years ago.

Vaccine doesn't give you t-cells as it doesn't activate your immune system in the same way (you need to be actually sick).

Breaking: Pharmaceutical company believes in flat earth

New ivemerctin based medicine for Covid:

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210419005658/en/Clinical-Trial-Conducted-by-MedinCell-Confirms-the-Safety-of-Continuous-Administration-of-Ivermectin

https://www.bloomberg.com/press-releases/2021-04-19/clinical-trial-conducted-by-medincell-confirms-the-safety-of-continuous-administration-of-ivermectin-knorrnr1A

And what do you say, zero side effects? 

1 hour ago, downzy said:

"President Trump is being given a five-day course of the antiviral drug remdesivir, one of the doctors treating him said during a briefing on Saturday."

https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/04/health/covid-trump-drugs-remdesivir-dexamethasone-explainer/index.html

Might have something to do with the fact that there's very little testing and diagnosis happening on the continent.  This might come as a shock to you, but Africa isn't the wealthiest of places.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(21)00504-X/fulltext

Is it?  You don't seem to know much about the third world in general, so I'm not inclined to believe that these drugs are any more widely available as they are here to treat what they were designed for.

There is no evidence to support this claim

We have no idea what they treated him with. We know they would definitely lie if it suited their purposes.

Let's just take a random country. Say Nigeria, can't get any more African than that. 200 million people. 2% vaccinated. 3000 covid deaths. Ok, ok they don't test them but surely they can still count dead people. So what about death rate? 2021 lower than 2020 and 2020 lower than 2019.

I've visited the third world and one of the most obvious differences is the ready and cheap availability of pharmaceutical drugs. In the West you have to go through a doctor for most stuff and they have been ordered to not give out ivermectin.

There is a mountain of evidence if you just did 30 mins of reading on a duckgoduck search.

1 hour ago, SoulMonster said:

Hmm? What virus is "from the same genetic family as the cold"? Neither influenza virus or SARS-CoV-2 is closely enough related to the cold virus for therapies against any of these being particularly interchangeable. Remdisivir may have some effect as a treatment but of course cannot replace vaccines as a protection. 

Uhm, they are absolutely harmful when used wrongly and as other therapies come with their own adverse side effects!

And at the end you mention some possible and some confirmed side effects of mRNA covid-19 vaccines, as if it was new to anyone that these too, come with side effects. What you fail to argue is that the side effects of Covid-19 vaccines means the vaccines fail a cost-benefit analysis and that these alternative treatments are better. Basically, you just repeat some talking points you like without presenting hard evidence. 

Apparently it is close enough. Over 300 studies last I read and the results to prove it in the countries mentioned. 

Everything is harmful when used wrongly. Too much water will kill you. Such things could all be avoided if doctors and government got involved instead of ripping it off the shelves to justify their cocktail.

MRNA vaccines don't give you immunity. A virus with a 99,5% survival rate is what your immune system is meant to handle on its own. Why should a healthy person risk side effects for a virus that won't be a problem for him? You don't achieve immunity, you can still infect others. Nothing changes. And if you get sick in the first 8 weeks you risk becoming very sick indeed because your immune system has still not worked itself back from the vaccine shock.

1 hour ago, SoulMonster said:

I Googled Berenson and it turns out is not a virologist, epidemiologist or even a doctor, basically he has no credentials, and furthermore: this was on his Wikipedia entry:

"He spent much of the pandemic arguing that its seriousness was overblown; once COVID-19 vaccines were rolled out, he made false claims about the safety and effectiveness of vaccines." 

Yeah, I don't think I am going to waste my time reading what he says.

Uhm, no doctors have been administering anything to fight corona for years. Besides, it is my opinion that doctors should only practise evidence-based health, and if a particular therapy has not been shown in clinical trials, or from overwhelming abundance of empirical evidence after years of practice, to work, then they are ethically bound to not give it to their patients. 

And it is hard to interpret the next you are saying as anything but that Covid-19 vaccines will "certainly lead to their deaths instead". You cannot possibly make such outrageous claims without backing them up. Come on, what evidence do you have for such nonsense? 

Eh, yes, these countries have Covid-19, and no, we in the West where sicker last year. What you fail to do, is convincingly argue that the administration of these therapies actually work better than vaccines. 

He's good at gathering information from other sources. But ok you want a doctor.

The inventor of MRNA technology Robert Malone tells you to not take this shot. The inventor of the PCR test Kary Mullis tells you not to use the test for Covid because it is useless. You get a bunch of false positives, especially when you exceed 35 cycles. We do 40.

Patients take the drug, they mostly get well. Entire continents are doing it with success. What more evidence do you need?

Heart inflammation has bad long term statistics. You have a good chance of dying in the near future if you get it. This happens primarily in young men with high testosterone levels and it has been a notorious side effect of the vaccine. 

3 minutes ago, downzy said:

Remdesivir was used to treat Trump while in office. 

Sadly, it did not lead to the outcome you speak of.  

Nearly 3 million cases and 86k deaths in South Africa alone.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/south-africa/

We have no idea what was actually used to treat Trump. If they did use that he's lucky to be alive.

And the rest of Africa? The non Western, non vaccinated part? How are they doing? 6% vaccinated. There doesn't appear to be any crisis like up here.

2 minutes ago, downzy said:

I think you're confusing the common cold with the flue.

Ivermectin has been used to treat the following: Parasitic infestations in humans include head lice, scabies, river blindness, strongyloidiasis, trichuriasis, ascariasis, and lymphatic filariasis. 

It has not been used to treat anything else.  

Not at all.

Again, not at all...

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2021/09/23/two-people-died-ivermectin-poisoning-new-mexico/5830791001/

 

Those diseases are the reason this drug is widely available in the third world. Even better it is also very effective against covid and other similar diseases. Which is why countries like India and Japan have gotten wise and ended their epidemics along with most of Africa. No lockdowns, no reeducation camps and no sending families on the street because they refuse experimental jabs from big pharma. Of course with the relentless and aggressive jabbing going on this might all change soon. 

3 minutes ago, downzy said:

I was just curious whether it would be more like the yearly flu vaccines that don't require the same amount of time to formulate, produce, and distribute.  

This Alex Berenson?

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/04/pandemics-wrongest-man/618475/

There have been doctors treating covid-19 patients with ivermectin for years? 

Pretty amazing considering covid-19 just turned two. 

It's from the same genetic family as the cold, so yeah. That's why large parts of the world have fought this disease with great success using these cheap and effective drugs. And the best part? They're non harmful. No children in the ICU or the morgue, no debilitating headaches for the rest of your life or a heart attack in 3 to 8 years if you got mycordatis, statistically speaking.

27 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

If you are not able to back up your claims, can you at least point me to someone who can instead of vaguely claiming the information is out there?

I don't watch US TV. 

I haven't heard of any doctor who would rather quit the job than get vaccinated. Seems like a symptom of a flawed medical education. 

Try Alex Berenson's substack. Just put it in a search engine.

No? Let's say you are a doctor. For years you have been treating patients with ivermectin and querctin. Then the government comes and says you have to stop that else lose your license, and that from now on you shall only prescribe remesdesvir which is very expensive, very lethal and has practically no medicinal effect. Patients come to you, people you know. You know what kind of medicine will probably save their lives but instead you are forced to give them something that will almost certainly lead to their deaths instead.

Who uses ivermectin and querctin? India, Japan, Africa. Do they have Covid? Nope. While over here in the vaccinated west people have never been sicker. The truth is literally staring you in the face.

And to all the people that are saying "trust the experts!", why do you think doctors and nurses are quitting in droves instead of submitting to the jab? They're all just Alex Jones subscribers? Well maybe they are now...

On 11/24/2021 at 5:17 PM, SoulMonster said:

I think the rest of the world would appreciate facts that show that the vaccines don't work. Why not tell the rest of the forum and not specifically me, then?

If you wanted to know, you would know! All the information is available to anyone who wants it. I guess I don't have to tell you that place is not MSNBC.

12 hours ago, downzy said:

Kind of mind blowing that more Americans died of covid-19 in 2021 than in 2020 (and we still have a month to go).

Thanks anti-vaxxers. 

The lack of logic in this statement is absolutely shocking. Not very confident in your "vacccine" are you?

23 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

@LAGuns87: It would be really cool of you could present those of facts of yours that show that the vaccines aren't good for us. Can you do that?

@Sisyphus: And you mentioned something about "alternatives to be considered" to -- I assume -- vaccines and social restrictions - what was that?

Nah, waste of time. Might as well try to turn a Jihadist away from his religion.

29 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

What fact is being suppressed? The vaccines have gone through clinical trials and shown to protect against Covid-19 with few side effects. Are you going to point to flaws in the clinical trials experiments, data analysis, or conclusions? 

There is nothing irrational in doubting companies that frequently lie to us. But you don't need to trust the companies, you can trust the science (clinical trials results are peer-reviewed). 

Believing these vaccines are not effective and not as safe as claimed, despite the scientific evidence we have, is irrational. You are deliberately embracing theories that make little sense. 

It takes 10 years to do proper trials. This was rolled out in 1 and the amount of deaths and side effects do not look promising. You are already 1/50 at risk for a side effect and that's the very lowball number. Could easily be 1/25 or even 1/10. My father was already hospitalized and is suffering constant headaches 6 months and counting. I should take this shot for a disease I already had? Forget about it! 

9 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Demonstrations in Austria after mandated Covid-19 vaccines. 40-100.000 anti-vaxxers are marching in Vienna. The government felt this was required because the vaccine uptake has been too low and they have too many hospitalizations. 

I know I have been involved in many discussions on this, but I still don't understand why people would not want to take a vaccine that is demonstrably good for them. I just can't wrap my head around it. Anti-vaxxers used to be a fairly small group of people generally laughed at, but as soon as we all are asked to vaccinate ourselves, and it is not only about vaccines for children, it turns out many more people these irrational beliefs. 

 

They are going to do a lot more than march if they keep pushing.

It is not demonstrably good for you and this fact is being suppressed, which is why you don't know about it. Those of us who do know will go down fighting before this poison is injected into us.

I don't see what is irrational with doubting companies that have put out bad product before and lied about it. This vaccine isn't even approved. They have no clue what will happen long term. Or at least, we don't.

5 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

If it did cause immune systems to "go apeshit" that would be shown in the clinical trials. And you don't have to read about the results of the clinical trials on Pfizer's webpage, you can read about it in peer-reviewed publications. Secondly, if it did cause immune systems to "go apeshit", this would be evident from the billions of shots administered globally now, through the various post-launch reporting and monitoring systems. Alas, there is no evidence in either for apeshiting. 

The claim that the vaccine causes the immune system to go nuts, contrary to all the available evidence we have now for one of the most administered vaccines in history of mankind, is really scraping the conspiracy barrel for something that will stick. 

Not enough time has passed. In the animal experiments most of the animals died within 2 years.

My friend's father just took a test at his doctor. Immune cell counts had never been lower. This could be...dangerous.

21 hours ago, GNRfanMILO said:

People will buy the shit of it only if the band and the label decide to do a proper marketing campaign. 

There's a reason why Hard Skool hasn't even surpassed Absurd in views and is being already forgotten with a pathetic amount of 1.6M views, when bands like AC/DC or Iron Maiden are pulling off 5, 6, 7 or even 10 million views per single. And those bands have been around forever, they don't have the Axl+Slash sales boost.

Back in 2016, even a compilation of Slash and Axl farts would've gotten 10M views without advertisement. Now it's too late IMO.

This is going to sound crazy optimistic, but maybe the reason Absurd and HS are released like this is because it's just something they want to put out there on their own, while the real album gets taken care of by the label. Would explain the lack of promotion, they are not going to sink their own money into it.

1 hour ago, Axl S said:

Slash discussed how you used to just do the single before the album but now things are different and are rolled out differently prior to an album and that they were looking at all that. That part happened.

He also said ultimately they want to do an album. He's been correct so far. Don't see a reason to doubt what he's saying. Same with Fernando over last 1-2 years, almost everything he has said has come to be true - he's just vague at times just like Slash.

It is no wonder Axl is a mystery to people when he keeps making moves that doesn't make any sense. Why is he even releasing this music? The tour is over, there is no promotion and no evidence of any kind of push from the band at all. Of course we don't expect him to do any interviews, but there are plenty of band members who could. They suffer jetlag and performing on stage for hours, but somehow nobody even has the bother to book an online interview in the comfort of their own home to promote their new release. It's almost as if Axl has decreed total radio silence for reasons unknown. This kind of behavior is usually seen in murder trials.

Just now, Coma16 said:

Don't the labels ultimately dictate what gets radio push? Have they already given up on the regrouping, basically minutes after they finally released something? Or are they waiting for the push if/when an album is announced as thats where the dollars are? There wasn't even a video for HS...

Don't think the label are involved in these releases. Seems to be just Axl and Co.

12 minutes ago, Blackstar said:

Speaking of the label, there's been a lot of speculation about GnR's contract with UMG and how many albums they may still owe, etc. But there is an aspect to these recent GnR releases that, although ti has been noticed and discussed, it hasn't gotten the attention it deserves: the difference in the copyright credits compared to previous releases (e.g. AFD box set and CD). According to the credits for Absurd and Hard Skool, GnR fully owns the copyright of the recordings "with exclusive license to Geffen" (this is similar to the credits for the SMKC albums, which are copyrighted to Slash's self-owned label and licensed to another label). That suggests that the recordings were self-financed (probably recorded and mixed in their home studios). Even though the band is obviously still associated with Geffen/UMG in some way, these singles appear to be basically self-releases with license to Geffen only for distribution. Could that even mean that they're free from their recording agreement with UMG and have another kind of agreement with them now? We'll have to wait and see how this unfolds and if it will be the same with future releases and the album (if there is one).

This might also explain the limited/on demand physical releases, as well as the complete lack of promotion of the new songs from the label. In the case of the Appetite box set there were billboards, unboxing promo videos, articles quoting UMG reps, etc, and all that promotion was from Universal; the band had just shared it on their social media. Now promotion is entirely on the band, management and whatever (if any) PR company they've been working with.

That's great news if they're on their own. Promotion will be shit but at least all Axl needs to do now to release a song is to just drop it online. I suppose that would be close to optimal from his perspective. Absolute control and freedom. He okayed Absurd so he can't be all that picky about these songs. 

3 minutes ago, Tom-Ass said:

Just like most other aging singers he is just losing his voice..  I don't think taking 5 years off would be any better than the last year and a half he took off..  A 5 year break is insane.. Who knows if they will all still be healthy and able to perform at that point.. I can't see a 65 year old Axl sounding better any than he does now.. His voice will never be the same but he is still good enough that his voice isn't ruining shows for people.. They still put on awesome shows. 

I think preperation and practice is what he could benefit from the most. Work on ways to compensate for the areas where he struggles..

He has been losing his voice since 1986, but he still sounded a lot better just a few years ago than he does now. That suggests fatigue. It reminds me of what we saw on the Illusion tour. He recovered from that albeit with a worse voice.

Okay five years is overkill but he should take a break or at least do fewer shows. Shouldn't need the money anymore, not the other guys either. "Only" pulling home 10-20 million a year should be doable instead of the 50 or whatever they are getting now, but what do I know.  

I don't understand why a seasoned singer should need practice. The dude knows how to sing if the voice is there. He's already compensating but there's only so much you can do there.

I'm starting to think his voice is simply shot after too many years of touring. He's been almost constantly on the road since 2009. Especially in the last 5 years he's been busy. I think he simply needs a break. More than 18 months. Hopefully we see a positive change next summer, but if he's planning to keep on with this tour schedule there is nothing to save it long term. They should take a 5 year break from touring then do a last big one with hopefully improved vocals.

On 9/28/2021 at 10:00 PM, MrSoftie said:

I know it's been said a million times before but if Axl dressed like that on stage he'd look so much more.. Axl.

He should just always wear a bandana. Really the perfect trademark. Hides the receding hairline and creates instant recognizability. When he wore that on some gigs in 2009 he looked exactly as you'd expect an aged UYI Axl to look like.

15 hours ago, Sweersa said:

I hope the '98 or '99 re-recorded AFD surfaces one of these days, mostly to hear Axl. He sounded great in the second half of Sweet Child.

That SCOM part is incredibly hard to sing and may be the best example how much subtletly Axl lost between 86 and 99. It sounds great with the new take but you can clearly hear what is missing from his voice.