alan2102

"I never said VAERS data is crappy I said it is noisy" -- I would say that is a distinction without a difference, but that would be wrong. It is not even a distinction! By "without trials" you know what I'm talking about, or should. There was no time for proper trials. Yes, those 3-month thingies -- a joke. No properly controlled long-term trials have been conducted, nor could there have been, since no time. We're flying half-blind. And there's a fair argument for the abbreviated "trials", given the urgency of the crisis. But to pretend that we have good trial data, as you do, is inexcusable. You're starting to sound like Pfizer PR dept. Yes, this is post-marketing surveillance, and a crappy kind at that. You might want to venture out from the self-styled "fact check" sites, which are generally poor and, paradoxically, are usually written with a distinct slant that discloses the very NON-objectivity of the writer(s). "Politifact" is no exception. On the other hand, there may be no hope at all trying to research the vaccine space, which seems to be uniquely littered with idiots, ideologues, shills, liars and whatnot. The pro-vaxxers are damn near as bad as the anti-vaxxers, and that says a great deal.

Yes, Space Coyote, of course that is true. We obviously lack GOOD DATA -- and indeed that is the real point. We do not know that these vaccines are dangerous, nor do we know that they are safe. Too early, and since they were rushed into application without trial, all we're doing now is crappy post-marketing surveillance. One does one's best with what one has. What one has IS, after all, all one has. For you to imply that you KNOW, one way or other, is ridiculous. "To date, VAERS has not detected patterns in cause of death that would indicate a safety problem with COVID-19 vaccines." VAERS itself does not "detect" anything. Humans do. They rely on data to detect things. Further, there can be disagreement as to what the data indicate; this guy (quoted above) has an opinion; others may disagree. Further, since we agree that VAERS data is crappy, there is obviously no way to come to a final conclusion on this matter. (Did I really have to write all that?)

The issue is Wakefield's character and behavior, and the concerted effort to slander him -- NOT whether or not vaccines are linked to autism. They may very well not be linked to autism, but to conduct a campaign of hysterical defamation against someone asking the question is... [you finish that sentence]. The link I posted speaks for itself on this subject. Check it out.

Please do some homework on this case. Here's a start: https://medium.com/@rosscocalrizian/a-thorough-analysis-of-the-case-against-dr-andrew-wakefield-by-mary-holland-jd-f4e7fa90602e (I said a START. Not the finish, not the last word.)

Are you sure? I'm not. NB: I am not anti-vax. Or pro-vax. I'm an interested onlooker. Maybe slightly biased in favor of vaccination, but open-minded with no fixed position. https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/vaers-significant-jump-reported-injuries-deaths-after-covid-vaccine/ "VAERS data released today showed 118,902 reports of adverse events following COVID vaccines, including 3,544 deaths and 12,619 serious injuries between Dec. 14, 2020 and April 23, 2021" See also: https://thefallingdarkness.com/7766-dead-330218-injuries-european-database-of-adverse-drug-reactions-for-covid-19-vaccines/ .................................. Further: Not all vaccines are created equal. The West's rather weird mRNA stuff is not looking all that good on the safety front. Meanwhile, Russia's Sputnik V vaccine may be the safest by a large margin: https://twitter.com/alan2102z/status/1387905806989987844

May God Bless the great journalist Glenn Greenwald.

In fact, there is abundant poling and other data that almost all of Bernie's platform is desired by at least a majority, and often a super-majority, of American citizens. This is not theory or opinion, it is fact, not even disputed. Massive fuckery, on multiple levels, ensured that Bernie "lost" and Biden "won". This too can be documented, though it takes longer, and it is certainly disputed, though not very effectively IMO. To ignore all this seriously compromises one's view.

The hippies were never green. They were lifestyle anarchists, of a particular type that had green *potential*, partially actualized in a few cases, but in general (across the whole group) never actualized. The hippies were always about individual liberty, and were not politically sophisticated enough to understand the hard work necessary to overthrow capitalism and create a green society. Nice intents and all, and a great abundance of positive energy and creativity, but no cigar. As for "libertarians" (oranges) becoming green: this is happening more frequently now as the climate and other crises deepen. Former dyed-in-wool oranges -- especially in the sciences (higher intelligence and greater knowledge base) -- are going green. Not fast enough, but it is happening. And perfectly understandably, since orange is obviously inadequate to deal with these crises.

My point was: Why state right off the bat, thus emphasizing, the problematic possibilities? Of course, anything can be done to excess. That goes without saying. I want to give a lecture about vegetables and exercise, emphasizing the glaring fact that we all need a lot more of both, hence I will not BEGIN my speech with a warning about the harm of excessive vegetable fiber and the risk of overtraining injury, and perhaps I will not mention them at all, since for most listeners unnecessary. I am sensitive to this point wrt green, because of having read far too much creepy and destructive (IMO) green-bashing from Wilber and friends. Green is the vMeme that could have, and might yet, save the world from catastrophe, and it needs to be presented in a light opposite to the toxic one that the SD intellectuals have settled on (such as referring to its greatest strengths as "problems").

Is that a "problem", or a strength?

Yes.

Ah, but MIND OVER MATTER. LAW OF ATTRACTION. You wouldn't be in jail or poverty if it weren't for your STINKIN' THINKIN'! lol

Distant social goals cannot, by definition, "function in the real world" of today. Anarcho-communism is a distant ideal that will be many decades in the making, if it happens at all. Meanwhile, vision -- envisioning -- is important. Without a vision, the people perish. Which is one of the things that is happening right now in the U.S.

You speak from big assumptions, such as that you are not really a social being, and that you can pursue "personal development" disconnected from the social world, "politics", i.e. the rest of the world. That is, that you are an island unto yourself, and you can become so wonderfully great -- all by your lonesome, laboring diligently without any of those messy other people -- that you can "serve as a beacon of light in the world". Well, maybe you are right. If so, then hold forth. Demonstrate, compellingly, your beacon-hood. We'll wait. As for those "10 million channels" that deal with "fucking politics", surely you are aware that there are 10 million self-help/personal-development channels that NEVER deal with politics and that imagine -- just as do you -- everyone to be islands unto themselves, pursuing personal development without reference or connection to social or other context. Maybe one of those places would be more suitable for you.

Why? By the lights of some, anarcho-communism is the highest, most harmonic society that can be envisioned. They might be right.