Mandated vaccines or weekly testing for employers of 100+ people.......

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Status
    Not open for further replies.

    KLB

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    Sep 12, 2011
    23,974
    77
    Porter County
    No they couldn’t. At least with my employer. Only the company supplied masks were permitted.

    Masks have never shown any efficacy with controlling respiratory viruses and the evidence, anywhere you wanted to look, anywhere, showed that they didn’t this time either. It was the cultish belief in masks that was over blown.
    And what good is a face shield for an airborne virus?
     

    Cameramonkey

    www.thechosen.tv
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    35   0   0
    May 12, 2013
    33,225
    77
    Camby area
    All I know is ivermectin worked for me!
    Purely coincidental. You would have been fine had you not taken it.

    Says the naysayers. I dont mind folks using it, but not sure if it works or not... after all, for those saying "iT wAsNt BuiLt fOr CoViD!" remember that "The Little Blue Pill" was originally a heart medication. Food for thought.
     

    jamil

    code ho
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    62,312
    113
    Gtown-ish
    Yes. It's not dangerous for humans and never was. But there's no good evidence that it is, or was, effective against Covid.
    The problem is that there is evidence that "the science" is what TPTB say it is. There have been some studies in other countries that don't appear to have the same orthodoxy working to favor some science over other science. It looks to me like the CDC, NIH, etcetera, have a particular science they want pushed.

    That said, I don't have a strong reason to believe either way about Ivermectin. I don't believe it's ineffective. I don't believe it's effective. My answer is, I don't know if it works. What I strongly suspect is that we don't have reliable science on it because the establishment orthodox science does not want that outcome. If Ivermectin worked as well as some people believe it does, the emergency use authorization would have been unjustifiable to continue once it became apparent that it worked.
     

    DadSmith

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Oct 21, 2018
    26,000
    113
    Ripley County
    My sister is a nurse. She's been vaccinated 3x she has caught covid twice after she was vaccinated.
    She wears N95 mask at work, follows all the proper procedures and she still caught covid twice.
    She said N95 mask are definitely harder to breath healthy and more so if you have asthma, or other lung problems.
    So if N95 masks don't protect you these surgical masks, handkerchief masks, etc definitely are not going to protect you.
    Your immune system is your only defense along with good hygiene.
     

    wtburnette

    WT(aF)
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    45   0   0
    Nov 11, 2013
    27,479
    113
    SW side of Indy
    Has anyone considered that Ivermectin use effectiveness is related to its anti-inflammatory properties in regard to a flu or vax reaction? Has anyone looked into germ vs terrain theory?

    What some people purposefully ignore is that while Ivermectin has one main use, it's been used for decades, off book, for other things that it has proven very effective for. While it may or may not be a miracle cure for COVID, it almost certainly is beneficial for those suffering from COVID. In my mind, the vehemence of people advocating against it, makes me suspect it has higher benefits than the "officials" are willing to admit. These people are evil. My belief is that they wanted deaths and wanted suffering. Anything that lessened or prevented that was dismissed as "misinformation".
     

    Kirk Freeman

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    11   0   0
    Mar 9, 2008
    48,273
    113
    Lafayette, Indiana
    No they couldn’t. At least with my employer. Only the company supplied masks were permitted.

    Masks have never shown any efficacy with controlling respiratory viruses and the evidence, anywhere you wanted to look, anywhere, showed that they didn’t this time either. It was the cultish belief in masks that was over blown.

    Depends on the type of mask. .gov just said "masks" and did not set a standard, or even how to wear them, a debacle on roids.

    The N95s were the shiznit, but science gave way to convenience and politics.

     

    Shadow01

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 8, 2011
    4,088
    119
    WCIn
    Lord faucci specifically avoided mandating n95 masks because they had short supply that he wanted to keep for federal distribution. His fear of this being worse than it is caused him to choose keeping supplies for the elite over the safety of the masses.
     

    GodFearinGunTotin

    Super Moderator
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Mar 22, 2011
    52,065
    113
    Mitchell
    The problem is that there is evidence that "the science" is what TPTB say it is. There have been some studies in other countries that don't appear to have the same orthodoxy working to favor some science over other science. It looks to me like the CDC, NIH, etcetera, have a particular science they want pushed.

    That said, I don't have a strong reason to believe either way about Ivermectin. I don't believe it's ineffective. I don't believe it's effective. My answer is, I don't know if it works. What I strongly suspect is that we don't have reliable science on it because the establishment orthodox science does not want that outcome. If Ivermectin worked as well as some people believe it does, the emergency use authorization would have been unjustifiable to continue once it became apparent that it worked.
    Yes. If there is already an approved treatment then EUAs cannot be authorized. That’s why IVM will never be approved—at least for as long as people keep lining up for boosters and there’s money to be made.

    Our science experts have beclowned themselves over all of this.
     

    BigRed

    Banned More Than You
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Dec 29, 2017
    20,863
    149
    1,000 yards out
    Did your doctor report your results to the CDC and FDA? Maybe you can be in a study to help others as NSAIDs have turned out to be a dead end?

    Maybe you can get it approved for Covid treatment as Olumiant was recently approved.

    Approved?
    If folks want to use it, it's there to use.
     

    GodFearinGunTotin

    Super Moderator
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Mar 22, 2011
    52,065
    113
    Mitchell
    Lord faucci specifically avoided mandating n95 masks because they had short supply that he wanted to keep for federal distribution. His fear of this being worse than it is caused him to choose keeping supplies for the elite over the safety of the masses.
    They didn’t work either. Parts of Germany mandated those masks. When compared to the cases to other parts of Germany that did not—no difference. The virus did what it wanted to do, no matter what we tried.
     

    maxipum

    Expert
    Rating - 100%
    25   0   0
    Feb 6, 2012
    825
    93
    Bloomington
    Depends on the type of mask. .gov just said "masks" and did not set a standard, or even how to wear them, a debacle on roids.

    The N95s were the shiznit, but science gave way to convenience and politics.

    Pathetic, you could fill an ocean with what you don’t know about masking yet hear you are pumping the .Gov BS. You on the payroll? Multiple studies over multiple nations showing no effect on infection spread masked or not yet here you are. You talk about about frauds and hucksterism you along with the CDC,NIH and all the the complicit media are the frauds.
     

    wtburnette

    WT(aF)
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    45   0   0
    Nov 11, 2013
    27,479
    113
    SW side of Indy
    Depends on the type of mask. .gov just said "masks" and did not set a standard, or even how to wear them, a debacle on roids.

    The N95s were the shiznit, but science gave way to convenience and politics.


    One of the largest issues with the scamdemic was blowing it out of all proportion. Most people getting it were having few issues. Only a very small subset of people had serious issues and/or death. Mandating masks for everyone, just like mandating the jab for everyone, was beyond the pale. If you want to wear a mask and get the jab, good for you, just don't force it on other people who feel they don't need either.
     

    GodFearinGunTotin

    Super Moderator
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Mar 22, 2011
    52,065
    113
    Mitchell
    One of the largest issues with the scamdemic was blowing it out of all proportion. Most people getting it were having few issues. Only a very small subset of people had serious issues and/or death. Mandating masks for everyone, just like mandating the jab for everyone, was beyond the pale. If you want to wear a mask and get the jab, good for you, just don't force it on other people who feel they don't need either.
    Wanna know why our legislature didn’t pound a stake through the heart of masks and mandates this past session? Too many “conservatives” still believe in the infallibility of the medical professionals, the CDC, et al. The appeal to authority has revealed itself as a rot to freedom through all of this.
     
    Status
    Not open for further replies.
    Top Bottom