Ebionite
Well-Known Member
Source: https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/5.3.6-postmarketing-experience.pdf
The National Archives redaction coding page defines redaction code (B) (4) as:
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Suppression of Free Speech on Covid
- Thread starter Kenny
- Start date
Source: https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/5.3.6-postmarketing-experience.pdf
The National Archives redaction coding page defines redaction code (B) (4) as:
sew.excited73
Wendy-Anne - I am Dutch/British
AAAAAAAAAAnnnd that is exactly why I said you would have to watch the full 3 hours, otherwise you would come to exactly THAT conclusion!Never mind, I watched 30 sec, long enough to see that this was going to be at best an infomercial and that the person was
Aseem Malhotra - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Whose claims are garden variety quackery, he might be a competent cardiologist and even have a point on stations but the vaccines are so far out of his expertise that there is no way I would put up with hours of Joe Rogan.
It is how the terminology is used in the contemporary sense which is deferent based on your anti-science COVID agenda and not the old definition. No issue of cognitive dissonance involved here. an explanation is needed in the context of the subject of the thread.
I still question how you use it in reference a medicine with a 'Black Box label' regardless of the side effects. The old definition, where the definition is for something very hazardous, How is this related to the Topic of the thread? The vaccines do nt have 'Black Box labels as defined, The purpose of taking this drug would have to involve something very serious before I would take it such as radiation medicine for cancer treatments.
A black box warning, also known as a boxed warning, is the most serious warning the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) can issue for a medication. It's a prominent warning that indicates a drug has a serious hazard associated with it.
Black box warnings are usually located at the beginning of a drug's labeling to make them stand out. They can be found on the drug's package insert, in the Physicians' Desk Reference, on the FDA's website, and on the drug manufacturer's website.
.
Last edited:
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
Like I said, I am using the terminology correctly as far as I know.
Incomplete response without explanation. Dis you have a very serious illness that involved a medication with a Black Box label????
Again . . . .
It is how the terminology is used in the contemporary sense which is deferent based on your anti-science COVID agenda and not the old definition. No issue of cognitive dissonance involved here. an explanation is needed in the context of the subject of the thread.
I still question how you use it in reference a medicine with a 'Black Box label' regardless of the side effects. The old definition, where the definition is for something very hazardous, How is this related to the Topic of the thread? The vaccines do nt have 'Black Box labels as defined, The purpose of taking this drug would have to involve something very serious before I would take it such as radiation medicine for cancer treatments.
black box label drugs - Google Search
A black box warning, also known as a boxed warning, is the most serious warning the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) can issue for a medication. It's a prominent warning that indicates a drug has a serious hazard associated with it.
Black box warnings are usually located at the beginning of a drug's labeling to make them stand out. They can be found on the drug's package insert, in the Physicians' Desk Reference, on the FDA's website, and on the drug manufacturer's website.
Otherwise no meaning. You need to respond to @Pogo's accurate reference with footnotes, which seriously questions your reference to a 3 hour video from a questionable source..AAAAAAAAAAnnnd that is exactly why I said you would have to watch the full 3 hours, otherwise you would come to exactly THAT conclusion!
If you stoically insist on the content of the video you need to provided a coherent summary or maybe an academic paper supporting research based on science that he has written to support the conclusions.
Aseem Malhotra - Wikipedia
Aseem Malhotra is a controversial British cardiologist,[1] health campaigner,[2] author, and, contrary to public health consensus, an anti-mRNA vaccine activist.[3] He contends that people should reduce sugar in their diet,[4] adopt a low-carb and high-fat diet,[5] and reduce their use of prescription drugs.[6] He was the first science director of Action on Sugar in 2014,[7] was listed as one of The Sunday Times 500 most influential people in 2016,[4] and was twice recognized as one of the top fifty black and minority ethnic community member pioneers in the UK's National Health Service by the Health Service Journal.[6][8] Malhotra is co-author of a book called The Pioppi Diet.[9]
His views on diet and health have been criticized by the British Heart Foundation as "misleading and wrong", and his public questioning of the need ever to use statins has been condemned as a danger to public health.[10] His "Pioppi diet" was named by the British Dietetic Association as one of the "top 5 worst celeb diets to avoid in 2018".[5] During the COVID-19 pandemic, Malhotra published a book called The 21-Day Immunity Plan,[11] which claimed, without the backing of evidence from medical research, that following the diet can quickly help people reduce their risk from the virus.[1] Despite initially campaigning for the COVID vaccine,[12] he later campaigned against the use of COVID mRNA vaccines[13] contrary to the available evidence.[14]
Last edited:
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
This was around 2011 or so, and no I didn't have a serious disease or illness. I had the POTENTIAL for a urinary tract infection because I had kidney stones. The black box label in question was on a fluoroquinolone because at the time it was prescribed, Cipro could very rarely negatively affect tendons throughout the body, especially Achilles tendons, and lo and behold, it affected mine. It has since been expanded. Cipro is given commonly for various things. At the time it was also given to prevent urinary tract infections. It also was commonly given (and may still be for all I know) for cataract surgery, to prevent infection. You can look it up if you like.
The it does not represent a truly dangerous Black Box label as defined and not relevant to the topic of the thread,
How is this relevant to the topic of the thread?
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
It is a black box label drug and I took it, and it destroyed both my Achilles tendons. And I don't even know how we got on this topic!
sew.excited73
Wendy-Anne - I am Dutch/British
I 'need' to do no such thing. Just as you do not need to watch the video... I would much rather let the person speak for himself, in his own words, than me making 'wrong' assumptions on his behalf or wrongly interpret what he means to say.Otherwise no meaning. You need to respond to @Pogo's accurate reference with footnotes, which seriously questions your reference to a 3 hour video from a questionable source..
If you stoically insist on the content of the video you need to provided a coherent summary or maybe an academic paper supporting research based on science that he has written to support the conclusions.
Aseem Malhotra - Wikipedia
Aseem Malhotra is a controversial British cardiologist,[1] health campaigner,[2] author, and, contrary to public health consensus, an anti-mRNA vaccine activist.[3] He contends that people should reduce sugar in their diet,[4] adopt a low-carb and high-fat diet,[5] and reduce their use of prescription drugs.[6] He was the first science director of Action on Sugar in 2014,[7] was listed as one of The Sunday Times 500 most influential people in 2016,[4] and was twice recognized as one of the top fifty black and minority ethnic community member pioneers in the UK's National Health Service by the Health Service Journal.[6][8] Malhotra is co-author of a book called The Pioppi Diet.[9]
His views on diet and health have been criticized by the British Heart Foundation as "misleading and wrong", and his public questioning of the need ever to use statins has been condemned as a danger to public health.[10] His "Pioppi diet" was named by the British Dietetic Association as one of the "top 5 worst celeb diets to avoid in 2018".[5] During the COVID-19 pandemic, Malhotra published a book called The 21-Day Immunity Plan,[11] which claimed, without the backing of evidence from medical research, that following the diet can quickly help people reduce their risk from the virus.[1] Despite initially campaigning for the COVID vaccine,[12] he later campaigned against the use of COVID mRNA vaccines[13] contrary to the available evidence.[14]
And as far as you 'quoting' Wikipedia as a reliable source to prove he is unreliable, says quite a bit about how serious you take your resources.
At least I try to let you come to your own conclusions through a source 'from the horses mouth'.
Pogo
Well-Known Member
I might spend three hours reading a paper with evidence and analysis if the abstract presented a viable hypothesis in the first page, but there is no way I or anyone intelligent is going to spend three hours listening to a popular interview presentation by a totally unqualified presenter of a hypothesis at best if you will not provide more information.
As a result, I went to a popular summary site and there he was with numerous further links some of which I checked and decided that I agreed with my original decision, don't bother with this information presentation format, it is probably a waste of time and others support that.
If you can't summarize the video in such a way that I might be inspired to watch it, it probably isn't worth watching. I'll go smoke a cigarette and drink a beer instead.
You started the Black Box thingy.
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
You fixated on it. I said it in passing. You kept on harping on it, like it was some sort of conspiracy theory or something. When you were proven wrong, you started asking me "What does this have to do with the topic?" instead of just saying that you were wrong. Like an adult does. Like I do when I am wrong.
And you are STILL going on and on about it.
You started it and continued the dance without an explanation of relevance,
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
Please. I'll tell you how much "in passing" I said it - I don't even know what post it's in and I also don't care.
Last edited:
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
The redefintion of words doesn't support the agenda of those who redefined them (contra proferentem). It's consistent with the wider context of medical malfeasance.
The group responsible for pandemic policy within the Task Force was not HHS or NIAID, where Fauci worked, or any other public health agency. It was the National Security Council (NSC).
All communications about Covid had to go through OVP/NSC.
We know from the Twitter Files and subsequent investigations that the Intelligence Community (FBI, CIA, DHS, CISA) was heavily involved in censoring Americans on many issues, starting at least as far back as 2016. Foreign military/intelligence agencies of allied countries collaborated on censoring the US population.
Jim Jordan Should Ask Fauci This... ⋆ Brownstone Institute
We know that the Intelligence Community was heavily involved in censoring Americans on many issues. So if anyone is interested in who initiated and enforced censorship of dissenting Covid voices, they should ask the following questions of Fauci under oath...
brownstone.org
Last edited:
Your conspiracy riddled bogyman anti-science agenda is not worth responding to.The redefintion of words doesn't support the agenda of those who redefined them (contra proferentem). It's consistent with the wider context of medical malfeasance.
The group responsible for pandemic policy within the Task Force was not HHS or NIAID, where Fauci worked, or any other public health agency. It was the National Security Council (NSC).
All communications about Covid had to go through OVP/NSC.
We know from the Twitter Files and subsequent investigations that the Intelligence Community (FBI, CIA, DHS, CISA) was heavily involved in censoring Americans on many issues, starting at least as far back as 2016. Foreign military/intelligence agencies of allied countries collaborated on censoring the US population.
Jim Jordan Should Ask Fauci This... ⋆ Brownstone Institute
We know that the Intelligence Community was heavily involved in censoring Americans on many issues. So if anyone is interested in who initiated and enforced censorship of dissenting Covid voices, they should ask the following questions of Fauci under oath...
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
One of the most explosive claims Kennedy made was about the suppression of COVID-19 treatments like Ivermectin.
He said that the FDA’s discouragement of such treatments was not based on science but on a desire to push the vaccine agenda.
“By depriving people of Ivermectin, many, many people, millions of people around the globe, died, and they didn’t need to,” Kennedy said.
www.thegatewaypundit.com
He said that the FDA’s discouragement of such treatments was not based on science but on a desire to push the vaccine agenda.
“By depriving people of Ivermectin, many, many people, millions of people around the globe, died, and they didn’t need to,” Kennedy said.
RFK Jr. Calls for 'Reckoning' for 'Immoral, Homicidal, Criminal Behavior' During COVID-19 Pandemic | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hᴏft
At the Limitless Expo, a gathering focused on financial freedom and strategic empowerment, Robert F.
www.thegatewaypundit.com
One of the most explosive claims Kennedy made was about the suppression of COVID-19 treatments like Ivermectin.
He said that the FDA’s discouragement of such treatments was not based on science but on a desire to push the vaccine agenda.
“By depriving people of Ivermectin, many, many people, millions of people around the globe, died, and they didn’t need to,” Kennedy said.
RFK Jr. Calls for 'Reckoning' for 'Immoral, Homicidal, Criminal Behavior' During COVID-19 Pandemic | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hᴏft
At the Limitless Expo, a gathering focused on financial freedom and strategic empowerment, Robert F.
Ivermectin is worthless against COVID
Kennedy is mentally ill, and has no medical qualifications to make such judgements
Ivermectin and COVID-19
The FDA has not authorized or approved ivermectin for use in preventing or treating COVID-19 in humans or animals.
One of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s jobs is to carefully evaluate the scientific data on a drug to be sure that it is both safe and effective for a particular use.
There continues to be interest in a drug called ivermectin for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 in humans. The FDA has not authorized or approved ivermectin for use in preventing or treating COVID-19 in humans or animals.
For humans, ivermectin tablets are approved at specific doses to treat some parasitic worms, and there are topical (on the skin) formulations for head lice and skin conditions like rosacea. For animals, certain pour-on, injectable, paste, chewable, and “drench” ivermectin products are approved in the U.S. to treat or prevent parasites in animals.
The FDA has received multiple reports of patients who have required medical attention, including hospitalization, after self-medicating with ivermectin intended for animals.
Here’s What You Need to Know
- The FDA has not authorized or approved ivermectin for use in preventing or treating COVID-19 in humans or animals.
- The FDA has determined that currently available clinical trial data do not demonstrate that ivermectin is effective against COVID 19 in humans.
- Animal ivermectin products are different formulations than those approved for humans. Due to the lack of testing of these formulations in humans, the safety of these products in humans is not known. Never use medications intended for animals on yourself or other people.
- Taking large doses of ivermectin can be dangerous.
- From the FDA’s perspective, with few exceptions, health care professionals may choose to prescribe or use an approved human drug for an unapproved use when they judge that the unapproved use is medically appropriate for an individual patient. If your health care provider writes you an ivermectin prescription, fill it through a legitimate source such as a pharmacy.
How is Ivermectin Used?
Ivermectin tablets are approved by the FDA to treat people with intestinal strongyloidiasis and onchocerciasis, two conditions caused by parasitic worms. In addition, some topical forms of ivermectin are approved to treat external parasites like head lice and for skin conditions such as rosacea.Some forms of animal ivermectin are approved to prevent heartworm disease and treat certain internal and external parasites in animals. It’s important to note that these products are different from the ones for people, and safe only when used in animals as labeled or as prescribed.
The FDA has not authorized or approved ivermectin for the treatment or prevention of COVID-19 in people or animals. The FDA has not determined that ivermectin is safe or effective for these indications (uses).
When Can Taking Ivermectin Be Unsafe?
You may have heard that it’s okay to take large doses of ivermectin. Taking large doses of ivermectin can be dangerous.Even doses of ivermectin for approved human uses can interact with other medications, like blood-thinners. You can also overdose on ivermectin, which can cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, hypotension (low blood pressure), allergic reactions (itching and hives), dizziness, ataxia (problems with balance), seizures, coma and even death.
Lowering Your Risk from COVID-19
Current CDC guidance provides practical recommendations and information to help people lower risk from a range of common respiratory viral illnesses, including COVID-19.Talk to your health care provider about available COVID-19 vaccines and treatment options. Your provider can help determine the best option for you, based on your health history.
Last edited:
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
He may be, I don't know but I do know that his voice is terrible.