anthony Posted January 16, 2022 Share Posted January 16, 2022 12 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Tony, I going to go real Rand on this. The people of the epistemology you and D are talking about fear something else far more than individualism, freedom, being disconnected from a group and all the rest. They fear reason. They are terrified of reason and of those who use it. They know for certain they don't measure up and it kills them inside. Reason is not something one does collectively. That is, reason in the sense I am talking about (thinking independently to the best of one's ability using reality as the frame). Reason in that sense can only happen individually, subjectively if you will. One cannot reason for another. Each person is alone in performing it. Each person is solely responsible for his or her own brain. If two people or more are reasoning individually, then they can reason together. Correct each other. And so on. But if one of them is not reasoning individually, then they are playing a sucker's game, not reasoning together. And the one using reason is the sucker. From observing over a lifetime, reason scares the living shit out of them. They don't want to be the sucker and they Long for somebody else to blame for their shortcomings, insecurities and screw-ups. And they want to spit themselves out of life where they have to die in the end. They don't know how to live, but they are terrified of dying. They don't want to see this and they hunger to blame the people who do for the fact that that death in the end is just the way it is. So they try to kill reason. Then they don't have to see or think when the urge for blank-out hits them. Even when they don't use the word reason, they try to kill reason. Michael Abso- lutely. The simplest justification for rights - "man's nature". We here know what is that "nature". Simple or self-evident, not at all. It gets to me still, how that was an immense achievement by a great mind, one that could permanently hold as one abstraction an entire conceptual chain. (Summarizing Rand, maybe poorly): "The right to life" (the source of all rights), "Life" being self-generating, self directed action (for all living things) - this "action" specific to man, being by his volitionally initiated mind (and corresponding physical acts), therefore, the necessity for one's effortful reason and evaluation; ultimately leading to the absolute requisite, one's "freedom of action" - to independently think, assess, act and to keep the values one gains, unhindered. Therefore, individual rights. (On further, to laissez-faire capitalism). A great work, AR's 'Man's Rights'. There's endless food for thought and further explorations for any writer to build on. Seemed to me way back that the original Leftists (and socialists I knew) were more reasoning, as a result, more independent, so, more individualistic, more worried about "the People's and Workers' freedom", but plenty of water has flowed over the dam, since. Many intellectual/social/political influences have come into play. Shifting the left further from reason. And especially, from vestiges of volition towards determinism (That would explain much of the drift away from reason). You only need hear from well known contemporary intellectuals, of the kind - "there is no 'mind'"; "there is no free will" - to find one strong influence on the modern Left-Progressive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony Posted January 16, 2022 Share Posted January 16, 2022 3 hours ago, Dglgmut said: Being separated from the herd is not the same as freedom. You can have freedom and still be part of a group. You can have freedom and still have a social safety net (loved ones who will take care of you when you are weak). They don't even consider the option that they need leadership. They have been convinced that people do not need leadership and that democracy can actually produce good, effective, moral policies. But this submits the original - moral - false dichotomy, sometimes called, the "atomistic individual'". A person who considers himself outside of society, boasts he needs nothing from anyone, while predating upon others' values (therefore needing "others" more than anyone). Known by O'ists as a subjective egotist. Naturally, one can have freedom, be independent-minded and by choice be "part of a group". One gains and increases one's values (knowledge, wealth, enjoyment etc.) that way. While cooperating and combining individual skills with others in an enterprise, this gains them values too. By free will and self-interest on everybody's part. NOT, that one loses to and derives one's individual identity from the 'herd' which becomes paramount, the tribe that 'you belong to' (by a common, physical identity, often) and follow unthinkingly. i.e essential collectivism. To clear up an issue, in case you are confusing the two, ethics and individualism - I'd put it that an individualist is not necessarily (and seldom) a rational egoist. An egoist is necessarily an individualist too. Which indicates for me that numbers of people may be individualistic without hearing of, understanding or concerning themselves over the Objectivist ethics. N. Branden in Honoring the Self: Individualism and the Free Society - explains individualism: "A political system is the expression of a code of ethics. [...] Individualism is at once an ethical-psychological concept and an ethical-political one. As an ethical-psychological concept, individualism holds that a human being should think and judge independently, respecting the sovereignty of his or her mind; thus, it is intimately connected with the concept of autonomy. As an ethical-political concept, individualism upholds the supremacy of individual rights, the principle that a human being is an end in himself, and that the proper goal of life is self-realization." ---NB When realizing that there is no dichotomy between "self-realization" and the high values realized in one's loved ones, friends, trading partners and any others one finds worth associating with ¬ because of acknowledging one's individualism/autonomy ¬ not despite it ¬ one can see that all manner of people could be individualistic, at bare minimum, an "ethical-political" individualist, so firmly individual rights observant. *A social context* should be stressed. "A ¬right¬ is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context". AR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 16, 2022 Share Posted January 16, 2022 3 hours ago, Dglgmut said: Constraining power is a myth. D, Why? Because you said so? Yeah, right... To you that foot I'm looking at is an airplane. But you will never get me to agree to that. I have an independent rational mind and functioning eyes and I use them all. So enjoy your proclamations and posturing. They have no persuasion with me. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony Posted January 16, 2022 Share Posted January 16, 2022 "We told you so". Repeat Boosters Could Weaken Immune System Say European Regulators. THENATIONALPULSE.COM Regulators for the European Union have issued a warning that frequent COVID-19 booster shots could have an adverse affect on the immune... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dglgmut Posted January 16, 2022 Share Posted January 16, 2022 1 hour ago, anthony said: But this submits the original - moral - false dichotomy, sometimes called, the "atomistic individual'". A person who considers himself outside of society, boasts he needs nothing from anyone, while predating upon others' values (therefore needing "others" more than anyone). Known by O'ists as a subjective egotist. Naturally, one can have freedom, be independent-minded and by choice be "part of a group". One gains and increases one's values (knowledge, wealth, enjoyment etc.) that way. While cooperating and combining individual skills with others in an enterprise, this gains them values too. By free will and self-interest on everybody's part. NOT, that one loses to and derives one's individual identity from the 'herd' which becomes paramount, the tribe that 'you belong to' (by a common, physical identity, often) and follow unthinkingly. i.e essential collectivism. To clear up an issue, in case you are confusing the two, ethics and individualism - I'd put it that an individualist is not necessarily (and seldom) a rational egoist. An egoist is necessarily an individualist too. Which indicates for me that numbers of people may be individualistic without hearing of, understanding or concerning themselves over the Objectivist ethics. N. Branden in Honoring the Self: Individualism and the Free Society - explains individualism: "A political system is the expression of a code of ethics. [...] Individualism is at once an ethical-psychological concept and an ethical-political one. As an ethical-psychological concept, individualism holds that a human being should think and judge independently, respecting the sovereignty of his or her mind; thus, it is intimately connected with the concept of autonomy. As an ethical-political concept, individualism upholds the supremacy of individual rights, the principle that a human being is an end in himself, and that the proper goal of life is self-realization." ---NB When realizing that there is no dichotomy between "self-realization" and the high values realized in one's loved ones, friends, trading partners and any others one finds worth associating with ¬ because of acknowledging one's individualism/autonomy ¬ not despite it ¬ one can see that all manner of people could be individualistic, at bare minimum, an "ethical-political" individualist, so firmly individual rights observant. *A social context* should be stressed. "A ¬right¬ is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context". AR. This isn't a discussion on ethics, but on human nature. Particularly human nature qua groups. Being separated from the herd is a real worry that people naturally have. You can try to explain it in terms of Rand's epistemology, but that doesn't lead anywhere useful or give you any real understanding of how people function on a social level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony Posted January 16, 2022 Share Posted January 16, 2022 Whew. America's Military Should be Used to Oppress The Unvaxed, Says Leading Utah Newspaper. THENATIONALPULSE.COM The Salt Lake Tribune editorial board called on Utah's governor to deploy the National Guard to ensure that individuals unvaccinated... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony Posted January 16, 2022 Share Posted January 16, 2022 5 hours ago, Dglgmut said: This isn't a discussion on ethics, but on human nature. Particularly human nature qua groups. Being separated from the herd is a real worry that people naturally have. You can try to explain it in terms of Rand's epistemology, but that doesn't lead anywhere useful or give you any real understanding of how people function on a social level. No, it's a discussion on individualism wrt. individual rights V. collectivism and 'collectivized rights'. Herd rights.. It was, until you moved the goalposts. An adult who has to be taught "how people function on a social level", has a problem. Or doesn't go out much. Likewise, self-evident human nature. By virtue of being human among humans, one comprehends what that is. Answer me this, do people find -selfish value- is socializing? Or, is their activity self-less? You can't escape "values". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony Posted January 16, 2022 Share Posted January 16, 2022 Punish those antivaxxers before the pandemic/epidemic/bad colds, end!! Do these petty dictators around the world not hear what is happening with Omicron? Did not occur to any, to ask South African virologists. After displacing Delta, Om is on its way out (after 6 weeks) In an under-vaccinated country, btw. less than 30% double-jabbed (Reuters) https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiW7NHV67b1AhWpM-wKHWbeBeQQFnoECAUQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.reuters.com%2Fbusiness%2Fhealthcare-pharmaceuticals%2Fsouth-african-hospital-sees-less-serious-disease-coming-end-omicron-surge-2022-01-07%2F&usg=AOvVaw26xu6DS5njaRLCIRZ6gKBC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 16, 2022 Share Posted January 16, 2022 2 hours ago, anthony said: Shifting the left further from reason. And especially, from vestiges of volition towards determinism... Tony, This is a habit I see everywhere. And I think I know one of the key errors that cause it other than denying determinism or volition. (The correct is to understand when each applies.) There is an epistemological error along the way. The error is to reify a part and pretend it is the whole. For example, you know I have been studying the brain, persuasion and all the rest. A lot of the brain and mind mechanisms work outside of volition--subconsciously. But to many people, that means volition does not exist, only subconscious processes do. And that's garbage. Ditto for the contrary here in O-Land. A lot of people think only volition exists where there are indications of subconscious processes. But that's garbage, too. Even Rand made this error by claiming that the development of eyesight in an infant is by volition. (The truth is, an infant has no capacity to choose to be blind.) I am pretty sure I know where she was coming from, though. It was not just a simple adherence to a dogma. She did not accept Aristotle's idea of final causation (a predetermined cause like a tree seed growing into a tree and not a flower). The development of eyesight because nothing but eyesight could be developed in the eyes of infants was too close to volition automatically developing because the end result of volition was predetermined--that was too close for comfort. Rand's whole premise is that we choose to think or not to think. Full stop. Period. From my own observation, though, I see a lot of this stuff is like breathing. You breathe automatically, but you can choose to breathe, too. Without the more primitive automation, the choice does not come into being. But the contrary is not true. Even when you do not choose to breathe, you still automatically breathe. You can't turn it off by will except for very short periods. But once choice kicks in, you can take it far in expanding the capacity. I, myself, was one of the best trombonists in Brazil during a short time. One plays trombone by breathing--and by chosen structured breathing at that. If I had only relied on automatic breathing, I would have never achieved what I did. Ditto for volition. We use reason everyday, but only up to a point. To take it further, we have to choose. Ditto for eyesight, in fact. Learning how to see is automatic. As the faculty develops, the growing child can choose what to look at at times while automatically looking at other things times. I'm in a discussion right now where the premise of the other side is--because power exists outside of government without government constraints, that means government power with government constraints does not exist. It's the same fallacy: reifying a part and trying to make it the whole. Reality is not complicit in that fallacy. Reality continues to be what it is despite any and all rationalizations. In fact, sometimes reality destroys those who commit the fallacy, including many people around them--just look at communist governments. Their theory works in one context, so for them it works in all contexts. Then reality steps in and piles of corpses mount up. Even the USA has committed that fallacy--often--in its foreign policy (spreading Western democracy--by force at that--will be universally accepted, in other words, it's accepted as good by the majority in the Western civilization context, so that means it's accepted as good by the majority in ALL contexts). But look what reality brought. Reality is like the honey badger. It don't give a shit. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatGuy Posted January 16, 2022 Share Posted January 16, 2022 38 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Tony, This is a habit I see everywhere. And I think I know one of the key errors that cause it other than denying determinism or volition. (The correct is to understand when each applies.) There is an epistemological error along the way. The error is to reify a part and pretend it is the whole. It's not for nothing that Chris Matthew Sciabarra ended Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical with a warning about "the fallacy of reification": EPILOGUE "Some of you may know the story of the four travelers who on a moonless night chanced upon an elephant and came away separately convinced that it was very like a snake, a leaf, a wall, a rope. Not one could persuade any other to change his mind, for each had touched a different part. Not one could resolve their differences for none of them knew the entire elephant. "The moral of the story is not the inevitability of subjectivism. Rather, it is a lesson in the fallacy of reification. Each traveler abstracted a part of the whole and reified that part into a separate entity, which was identified as the totality. Reification is possible because no one—and no human being—can achieve a synoptic vantage point on the whole. Our definition of what is essential depends on a specific context." 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony Posted January 17, 2022 Share Posted January 17, 2022 6 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: I'm in a discussion right now where the premise of the other side is--because power exists outside of government without government constraints, that means government power with government constraints does not exist. It's the same fallacy: reifying a part and trying to make it the whole. Reality is not complicit in that fallacy. Reality continues to be what it is despite any and all rationalizations. Michael Yes, I was struggling to put a name on the fallacy a day ago, touching on ARI's perceptions of the Conservatives and a fringe element that's taken by some to indicate all or most of them. It's hellish frustrating when one knows that is not in the slightest, indicative of the great majority. How does one invalidate such a fallacy and perception? Other than tediously relating one's own far more extensive observations? No go. Heard the same thing many a time, with media bias: e.g. police brutality, Jan 6, and many more, from the Woke left mostly. The part is representative of the whole. The one incident or experience tells you everything you need to know of someone and something. You know, "I met a Scot who was tight with a buck - so - all Scotsmen are cheap". The closest I have come up with is the fallacy of hasty generalization. Certainly it involves limited and lazy use of induction. The fallacy of reification, okay. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 17, 2022 Share Posted January 17, 2022 5 hours ago, ThatGuy said: It's not for nothing that Chris Matthew Sciabarra ended Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical with a warning about "the fallacy of reification": TG, I did not get my idea from Chris, and to my shame, I have not yet read his book. I only skimmed it. And I have both editions. But from your sporadic references to it, you are encouraging me to read it as it should be read. Michael 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 17, 2022 Share Posted January 17, 2022 2 minutes ago, anthony said: Yes, I was struggling to put a name on the fallacy a day ago... Tony, To be clear, there is a herding component to the way primates exist. It would be a mistake to eliminate this, just as it is a mistake to reify it to be The One True Way. So much more exists on top of it, so much that evolved after that part became a fixed behavior during evolution. I understand reason and volition within this context. There is a prewired part of the brain and there is a free part (volition and reason) that we control as independent minds or souls or whatever one wants to call our independent self-aware selves. In fact, it's a good thing we do control this because some of the prewired stuff is no longer relevant to human life in the 21st century and can be quite destructive in a "Bull in a China Shop" way. So, through neuroplasticity, we can accommodate this by training and lessen any destructiveness when it exists. This is different than trying to force evolution into a superhuman direction (like the transhumanists and eugenicists want to do). It is simply using reason on our physical brain as it exists for values relevant to our time. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony Posted January 17, 2022 Share Posted January 17, 2022 8 hours ago, anthony said: Likewise, self-evident human nature. By virtue of being human among humans, one comprehends what that is. Michael, re-quoting what I wrote earlier. I've found no cause for a division between our animal-biological nature and our cognitive. We, every one, well know what it is to be human. (For ourselves and others). Not that I am suggesting you do make a division. Body-mind "harmony" is actually our proper state, as I view this and apart from my eccentric word-choice, Objectivist. Moving ahead, a rough theory I have is that for many individuals, maybe most, this process of continuous 'integration' was interrupted and disturbed at some time, younger, or in infancy; later, in adulthood, one becomes aware of the need for re-integration, consciously regaining that essential equilibrium. I think it can be clearly deduced, one's brain-mind develop together - naturally and automatically. With the gradual advent of the reasoning capacity, the awareness of needing to do so -volitionally - for the vast amounts of reality 'out there' to be economically contained and utilized, is again, "natural" (man's relation with existence) - BUT, not "automatic". "Human nature"and "man's nature" are harmoniously one, unless or until a division is artificially raised. True and self-evident, there are occasions one's body appears to "pull" in one direction and one's totality of knowledge, the mind, has to better assess the situation and potential outcomes. That happens so rapidly it appears as if one knew what to do in advance. The better integrated, the better and quicker the choice of action made, in every instance. (Accepting the possibility of fallibility and our non-omniscience). Emotions also: Many a time, the first emotional response is right. Definitely, the most accurate to one's value-system. Initiating any physical action, or not, on an emotion, goes again back to "the better integrated - " etc. Having said all that, i continue to maintain that any heritability of knowledge, "instincts", was something mankind lost most of, along the way. But that's another subject we've discussed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony Posted January 17, 2022 Share Posted January 17, 2022 2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Tony, To be clear, there is a herding component to the way primates exist. If that's the "herd instinct" of humans, I'd look at a different approach. I'd ask, is 'herding' not actually learned behavior? The (sometimes) pleasant sensations of being close to and touching other humans. Learned often from childhood? Or, joining in a communal activity? And many, many other instances, which perhaps are pleasurably anticipated from previous experience, i.e. "learned". I recall a dense crush of people at a rock concert, which was at first quite exhilarating to my senses. All the bodies around moving as one to pounding music. The pleasure of that herding didn't last long before discomfort set in. But yeah, selectively it feels good to be close to someone, or in a group sometimes. Only, that's not instinct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmj Posted January 17, 2022 Share Posted January 17, 2022 Mating feels pretty instinctual , the aftermath too. Females select sexual partners based on an evaluation of their perspective mate’s ability to provide while rearing her children. There are lots of brain juices that seem to operate to facilitate the emotional drives to keep that system in play. I think ‘instinct’ can have a more nuanced usage , and its use need not be seen as a ‘pejorative’ when the concept is applied to rational animals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony Posted January 17, 2022 Share Posted January 17, 2022 14 hours ago, tmj said: Mating feels pretty instinctual , the aftermath too. Females select sexual partners based on an evaluation of their perspective mate’s ability to provide while rearing her children. There are lots of brain juices that seem to operate to facilitate the emotional drives to keep that system in play. I think ‘instinct’ can have a more nuanced usage , and its use need not be seen as a ‘pejorative’ when the concept is applied to rational animals. Pleasurable biological experiences with one's own bodily urges, plus brain-wired physical attraction to another body, plus learned/practiced behavior. Adds up to "an instinct"? In appearance only. In "the aftermath", you said it. An "evaluation" by a female. At first, at the physical level, for outward qualities of male strength, reliability and self-confidence, etc. If that is "brain juices" (neurobiological) and I think it is, then it can't be instinctive. An influence of cultural learning from existing ideals of manhood - added to input from e.g. family, mother and other sources since her girl-hood - about the necessity of a prospective "mate's ability to provide" while child-rearing, -- are a conscious evaluation and selectively made (and pragmatic), not instinctual. We can observe, with the changing male-female mores, since the benefits of technology, the female may often be the more active partner in providing for her child. Demonstrating a degree of free will over perceived "instincts". (That plays out psychologically as the 'traditional roles' reverse, and that's another story). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatGuy Posted January 17, 2022 Share Posted January 17, 2022 "Trust the science"- "Follow the money" vc Dr. Anthony Fauci’s financial disclosure shows $10.4M in investments “Dr. Fauci was completely dishonest about his financial disclosures being open to the public,” Marshall said in a statement. “Dr. Fauci must be held accountable to all Americans who have been suing and requesting for this information but don’t have the power of a Senate office to ask for it.” Fauci’s 2020 filing — not previously available to the public — details the finances of the nation’s highest-paid federal employee, who reportedly made $434,312 in 2020 and is on track for a $350,000 annual pension upon retirement. and In a mix of trust and retirement accounts, he and his wife hold Atlas large-cap mutual funds, Pimco’s investment-grade bond fund, and a tax-exempt municipal debt fund. Other holdings include the Pax Ellevate Global Women’s Leadership Fund — which invests in companies highly-rated for “advancing women through gender-diverse boards, senior leadership teams and other policies and practices” — and the Matthews Pacific Tiger Fund, which focuses on East Asian nations, in particular China, but excluding Japan. read more here Dr. Anthony Fauci's financial disclosure shows $10.4M in investments NYPOST.COM The president's chief medical advisor and his wife had millions in investments at the end of 2020. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 17, 2022 Share Posted January 17, 2022 16 hours ago, anthony said: Only, that's not instinct. I wish Rand had not made such a war on the word "instinct." Everything becomes the word. (Everything bad in this case.) Here's a smart-ass one for ya': In the beginning there was the word... This constantly stifles discussion about concepts. Instinct is not the formal name of the Boogie Man except in O-Land... Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted January 17, 2022 Share Posted January 17, 2022 7 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Instinct is not the formal name of the Boogie Man except in O-Land... KC and the Sunshine Band! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 17, 2022 Share Posted January 17, 2022 On 9/27/2021 at 7:05 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Oh Canada! What are you doing? Is the following true? Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 17, 2022 Share Posted January 17, 2022 This is where I have ALWAYS been. Why Trump’s Pivot Away From Pushing the Jabs Is a Bigger Deal Than Most Realize Why Trump’s Pivot Away From Pushing the Jabs Is a Bigger Deal Than Most Realize NOQREPORT.COM I generally do not watch Trump rallies. I don’t need to be convinced to vote for him should he decide to run in 2024 and unlike the current occupant of the White House, President Donald Trump can go without... From the article: Quote It appears that the third option, which is not really a conspiracy, may have been true all along. He was just given bad data. We saw a glimpse of this when he told Candace Owens that people who get the jabs aren’t getting hospitalized or dying. It struck me as an odd exaggeration. He tends to embellish sometimes, but it was such an outrageously wrong statement that I started becoming hopeful that he’s just being told the wrong things by his own people. That’s why I watched most of his first rally. I wanted to see if he would change his tone on vaccines, and he did. This tells me the conspiracy theories that crept into my mind were likely wrong and he really was just being lied to by his own people. That’s not a good thing, but it’s far better than being compromised by either the Republican Establishment or the globalists. I’ll be watching closely at how he reacts when mentions of the jabs come up or if he reverts to pushing them again. In the meantime, I feel better knowing that as of now, he’s still the guy I will support. I think this is how the vast majority of his critical supporters feel about the vax issue. They know he corrects his errors--and changes his people--as he gains more information. Michael 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Posted January 17, 2022 Share Posted January 17, 2022 1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Is the following true? Michael I was buying some bagels last Sunday ( insert Jewish jokes here if you must ) an an old lady around 70 called me a f*****g a*****e because my mask was not on correctly. Wasnt that passive lollllllllll 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatGuy Posted January 17, 2022 Share Posted January 17, 2022 In New Hampshire: "PUBLIC HEARING THIS TUESDAY, JANUARY 18: HB1022 allows pharmacists to dispense ivermectin pursuant to a standing order entered into by licensed health care providers" HB1022 Bill Details Title: permitting pharmacists to dispense the drug ivermectin by means of a standing order. Sponsors: (Prime) Cushman (R), Kofalt (R), Sheehan (R), Yakubovich (R), Blasek (R), Torosian (R), Harley (R), Tony Lekas (R) Current Legislation Search GENCOURT.STATE.NH.US Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatGuy Posted January 18, 2022 Share Posted January 18, 2022 HHS Will Stop Counting COVID Deaths on Feb. 2, According to New Guidance for Hospitals "At this point, it’s clear there’s a difference between hospitalization with COVID-19 and for COVID-19. Now take the next logical step; there is also a difference between dying with COVID and dying from COVID. How many people listed as dying of COVID were receiving treatment for another illness and only tested positive? Apparently, that is a conversation the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) does not want to have." HHS Will Stop Counting COVID Deaths on Feb. 2, According to New Guidance for Hospitals PJMEDIA.COM A new HHS memo eliminates the requirement for hospitals to report COVID deaths and does nothing to fix inflated hospitalization counts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now