October 1, 20232 yr Vaccination rates are one of if not the key param that lines up with excess death rate levels.
October 1, 20232 yr 3 hours ago, Toastrel said: Such distrust still exists. Most people blindly follow medical advice. They pay people who have been trained to give them the best advice. It is only recently that a huge chunk of the population took to believing you tube nut bags over their doctor. I guess it is not in your head to USE yours. I don't think you understand how doctors get paid and how beholden they are to pharmaceutical companies. There are still plenty of good doctors out there - but there are also plenty who are in it just for the money. And there were financial incentives to push the vaccines. Why don't you enlighten us on all the double blind long term studies on the vaccine's effectiveness and safety.
October 1, 20232 yr 4 hours ago, Procus said: I don't think you understand how doctors get paid and how beholden they are to pharmaceutical companies. There are still plenty of good doctors out there - but there are also plenty who are in it just for the money. And there were financial incentives to push the vaccines. Why don't you enlighten us on all the double blind long term studies on the vaccine's effectiveness and safety. I'm not your doctor. Didn't we just go over this?
October 1, 20232 yr https://pubs.rsna.org/doi/10.1148/radiol.230743 Assessment of Myocardial 18F-FDG Uptake at PET/CT in Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2-vaccinated and Nonvaccinated Patients Conclusion Compared to nonvaccinated patients, asymptomatic patients who received their 2nd vaccination 1-180 days prior to imaging showed increased myocardial FDG uptake on PET/CT.
October 2, 20232 yr oh man, a vaccine has temporary side effects. I guess we need to stop vaccinating. (by 180 days after vaccinated patients returned to normal ranges, with most returning near normal 31-60 days) So basically: for about a month there may be increased risk of myocarditis, after which it normalizes. These are good things to know, and good studies to have. They will add to understanding and yield even safer vaccines in the future. But.... these vaccines are very safe as-is. And the reduced risk of severe Covid far more than outweighs myocardial risks, perhaps unless a patient already suffers from risk factors there.
October 2, 20232 yr 4 hours ago, mr_hunt said: anybody here have more than 5 fauci jabs or am i in the lead? I’ve only had 3. I just got the flu shot but declined the Covid booster for now.
October 2, 20232 yr 5 hours ago, mr_hunt said: anybody here have more than 5 fauci jabs or am i in the lead? I only got the first one and the booster. You are up 5 - 2 on me. Probably won't get a flu shot or a covid shot this year unless things change.
October 3, 20232 yr 14 hours ago, mr_hunt said: anybody here have more than 5 fauci jabs or am i in the lead? You are right at the top mate though I think there are one or two others up there with you. I'm at three and likely to stay there for now. At some point, I'll start with the seasonal flu shots and will consider COVID jabs though the last two have given me heart troubles for a few weeks.
October 4, 20232 yr On 10/2/2023 at 10:52 AM, mr_hunt said: anybody here have more than 5 fauci jabs or am i in the lead?
October 6, 20232 yr On 9/30/2023 at 11:39 AM, Arthur Jackson said: Has anyone ever noticed that Fantasy by Aldo Nova sounds like the theme from Hunter? It makes more sense linked to the right part of the vids...
October 6, 20232 yr I can't believe how many people are selfishly putting others at risk by not rolling up their sleeves. Shame
October 9, 20232 yr 20 minutes ago, Procus said: This is one that one laughing emoji isn’t enough. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
October 9, 20232 yr 1 hour ago, Procus said: You really do only follow trash media with low credibility.
October 9, 20232 yr 4 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said: You really do only follow trash media with low credibility. Yah, your CNN and MSNBC sources are just swell!!
October 9, 20232 yr 9 hours ago, Procus said: Did you go to a special class on being a nut ball? You understand this is totally loony tunes, right?
October 9, 20232 yr It's one thing to be a paranoid lunatic who thinks your bumbling government construes multiple elaborate conspiracies a year to fool you. It's quite another to think that every country in the world got together and pulled one off.
October 9, 20232 yr 10 hours ago, JohnSnowsHair said: You really do only follow trash media with low credibility. What, you take issue with Syndey Powell quoting the Epoch Times as a matter of credibility? When have either of them steered you wrong before, huh?
October 9, 20232 yr 13 hours ago, Procus said: Quote The Epoch Times is a far-right international multi-language newspaper and media company affiliated with the Falun Gong new religious movement. The newspaper, based in New York City, is part of the Epoch Media Group, which also operates New Tang Dynasty Television. so, do you always spread foreign misinformation for our country's adversaries to try and weaken us ? that's a rhetorical question BTW.
October 9, 20232 yr 12 hours ago, Procus said: Yah, your CNN and MSNBC sources are just swell!! there it is, the yeah but ......
October 9, 20232 yr 15 hours ago, JohnSnowsHair said: You really do only follow trash media with low credibility. So tell me what the good media is out there. I'm all ears.
October 9, 20232 yr It's largely dependent on the subject matter. But most of it comes down to being conscious of your own biases and seeking to be objective regardless of the source. Understanding the source itself though is 90% of it, and most consumers of the news only care to be objective about source credibility when the news or article being rendered is at odds with their inherent biases. Take Epoch Times for example. There are going to be individual articles that are credible and well sourced. But so much of what they produce is biased and questionable, and proven incorrect. Generally speaking, the WSJ and NYTimes are pretty credible, even where they're at odds with my opinion on matters. Same goes for the Economist and the Atlantic. NPR is really among the best if you want just straight facts. 4.5 out of 5 of those you'll probably dismiss as "lying MSM", but the fast majority of journalistic reporting by those sources is credible and accurate, and corrections where needed are issued in a timely manner. While the editorials of all of the above range from questionable to extreme at times, the news reporting is pretty straight. To be sure they get it wrong too. But their batting average is a lot better than slop sources from the internet who exist only because their misleading, hyperbolized, or outright false "reporting" gives those who want to believe that blue checkmark feel-feel to hold onto. You have to actually want to obtain the actual facts in order to get them. Usually you need to synthesize reporting from as many credible sources as possible to get the best picture, because each and every one of them is going to be presenting only what they're able to see which is already only a portion of reality. But that takes hard work, and most people just want to casually read a few headlines and feel informed. Hell, most people just want to find a few headlines that prove them "right" on Twitter or on an NFL team's unofficial message board, and couldn't care less if the source is crap.
October 9, 20232 yr 6 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said: It's largely dependent on the subject matter. But most of it comes down to being conscious of your own biases and seeking to be objective regardless of the source. Understanding the source itself though is 90% of it, and most consumers of the news only care to be objective about source credibility when the news or article being rendered is at odds with their inherent biases. Take Epoch Times for example. There are going to be individual articles that are credible and well sourced. But so much of what they produce is biased and questionable, and proven incorrect. Generally speaking, the WSJ and NYTimes are pretty credible, even where they're at odds with my opinion on matters. Same goes for the Economist and the Atlantic. NPR is really among the best if you want just straight facts. 4.5 out of 5 of those you'll probably dismiss as "lying MSM", but the fast majority of journalistic reporting by those sources is credible and accurate, and corrections where needed are issued in a timely manner. While the editorials of all of the above range from questionable to extreme at times, the news reporting is pretty straight. To be sure they get it wrong too. But their batting average is a lot better than slop sources from the internet who exist only because their misleading, hyperbolized, or outright false "reporting" gives those who want to believe that blue checkmark feel-feel to hold onto. You have to actually want to obtain the actual facts in order to get them. Usually you need to synthesize reporting from as many credible sources as possible to get the best picture, because each and every one of them is going to be presenting only what they're able to see which is already only a portion of reality. But that takes hard work, and most people just want to casually read a few headlines and feel informed. Hell, most people just want to find a few headlines that prove them "right" on Twitter or on an NFL team's unofficial message board, and couldn't care less if the source is crap. I feel confident that Procus will take in this advice and heretofore make smart, thoughtful decisions when it comes to where he gets his information from.
October 9, 20232 yr 1 minute ago, VanHammersly said: I feel confident that Procus will take in this advice and heretofore make smart, thoughtful decisions when it comes to where he gets his information from. Yeah, I certainly didn't write it for him. I expect him to scan through to see NYTimes then respond with some barely coherent blurb feigning apoplexy.
Create an account or sign in to comment