Tim R

Lmao?? you say Die Grünen are deluded and ideological? but consider AfD to be stage green or yellow?!! "even if there's some dogma". Uh-huh.. they are racist and sexist and a threat to democracy. They are not diverse. There hasn't been a party as regressive as the AfD in Bundestag since, oh I don't know, probably NSDAP. AfD is a bunch of crypto fascists. Sorry für das dezente Ausrasten aber die AfD ist schlichtweg für die Tonne

This is Leo in 30 years?? I love Osho

I just came across this Meta-Analysis on the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the prophylaxis and treatment of COVID-19. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/ I suggest you read all the points I selected from this study. If you don't want to read all of it, at least read the sections conclusions, discussions and the end; summary. Let me know what you think. Background: After COVID-19 emerged on U.S shores, providers began reviewing the emerging basic science, translational, and clinical data to identify potentially effective treatment options. In addition, a multitude of both novel and repurposed therapeutic agents were used empirically and studied within clinical trials. Areas of Uncertainty: The majority of trialed agents have failed to provide reproducible, definitive proof of efficacy in reducing the mortality of COVID-19 with the exception of corticosteroids in moderate to severe disease. Recently, evidence has emerged that the oral antiparasitic agent ivermectin exhibits numerous antiviral and anti-inflammatory mechanisms with trial results reporting significant outcome benefits. Given some have not passed peer review, several expert groups including Unitaid/World Health Organization have undertaken a systematic global effort to contact all active trial investigators to rapidly gather the data needed to grade and perform meta-analyses. Data Sources: Data were sourced from published peer-reviewed studies, manuscripts posted to preprint servers, expert meta-analyses, and numerous epidemiological analyses of regions with ivermectin distribution campaigns. Therapeutic Advances: A large majority of randomized and observational controlled trials of ivermectin are reporting repeated, large magnitude improvements in clinical outcomes. Numerous prophylaxis trials demonstrate that regular ivermectin use leads to large reductions in transmission. Multiple, large “natural experiments” occurred in regions that initiated “ivermectin distribution” campaigns followed by tight, reproducible, temporally associated decreases in case counts and case fatality rates compared with nearby regions without such campaigns. Conclusions: Meta-analyses based on 18 randomized controlled treatment trials of ivermectin in COVID-19 have found large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance. Furthermore, results from numerous controlled prophylaxis trials report significantly reduced risks of contracting COVID-19 with the regular use of ivermectin. Finally, the many examples of ivermectin distribution campaigns leading to rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality indicate that an oral agent effective in all phases of COVID-19 has been identified. DISCUSSION Currently, as of December 14, 2020, there is accumulating evidence that demonstrates both the safety and efficacy of ivermectin in the prevention and treatment of COVID-19. Large-scale epidemiologic analyses validate the findings of in vitro, animal, prophylaxis, and clinical studies. Epidemiologic data from regions of the world with widespread ivermectin use have demonstrated a temporally associated reduction in case counts, hospitalizations, and fatality rates. In the context of ivermectin's long-standing safety record, low cost, and wide availability along with the consistent, reproducible, large magnitude of findings on transmission rates, need for hospitalization, and mortality, widespread deployment in both prevention and treatment has been proposed. Although a subset of trials are of an observational design, it must be recognized that in the case of ivermectin (1) half of the trials used a randomized controlled trial design (12 of the 24 reviewed above) and (2) observational and randomized trial designs reach equivalent conclusions on average as reported in a large Cochrane review of the topic from 2014.81 In particular, OCTs that use propensity-matching techniques (as in the Rajter study from Florida) find near identical conclusions to later-conducted RCTs in many different disease states, including coronary syndromes, critical illness, and surgery.82–84 Similarly, as evidenced in the prophylaxis (Figure (Figure1)1) and treatment trial (Figures (Figures22 and and3)3) meta-analyses as well as the summary trials table (Table (Table3),3), the entirety of the benefits found in both OCT and RCT trial designs aligns in both direction and magnitude of benefit. Such a consistency of benefit among numerous trials of varying sizes designs from multiple different countries and centers around the world is unique and provides strong, additional support. The continued challenges faced by health care providers in deciding on appropriate therapeutic interventions in patients with COVID-19 would be greatly eased if more updated and commensurate evidence-based guidance came from the leading governmental health care agencies. Currently, in the United States, the treatment guidelines for COVID-19 are issued by the National Institutes of Health. Their most recent recommendation on the use of ivermectin in patients with COVID-19 was last updated on February 11, 2021, where they found that “there was insufficient evidence to recommend for or against ivermectin in COVID-19.” For a more definitive recommendation to be issued by major leading public health agencies (PHA), it is apparent that even more data on both the quality and quantity of trials are needed, even during a global health care emergency, and in consideration of a safe, oral, low-cost, widely available and deployable intervention such as ivermectin. Fortunately, large teams sponsored by 2 different organizations have embarked on this effort. One team, sponsored by the Unitaid/WHO's ACT Accelerator Program and led by the University of Liverpool Senior Research Fellow Dr. Andrew Hill, is performing a systematic review and meta-analysis focused solely on ivermectin treatment RCTs in COVID-19. Although a preliminary meta-analysis of 17 RCTs was posted to a preprint server in February, it is expected that by March 19, 2021, results from approximately 27–29 RCTs including almost 4500 patients will be presented to the WHO Guidelines Committee and that the epidemiologic studies reviewed above by Chamie et al were already presented to the committee in early March (personal communication with Dr. Andrew Hill). It is important to note that on February 5, the WHO Guidelines Committee announced that they had begun a review of the accumulating ivermectin data and expected to arrive at their own formal treatment recommendation within 4–6 weeks. If the above benefits in clinical outcomes continue to be reported in the remaining trials, it is hoped that this almost doubling of the current supportive evidence base would merit a recommendation for use by the WHO, NIH, and other PHA's would be forthcoming. Because of the urgency of the pandemic, and in response to the surprising persistent inaction by the leading PHA's, the British Ivermectin Recommendation Development Panel was recently coordinated by the Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy Ltd to more rapidly formulate an ivermectin treatment guideline using the standard guideline development process followed by the WHO. Made up of long-time research consultants to numerous national and international public health organizations including the WHO, they convened both a steering committee and a technical working group that then performed a systematic review and meta-analysis. On February 12, 2021, a meeting was held that included an international consortium of 75 practitioners, researchers, specialists, and patient representatives representing 16 countries and most regions of the world. This Recommendation Development Panel was presented the results of the meta-analysis of 18 treatment RCTs and 3 prophylaxis RCTs including more than 2500 patients along with a summary of the observational trials and the epidemiologic analyses related to regional ivermectin use. After a discussion period, a vote was held on multiple aspects of the data on ivermectin, according to standard WHO guideline development processes. The Panel found the certainty of evidence for ivermectin's effects on survival to be strong and they recommended unconditional adoption for use in the prophylaxis and treatment of COVID-19. SUMMARY In summary, based on the totality of the trials and epidemiologic evidence presented in this review along with the preliminary findings of the Unitaid/WHO meta-analysis of treatment RCTs and the guideline recommendation from the international BIRD conference, ivermectin should be globally and systematically deployed in the prevention and treatment of COVID-19.

@Paulus Amadeus As I (and now also Leo) said, you won't be able to think your way out of solipsism. The only way to realize the unreality of solipsism is through direct realization of no-self. Which is the same as realizing no-other. Which is the same as realizing that solipsism is false.

But I am!!?? I am you! I am the exact same consciousness that you are. You and I are like eyes and ears. It's true, your eyes can't hear and your ears can't see. But: they share one consciousness underneath. You see, your eyes and ears don't have "separate bubbles of consciousness". But they, as eyes and ears, also don't have "their own" bubble of consciousness. There's just one consciousness, but many perspectives. As I said, consciousness is infinite perspective. No center. The reason why our perspectives can't be "together" is because they were never separate.

Look, why do you think that solipsism is a problem? I'll tell you what upsets people so much about it: What you wish for is that you are not the only ego in existence, and that there are other egos. But if you realize that not even you are an ego, then solipsism completely ceases to be an issue, immediately. "your" bubble of consciousness is as ridiculous of an notion as "other" bubbles of consciousness. Consciousness is impersonal, without a center (ego = belief that you are a separate center of consciousness). And of you understand that, the notion of "other" centers of consciousness just disappears with the illusion that you ever were such a center. Consciousness. That's the key thing to understand. It means that there is nothing but a conscious universe. Let go of the duality between yourself as the conscious agent and the "unconscious" dream. Consciousness means that there is no difference whatsoever between being conscious and being whatever it is that's "inside" of consciousness. There is neither a you, nor an other. There is no you to be trapped in solipsism. You as consciousness are everything, everywhere and everyone, without being anything, anywhere or anyone. As consciousness, you are "alone". But AS the universe. AS infinite perspective. Which is identical to no particular perspective. Solipsism won't be solved by thinking, but by actually realizing who you are. Because in doing that, you will discover that you anxiety about there not being any "other people" was completely founded in illusion, namely the belief that you are not pure consciousness.

If you truly buy into solipsism, there's no point discussing it with "other people".

Yeah... I think it's only Darryl? you don't have to be an alien to talk about the good stuff The simplest explanation is probably the correct one (Ockham's Razor).

In this video clip, Leo misrepresents JBP's views on individual and social responsibility and makes a straw man out of them. Disclaimer: I'm not here to defend JBP, I'm not taking sides, this post is simply meant to point out what I consider a biased and unnuanced perspective on Leo's part and I think that a lot of people who agree with him on this one are making the same blunder. And judging by some of the comments under that video it seems that I'm not the only one who thinks that. JBP is an individualist and yes, and I think he overemphasizes individualism. But he certainly doesn't ignore or even deny the fact that we are a global collective and that we are a society. And that when Japan dumps radioactive waste into the ocean, it effects us all and I don't think that there's anybody, not even conservatives who would deny something like that. Yes, he says that you must fix yourself first before you go out and attempt to change the word, but that's definitely necessary and I don't see how there could be a viable solution to do this any other way; because if you are completely clueless about the world, about yourself and about society and you then proceed to apply your cluelessness (and possibly resentment, as JBP often points out) in an attempt to fix a broken world, you will make a mess of it and it will be worse than if you had never done it. He even encourages people to take care of their community, to fix their family and to fix their society. The example Leo gives which I consider to be a straw man is about kid who has ADHD or autism due to heavy metal pollution in the water; Obviously this is a social/collective problem. It's not the kid's responsibility that he's sick from the heavy metals. And yet, Leo frames it as though, when this kid would ask JBP what to do about it, JBP would tell this kid that he's responsible for this problem. This is certainly not the case and this is not at all an accurate representation of JBP's views. If you think it is, I welcome you to show me a clip where he says anything comparable, where a more or less severe collective problem is entirely passed on to individual responsibility. Also, he never said anything like "stop caring about capitalism, racism, socialism" etc. And certainly not to ignore, accept or allow such a thing. Social problems can only be solved through individual responsibility, because a society is made up of individuals, essentially. And if each individual is irresponsible, the whole of society is irresponsible. Nobody in their right mind would make sich a kid responsible for polluted water and give such silly advice as "take responsibility for your life, listen to my lectures, bootstrap yourself and things will get better". I mean go ahead, try fixing the excess problems of capitalism and consumer society after having read one book by Marx and Engels and thinking that now you understand what to do. It doesn't work that way. You need to fix yourself before you fix something bigger than yourself. The problems of our world are so complex. You can't just come along and start tinkering around like someone who has just graduated from high school and know wants to perform a 20h surgery. And btw, being a clinical psychologist, JBP has studied neurology a fair but, so I doubt that this example with neurological damage due to heavy metals would result in JBP giving this "classical conservative advice". I invite you all to take part in discussion about this!

I doubt that there are even 3 people here who are truly capable of seeing 9/11 as an act of "pure love and goodness". Because if one were to say something like that as a mere platitude, that would be disgusting and a clear sign that one ought to examine ones values and principles. I say this so bluntly because there's too many people on the forum who rationalize everything to death and project some abstract philosophy of goodness, love and perfection on the world, when in fact, they haven't even begun to properly develop their values, let alone deconstruct their biases...

Not anger, not fear, but definitely sadness. And deep dismay, along with appallment and disbelief. I was watching some old clips and videos from that day this morning, and the live news from New York back then, and it seemed just surreal after a certain point.. Although I think I know what you mean by "going meta" in this context, I deliberately don't merely detach from / go meta on this situation. Because my emotional "attachment" to it is intentional and a very conscious decision. Attachment - detachment - compassion This is what I think the process of going meta looks like. First we are emotionally and otherwise attached, then we learn to detach. And when we know how to be fundamentally detached, we can allow ourselves to "attach" again, but this time it is not ordinary attachment, but a kind of detached compassion that requires a deep, deep emotional intimacy with the situation. Although I gotta say, it's very difficult for me to recognize the love in this act. The horror that so many thousands of people have experienced just drowns out the love for me. Maybe at some point.

How much do you know about the upcoming federal elections in Germany? Do you know what is happening politically in Germany at the moment? How important is it to you who wins? What do you know about the candidates? How much is it reported in the news? I'm just really curious as to how important this is to the US and its citizens, because when you guys had your election earlier this year, our media was constantly reporting on it (at the very least towards the last week or so) and everybody knew what was going on and had their opinion. So how much is our federal election present in your collective consciousness?

Yeah I know?? actually the first thing I wanted to write was that either your catholic friend or the angle is a troll?

So "focus" is the self-referencing? (somehow?) If focus is "yours" (or "mine") as you said and judgement makes things seem to be not me but "yours/mine", i.e. seeming to be separate from me, then the act by which "yours" is created is focusing? Or am I completely overthinking this??

@Nahm What is focus?

First of all, what is written on that image you posted doesn't occur anywhere in the bible, neither in Genesis nor in the book Hosea (where there is another reference to Jacob wrestling with God / the angle) . And secondly, not all bible passages / verses have necessarily anything to do with nondualism or mysticism in general. In fact, only a small, small fraction of all bible stories consist of nondual pointers of any sort, and most of them don't even occur in Genesis (which is where Jacob wrestles with the angle), but rather in the new testament because that's when Jesus showed up. The story of Jacob wrestling with the angle is I think more commonly known as "Jacob wrestling with God". I recommend you watch this lecture: It's from JBP's biblical series (which imo is the best of all his lecture series). Of course he won't go into nondualism, but I don't think this story is aimed to describe anything mystical anyway. But to get back to your question; My interpretation of why "the angle was hitting him with his own hands" is because the struggle with God/reality is the struggle with yourself, literally. And the reason why the angle/God says "stop hitting yourself" is your frustrated desire to end suffering; which itself is the cause of your suffering. Edit: JBP presents a totally different view on this story (obviously, given that it isn't written like that in the bible), but I recommend you watch it anyway.

In Russia, there is a saying that goes; when you look at yourself in the mirror at night, you will frighten your soul And it's kinda true?

Because nothing lasts. Your physical body won't keep working forever. In fact, every single cell in your body has been replaced after 8 years or so - so you are in a constant process of dying in order to keep living.

In the end, no theory is necessary. Not only that, but you will have to shed all your theories and concepts about what awakening is. The purpose of theory in this work is to prepare you mind to be let go of. It's not your mind that will awaken, but that which has been clouded by the mind.

The fall of man is one of the most profound bible stories there is. It describes the fall into duality. Which is why after Adam and Eve eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, they get kicked out of paradise. They fall into illusion/duality/knowledge. It says in Genesis 2:25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed. This is right after God created Adam and Eve. They were not yet self-conscious; no duality "me" and "other". It goes on to say: And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. This is the description of the moment that they became self-conscious. This is the moment they developed an ego. Genesis 3 ends with: And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. This ties in perfectly with Leo's latest episode; to know good and evil is to have bias. And to have bias is to fall from paradise.

I like it. The ending is beautiful

Yeah? but because Leo was giving 20 examples for something which Curt already understood? no need to list two dozen movies.. Btw, if anything, it was Leo who kinda interrupted Curt a bit to often. I don't think he "denied" infinity either, he was just being skeptical, which imo is perfectly fine and totally understandable, given how incredibly radical some of the things Leo said must've sounded to his ears.

I don't think he was "triggered" at all. On the contrary, he was impressively open minded.

Fear and stupidity make a lot possible my friend...

Lol, none of the above. There is no "how" to reality.