Rays Of Light
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Online


About Alibaba

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

584 profile views
  1. Alibaba

    Or...maybe there’s no problem, and she likes the people around her to treat her the way they do because she’s Madonna. Perhaps they are very honest with her. Perhaps they just don’t think honesty needs to be telling her that some of her fans don’t like her ass, or think that she’s not being likable enough to be praised by the stupid corporate media that she has no use for anymore. So many possibilities! Always look on the bright side!
  2. Alibaba

    What I don’t understand is why would you want Liz Rosenberg to fix her public image when what she is showing us is the real deal? I’m not sure I understand why anyone would want her to be marketed as someone more palatable to the masses if that’s not what she wants to be. Madonna has always been this way. It’s just that people used to accept it from her because she was a younger woman. When you’re twenty you can dress like a tramp and you’ll look sexy. When you’re sixty and you dress like a tramp, you look like a tramp. That’s just the way we have been conditioned culturally to perceive things. These are unconscious biases.
  3. Alibaba

    Perhaps she finished the tour because she wasn’t sure she would ever be able to tour again given the seriousness of her injuries? Personally, I can’t wait to see the tour filmed the way she wants the show to be seen, with whatever edits and effects she thinks best represent her vision. She was mesmerizing as always onstage, and she seemed so happy each and every night to perform the songs she wanted to perform with people she clearly adored being around. The heroism of performing so tenaciously through painful injury and still being charming, funny and joyful is perhaps a more useful aspect of the last year to focus on. It’s ironic that it might actually be her contentment that some people don’t like about her now. Sure, we might not like her unusually shaped fat ass, and it’s true that Eurovision was a dud, but it’s still fascinating to contemplate what made her make the decision to change her body so drastically, and I certainly would love to know what truly happened in Tel Aviv that night. It took a long time for me to adjust to Madonna aging more rapidly, and more importantly how she decided to approach that inconvenient inevitability...But once I accepted it, I was reminded of her extraordinary essence that flows through everything she has ever made or done. Like all relationships - even one-sided - there have been times when I have dismissed her, or criticized her unfairly, but in the grand scheme of things I have such gratitude for all of her incarnations and eras. I’m totally enthralled that 36 years after first setting eyes on her, she is still amazingly curious and driven. She will forever remain an inspiration to me, and I will continue to gleefully anticipate whatever is next.
  4. Alibaba

    It seems that she just isn't playing by the rules that many of her fans expect her to play by. I personally don't think there is anything wrong with her at all. In fact, I think she just continues to evolve based upon the values she believes in, and those who take issue with her haven't evolved in the same direction. She simply doesn't seem to care what those people think about her as she has understood that there is a bigger picture beyond the validation of record sales, popularity contests and public persuasion. As I explored in my previous assessment of modern Madonna, she's fully aware that no matter what she does, everyone will project their personal beliefs and feelings upon her. She's been a metaphorical punching bag for decades; I doubt it bothers her at all.
  5. Alibaba

    She played all of about three chords on Future, and so I am not sure it's such a stretch that she would have played live. However, as with her guitar playing, due to the sheer scope and choreographed process of her shows, her instrument feed is usually very low in the mix! If you watch bootlegs, you can see how many times she has messed up her chords when playing live guitar. It doesn't mean she can't play, but I don't think she plays either instrument particularly well enough to justify calling her a pianist or a guitarist.
  6. I could say exactly the same of your dismissal of such theories, but you clearly know you are right, and I am wrong. And not just wrong, but selfish and ignorant! Honestly, I get it. We can't see eye to eye because in my opinion you aren't even reading my words. I am questioning things, not making statements.
  7. Okay. I will state my view once more for the record. Here are the facts: 1. This doctor has claimed to have used the three-pronged medicinal protocol she described in the video to successfully treat more than 300 people infected with Covid. 2. It was established by certain governing bodies and institutions in some countries that trials using hydroxychloroquine should be discontinued as they failed to show any promise of efficacy in the short time they were studied. (Coronavirus became mainstream in February/March and I believe these trials were ended in a deeply politicized climate in June). For your reference, here is the FDA's exact statement on the matter: Frequently Asked Questions on the Revocation of the Emergency Use Authorization for Hydroxychloroquine Sulfate and Chloroquine Phosphate Q. Why was the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for hydroxychloroquine sulfate (HCQ) and chloroquine phosphate (CQ) revoked? A. FDA has a responsibility to regularly review the appropriateness of an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA), including review of emerging scientific data associated with the emergency use of an authorized product. Based on FDA’s continued review of the scientific evidence available for hydroxychloroquine sulfate (HCQ) and chloroquine phosphate (CQ) to treat COVID-19, FDA has determined that the statutory criteria for EUA as outlined in Section 564(c)(2) of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act are no longer met. Specifically, FDA has determined that CQ and HCQ are unlikely to be effective in treating COVID-19 for the authorized uses in the EUA. Additionally, in light of ongoing serious cardiac adverse events and other serious side effects, the known and potential benefits of CQ and HCQ no longer outweigh the known and potential risks for the authorized use. This conclusion warrants revocation of the EUA for HCQ and CQ for the treatment of COVID-19. FDA’s review of the available scientific evidence determined: The suggested dosing regimens for CQ and HCQ as detailed in the Fact Sheets are unlikely to produce an antiviral effect. Earlier reports of decreased viral shedding with HCQ or CQ treatment have not been consistently replicated and recent data from a randomized controlled trial assessing probability of negative conversion showed no difference between HCQ and standard of care alone. Current U.S. treatment guidelines do not recommend the use of HCQ or CQ in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 outside of a clinical trial, and the NIH guidelines now recommend against such use outside of a clinical trial. Recent data from a large randomized controlled trial showed no evidence of benefit of HCQ treatment in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 for mortality or other outcomes such as hospital length of stay or need for mechanical ventilation. The decision to revoke this EUA was made in consultation with the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. BARDA had originally requested the EUA covering CQ and HCQ. FDA and BARDA are part of a USG-interagency effort to rapidly respond to this public health emergency and have been communicating as new scientific data emerged. I have made it so abundantly clear that all I am asking is why we can't have definitive, transparent responses to debunk such medicinal claims and theory, rather than making everything about this doctor's statement about her personal spiritual beliefs. That is a critique of the media, not the participants on this board. I don't care what Dr. Immanuel thinks about homosexuality, demons, ascension or any other spiritual exploratory concepts. The vast majority of people in this world believe in deities and supernatural phenomena of some sort or another. Believing in our government and our doctors is an act of faith too for many. I am not going to decide not to benefit from someone's experience in a different field if the conclusions are independent of their belief system. I just want to know why she is so vociferously proclaiming what she has about treatments, and if they are indeed false, rather than erasing her proclamations from social media as an act of censorship, scrutinize her findings and tell the general public why she is a quack, why her data is flawed, and why we should all move on. I offered my honest response to your question, and I hope that is what you primarily took away from my answer; not an opportunity to prove yourself to be "right".
  8. Yes, in conjunction with zinc and azithromycin, if it was offered to me as a treatment and I was in a severe state of illness...I would have no choice but to trust the medical practitioner in charge of the protocol to follow...Not because the homophobic Nigerian doctor Stella Immanuel, Madonna or Donald Trump recommended it, but because I would want to give myself every chance to recover. My father contracted malaria thirty years ago and has taken this medication, and so I am aware of its effects. It isn't an easy drug to take, but then again, malaria isn't a fun illness, and it is recurrent. Again, I am not a medical professional, nor do I pretend to have any insight beyond anyone else in matters of covid-19 and its pathology. However, as there are no alternative treatments, I would want to give myself every opportunity at survival and eventual recovery. If that makes me naive or insane, I am fine with that.
  9. In answer to your question about who made me believe the virus exists, I don't need a "who". I, like you and everyone else on here, have a mother, a father, people I love and care about, and I am a humanist. I would never take any risk to harm another person. If there is any cause for me to feel that I might, I don't proceed. I live impeccably by my word and my fundamental drive in life is Love. To further address the topic, I also know people who have lost family members to, and who were diagnosed with, Covid-19. That is enough for me to be willing to check any skepticism at the door. I'm a human being. I understand that everyone is behind their screen feeling confused and angry, but I personally refuse to lose my sense of humanity just because I don't have to take personal responsibility for my language when hidden behind a username.
  10. Yes, but it isn't what I wrote, nor should anyone assume anything regarding my personal responsibility. It is not because any of us states one particular opinion that it entitles anyone to project that this gives them any insight or authority into how I, or anyone else, lives.
  11. Let me definitively answer you on this post as it appears to be full of assumptions. 1. I asked a question about the vaccine while qualifying why it might be problematic, and I asked it while prefacing that I did so in humility. This was in order to establish that science is evolutionary. 2. I haven't endorsed any cure as there is none as far as the current data available presents itself. That doesn't mean that there should be a blanket dismissal of the doctor's work without a full investigation. This was my point from my very first post on the topic. I want to know with full transparency if there is any truth to her claims. Who are the more than 300 people she claims have been cured? If there were other treatment protocols, or other factors that determined their recovery, I want to know what those were. That is all. 2. I did not attack you, or anyone else individually with personal characterizations. I stated that in my own openness and curiosity I am aware that I cannot be certain of anything, and that anyone who claims certainty is insane ( I have reiterated this in each response). You have somehow decided based upon this that I have a myopic and narcissistic attitude. Am I to understand that somehow this also leads you to assume that I do not take precautions to protect those around me? 3. For the record, that is completely false. I live in Los Angeles, and I wear a mask whenever I am out in public. I have chosen not to socialize with friends for over five months in order to protect them and myself from illness. I have not questioned the validity of there being an actual illness to begin with. I am not peddling conspiracy theories. I am questioning authoritarianism, which seems to be rife everywhere at present. Your post only further proves that in my opinion.
  12. I trust myself. I don't live my life any differently than anyone else with a sense of risk management. I question everything, and if you don't, that is your prerogative too. I ask this question in all honesty and humility...Will everyone be okay to take a vaccine that hasn't gone through the usual requirement of due diligence and two year clinical studies, knowing that the possibility of vaccine injury is high and that the effectiveness of the expected vaccine is estimated to be no more than 50%, and no less than 30%? There are endless questions surrounding the ethics, morality and science of our current crisis. I repeat that I have no certainty about anything. Anyone claiming to is truly insane.
  13. Are you familiar with Dr Fauci's history when he was handling the AIDS crisis, and how he was viewed by gay men and AIDS activists in the 1980s? I actually do question the FDA's authority on many issues! As I said before, I have a very different world view in comparison to anyone who thinks that government agencies are working for the common good of the people. That, in my very humble opinion, is what will prevent us from finding common ground here unfortunately, but it's a risk I am willing to take. I also will gladly eat humble pie as soon as we've found a definitively empirical solution to this global health crisis. I look forward to reading more debate about this. My thanks to all who have shared in this discussion.
  14. All scientific evidence can and will evolve, and potentially be disproven. In fact, this is most often the case. It's the very principle upon which science is based. Once upon a time, not too long ago, cocaine was prescribed by doctors, and face creams contained poisonous chemicals that gave people cancer. AIDS drugs that were not effective but prescribed turned out to actually kill people. They couldn't know this until after it had been established. I am not sure how I can convey this any more clearly.
  15. Again, I am not. I am a meticulous and diligent communicator, and every conditional I express is intended to convey that, in all humility, I do not claim to be certain of anything. I am questioning and curious. There is nothing intended as controversial or provocative in my writing. It is simply my personal quest to remain open to all possibilities that haven't been debunked by a thorough process of elimination.