site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   34989 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 28, 2022

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

16
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

COVID-19 vaccine conspiracy theories are shaking things up again, this time regarding the blood supply. An alternate blood donation infrastructure is growing. (If you don’t want to read the vaccine-skeptical take from TGP, here’s the Vice article on SafeBlood Donation they were reporting on.)

This comes after the release of the Suddenly Died documentary blaming the vaccine for the surge in heart attacks, including really odd blood clots.

I have given blood for twenty years and do not plan to stop. I don’t give through the Red Cross but rather through Vitalent, formerly United Blood Services. I am not vaccinated for COVID-19, and will continue to vehemently, vociferously, and assiduously avoid those injections, on both medical and religious grounds (though my reasoning is different than one might expect). I don’t plan to switch my donations to SafeBlood unless they can assure me it won’t be wasted, by my definitions of wasted.

All of this may seem to be a fascinating new front in the Culture War, but it’s actually an attempt to recapture territory: the denial of organ transplants to COVID-vaccine refusers.

I am also a consistent blood donor. Why don't you give through the Red Cross? Is there some reason Vitalent is better that I should know about? I'd never heard of them before your post.

They have a famously blood red building within several miles of where I live, and so I’ve never bothered to look up where in town Red Cross might be.

my reasoning is different than one might expect

What are your reasons?

surge in heart attacks

Heart attacks have indeed gone up in recent years, but there are at least two major potential factors besides the vaccine:

  • COVID itself

  • deferral of care due to the burdening of health system (which in itself might have many overlapping explanations, including COVID, secondary effects of COVID like the economic dip, undue fear of COVID, the related measures like lockdowns etc.)

These would seem particularly relevant considering that apparently the rise of excess heart disease began already in 2020, ie. before mass vaccinations began.

It's hard for me to take the vaccine/heart attack theorists completely seriously if they just wave these explanations away ("It can't be COVID because COVID was actually harmless!"), particularly considering that many of them did speak a lot about the problems of deferral of care such as heart attacks caused by lack of check-ups before the vaccines became the main topic of discussion and then immediately pivoted to blaming heart attacks on vaccines alone.

burdening of the healthcare system

I think you mean forced closure of the healthcare system. At least in the US, hospital bed occupancy was consistently lower throughout Covid than before it. Let’s not conflate the deliberate policy choice to deprive people with non-Covid health problems of necessary healthcare with mere bad luck or supply not meeting demand.

At least in the US, hospital bed occupancy was consistently lower throughout Covid than before it.

The things that will count as "burden" here mean health care decisions usually taken to avoid the sort of hospital bed occupancy people might see, ie. reorganizing care to move resources from other things to COVID stuff, tightening triage criteria etc. The fact that they successfully do that to avoid obvious, immediate occupancy overflow doesn't mean that COVID hasn't affected the general health care system sustainability in other ways.

I believe that the health care system was burdened by overtly tight measures, yes, but also by COVID itself. Both played a role.

Avoiding obvious, immediate occupancy overflow is one thing, consistently holding occupancy below normal levels is quite another.

Here's a possible steelman of the Vaccine heart attack theorists, using the most compelling case I have managed to come across.

Covid uses the ACE2 receptor to get into cells. Oxford-Astrazeneca is a viral vector vaccine. This works by inserting the chosen DNA into the cell via a virus that has been engineered to not be able to replicate itself, but instead only deliver this payload. The chosen virus for this is ChAdOx1, a simian adenovirus, chosen because adenoviruses are common, mostly harmless, and while humans often have neutralizing antibodies from prior adenovirus infections, they are unlikely to have them for simian adenoviruses. This means it interacts with the Coxsackie and adenovirus receptor (CAR) instead of the ACE2 receptor.

Many critics of vaccine side-effect hypotheses claim that, as the vaccines merely make your cells produce the spike protein, any side effects of the vaccines must necessarily be a subset of the consequences of getting covid. However, the vector used to deliver this payload is changed, and the vector itself can have it's own properties. Pfizer has lipids, but more importantly, and with a clearer link to potential side effects, Astrazeneca has Adenovirus and it interacts with CAR.

Adenoviruses are already known to have myocarditis as a rare complication.

First, adenovirus is an established cause of acute myocarditis (14). Adenovirus can enter cardiomyocytes by binding to a common transmembrane receptor [coxsackievirus and adenovirus receptor (CAR)], induce direct myocardial injury, and trigger an uncontrolled immune response even after viral clearance (15).

Astrazeneca has been the frequent target of criticism over blood clotting issues, leading to withdrawals or recommendations to only use it on people above a certain age.

However, I'm not sure if this is a real steelman. More like an unobtainium-man, because the whole Astrazeneca episode has largely been invisible from the most prominent vaccine critics online, which are all American. It was never approved for use in the US. So even though this is the strongest case for the argument that covid vaccines (or at least, this specific one) lead to heart issues, it gets overlooked.

In the Covid vaccine-skeptical community, the lay hypothesis of the mechanism was much more plain: the spike protein itself somehow acts like transfats, and it’s the one thing shared by both the mRNA vaccines and the SARS-CoV-2 virus. And guess what? “One Google search” (as per the recent Pfizer meme) turned up this paper from the Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, Volume 602, 15 November 2021, received in March 2021:

… SARS-CoV-2 spike protein removes lipids from model membranes and interferes with the capacity of high density lipoprotein to exchange lipids …

Here's an illustration of the abstract of that paper.

And cardiac science has recently shown how absolutely vital saturated fats are for heart health:

Dietary lipids are important regulators of cardiac function through their role in membrane phospholipids, as signaling molecules and ligands for nuclear receptors, and as the predominant oxidative substrate for cardiac mitochondria.

This second paper is absolutely fascinating, even for a Star Trek technobabbler like me with no biology courses since high school. I found this section particularly interesting:

It has become increasing clear that packaging of triglyceride into intracardiomyocyte lipid droplets plays an important role in cardiac fatty acid metabolism, and very likely prevents the toxic effects of lipid accumulation in the heart.

So, if the spike protein removes good fats from heart membranes, we indeed have a candidate mechanism for heart failure by both the virus and the vax.

And cardiac science has recently shown how absolutely vital saturated fats are for heart health

Has it? Their conclusion says:

In summary, manipulation of dietary fat intake shows promise in the prevention and treatment of [heart failure]. Clinical studies generally support high intake of n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids from marine sources to prevent and treat HF. Additional clinical and animals studies are needed to determine the optimal diet in terms of the relative and absolute intake of saturated, monounsaturated, and n-3 and n-6 PUFA for this vulnerable patient population.

In other words: omega-3 fats are good (which everyone knows already) and further research is needed for the others. Nothing of substance.

Where did you find them saying that saturated fats are "absolutely vital" for heart health? The only claim I could find that comes even close is:

We recently used a similar hamster model to compare the effects of two high fat diets (45% of energy from fat): one high n-3 PUFA and n-6 PUFA, and the other high in saturated and monounsaturated fat. There was only a modest ~10% increase in body mass with the two high fat diets, but surprisingly consumption of the high saturated and monounsaturated fat diet prolonged life compared to either the standard low fat diet or the high n-3PUFA + n-6PUFA diet (Figure 2). We found improved survival in cardiomyopathic hamsters fed the high saturated and monounsaturated fat diet compared to either a standard low fat diet (12% fat), or a high fat diet enriched with n-3PUFA and n-6PUFA7. Again, as with the SHHF rat, the relevance of this model to most cases of human HF is limited and one should use caution in extrapolating to patients.

Admittedly, I've only skimmed the article.

Edit: I want to point out that the paper itself is about high-fat, low-carb diets, not about specific types of fat.

Disrupting the exercise habits and diets of millions of people likely would cause an increase in heart disease, as well.

I literally joined a gym a month before Covid, and planned to use their pool regularly. I guess that plan was foiled pretty handily.

My understanding is the surge in heart attacks occurred after the vaccine but was not present in 2020.

If that’s true there are still some questions:

  1. Did covid mutate in a way to make heart attacks more likely?

  2. Did a year of lockdowns (stress and sedentary lifestyle) cause a surge?

  3. How frequently were the victims vaccinated?

Nevertheless if my timing is right it does increase the likelihood that vaxs are playing some role (could be multivariate).

At least this would seem to suggest a spike already in 2020.

Like I already said in my posts, one reason might be lockdowns and general sedentary life. However, one thing that a least couldnt explain a spike in 2020 would be the vaxx.

It’s possible that Covid does damage that takes 6 months to a year to see manifest. It’s also possible that there’s an interaction between vaccination and Covid, whereby having both damages you in a similar way.

Let's also add more sedentary behavior while locked down, and depression and stress from social isolation and job loss.

Yes, that would be among the secondary effects (ie. lockdowns might cause some of it, but some increase of sedentary behavior, or a fair amount of it, might have also occurred due to avoidance of COVID without any lockdowns at all).

Despite being steeped in this group since the beginning of 2020, I've never seen any person of any significance who makes the claim the rise in heart attacks is because of the covid injections alone. Can you link a single person of any significance who claims the rise in heart attacks are vaccines alone?

Which person or persons would you label "vaccine/heart attack theorists" which you're "not taking seriously" because of your characterization here?

No, because I'm talking about the general form of popular antivaccine discourse that I'm encountering randomly online, ie. chiefly on Twitter.

Ok, so if you’ve encountered it on Twitter then can you link a tweet that you think is an instance of it?

no one holds the opinion you're claiming, you've built a strawman

Isn’t there an entire documentary under discussion that explicitly does hold that opinion?

no, have you seen it?

I'm not particularly a fan because I think it's washing good information with montages of Bigfoot which poisons the well and has basic failures in vetting some footage, but at no point does the documentary claim the covid injections are the sole reason for the huge increase in heart attacks.

This particular fight certainly had an effect on me. When the UK regime reimposed lockdowns for a third time at the start of 2021, in the absence of legal means to protest this, I took myself off the organ donor registry. This was based on two ideas.

  1. The majority of the population here supports lockdowns. Therefore, on average, my organs would be donated to someone who supports lockdowns. I see no reason to gift such people my lovely organs.

  2. The medical institutions of this country seem to view me as nothing more than a metaphorical sack of meat, to be used and disposed of as they wish. So, at least, I can stop them using me as a literal sack of meat. I don't exist to serve the NHS. I don't exist to be a pile of spare organs for the NHS.

When various places began discriminating against unvaccinated people when it came to receiving organ donations, this added a third motivation. I will not participate in vaccine apartheid, and if my organs would only be given to vaccinated people, the only way to do that is refuse to donate organs.

Obviously my thoughts on blood donation are similar, though the process is different. However, SafeBlood could serve as a way for me to donate to people who, while not directly opposed to my false incarceration, hold views that are a shibboleth for that.

I too left the organ donor registry for the same reasons.

I am not an insect in a hive, and I will not voluntarily be sacrificed for others who signal that they would force me, in situations that I see as being to the detriment of all regardless, if they could anyway.

Regular PSA: Do not trust Google search to be unbiased.

Searching "Died Suddenly" on Google gives me a news widget and 9 results. Of the 9 results, 6 are negative articles about the documentary, one is a YouTube video defending the doc (that got slipped in by mistake due to its negative sounding title), and the other 2 are IMDB and RottenTomatoes. The adjectives used in the negative article headlines are:

debunked x3

conspiracy

anti-vax x3

false x2

unfounded

bogus

Doesn't really seem like there's much room for debate in there. Yandex in contrast gives 6 links to the actual film itself including a YouTube link that apparently isn't allowed to show up on Google's first page. The Yandex results include one apparently even-handed in depth review, and another mildly negative review. Both have much more content than the "four legs good, two legs bad" Google articles.

The documentary is my #1 result if I search [died suddenly] on Google. The IMDB page is in the results. Bing also has the documentary as #1, though it does not have the IMDB page. Most of the rest is negative articles in both cases. Google also includes an irrelevant scholarly article about people dying when using the "Liquid-Protein-Modified-Fast-Diet.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats