desine

That's rather interesting, and I haven't heard anyone else talk about this. A bit frightening too.

I'm admittedly pretty out of my element here. Apologies if any of the following is misinformed. Lyme and TB are chronic symptoms, from what I understand. No truly dormant stages in the infection, just slight lulls in symptoms. I was under the impression that chronic viral infections such as herpes or HIV were much more able to pass under the immune system's radar for prolonged periods of time, with unpredictable flare ups. From what I understood, this had to do with their cycles of replication and the nature of viral infections.

But again, not my area of expertise. Or even in the same ballpark.

Too late to edit, but I'm getting mixed votes (which I usually don't pay much attention to), so I will explain:

There's a few different frameworks people are working within. From my experience, linking or forwarding to any "outside the box" ideas in this sphere will only invite more downvotes, argumentation over the details, and flamewars. Any linking of these ideas would be interpreted by some to be an endorsement of them. In my parent comment I made sure to mention that none of them were worthy of my endosement at this time, though I do find them interesting. Anyone reading this comment, buried deep in "hacker news" is capable of finding alternative ideas outside the norm. You can do your own research, if you like.

I mentioned them because the idea of people disagreeing on this was actually more foreign to me than "flat earth" which I find "pretty far out there", when I first stumbled upon it. It's very uncommonly discussed, and I don't have the clout to either endorse or properly antagonize these ideas. It's intriguing to me that something as preposterous as "the earth is flat" can be much more widely known and discussed than "maybe the way we frame viruses is incorrect".

This is completely off topic, and I apologize, but I clicked your profile.

First off, I am impressed by your credentials, very nice work, you should be proud.

But this segment in your about: box is oddly hilarious to me. Maybe I've just had too much champagne. Happy New Year, from a West Coaster posting at 12:05 AM.

>yt code channel: https://www.youtube.com/playlistlist=PLf5mA1y1vDNlydJ8d5CmSt...

>[censored by desine] dot [also censored] at the only useful google service

>What aspect, specifically, is suspected to be wrong?

That depends on who you ask. Different people have different hypotheses and concepts they explore.

>How did you incorporate unknown long term effects of a covid19 infection, even if you dont die from it - in your own analysis?

How do I incorporate unknown long term effects of the vaccine? If both offer unknowns, of unknown severity, why should I intentionally take one to avoid another? How are you quantizing these? You seem so caught up in how others have told you to analyze risk, you are unable to do so for yourself anymore.

>At this point you left scientific reasoning and logic a long way behind,

I find you rather rude

>and there is really no conversation to be had.

Fine by me

Odds Ratio can only factor in known risks. I very specifically mentioned in my comment I was concerned about the unknown risks.

If my numbers were wrong, I apologize. I mostly remember not being impressed enough

Had your daughter had it before? Once you get strep, you tend to get it semi-frequently. I get it once every couple of years. I always kind of wondered if it's like a viral infection such as cold sores where it lays dormant permanently, and flares up on occasion. However it is bacterial, and not viral, which counts against that idea.

They very much are interesting, and that's a pretty wild story. There are people a lot smarter than me, doctors in the field, that think we have some of our fundamental understanding of viruses wrong. I haven't read enough to take a stance that 100+ years of research is incorrect, but I do love hearing alternative hypotheses on a variety of topics. I don't think there's any harm in hearing what others have to say, at least.

I've lost close friends and family to preventable circumstances, it hurt. I however did not try to justify imposing changes to people's behavior, autonomy, or freedom.

When everything is multiplied by a fraction of a percent, the result is a bunch of small magnitudes overall. Like 12 times more likely to be hospitalized than fully vaccinated 12-34 year olds? What the latter's rate of hospitalization? Near 0, I assume?

This is all just weaponized statistics to generate fear. Or at least, vaccine sales.

>These MRNA vaccines didn't come from nowhere; they have been in development for decades.

And not once could they even get to stage 3 clinical trials. This should be a red flag, not something used to promote them.

If you're looking for hard data, there was some, but it was more of a logic based risk assessment. I deduced, for me, that the best bet was to avoid the disease as much as possible, and not risk a novel medicine for something that was low risk anyways.

Risk of me having major complications from Covid: Very, very low. Less than a hundredth of a percent, IIRC.

Rate of drugs recalled by FDA: Shockingly high.

Rate of fraud and abuse by large pharmaceutical companies: Also very high.

Effectiveness of the vaccine: I have an admittedly non-expert level understanding of statistics, but I did not agree with the efficacy analysis from the initial trials. I assume some modeling was applied, but I found that to be rather opaque. IIRC again - it was about 5k ea of active/placebo, and on the order magnitude of about 100 cases for placebo and 50 for active treatment.

Unvaxxed here. Lost my job due to it. Couldn't attend a close friend's wedding. So - it is not a casual decision I made.

mRNA "vaccines" are not as tested as the pharmaceutical companies want you to believe. They've been in development for years and had serious issues. The mainstream media has severe conflicts of interest, financially, with regard to Pfizer. There are smaller conflicts of interest with regard to J&J and Moderna. The Asch conformity experiments are one example of many that show that even experts can be manipulated. If I do happen to have a bad reaction to the shot, I have no recourse to get compensation for my medical bills. I have very, very low risk of complications from the SARS-Cov-2 virus itself.

The risk analysis does not justify the shot, for me.

I agree, but it should also be immutable, and only the former with the latter. Especially with the political scrubbing of past news articles.

This became a bit of a text meme for a bit. I think there's actually an origin in some fantasy fiction narrative about a wizard and a magic rock, but I cannot find it now.

    Tech Enthusiasts: Everything in my house is wired to the Internet of Things! I control it all from my smartphone! My smart-house is bluetooth enabled and I can give it voice commands via alexa! I love the future!


    Programmers / Engineers: The most recent piece of technology I own is a printer from 2004 and I keep a loaded gun ready to shoot it if it ever makes an unexpected noise.

source: https://biggaybunny.tumblr.com/post/166787080920/tech-enthus...

There's also the issue that with 5G phased array antennae, tx power limits are not restricted as tightly. With a standard single tx antenna, it's easy to calculate the amount of EM energy it can create in the 3D space around the antenna. With phased array beamforming, you're using using multiple small antennae and amplifying the signal beyond the sum of the individual outputs. The safety ratings for EM radiation around phased arrays tend not to be calculated on the theoretical maximum TX power, but on the typical usage. The result is that with low enough level access to the firmware, someone could theoretically weaponize a 5G antenna to produce unsafe levels of RF energy, as well as aim the antenna without physically moving the hardware.

This sounds far-fetched, and it is, but I wouldn't be surprised if we see it done in a lab, like some of the other practically infeasible but bleeding edge cool hacks.

The Overstory by Richard Powers. A few touching stories about trees and Americans. One of the best things I've read this decade, perhaps this lifetime.

Here, the news has conspiciously shied away from mentioning the relationship between weight and covid complications. I think if they decided to be honest, and call it a "pandemic of the overewight" early on, you would have seen a lot of people using their time off to walk around the block. By ignoring the data, they increased fear, and probably increased people gaining weight by locking themselves in their homes all day.

>Lifestyle, diet or supplements have shown to be rather irrelevant to the effects of Covid.

Lol no, obesity is one of the biggest factors in covid mortality

People don't tend to accept rapid, life-altering changes, unless it's solving a crisis. We wouldn't have accepted lockdowns, face masks, and vaccine passports without a pandemic to justify them.

Masses of people would likely push back against CBDCs, unless they came in to fix and solve a crisis. A collapse of the electronic financial system would justify this.

You're the first mention of pedophilia in this thread :-)

But also you should realize that after attaining a certain level you cannot be bribed anymore and can only be blackmailed

It was already going to blow up. Internationally, every country is in a credit hole so deep most will be unable to make interest payments in the next few years. The collapse was coming one way or the other, so the controlled demolition was chosen.

Whether you feel it was planned or not, the lockdowns did pretty much halt the velocity of money. Sure they printed a ton of social care money, but again the inflationary trap had already been set, it was the velocity that needed to be killed to buy some time.

Isn't Japan also on it's own banking system? You can't use USA Credit/Debit cards most places? Makes sense they would also allow Russia's "third party" option.

Russia and China both are accumulating a lot more gold than previously. They can go to a gold backed digital currency pretty reliably at this point. China's been testing digital yuan already, including some nice restrictions that will benefit socialist/communist control - restriction of what certain digital yuan can buy, as well as time-expiring money. Both would increase peoples needs on the state and their short term happiness - they'll feel "richer" able to buy nicer meals or go on vacations, but both would be able to restrict someone from saving or becoming too successful. We'll likely see these same ideas implemented in the CBDCs that roll out in the west.

"Oil backed" makes less sense, IMO.

Is "long covid" anything other than post-viral fatigue syndrome? I still haven't seen anything to imply it's different than any other virus, in that regard.

Not that I want it, but giving it a new name just seems like more fear stoking.

You didn't link a "peer reviewed, reproduced, double blind study". You linked a meta-analysis of other studies. One that admits near it's conclusion

"[...]the trends really are in ivermectin’s favor, but once you eliminate all the questionable studies there are too few studies left to have enough statistical power to reach significance."

Maybe it's nothing, but maybe it's something. So again, why is your burden of proof less than mine? I don't have any studies of my own, I assume you don't either, nor the resources to conduct them. All I hinted at that there was a seeming connection between an off-patent drug that had gotten an exceptional amount of hubbub. It's interesting how aggressively this argument is fought, considering there's a lot of drugs/medicines that are similar in structure and have similar but notably different effect. If this drug is just ivermectin designed more accurately for the coronavirus's protein structures, that should be lauded! It's a family of drugs with a safe track record! But instead it ignites a fiery debate filled with spite-filled comments.

Get it?

By definition, critical thinking is questioning what you are told. I am questioning what I am told, by assessing

* Who is telling me this information?

Pfizer, the FDA

* Who stands to benefit from this?

Pfizer, the maker of the drug, and the downstream finances from them - namely the FDA (who gets most of their funding from drug makers), lobbied politicians in DC, as well as the nightly news, which sure does seem to show a lot of ads for Pfizer products.

So, from those questions, I have become skeptical. I am completely open to other lines of critical thinking, but so far I have just met resistance for questioning things at all.

So who is doing critical thikning? Am I actually denigrating someone elses critical thinking? Because there seems to be relatively little of it in this thread.

If it means we can start applying critical thinking again, maybe

>Buying scientists is cheaper than buying politicians, in practice.

Heads up I'm not gonna be able to cite a peer reviewed journal on that so you should just [flag] me now <3