Loopy Pro: Create music, your way.
What is Loopy Pro? — Loopy Pro is a powerful, flexible, and intuitive live looper, sampler, clip launcher and DAW for iPhone and iPad. At its core, it allows you to record and layer sounds in real-time to create complex musical arrangements. But it doesn’t stop there—Loopy Pro offers advanced tools to customize your workflow, build dynamic performance setups, and create a seamless connection between instruments, effects, and external gear.
Use it for live looping, sequencing, arranging, mixing, and much more. Whether you're a live performer, a producer, or just experimenting with sound, Loopy Pro helps you take control of your creative process.
Download on the App StoreLoopy Pro is your all-in-one musical toolkit. Try it for free today.
The Nightmare that is a Reality
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Thanks, LL. When I said "engineered" I mean that COVID was very likely part of their "gain of function" research. As for it being leaked from their lab, I suspect that it getting out of the lab was pure incompetence. However, China should not be free from responsibility for this global pandemic. They should be held financially responsible for every needless death.
@NeuM, not sure what gain of function is but when Rand Paul questioned him about it Fauci said Paul didn’t know what he was talking about. First time I saw Fauci put someone down so hard.
Sorry to hear you got COVID. Hope you make a full recovery soon with no lingering effects.
I notice you have answered a lot of other people but not my earlier question - if "the science and maths don't support and of it", why would governments around the world, both left wing and right wing, support masks, vax and lockdowns?
Every politician would love for COVID to just go away. It is a massive problem for them to contend with. Surley, for political survival, they would take the best path to beat COVID. If successful they would remove a huge load from them to manage, plus they could claim victory through their great leadership. "I led us out of the COVID disaster, vote for me!".
Why would they take a path that science and math doesn't support? That would expose them to accountability at a later date when things go badly wrong and people get sick, the health system collapses under the weight and people die. No politician wants that. Remember that thing you mentioned earlier... "self interest".
Seems like he might have been lying or splitting hairs.
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/biosafety-expert-explains-why-faucis-nih-gain-of-function-testimony-was-demonstrably-false/
I cannot say for certain that it was COVID, but it nearly killed me when I first got it in late 2019 (and this was just before COVID had been identified) and my doctor still cannot say for certain what it is at this time. And I've had to deal with the effects of it every day since.
As for your question, politicians cannot make the right decision because of the nature of their positions.
If they keep everything open and ignore mask mandates, they get accused of 'murdering' voters even if they follow the science (which evidence supports a consistent 1-2% mortality rate). If they shut everything down, they condemn the people to financial ruin and permanent dependence on handouts which no one can afford.
The people are the only ones who can and will end this thing.
Yes, what you say is true - politicians are damned if they shut everything down and damned if they don't.
But you still haven't answered my question: why are all countries advocating wearing masks, getting a jab and lockdowns? Why is THIS the option they go for if the science doesn't support it?
Why is it not 50% - 50% or some other percentage mix?
Or why is it not 100% supporting NOT using masks, vax and lockdowns?
If politicians operate out of self interest, why is this the direction they are choosing?
Why do you think this is so?
I think the politicians are following the medical & scientific advice they are given.
If it all goes wrong then they can claim "I just followed the advice of the experts - don't blame me". If it goes well, they can say "I am a great leader who did the right thing, followed the best advice and led us all to safety. Vote for me".
But you say that the politicians are not following the maths or science - and I am asking "why would they do that?". Do you have a theory?
There is unfortunately no aspect of life which has not been tainted by politics, no matter where one lands on the political spectrum. If someone says "follow the science", then the rational response is "whose science"? Unless a person is an experienced virologist, it is impossible for a lay person to know who is telling the "whole truth" about any of the claims, counter claims and counter-counter claims.
That doesn't provide an explanation as to why governments around the world are going for the "masks/vax/lockdowns" solution if the maths/science of that is wrong.
Do you know why they are going in this direction?
There is fairly strong consensus among scientists and public health experts across the political spectrum with a few outliers made prominent by the press.
All you need is 0.001% of doctors with a different viewpoint and people can claim "even the medical community is divided on this issue" :-)
Is Ivermectin Auv3?
This is all very new so while scientific consensus is important, it is more reliable the longer it lasts, and is always provisional. Plate tectonics was a preposterous idea and was ridiculed when it was first mooted... claiming that the science around covid and such things as vaccine safety is settled at this point is unscientific.
You can see some evidence of how we do things like intense surface cleaning and emphasise hand washing etc, when we have known for a long time now that Covid spread in the atmosphere, and I understand there have been no confirmed instances of it having been spread by surface contact.
And also in mask wearing outdoors, when the huge protests last year around the world and particularly America didn't cause any marked increase. Yet this message was seemingly impossible to spread. With new variants this could change, but so far it hasn't.
And re that drug starting with I, and per my original post which started this whole thread off, I was convinced by what I heard Brett Weinstein say, I was also not unmoved by Sam Harris’ recent refutation of him. It’s hard to synthesize all this into a coherent understanding. As with everything these days it seems to be about buying into a narrative – it’s so much less stressful if you just buy into either the mainstream or the full-on conspiracy narrative. Then you have a home base.
Most liberal left-leaning types (like me) have no trouble believing in the military-industrial complex. How it becomes self sustaining, how it will interpret data in such a way that it is fed and grows. It’s not so far fetched to think that applies in the medical/scientific arena, with inflated egos, competition for funding and contracts etc. It would be weird if it didn’t exist. We’ve had Big Pharma being discussed for a while, with evidence of phenomena like the opioid crisis. Yet now we must buckle down and accept what we are told, by the politicians who we mostly don’t trust, the big institutions who we sometimes don’t trust, the media who we mostly don’t trust, big tech who we mostly don’t trust.
It’s easiest to hold firm to the narrative (whichever narrative) lest one becomes unmoored from reality. I’l stick to what my team tells me, re who to vote for and who to trust and what issues must occupy my time, what is currently true, and whose fault it is when that truth is revised 6 months later. I think we live in very religious times, but out gods are our tribe and its narratives.
A sober, calm, British woman doctor (ie not a loud, ranting American who looks like a Trump supporter, which influences me in the credibility stakes, lol) has recently been interviewed about all this. I’ll link it below. But here’s a quick summation of some of the points in the video. Some almost direct quoted, some paraphrased, so it reads a little disjointedly.
——
Tess Lawrie - medical doctor - researcher - has a company called the Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy, works only for non-profit organizations, clients include the World Health Organization. Their systematic reviews are used widely in international clinical practice guidelines - no conflicts of interest - no shares in pharmaceutical companies etc.
Past 6 months has been doing a systematic review of effects and safety of Ivermectin for the treatment and prevention of CVD. 4th Jan sent preliminary rapid report to Matt Hancock, other authorities incl the WHO - never had a response. Subsequently formed the British Ivermectin Recommendation Development Group, put together a full evidence-to-decision framework incl systematic review evidence, also evidence and considerations related to the acceptability, feasibility, cost, cost effectiveness and equity implications - A medicine that's cheap, widely available in most countries, can reach the poorest of the poor, generic - any country can manufacture it. Costs few cents a tablet.
The review of 24 randomized controlled trials conducted in 15 different countries around the world, mainly low, middle income countries because its a medicine widely available in those countries, being used for the the treatment and prevention of parasitic infections. Results… found it prevented deaths by about 62% across the
studies included in meta-analysis. There were 15 in that meta-analysis looking at prevention, found a reduction in the risk of around 86%. (this is not mentioned in the video but i saw her talking on it elsewhere - one study was found to be very flawed, the meta analysis was carried out again excluding its results, with very slightly less impressive overall result.)
They were small trials but now that the evidence is synthesized it's quite clear that Ivermectin has an important role to play in ending the pandemic. It's very safe, very low cost, increases viral clearance, reduces transmission, reduces the length of time of illness, reduces risk of death.
This review showing that it works was reported but hasn't featured in mainstream media at all. Then a journalist posing as a medical student writes an article on one randomized control trial out of 24 or more, and suddenly that's that's big news. You have to wonder the mainstream news is interested in Ivermectin but only if it's a negative story. And the fact that Google, Youtube, Vimeo, Twitter Lnkedin are censoring this discussion.
Published article was posted on linkedin and got removed.
You've got these social media bodies actually removing scientific information done by people who are experts in their fields - Extreme censorship has been experienced and you really have to ask why… Why are the social media companies so intent on suppressing scientists trying to communicate information about medicines?
I think if one can appreciate that there's a lot of money involved in the Covid industry, so you've got huge interests in terms of whole the PCR tests, the masks, the new medicines, the vaccines… It's a huge billion dollar industry, and then you've got a little medicine that comes along that's very cheap, it's been around for 40 years, billions of people have taken it, it's safe and it works for Covid. You know it's a bit of a shock to the system, to the industry that's been kind of set up around Covid. It’s almost like a David and Goliath thing, how do we get heard when there's this huge industry aimed at Covid, and it continuing for years and years, with new vaccines. So you don't need vaccines if you've got effective treatments and you've got an effect of safe old medicine that also prevents infection.
Here’s the video. Watch it while you still can!
Well, you're right about that - she doesn't strike me as a Trump supporter :-)
So, the million dollar question is: why aren't governments taking up this cure?
Yes, there is a huge billion dollar industry around COVID but that, on it's own, doesn't explain the lack of interest in Ivermectin.
Doctors, hospitals, health departments and governments all around the world want to beat COVID as quickly as possible. A cheap, safe and effective solution is exactly what they are after.
I'd love to hear the other side of the story: why we aren't going down the Ivermectin path. This treatment is well known, so presumably there is a reason it is not being taken up.
Again, I get back to self interest: if this really is a cheap, safe and effective solution then it is in the politician's self interest to implement it. Is there a negative to Ivermectin?
LOL!
^ ^ ^ Excellent post, @SimonSomeone.
I've told you my answer... still waiting for yours.
Many epidemiologists and public health people have looked into ivermectin and concluded that it is not effective. What you may not know is that there are places in the world (such as some of South America) where ivermectin is widely used to combat parasites and those countries have not been spared.
But, but, but... the nice lady in the YouTube video said it was effective.... oh dear :-)
Here’s a study from the NIH which seems to contradict your claim.
And Oxford was conducting further study:
And here’s a quote from the NY Times:
“ A number of clinical trials have been launched to see if a safe dose of ivermectin can fight Covid-19. The results reported so far have been mixed. The N.I.H. Covid-19 treatment guidelines state that there is insufficient data to recommend for or against the use of ivermectin for the disease, except in a clinical trial. Nevertheless ivermectin is being prescribed increasingly often in Latin America, much to the distress of disease experts. In the United States, the Senate held a committee hearing in December where a doctor extolled ivermectin as a “effectively a ‘miracle drug’ against Covid-19.” But those claims were not backed up by clear results from large, randomized clinical trials. Such trials are currently underway in the United Kingdom and United States, but they have yet to demonstrate whether ivermectin is effective against Covid-19.”
Source: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/science/coronavirus-drugs-treatments.html
You keep posting assertions which are easily refuted by reputable sources. Just because you have asserted it does not make it so.
The relevant section from the above article in full:
Ivermectin
For decades, ivermectin has served as a potent drug to treat parasitic worms. Doctors use it against river blindness and other diseases, while veterinarians give dogs a different formulation to prevent heartworm. Studies on cells have suggested ivermectin might also kill viruses. But scientists have yet to find strong evidence in animal studies or human trials that it can treat viral diseases. As a result,ivermectin is not approved to use as an antiviral.
Last April, Australian researchers reported that the drug blocked coronaviruses in cell cultures, but they used a dosage that was so high it might have dangerous side effects in people. The F.D.A. immediately issued a warning against taking pet medications that contain ivermectin. “These animal drugs can cause serious harm in people,” the agency warned. On March 5, 2021, the F.D.A. issued another warning not to use ivermectin to treat or prevent Covid-19. The European Medicines Agency released a similar warning later that month. And in April, the British Medical Journal recommended against ivermectin regardless of disease severity.
A number of clinical trials have been launched to see if a safe dose of ivermectin can fight Covid-19. The results reported so far have been mixed. The N.I.H. Covid-19 treatment guidelines state that there is insufficient data to recommend for or against the use of ivermectin for the disease, except in a clinical trial. Nevertheless ivermectin is being prescribed increasingly often in Latin America, much to the distress of disease experts. In the United States, the Senate held a committee hearing in December where a doctor extolled ivermectin as a “effectively a ‘miracle drug’ against Covid-19.” But those claims were not backed up by clear results from large, randomized clinical trials. Such trials are currently underway in the United Kingdom and United States, but they have yet to demonstrate whether ivermectin is effective against Covid-19. In July 2021, a high-profile study that seemed to show ivermectin was highly effective was removed from a preprint website because of concerns about serious flaws in the research.
Updated Aug. 4
None of the things you posted contradict what I said. Yes, people are looking into it to see if any of the claims are true. As you noted, the NY Times article says that studies done so far is mixed...meaning there is not strong data to backup claims that ivermectin is hugely effective. If it were, the data would not still be mixed.
What exactly did you mean when you said: “Many epidemiologists and public health people have looked into ivermectin and concluded that it is not effective.”
Was that assertion meant to prove it was not effective because “many epidemiologists and public health people” have said so? Because these continuing studies and mixed results from prior tests are sufficient to contradict any suggestion that its effectiveness or lack thereof is a foregone conclusion.
Covid is just a small part of the nightmare that is a reality, tick, tick, tick, the doomsday clock rings out. Will mankind rouse itself from it’s self induced coma?
Don't underestimate our old friend "self interest". At some point, when enough people realise the ship is sinking, they will take action.
That old friend
led us to this
Sadly, it doesn't always work that way. Social dynamics are more complicated than that and can result in people thinking a sinking ship is sailing.
You are wasting your time putting a positive, sugar-coated spin on the topic just to try and cheer me up :-)
Interesting point. Some countries in Africa have had lower rates of covid. Someone investigated why that might be and found some countries used Ivermectin as part of a preventative treatment against parasites, ie not just given when suffering from the problem. So people were given ivermectin regularly, nothing to do with Covid. And those countries did have lower rates of Covid. It's one of the bits of circumstantial evidence that points to a hopeful bigger picture. Here's a chart. (PCT mean prophylactic chemotherapy, which means giving drugs before they are needed to ward off disease. Not cancer related).
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33259913/