Was Trump Right About The Covid Pill All Along?!

[Pavel Mosko]

Celebrity Russel Brand covers a Matt Taibbi piece, basically reads it and comments on it (He's a great investigative journalist that has tried to just go after truth regardless of politics).
The actual video description is minimal (most of the text is promoting all the different topics and interests he's into). "New antiviral COVID treatment developed by Merck, was held back for 6 months due to political & media bias...

#Trump #COVIDPill #Molnupiravir"



Here's an example of Matt talking about this topic on another show last week if you would rather get it from the original horse's mouth.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Celebrity Russel Brand covers a Matt Taibbi piece, basically reads it and comments on it (He's a great investigative journalist that has tried to just go after truth regardless of politics).
The actual video description is minimal (most of the text is promoting all the different topics and interests he's into). "New antiviral COVID treatment developed by Merck, was held back for 6 months due to political & media bias...

#Trump #COVIDPill #Molnupiravir"

Here's an example of Matt talking about this topic on another show last week if you would rather get it from the original horse's mouth.

Can you provide a short synopsis?
I have very limited data. My internet is all phone tether/hotspot.

 

[miamited]

Hi @Pavel Mosko

I'm not sure why any of this would mean that the 'former guy' was right about anything. This seems to be an issue where a new drug, after Covid came out, got tested and showed some promise, but for whatever reasons, your speaker is saying cronyism, it didn't continue on into the testing and approval phase immediately.

As far as I'm aware, the 'former guy' never mentioned this drug, although I do recall him making some reference at one point that 'they have lots of drugs their working on'. This may or may not have been one of them. Now, as to why the new drug didn't go from conception on through the testing phase to the approval phase as a drug that is effective against covid, I don't know. I'm sure we'll hear more about it if the new drug does receive approval to be used for covid.

However, since the 'former guy' was so great in the minds of his minions at getting things done, you know the 'art of the deal' man, I can't understand why he didn't get this done. For me, it just shows another failure of his administration if there was an earlier cure and he didn't get it done.

God bless,
Ted

 

[A_Thinker]

However, since the 'former guy' was so great in the minds of his minions at getting things done, you know the 'art of the deal' man, I can't understand why he didn't get this done. For me, it just shows another failure of his administration if there was an earlier cure and he didn't get it done.

It's not a cure. It reasonably "halves" the seriousness of the resulting disease, which is significant.

Still, it falls far behind the effectiveness of the current vaccines which decrease the risk of serious COVID illness by, at least, a factor of 10.

Vaccines were and are the first and best line of defense. Also, the vaccines have the effect of slowing and/or halting the spread of COVID, removing the risks of more virulent variants developing.

 

[Palmfever]

Hey Pavel,

It was a reasonable piece, thanks for posting it. Never mind the minions of the Cretin News Network and their predictable foolish responses to anything that does not fit the narrative of their mendacious purveyors of donkey poo and bluster. They voted the senile old fool in and are locked in to defending a mistake.

I did not vote for Trump, and while he did have an issue behaving with the diplomacy a true professional prevaricating politician is expected to exhibit, I found it refreshing and entertaining.

The dogs bark, but the caravan rolls on...

 

[The Barbarian]

It's not a cure. It reasonably "halves" the seriousness of the resulting disease, which is significant.

Still, it falls far behind the effectiveness of the current vaccines which decrease the risk of serious COVID illness by, at least, a factor of 10.

Vaccines were and are the first and best line of defense. Also, the vaccines have the effect of slowing and/or halting the spread of COVID, removing the risks of more virulent variants developing.

Yes, that's it exactly. Unvaccinated people are really vulnerable to severe illness and death. It's very obvious in Texas:

Unvaccinated People in Texas Are 185 Times More Likely to Be Hospitalized, 85 Times More Likely to Die From Covid
The hospitalization rate for the vaccinated in Texas is 4 per 100,000 people. For the unvaccinated, it’s 735 per 100,000. That means unvaccinated people in Texas are 185 times more likely to be hospitalized with Covid than the vaccinated.

The death rate for the vaccinated in Texas is 0.7 per 100,000 people. For the unvaccinated, it’s 61 per 100,000. So unvaccinated people in Texas are 85 times more likely to die from Covid than the vaccinated.

Read the full analysis, which includes a number of other states, here.
Unvaccinated People in Texas Are 185 Times More Likely to Be Hospitalized, 85 Times More Likely to Die From Covid

 

[probinson]

Any time you read stats and headlines about "unvaccinated" people in the US, please keep in mind that also includes "partially vaccinated" people and people whose vaccination status is unknown (read the fine print in the data);

Also keep in mind that with Pfizer, there is a minimum of 35 days from the day that you get your first shot (21 days between doses, 14 days after your second shot) before you are considered "vaccinated" in this data. With Moderna, it's 42 days (28 days between doses, 14 days after your second shot). This means that even if you've had both doses of the vaccine but it's only been 3 days since your last shot and you ended up hospitalized or died, you would be considered "unvaccinated" in this data.

This is also a really keen way to hide any adverse events from vaccines by classifying anything that happens during this "partially vaccinated" timeframe in the "unvaccinated" category. It's also incredibly dishonest, but that isn't stopping public health authorities, the government and the media from repeating it as if it were the gospel truth.

 

[The Barbarian]

This is also a really keen way to hide any adverse events from vaccines by classifying anything that happens during this "partially vaccinated" timeframe in the "unvaccinated" category.

So you're upset that the vaccination process takes some time to complete, that partial vaccination offers some protection, but that infection is more likely if you don't complete the process? That seems rather strange.

It's also incredibly dishonest

No, the producers of these vaccines have been very upfront about the sequences, and after the Delta variant showed up, the need for a booster. It would be um... "dishonest" to pretend otherwise.

BTW, it is quite true that being partially vaccinated reduces your likelihood of infection.
An expert guide on what activities are safe for partially vaccinated people, from dating to going to the gym

To pretend otherwise is also dishonest.

 

[Palmfever]

Kung Flu map, state by state Sept 2
November 10