Ivermectin source?

[dokdonia]

Well huge news this am Pfixer's covid drug reduced Hosp./Death by 89% in Final results. So now we clearly have a pill that works and cures covid in a few days if you catch the covid. Hopefully this forceful vax push will stop now.

Pfizer says Covid-19 pill near 90% effective in final analysis

Pfizer said final analysis of its antiviral Covid-19 pill still showed near 90% efficacy in preventing hospitalizations and deaths in high-risk patients.

www.cnbc.com

***Dolsten said Pfizer is looking to expand that output further as new variants, like the newly-discovered omicron, could push the need for antivirals substantially higher. Current vaccines appear to be less effective at preventing infection with omicron.****

Of course they are going to rubber stamp approve this drug without any semblance of the normal safety assessment process nor adequate pharmacosurveillance / pharmacovigilance like they did with the mRNA therapy.

What could possibly go wrong with a nucleotide mutagenic?

"However, it has been suggested that exposure to molnupiravir can be mutagenic to host DNA during host DNA replication16. Therefore, the potential off-target effects will require further investigation."

Technical paper about the drug

Molnupiravir: coding for catastrophe - Nature Structural & Molecular Biology

Molnupiravir, a wide-spectrum antiviral that is currently in phase 2/3 clinical trials for the treatment of COVID-19, is proposed to inhibit viral replication by a mechanism known as ‘lethal mutagenesis’. Two recently published studies reveal the biochemical and structural bases of how...

www.nature.com

 

[Suprachica79]

I agree with you on your first paragraph there. SOME vaccines are really useful and the cure is better than the disease.

I think there are far too many unknowns with this "vaccine" and to demand people potentially put their health in jeopardy to help you protect your own health is incredibly selfish. There are a great many things people can do to improve their immunity, and me getting a shot is nowhere on that list. If public health is my responsibility, then am I allowed to start smacking unhealthy food out of people's hands when they attempt to eat those foods?

Look at the 38 page document that Pfizer finally released as part of the FOIA request. In the first 90 days of public inoculations there were 42000 people with 58000 claims of vaccine injuries, from just one manufacturer. 1200 of which were death. That is a higher mortality rate than COVID itself for every individual age group under 60, and overall mortality (all age groups combined). this does not account for all of the unreported issues either, so how high is the actual number of vaccine injuries?

It is incredibly terrible logic to say that someone is selfish for using the "my body, my choice" argument. Hypocritical? possible, depending on their moral code, but that is not selfish.

Also, I know plenty of people that feel the "my body, my choice" argument is valid for both sides of the political aisle. That sounds like a social media sound bite to say that anti gay and anti abortion groups are the only ones saying that. In fact, I would argue that most of the people making that argument are not, in fact, anti-"insert argument here". I have found that most people I interact with are very central in their views and it is largely the fringe groups on either end of the political spectrum that have extreme or staunch views.

Claims if injury vs. actual injury due to a causal relationship are 2 very different things. I’d be lying if I said I read the document, because I have not. However, I do work for a very large pharmaceutical company in the patient safety department where I personally review adverse events reports, and I know all too well that claims made do not equal legitimate, causally related claims.

If the vaccine was the legitimate cause for that many deaths, do you believe that it would be approved by not only the FDA, but EMA or much less the MHRA? and even if they did, how would that not be incredibly wide-spread information at this point that would force them to be pulled from the market? Much less injury has been caused for drugs to be pulled from the shelves.

I would disagree about the terrible logic - I’m not saying it’s the be all, end all, but it seems that people constantly use statements when it works for them, and ignore it when they don’t.

 

[Suprachica79]

Of course they are going to rubber stamp approve this drug without any semblance of the normal safety assessment process nor adequate pharmacosurveillance / pharmacovigilance like they did with the mRNA therapy.

What could possibly go wrong with a nucleotide mutagenic?

"However, it has been suggested that exposure to molnupiravir can be mutagenic to host DNA during host DNA replication16. Therefore, the potential off-target effects will require further investigation."

Technical paper about the drug

Molnupiravir: coding for catastrophe - Nature Structural & Molecular Biology

Molnupiravir, a wide-spectrum antiviral that is currently in phase 2/3 clinical trials for the treatment of COVID-19, is proposed to inhibit viral replication by a mechanism known as ‘lethal mutagenesis’. Two recently published studies reveal the biochemical and structural bases of how...

www.nature.com

What would you consider as adequate pharmacovigilance?

 

[theotherguy]

Claims if injury vs. actual injury due to a causal relationship are 2 very different things. I’d be lying if I said I read the document, because I have not. However, I do work for a very large pharmaceutical company in the patient safety department where I personally review adverse events reports, and I know all too well that claims made do not equal legitimate, causally related claims.

If the vaccine was the legitimate cause for that many deaths, do you believe that it would be approved by not only the FDA, but EMA or much less the MHRA? and even if they did, how would that not be incredibly wide-spread information at this point that would force them to be pulled from the market? Much less injury has been caused for drugs to be pulled from the shelves.

I would disagree about the terrible logic - I’m not saying it’s the be all, end all, but it seems that people constantly use statements when it works for them, and ignore it when they don’t.

I mean the data was Pfizer’s data. Why would they release frivolous data without some sort of vetting or verification? Their own study says that only 7 of the deaths had weak correlation. That means the other 1216 deaths had a moderate or strong correlation.

I absolutely believe that all of these “governing” bodies would approve something that is unsafe for the public.

Scott Gottlieb was the FDA commissioner for a couple years and now sits on Pfizer’s board. He found a way to line his pockets. You cannot tell me that’s not a huge conflict of interest.

It’s no different than Standard Oil having their board members also on the EPA board advocating for the use of leaded gasoline. It’s just another way to line the pockets of the political and financial elites at the expense of us “ordinary folks”

 

[Suprachica79]

I mean the data was Pfizer’s data. Why would they release frivolous data without some sort of vetting or verification? Their own study says that only 7 of the deaths had weak correlation. That means the other 1216 deaths had a moderate or strong correlation.

I absolutely believe that all of these “governing” bodies would approve something that is unsafe for the public.

Scott Gottlieb was the FDA commissioner for a couple years and now sits on Pfizer’s board. He found a way to line his pockets. You cannot tell me that’s not a huge conflict of interest.

It’s no different than Standard Oil having their board members also on the EPA board advocating for the use of leaded gasoline. It’s just another way to line the pockets of the political and financial elites at the expense of us “ordinary folks”

If the FDA was operating completely in left field, I would be more inclined to agree, but these have been approved by several regulatory authorities with much higher standards and much lower levels of conflicts of interest. We are now getting to a point where wr have to believe this isn’t just a national conspiracy, but that all sorts of countries, both allies and enemies are all working together on this, and I guess I just believe that’s way less plausible. I’m not a fan of the FDA in general, remember, I work on the side of pharma. But they do pull drugs when they demonstrably show harm or the risk/benefit profile is out of whack. And if Pfizer was the only vaccine approved, again I think you would have a stronger argument, but they are 1 of 3 approved vaccines.

Im not sure how well versed you are in pharmacovigilance or legal claims in pharma, but many companies conservatively give a reasonable causal relationship to all post marketed cases because there is typically so little information provided and it’s the safest assessment to make. It doesn’t mean there really was a causal relationship, just that the company, in the interest of time and safety, deemed it as such on a mass scale level. These companies are dealing with adverse event reports in the order of 10-100x what they ever used to receive. There literally isn’t enough man power to review each one individually. Of course serious and fatal/life-threatening cases are most likely reviewed by a physical person and escalated. Full disclosure, I don’t work for Pfizer or any of the vaccine companies - this is just information gathered from being in the industry, attending conferences and working in PV.

 

[marco11]

 

[Cherokee]

View attachment 157541

thats funny as hell

 

[Cherokee]

If the FDA was operating completely in left field, I would be more inclined to agree, but these have been approved by several regulatory authorities with much higher standards and much lower levels of conflicts of interest. We are now getting to a point where wr have to believe this isn’t just a national conspiracy, but that all sorts of countries, both allies and enemies are all working together on this, and I guess I just believe that’s way less plausible. I’m not a fan of the FDA in general, remember, I work on the side of pharma. But they do pull drugs when they demonstrably show harm or the risk/benefit profile is out of whack. And if Pfizer was the only vaccine approved, again I think you would have a stronger argument, but they are 1 of 3 approved vaccines.

Im not sure how well versed you are in pharmacovigilance or legal claims in pharma, but many companies conservatively give a reasonable causal relationship to all post marketed cases because there is typically so little information provided and it’s the safest assessment to make. It doesn’t mean there really was a causal relationship, just that the company, in the interest of time and safety, deemed it as such on a mass scale level. These companies are dealing with adverse event reports in the order of 10-100x what they ever used to receive. There literally isn’t enough man power to review each one individually. Of course serious and fatal/life-threatening cases are most likely reviewed by a physical person and escalated. Full disclosure, I don’t work for Pfizer or any of the vaccine companies - this is just information gathered from being in the industry, attending conferences and working in PV.

You seem very knowledgable on this subject. Whats your opinion on the possibility that there are a lot , or some unknown side effects from the vaccines that could show up... 10,20,30 years down the road.

Thank you!

 

[Villain]

You seem very knowledgable on this subject. Whats your opinion on the possibility that there are a lot , or some unknown side effects from the vaccines that could show up... 10,20,30 years down the road.

Thank you!

I’d say very strong possibility since the FDA wanted a federal judge to hide the safety data for 55 years

 

[gobig2]

#1747 - Dr. Peter A. McCullough

The Joe Rogan Experience · Episode

open.spotify.com

 

[gobig2]

Great watch. Sign up is quick and free

 

[theotherguy]

If the FDA was operating completely in left field, I would be more inclined to agree, but these have been approved by several regulatory authorities with much higher standards and much lower levels of conflicts of interest. We are now getting to a point where wr have to believe this isn’t just a national conspiracy, but that all sorts of countries, both allies and enemies are all working together on this, and I guess I just believe that’s way less plausible. I’m not a fan of the FDA in general, remember, I work on the side of pharma. But they do pull drugs when they demonstrably show harm or the risk/benefit profile is out of whack. And if Pfizer was the only vaccine approved, again I think you would have a stronger argument, but they are 1 of 3 approved vaccines.

Im not sure how well versed you are in pharmacovigilance or legal claims in pharma, but many companies conservatively give a reasonable causal relationship to all post marketed cases because there is typically so little information provided and it’s the safest assessment to make. It doesn’t mean there really was a causal relationship, just that the company, in the interest of time and safety, deemed it as such on a mass scale level. These companies are dealing with adverse event reports in the order of 10-100x what they ever used to receive. There literally isn’t enough man power to review each one individually. Of course serious and fatal/life-threatening cases are most likely reviewed by a physical person and escalated. Full disclosure, I don’t work for Pfizer or any of the vaccine companies - this is just information gathered from being in the industry, attending conferences and working in PV.

Of course the FDA doesn’t want you to believe they’re operating out of order. They wouldn’t be open about that type of thing. It is easier to do what you want when you make it seem like you aren't being unethical.

How do you feel about the FDA approval of opioids as a non habit forming painkiller? How do you feel knowing that Pfizer has been one of the most penalized/fined drug companies even though those drugs they were fined for were FDA approved? FDA approval does not mean that a drug is safe or effective, it simply means that the FDA was somehow convinced that these drugs are safe or effective, either by deceit or outright lying about it.

I don't doubt that most of the individuals working in the pharma industry, yourself included, are honest, hard working individuals. BUT at the end of the day, not everything is what is seems.

For most of my life I was convinced that the military is comprised of selfless, honorable individuals, from the lowest to the highest ranks, only to realize within the last year or two, the military industrial complex is a very real issue and that the top military officials are just as corrupt as any and every politician.

The reason Sarbanes-Oxley exists, and the reason for non competes and whistleblower laws are not due to the actions of the lower tier employees.

 

[Suprachica79]

You seem very knowledgable on this subject. Whats your opinion on the possibility that there are a lot , or some unknown side effects from the vaccines that could show up... 10,20,30 years down the road.

Thank you!

My opinion is that anything is possible, however I imagine it to be unlikely due to the nature of how these vaccines work. And the plethora of data we have on vaccines like it that have been in existence for years. Unfortunately, if we waited for 10+ years to gather data on every medicinal product, we would have no products because the patent would expire before the companies could make back their investment, much less turn a profit and make enough to continue R&D.

Of course the FDA doesn’t want you to believe they’re operating out of order. They wouldn’t be open about that type of thing. It is easier to do what you want when you make it seem like you aren't being unethical.

How do you feel about the FDA approval of opioids as a non habit forming painkiller? How do you feel knowing that Pfizer has been one of the most penalized/fined drug companies even though those drugs they were fined for were FDA approved? FDA approval does not mean that a drug is safe or effective, it simply means that the FDA was somehow convinced that these drugs are safe or effective, either by deceit or outright lying about it.

I don't doubt that most of the individuals working in the pharma industry, yourself included, are honest, hard working individuals. BUT at the end of the day, not everything is what is seems.

For most of my life I was convinced that the military is comprised of selfless, honorable individuals, from the lowest to the highest ranks, only to realize within the last year or two, the military industrial complex is a very real issue and that the top military officials are just as corrupt as any and every politician.

The reason Sarbanes-Oxley exists, and the reason for non competes and whistleblower laws are not due to the actions of the lower tier employees.

It’s funny you mention Pfizer - not to give up too much personally, but I have published several articles in peer-reviewed journals about the non-compliance in the pharma industry and the economic costs associated with it. Pfizer and Merck were two of the companies who have paid the most in fines and claims due to their hiding of safety data and illegal marketing tactics. I refuse to work for either of them because of this history.

When it comes to the opioid epidemic, the FDA very clearly fucked up there, with the head guy getting a job at Purdue shortly after approval. But it should be noted that other health authorizes, namely the German health authority BfArM, refused to approve the drug for a lot of the indications that the FDA allowed. BfArM can’t be bought and that is well known in the industry.

In general, the FDA will reverse or pull drugs that have a clear risk profile that endangers lives, we’ve seen it many times, even for drugs that are widely used by those on this forum. It’s normally one bad actor with a personal (financial) agenda that fucks shit up when no one is watching. The entire world is watching and we would have to believe that everyone, countries who love and hate each other, health authorities, doctors, nurses, scientists, etc - are all working in concert to make Pfizer, Moderna (an itty bitty company by industry standards) and J&J richer. I personally feel like that’s a whole lot to believe.

 

[theotherguy]

It’s funny you mention Pfizer - not to give up too much personally, but I have published several articles in peer-reviewed journals about the non-compliance in the pharma industry and the economic costs associated with it. Pfizer and Merck were two of the companies who have paid the most in fines and claims due to their hiding of safety data and illegal marketing tactics. I refuse to work for either of them because of this history.

When it comes to the opioid epidemic, the FDA very clearly fucked up there, with the head guy getting a job at Purdue shortly after approval. But it should be noted that other health authorizes, namely the German health authority BfArM, refused to approve the drug for a lot of the indications that the FDA allowed. BfArM can’t be bought and that is well known in the industry.

In general, the FDA will reverse or pull drugs that have a clear risk profile that endangers lives, we’ve seen it many times, even for drugs that are widely used by those on this forum. It’s normally one bad actor with a personal (financial) agenda that fucks shit up when no one is watching. The entire world is watching and we would have to believe that everyone, countries who love and hate each other, health authorities, doctors, nurses, scientists, etc - are all working in concert to make Pfizer, Moderna (an itty bitty company by industry standards) and J&J richer. I personally feel like that’s a whole lot to believe.

I don't doubt that you and all of your co-workers are honest, hardworking individuals that want nothing more than to make the world a better place. But it is not hard for a company to set goals and criteria and train individuals in a way that unethically benefits the company, and makes it feel like everyone is doing the right thing. I think Enron is a good example of that.

You don't have to believe that all of those individuals are colluding, I certainly don't. What I do believe is happening is the "main players" (i.e. the Fauci's and Gates' of the world) are colluding and in turn making government and corporate policies that trickle down to the lower tier employees. These employees are following the rules and doing what they're supposed to without question (Doctors and individuals have even been trained to "not question the science", which is by definition non-scientific) believing they're doing the right thing.

Why do social media sites constantly remove information that goes against "the science"? We should be allowed to question these things without fear of being silenced. If the answers were copacetic and well understood then people would stop asking the questions because they have been clearly answered. Instead, there is the veil pulled over all of the information and data that make it all seem muddy at best. Why does the CDC/FDA need 75 years to release all of the data on covid vaccine testing? Let's not pretend like they need 75 years to scrub the documents of copyrighted information, as they claim they do. If this virus is really so devastating that we have to shut down the world to save lives, release the info so we can save lives and stop worrying about the money. I think this whole conversation between you and I started because of a claim of selfishness, which is exactly what their concern is with losing money.

 

[Cherokee]

I don't see why people give a shit myself. I'm self employed, I do what I want. I had covid, I lived. I'll eventually die from something. Is the time or how really important?

If you don't want to take the vaccine , drum up some BS story, religious purposes, etc.

I think the latest hype is based around the fact, the industries that are making $ off of Covid know it's coming to an end. As the virus mutates and becomes less deadly, less will fear it. Just like the Church.. without the Devil, they would be out of business. The Covid industry.. needs the fear to propel many aspects of its business.

 

[Villain]

The Covid industry.. needs the fear to propel many aspects of its business.

This right here. It’s Hitler’s burning of the Reichstag building that was the start of creating fear of an unseen enemy for Germany. Bush used 9/11 as his. For years we watched the terror alert at the bottom of the news screens and every time the powers that be felt we were losing fear, a new al qaeda video would surface. Then they “slew the beast” and “killed” bin Laden. They needed another power grab, and what better way to do it that a virus that can not be seen, but they sure as hell hyped it and got the masses to eat it up like a whore eats a load. The new scare tactic to keep us compliant are new variants, not strains… interesting choice of word. New cases and variants keep us in fear and the masses keep eating it up.

 

[Suprachica79]

I don't doubt that you and all of your co-workers are honest, hardworking individuals that want nothing more than to make the world a better place. But it is not hard for a company to set goals and criteria and train individuals in a way that unethically benefits the company, and makes it feel like everyone is doing the right thing. I think Enron is a good example of that.

You don't have to believe that all of those individuals are colluding, I certainly don't. What I do believe is happening is the "main players" (i.e. the Fauci's and Gates' of the world) are colluding and in turn making government and corporate policies that trickle down to the lower tier employees. These employees are following the rules and doing what they're supposed to without question (Doctors and individuals have even been trained to "not question the science", which is by definition non-scientific) believing they're doing the right thing.

Why do social media sites constantly remove information that goes against "the science"? We should be allowed to question these things without fear of being silenced. If the answers were copacetic and well understood then people would stop asking the questions because they have been clearly answered. Instead, there is the veil pulled over all of the information and data that make it all seem muddy at best. Why does the CDC/FDA need 75 years to release all of the data on covid vaccine testing? Let's not pretend like they need 75 years to scrub the documents of copyrighted information, as they claim they do. If this virus is really so devastating that we have to shut down the world to save lives, release the info so we can save lives and stop worrying about the money. I think this whole conversation between you and I started because of a claim of selfishness, which is exactly what their concern is with losing money.

In another time, maybe, idk, 5 or 6 years ago, misinformation wouldn’t be pulled down constantly but after how discourse has changed and blatant lies are just repeated until someone is forced to believe them, It’s rather dangerous to keep information posted that is demonstrably false. This is our unfortunate reality - unintended consequences of a previous president who spewed falsehood after falsehood and a large sect of people who are just genuinely too dumb to acknowledge or quantify it (not saying that’s you as you sound rather measured and intelligent. But you can’t disagree that a large portion of people who believe that shit is just straight up unintelligent).

 

[theotherguy]

In another time, maybe, idk, 5 or 6 years ago, misinformation wouldn’t be pulled down constantly but after how discourse has changed and blatant lies are just repeated until someone is forced to believe them, It’s rather dangerous to keep information posted that is demonstrably false. This is our unfortunate reality - unintended consequences of a previous president who spewed falsehood after falsehood and a large sect of people who are just genuinely too dumb to acknowledge or quantify it (not saying that’s you as you sound rather measured and intelligent. But you can’t disagree that a large portion of people who believe that shit is just straight up unintelligent).

FACT CHECK: Facebook Fact Checks Are Opinions, Not Facts

CLAIM: Facebook’s supposed “fact check” operation is actually a vehicle for opinion, and is not, as claimed, based on fact. VERDICT: TRUE. Fa...

www.allsides.com

It is easy to write off those with differing view points from your own, as stupid on unintelligent. This is a genuine question that I do not expect or intend for you to answer: do you actually listen to the arguments of the other side and really try to digest them, or do you immediately write them off as uninformed or unintelligent? Do you live in an echochamber?

I believe to an extent, especially if you are on social media (which I am not, aside from this forum), we all live in an echo chamber. We surround ourselves with people and ideologies that make us feel good and reaffirm what we believe.

I try very hard to surround myself with people from all backgrounds and genuinely try to listen to and understand both sides of every argument. I enjoy having these critical conversations, so long as both sides can keep their egos and tempers in check. I don't always accomplish my mission, but I generally try not to just write things off, and I constantly try to challenge the things I believe to be true.

Unfortunately, neither side of the vax debate can prove the other side correct or incorrect, because very few people, outside of the owners of the vax-trial data, have all of the information needed to draw a proper conclusion.

Most "for the vax" hang their hat on largely incomplete data sets that point towards efficacy and safety of the vax.

On the other hand, most people "against the vax" hang their hat on lack of transparency, which still isn't solid evidence of everything. It's all conjecture. You have likely gathered I land on this side of the argument.

This is largely due to the fact that nothing the government has ever done has been in the best interest of the citizens, so what makes me believe the govt is any different today than it has been for the last 100 years? Not a damn thing.

 

[Villain]

In another time, maybe, idk, 5 or 6 years ago, misinformation wouldn’t be pulled down constantly but after how discourse has changed and blatant lies are just repeated until someone is forced to believe them, It’s rather dangerous to keep information posted that is demonstrably false. This is our unfortunate reality - unintended consequences of a previous president who spewed falsehood after falsehood and a large sect of people who are just genuinely too dumb to acknowledge or quantify it (not saying that’s you as you sound rather measured and intelligent. But you can’t disagree that a large portion of people who believe that shit is just straight up unintelligent).

LMAO, and the current idiot in the white house is a truthful guy?

 

[Suprachica79]

FACT CHECK: Facebook Fact Checks Are Opinions, Not Facts

CLAIM: Facebook’s supposed “fact check” operation is actually a vehicle for opinion, and is not, as claimed, based on fact. VERDICT: TRUE. Fa...

www.allsides.com

It is easy to write off those with differing view points from your own, as stupid on unintelligent. This is a genuine question that I do not expect or intend for you to answer: do you actually listen to the arguments of the other side and really try to digest them, or do you immediately write them off as uninformed or unintelligent? Do you live in an echochamber?

I believe to an extent, especially if you are on social media (which I am not, aside from this forum), we all live in an echo chamber. We surround ourselves with people and ideologies that make us feel good and reaffirm what we believe.

I try very hard to surround myself with people from all backgrounds and genuinely try to listen to and understand both sides of every argument. I enjoy having these critical conversations, so long as both sides can keep their egos and tempers in check. I don't always accomplish my mission, but I generally try not to just write things off, and I constantly try to challenge the things I believe to be true.

Unfortunately, neither side of the vax debate can prove the other side correct or incorrect, because very few people, outside of the owners of the vax-trial data, have all of the information needed to draw a proper conclusion.

Most "for the vax" hang their hat on largely incomplete data sets that point towards efficacy and safety of the vax.

On the other hand, most people "against the vax" hang their hat on lack of transparency, which still isn't solid evidence of everything. It's all conjecture. You have likely gathered I land on this side of the argument.

This is largely due to the fact that nothing the government has ever done has been in the best interest of the citizens, so what makes me believe the govt is any different today than it has been for the last 100 years? Not a damn thing.

I’m not sure why you don’t expect me to answer the question, as I think if done so far. Since you have shown me a modicum of respect, the least I can do is answer your question. No, I do not live in an echo chamber. While I generally coexist with like-minded people, I do have spirited debates from other sides. I have listened to media on both sides, although some on the side I disagree with are hard to take.

I am guessing I am in a slightly more unique position than many on this board, I am a gay woman. As a gay woman, I have seen many on the other side of the aisle who have denigrated my existence, who would prefer I live in a shadow, and who think my daughter is perpetually screwed because she has 2 mothers and not a “safe” household of 2 opposite-sex parents. Many of those who speak on those media outlets have specifically denounced my way of life and have likened my life to that of a pedophile. So no, I don’t spend a lot of my time listening to them because I am a living, breathing example of their utter incompetence and hatred for anything that they don’t understand or “agree” with.

We are all swayed by our own life experiences, I had to wait to get married, I had to pay extra in taxes because of this, I have to worry that the very decidedly right-leaning courts will listen to a court case that will take my marriage away. And yet I still try and hear the other side, even when they have consistently tried to tell me that my opinion doesn’t matter because I’m a lesser citizen anyways.

I do not immediately write off other views as unintelligent, most times I find them ill-informed or based on their own biases and hatred. But don’t pee on me and tell me it’s raining. Don’t tell me the vaccine is bad and then bath your children in lead and arsenic dirt. Don’t tell me you love this country and then treat the leader of the country as a God (isnt that was dictatorships look like?)

Sorry for the rambling but I just have a hard time understanding a lot of this stuff- this is my attempt at explaining why I look at things the way I do. I’d consider myself pretty rational, and maybe you think I’m just naive. Maybe I am?