Mainly spend free time watching Youtube of playing video games.

Can you name any such forums to discuss research?

Yeah I think that BSD is the most secure operating system to-date and these are the guys that created ssh, the service that is used by most people in the world for connecting to theirs servers. So the folks that develop BSD really know what they are doing when it comes to security.

I've not actually tried openBSD myself, but I can already tell you that having that setup correctly so that you have containers that use openBSD instead of linux will be a pain in the ass for compatibility and is likely going to be extremely difficult to setup correctly on qubes. But in my view is likely the most secure you can get with Qubes OS.

If the scientists who have diplomas and PHDs put in a lot of time and effort to study ivermectin thought it was important enough then they must have had a reason to study its effects and the study that I mentioned seems to show that ivermectin in combination with doxycycline seems to have some benefit at treating covid-19. Maybe I'm missing something here... I'm open for discussion, but even you have to say that from all the studies that are done on ivermectin it seems to point to it being at least better than nothing for treating covid-19.

Is ivermectin really just a source of misinformation? You can see why an laymen that looks at the studies on ivermectin can conclude that ivermectin is effective against covid-19? And like I said why is it that there are not any 'good' studies on ivermectin to put the whole thing to sleep? Why is it that the good studies I could find on https://ivmmeta.com/ shows that ivermectin at least has some potential for treating covid-19?

This isn't me spreading misinformation, I'm just curious why the studies on ivermectin seem to point to it being at least better than nothing for treating covid-19? Ok yes they are perhaps unreliable, yet they still show that ivermectin shows some promise against covid-19?

https://ebm.bmj.com/content/early/2021/05/26/bmjebm-2021-111678

This article basically says that the methodologies for the studies on ivermecitn are not sound. Ok but this doesn't prove that ivermectin is either good nor bad for treating covid-19 - just that there isn't reliable evidence for ivermectin treating covid-19. Hence why I said in the past post that ivermectin COULD be good against covid-19 and also why I said that there needs to be more research into ivermectin as a treatment for covid-19 to reach a definitive conclusion on it.

The study that I cited is in my view the most reliable study there because its double blind randomized placebo controlled and uses a bigger sample size that most of the other studies with 363 completing follow up.

Granted I'm by no means a scientist, but why is there hardly any good studies on ivermectin as a treatment for covid-19 and why is it that all the studies done on ivermectin don't use good methodologies? Please feel free to share some 'good' studies on ivermectin use for covid-19 because the website https://ivmmeta.com/ has all the studies for ivermectin usage for covid-19 (as far as I am aware) but even I will say that a lot of the studies done on ivermectin are unreliable because most of them use a very small sample size, but there are some that are good such as the one I mentioned above which as far as I am aware hasn't been 'debunked' anywhere.

Feel free to watch the following videos by Dr. John Cambell on youtube, the first video he notes that its quite weird that Australia are outright banning ivermectin and the second he looks at a meta analysis of ivermectin.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gndsUjgPYo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3j7am9kjMrk

Please also note that I am not advocating for or against ivermectin. I'm simply saying that there needs to be more research into this drug because it could potentially be useful against covid-19 based on the studies that are already done on the drug, granted if we are to believe the bmj article you listed unreliable, but that's all that we can go on at the moment.

There needs to be more research into if ivermectin is effective against covid-19. Ideally more double blind randomized placebo controlled studies as this is the gold standard in intervention based clinical trials. With that said here is a website which has done a lot of work compiling all the current data from ivermectin and I leave you to look at that research and decide for yourself if you would take ivermectin for covid-19. https://ivmmeta.com/

Not that I know of, but that is what makes it a conspiracy theory.

You would think that would be the case. Basically this all started by one person that works in the industry saying that there is a may be a shortage of fuel which sparked this whole thing.

But there are a few conspiracy theories floating about that they wanted this to happen because nobody was going out during lockdown and so they wanted to sell the petrol before it ran out of date because there is an expire date on petrol

No wireguard :(

Facebook have the same issue to be honest. Misinformation is ripe on all social medias. But there is a fine line between censoring misinformation and censoring a certain facet of information, because who is to say what misinformation is?

An example is the censorship of ivermectin. There are a number of studies which show that ivermectin COULD be good against covid-19, yet its being labelled as misinformation. Here is an example of one such study which is a randomized double blind placebo controlled which uses invermectin with doxycycline. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/03000605211013550 and concluded that "Patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 infection treated with ivermectin plus doxycycline recovered earlier, were less likely to progress to more serious disease, and were more likely to be COVID-19 negative by RT-PCR on day 14."

But there does need to be more studies into ivermectin to reach a definitive conclusion on if it is actually effective against covid-19.

Qubes is good and the approach that it has is in my view the best approach to security, security by compartmentalizing and is the same security tactic that certain three letter agencies use to stop leaks from happening.

Daniel the guy that does GrapheneOS basically says that its compartmentalizing garbage because linux isn't built with security in mind.

And also Qubes isn't a silver bullet at all - it uses the xen hypervisor which has had vulnerabilities in the past https://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list.php?vendor_id=6276&product_id=0&version_id=0&page=1&hasexp=0&opdos=0&opec=0&opov=0&opcsrf=0&opgpriv=0&opsqli=0&opxss=0&opdirt=0&opmemc=0&ophttprs=0&opbyp=0&opfileinc=0&opginf=0&cvssscoremin=0&cvssscoremax=0&year=0&cweid=0&order=1&trc=296&sha=7354f1cd84d744aba90e37868d68b6095ad317f5

Plus the hardware compatibility makes it almost impossible to use on the majority of devices.

I have good intel that there will be an apocalypse in the near future and trust me when I say this but this is all just the beginning, its going to get a lot lot worse in the coming months and years. The economy is fucked and soon inflation will reach a point where money just becomes worthless.

Markor, slide and newpipe

The first study on masks isn't peer reviewed. The second study used only Thirty nine patients in the study and the study isn't even specifically for covid-19 but for SARS.

Study: “Distance was not modified by the mask (P=0.99). Dyspnea variation was significantly higher with surgical mask (+5.6 vs. +4.6; P<0.001) and the difference was clinically relevant. No difference was found for the variation of other parameters.” - used only 44 subjects and so its too small a sample size

Study: “Breathing through N95 mask materials have been shown to impede gaseous exchange and impose an additional workload on the metabolic system of pregnant healthcare workers, and this needs to be taken into consideration in guidelines for respirator use. The benefits of using N95 mask to prevent serious emerging infectious diseases should be weighed against potential respiratory consequences associated with extended N95 respirator usage.” - Basically concludes that we should be careful with long-term use of N95 respirator usage for pregnant healthcare workers, not really relevant...

“The evidence is not sufficiently strong to support widespread use of facemasks as a protective measure against COVID-19. However, there is enough evidence to support the use of facemasks for short periods of time by particularly vulnerable individuals when in transient higher risk situations.” - Not peer reviewed and even says that it shouldn't be used to guide clinical practice and concludes that facemasks only provide a marginal benefit for use in stopping the spread of covid-19 but also notes that the trials that were done and used in this paper often suffered from poor compliance and controls using facemasks.

I don't have time to go through all of these papers, but sufficient to say that the ones I did look at they are not good science and very well versed papers. Just because there is a paper showing xyz doesn't make it true if the methodology is not very good. You should look for more papers that are peer reviewed and use good methodology with larger sample sizes and ideally randomized controlled trials (meaning that the allocation of the people receiving the treatment and control and random so it prevents bias)

Granted I'm no scientist and this is just my understanding but if anyone wants to contribute and correct me when I'm wrong feel free.

Ouch so many downvotes. At least someone try to debunk the studies rather than just downvoting.