I thought the article was good. I bring up my point because this thread is using it to justification mistakes were just "deranged" people out to get Trump. Of all the voices that mattered, Trump was a consistent source of some of the stupidest **** related to the COVID.96ags said:
That is completely off topic. Do you have any thoughts on the article?
Interview: What we got wrong (and right) about COVID-19
7,296 Views |
86 Replies |
Last: 4 yr ago by Picadillo
HowdyTexasAggies said:Infection_Ag11 said:96ags said:God complex is real.Infection_Ag11 said:HowdyTexasAggies said:Infection_Ag11 said:HowdyTexasAggies said:
Fact, there are many Drs that believe HCQ with Zinc works.
There are many doctors that believe lots of incorrect things
Including the incorrect belief they are never wrong.
All doctors are wrong sometimes. I'm confident much of my knowledge in the fields of say, rheumatology and neurology is outdated or incorrect because I don't practice in these fields every day and keep as up to date. THIS topic however deals with a condition specific to my specialty and one in which I've seen an extremely high number of patients of all clinical presentations for, and have looked over almost all the meaningful literature regarding this condition for the last 18 months. On THIS matter, I am correct in my assessment of the data regarding HCQ.
There's a reason the physicians advocating for HCQ and ivermectin either never actually see COVID patients or are seeing them in non-specialty specific fields (IM, FM, etc.). You have to look far and wide to find any ID physician who would argue for either therapy. I actually don't know of any, though I suspect such a person exists somewhere. That's not because everyone in our field wants patients to die to prove a point and all the other fields contain more honest physicians. It's because we're treating more of these patients than anyone (many primary care docs actually refuse to see them in their office and refer them to us, and we see most of those that come through any given hospital) and we HAVE to stay up to date on all the data for various therapies.
And it's important to recognize that among ANY field, the numbers of physicians arguing for these therapies is very, very small relative to the total body of physicians. It's well under 5% in any given field.
Isn't the usage of HCQ and ivermectin being recommended for widespread preventive care, and not for use in the type of patients you are seeing? Also, doesn't the data suggest that countries doing so are seeing macro results better than those that are not?
I see patients across the spectrum of disease, I just see more of the sick patients because of what I do. I've still seen hundreds of mild to moderate cases not requiring oxygen, both in the clinic and the hospital.
But yes, those advocating for them generally say they are most effective early in the disease course. The reason they do this, and this is important, is because this is the easiest place to create the facade of benefit. Detecting true benefit of medical therapy in an outpatient setting for a low mortality illness is EXTREMELY difficult, even with RCTs, because almost all of your patients will get better no matter what you do. It's why it took such massive volumes of data to detect the most modest potential for Tamiflu in influenza (and honestly it's still not clear it does much). It does however make it pretty easy to design a study that will APPEAR to show benefit, which is what most of the relatively few studies on HCQ that did show benefit do. They are designed to achieve a specific result.
Notice how every time any good study was done on these agents showing no benefit, the goal posts moved. Oh you didn't give it early enough, oh you didn't give it with this or that, etc. For HCQ all of that stuff was done and it still showed no benefit. The point is to keep pushing the claims of efficacy back to the point where they become almost unfalsifiable.
As for other countries seeing benefit from ivermectin, it's based on a temporal association with widespread use and drops in cases/deaths. The problem is the association is very loose, and on further analysis doesn't appear to be casual at all. In fact, you have to fudge the timelines a bit just to make the claim plausible on its face.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Thank you for your Texags "Public Service" Infection_Ag11, sorry the wolves are turning against you. Maybe you can win them back with a coupon to Tractor supply so they stock up on horse ivermectin.96ags said:God complex is real.Infection_Ag11 said:HowdyTexasAggies said:Infection_Ag11 said:HowdyTexasAggies said:
Fact, there are many Drs that believe HCQ with Zinc works.
There are many doctors that believe lots of incorrect things
Including the incorrect belief they are never wrong.
All doctors are wrong sometimes. I'm confident much of my knowledge in the fields of say, rheumatology and neurology is outdated or incorrect because I don't practice in these fields every day and keep as up to date. THIS topic however deals with a condition specific to my specialty and one in which I've seen an extremely high number of patients of all clinical presentations for, and have looked over almost all the meaningful literature regarding this condition for the last 18 months. On THIS matter, I am correct in my assessment of the data regarding HCQ.
I disagree, this thread and this article is most certainly NOT saying that "mistakes were just deranged people out to get Trump".Another Doug said:I thought the article was good. I bring up my point because this thread is using it to justification mistakes were just "deranged" people out to get Trump. Of all the voices that mattered, Trump was a consistent source of some of the stupidest **** related to the COVID.96ags said:
That is completely off topic. Do you have any thoughts on the article?
It is certainly PART of the problem, as was the former President's rhetoric.
At the end of the day I want to look back and hold the decision makers accountable. The mayors, county judges, and governors who made decisions to lock people out of their schools and businesses. The people who "mandated" actions that were experimental at best. I want to know how we prevent the same mistakes from happening again.
The whole mantra of "well Trump tweeted bad things", is silly and immature. Who cares? All politicians are full of ***** He is no different.
Just ignore the misinformation from our leader, what's the worst that could happen?Quote:
The whole mantra of "well Trump tweeted bad things", is silly and immature. Who cares?
While I don't think you can just lump Trump in with the average politician in terms of his public discourse, I agree getting started on him is counter-productive.Quote:
At the end of the day I want to look back and hold the decision makers accountable. The mayors, county judges, and governors who made decisions to lock people out of their schools and businesses. The people who "mandated" actions that were experimental at best. I want to know how we prevent the same mistakes from happening again.
The whole mantra of "well Trump tweeted bad things", is silly and immature. Who cares? All politicians are full of ***** He is no different.
I think the public policy canon will definitely be marked up and society will view government behavior in 2020 as highly counter-productive. It will be done so in the usual manner, however. Academic researchers will research, civil servants will digest and advise, and elected decision makers hopefully will have the proper cover to make more balanced decisions in the future.
Even the lamest of arch right wing, I hate Gub'mint, know-nothing politicians turned into control freaks wielding big government power because in my mind:
1) The Public Health Authorities were extremely clear and strident and detailed in the worst case outcomes
2) There was not enough critical appraisal of the statistical flimsiness of epidemiological models.
3) There was not the will to consider on an equal footing the other costs of government policies.
I think this is the case because the last incidence of wide-spread public health was so far in our collective memory.
Going forward, I do believe there will be a more sober acceptance that our government can only do so much.
I certainly hope that you are right.Windy City Ag said:While I don't think you can just lump Trump in with the average politician in terms of his public discourse, I agree getting started on him is counter-productive.Quote:
At the end of the day I want to look back and hold the decision makers accountable. The mayors, county judges, and governors who made decisions to lock people out of their schools and businesses. The people who "mandated" actions that were experimental at best. I want to know how we prevent the same mistakes from happening again.
The whole mantra of "well Trump tweeted bad things", is silly and immature. Who cares? All politicians are full of ***** He is no different.
I think the public policy canon will definitely be marked up and society will view government behavior in 2020 as highly counter-productive. It will be done so in the usual manner, however. Academic researchers will research, civil servants will digest and advise, and elected decision makers hopefully will have the proper cover to make more balanced decisions in the future.
Even the lamest of arch right wing, I hate Gub'mint, know-nothing politicians turned into control freaks wielding big government power because in my mind:
1) The Public Health Authorities were extremely clear and strident and detailed in the worst case outcomes
2) There was not enough critical appraisal of the statistical flimsiness of epidemiological models.
3) There was not the will to consider on an equal footing the other costs of government policies.
I think this is the case because the last incidence of wide-spread public health was so far in our collective memory.
Going forward, I do believe there will be a more sober acceptance that our government can only do so much.
However, what I fear is that the playbook written for Covid will get used in other situations like climate change or social justice.
Power and control is a very difficult thing to give up once one has them.
billyjack2009 said:
And I fear the "system" won't improve so that we'll do better when the next one comes around. This is beyond my brain power so do not have a suggestion about how things should work differently, but i'm curious if there are any PH experts on this forum and what they think.
Much like many other fields, the highest ranking and most visible people anoint themselves as the technical and policy experts. To make things worse, they "layer out" the experts by surrounding themselves with people like themselves. It's a simple fact that the higher someone rises, the LESS their ability to make unilateral decisions becomes. When they put together teams, it takes a deliberate effort to add people who have dissenting ideas, who weigh risk to honestly say that things aren't black and white, etc.
Covid isn't merely some isolated crisis that exposed the hubris of DJT or AF. It's more aptly a microcosm of the failure of leadership in America. We're not the worst by any stretch, and the problems are fixable, but we need leaders who are humble enough to listen to others, and a public that holds leaders accountable for making everything a political issue.
94chem,
That, sir, was the greatest post in the history of TexAgs. I salute you. -- Dough
That, sir, was the greatest post in the history of TexAgs. I salute you. -- Dough
This post is spot on. And it goes hand in hand with the post immediately above it. Because that's exactly what we are seeing when it comes to "climate change", social justice, and other hot-topic areas. There is no discussion anymore. There is no room for opposing, or even slightly different, opinions. Everything has become very much "you're either with us or against us".
Well said.
Science is exceedingly ill-equipped to address (1) the speed in which a pandemics run and (2) the politics of the pandemic.
Science by its very design is slow, methodical...many different studies from different angles....Nothing about this deal lends itself to that.
Today's winner for the General Board Burrito Lottery is:
Tex117
Science by its very design is slow, methodical...many different studies from different angles....Nothing about this deal lends itself to that.
Today's winner for the General Board Burrito Lottery is:
Tex117
You raise some great points, IA, including at least one I've not heard or considered before. But I do have to quibble about one of your statements and requests some follow-up info.
My quibble is with this statement:
Rather than the goal posts being moved, I was starting to wonder why study after study ignored the universal recommendations. I was wondering if the studies were part of an overall strategy to discredit those drugs because none of the studies considered the universally recommended strategy. Why is that? Because of their failure, I found all of the studies I've seen to be largely irrelevant.
In another post, you said that zinc would be unnecessary because we already have plenty through our diets. How do you know that? Aren't you committing the same mistake of which you accuse others, i.e., coming to conclusions without sufficient data? How much zinc is enough? Are normal dietary levels of zinc sufficient to combat something like Covid-19? How do you know? How should the zinc be administered?
My follow-up question is to this statement from you:
Thanks!
My quibble is with this statement:
That was definitely not moving the goalposts. I've followed this disease closely since its very earliest days in China. The very first time I ever read a recommendation for HCQ or Ivermectin, the recommendation was to deliver it as early as possible. Our very own Dr. Reveille made that exact recommendation re HCQ last spring, IIRC. (And, with regard to HCQ, to take it in combination with zinc.)Quote:
Notice how every time any good study was done on these agents showing no benefit, the goal posts moved. Oh you didn't give it early enough, oh you didn't give it with this or that, etc.
Rather than the goal posts being moved, I was starting to wonder why study after study ignored the universal recommendations. I was wondering if the studies were part of an overall strategy to discredit those drugs because none of the studies considered the universally recommended strategy. Why is that? Because of their failure, I found all of the studies I've seen to be largely irrelevant.
In another post, you said that zinc would be unnecessary because we already have plenty through our diets. How do you know that? Aren't you committing the same mistake of which you accuse others, i.e., coming to conclusions without sufficient data? How much zinc is enough? Are normal dietary levels of zinc sufficient to combat something like Covid-19? How do you know? How should the zinc be administered?
My follow-up question is to this statement from you:
Can you provide citations to those studies, particularly those that combine all three elements of the universal, early recommendation: HCQ, Zinc, & early administration?Quote:
For HCQ all of that stuff was done and it still showed no benefit.
Thanks!
Tex117 said:
Science is exceedingly ill-equipped to address (1) the speed in which a pandemics run and (2) the politics of the pandemic.
Science by its very design is slow, methodical...many different studies from different angles....Nothing about this deal lends itself to that.
Science can be slow, but good scientists know how to use historical data to form pretty darn accurate hypotheses about future events.
This is where we failed. There was no reason this virus should have been treated as some unprecedented, never-before-seen event. Much like the vaccine should not been treated as some completely new, unproven, and experimental vaccine. Not to mention, given the large numbers of people affected (or not affected), we have collected a massive amount of data about this virus (and the vaccine) in an incredibly short amount of time.
This wasn't a situation where we could sit around for years and wait for detailed scientific studies to conclusively determine the right course of action.
Arguable, that's what a lot of scientific studies are for. It's not information meant to be used now, but to develop a knowledge base for similar things that might happen in the future.
Another Doug said:I thought the article was good. I bring up my point because this thread is using it to justification mistakes were just "deranged" people out to get Trump. Of all the voices that mattered, Trump was a consistent source of some of the stupidest **** related to the COVID.96ags said:
That is completely off topic. Do you have any thoughts on the article?
Trump was certainly not on the side of keeping things closed down past the first month. I still believe there should have been no lockdowns after the first two weeks but that is another topic.
I do think that many decisions were made based on politics and the election overall. The south was relatively open for school (our district didn't really even change the schedule) while the northeast and west coast were basically shut down or virtual all year. There is no scientific evidence for keeping schools closed down whatsoever and the south suffered no extra ills because the schools were open.
It's not much a stretch to believe the democrat led states did things the opposite of what was coming out of the White House for political reasons. Especially when they all but ignore their disastrous school policies throughout the pandemic when compared to the south
Abandoning CDC guidelines that were created over a 20 year period with no changes in the science, but through sheer panic, was the biggest mistake of all of this.
ORAggieFan said:
Abandoning CDC guidelines that were created over a 20 year period with no changes in the science, but through sheer panic, was the biggest mistake of all of this.
Maybe it served a political purpose and they were fine with that?!
Make Mental Asylums Great Again!
This is a big variable that can lead to bias when using anecdotal evidence. When they get better, it worked! When they get worse, we didn't do it early enough.Quote:
the recommendation was to deliver it as early as possible
Absolutely. That's why we need good studies. I've just not seen them or very, very few. Most if not all of the ones I've seen have tested procedures different than what's being recommended.Another Doug said:This is a big variable that can lead to bias when using anecdotal evidence. When they get better, it worked! When they get worse, we didn't do it early enough.Quote:
the recommendation was to deliver it as early as possible
Infection_Ag11 said:HowdyTexasAggies said:Infection_Ag11 said:96ags said:God complex is real.Infection_Ag11 said:HowdyTexasAggies said:Infection_Ag11 said:HowdyTexasAggies said:
Fact, there are many Drs that believe HCQ with Zinc works.
There are many doctors that believe lots of incorrect things
Including the incorrect belief they are never wrong.
All doctors are wrong sometimes. I'm confident much of my knowledge in the fields of say, rheumatology and neurology is outdated or incorrect because I don't practice in these fields every day and keep as up to date. THIS topic however deals with a condition specific to my specialty and one in which I've seen an extremely high number of patients of all clinical presentations for, and have looked over almost all the meaningful literature regarding this condition for the last 18 months. On THIS matter, I am correct in my assessment of the data regarding HCQ.
There's a reason the physicians advocating for HCQ and ivermectin either never actually see COVID patients or are seeing them in non-specialty specific fields (IM, FM, etc.). You have to look far and wide to find any ID physician who would argue for either therapy. I actually don't know of any, though I suspect such a person exists somewhere. That's not because everyone in our field wants patients to die to prove a point and all the other fields contain more honest physicians. It's because we're treating more of these patients than anyone (many primary care docs actually refuse to see them in their office and refer them to us, and we see most of those that come through any given hospital) and we HAVE to stay up to date on all the data for various therapies.
And it's important to recognize that among ANY field, the numbers of physicians arguing for these therapies is very, very small relative to the total body of physicians. It's well under 5% in any given field.
Isn't the usage of HCQ and ivermectin being recommended for widespread preventive care, and not for use in the type of patients you are seeing? Also, doesn't the data suggest that countries doing so are seeing macro results better than those that are not?
I see patients across the spectrum of disease, I just see more of the sick patients because of what I do. I've still seen hundreds of mild to moderate cases not requiring oxygen, both in the clinic and the hospital.
But yes, those advocating for them generally say they are most effective early in the disease course. The reason they do this, and this is important, is because this is the easiest place to create the facade of benefit. Detecting true benefit of medical therapy in an outpatient setting for a low mortality illness is EXTREMELY difficult, even with RCTs, because almost all of your patients will get better no matter what you do. It's why it took such massive volumes of data to detect the most modest potential for Tamiflu in influenza (and honestly it's still not clear it does much). It does however make it pretty easy to design a study that will APPEAR to show benefit, which is what most of the relatively few studies on HCQ that did show benefit do. They are designed to achieve a specific result.
Notice how every time any good study was done on these agents showing no benefit, the goal posts moved. Oh you didn't give it early enough, oh you didn't give it with this or that, etc. For HCQ all of that stuff was done and it still showed no benefit. The point is to keep pushing the claims of efficacy back to the point where they become almost unfalsifiable.
As for other countries seeing benefit from ivermectin, it's based on a temporal association with widespread use and drops in cases/deaths. The problem is the association is very loose, and on further analysis doesn't appear to be casual at all. In fact, you have to fudge the timelines a bit just to make the claim plausible on its face.
Thank you, I appreciate you taking the time to answer.
There are thousands of lessons that can be learned from covid. For the vast majority of the world, it was the first major pandemic we've ever had to experience. For most it was also the first major global crisis (not including 2008 in this, but thinking more like ww2).
It really was not helpful that covid just happened to occur during an election year when things were very heated and tribalism was affecting everyone's lives. People's mental health suffered greatly and as a result we were a very angry bunch, which results in things like opposing everything Trump says just because he's Trump.
Full disclosure, I despise Trump and was criticizing him for the better part of last year with his response. But I do think it was really stupid that so many people adamantly opposed opening schools just because he was for it. When the evidence literally showed schools were low risk. I also think said people look even more stupid going against CDC guidance and wearing masks even after being vaccinated, or while outdoors, even to this day. I almost never wear my mask since being vaccinated unless i'm flying. Because it's common ****ing sense. of course I'm not willing to let Trump off the hook this easily because he wanted everything open after a month of covid. He wanted churches packed to the brim for Easter and essentially wanted us to go back to normal pre-covid life when it clearly wasn't safe to do so.
Trump did do a good job with operation warp speed and it's likely that vaccinations would be at the same or similar levels now if he were still president. If (God forbid) we have to go through something like this again, I think we all know much better now what high and low risk situations are (like being in a packed bar vs. being outdoors) and we can be more conscious of that when evaluating what should and should not be shut down.
It really was not helpful that covid just happened to occur during an election year when things were very heated and tribalism was affecting everyone's lives. People's mental health suffered greatly and as a result we were a very angry bunch, which results in things like opposing everything Trump says just because he's Trump.
Full disclosure, I despise Trump and was criticizing him for the better part of last year with his response. But I do think it was really stupid that so many people adamantly opposed opening schools just because he was for it. When the evidence literally showed schools were low risk. I also think said people look even more stupid going against CDC guidance and wearing masks even after being vaccinated, or while outdoors, even to this day. I almost never wear my mask since being vaccinated unless i'm flying. Because it's common ****ing sense. of course I'm not willing to let Trump off the hook this easily because he wanted everything open after a month of covid. He wanted churches packed to the brim for Easter and essentially wanted us to go back to normal pre-covid life when it clearly wasn't safe to do so.
Trump did do a good job with operation warp speed and it's likely that vaccinations would be at the same or similar levels now if he were still president. If (God forbid) we have to go through something like this again, I think we all know much better now what high and low risk situations are (like being in a packed bar vs. being outdoors) and we can be more conscious of that when evaluating what should and should not be shut down.
if you were looking for an echo chamber, 16 is just a click away.
Ironically, the evidence shows that protesting outdoors is very low risk for covid. But the MSM made asses of themselves when they said that was ok but then started pearl clutching when they saw any other type of outdoor gathering.GAC06 said:
Stay home. Unless you're looting and burning for justice. That's ok. But don't go to work or church or school. Follow the science.
You make very good points.
larry culpepper said:
There are thousands of lessons that can be learned from covid. For the vast majority of the world, it was the first major pandemic we've ever had to experience. For most it was also the first major global crisis (not including 2008 in this, but thinking more like ww2).
It really was not helpful that covid just happened to occur during an election year when things were very heated and tribalism was affecting everyone's lives. People's mental health suffered greatly and as a result we were a very angry bunch, which results in things like opposing everything Trump says just because he's Trump.
Full disclosure, I despise Trump and was criticizing him for the better part of last year with his response. But I do think it was really stupid that so many people adamantly opposed opening schools just because he was for it. When the evidence literally showed schools were low risk. I also think said people look even more stupid going against CDC guidance and wearing masks even after being vaccinated, or while outdoors, even to this day. I almost never wear my mask since being vaccinated unless i'm flying. Because it's common ****ing sense. of course I'm not willing to let Trump off the hook this easily because he wanted everything open after a month of covid. He wanted churches packed to the brim for Easter and essentially wanted us to go back to normal pre-covid life when it clearly wasn't safe to do so.
Trump did do a good job with operation warp speed and it's likely that vaccinations would be at the same or similar levels now if he were still president. If (God forbid) we have to go through something like this again, I think we all know much better now what high and low risk situations are (like being in a packed bar vs. being outdoors) and we can be more conscious of that when evaluating what should and should not be shut down.
COVID did not "just happen" to occur during an election year.
larry culpepper said:
if you were looking for an echo chamber, 16 is just a click away.
You do of course realize that staff has point blank admitted to moderating this board for "those who believe the official narrative"
Pot, meet kettle.
01agtx said:larry culpepper said:
There are thousands of lessons that can be learned from covid. For the vast majority of the world, it was the first major pandemic we've ever had to experience. For most it was also the first major global crisis (not including 2008 in this, but thinking more like ww2).
It really was not helpful that covid just happened to occur during an election year when things were very heated and tribalism was affecting everyone's lives. People's mental health suffered greatly and as a result we were a very angry bunch, which results in things like opposing everything Trump says just because he's Trump.
Full disclosure, I despise Trump and was criticizing him for the better part of last year with his response. But I do think it was really stupid that so many people adamantly opposed opening schools just because he was for it. When the evidence literally showed schools were low risk. I also think said people look even more stupid going against CDC guidance and wearing masks even after being vaccinated, or while outdoors, even to this day. I almost never wear my mask since being vaccinated unless i'm flying. Because it's common ****ing sense. of course I'm not willing to let Trump off the hook this easily because he wanted everything open after a month of covid. He wanted churches packed to the brim for Easter and essentially wanted us to go back to normal pre-covid life when it clearly wasn't safe to do so.
Trump did do a good job with operation warp speed and it's likely that vaccinations would be at the same or similar levels now if he were still president. If (God forbid) we have to go through something like this again, I think we all know much better now what high and low risk situations are (like being in a packed bar vs. being outdoors) and we can be more conscious of that when evaluating what should and should not be shut down.
COVID did not "just happen" to occur during an election year.
Clarify your statement, or I'll have it removed.
94chem,
That, sir, was the greatest post in the history of TexAgs. I salute you. -- Dough
That, sir, was the greatest post in the history of TexAgs. I salute you. -- Dough
96ags
Joined:
Jul 16, 2006
Posts:
10,703
How long do you want to ignore this user?
01agtx said:
COVID did not "just happen" to occur during an election year.
Surely you are joking?
This board/thread is definitely not an echo chamber if you actually take a look at the posts. Lots of disagreement.coolerguy12 said:larry culpepper said:
if you were looking for an echo chamber, 16 is just a click away.
You do of course realize that staff has point blank admitted to moderating this board for "those who believe the official narrative"
Pot, meet kettle.
And buffalo's gif was done in response to me attacking Trump. You really can't divorce politics from the theme of this thread even though this isn't f16.
It was an echo chamber for a long time, any dissent of the desired narrative was removed by mods, often. Hopefully Chems post is joke, otherwise it's a prime example.
HowdyTexasAggies said:
It was an echo chamber for a long time, any dissent of the desired narrative was removed by mods, often. Hopefully Chems post is joke, otherwise it's a prime example.
People keep spreading this lie as if the more they say it the more it becomes true. This board has been pretty fair, far more so than the politics forum. I've been speaking out against masks and lockdowns here for a year without an issue.
ORAggieFan said:HowdyTexasAggies said:
It was an echo chamber for a long time, any dissent of the desired narrative was removed by mods, often. Hopefully Chems post is joke, otherwise it's a prime example.
People keep spreading this lie as if the more they say it the more it becomes true. This board has been pretty fair, far more so than the politics forum. I've been speaking out against masks and lockdowns here for a year without an issue.
The mods explicitly said it was being protected for those who subscribed to a certain message.
That has been known for a while.
ORAggieFan said:HowdyTexasAggies said:
It was an echo chamber for a long time, any dissent of the desired narrative was removed by mods, often. Hopefully Chems post is joke, otherwise it's a prime example.
People keep spreading this lie as if the more they say it the more it becomes true. This board has been pretty fair, far more so than the politics forum. I've been speaking out against masks and lockdowns here for a year without an issue.
There have been many other topics removed, it's no lie
larry culpepper said:This board/thread is definitely not an echo chamber if you actually take a look at the posts. Lots of disagreement.coolerguy12 said:larry culpepper said:
if you were looking for an echo chamber, 16 is just a click away.
You do of course realize that staff has point blank admitted to moderating this board for "those who believe the official narrative"
Pot, meet kettle.
And buffalo's gif was done in response to me attacking Trump. You really can't divorce politics from the theme of this thread even though this isn't f16.
And we're the ones making this political! Hahahahaha
“The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”
Featured Stories
See All
10:14
2d ago
8.9k
Zach Clemence leads Texas A&M's 3-point barrage vs. South Carolina
by Olin Buchanan
5 Thoughts: Texas A&M 92, South Carolina 69
by Luke Evangelist
7:55
8h ago
2.1k
Aggies extend scholarship offer to 2027 DeSoto RB SaRod Baker
by Jason Howell
5:03
2d ago
2.4k
Game Highlights: Texas A&M 92, South Carolina 69
by Reece Nygren