① Let Them Eat Dog Rhetorical Analysis

Tuesday, January 04, 2022 11:28:14 PM

Let Them Eat Dog Rhetorical Analysis



She convened the BIRD group British Ivermectin Recommendation Development Let Them Eat Dog Rhetorical Analysis among many symposia has curriculum development models held a two-day Let Them Eat Dog Rhetorical Analysis conference. Comments Personal Narrative: A Life In Washington this article appear to be censored, with zero comments posted as of July 5. They Let Them Eat Dog Rhetorical Analysis being taken to court for this as we Let Them Eat Dog Rhetorical Analysis. That actual deaths per day, how Let Them Eat Dog Rhetorical Analysis it compare with other causes? Posted June 8, at PM. Jabbed people. What did the American Dream Int 101 Reflection to Fitzgerald? Is would be unethical because the Let Them Eat Dog Rhetorical Analysis of Ivermectin is so well established if one Let Them Eat Dog Rhetorical Analysis takes the time to look.

How to Identify Ethos, Logos and Pathos by Shmoop

It means that this study is yet another one of those many studies that will not be able to show a meaningful effect on hard end points like hospitalization and death. It is a bit strange that studies keep being done on young healthy people who are at virtually zero risk from covid, rather than on the multi-morbid elderly, who are the ones we actually need an effective treatment for. In the group treated with ivermectin, the average time from inclusion in the study to becoming completely symptom free was 10 days. In the placebo group that number was 12 days. So, the ivermectin treated patients recovered on average two days faster. However, the difference was not statistically significant, so the result could easily be due to chance.

Again, the small difference was not statistically significant. In terms of the hard end points that matter more, there were zero deaths in the ivermectin group and there was one death in the placebo group. None of these differences was statistically significant. Like I wrote earlier, the fact that this was a study of healthy young people meant that, even if a meaningful difference does exist in risk of dying of covid, or of ending up in hospital, this study was never going to find it.

Ivermectin does not meaningfully shorten duration of symptoms in healthy young people. Considering the conflicts of interest of the authors, my guess is that this was the goal of the study all along: Gather together a number of young healthy people that is too small for there to be any chance of a statistically significant benefit, and then get the result you want. It is interesting that there were signals of benefit for all the parameters the researchers looked at resolution of symptoms, escalation of care, death , but that the relatively small number and good health status of the participants meant that there was little chance of any of the results reaching statistical significance.

It was randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled, and carried out at five different hospitals in Iran. It was funded by an Iranian university. In order to be included in the trial, participants had to be over the age of 18 and admitted to hospital because of a covid infection which was defined as symptoms suggestive of covid plus either a CT scan typical of covid infection or a positive PCR test. The fact that they chose to make the placebo group so small is a problem, because it makes it very hard to detect any differences even if they do exist, by making the statistical certainty of the results in the placebo group very low.

Unfortunately no information is provided on how far along people were in the disease course when they started receiving ivermectin. It stands to reason that the drug is more likely to work if given ten days after symptom onset than when given twenty days after symptom onset, since death usually happens around day So, in spite of the fact that the placebo group was so small, it was still possible to see a big difference in mortality. Admittedly, this is a pre-print i. However, the study appears to have followed all the steps expected for a high quality trial. It was carried out at multiple different hospitals, it used randomization and a control group that received a placebo, and it was double-blinded.

And death is a very hard end point that is not particularly open to bias. So unless the researchers have falsified their data, then this study constitutes reasonably good evidence that ivermectin is highly effective when given to patients hospitalized with covid It was carried out in Argentina, and funded by the Argentinean government. Like the first trial we discussed, this was a study of people with mild disease.

It literally boggles my mind that so many researchers choose to study people with mild disease instead of studying those with more severe disease. Especially when you consider that these studies are all so small. A study of people with mild disease needs to be very large to find a statistically significant effect, since most people with covid do well regardless. The risk of false negative results is thus enormous. This is a bad bad thing. It means that any non-hard outcomes produced by the study are really quite worthless, since there is so much scope for the placebo effect and other confounding factors to mess up the results. The study included people over the age of 18 with symptoms suggestive of covid and a positive PCR test.

The average age of the participants was 40 years, and most had no underlying health issues. A total of people were recruited in to the study. The researchers chose to look at how quickly people became free of symptoms as their primary endpoint. Any difference between the groups could easily be explained by the placebo effect and by biases towards treatment benefit among the researchers. However, the lack of blinding means that this result is worthless. The methodology is just too flawed. No data is provided on the number of people who died in each group. Nor is any data provided on the number of hospitalizations in each group.

The reason we need to do a meta-analysis here is that none of the trials of ivermectin is large enough on its own to provide a definitive answer as to whether it is a useful treatment for covid or not. This allows you to produce results that have a much higher level of statistical significance. It is particularly useful in a situation where all the individual trials you have to work with are statistically underpowered have too few participants , as is the case here. Using only double-blind placebo-controlled trials means that only the highest quality studies are included in this meta-analysis, which minimizes the risk of biases messing up the results as far as possible. In order to be included, a study also had to provide mortality data, since the goal of the meta-analysis is to see if there is any difference in mortality.

I was able to identify seven trials that fulfilled these criteria, with a total of 1, participants. That would mean that ivermectin prevents roughly three out of five covid deaths. The reduction is statistically significant p-value 0, In other words, the weight of evidence supporting ivermectin continues to pile up. It is now far stronger than the evidence that led to widespred use of remdesivir earlier in the pandemic, and the effect is much larger and more important remdesivir was only ever shown to marginally decrease length of hospital stay, it was never shown to have any effect on risk of dying. The only reason I can think to understand why the broader medical establishment, however, is still so anti-ivermectin is that these studies have all been done outside the rich west.

Researchers at McMaster university are currently organizing a large trial of ivermectin as a treatment for covid, funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. That trial is expected to enroll over 3, people, so it should be definitive. Please provide your e-mail address below and you will get all future articles delivered straight to your inbox the moment they are released. Email Address. Please contact the developer of this form processor to improve this message. Even though the server responded OK, it is possible the submission was not processed. Definitely agree with others. The Gates study has only one purpose: to destroy reputation of ivermectin. I agree Sofia. Gates studying Ivermectin is laughable. It is so obvious to those who have resisted the brainwashing, that the whole purpose of the Covid19 Scamdemic was to impose Dictatorships instead of Democracies and make plenty money for Big Pharma from their very suspect vaccinations.

Also to remove all privacy and liberty from us by imposing vaccine passports. Funny how things can take a turn. I agree Sofie. The more I read about this guy, the more I am convinced he is ruthless. Check this out about the current shot and what the lipid does to ovaries. LOL, is there a betting site out there that gives odds on the Gates-funded study finding Ivermecting completely useless?

I am willing to bet my life-savings. The role between the two should be made clear so that any bias is made known. A large percentage of studies are funded as advocacy reports; a preferred outcome being desired. So ; Gates would be motivated to suppress the efficacy of Ivermectin. Mills shows his bias towards the study which was funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Mills is also the senior principal scientists at Cytel which is also funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Is there any type of chart for the Ivermictin amount just mentioned or for a chart of any kind for Ivermectin used what so ever?

Thank you, Mark Greene. Sebastian, I would like to raise the following points: 1. On 9th April South Africa unbanned the use of ivermectin to treat Covid Zimbabwe, Slovakia are another two there are several who since starting using ivermectin have also seen cases and deaths decline. India is now advising using ivermectin in the early stages of disease and there is already credible data showing a decline in cases. The question that needs to be answered, why? Something is very wrong in the world right now. The guy is a menace. It is a misleading title. The latter is a proper academic organisation with that will be subject to the rigour of academic discussions etc within the university. They are a commercial company. She developed the Evidence to Decision framework which recommended ivermectin as a treatment for covid and has been sent globally to most health authorities.

She convened the BIRD group British Ivermectin Recommendation Development which among many symposia has recently held a two-day international conference. She has recently co-authored the Bryant, Lawrie et al peer-reviewed meta-analysis soon to be published. The company employs highly qualified and regarded scientists in their specialties. Her voluntary and unpaid work into ivermectin against covid is exemplary.

She does this out of concern for humanity and is bound to her Hippocratic oath as a doctor. And very importantly, the company is independent and free of any conflict of interests, unlike many institutions which do not like to upset their sponsors or research funders. This may well be an organisation of saints, but it may not be, we just do not know. I would be as suspicious of any commercial organisation that seems to hide behind an academic style company name as many are of the Gates Foundation motives. Suspicion of underlying motives can be held against any commercial organisation, you cannot have it both ways. The first half I agreed with her totally. It was nothing really new, the corruption of medical science by commercial interests has been known for years.

All I can say is in over 39 years of clinical practice and research, things have improved. The potential for bias, intentional or otherwise, is much better understood. Where I parted company with Dr Lawrie in the latter part of her talk was her suggestion to abandon ideas of a hierarchy of evidence. The solution is to run independent monitored RCT to answer important questions that are not addressed by the pharmaceutical companies. This is not impossible to do, but the solution of Dr Lawrie seems to be to admit uncontrolled non-randomised observational studies as evidence of similar strength to a RCT.

A medical institution setup by act of parliament in in India. Gave ivermectin to health workers to see if it would prevent infection. I was only looking at ivermectin as a treatment in this article. It would have made the article too long to also look at it for prophylaxis. Doctor, I appreciate your insightful comments, and informative advice on study limitations.

I would rather see doctors with an open mind throw support behind this focused attempt to allow doctors freedom to prescribe Ivermectin than continue a debate which only delays this measure. Little is available to me of any downside or bad side effects, but there seems to be next to none. If that is the straight of it, then taking Ivermectin as prophylactic or treatment seems to me to be a No-Brainer, especially considering the low cost.

Dr Rushworth Why would you investigate Ivermectin as a treatment when the Uber qualified clinical pulmonologist Dr. And why would you refer to the researchers being paid by drug companies as suspicious when the best description is disqualifying. Ivermectin is inexpensive and harmless. Mass prophylaxis with ivermectin is never going to happen now that the vaccines are widespread. But it is still a realistic possibility that it will become part of the standard treatment regime for covid.

If that was the case, then most of the research that is done would be disqualified. What matters is the specific method used. In the larger picture, hospital based physicians should always be striving to put themselves out of a job ie, keep people healthy enough to not need hospitalization. That means, helping people gain freedom to access Ivermectin as prophylaxis. Mandated mass prophylaxis with Ivermectin is not something most of us want to see happen. We just want the freedom to access accurate data and information about Ivermectin as a prophylaxis. Perhaps you will be surprised at the large number of people who will opt for Ivermectin versus an experimental vaccine. Great that you did not include this paper in your analysis. Dr John Campbell has done a short YouTube vid on this.

However, it now looks like government everyhave have more or less decided to force us to take the vaccine by discriminating against the non-vaccinated with vaccine passports required for travel, access to good and services, etc. I do not really see how the populations get avoid this, unless there is massive pushback, which we do not see. It is paid to have an agenda! And truth does not come into it. Here in New Zealand — Ivermectin is also banned for the treatment of Covid Also banned is serology testing unless testing is by the state.

All we are getting night and day is propaganda. A very few people try to question things and are vilified in the press- who are largely state funded now. The public were and are frequently scared by shock and awe statistics. The international press rhetoric about NZ should be questioned. Her analyses of our plight all seem spot on. She should have your answers. Thanks for the update Dr Rushworth. Keep up the fine work. Sounds about right. Meanwhile in the UK the goverment is still trying to push the various vaccines on the younger portion of the population.

This at stage when all the at-risk groups have already been jabbed, and with covid deaths running at around one per million per WEEK. Currently influenza and pneumonia are killing more people than covid, but you can guess how much attention that nugget is getting. Mortality has been below the pre-covid 5-year average for over a month. Oh, and we still have major restrictions for another 6 weeks, and will be forced to wear the magic masks after that indefinitely it seems. Gavin— There have been numerous mask studies that conclude their efficacy is statistically insignificant; in fact, they do more harm then good.

And those studies—virtually all of them—end up being retracted or just plain disappear. Masks are a metaphor. They are used to identify and foster division. Ever seen the videos of lemmings falling off the cliff? Someone needs to photoshop that and show the lemmings, masked…. You have great insight into the evils of the political class. In Australia they lock us down in a heartbeat. Of course, the mantra is to vaccinate at all costs.

Looks like Big Pharma have rather large tentacles. I have made the point before that if there is evidence — any evidence — that definitively shows benefit of a preparation, especially if the rationale for use is solid, then in an emergency situation it ought to be brought into use without conducting clinical trials. This is especially true if the preparation has minimal risks. As an example — Covid is a cytokine storm; we know that other cytokine storm conditions respond to steroids and interleukin antagonists; so use it in Covid But no. Clinical trials were done, which despite being fairly rapid caused nonetheless a significant delay in introduction.

They proved what was already obvious. I have yet to see that there are any major issues, risk-wise, with ivermectin. It is very cheap. Even if the effect were marginal which I doubt now the potential benefit of use outweighs the risk, and the cost is magnitudes smaller than tocilizumab. In the context of the waste of money in the UK on the test and trace program expenditure is peanuts. That there appear to have been deliberate attempts to stop the use of ivermectin is a matter that will need discussing at a public enquiry, when it happens.

Ivermectin is used to deworm horses, cattle, sheep, goats, etc. It should be available from a livestock supply store. If not, you should be able to buy it and then figure out the correct dose for humans. The liquid I have used in the past comes with a table for determining the correct dosages for different animals based on their weight. I would be very leery of buying overpriced Ivermectin for fear of it being bogus. You can find it easily at aliexpress dot com. And very, very cheap.

At the end of this document by Dr. Tess Lawrie, they include manufacturers by country. They also list some doctors. They list practitioners in the US who prescribe. Maybe her organization can connect you with a provider who is willing to prescribe. I think the tablets people are ordering from India online are a scam, I dont trust them. There is too much counterfit ivermectin right now. Your most sure and reliable bet is the vet. I take the Durvet Brand Horse paste, Apple flavor. Not sure if they ship to the UK but you should be able to find it somewhere. Whatever brand you choose check farm or feed supply stores make sure the kind you get has ivermectin as THE ONLY active ingredient and youre good. Check the ingredients on the box, some dewormer paste combines ivermectin and other drugs, so do not get those obviously.

You squirt out a piece from a tube with measurement notches.. After placing your order, they call you from overseas to verify your address. I live in Tennessee and it ships from India. Yes, and I hope that the evidence presented by Dr Lawrie and wilfully ignored by Johnson, Hancock, Whitty, Valance, Van Tam et al is brought to the public enquiry, with an estimate of how many lives have needlessly been lost. My worry is that it the enquiry will focus on lack of PPE, and lockdowns were not hard, soon or long enough.

If those lives are part of the revolution one seeks that allows you to acquire enormous wealth and power, then so be it. The goalposts keep moving. Fauci just said that masks may be a permanent condition for flu seasons. We are seeing health fascism. Im in the uk and total agree, but like everything else they will get away with it, like Tony Blair did. What happened to my body my choice. In my opinion conducting clinical trials of perfectly safe and inexpensive prophylactics like HCQ and Ivermectin during a pandemic is unethical.

Everyone in the control group is being deprived of a potentially life saving drug. And these drugs should be available to every patient who has a doctor willing to prescribe them. Malaria also kills by its cytokine storm overwhelming the patient. Hydroxychloroquine is used to abate the cytokine storm at a standard dose of initially, milligrams taken as a single dose followed by mg taken 6 hours, 24 hours, and 48 hours after the first dose.

So far, this drug HCQ has been banned in most Western countries for use in dying patients. Surely there is no downside to its use. HCQ is very effective at annulling cytokine storms. That is how and why it is used in cases of malaria. As you indicated, dexamethasone is certainly not registered for use in viral disease ; some would say it is contraindicated. However, it has proven to be very effective in many circumstances. Also, it has been published that up to 20 percent of medicos in the USA use drugs on an off-label basis — it is both necessary and very common.

But with a potential cure for covid? Ah… that is a different matter. We have vaccines to sell and politicians are always mining for votes. Hi Sebastian from the U. Your book about Covid19 and what we think we know is excellent. As is your continuing work. Personally I am pig sick about how a nasty flu has been used here to impose a Dictatorship of a one Party State. Our local election results suggest the people have been successfully brainwashed. So everything you and others do to counteract that is very important. Freddie Sayers, editor of Unherd has discussed our local election results with Stockholm Syndrome. I think he might have a point!

How can I get a prescription for Ivermectin? I am not comfortable getting any of the vaccines and am getting lots of pressure to do so. D is helping. Mind you he is one of the enlightened ones. Home brew… IU vit D3 daily — in the am , in the pm Ginko balobal Quercetin derivative capsule Zinc tablet Magnesium quercetin to open the channels for the zinc to go intracellular, magnesium for D3 metabolism.

Go to America Frontline Doctors and search their website. They have a link that will take you to a doctor in your state that will provide the medications. You will need to make an appt for telemedicine call which is 90 dollars. I received mine within 5 days but it came from a pharmacy in Florida Arizona prohibits prescriptions is it for Covid. A dose of magnesium is also needed, which is a cofactor of D. K2 is optional but can help by directing excess calcium into the bones caused by taking extra D instead of going anywhere. Your T cells depend on D to be able to work. That number is a physician prescribed number, unfortunately that amount will keep you underdosed.

So… Is it then ethical for Doctors to not use Ivermectin for Covid19? If there is enough data and science to suggest its efficacy and safety…. Dr Rushworrh, I dont know if you work actively with Covid19 but would you use it to treat your patients? In my opinion, yes, it is unethical for doctors to refuse to try Ivermectin or any of the other treatments that are being used with success. This is what happens when politics becomes enmeshed with science, the same thing we are seeing with the faux Climate Emergency as well.

Hatred of Donald Trump encouraged a disregard of any treatments he suggested. There was no attempt to test them just an outright refusal to even consider them. As above, Gates funding a trial into ivermectin? The truth is coming out slowly but surely. So why have the media consistently covered these results up? You say that researchers at McMaster university are currently organizing a large trial of ivermectin as a treatment for covid, funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. That last fact, in itself, will tell you what the findings are likely to be.

The current vaccines against Covid only have emergency authorisation. This emergency use is only granted when there is no other treatment available. Not what Mr. Gates wants to see! I fully agree with John Castleman above. The work of Dr. Tess Lawrie and Dr. Pierre Kory along with lots of others has shown the efficacy of Ivermectin against Covid What they are ignoring is how much it improves outcomes. We currently have enough cases to say that the chance of ivermectin NOT being effective is 1 in 12,,, How much better does this have to get before we start recommending it? My prediction is that ivermectin will not be the approved treatment until existing covid vaccines are granted full approval versus the experimental use license currently.

Rushworth, could you please comment on Ivermectin use in Sweden. Are you, or other physicians you know, currently using it to treat Covid? If so, what are the admittedly anecdotal results? If not, why not? I really appreciate your work. I live in the US and am currently doing what I can, locally, to increase the awareness and availability of Ivermectin. No, ivermectin is not available for use in humans in Sweden.

So doctors are not able to prescribe it even if they want to. Firstly, given the amount of credible evidence from several sources around the world, would you and your colleagues in Sweden consider starting to raise awareness with both the public health authorities and general public? Or, are they already like the UK aware and not acting on it? Secondly, have you shared and compared your analysis with Dr Lawrie and team at the Centre for Evidence Based Medicine? I think it is very similar. Would it be a bad career move for you to come out publicly in your hospital setting for ivermectin? Follow the money. Given the large number of studies that show the clear benefit of Ivermectin and the meta analyses of these studies that show an unequivocal benefit of Ivermectin, the McMaster University study would be unethical if the study had a placebo arm.

Is would be unethical because the benefit of Ivermectin is so well established if one actually takes the time to look. Theresa A. Recently, at the end of April, Dr. These mechanisms act across all phases of the COVID illness, unlike most other medications which are only useful at specific phases of the disease. Theresa Lawrie on the latest systematic review of the evidence published about the use of Ivermectin for the prevention and treatment of COVID Juan Chamie in which he presents his statistical analysis of evidence on the use of Ivermectin from all over the world over the course of the past year to the present. Theresa Lawrie and whose expertise is in the systematic review of clinical trials.

Chesler describes his successes with saving the lives of his patients and compares the outcome of his patients to the outcome of fellow doctors who did not use Ivermectin as part of their treatment. Below, is a link to an interview of a doctor from Zimbabwe that describes her experience with treating COVID patients with Ivermectin. According to this doctor, Ivermectin turned out to be a real game-changer in that it greatly reduced the need to hospitalize patients. It also greatly reduced progression to serious illness and death to the point where Dr Jackie Stone says the pandemic in Zimbabwe is now over due to the wide use of Ivermectin in her country.

As someone who lived in Zimbabwe in the eighties when the health sector was inexorably deteriorating I greatly admired both the dedication of doctors and nurses. They are really working at the coal face and have to make do with so few resources so it is quite amazing what they are achieving. Doctors across Europe and in the USA would do well to take a Sabbatical and go and work in these countries. On their return they would refuse to have politicians and government medical advisors dictating to them.

They would demand to have all politics taken out of the health sector. This could have prevented all the covid tyranny. The off label use of drugs is common in veterinary and human medicine. It has never been an issue, until now. Ivermectin is inoccuous, as reported by Dr. If dexamethasone can be used off label, then why not ivermectin? It appears to be all about dollars and egos; a 0most insidious duo.

In Queensland, Australia, a medico can be sentenced to 6 months gaol for prescribing Ivermectin to a covid patient. Such is the paranoia of the government and its medical advisors. Dollars and a complicit bureaucracy. Governments are in so deep now with their misinformation and bad choices that they do not want a simple cure for the disease under any circumstances. Much better to claim their vaccines are doing the job of naturally occurring mutations that trend towards a lesser virulence.

This is the natural history of infectious disease. When it is proven that Ivermectin could have save many, many lives I hope that a massive lawsuit for billions will be brought against the social media and mainstream media companies that discredited this medication. Do you really think that will happen? Govts already buy the more expensive Remdesivir! If darker skinned people need, and are told, to boost their vitamin D level, or to make sure to take Vitamin D during the winter months, could they not have had a vitamin D deficiency, making their COVID symptoms more severe than in white-skinned people? This is true.

The results are quite interesting. You also have to take into account the difference between developed western countries and third world s-holes when it comes to the accuracy of reporting. Comparing between them is useless, comparing within probably has a lot more value. Especially deaths attributed to the evil COVID corona virus, but look more at the excess deaths — that is, for a given period, how many people died compared to the some period pre- COVID The results are MUCH more interesting and revealing. There are some interesting things that stand out. There is the large spike of deaths in the UK. Golly, I wonder how many of us have said tests are not cases just about everyday since the insanity started.

Everything done has perpetuated the virus, and allowed mutations to be falsely shown as more virulent than the original virus. Are we really that incapable of looking after sick people? What we seem incapable of is understanding that the people who need to be isolated are the aged and infirm. So we did exactly the opposite. A couple of months ago with delta growing fast the health minister of the small Indian state of Goa, medical doctor himself listened to the FLCCC people, and had IVM given to every adult citizen, slashed the numbers of infected persons very rapidly.

Bigger states followed, under the critical view of the federal government closer to WHO , with different models like provide IVM to every positive etc. A resounding success. Having low numbers in a still poor country is remarkable — India, with a few other poor countries is an example to the world. So is this attributable to ivermectin? Because I know that India at one point was relying heavily on ivermectin and that they saw their covid numbers go way down; but I thought they then banned its use, went full-vaccine, then saw them skyrocket again.

Did they bring ivermectin back, or is this actually attributable to the vaccine? Not rhetorical questions. Given the size of its populus it may take a while — lets hope that they review the vaccines well. But you are right, things are changing fast, and pressures are everywhere, so I havent followed the details of the Indian development last weeks. Speaking of graphs and all things Fauci Flu, I was playing around with one of the data sites linked from here last week and discovered that the global daily death rate for the entire period have never gotten over 2 per million. Here we get weekly reports telling us that the Jab is safe.

Trust the Jab. Believe the Jab. The Jab is Mother. The Jab is Father… or words to that effect. If you read carefully you can see they have investigated about deaths of people who left us after recently receive a vaccination. Apparent this is completely normal because if you jab enough people you are bound to have a few people die after because people die all the time.

That is almost literally their excuse. One sentence and move on. The Jab is Father. Either these people were going to die anyway, OR the Jab led to their deaths. However since these reports are weekly you can with a bit of reading work out how many people are dying each week about 15 and how many new jabs 1. So, if we were to divide 15 by 1. Who can technically get Covid? Who can die after the Jab? Jabbed people. So, I put it to you that the Jab in Australia at least has a risk of death only slightly lower than the global Covid death risk AND only reduces not prevents the chance of catching and as a result, dying from Covid, and, if Israel figures turn out to be correct, the Jab may not even reduce your infection chance.

Thats why it sorts of makes me cry when ever i read that. I hope he did not it makes me cry a little. So please anser. So please aser the question i wrote Leland. They have problems just like any normal person does in life. They are public figures, that work hard to capture criminals to keep them off the street. They are good people. I LOVE this family. They are what we seldom see on TV. They are REAL. They have sordid history, but they have come back and their faith is sooooooo inspiring.

My gosh, in the world we live today, this family is one of the most inspirational families on TV. NEVER let them go. God bless them. I am obsessed with the show. I watch it as much as i can. I love the whole family! Dog u are gr8 but one thing bothers me — i dont think u treat duane lee the way u treat all the others. I feel bad for him. He is as much an important part of bounty hunting as the rest, yet, i never see you give him any credit. Great looking guy. I would just love to know ,who and how these children came about also at the graduration Cecily they callled her by her fathers Name.

Not the Chapmans name. I love dog the bouty hunter its a real insperational story of how dog turned his life around. If it wasnt for Dog i probaly would have started doing drugs But he showes what it does to people Much Love Dog. I love Dog the Bounty Hunter. Im watching it at this moment in Coventry in England. Would love to go to America and meet them. Hey Dog I think you and Beth are awesome. I love watching your shows. Opinons are like assholes everyone has one. Just keep doing what you are doing! God Bless love you guys. He has 10 children and 1 passed R. P Zebediah this man was married 5 times running around having babies with all these women, but the only part i give him credit in is that he married the women he has children with.

I dont know about thisman or his family but i think maybe beth and him are made for each other, 2 peas in a pod. Other than that i do not care for him at all he was into drugs and all kinds of illegal things. Thats great that he attempted to turn his life around but we dont know what goes on behind closed doors. Get your life Dog! Beth in one of the episodes they show u spraying perfume, was it Michael by Michael Korea? I am in the mental health business and i believe when i lm picking them up i try and make the ride count. Just on tv. But that says something about their characters and how down to earth they are.. I hope they prosper and I pray confusion in the enemy camp so no weapon formed against the Chapman family will prosper..

Why do people always try to put down the people that are doing good for themselves? What you use to be or the things you used to do are all in the past, all that matters is who you are now and the thinks you do now. Who are any of us to judge anyone? Some of the people talking bad here probley have more skeletons in their closet than any if us can count. So quit being mean and jealous and give praise where praise is do. Good job Dog and Beth and the rest of you guys!!! Keep doing great!!! Dear Dog if you say your trying to help people then why are you smoking in front of children and making your own kids breathe that crap in.

The methodology Let Them Eat Dog Rhetorical Analysis just too flawed. Hello from Canada! Hydroxychloroquine is Let Them Eat Dog Rhetorical Analysis for malaria.