It's 'natural selection' we have 100% influence over.

I understand each word you used there, but I still can't figure out what you really mean.

Simple question - if someone has 100% influence over something, does that mean they have 100% control over it? If not 100% control, how much control is 100% influence?

If your definition of natural selection include iPhone and selective breeding by farmers then you're no longer talking about the same natural selection as anyone else.

Agreed. Too many people simply don't understand Darwin. I think part of it is the odd religious impulse to see humans as outside of nature, created by some transcendent God outside of "natural" animals and plants.

There is no useful demarcation between "natural" and "not-natural".

If enough ecosystems collapse the list of species that didn't survive might come to include us.

That is natural selection in action. We are fools to believe that we aren't subject to evolutionary processes.

Natural selection is a thing. And everything is part of nature, even your iphone and iced latte.

Even if you believe the rate of change that we're experiencing now is greater than all of the earth's history, this is just another natural selector - those mutations that can survive those evolutionary pressures will survive, and those that don't will go extinct.

Nothing is "supposed to be there". It just survived when all other competitors did not.

Yup. If the dodo bird and carrier pigeon tasted as good as pig, we've have farms full of them :)

Being tasty to humans is an evolutionary advantage.

Almost every year I get some ground bees by my porch for a few months, before they go who knows where, but last year we had a few swarms in my backyard (three total, all along the same branch on the same tree), and I put two of the swarms into langstroth hives, and gave the third away. Only one hive survived through the fall/winter, but I've got one pretty strong colony now.

Well, the PR issue exposed their illegal racist hiring practices. Legal liability is an actual issue.

And, it's pretty simple - you can't discriminate against people based on their race. You're not allowed to exclude candidates from consideration based on their skin color.

Yup. Poison the quality controlled stuff so that addicts need to resort to street drugs instead.

It's like making abortion illegal and wondering why back alley abortions have higher risk rates than ones done at hospitals.

Analogies being imperfect, what would you say to someone who saw it like barricading your house from attack? Why should you only lock the front door, but not the back one, and not also cover up the windows? What harm would it be to cover up the fireplace as well? Why not buttress your defenses in every direction, when even the most qualified people don't have any real certainty on the direction the threat will be coming from?

If your "qualified" guide wants you to run towards safety, but doesn't want to let you get on a bike, or in a car, to go even faster, why would you trust them? If speed in a safe direction is the solution to a horrible catastrophe, why insist everyone only run barefoot?

Back in the not stupid world where Ivermectin has had many studies and been eliminated as a treatment by repeated studies, whereas covid vaccines have been shown to work by repeated studies.

Do you still trust studies? Or only the ones that justify your own position?

Can you name a single study that changed your mind on any opinion you had, ever?

Because the placebo effect is a thing, and ivermectin is incredibly safe.

Oh, and do you have a cite for even a single double-blind placebo-controlled study on ivermectin that was constructed based on clinical uses of ivermectin? Like perhaps the FLCCC protocols?

Or are you simply regurgitating a talking point you heard once?

Your logic is impeccable. I especially liked the reasons you gave for your point of view.

How much of a problem does ivermectin-resistant head lice have to be before you do a full court press against ivermectin?

How much of a problem does myocarditis in young men need to be before you do a full court press against experimental mrna treatments?

The pro big pharma argument is double-edged, and an honest broker would apply it both ways.

So, there's a large market, where farmers can buy unlimited supplies of ivermectin.

And you're worried about too much use with humans creating magical "ivermectin resistant" parasites?

Even if ivermectin was no more effective than a placebo, it was safer than an experimental mrna treatment with no long term testing data.

Your strong emotions about this show just how effective big pharma advertising is.

Trump was compromised by big pharma because he trusted the wrong people. His weakness is that he wants to be loved, and he mistakenly thought that if he stood behind "The Science", that people with TDS might break through their programming and start giving him a fair hearing. Sad.

The Ds were compromised by big pharma because they are willing to sell themselves for money and power, and they don't care about the consequences. They're not only in bed with big pharma, they've got a menu of kama sutra positions with pricing by the hour posted on the headboard.

The "full authorization process" that these experimental drugs went through was greatly abridged from the standard process used before 2020.

They rubber stamped these experimental treatments, they didn't do real due diligence with them.