The drinking bleach hoax debunked - Politics Discussion

[–] parkerbot (9075) 3 days ago

What, next you're going to tell us that he didn't call a bunch of neo-nazis fine people?

reply

[–] ClownBaby (396) 3 days ago

No, he definitely did that. 😏

reply

[–] ur4196727 (109) 3 days ago

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-very-fine-people/

reply

[–] ClownBaby (396) 2 days ago

I wasnt being serious. That's why I put the smiley.

reply

[–] beancrisp (1643) 2 days ago

FACT: He never called a bunch of neo-nazis fine people. Prove me wrong.

reply

[–] filmflaneur (1141) 2 days ago

Correct. It was directed towards a bunch of White Supremacists at an event (which included though some obvious Nazi iconography and likely far-right wingers.)

reply

[–] ClownBaby (396) 2 days ago

You gotta lay off those fake news sites they are rotting your brain.

reply

[–] filmflaneur (1141) 2 days ago

https://www.congress.gov/118/meeting/house/116973/documents/HHRG-118-ED00-20240417-SD006.pdf

Yes, definitely a fake news site. Fact: A few days after the rally, Trump was asked by reporters about the protests, to which he famously responded that there were "very fine people on both sides." Later President Donald Trump maintained he "answered perfectly" when he said that of clashes at that white supremacist rally. If White Supremacists were on 'one side' of the event, then by definition, they must be half of Trump's 'very fine people'. The Unite the Right rally that sparked the violence in Charlottesville featured several leading names in the white-nationalist alt-right movement, and also attracted people displaying Nazi symbols. As they walked down the street, the white-nationalist protesters chanted “blood and soil,” the English translation of a Nazi slogan.

Trump also said, it ought to be noted "“You had a group on one side that was bad, and you had a group on the other side that was also very violent. And nobody wants to say that, but I’ll say it right now. You had a group on the other side that came charging in, without a permit, and they were very, very violent.” "

reply

[–] BeaSouth (3295) a day ago

[deleted]

[–] ClownBaby (396) a day ago

"very fine people on both sides"

Hmm.....where is the rest of the quote? Did you forget to include it?

reply

[–] filmflaneur (1141) a day ago

The full context is here :

Reporter "The neo-Nazis started this. They showed up in Charlottesville to protest --"

Trump: "Excuse me, excuse me. They didn’t put themselves -- and you had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. You had people in that group

The whole exchange is here

https://www.politifact.com/article/2019/apr/26/context-trumps-very-fine-people-both-sides-remarks/

As I said, Trump does get to blame both sides but still says, yes, that they each included 'very fine people'. More significantly, he also said "I’m not putting anybody on a moral plane." - which seems a contradictory and works against condemning neo-Nazis and their ilk somewhat. I accept though that 'very fine people' was not aimed at Nazi or White supremacists specifically, just the side they were on.

reply

[–] ClownBaby (396) a day ago

" I accept though that 'very fine people' was not aimed at Nazi or White supremacists specifically "

See how easy it is to admit when you're wrong. Good job.

reply

[–] filmflaneur (1141) a day ago

'Very fine people' was said of a group which included white supremacists and neo-Nazis. It is true later in the conversation he condemned Nazis and nationalists. But then only after, as I pointed out, Trump confusingly refused to put anyone, including the worst of the worst, on a moral plane. Job done.

reply

[–] ClownBaby (396) a day ago

It's funny when you're blatantly wrong about something yet you continue to try and argue in support of it.

reply

[–] filmflaneur (1141) a day ago

Always happy to correct myself, thank you. Its funny when you don't recognise Trump putting all on an equal moral plane and calling right wingers, who include the worst, 'very fine people' I can only report what was said.

reply

[–] ClownBaby (396) a day ago

Next time you discuss this with someone include the entire quote. Leaving out the entire quote makes you look stupid and very dishonest. It's been about 7 years now, everyone knows what Trump said.

reply

[–] filmflaneur (1141) a day ago

"You had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. " ... but also apparently " I'm not putting anyone on a moral plane" LOL So he condemns people and then, er, does not, not even the worst.

It's been about 7 years now, everyone knows what Trump said.

We sure do.

Next time you discuss this with someone, remember to recognise Trump's moral equivocation.

reply

[–] ClownBaby (396) a day ago

Still not the full quote. Are you stupid or dishonest? I'd say both.

reply

[–] filmflaneur (1141) a day ago

Still not the full quote.

I have linked to the transcript in full just above, but good try.

Are you stupid or dishonest? I'd say both.

I'd say that insults are now all you have.

reply

[–] ClownBaby (396) a day ago

Quote the relevant part then. Let's see how stupid you really are.

reply

[–] filmflaneur (1141) a day ago

Since we are just repeating things and you are now getting abusive, this is all from me. And, as with the last exchange between us on this thread, all the information has already been provided, so please just check back. I am not even sure of your argument tbh. Trump says there are apparently fine people on both sides of the confrontation. He makes an effort and condemns the neo-Nazis and others. But then, as pointed out several times already, he also says that he puts no one on a moral plane. In which case, distinguishing between fine people he approves of and the rest is moot. How can he supposedly condemn a group and yet at the same time not make a moral judgment? That makes everyone 'pretty fine'.

Thank you for playing.

edit: clarifying and emphasising the points here.

reply

[–] ClownBaby (396) a day ago

"He makes an effort and condemns the neo-Nazis and others"

Yes he does. Checkmate.

reply

[–] filmflaneur (1141) 3 days ago

I saw that on TV and Trump's speculation about bleach, then the expression of the listening Anthony Fauci was a hoot!

reply

[–] ClownBaby (396) 3 days ago

Link to him talking about bleach

reply

[–] filmflaneur (1141) 3 days ago

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-52407177

During [that] White House coronavirus task force briefing, an official presented the results of US government research that indicated coronavirus appeared to weaken more quickly when exposed to sunlight and heat. The study also showed bleach could kill the virus in saliva or respiratory fluids within five minutes and isopropyl alcohol could kill it even more quickly.

"So, supposing we hit the body with a tremendous - whether it's ultraviolet or just very powerful light," the president said, turning to Dr Deborah Birx, the White House coronavirus response co-ordinator, "and I think you said that hasn't been checked but you're going to test it. And then I said, supposing you brought the light inside of the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way. And I think you said you're going to test that too. Sounds interesting," the president continued. "And then I see the disinfectant [ie Bleach] where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning? "So it'd be interesting to check that."

Pointing to his head, Mr Trump went on: "I'm not a doctor.." [No shit Sherlock!]

Here you can see while Trump does not refer himself to bleach explicitly, he clearly has it in mind as the disinfectant that was in the study. Ever since, this has been known as the bleach press conference, the day Trump took to the White House briefing room and encouraged his top health officials to study the injection of bleach into the human body as a means of fighting Covid. His remarks led some companies and state agencies to issue warnings about ingesting disinfectants. And then we have Fauci's face lol

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/04/23/trump-bleach-one-year-484399

reply

[–] ClownBaby (396) 3 days ago

Again, link to him specifically saying bleach. I know you're hard headed but why dont you demonstrate it for anyone reading this thread.

reply

[–] filmflaneur (1141) 3 days ago

Fair enough; he didn't say that - at least explicitly, But he certainly talked about disinfectants and a study which specifically included bleach when bleach is an effective disinfectant. Trump expressed interest in exploring whether disinfectants could be applied to the site of a coronavirus infection inside the body, such as the lungs. The study to which he refers certainly covered bleach so it is disingenuous to say Trump did not include it as part of the consideration of disinfectants generally. There is ultimately little difference between introducing bleach and any other powerful disinfectant into the body.

reply

[–] ClownBaby (396) 3 days ago

"Here you can see while Trump does not refer himself to bleach explicitly, he clearly has it in mind"

Concession noted.

reply

[–] filmflaneur (1141) 3 days ago

Basic truth that Trump thought disinfectants might work as internal medicine established.

I am always happy to admit a correction.

(Apologies, I had edited my previous reply before I saw yours, but the gist is the same)

reply

[–] ClownBaby (396) 3 days ago

If you actually read the link I provided it's very clear what "disinfectant" he was talking about and it wasnt a household cleaner. It was sunlight. You're too hard headed to even read the link I provided.

reply

[–] filmflaneur (1141) 3 days ago

Trump talks about different sorts of light and their effects but then continues "And then I see the disinfectant [which included Bleach, a specific subject substance of the study] where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning? "So it'd be interesting to check that." How does one inject sunlight?

As already noted your interpretation was not shared by some companies and state agencies who issued warnings about ingesting disinfectants, bleach or not.

reply

[–] ClownBaby (396) 3 days ago

TRUMP: “Right. And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning?

Because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it’d be interesting to check that, so that you’re going to have to use medical doctors with, but it sounds interesting to me.

So, we’ll see, but the whole concept of the light, the way it kills it in one minute. That’s pretty powerful.”

reply

[–] filmflaneur (1141) 3 days ago

And then I see the .disinfectant, where it knocks it out in one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning? Because you see it gets in the lungs ...

Thank you for accepting what he said. How do you inject light exactly, or get it into the lungs? You didn't say. And "but the whole concept of the light" suggests that Trump was returning to a different, previous consideration.

reply

[–] ClownBaby (396) 3 days ago

Playing dumb now or are you really dumb?

reply

[–] filmflaneur (1141) 3 days ago

Oh dear. Addressing me now, rather than what I say. Have a nice day.

reply

[–] ClownBaby (396) 3 days ago

"How do you inject light exactly,"

Concession noted, again. He was talking about sunlight as a disinfectant.

reply

[–] ClownBaby (396) 3 days ago

TRUMP: “Right. And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in ONE MINUTE. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning?

So, we’ll see, but the whole concept of the LIGHT, the way it kills it in ONE MINUTE. That’s pretty powerful.

reply

[–] filmflaneur (1141) 3 days ago

https://www.poison.med.wayne.edu/updates-content/kstytapp2qfstf0pkacdxmz943u1hs

reply

[–] ClownBaby (396) 3 days ago

And? That doesnt change the facts.

reply

[–] filmflaneur (1141) 3 days ago

Yeah - including the fact that one cannot 'inject' light, something you still haven't addressed in your special pleading. And that really is all from me on this thread.

reply

[–] ClownBaby (396) 3 days ago

DR. BRYAN: “If you look at the fourth line, you inject summer — the sunlight into that. You inject UV rays into that. The same effects on line two — as 70 to 35 degrees with 80 percent humidity on the surface. And look at line four, but now you inject the sun. The half-life goes from six hours to two minutes. That’s how much of an impact UV rays has on the virus.”

He was responding to what the doctor said. But you wouldnt know that because you prefer fake news sites.

reply

[–] filmflaneur (1141) 3 days ago

Oh dear.. I really felt such a good try was worth a reply despite my resolution, since context is all. So here it is

Bill Bryan " And while that’s [slide show] coming up, our most striking observation to date is the powerful effect that solar light appears to have on killing the virus — both surfaces and in the air...

"If you look at the first three lines, when you see the word “surface,” we’re talking about nonporous surfaces: door handles, stainless steel. And if you look at the — as the temperature increases, as the humidity increases, with no sun involved, you can see how drastically the half-life goes down on that virus. So the virus is dying at a much more rapid pace, just from exposure to higher temperatures and just from exposure to humidity.

If you look at the fourth line, you inject summer — the sunlight into that. You inject UV rays into that. The same effects on line two — as 70 to 35 degrees with 80 percent humidity on the surface. And look at line four, but now you inject the sun. The half-life goes from six hours to two minutes. That’s how much of an impact UV rays has on the virus. ... the virus dies the quickest in the presence of direct sunlight under these conditions "

https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-vice-president-pence-members-coronavirus-task-force-press-briefing-31/

TRUMP: “... I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside .. it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs. But the whole concept of the light, the way it kills it in one minute. That’s pretty powerful."

And one can still not 'inject light', at least in the normal sense of the word into the human body.

Now please stop.

reply

[–] ClownBaby (396) 3 days ago

"And one can still not 'inject light'"

That is the term the doctor used and Trump responded to him as I said previously. Your little tantrum doesnt change any of that.

reply

[–] filmflaneur (1141) 3 days ago

The doctor literally said he was referring to non-porous surfaces and the effect of light on the virus on the surface. Trump said, just a reminder:

"we can do something like that, by injection inside .. it gets in the lungs"

ie, not injections outside on surfaces. He even talks, a little further on, about disinfecting 'non-moving objects' which shows he at least knows the distinction. It is significant how you are the only person I have read who interprets what was said like you do, in a view evidently not shared by the medical community, cleaner product manufacturers - or evidently many of the general public.. Ultimately, you are just reaching.

Later in the same conference, btw, Trump even hastily corrected himself (which certainly wasn't reported so widely as it ought) when pressed that, after all, "It wouldn’t be through injection" - from which one can assume that the traditional meaning of the word was the one he had in mind.

I am sorry that you thought I have had a "little tantrum" btw. Perhaps you should get out more?

reply

[–] kspkap (13566) 3 days ago

”What's True

During an April 2020 media briefing, Trump did ask members of the government's coronavirus task force to look into whether disinfectants could be injected inside people to treat COVID-19. But when a reporter asked in a follow-up question whether cleaning products like bleach and isopropyl alcohol would be injected into a person, the then-president said those products would be used for sterilizing an area, not for injections.”

”What's False

However, at no point did Trump explicitly tell people they could or should inject bleach into their bodies.”

Being a layperson and hearing disinfectants would kill the virus, was it wrong to ASK if there was a way to hit the Covid virus inside the body with a disinfectant? You seem to forget certain medical personnel (Lord Fauci for one) went stark raving mad over Covid and began grasping at straws on how to deal with it. During that time they did their best to scare us 💩less! No wonder Trump was asking questions about how to kill it.

I was exposed to Covid when a not so bright infected person coughed into my face! Hells Bells! I grabbed disinfectant wipes and wiped my face. I even shoved them up my nose! We didn’t know what we were dealing with at the time of the press conference. Biological warfare perhaps?

As time went on I wised up as so many others did including many on this board. The common denominator with us who did wise up and had a choice…we didn’t take the poisonous vax. I know for certain I would wipe my body with Clorox before I would take that needle!

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-inject-bleach-covid-19/

reply

[–] filmflaneur (1141) 2 days ago

”What's True

During an April 2020 media briefing, Trump did ask members of the government's coronavirus task force to look into whether disinfectants could be injected inside people to treat COVID-19. But when a reporter asked in a follow-up question whether cleaning products like bleach and isopropyl alcohol would be injected into a person, the then-president said those products would be used for sterilizing an area, not for injections.”

All true, as you say.Thank you.

”What's False

However, at no point did Trump explicitly tell people they could or should inject bleach into their bodies.”

A point I accepted towards the start of the discussion.

reply

[–] kspkap (13566) 2 days ago

You missed my point so I will repeat:

”Being a layperson and hearing disinfectants would kill the virus, was it wrong to ASK if there was a way to hit the Covid virus inside the body with a disinfectant? You seem to forget certain medical personnel (Lord Fauci for one) went stark raving mad over Covid and began grasping at straws on how to deal with it. During that time they did their best to scare us 💩less! No wonder Trump was asking questions about how to kill it.”

At the time I wouldn’t fault anyone inquiring if disinfectants (bleach) could be injected into certain areas. Instead of treating it like a virus, it WAS treated as a WMD. Shutting down businesses (some never to reopen), ruining people’s lives, wearing useless masks which gave people a false positive of protection, demanding people be injected with a different type of poison, etc., etc. Helter-Skelter! The virus was going kill us all! Truth be told, most of those who succumbed were elderly or had other infirmities. If one was healthy that person survived. Let us not forget how many developed problems or died after the vax.

As I said I literally shoved disinfectant wipes up my nose, wiped my face & exposed body parts while we were cleaning the hard surfaces.

It’s so damn easy to play Monday morning quarterback…isn’t it?

reply

[–] filmflaneur (1141) 2 days ago

At the time I wouldn’t fault anyone inquiring if disinfectants (bleach) could be injected into certain areas.

At the time you would have been in a minority, the (supposed) words of Trump re: bleach in particular were condemned by medical people and the manufacturers of the products concerned and others.

was it wrong to ASK if there was a way to hit the Covid virus inside the body with a disinfectant?

Disinfectants are never for internal use. No one needed to ask.

ruining people’s lives

Not as much being dead does.

wearing useless masks which gave people a false positive of protection, wearing useless masks which gave people a false positive of protection,

New comprehensive review provides strong evidence that masks and respirators effectively reduce the transmission of respiratory infections like COVID-19, based on analysis of over 400 studies from multiple disciplines.
https://www.phc.ox.ac.uk/news/comprehensive-review-confirms-masks-reduce-covid-19-transmission

demanding people be injected with a different type of poison, etc., etc.

Which would be..

If one was healthy that person survived.

It is certainly true that was the case, or at least that one was less likely to die. But of course effective vaccines also played a large part.

It’s so damn easy to play Monday morning quarterback…isn’t it?

Er...

reply

[–] ClownBaby (396) 2 days ago

Ok state your argument clearly. You've gotten off the point. Are you saying because it isn't possible to put sunlight into a syringe[lol] that he actually did mean bleach?

reply

[–] filmflaneur (1141) 2 days ago

All my answers, and my argument, have been to the point. Please check back. And no, I am not saying that.

reply

[–] ClownBaby (396) 2 days ago

State your argument clearly.

reply

[–] filmflaneur (1141) 2 days ago

Read all my previous replies well.

reply

[–] ClownBaby (396) 2 days ago

Are you objecting to his use of the word inject?

reply

[–] filmflaneur (1141) 2 days ago

As I say, just read back. I am not going through all the special pleading and semantics you offer again.

TRUMP: “... I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside .. it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs.

Trump's initial words were objected to by a whole host of people, medical and otherwise.

reply

[–] ClownBaby (396) 2 days ago

Dude just state your point.

reply

[–] filmflaneur (1141) 2 days ago

Just did. And checking back is still a good idea, where all the relevant points and quotes are fully aired. Thank you for playing.

reply

[–] ClownBaby (396) 2 days ago

Doctors objected to Trump speculating?

Is that your argument? You dont understand that he was speculating? You know Trump isnt a medical doctor right?

reply

[–] filmflaneur (1141) 2 days ago

You dont understand that he was speculating? You know Trump isnt a medical doctor right?

Final answer to you here. No shit, Sherlock. lol

reply

[–] ClownBaby (396) 2 days ago

So the doctors were objecting to Trump speculating?

reply

[–] filmflaneur (1141) 2 days ago

Supplementary:

If Trump was only talking about 'injecting' light which we agree has a proven disinfectant action on the virus, then why did he need to call this remark just "sarcasm", while distinguishing between light and disinfectant proper (such as bleach might represent)? Looks like an attempt in his rambling way, to distance himself from the most damaging claim when asked to clarify, a day or so later.

Reporter, April 24: Can you clarify your comments about injections of disinfectant?

Trump: No, I was asking a question sarcastically to reporters like you, just to see what would happen. Now, disinfectant, or doing this, maybe on the hands, would work. And I was asking the question of the gentleman who was there yesterday — Bill — because when they say that something will last three or four hours or six hours, but if the sun is out or if they use disinfectant, it goes away in less than a minute. Did you hear about this yesterday? But I was asking a sarcastic — and a very sarcastic question — to the reporters in the room about disinfectant on the inside...

Reporter: Were you being sarcastic with them?

Trump: To look into whether or not sun and disinfectant on the hands, but whether or not sun can help us because, I mean, he came in yesterday and he said they’ve done a big study. This is a study. This isn’t where he hasn’t done it. This is where they’ve come in with a final report that sun has a massive impact, negatively, on this vir– in other words, it does not live well with humidity, and it doesn’t live well with sun — sunlight — heat. It doesn’t live well with heat and sun and disinfectant. And that’s what I brought out. And I thought it was clear.

So the doctors were objecting to Trump speculating?

I thought that was public knowledge. Thank you for playing.

reply

[–] ClownBaby (396) 2 days ago

SO you're back to claiming the disinfectant was bleach after you admitted he never said bleach?

Oh let me guess you're a mind reader now?

reply

[–] filmflaneur (1141) 2 days ago

SO you're back to claiming the disinfectant was bleach

"disinfectant proper (such as bleach might represent)"

Oh let me guess you're a mind reader now?

Oh. let me guess, you ignored my last post since you have no answer?

And that, really, really is all from me on this present exchange.

reply

[–] ClownBaby (396) a day ago

Putting bleach in parenthesis doesnt help your argument at all. Especially when you admitted he never said bleach after claiming he did say it.

reply

[–] ClownBaby (396) 2 days ago

Trump was speculating about what could be done.

TRUMP: “Thank you very much. So I asked Bill a question that probably some of you are thinking of, if you’re totally into that world, which I find to be very interesting.

Suppose we hit the body with a tremendous, whether it’s ultraviolet or just very powerful light, and I think you said that hasn’t been checked, but you’re going to test it. And then I said supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way. (To Bryan)

And I think you said you’re going to test that, too. Sounds interesting, right?”

reply

[–] B1cKsurN (17425) 3 days ago

No he was talking about UV Light Therepy which does indeed exist. You believe lies.

reply

[–] filmflaneur (1141) 2 days ago

I haven't said it doesn't. Ultraviolet light therapy, also known as ultraviolet phototherapy, is a treatment that uses ultraviolet (UV) light to treat skin conditions and seasonal affective disorder (SAD). It however does not involve injections. Unless one uses 'injections' in an entirely unusual sense, of course.

reply

[–] itsbananas2024 (1763) 2 days ago

It was a gaffe. He meant to say antiseptics.

reply

[–] filmflaneur (1141) 2 days ago

He meant to say antiseptics

Antiseptics are germicidal agents that are too toxic to be taken internally but are applied to living tissue, like the skin, to prevent infection. Ingesting disinfectants can cause chemical burns, damage internal organs, and lead to liver and kidney failure.

reply

[–] kspkap (13566) 2 days ago

” Ingesting disinfectants can cause chemical burns, damage internal organs, and lead to liver and kidney failure.”

Descriptive of an already ill person who gets Covid leading to “inflamed” lungs along with damage to internal organs. Out comes the ventilators to shove down their throats!!

reply

[–] filmflaneur (1141) 2 days ago

Descriptive of an already ill person who gets Covid leading to “inflamed” lungs along with damage to internal organs.

No, descriptive of what happens when one ingests disinfectants.

No need put speech marks from 'inflamed lungs'. COVID-19 can cause inflamed lungs (and damage to internal organs).

Out comes the ventilators to shove down their throats!!

Please see earlier, when I helpfully listed all the advantages of ventilators.

reply

[–] kspkap (13566) 2 days ago

I used speech marks to be somewhat synonymous to your use of chemical burns.

”VILI can exacerbate pre-existing lung conditions or create new lung pathologies, leading to complications such as acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).”

It’s difficult to write I had a hand in my dad’s death by agreeing to the use of a ventilator. He didn’t have ARDS when being admitted. He had difficulty in getting enough oxygen which is taxing to the heart.

”Mechanical ventilators have been the most widely used mode of life support in management of patients who are unable to breathe naturally or breathe insufficiently. Non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NPVV) has become an integral part of ventilator support in patients with acute or chronic respiratory failure. That being said, BiPAP is one of the most common non-invasive mechanical ventilation therapies used in acute respiratory failure caused by a wide spectrum of chronic illnesses, most commonly chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).”

https://www.differencebetween.net/technology/difference-between-ventilator-and-bipap/

I was an assistant caregiver to a very dear lifetime friend (65 years) who had CHF. I checked her blood oxygen everyday. Her morning & evening caretakers would agree with me when she would at times have difficulty getting enough oxygen. A ventilator was not the treatment. A BIPAP connected to a concentrator was the treatment of choice. It helped her greatly for the last 6 months of life. Eventually the CHF took its toll. “Who does the bell toll for? It tolls for thee.”

reply

[–] filmflaneur (1141) 2 days ago

A very moving personal testimony, thank you. But the essential point remains that, while there are risks and some serious issues for some people with the use of ventilators, as I said earlier, they also undoubtedly helped save lives.

reply

[–] kspkap (13566) 2 days ago

FYI:

”COVID-19: Respiratory care of the nonintubated hypoxemic adult (supplemental oxygen, noninvasive ventilation, and intubation)”

https://www.uptodate.com/contents/covid-19-respiratory-care-of-the-nonintubated-hypoxemic-adult-supplemental-oxygen-noninvasive-ventilation-and-intubation

reply

[–] itsbananas2024 (1763) a day ago

Mouth wash is an antiseptic and I drink it all the time.

reply

[–] filmflaneur (1141) a day ago

Would you spray it onto your lungs?

reply

[–] chilidoggg (14285) 2 days ago

Irrelevant.

reply

[–] AmeriGirl26 (14411) 3 days ago

It was a lie pushed by the press. What he was talking about was a medical procedure where the patient with Covid was put under, an endoscope would be carefully inserted into the breathing passages, an infrared light would be shown at the affected areas to kill the virus, and a mist of disinfectants would be carefully and gently sprayed down into the bronchial tubes. It was safe and an effective treatment for extreme Covid cases that affected the lungs. There are even videos using CGI that show the procedure in detail. NOWHERE in that procedure, does ANYONE drink any bleach, or inject it into their bodies.

It pretty much shows how stupid and vengeful the press is when it comes to understanding medical terminology, and no doubt big pharma wanted more patients to use their stupid, ineffective, fake vaccines and the killer ventilators, so they too had the press push that lie.

reply

[–] kspkap (13566) 3 days ago

Even if there were enough stupid people who would inject themselves with bleach because they swallowed the lie, hook, line & sinker, the tally wouldn’t equate to how many the Democrats killed. Anyone recall the New York nursing home fiasco? Hmm?

reply

[–] AmeriGirl26 (14411) 3 days ago

I also remember hearing on the news how they thought Covid was a respiratory disease and acted like the patients in New York needed ventilators in order to breathe, when in fact, that wasn't the case at all. The disease is blood-based, and any respiratory problems are a side-effect of the disease, rather than a main set of symptoms. In fact, it turns out that putting a Covid patient on a ventilator was the worst thing the doctors could have done, because it introduces too much oxygen into the body and can cause what is called a "Cytokine Storm," where the immune system overloads and basically kills the patient in just a few minutes. It's like, who needs Covid when your own incompetent doctors can kill you instead?

reply

[–] kspkap (13566) 3 days ago

For sure they cut back on the use of ventilators when patients began dying because of them. You don’t introduce a foreign object (intubate) into damaged lungs. An oxygen concentrator attached to a BIPAP machine would have been much better. They are used to assist people in receiving enough oxygen and also exhaling. The oxygen level is regulated for each patient.

My dad succumbed to ARDS in ‘94. Prior to his passing we had to consent to the use of a ventilator due to the possibility of a stroke as he was struggling to breathe. It was too late. I wish I knew then what I know now about ventilators. From the time my mom drove him to the ER and his passing was 3 weeks.

reply

[–] filmflaneur (1141) 2 days ago

In fact, it turns out that putting a Covid patient on a ventilator was the worst thing the doctors could have done

Turns out yes, ventilators can be used to treat patients with COVID-19 who have severe lung impairment. COVID-19 can cause acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), which can lead to fluid filling the lungs, severe inflammation, and parts of the lungs becoming unusable. Ventilators can help by:
Keeping patients alive while they fight the infection
Supporting breathing during surgery
Holding the lungs open so that the air sacs do not collapse
Decreasing shortness of breath
Reducing the risk of injuring the muscles needed for breathing .

because it introduces too much oxygen into the body and can cause what is called a "Cytokine Storm," where the immune system overloads and basically kills the patient in just a few minutes.

No, too much oxygen into the body does not cause a cytokine storm, but an overactive immune response to an infection or immunotherapy can. A cytokine storm is simply a hyperinflammatory state that can occur in COVID-19 when the immune system becomes overactive and releases cytokines uncontrollably. This can lead to multi-organ failure and death. Your source for saying that ventilators are the 'worst thing possible'?

reply

[–] kspkap (13566) 2 days ago

”Turns out yes, ventilators can be used to treat patients with COVID-19 who have severe lung impairment.

Not so! People with damaged lungs died from being intubated and oxygen being forced into those damaged lungs.

“Lung impairment”, not getting enough oxygen, is different from lung damage which can lead to death when a ventilator is used.

” Ventilator-Induced Lung Injury (VILI): An Overview (2024)”

https://www.respiratorytherapyzone.com/ventilator-induced-lung-injury/

reply

[–] filmflaneur (1141) 2 days ago

Not so!

Yes really. Ventilators can be used to treat patients with COVID-19 who have severe lung impairment. You can look it up. There are, I agree risks as you say, a consideration of which can be found here:

https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/ventilators-covid-19#:~:text=A%20ventilator%20pumps%20air%E2%80%94usually,to%20support%20breathing%20during%20surgery.

The incidence of ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI) varies widely, and it's difficult to distinguish from progressive acute lung injury (ALI) or acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and yes, it is estimated 24% of people on mechanical ventilation develop VILI for reasons other than ALI or ARDS. I can't find stats for deaths though. Perhaps you can.

But to dismiss the therapeutic value of ventilators overall is mistaken, for as the above site says "Nonetheless, ventilators can be life-saving and, indeed, many of those who’ve survived severe cases of COVID-19 would be unlikely to have made it without one." I don't know why you would be so keen to deny common sense in medicine. Even the link you provided does not go overboard, but suggests ways to alleviate the risk level:

"Ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI) represents a significant challenge in the management of patients requiring mechanical ventilation. Despite its lifesaving potential, mechanical ventilation can lead to severe lung damage if not carefully managed. Understanding the mechanisms, risk factors, and types of VILI is crucial for implementing effective lung-protective strategies. By adhering to key parameters such as low tidal volumes, optimized PEEP levels, and careful management of FiO2, healthcare providers can minimize the risk of VILI. Ultimately, a personalized approach that includes regular reassessment and adjustment of ventilator settings is essential to ensure the safety and well-being of patients undergoing mechanical ventilation.

reply

[–] kspkap (13566) 2 days ago

I repeat:

”Lung impairment, not getting enough oxygen, is different from lung damage which can lead to death when a ventilator is used.

My dad died due to the ventilator which caused him to succumb to ARDS. Why do you think at that time we had to sign off on it?

”COVID-19 patients, like those suffering from ARDS, have below-normal levels of oxygen in their blood, which leads to breathing problems. In ARDS cases, the lungs lose their elasticity. But in many cases of COVID-19, the lungs remain elastic and people are able to continue breathing for some time despite the low oxygen levels.”

”This "remarkable combination is almost never seen in severe ARDS," he writes, adding that patients with normal looking lungs but low oxygen are at risk of lung injury from the ventilators, where pressure from the air damages the thin air sacs that exchange oxygen with the blood.”

“Ventilators are being overused on COVID-19 patients, world-renowned critical care specialist says”

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/ventilators-covid-overuse-1.5534097

The above was the reason of my dad’s demise.

You can choose to debate all you wish in regards to favoring mechanical ventilators. I prefer to listen to physicians who have changed their treatment procedures away from the mechanical breathers.

“Why some doctors are moving away from ventilators for virus patients”

“ Some hospitals have reported unusually high death rates for COVID-19 patients on ventilators, and some doctors worry that the machines could be doing harm.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/why-some-doctors-are-moving-away-ventilators-virus-patients-n1179986

reply

[–] filmflaneur (1141) a day ago

All fair points but to dismiss ventilators out of hand as a medical aid, when it is proven that they can work to save lives, and certainly did during the epidemic is a little extreme. I don't dispute they can have problems, and that your experience is genuine. Just let's have a sense of proportion. You are, obviously, entitled to listen to any medical advice you prefer.

reply

[–] kspkap (13566) a day ago

It has become apparent you deem yourself to be more knowledgable than the above physicians. Also, you discount the facts people died who were intubated with DAMAGED lungs.

I don’t dismiss ventilators as a medical aid…for the right circumstances. Those of us who have had surgery were intubated. Others who may go to the ER with breathing difficulties are usually sedated and intubated, but it definitely should be regulated so as not to cause damage.

reply

[–] filmflaneur (1141) a day ago

It has become apparent you deem yourself to be more knowledgable than the above physicians

Then you are mistaken, as we both agree that ventilators ought not to be dismissed as a medical aid especially when proven to have saved lives during the epidemic but that they are, like most medical interventions, not without risk - and so should be properly managed.

reply

[–] kspkap (13566) 16 hours ago

“Why some doctors are moving away from ventilators for virus patients”

“ Some hospitals have reported unusually high death rates for COVID-19 patients on ventilators, and some doctors worry that the machines could be doing harm.”

How many times do I have to repeat?

VENTILATORS SHOULD NOT BE USED ON PATIENTS WITH DAMAGED LUNGS!!

reply

[–] filmflaneur (1141) 16 hours ago

How many times do I have to repeat?

VENTILATORS SHOULD NOT BE USED ON PATIENTS WITH DAMAGED LUNGS!!

That may be so, but how many times have I insisted they ought to be? I just said above that ventilators should be properly managed. It seems likely that your unhappy experience is making you too proscriptive. From the link you supplied we also read "The reason [for the death rate] is not clear. It may have to do with what kind of shape the patients were in before they were infected. Or it could be related to how sick they had become by the time they were put on the machines, some experts said..." Again I have no medical training but it seems that it is not all black and white. I would emphasis sensible point too, from your link, that many Covid victims were dying anyway and so the ventilator was very often a last hope, hence the high mortality.

reply

[–] tvfan (12744) 16 hours ago

Ventilators and Remdesevir were the two biggest killers during the plandemic.

The death rate for people who were put on ventilators was as high as 97%.

Ventilators were a death sentence for covid patients as they were damaging the lungs.

reply

[–] filmflaneur (1141) 16 hours ago

The death rate for people who were put on ventilators was as high as 97%.

"Among 1,966 mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19, 1,198 (61%) died within 28 days after intubation, 46 (2%) were transferred to other hospitals outside of the Northwell Health system, 722 (37%) survived in the hospital until 28 days or were discharged after recovery. The risk of mortality of mechanically ventilated patients admitted to expanded ICUs was not different from those admitted to traditional ICUs ,,,

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9353963/

Ventilators can damage lungs no doubt but they have saved lives. (Also there is a difference between warning that ventilators should not be used on damaged lungs, which our friend did above in shouty letters, and occasions when they damage lungs as an instance)

Remdesevir ... biggest killer during the plandemic. (sic)

"In this retrospective cohort study of 24 856 patients with COVID-19 and 24 856 propensity score–matched control patients using US-based health insurance claims and hospital chargemaster data, remdesivir treatment was associated with significant 17% lower risk of inpatient mortality among patients hospitalized with COVID-19."

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2799114

Now I don't pretend to have medical knowledge I can only report what my research tells me. If you have alternate data and sources which are much different please share.

reply

[–] tvfan (12744) 15 hours ago

lmao, why are you citing mis/dis-info journals? They still don’t change the proven facts.

reply

[–] filmflaneur (1141) 15 hours ago

The idea that The National Library of Medicine, or indeed the other site, is fake news is really hard to argue. In fact suggesting that nothing a corrective or inconvenient voice provides by way of answer is necessarily mis/dis-info is just a lazy trope.

And one notes that you do not offer the alternate data and sources I suggested you provide. Funny that.

reply

[–] tvfan (12744) 15 hours ago

The NLM is operated by the gov and most of it's funding sources are from big pharma, globalists and elites that endorsed/supported the scamdemic.

reply

[–] filmflaneur (1141) 3 hours ago

You still do not offer the alternate data and sources I suggested you provide. Funny that. Wake yer mum up, she might have a view.

globalists and elites that endorsed/supported the scamdemic.

And nothing for this world-wide conspiracy theory either lol Are you talking about Jewish people by any chance?

reply

[–] tvfan (12744) 8 minutes ago

You really are a clone of the other insufferable Brit.

Let us all know when you learn how to do proper research.

reply

[–] filmflaneur (1141) 2 days ago

disinfectants would be carefully and gently sprayed down into the bronchial tubes

"The products included in EPA's list of disinfectants for use against SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) are for use on surfaces, not humans."

https://www.epa.gov/coronavirus/can-disinfectant-products-be-used-people

"Disinfectants are liquids, sprays and wipes that are designed for use on surfaces to kill germs (microorganisms such as bacteria and viruses). They can play an important role in infection control. They are not to be taken internally ... "

https://www.tga.gov.au/resources/resource/reference-material/appropriate-use-disinfectants-information-consumers-health-professionals-and-healthcare-facilities

There are even videos using CGI that show the procedure in detail

Please link to them. It ought to be interesting.

reply

[–] tvfan (12744) 2 days ago

Twitter is now the top site for information and news.

Indeed, now he should buy MSNBC and relabel it as XNBC.

reply