Jump to content
IGNORED

Coronavirus COVID-19


BCM

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, BCM said:

12 year-old hospitalised with Covid? Very very unusual, did they have underlying health conditions?

"The risk of serious Covid-19 illness in children us comparable to their risk from the flu, but many parents seem more concerned about coronavirus. The issue of risk perception has a lot to do with it."

https://www.npr.org/2021/05/21/999241558/in-kids-the-risk-of-covid-19-and-the-flu-are-similar-but-the-risk-perception-isn?t=1621961129305

Dunno what to tell you.  His symptoms were very similar to his father's. I'm guessing they're genetically predisposed to an adverse reaction.  And I said briefly, not seriously, hospitalized. Don't know what happened to them in the hospital but I do know they're still both having breathing and severe fatigue issues.

Edited by randomsummer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, BCM said:

Hope everyone's looking forward to their booster shots every six months!

I try to get the influenza shot every year so even if this scenario happened I don't really know what the huge deal would be. Domestic Finnish vaccine that's a nasal spray is possibly available later this year along with other options.

I should probably be adding shots for some tick-borne diseases now that I've been spending so much time in the wilderness due to the pandemic..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, BCM said:

Pfizer's vaccine generated $3.4 BILLION in revenue in revenue in Q1 alone.

Well d'uh.

I think you're conflating cause and effect here, tbh. The proper order seems to me "there's a pandemic, Pfizer has a vaccine, therefore they get rich" and not "Pfizer has a vaccine, so decides to have a pandemic, so it can get rich".

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've done enough recreational drugs in my lifetime that getting an influenza jab every year, occasional tetanus freshener and now a couple of anti-COVID-19 injections - even if it becomes a yearly thing combined with the influenza shot - are not even a statistical blip on the risk radar in comparison. I've had several orders of magnitude more instances (compared to  vaccine injections) where I've ingested, insufflated or smoked (I've never injected anything, and never will) powders, pills, blotters, liquids, plant matter etc. where I have no idea what they really, actually contain - presumably (and experientially) active doses of stimulants, psychedelics and whatnot (I've never had a bad experience, some intense ones, but never bad). All the vaccines I've had vs. all the recreational drugs I've taken is not even a comparison in risk, because vaccines are not from your friendly neighbourhood dealer, whose supply comes from who knows where instead of tightly controlled pharmaco-industrial labs, vats and distribution systems. Think about that for a fraction of a second.

Edited by dcom
  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You’re right, Bret is *just* one voice in the scientific community (two if you count Heather on the podcast) but did you even listen to what he was saying? Videos that even mention Ivermectin, including his own, were being REMOVED from youtube. And you want to speak as if there is some sort of concensus amongst the scientific community. Are you aware of the concept of manufactured consent? Any critical content that starts getting clicks gets removed or “fact checked” by entities that have direct or indirect ties to the pharmaceutical industry.  Oh and since we’re talking about Bret Weinstein specifically I recommend looking up “not all mice”. Bret’s thesis work involved looking at the telomeric length of animals used in clinical trials and how we could be missing symptoms and side effects of drugs because of how the animals are bred.  The other link I provided, the FLCCC, is a growing consortium of doctors sharing their experiences in treating this particular disease and attempting to petition the governing bodies to provide the same kinds of robust clinical trials the vaccines underwent.  I’ve read through all the links provided in response to my posts and I am truly grateful for them.  I hope in the future we’ll be able to have good objective analysis of these things, but when somebody as high up in academia as Bret starts sounding alarms I take notice, because if the scientific community can’t operate objectively we’re all screwed (and there’s good evidence it hasn’t been for quite some time, I can provide some links on the subject if interested).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When it comes to this subject, I think it is misleading to simply consider Bret as being part of "the" scientific community.

Sure, he is a scientist. But they all have their own specialties. When it comes to subjects outside of his expertise, he's just another human being with an opinion.

Although, I'll happily give him the benefit of the doubt when it comes to critical thinking and scientific reasoning. He knows how to critically read a scientific article. There's little doubt about that, in my mind.

That doesn't mean that I'll give his followers the same benefit of the doubt, however. Often I hear him make subtle remarks about uncertainties, and perhaps more important even, leaving out certain aspects. And people tend to cherry pick what they want to hear. Because he's mostly sharing his critical views, people often take it to imply the opposite to be the case. Even when that is out of the question.

And when it comes to political decisions, he's just like the rest of us. Pushing our own opinions about what is good and what isn't. Although he does it make sound like "scientific decision making", it's still just political armchair wrestling. He blurs the line between science and politics all too easy, imo.

Quote

Are you aware of the concept of manufactured consent? Any critical content that starts getting clicks gets removed or “fact checked” by entities that have direct or indirect ties to the pharmaceutical industry. 

Yes, I am aware. And I am also aware how national decisions are being made with respect to new treatments getting access to the national market. Nationally and internationally. My impression is that Bret is not particularly well versed in this. Apart from the high level stuff. It's very lazy to call all institutions responsible "in the pocket" of the industry. 

Interestingly, there are ongoing discussions about the validity of current patent agreements wrt treatments/vaccines for COVID. Not sure how well you are aware of these discussions. The US made the unusual comment recently to be open to consider pushing these patents aside. 

I can imagine however that without knowledge how these processes work, it seems like a bunch of BS. And people will just push it aside and stick to their "manufactured consent" narrative. Or whatever conspiracy kind of perspective on how the supposed world order works.

There is no perfect control. Just accept it's all rather imperfect and bound to existing laws and procedures. This makes these kinds of discussions rather slow. And the irony is, that it's often way more transparent than portrayed in the media. The reason for this perceived in-transparency is that it requires deep knowledge and expertise to understand all the legalese and the jargon (and where to find it). (Baudrillard would have a party with all the abstract gibberish) So, it doesn't fit the one-click 5 seconds style format of the media. And when talked about, it's rather boring when done properly. The exciting stuff tend to be the shit the evokes a lot of emotions and all that. Laws and procedures are usually opposite to all that. So the public tend to ignore it. And the media hardly pays serious attention.

Nobody is interested to read or view it. Unless it evokes a set of emotions. Like outrage. If it can evoke some outrage, it becomes perfect clickbait. Talking about manufactured outrage. I mean, consent.

Also, there's plenty critical content available. But there's a distinction to be made between just trash and critical content. When it's trash, I have no issues with it being removed. There's plenty of discussion in the media. Although the quality is not always up to par, imo.

Are you aware of the concept confirmation bias? Because I'm wondering to what extent you're also interested in opposing viewpoints. Here's a nice idea: the impact of confirmation bias outweighs the impact of manufactured consent. People tend to believe what they want to believe. Regardless of what governments want people to believe. Sure, there are counterexamples. Remember the smoking industry? But part of that was people addicted to nicotine, wanting to believe the stories which allowed them to keep smoking. Or should I say sheeple?

Yes, this is a wokeness contest... ?

Or as Bret would tell you: we live in a complex world and anyone who portrays it as simple shouldn't be taken seriously.

Edited by Satans Little Helper
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Satans Little Helper said:

we live in a complex world and anyone who portrays it as simple shouldn't be taken seriously.

First thing you’ve said that I fully agree with! Regarding confirmation bias, yes I’m well aware.  While we’re talking about bias, are you familiar with reporting bias? Or publishing bias? How about funding bias?  You know the old statistics joke, right?  I’m doing my best to be critical, and if you’ve read my previous posts you’d see where I’ve done my best to show gratitude towards those that were willing to provide substantive information that runs contrary to what I’ve posted.  It doesn’t do anybody any good to only hear one side of any story, which is why I’ve become intrigued by Bret, Pierre Kory and his testimony in front of Congress, and other things being removed from facebook, twitter, youtube, etc.  Just curious: when you speak of consensus amongst the scientific community, where exactly are you drawing these observations from?  Also, I feel it worth reiterating that it’s possible for everything the scientific and medical communities believe to be flipped on their head with a single discovery.  Bret discovering an inherent bias in drug clinical trials being one such discovery imo.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Claudius t Ansuulim said:

Just curious: when you speak of consensus amongst the scientific community, where exactly are you drawing these observations from?

You, in general? Or me specifically. Didn't remember speaking about consensus amongst the scientific community.

I do think however that in discussions which tend to be highly political, this "consensus" stuff tend to be used in toxic ways. Think of the climate issues, for instance. From various sides of the argument, btw.

1 hour ago, Claudius t Ansuulim said:

Also, I feel it worth reiterating that it’s possible for everything the scientific and medical communities believe to be flipped on their head with a single discovery.  Bret discovering an inherent bias in drug clinical trials being one such discovery imo.

First part, no. Or usually not. As Bret mentioned himself in videos long past, medical science has serious difficulties like results being difficult to reproduce.

That's the prime reason why it's rare that "a single discovery" (I assume you mean single result from a study or small amount of studies) causes the community to flip on its head. That's not bias either, btw. That's experience from past results. Too often early results tend to be refuted. Studies were faulty in some way. And studies are rarely perfect. Or if they are, it's not straightforward to generalise because correlation is not causation.

Another relevant kind of bias is that research with negative results tend to published way less than positive results. Is that manufactured consent, or some nefarious ploy supporting the industry? No, it isn't. It just isn't. That's publishing bias. And well known. O, and another reason to remain sceptical about a couple of studies with (weak) results.

Also, there's not much Bret discovered, imo. Unless it is his opinion which he discovered.

Listening to Bret I cannot help but wonder why he's selective in his criticisms. When answering a comment from a viewer about the corona-virus being a biological weapon, he treats it with kids gloves (an unlikely hypothesis which should be added to the list - for formal reasons!). And anything that Fauci says gets blasted with sandpaper. I mean, if you want to blast nonsense, do so consistently. In all directions. He tends to be very critical in a very specific direction. And he tends to be very soft in other directions. Perhaps he's also catering to his audience? It's not like he's still working at a university, right? Someone needs to pay the bills...

/tinfoil cappery

Edited by Satans Little Helper
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bias I was speaking of regarding Bret’s thesis work was dealing with the way we breed animals for clinical drug trials. In this case it was referencing a bias towards animals with very healthy robust immune systems early in life, a phenomenon observed in individuals whose parents conceived of them early in their respective lives. This could potentially explain why so many drug side effects go unnoticed in animal trials and are only discovered after patients have taken the drug. I’m probably not fully characterizing the phenomenon as I only learned of it a week or so ago and haven’t had a chance to fully dive into it, but what I’ve seen of it so far seems highly plausible.

Edited by Claudius t Ansuulim
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Claudius t Ansuulim said:

The bias I was speaking of regarding Bret’s thesis work was dealing with the way we breed animals for clinical drug trials. In this case it was referencing a bias towards animals with very healthy robust immune systems early in life, a phenomenon observed in individuals whose parents conceived of them early in their respective lives. This could potentially explain why so many drug side effects go unnoticed in animal trials and are only discovered after patients have taken the drug. I’m probably not fully characterizing the phenomenon as I only learned of it a week or so ago and haven’t had a chance to fully dive into it, but what I’ve seen of it so far seems highly plausible.

I'm sorry, but although interesting, I don't consider this earth shattering.

I mean, even without his research it is rather obvious that other species tend to be imperfect "models" for humans. That's not news. Although I can understand there's valid novelty in the details of his study.

It's important though to put these in the right perspective however. Which, imo, is something for the scientific community. As an average Joe, I wouldn't try to bend my head around it. Too much information, knowledge, experience and expertise missing. Before you know it, I'd start to believe in my own ability to think critically. Even in subjects I have no clue about. The worst thing, I can still pretend to be woke. Thanks Dunning Kruger! I think I'm a genius, because I have no clue!

Also note, that there's a couple of phases before drugs are brought to the market. Amongst the reasons for multiple phases of research is that rats/mice/monkeys/pigs/etc are imperfect models for humans. We didn't need Bret to figure that out.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phases_of_clinical_research

Also notice how these phases are intended to cope with the imperfections of research in general. And it's still not perfect. It never is. And never will be. Think again about your earlier complaints about the lack of long term results. Willing to repeat it. But since you've been so grateful, I'm sure you don't need to hear that again. (if you're smart, and only if, focus on what's phase iv is about - monitoring of long term effects. ergo: it's standard practice to monitor drugs *after* they've been brought to the market to monitor for long term (side) effects. that's all drugs on the market. not just these new vaccines. please tell me Bret mentioned this regularly in his critical videos. because if he doesn't, well, he might just be very selective in the information he's putting out there)

Edited by Satans Little Helper
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you missed my point about the importance of animals in clinical trials. I understand what the different phases are and why they are performed; my point was Bret’s discovery could VASTLY IMPROVE the reliability of data we collect from them. We have trouble getting quality longterm data from the human phase of clinical trials because they aren’t really longterm, lasting usually only upwards of 5-6 years (feel free to correct me if that number is incorrect).  And sure, we catch those long term side effects sometimes after the drug has been on the market for years (or decades), but wouldn’t it be better to catch it before?

  • Like 1
  • Facepalm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

listening to the dark horse pod, reading bari weiss's piece on the intellectual dark web, just being an absolute rebel almost as twisted as the joker himself when it comes to thinking outside of society's norms

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
  • Burger 1
  • Big Brain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Claudius t Ansuulim said:

We have trouble getting quality longterm data from the human phase of clinical trials because they aren’t really longterm, lasting usually only upwards of 5-6 years (feel free to correct me if that number is incorrect).  And sure, we catch those long term side effects sometimes after the drug has been on the market for years (or decades), but wouldn’t it be better to catch it before

too bad we’ve still got the polio virus killing and debilitating huge swathes of the population here and now in the year 2021, but it’s good we’re waiting on those 80+ year studies to pan out and be SURE that it’s safe for everyone.

  • Like 3
  • Farnsworth 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, misunderstood my point. The point I was attempting to make was that you CANNOT get sufficient longterm data from the human phase of the clinical trials ALONE, thats why we use animals with similar genetics and shorter lifespans as models from which to extrapolate longterm data.  Bret’s point was that those animal trials are inherently flawed because of the way the animals are bred. Fuck man, you all are determined to disagree with everything I say, even if you’d otherwise agree with it.

  • Like 2
  • Burger 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites




Fuck man, you all are determined to disagree with everything I say, even if you’d otherwise agree with it.


scary ain't it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Easy to criticize vaccines and lockdowns.

But without science, scientists, health workers,vaccines and lockdowns we would be in such deeper shit you can't even imagine.

Easy to be an armchair pandemic vaccine critic and rebel.But some people are actually doing something to get through this and it goes further than ''yo the vaccine is dangerous, yo my freedom is more important than the pandemic, lets just do nothing and ignore covid it will magically disappear''

Because that's low key what is proposed if there is no lockdowns or vaccine and action taken.And the result of this would be lot's of people getting sick and the virus getting out of hand.How the hell else are you gonna get through this? vitamin c and denial? What the hell are you proposing but denial? This is a global emergency situation.While you're heroically watching youtube thinking you're doing work for the good of humanity, to protect it against evil vaccines, some people are actually doing real work to beat this shit.

Lot's of empty pseudo-critical thinking not many solutions.

Edited by thefxbip
  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i love being fully vaccinated. everything is chill. the veil of constant worry is lifted. I also had no side effects from the shots (pfizer). A+ highly recommend

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, thefxbip said:

Easy to criticize vaccines and lockdowns.

But without science, scientists, health workers,vaccines and lockdowns we would be in such deeper shit you can't even imagine.

Easy to be an armchair pandemic vaccine critic and rebel.But some people are actually doing something to get through this and it goes further than ''yo the vaccine is dangerous, yo my freedom is more important than the pandemic, lets just do nothing and ignore covid it will magically disappear''

Because that's low key what is proposed if there is no lockdowns or vaccine and action taken.And the result of this would be lot's of people getting sick and the virus getting out of hand.How the hell else are you gonna get through this? vitamin c and denial? What the hell are you proposing but denial? This is a global emergency situation.While you're heroically watching youtube thinking you're doing work for the good of humanity, to protect it against evil vaccines, some people are actually doing real work to beat this shit.

Lot's of empty pseudo-critical thinking not many solutions.

A metric fuckton of projection going on here. First of all, I’ve spent the majority of my life studying and working in the sciences. And I think it’s bullshit that no matter how well versed in the sciences you are, no matter what your field, people will tell you that you aren’t qualified enough to have an opinion on it (other than “shut up and take your shot”). And if you are somehow qualified enough to have an opinion, and that opinion runs contrary to yours, that person must be a ‘lone idiot’.  I get it, I’m not gonna kick the pilot out of the cockpit at the first sign of turbulence and 5 minutes on google. But this happens to be in my area of general vocation, so I’m trying to peel back all of the layers of bullshit to see what is really going on as best as I can tell. If you think I’m anti-vax you’ve done well to pigeonhole me without attempting to comprehend where I’m actually coming from (that may well be my fault as well).  If you want to take any of the vaccines, great. Do it. It’s your choice, and it may very well be a good one for you. All of my immediate family has taken it. I didn’t scream at them that the 5G nanobots have taken over their brains and now Big Bad Bill has control over their CNS or some such bs. This is the internet, right? There is A TON of garbage information out there, and wading through it can be tough for even a trained professional. But there is a cautionary tale in here somewhere for the blind believer as well, and it doesn’t take a discerning eye to see all of the ways this could go very wrong, and if you don’t want to concern yourself with that then ok. But I very well do, so that’s why I listen to heterodox views.

Edited by Claudius t Ansuulim
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.