Dglgmut

There are many in Ontario (the province where Guelph is) that mandate it as well. I found the super-spreader comment interesting, though, since the vaccine debate is largely based on 'established' science. He also makes a comparison between the COVID vaccines and traditional vaccines. More contradictions between the established facts and the derivatives of those facts...

Here's an open letter an immunologist from University of Guelph (I linked a video with a couple Fox appearances from him earlier) wrote to the president of the school. https://www.jccf.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/2021.09.17-Open-letter-to-the-president-of-the-U-of-Guelph_B.Bridle.pdf

I found a couple articles. The 2nd is one of the citations from the first. Out-of-Hospital COVID-19 Deaths: Consequences for Quality of Medical Care and Accuracy of Cause of Death Coding | AJPH | Vol. 111 Issue S2 AJPH.APHAPUBLICATIONS.ORG Out-of-Hospital COVID-19 Deaths: Consequences for Quality of Medical Care and Accuracy of Cause of Death Coding, an article from... Error - Cookies Turned Off AGSJOURNALS.ONLINELIBRARY.WILEY.COM The first one includes ER deaths as outside of hospital, while the second classifies ER deaths as inside hospital, and shows specifically at home deaths (very low). It is argued that the ER deaths should count as out of hospital because they only have 24 hours to treat the patient in the ER. However, you can see the comparison between ALL deaths over the course of several months in 2018, vs COVID deaths in the same period of 2020, in the second article:

One statistic I'd really be interested in is how many people are dying of COVID outside of hospitals...

That meme feels like trolling to me. It's hard to imagine anyone who could think that is a good idea....

When do you decide to trust someone else over your own judgment? And how do you choose between conflicting voices that you deem more knowledgeable than yourself? What about the health of your doctor? Does that play a factor in your evaluation of his/her expertise? What about principles that you can trust above even professional experience? For myself, I like to hear the conflicting views of experts and 'trust' the ones who make more sense. I find it interesting how many health 'experts' are clearly unhealthy, and I wouldn't trust someone's opinion who can't even take care of themself. As for principles, I think doing something natural is always the safest option. It might not always be optimal, but it can never be that bad. If something unnatural is touted as being optimal, you always have to consider that if there's bad information involved, the reality might be terrible.

‘Error in judgement’: CBC Edmonton regrets mannequin’s use in COVID-19 news report NATIONALPOST.COM Reuters fact check: Some online users said use of the mannequin was proof that Alberta ICUs were not busy

What struck me while looking at this is that with the Internet now it might be impossible to boil the frog... When a regular person sees something like that--and since ridiculous content naturally rises to the surface, they will see it--there is little chance of them letting themselves slide down the same slope.

So the Moderna vaccines are being suspended in Nordic countries in younger age groups. Iceland has stopped with them all together: Bloomberg - Are you a robot? WWW.BLOOMBERG.COM My mother got Moderna and felt chest pains for weeks after her first dose... not sure if it got better or worse or if she's gotten the second one yet. I'll talk to her about it very soon.

The first 15-20 minutes are good, but after that I'd just skip around. There is some philosophical substance in the programmer specific content, but I think I summed it up above. I haven't listened to too much of Eric Weinstein, but I'm definitely a fan of Curtis Yarvin. A lot of the 2021 Gray Mirror posts have been brilliant. Here's a great one I'd recommend that gets into the systemic problems within the softer scientific fields. He focuses on the lab leak here, but it's very relevant to creation and politicization of the vaccines as well. Covid is science's Chernobyl - Gray Mirror GRAYMIRROR.SUBSTACK.COM Covid isn't China's Chernobyl. Or even America's. Covid belongs to science itself.

Another analogy I was thinking of today is economic stratification; particularly the way small businesses suffer over time while corporations grow. As a result we have a much smaller percentage of the population operating their own businesses, which has led to a society with a poor understanding of business and a fixation on labour. I read people complaining today that billionaires don't actually earn their money, the workers do. I think a society should not become disconnected from its foundation.

He's a bit of a quack. He comes off as well-intentioned, but also a bit dim and definitely a businessman (he has Mercola branded goods that he sells, including extremely overpriced cookware). I've been aware of him for a while; I have family who own health food stores and they've followed him for years. I'd put him in the category of Dr. Oz, but more alternative. He has interviewed and promoted a lot of people in the health world without much discretion--some great and some nutty. To label him 'dangerous' is similar to how Alex Jones was labelled. The people who take him seriously are not dangerous people. It's just another example of leftist hysteria.

It gets into computer talk for a bit in the middle, but he makes some great general points. Here's a couple that I think are interesting. 1. When the tools we use become more advanced, we forget how to use the lower-level tools. There is a balance--you want to use tools that make things more efficient, but you don't want to lose understanding of what exactly you're doing. 2. The more complex a system is, the less sustainable it becomes. At some point the high-level work detaches completely from the low-level, at which point very few people understand the low-level. I think this really says something about what's happening in society in many aspects.

The common assumption is that civilization constantly progresses, and we're supposed to look back with contempt at past societies for their ignorance. I think everyone on these forums is at least skeptical of that idea. Here's an interesting talk by a highly respected computer programmer that explores technological regression, which seems to tie in to a more general ethical regression of a society.

I don't think this is about science, I think it's about systems. Biology is about science. Physics is about science. It's hard to imagine those fields ever becoming politicized. If physicists could somehow convince society that gravity was running out, they'd be the rock stars doing big pressers. Then you'd have people you know have never been interested in anything remotely analytical telling you how they follow the physics and you should do X, Y, and Z, for society....

Something I haven't heard anyone point out is that virtually every dispute regarding "the science" is actually about statistics. Nobody is talking about science, everyone is just pulling up data that supports their stance. Most of the scientists being interviewed and put on podiums should instead be statisticians, who likely have a better understanding of systems and data reliability.

That's the great thing about computers, you have to start from first principles.... there's no way around it.

Considering the amount of internet snooping you do, it's quite an indication of the degree of censorship and suppression... What's happening is an extreme asymmetry of burden of proof. I can imagine a future where an ordinary person asks another, "Do you have any evidence that men can't get pregnant??"

You can read about what the PCR actually is in other places than mainstream media. Just because it's not on CNN does not mean it's not public information. The inventor made a number of statements about the limits of the PCR technique while he was alive and other accomplished scientists have spoken out as well. Here's an article on the lack of specificity of the test: You are being redirected... STATEOFTHENATION.CO The point is that it cannot tell the difference between healthy and diseased, let alone flu and COVID. If you have flu-like symptoms and you test positive, you're obviously now considered a COVID case. Are you pushing back as hard against socially amplified information as you are against the counter-narrative?? Are you being objective or are you looking for answers that are easier for you to defend while still feeling like an intellectual?

It's public information that the PCR test cannot tell the difference between flu and COVID. It doesn't even detect viruses, it detects genetic sequences which can be found in healthy and unhealthy people alike.

Thanks for the correction. I did wonder if it was a mis-speak, but when I found it in text form I figured he had read it correctly. That makes more sense; I thought this was a potential turning point for the waning of the vaxx effectiveness.

That is what I'm saying. This is a great video with several good references that goes into the topic of virus isolation: Why Sam Bailey Is Wrong ODYSEE.COM Please support my channel ▶https://www.subscribestar.com/DrSamBailey Support the Virus Mania Documentary kickstarter:... I don't think the number of deaths is useful information because the debate is not about vaxx vs no-vaxx. It's about forcing the vaxx vs letting people choose. Any evidence that the vaxx is effective is completely irrelevant. Here's the story: 78% of Victoria Aussies hospitalized with COV are fully vaccinated, another17% took one dose WWW.INDEPENDENTSENTINEL.COM Shocking results out of Victoria, Australia. Victoria Health Minister Foley announced 867 new COVID cases were recorded yesterday. Foley...

Maybe. It's hard to believe data when the incentives are all on one side. When data comes out that contradicts the narrative, you can be pretty damn sure it's legitimate.

As for the definition of power... I don't know the definition, but the root of power is loyalty. Loyalty is essentially a transference of agency. That can be used for good or evil. The power we see today is more complicated because what people are loyal to is a system, or an ideology, rather than a person. That system is democracy/leftism/equality.

As you should (not really, nobody should because the tests don't detect for the disease or even the virus), vaxxed people are getting COVID all over the place. Victoria, Australia reported the other day that 78% of their hospitalizations were fully vaxxed.