• Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

COVID-19 Stuff Here

Tex

Jim Lenehan (48)

Attachments

  • bill-leak-cartoon.jpeg
    bill-leak-cartoon.jpeg
    92.6 KB · Views: 11

formerflanker

Peter Fenwicke (45)
What kind of nonsense is this?
Are you suggesting the Age is some form of public forum we’re all entitled to voice our opinions through without censor?
Of course not.
What I have consistently said is that The Age have severely curtailed the space they used to give to Leunig because he was expressing an anti-vaxx sentiment. In my opinion The Age fired Michael Leunig for contradicting the covid narrative proving that freedom of the press also apparently includes the right to suppress news you do not want anyone to hear.
That self imposed censorship stands in stark contrast to the G&GR forums which allow significant latitude for us to argue both sides of the debate.
 

formerflanker

Peter Fenwicke (45)
Formerflanker you still haven't responded to my question!

Are you vaccinated? Why?
Yes I did reply.
Post number 3471, Saturday 11.44am, page 174.
It was a "reply" to your original question and I assume you should have got an "alert".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tex

Slim 293

Nathan Sharpe (72)
Of course not.
What I have consistently said is that The Age have severely curtailed the space they used to give to Leunig because he was expressing an anti-vaxx sentiment. In my opinion The Age fired Michael Leunig for contradicting the covid narrative proving that freedom of the press also apparently includes the right to suppress news you do not want anyone to hear.
That self imposed censorship stands in stark contrast to the G&GR forums which allow significant latitude for us to argue both sides of the debate.

There's so much wrong in this post... it almost made my head explode.
 

Tex

Jim Lenehan (48)
Yes I did reply.
Post number 3471, Saturday 11.44am, page 174.
It was a "reply" to your original question and I assume you should have got an "alert".
It went through to the keeper! Apologies.

To me it feels contradictory to be regularly posting on the benefits of unregulated therapeutics that are shilled by the antivax crews in the US while at the same time taking the advice of the medical establishment into account for vaccination. Maybe it's just me?

The same medical establishment that gives counsel based on personal risk factors is the same one that cautions against the use of unapproved medicines. Seems sensible to follow the advice on both.
 

Braveheart81

James Horwill (77)
Staff member
Of course not.
What I have consistently said is that The Age have severely curtailed the space they used to give to Leunig because he was expressing an anti-vaxx sentiment. In my opinion The Age fired Michael Leunig for contradicting the covid narrative proving that freedom of the press also apparently includes the right to suppress news you do not want anyone to hear.
He's a 76 year old who has worked for various Fairfax papers for decades and his work has become increasingly weird and out of touch.

He has nowhere near the popularity he did 20 years ago (mostly because half of those readers are dead).

This seems very much like it's a business decision. The quality of his work has decreased and at the same time he hasn't kept up with the audience of his employer.
 

formerflanker

Peter Fenwicke (45)
It went through to the keeper! Apologies.
No worries Tex.
To me it feels contradictory to be regularly posting on the benefits of unregulated therapeutics that are shilled by the antivax crews in the US while at the same time taking the advice of the medical establishment into account for vaccination. Maybe it's just me?
It's only contradictory if you look at the vaccine/Ivermectin debate in terms of either/or.
No harm in getting vaccinated to minimise the risks of catching covid and then taking an ivermectin protocol in the early stages after catching the disease.
The same medical establishment that gives counsel based on personal risk factors is the same one that cautions against the use of unapproved medicines. Seems sensible to follow the advice on both.
Jo Nova has a good summary of the opposite point of view:
The unelected, unaudited and unaccountable Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) in Australia has decided that consenting adults and fully qualified doctors should not be allowed to use a drug off label that’s so cheap and safe the discoverers won a Nobel Prize. Something like 200 million people use ivermectin each year. After 33 years and 3.7 billion doses of use, it qualifies as one of the safest drugs around.

Individuals should be allowed to make their own informed decisions, not forced into compulsory vaccinations.
 

cyclopath

Stirling Mortlock (74)
Staff member
The unelected, unaudited and unaccountable Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA)
Ah, the old "unelected" slur to imply they are some sort of mindless rabble. Because politicising such bodies by having them elected would clearly be better. :rolleyes:
And, as mentioned above, the TGA use and apply science to their decisions. And they are accountable. Even the makers of Ivermectin didn't recommend it as a COVID-19 treatment.
By all means though, have at it and try not to shit your guts out - literally.
 

Teh Other Dave

Alan Cameron (40)
Ah, the old "unelected" slur to imply they are some sort of mindless rabble. Because politicising such bodies by having them elected would clearly be better. :rolleyes:
And, as mentioned above, the TGA use and apply science to their decisions. And they are accountable. Even the makers of Ivermectin didn't recommend it as a COVID-19 treatment.
By all means though, have at it and try not to shit your guts out - literally.
Yeah, get the experts off the panel. We need more lawyers, bankers, and failed second hand furniture salesmen.
 

Tex

Jim Lenehan (48)
Came across this podcast today - One Year. Covers significant events in 1977 from a range of perspectives.

Very relevant to this discussion is episode 4 - Laetril. https://slate.com/podcasts/one-year/s1/1977/e4/laetrile-chad-green

Laetril was touted as a miracle cancer cure despite being rejected by the medical establishment as ineffective at best, or plain harmless. It was extracted from bitter almonds and apricot pits, mainly for their natural cyanide levels.

Anyway, the case for/against Laetril reached boiling point when the parents of a young boy with leukaemia rejected medical care in USA and in the midst of a challenge to their custody brought by the state, fled to Mexico seeking the miracle cure. The 3yo son died a few months later.

Actor Steve McQueen did the same thing in an attempt to cure himself of lung cancer, also dying soon after. Laetril became emblematic of the fight of supporters for the right to administer drugs and substances of their choosing, not subject to limitations of the unelected TGA.

Eerily similar arguments to this one. It's never about science and medical efficacy, it's individual rights wrapped up in a different bow. It's disappointing to see this brand of USA culture politics being imported here, as I consider it one of the major flaws in that county's makeup.

Worth a listen.

(Don't take ivermectin for COVID.)
 

formerflanker

Peter Fenwicke (45)
It won't be long before the double-jabbed are treated like lepers and the unvaccinated.

A third-dose Pfizer shot has been provisionally approved for use as a booster, the Therapeutic Goods Administration has announced.
The booster shot is expected to be delivered to Australians aged over 18 at least six months after the “completion of a Covid-19 vaccine primary series”, no matter which vaccine was originally received. (The Australian)
 
Top