@Skylab's banner p


Beware of he who would deny you access to information...

1 follower   follows 4 users  
joined 2022 September 09 02:56:55 UTC


User ID: 1057


Beware of he who would deny you access to information...

1 follower   follows 4 users   joined 2022 September 09 02:56:55 UTC


No bio...


User ID: 1057

Thank you! Exactly.

Reminds me of people who get offended on behalf of a hypothetical person who might theoretically be offended.

"Everyone agrees the Holocaust was bad."

Mod: "Please refrain from consensus building."

This forum is way over moderated. I'm going back to Reddit.

Is there anyone arguing that the last two years was NOT a "shit show"?

I thought pretty much everyone agreed that it was indeed a shitshow, but that the specifics were still being debated. (Happy to be shown I am wrong. Please point me to the person who thinks the pandemic went off in an exceedingly well-ordered manner.)

Otherwise, are you not moderating for an imaginary hypothetical person?

Secondarily, it's a fairly common phrase. You don't really think I was trying to build a consensus, do you? (I wasn't.)

For my own clarification, is it "consensus-building" idioms and expressions that are outlawed, or actual consensus building?

The comments made it seems like many of the battles only had one correct answer. In that sense it's more of a puzzl game than a squad tactics game. That's why I passed on it.

This would explain the total catastrophe of Western medicine as seen by almost everyone with eyes in the last two years.

because you got pulled up on the facts

This never happened.

Again, I would caution you against taking these discussions so personally.

Good luck!

Speaking of appeal to authority, we have a moderator with a poorly concealed grudge against me, speaking "ex cathedra," to apply an AP factcheck on my very true statement. Nothing you posted contradicted my factual statement in the least.

I would recommend that you not take discussions so personally as that tends to generate more heat than light, but you do you.

The Pfizer trial is my citation. I thought that was clear.

But all-cause mortality is arguably the MOST important measure for any drug or vaccine - especially one meant to be given prophylactically to large numbers of healthy people, as vaccines are.

I never claimed to "rebut any criteria." I pointed out that the Pfizer trial failed 1 of the 3 criteria, arguably the most important one.

It gets worse-

9 vaccine recipients died from cardiovascular events such as heart attacks or strokes, compared to 6 placebo recipients who died of those causes. The imbalance is small but notable, considering that regulators worldwide have found that the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines are linked to heart inflammation in young men.

Within a 3 month period, the saline vaccinated are only being being measured for 6 weeks. Since they only count as vaccinated 2 weeks after the second saline shot. We would expect them the saline vaccinated to have 50% less likelihood to develop Covid within the three month period.

It's a sleight of hand magic trick.

If consenting adults want to take an experimental medicine, I have no problem with that.

But when medical experimentation is mandated, at risk of losing your job, or ability to participate in society, then I have a huge problem with it. I see it as a brazen violation of the Nuremberg Code by the authorities.

I agree with you. Just giving the best blue tribe apologetics for Biden.

Vaccine efficacy is the relative risk difference of infection, severe illness or death (3 different measures) between a vaccinated and control groups, over a set duration.

More people died in the vaccinated group than in the control group in Pfizer's trial.

Edit: You can downvote me all you like but the simple fact remains that more died in the vaccinated group than the control group. That's only 1 out 3 criteria but a pretty big one. By itself probably nothing but you might want to check the overall excess mortality rate of highly vaccinated countries to see if it went up or down afterwards just to be safe...

The alternative is the kind of "married jokes" people make where a man says "I better ask my boss if I can go out to the sports bar tonight." Meaning his wife.

It's still weird for the President to say that but it's a joke in that manner of a man pretending to lack agency or assigning it to his wife.

It doesn't land well but that's the best blue tribe explanation I can think of. It also has the virtue of being the opposite of Trump, who would never pretend to lack agency.

"COVID’s over."

People, (in the military,) are still getting fired for not submitting to the jab. The USA still has a ridiculous requirement for foriegners flying into the country to be jabbed.

Colleges still require.jabs despite elevated risk of myocarditis in young men. Et cetera.

The battle continues apace.

" I am not sure what is the reason for this discrepancy."

They used relative risk reduction instead of absolute risk reduction.


Apparently a Pfizer executive acknowledged to some European council of wise elders that, due to moving "at the speed of science," they never tested for transmission reduction in the vaccine.

Did I miss something in the last 2 years? Why did they declare the "vaccines" to be 100% effective if they were never tested for transmission reduction? (and yes I am putting the term into quotation marks because they don't appear to be what is commonly thought of as vaccines, instead working as a kind of therapeutic with alleged short term effectiveness that must be dosed in advance.)

What does "vaccine efficacy" mean?

Why did some countries roll out a vaccine passport?

Why were people fired from their jobs and as recently as last week members of the US military were "other-than-honorably" discharged because they didn't inject the "vaccine"?

It seems people were fired for their own health, since the jabs didnt prevent transmission.

What is actually going on? I understand the argument of vaccine mandates if they prevent transmission, (even though I dislike it, and disagree, I understand the argument.) But if they didn't substantially stop the spread then why are we firing people from their jobs? For their own health?

There was also the weird never-before-tried bookkeeping where nobody was considered vaccinated until two weeks AFTER the second dose. If I dosed millions of people with two shots of saline water and only counted them as vaccinated two weeks after the second saline shot, the statistics would appear such that the "saline vaccinated" were less likely to get Covid.

On Twitter, I see many many people now claiming that noone ever said the vaccines would stop the spread, they merely reduce the severity. But that feels like a bad plot forced retcon for a soap opera. Why did we shut down schools? Why did the leaders of France, UK, Germany, New Zealand, Australia, Canada, and the USA all say horrible things about the "unvaccinated" and the "Antivaxxers"?

Again, I don't like it, but I could almost understand it in the context of a 100% efficacious vaccine that stopped infection and transmission. But if it never substantially stopped transmission then

  1. None of the mandates make any sense, (except perhaps in terms of financial profit.)

  2. Geert Vanden Bossche claims that you should never ever vaccinate during a pandemic, especially with a leaky vaccine because very bad things happen. I don't pretend to know the science but he also claims that this was generally accepted knowledge up until 2020.

(Geert's website: https://www.voiceforscienceandsolidarity.org/)

Just for transparency, I am a staunch antivaxxer. My wife pressured me to get the jab in summer of 2020. I asked for more time. The argument of social responsibility did carry weight with me at the time. But in July of 2020 the Israeli data showed that the jabs did not prevent infection.

It feels like the push for the vaccines was a huge motte and bailey. They never really prevented transmission, that was the bailey. And the motte is that they make the infection less severe, which in theory is a falsifiable hypothesis, but I'm not convinced.

"What about some kind of techno-guillotine suicide booth suspended over a nightclub where the blade is timed to the bass drop?"

Bro wtf? This comment made me lmao.

"Principles are what let us be predictable agents, able to work with others who aren't part of our tribe and don't share all our values."

There used to be a phenomenon where one would say, I completely disagree with person x, but he really has integrity and sticks to his principles and I respect him for that. That seems rare these days.

However, I have often seen critics of person x claim that person x is a hypocrite who abandoned their principles when a closer inspection reveals that the critic doesn't understand the original principle. (One example, many conservatives canceled their Paypal because it leaked they wanted to steal $2500 per misinformation. In a certain corner of social media I heard critics call conservatives hypocrites for subscribing to "cancel culture." But it merely shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what conservatives dislike about "cancel culture." (Paypal is a corporation not an individual. Also boycotts are much older.))

I m highly recommend Mr. Sunshine.

I see sociology/anthropology as having the Frankenstein problem. DEI, SEL etc come from "Sociologists" and is now being forced on all other science departments, including hard sciences.

As if chemists, upon discovering cocaine, not only became addicted, but

required all other science departments to become addicted to cocaine as a condition of employment.

Bulgarian lite sounds actually insane. I'll pass. I think squats will be my.next big step.

Really appreciate it man !This is exactly what I was hoping for. I'll look into these programs and see what works for me. This is exactly the kind of response I was hoping for.

Thanks for the feedback everyone! I want to try the rack but worried I might need a belt. It's the most used part of the gym so I'll just have to assert my place in line one day. Just worried I'll embarrass myself doing it the first time. But I need to take it to the next level. I think squats are a good way to do that.

I joined a gym 2 months ago when I quit smoking. I find the endorphin rush helps replace whatever cigarettes were doing in terms of stress relief. Also I am overweight and borderline obese. I have a few symptoms of pre diabetes and a family history of diabetes.

So far so good but, the honeymoon phase is coming to a close and I am stuck in a rut- arm day, curls, benchpress, tricep pushes. Alternate days with legs back and stomach. I generally workout 5 days a week, (about 45 minutes to an hour,) and run at least one mile each time I work out. 2 miles max so far.

My question is, how do I take it to the next level? I have lost roughly 10 pounds so far but I am starting to hit a wall. I don't need to become a body builder but I fear if I cannot get past this wall that I will see diminishing returns and slowly stop being consistent. (This has happened to me in the past.) What are new exercises, weight lifting exercises to try etc? I would live to try free squats but dont have a partner and dont want to hurt myself. Does anyone have an interesting program that works for them?