Joke will be on them when the illegal ballots are also split evenly between the candidates.Quote:
Originally Posted by monet
Printable View
Joke will be on them when the illegal ballots are also split evenly between the candidates.Quote:
Originally Posted by monet
I'm sure it;s just a cohencidence that the cackling cunt won states without voter id requirement but she lost all states what have voter id requirement of some sorts, hey hey.
Quote:
Originally Posted by monetYou really are a Fucking Lunatic.Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
The devil, as always, is in the details. Account posts this but doesn't mention that more than half of the CNN/MSNBC/Fox advertising income in the US is from pharmaceutical firms. He doesn't mention that, for the public good, all but two countries ban pharma advertising on television. You can't not mention these things. They should be mentioned in every single discussion of these issues.
If you are arguing mRNA this and pharma that, but you do not mention these two crucial pieces of information, then you are guilty of editing out of your decision process what are arguably the two most critical pieces of information. You are being either extremely foolish or blatantly dishonest or both. How can you debate or argue these points without mentioning (1) US mainstream media derives more than half its ad income from pharma and (2) the US is one of (last I checked) two countries to allow pharma ads on television? With those two critical pieces out of the frame, the picture is irrevocably incomplete.
I agree, but when you yourself (not conspiracy sites) are able to catch them in misleading headlines using cherry picked data, it's quite eye opening. I was able to do this over and over using raw statistical data. But yes I will also agree the really crazy stuff comes from non-MSM sources. The MSM is smart enough to cherry pick what is technically correct, even though it is entirely contradictory to what the data as a whole is saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
I tried to fact check this a couple years back and could find nothing, absolutely nothing. Almost as if it's been scrubbed... very odd. But if it's true (as multiple sources have stated) it's a problem for sure. A big one.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
It's obvious that pharma has a massive budget for advertising/promotions so it would seem quite plausible.
Stephen King says he is leaving X, calls the platform ‘too toxic’
There was also a story circulating that King was kicked off Twitter (X) by Elon for calling Musk the "First Lady of the White House" (false - but King said that was only because he didn't think of saying it).
In any case, no way King could make it at VCT if he thinks Twitter is too toxic.
It is funny how important pharma related news has been since covid. All those articles.. or wait are they covered up? Or wait maybe even if big pharma has a heavy hand in editorial decisions there is still only a tiny fraction of news relatable to pharmaceuticals.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzQuote:
Originally Posted by monetYou really are a Fucking Lunatic.Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
The devil, as always, is in the details. Account posts this but doesn't mention that more than half of the CNN/MSNBC/Fox advertising income in the US is from pharmaceutical firms. He doesn't mention that, for the public good, all but two countries ban pharma advertising on television. You can't not mention these things. They should be mentioned in every single discussion of these issues.
If you are arguing mRNA this and pharma that, but you do not mention these two crucial pieces of information, then you are guilty of editing out of your decision process what are arguably the two most critical pieces of information. You are being either extremely foolish or blatantly dishonest or both. How can you debate or argue these points without mentioning (1) US mainstream media derives more than half its ad income from pharma and (2) the US is one of (last I checked) two countries to allow pharma ads on television? With those two critical pieces out of the frame, the picture is irrevocably incomplete.
But this isn't what I hear. Msm is just all like coverups.
Blah blah.
Foreign disinformation and influencer-grifters have done enough
on us we will never recover. IT IS FAR BETTER TO BELIEVE RUBBISH than the msm. I see this thinking daily.
But yes redietz again can't cash his check. Where's the paper ol
Boy?
I bet if we watch msm the amount of pharma ads is not anywhere near 50%.Quote:
Originally Posted by jdogI agree, but when you yourself (not conspiracy sites) are able to catch them in misleading headlines using cherry picked data, it's quite eye opening. I was able to do this over and over using raw statistical data. But yes I will also agree the really crazy stuff comes from non-MSM sources. The MSM is smart enough to cherry pick what is technically correct, even though it is entirely contradictory to what the data as a whole is saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
I tried to fact check this a couple years back and could find nothing, absolutely nothing. Almost as if it's been scrubbed... very odd. But if it's true (as multiple sources have stated) it's a problem for sure. A big one.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
It's obvious that pharma has a massive budget for advertising/promotions so it would seem quite plausible.
I bet these claims were just more rubbish on some faker news site.
King is toxic. He has terrible TDS and expects that no one should disagree with him. Good riddance.Quote:
Originally Posted by MDawg
You probably know the Jardiance song by heart.Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestionI bet if we watch msm the amount of pharma ads is not anywhere near 50%.Quote:
Originally Posted by jdogI agree, but when you yourself (not conspiracy sites) are able to catch them in misleading headlines using cherry picked data, it's quite eye opening. I was able to do this over and over using raw statistical data. But yes I will also agree the really crazy stuff comes from non-MSM sources. The MSM is smart enough to cherry pick what is technically correct, even though it is entirely contradictory to what the data as a whole is saying.
I tried to fact check this a couple years back and could find nothing, absolutely nothing. Almost as if it's been scrubbed... very odd. But if it's true (as multiple sources have stated) it's a problem for sure. A big one.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
It's obvious that pharma has a massive budget for advertising/promotions so it would seem quite plausible.
I bet these claims were just more rubbish on some faker news site.
And don’t forget oh oh oh ozempic
I hear that shit all day long.
If I had cable I could tape a predetermined show- post it and we could bet on it. I have no idea where the # is but 50% smells like kewl talking.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmYou probably know the Jardiance song by heart.Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestionI bet if we watch msm the amount of pharma ads is not anywhere near 50%.Quote:
Originally Posted by jdog
I bet these claims were just more rubbish on some faker news site.
And don’t forget oh oh oh ozempic
I hear that shit all day long.
Big pharma has a lot of politicians bought and paid for.
According to Wiki Big Pharma spent 4.6 billion on broadcast and cable advertising in 2020 and accounted for 75% of total ad spend.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
I soft-played the amounts, as I always do, so that when people actually look things up, they say, "Hey, Dietz was actually underreporting this."
But if people don't look things up, then they won't learn.
Good tactic, eh, mickey? I'm a great believer that people should invest their own time and energy in learning things.
There was a funny report regarding CNN recently. CNN was arguing against the 50% pharma ads income reporting. It turned out, for one recent year, it was "just" 47%. LOL. That was CNN's "Aha! You're wrong by 3%!" moment.
Great stuff.
Even anything near 50% is absolutely nuts. These companies have stupid money and I'm sure they can get just about anything done if they really want to.
I'm not going to sit here and defend RFK Jr. all day, but the pharma investments in news programming help explain much of the RFK Jr. coverage.Quote:
Originally Posted by jdog
Redietz lecturing about investigating things themselves is funny.
I went down a rabbit hole researching ivermectin and I believe it was Stanford. Redietz was confused at best. I wasted far too much time looking into non-existent nonsense from him.
I'd like to know this wiki link so I can track it down. I'm always happy to be wrong. 75% is a lot to say the least. It might be the news demographic is just that great for pharma? Regardless I'd still like to see the source so I can know before I change my understanding. I just spent several minutes and could not find news spending #s.
No rabbit hole necessary, what do you think of this: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8088823/Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
I was actually pretty surprised when I saw it.
I spent a lot more time than that. Typically you can find statistical data for just about anything if you look hard enough. You can even find answers to inane and insignificant questions. You don't think it's odd that this info is not easily found?Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
The article is from 21.Quote:
Originally Posted by jdogNo rabbit hole necessary, what do you think of this: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8088823/Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
I was actually pretty surprised when I saw it.
I spent a lot more time than that. Typically you can find statistical data for just about anything if you look hard enough. You can even find answers to very inane and insignificant questions. You don't think it's odd that this info is not easily found?Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
Redietz said something about Stanford being the golden standard of medical treatment and recommending ivermectin. This did not exist. I know there is research that is pro ivermectin. So yea going down this is definitely a rabbithole and not what I was referencing.
No, I don't think it is that odd. There are lots of stats you can't find because the numbers are not broken down to what you want. It is likely they're not reported. The ad budgets of a subset of companies for ads that are a subset of cable news ad spend. Doesn't seem odd to me at all.
Yes it was. There were lot of seriously ill Covid patients in late 2020 and 2021, so was a good time to do studies on this.Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
"Meta-analyses based on 18 randomized controlled treatment trials of ivermectin in COVID-19 have found large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance."
If 18 international studies found positive results overall, it seems plausible Stanford might have as well. But that info does not seem to be found now? Ok fair enough, maybe red is making it up. The MSM dismissed Ivermectin as a horse de-wormer. However two scientists won a Nobel prize for their work with the drug? Pharma comes up with a very expensive drug to treat Covid relatively quickly. Ivermectin is cheap.
Connect the dots man.
I've went down this before. If you want to pay me to waste my time I can do it again. Otherwise I'm not interested.Quote:
Originally Posted by jdogYes it was. There were lot of seriously ill Covid patients in late 2020 and 2021, so was a good time to do studies on this.Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
"Meta-analyses based on 18 randomized controlled treatment trials of ivermectin in COVID-19 have found large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance."
If 18 international studies found positive results overall, it seems plausible Stanford might have as well. But that info does not seem to be found now? Ok fair enough, maybe red is making it up. The MSM dismissed Ivermectin as a horse de-wormer. However two scientists won a Nobel prize for their work with the drug? Pharma comes up with a very expensive drug to treat Covid relatively quickly. Ivermectin is cheap.
Connect the dots man.
The Nobel prize for ivermectin had to do with it being an anti-parasitic. Not anti-viral. No one is claiming it isn't a great dewormer or whatever.
I think that's true but obviously winning an award of that magnitude means it was a game changer. MSM talked about it like it was almost completely insignificant outside of veterinary use but these studies say otherwise.Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
The point I'm making is over and over you see the most prominent info always seems to benefit pharma. If you can't see that then I don't know what else to say.
Msm talked it plenty. They just never framed it as a wonder drug and were cynical. While your study is impressive I believe there are others later on that show that while it may very well do something - the effect is very minor and questionable as to whether it even exists. My opinion on it on it has very little to do with msm.Quote:
Originally Posted by jdogI think that's true but obviously winning an award of that magnitude means it was a game changer. MSM talked about it like it was almost completely insignificant outside of veterinary use but these studies say otherwise.Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
The point I'm making is over and over you see the most prominent info always seems to benefit pharma. If you can't see that then I don't know what else to say.
Yea I googled covid meta study and read a few conclusions. Most say it does nothing but here is a positive one..notice how even they call out the bs websites by antivaxxers.
And I quote...
a recent publication, the authors reported that in addition to the retracted trials, several others claiming benefits for IVM may be equally of concern. Which emphasized that trial registry updates could not explain the incompatibility between published participant demographics and timelines that are inconsistent with the authenticity of the data collection [27]. Therefore, it is critical for reviewers to keep updated with potential new retractions in time before following strict methodological standards. A number of supporters, many of whom are anti-vaccination activists, have continued to vigorously promote the use of IVM, claiming that real evidence has been ignored. Some websites have released systematic reviews on the effectiveness of IVM for COVID-19 (covid19criticalcare.com) and (https://ivmmeta.com). Most of which are not peer-reviewed, do not present the eligible criteria used in the selection process, and do not display statistical criteria for assessing the effectiveness and heterogeneity among included studies. These websites, according to Roman et al., provide misinformation to health professionals, patients, and the general population who are unable to critically analyze scientific studies. Our thorough and transparent review may contribute to disseminate authentic evidence. Although the incidences of AEs and PCR negative conversion were lower in IVM group, the incidence of SAEs was comparable between the two groups. As associated with a certain clinical benefit, these should be taken into account in the management of patients with COVID-19.
5. Conclusion
In summary, ivermectin could reduce the risk of mechanical ventilation requirement and adverse events in patients with COVID-19, without increasing other risks. Despite no conclusive evidence or guidelines recommending ivermectin as a therapeutic drug for COVID-19, clinicians could use it with caution in the absence of better alternatives, and self-medication of ivermectin is not recommended for patients with COVID-19.
Well MSM did a pretty good job of convincing me Ivermectin was nonsense early on, so I was surprised to see so many legit studies with positive results.Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
Google: how much advertising does big pharma do on cable televisionQuote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
And: what percentage of cable advertising is big pharma
One ai result says they spend 75% of their ad budget on cable TV. The other one agrees with you but it is AI generated. I couldn't readily find what the ai was talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmGoogle: how much advertising does big pharma do on cable televisionQuote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
And: what percentage of cable advertising is big pharma
You move these two threads, but you leave all those other garbage threads in the Las Vegas area?
Makes no sense.
Too many garbage threads to actually list.
Like: Professional Sportsbetting, KewlJ you're an asshole, was tasha in Miltons Path... etc. etc.
You don't even move: How to take Kamagra jelly Thread??
Yea moving it here sucks.
I still want to know to what level pharma pays cable news. I still don't believe even 50%. Maybe 25? Happy to be wrong..what we found so far is Google AI creating an answer which definitely works off the principle if enough people say it is true then it is true.
Would also like to see redietz Mr laughingly intellectual claims to have some paper that shows it all. I google meta studies and the most pro-ivermectin one I found, I posted. Actual real studies with full transparency of all methodology.
Maybe I need to tie it all in Las Vegas so we can restart this thread. Maybe.. how big of a role does big pharma have in the pushing of vaccines in Las Vegas? I really want to know.
I dunno dude.
Trump looking pretty good.
And he got a gang with him this time.
I mean, probably nothing will change but he looks 1000x better than Biden.
I don't vote.
I don't care.
I just want to be entertained.
Trump makes me laugh.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4st9LQZE-MY
You can't even get the full chicken wing skit on YouTube anymore.
Notice how everyone had no problem Trump.
Full Skit on this mediaite site.
https://www.mediaite.com/tv/watch-th...-wings-sketch/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwqklRh2irA&t=38s
Matt Goetz the plastic surgery addict degenerate was AG. Then they all want to say you're TDS and this was a good direction for the country.
Fastest cabinet withdrawal for a President elect in the history of the country. He smashed the record. Previous record 61 daysQuote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
Dems have more to fear from Pam Bondi than Matt Gaetz. She’s MAGA and super competent.Quote:
Originally Posted by terapinedtheskepticFastest cabinet withdrawal for a President elect in the history of the country. He smashed the record. Previous record 61 daysQuote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
I'm a DemQuote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmDems have more to fear from Pam Bondi than Matt Gaetz. She’s MAGA and super competent.Quote:
Originally Posted by terapinedtheskepticFastest cabinet withdrawal for a President elect in the history of the country. He smashed the record. Previous record 61 daysQuote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
I certainly don't fear her lol
Tell you what. If I decide to run a scam university and she comes snooping around, I'll just donate 25k and she will stop snooping
Trump is going to place tariffs on Mexico and Canada on the first day. This is going to get juicy.
You may not be scared but plenty of deep state'rs are scared shitless.Quote:
Originally Posted by terapinedtheskepticI'm a DemQuote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmDems have more to fear from Pam Bondi than Matt Gaetz. She’s MAGA and super competent.Quote:
Originally Posted by terapinedtheskeptic
I certainly don't fear her lol
Tell you what. If I decide to run a scam university and she comes snooping around, I'll just donate 25k and she will stop snooping
Please explain how this will help bring down the prices of consumer goods in the USA which he also promised to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
Tariffs result in less product coming in and We, the People paying higher prices since the importer in the USA has to pay the tariff, not the chinks or the canucks.
Please explain to me how tariffs that other countries (China and EU, for example) have placed on American goods to keep their citizens from buying them, helps American businesses and workers.Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterVPlease explain how this will help bring down the prices of consumer goods in the USA which he also promised to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
Tariffs result in less product coming in and We, the People paying higher prices since the importer in the USA has to pay the tariff, not the chinks or the canucks.