So one persons views implies everyones views? Also, so what? Is it against the law to have views. As long as his actions don't break the law, the freedom to think for yourself is paramount. Maybe he has reasons for his views that are compelling. Maybe he has life experiences that informed and shaped his views that are logical. Dismissal is lazy and stupid.
Yes, I did. I have both shots and a booster. That said, this all started before the vaccines. The day before I got COVID I returned from a 30 mile trip with my buddy. I had COVID in January, and vaccines were available until months later, so I don't think it's really vaccine related.
Anything. There seems to be this (unproven) belief that the drugs and methods used to treat Covid do no harm, and that it must be the virus, and only the virus.
The fact is, this is the first time in a long time that we've had a substantial sample size of infected humans, as well as a spotlight on the topic. The point being, there could be previous history with regard to treatment / solutions used for Covid and we've never bothered to look and see. That's not being critical. We had no reason to look. People survived and that we moved on.
But now we have a significant amount of data, yet we seem to be presuming - again, without proof - that the cause of "long Covid" is exclusively due to the virus. Simply put, that assumption isn't supported with science. It's based on assumption and narrative.
Hospitals are frequently using anti-viral and mono-clonal antibody treatments for severe cases. They are not using drugs that have been shown ineffective.
It's not a question of ineffectivrness. It's a question of treating a large number of people, with a spot light on them, and then blaming the illness for "long Covid". Maybe it is the virus? But maybe it's the treatment? Or a combo of both? Or a combo plus some other factor?
Two examples that might help frame things:
1) Chemo. It's toxic.
2) A couple of yrs ago a family member was hospitalized from a stroke. They needed to be put on assisted breathing. Well that helped, but it also led to a lung infection. And then that required treatment. Fair enough, it prevented death.
The point is, not every treatment is without sidside effects. But with Covid, evidently there are no longer comorbidies, and the treatments have no side effects.
Many of the treatments listed in the official NIH guidelines have significant negative side effects. Those are clearly acknowledged so I don't understand why you seem to think they're being hidden? In fact some of the treatments are only recommended for more severe cases partly due to the risk of side effects.
Mechanical ventilation was overused early in the pandemic and likely killed quite a few patients. Now less invasive therapies are preferred and ventilators are only used as a salvage therapy when all else has failed.
I didn't say nor imply they are being hidden. What I'm questioning is the attribution of so called long Covid strictly to the virus and not to any of the treatments and/or people's general state of health prior to getting sick. It's the mono-lens. It's the thumb on the scale narrative.
Sure there are outliers (i.e., people in very good health getting long Covid) and the media is great in highlighting them. It makes for profitable "news." But the typical American doesn't exercise enough, and doesn't eat particularly well. These things impact health. They impact recovery (from any illness or injury). Yet we continue to be stuck with leadership and a narrative that is afraid to discuss such things.
Norwegian politicians are required by law to only use official channels of communication (government email, phone etc) when discussing anything related to their public service. Citizens can demand to get access to these communications, even anonymously. This has made it possible for regular citizens to uncover both small and big abuses of power through the years, most recently exemplified by a close connection between the Police and a private anti-drug-lobby organization that has had a big influence on drug policy for decades.
I have, however, heard that apps like Signal has become more common among politicians, but using it for official business is still illegal.
> Norwegian politicians are required by law to only use official channels of communication
Is it really enforacble? What are the sanctions for breaking the law?
What if someone says it's a national secuirty matter?
Scenario nr 1: You are a misiter and you are discussing possible scenarios about a given event (let say something like an abortion). Should pulbic have full access to it?
Scenario nr 2: You are a minister and you are negotiating a new factory in your country. Foregin corporation wants to keep it secret before the deal is reached. How can you communicate?
If politians would be given a device from the deep state to handle all communication then they would have to use is exculsivly, you are givin the deep state an enormous power.
But there are law that limit the communications e.g. insider trading.
Imagine a public corporation that wants to build a factory, but wants to keep to secret for now, cause they don't want the competition to know or affect the share price.
The law ("Offentlighetsloven") is quite nuanced and take into account a lot of different situations and edge cases. The law does not only apply to politicians, but to every public servant in any position.
Yep. I'm a case in point. At the beginning of this thing i went along with
the mainstream narrative like a good sheeple. Now that i've watched how a narrative
can go from 'your a crazy person to believe there COULD have been a lab leak' to
'yahhh it was probably a lab leak the whole time'...my faith has probably been
permenantly destroyed in main-stream sources of information. Which sucks because
idealy i just want to focus on what i'm good at and let others do what they are good at. But now its been shown that the people who are supposed to take care of
gathering the facts and presenting them to the public have agendas and will lie if they see it fit. Not sure how any semblance of democracy survives with people like this in charge.
The nail in the coffin for me was when they would make articles about “700 people fired from X company for not getting vaccine.” When that company has like 85k people (which they don’t mention in the article and you have to look up yourself, of course), and it’s like “so less than 1% of the employees refused the vaccine?”
Even when they tell the technical truth, it’s so full of deception to sell ads I just can’t.
I assume you're talking about the Mayo clinic firing 700 people for not getting the vaccine(given it was exactly 700 people and it was 6 days ago).
I opened the first 15 results on Google and every single one mentions the number of people as proportion of the overall company size. The vast majority are in paragraph 1 or 2.
Could you link to the article (hopefully from a reputable source) that doesn't mention the company size?
They can’t because the articles all mentioned how few people refused. I don’t know what it is about this shit that drives people to become absolute morons.
At least for me, in this instance I don't see why the percentage is of more relevancy than the total amount.
Yes, it's only 1% of a company, which is not a lot. But 700 people being fired is quite a lot, if we consider that this affects more than these 700 people. I'm sure a lot of these 700 people have a family at home.
In your example I don't really see why that is proof that they use the total amount for ad-driven clickbait. There are more than enough better examples for this, I think.
And some of those employers are health institutions. And those institutions now have a worker shortage. And rather than bringing back those workers, many who have natural immunity from having had Covid, which can be proven by a lab test, instead they are telling people with active Covid that they can just come back earlier from quarantine.
So was the quarantine window wrong all along? Or is it changing now because we really need workers?
The real soon here is a complete erosion of trust in institutions. I think many folks greatly underestimate the extent of the harm caused by this loss of trust.
Honestly, good. I’m glad you (and others) realized this. With an open mind read about the history of the US during the age of 3 letter agencies (https://www.npr.org/2019/09/09/758989641/the-cias-secret-que...) (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jakarta_Method) I could go on and on with historical accounting books that are just accepted as fact… and try to square the circle that those kinds of things have stopped and the people in charge have your best interest at heart, and act in good faith.
> your a crazy person to believe there COULD have been a lab leak
I'm not really bothered about the true origin of the virus, except inasmuchas scientists lying about their true beliefs is incredibly damaging to public confidence, and energises conspiranoids. Lying about the benefits of mask-wearing was bloody stupid.
I no longer pay attention to statistics about infection rates and fatality rates. They are presented in the press without context (e.g. "It's a Monday, so results are skewed because some clinics report numbers for the whole weekend"). We get numbers with spurious precision. How can they know it's 251 cases, and not 249? Where are the error-bars?
It's really annoying; if you want to understand what's happening, you really do have to "do your own research". I feel ashamed to have just typed that, because that's a phrase mainly used by antivaxxers and QAnon conspiraloons, people who generally don't have the critical-thinking capacity to distinguish their left hand from their right, let alone evaluate research.
All of the lying and "nudging" and viewpoint policing is what made the "conspiraloons" so big (great word BTW). It was quite clear by March or April 2020 that a lot of lying was going on (wether "for the greater good" or some more nefarious reason) and also clear that everyone in media, politics, and science that should have been asking questions was instead giving a doe eyed acquiesce that the emperor was in fact wearing beautiful clothes.
Thanks, but not mine. At one time I used to read Indymedia, an open-posting forum. There were a lot of pretty conspiraloonatic posts, often about 9/11 and "chemtrails". This was the early noughties. The word's been around a long time.
I've kind of switched from my main source of info being mainstream media to it being following individuals, experts and other on twitter. Advantages:
- As individuals you kind of know what they know what their biases are
- You can follow all sides of the debates
- It's quicker by about 12 hours than the newspapers
You get to see the biases in the news when it breaks on twitter first and then you get the editorialised dumbed down version written up by journalists a few hours after. Obviously you have to be a bit selective about who you follow.
There is a vast difference between responding to someone by saying it's unlikely and responding to someone by calling them a Republican/racist/Nazi, which is how several of my questions about the origins of Covid-19 with regards to its seemingly unique and varied symptoms were responded to during the first year of the pandemic.
Why didn't it have road or mobile traffic for a week? Is this a fact?
That said, even if it was manufactured, its release is probably a freak accident.
US intelligence has many interesting discoveries about this lab. There were big sudden spikes in acquisitions of PCR testing equipment a few months before the virus was formally discovered, and I think cell tower data also showed weird activity there. The inference being that the lab was shut down or locked down.
But you don't really need to take US intel's word for any of it. The grant application where the scientists literally propose modifying spike proteins of bat coronaviruses in the Wuhan Lab leaked from the DoD and you can read it for yourself:
"A GRANT PROPOSAL written by the U.S.-based nonprofit the EcoHealth Alliance and submitted in 2018 to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA, provides evidence that the group was working — or at least planning to work — on several risky areas of research. Among the scientific tasks the group described in its proposal, which was rejected by DARPA, was the creation of full-length infectious clones of bat SARS-related coronaviruses and the insertion of a tiny part of the virus known as a “proteolytic cleavage site” into bat coronaviruses. Of particular interest was a type of cleavage site able to interact with furin, an enzyme expressed in human cells."
Note that the names on this grant proposal were the same scientists that were executing this coverup and the ones responsible for the obvious lie that it couldn't have come from the lab.
The idea that it wasn't created by scientists requires either a lack of information or tremendous naivety to continue holding onto. You can literally read their proposals to deliberately engineer viruses to be more infectious to humans and - even crazier - to deliberately release these viruses into bat caves and then spray airborne vaccines over self-same bats.
We can't let the sheep make up their own minds, we have to make up their
minds for them; for they are only sheep of course, and we are the pigs.
I mean, what would happen in one of those stupid sheep had a thought to
themselves? They might think
Hey isn't that a coronavirus reasearch lab right down the street? Maybe
they know something about this new coronavirus?
I mean, if they starting thinking...we might have a real problem on our
hands. Better lock it all down.
....
Human beings are built to defer to *legitamite* authority, its a
principle of how we organize ourselves. Doesn't matter if its mathematics
or goverment. But that legitamacy must be demonstrated. If a mathematician
fails to answer basic mathematical questions, then his authority on
the subject comes into question. When the authorities fail to answer
basic questions (like where did this virus come from? Why aren't we
investigating the wuhan lab? Why was Fauci funding it? Why was the man
in charge of the WHO investigation the man who was in charge of funding
it?), they are failing to demonstrate *legitamite* authority. In a
functioning democracy, that failure would be met with replacement.
