Microblog Memes

Ok, but if you control space lasers, can you please use them on a property in Florida? Asking for a friend. Like why not use these spaces lazorz to fry your enemies?

Maybe your weather control devices?

Hmmm, must be the death star of David :3

Hey can you guys maybe chill on the whole global dominance and financial manipulations. Some of us just want to go to work, pay are taxes and die early.

Thanks

The Talmud, which is basically a bunch of Rabbis arguing about what the Torah means, is almost as important as the Torah itself.

There's a famous phrase in Jewish culture: two Jews, three opinions.

There still a few years until the apocalypse is really in full swing.

Last time I looked they were (seriously) blaming Native Americans for the LA fires.

It kills parasitic infections caused by worms. Cancer is not a parasitic infection caused by a worm. It’s like asking if a mouse trap can fix climate change. No, because they are in no way related.

That's not a convincing argument. It suffices to say that ivermectin was considered as a candidate for a cancer drug as early as 2018, with a proposed mechanism of action and everything. It's not as simple as "cancer is not a parasitic infection", because pharmacology is never this simple. That paper also mentions positive study results both in vitro and in vivo. There is also a lot of later research (search ivermectin cancer on google scholar), but it's potentially biased by the horrifying memetic war that happened in America during the covid pandemic.

My conclusion from ten minutes of googling is that quite possibly it's a real weak anti-cancer drug much like the already-known ones. It's hard to be sure of those things - we're in an age where there's enough research and publication bias and politics that you can't trust individual studies^1^. And you can't fully trust meta-analyses either, but I can't even find a meta-analysis of ivermectin as used for cancer, so.

(It's pretty safe to say that it's not an amazing cancer drug much better than all existing ones (like some people seem to think) - both on priors, and because if that was the case it'd be extremely obvious from all of the studies already made.)

^1^ I don't mean fraud, I mean that if a hundred teams over the globe try a study of something that doesn't work, five of them will find p<0.05 results by pure chance and quite possibly only those teams will publish it - so until several good replications come along, it'll look like there's a real and well-supported effect. And there can be much subtler problems than this - see, say, how well the studies of psychic powers go.

I mean, if you drank enough of it, I'm sure the cancer would stop growing.