Topic: Anti-vaxxers now drinking their own urine - page 3. (Read 1085 times)

That's how the medical establishment felt about some goofy so-called 'doctor' who had this crazy idea that unsanitary conditions in a hospital contributed to infection.

After reducing the rate of sepsis down to near zero in his ward by asking the medical staff to wash their hands, Ignaz Semmelweis was lauded by his peers as a great hero of medical science.  Just kidding; they had him committed to a mental institution where he was beaten by the guards and died from an infection of a wound he received during the assault.

               Lol, I don't even know if I should be laughing or be worried about where the human evolution is heading now. Instead of going forward we seem to ba going backwards. This is madness and very misleading although might be quite hilarious, if it happens to someone I know or care about specially close friends and family, it'll be a nightmare trying to change their views.

Some/most of them/us wouldn't believe that cloth masks stop aerosolized viruses in any meaningful way.  The conjecture is both ludicrous on it's face, and nearly all seemingly legitimate scientific research on the matter demonstrates that it is non-sense.  There are valid reasons to believe that over-use of such devices contributes significantly to other kinds of risks and is silly unless one is painting a house, or perhaps riding public transportation in a society where tuberculosis is endemic.

As for urine therapy, I personally can conceive of some plausible mechanisms for beneficial effect, but the same can be said for almost anything else.  I've not heard anything especially convincing (including Dr. Group's vid), but I also have not looked very hard.  If/when I have a compelling personal need, urine therapy will be on my list of things to explore more deeply.  In contrast, 'crystal therapy' probably will not.

I will be paying attention to what the medical profession hospitalists suggest as well, but it will be mostly to figure out what to avoid or try as a last resort, and what to research as probable counter-productive toxins.

Lmao. Heard it here first folks. Urine cures everything from cancer to hair loss!

Yet another data point for my ongoing study entitled "Is there anything anti-vax morons won't believe if it's posted in a Bitchute video?".

Antidote for the Vaccinated
https://www.bitchute.com/video/JPnHSR3shpsq/?list=subscriptions

I get what you're saying... but that's some pretty "unreasonable" stuff. I can't say I'd ever see myself drinking piss because of a virus.. but maybe if I find myself stranded in the desert or something??

Outside of Fauci, I honestly don't know a whole lot about the specific Dr's mentioned here (outside of what I saw in some of the links provided..), but I've definitely seen double standards, everywhere (insert meme ). I think some of it may partially be based on hysteria from decision makers, leading to bad decisions, which creates the double standards.. but a lot of it seems driven by political strategies or agendas trying to seize the opportunity, on various levels of governments. I think it all just causes confusion and distrust among people.

A lot of weird stuff going on these days, and 2022 doesn't seem to be changing the trend so far.
.. life's too short for all this crap to complicate it!

Localities in the US and plenty of places outside of the US were stopping gatherings. It just seemed the health experts were so keen on stopping certain gatherings while not stopping others. Only difference was one was one gathering was politically feasible.



Maybe the theme of all the COVID hysteria is that people do unreasonable things when they're afraid, including drinking their own piss. Though this story is isolated, I recall a story in which a mother loaded her own child into the trunk of her car because she had COVID. This may have been in Texas. And apparently the mother was a teacher too so I can't imagine what type of education she's providing to others.

I'm quite certain there was a Trump rally around the same time when street protests were taking place so it doesn't look like the government was particularly keen on using "COVID as an excuse to stop religious practices or recreational practices".

Anyway, what does all this have to do with drinking pee-pee?

I see a distinction.

It does not benefit the government to stop people going out to the pub.
It does benefit the government to stop people protesting against the government.

If they have no incentive to stop people going to the pub, then it seems likely that there is a legitimate reason to stop people going to the pub.
Perhaps there is also a reason to stop people gathering in a crowd and protesting against the government. Or perhaps if they're all wearing masks it's less of an issue. Perhaps if they're also, somehow, social distancing, it's even less of an issue. Or perhaps it is genuinely a public health risk for them to gather like that.

I can certainly see that having a load of protesters in close proximity for a prolonged period of time during a respiratory pandemic could be unsafe. But that's not really the issue. The issue is the government using the pandemic as an excuse to clamp down on activities that are critical of the government.

If there are 10,000 people gathered together protesting, and the government says "These people shouldn't be gathering like that. Protests are unsafe and are now banned" ... then that's one thing. But if one person then stands outside the city hall with a placard, and the government arrest him because "Hey, don't you remember? We said protests are unsafe and are now banned" then that's quite a different thing.

Hey, we can shut this guy down, right? Because pandemic.

I don't treat Trump like a medical doctor. He spouts off what he wants to and so I don't take medical advice from him. Tanning advice, maybe.


Or COVID lockdowns, perhaps?

Governments implemented all kinds of restrictions, you couldn't gather in places of worship if you wanted to because any congregate settings were deemed to be unsafe. The government can use COVID as an excuse to stop religious practices or recreational practices, but they can't use COVID to stop radical racial demonstrations, plenty of which erupted oi violence, according to the 1200 doctors that signed that letter. Do you see the double standard here?

Twitter is kicking itself. Users registering in all kinds of new sides what have popped up and want return, gone for good.
Someone willing to spend x amount of energy/time will do so, no matter what, if banned at one place it will be at another.
Twitter obviously wants a bit of decentralization, true Bitcoin spirit.

People who spread misinformation (whether intentionally or through sheer stupidity and laziness) are shut down. This is why, for example, the pathological liar Donald Trump was kicked from Twitter. You should see some of the utter crap spouted by anti-vaxxers. And if you refute it, they refuse to engage, and simply share whatever comes out of the sewer pipe next.


That's not quite what they said though, is it? I mean, the headline from your link is "Don't shut down protests using coronavirus concerns as an excuse".
I'm sure you're aware that there is a history of governments using certain situations as an excuse to impose draconian new laws, and to restrict civil liberties, as we saw for example in the aftermath of 9/11.

I only recall a few of his statements that he mentioned with his interview with Joe Rogan, where he explains the context. Some of these are misleading. He said there were no reinfections before omicron, and he was generally correct. With the alpha strain, there was no reinfection. With delta, there wasn't much either. He's acknowledged that reinfection is possible with omicron. And he was minimizing the significance of asymptomatic spread from what I recall. Dr. Fauci himself says the asymptomatic do not act as chief vectors of transmission, so there's clear disagreement to the extent asymptomatic individuals spread Covid. I didn't take from his statement that it was impossible for an asymptomatic person to spread Covid, but rather symptomatic individuals drive spread, which isn't an unreasonable theory.



I am not suggesting that people like Dr. McCullough or Dr. Malone have all the answers, just that people with politically inconvenient opinions about COVID have been shut down. Didn't 99 percent of doctors say we needed lockdowns too? Seemingly the few experts on public health that disagreed with the lockdowns were targeted. It was over a year after lockdowns that some officials at WHO admitted lockdowns weren't a feasible strategy. They all seem to be significantly behind, it would seem.

Remember when "doctors" suggested it was okay to gather in large crowds as long as it was for protesting for social justice?

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/05/health/health-care-open-letter-protests-coronavirus-trnd/index.html

I don't see anyone calling these people quacks, I wonder why that is.

Hard evidence or not, during april of 2021 states with no mask mandates like Texas, Georgia, South dakota, Tennessee, Mississippi etc it can be seen clearly that the "flattening" of the case curve happened much earlier and faster. New Jersey and New York saw their cases stay high much later into spring / summer. All i said was that masks seem to have little effect if you compare mandate states with non mandate states, and this can be seen by just looking at the case curves of these states, anyone can check it out, its public data. I am not saying it is the masks that works or not, just that it is strange that there is no visible effect of these mandates ergo they are not backed by data.

1. I would not use a political organisation with funding from pharma companies and / or investors therein as a source of information.
2. 1918 was a disaster, not sure masks did much good there, especially when considering most died of secondary bacterial infections which masks could actually prevent hmm again strange...
3. Masks worn during operations is not intended to stop airborne viruses but droplets rather and the risk of bacterial infections that comes with droplets. If doctors operated during an infection with an airborne virus i would argue that the patient could be infected just as well with or without and open wound.

---

Could you issue such a certificate please, might be a mandate coming out of Bidens office anyday now! I am pretty sure he needs one aswell

Seems o_e_l_e_o must have some "golden shower" withdraws from lockdowns or something. Is the "Anti-vaxxers" some kind of special golden shower procedure ?
Urine isn't all that much different to blood.and some people lick it off when they cut themself. All animals do lick wounds.
Back in the day after the last world war people with any kind of throat infection gargled some of the own piss to effectively deal with the situation at hand. In modern days there is no need to do so, plenty choices available to deal with it like Ivermectin and Hydroxychloriquine or https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35007072/




This is still a Bitcoin forum or is it now xrp or other junk craps domain?

I would like to see some kind of evidence for your saying, but I highly doubt it that there is any. As I've mentioned before, masks were a common practice even in the past, during the Influenza pandemic in 1918. Even in theory, it's pretty logical why masks are a preventive measure of infection, doctors always used them during medical procedures to avoid infecting the patient. If it wasn't for the mask mandate, especially throughout the first phases of Covid-19, we would definitely have a dramatically higher number of cases, and deaths of course.

A quick look at WHO's website may educate you, unless you know better.
https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/coronavirus-disease-covid-19-masks

I think it is fair to say that you are a certifiable moron.

I am qualified, I would say 5 years of biochemistry and engineering studies resulting in a M.sc in protein science and yeah viruses are essentially proteins with some RNA or DNa inside .. I am not arguing that the mask could not work in theory or in a very controlled environment, for preventing droplets to spreading in the air, to stop a single virus is impossible for simple N/M 95/94 masks and not what they are designed to do.
I am saying masks SEEM to have no effect on the spread in society if you compare mask mandate schools and states with non mandate schools and states. It even seems like mask mandate states are worse off, and i said strange.
I would guess that masks are used poorly and that masked citizens think they are protected more than they actually are, which leads to unnecessary risk behavior.

Is it safe to assume that you're not actually a qualified biochemist?
Have you actually looked at the studies and associated data around mask efficacy? Surgical masks are obviously better than simple cloth masks, but the data show that cloth masks do have a protective effect. Even if they aren't 100% effective, they are still going to reduce viral load.

Mask mandate states show absolutely no reduction in cases, schools with mask mandates show no lower case count compared to no mask schools, they have literally 0 effect on the state of covid it seems. Strange indeed.

I really like the fact that mask propagandists lite Fauci first concluded they do not work against viral spread then changed his/their minds to it is so effective we must mandate it!!

Drinking urine sounds questionable even though many does it and it is safe.