Replying to Avatar MAHDOOD

I don’t believe viruses and illness is spread the way you think it is. I don’t believe in contagion theory. I shared spoons with, hugged, and kissed people who I knew had covid. I never got sick. I never stay away from people that are sick and never wear a mask. I hardly ever get sick. I’m going to share highlights from the most recent book I’m reading about viruses:

“It seems—as is the case in many walks of life—that people hold beliefs they cannot justify with supporting evidence or explain in sufficient detail.”

This quote is talking about the early research that was used to “settle the science” on contagion theory. The foundation of contagion theory is junk science.

“As Dr Walker stated in his critique of the emerging field of virology, ‘such assertions are full of pitfalls’. He was particularly critical of human experiments claiming to have demonstrated contagion because they failed to define what a cold was, or what constituted successful transmission of the disease. Also, he noted none of the studies used proper controls, which is problematic for several reasons. First, inoculating even inert substances into the nasal passages is known to cause cold and flu-like symptoms by irritating the mucous membranes. Second, the symptoms produced by inoculated filtrate could also reflect various inflammatory or allergic-type responses, so they were not necessarily proof of a viral infection. Third, the power of suggestion is large enough for participants receiving a saline placebo to develop a cold merely because they believe they have been inoculated with a filtrate. Finally, there are many other substances contained in the mucus secretions of sick people, any number of which could produce cold and flu-like symptoms. It is for these reasons, among others, that Dr Walker considered the results of human contagion studies allegedly demonstrating person-to-person transmission of the common cold to be unreliable.“

“For example, despite decades of intense research, epidemiologists cannot reliably predict the timing and severity of cold and flu outbreaks using virus-based models.”

“Their findings can be summarised into three main points;

Viruses do not cause disease. There is an absence of direct evidence demonstrating a cause-and-effect relationship between viruses and infectious diseases.

Viruses are not contagious. Few, if any, published scientific studies have unambiguously established sick-to-well transmission (i.e. contagion) of any infectious disease.

Viruses may not even exist. No published scientific studies have ever truly isolated a pure sample of a virus and then documented its characteristics.”

“The untapped power of the body and mind also relates to illness and wellness. A group of young men allergic to Japanese lacquer or ‘wax trees’ (which produces an effect similar to poison ivy) were touched on one arm with the leaves of a harmless plant but were told it was the wax tree. On the other arm, they were touched with the leaves of the wax tree but were told it was the harmless plant. Of the 13 participants, just two (13%) had an adverse skin reaction to the wax tree, whereas every single one developed contact dermatitis to the harmless plant. People have also been able to harness the power of their minds to protect themselves against harm after being injected with endotoxins (i.e. the fragments of bacterial cell walls) intravenously. They counteracted the harmful effects by learning how to activate their autonomic nervous system and influence their immune response. These are physiological systems that were once considered impossible to control voluntarily.”

Your belief in contagion theory makes you more likely to actually get sick when around others that are also sick.

“As this book will reiterate at various points, there is no convincing evidence published anywhere in the scientific literature demonstrating sick-to-well transmission of a respiratory illness under strictly controlled conditions. In fact, when researchers have performed these experiments, their attempts have almost always ended in complete failure. Despite this, epidemiological observations continue to treat pathogenic microbes as the only possible explanation for the apparent spread of disease amongst a group of people.”

“Just a few hundred years ago, scurvy was believed to be a communicable illness. After several months of navigating the high seas, sailors often fell ill with the same symptoms, one after the other. Their gums would begin to bleed, their teeth would fall out, and red and blue lesions would appear on their skin. Within weeks of the first case breaking out, the entire crew would succumb to the disease. Naval doctors considered scurvy’s pattern of spread to be proof of its contagiousness. This false belief proved extremely costly as more than two million sailors died from scurvy between 1500 and 1800. Had countless decades not been wasted perpetuating this incorrect line of thinking, the true cause may have been realised much sooner.”

We can see virus particles in your snot and blood samples as well as measure their concentration using microscopes.

That fact breaks his entire train of argument.

As for the specific cases mentioned, I already talked about a giant list of modifiers of your % chance that the exposure will beat or be beaten by your immune system. The causes of variability are well understood even if difficult to quantify.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Seems like you’re not willing to change your mind on this so we should just agree to disagree. I will offer this book if you are interested in challenging your beliefs. This goes over the history of vaccines, how the research was done, how the damage was covered up, and how people were coerced into taking it.

I challenge my beliefs and update my health protocols constantly, including changing my weight lifting based on your advice.

Anyone who says doctor always bad or doctor always good is being dogmatic rather than thinking. Doctors are fallible and they work in a system where their incentives don't always align with your best health outcomes.

You seem to see that they make mistakes. Great. The problem is that you have swung the pendulum too far to doctors always wrong. This is the same all or nothing religious style thinking as the people who believe and do everything the doctor tells them.

My position here was never that you do whatever your doctors say without questioning. I showed a case where they got it right and tried to explain how a laymen can spot the difference. You'll never get me on board with never.

I don’t recall saying doctors always wrong. The purpose of my original post was to see if someone could find a good study showing better health outcomes for vaccinated individuals. Your argument was that unvaccinated people benefit from the vaccinated population. But from what I’ve seen, it’s more than just that. What I see is that vaccinated people are less healthy than unvaccinated. One study I saw many years ago showed that vaccinated people have significantly higher rates of allergies compared to a population of Orthodox Jews that don’t vaccinate. I’ve also seen plenty of studies that showed people who get the flu vaccine are more likely to get the flu the following year. This is anecdotal but I stopped getting the flu after I stopped taking the flu vaccine. Meanwhile people who got the flu vaccine would still get the flu but then say well if I didn’t get this flu shot, my symptoms would be worse. How do you even know that?

I do agree with you that doctors are helpful in the short term. I don’t think they understand the consequences in the long term and you’re 100% right that it is easier to avoid legal responsibility that way.

I'll answer for that one because it isn't politically pissing on the third rail.

I took the flu vaccine 2 or 3 times in my life. Never had flu on those years or any others as far as I can tell. That includes all the years my immune system was suppressed by my other issues where I caught every cold under the sun. I just don't take it anymore because I can't see the point. There is risk to every intervention and I seem to face no risk from avoiding that one.

I think that allergies varying is interesting, but I've seen that study too and could spot a few uncontrolled confounding variables. I'm not convinced. So many diet and lifestyle differences between Orthodox Jews and the rest of the world. For starters, their unwillingness to interact with our medical system as often means they are less likely to report mild issues, like seasonal allergies.

It also isn't a great stance for that side to take because some people die of some of the diseases on the vaccine schedule but no one dies of seasonal allergies. Ignore the politics and everything else, I take that trade every day and twice on sunday.

The demand for better data cuts both ways. I'm not not looking. But I've spent time studying the tools of rational thought and statistics and I see a lot of flaws of thinking patterns coming from that camp. Less from the other side until covid when Dems went full authoritarian over following doctors orders. Now they both sound full of shit and my job of finding truth is more than twice as hard.

There’s another book I read which I can’t remember right now. It explained that they diagnose diseases based on vaccination status. For example, there was one disease they’d label as measles I think if you’re unvaccinated. But if you get the same symptoms and are vaccinated, they just call it a different disease. I read this book maybe 5 years ago. It’s hard to develop a complete and accurate narrative of everything going on when the data is unreliable.

Make peace with making mistakes and regrettable decisions. Reliable information to base your decisions on is getting harder and harder to come by.

As every "fact" becomes a political point and view counts draw more revenue than accuracy, everyone is incentivized to lie.

When you read the link, remember to use it to poke holes in your own thinking not just your enemies.

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/9weLK2AJ9JEt2Tt8f/politics-is-the-mind-killer

Vaccines seem to be a uniparty position. I don’t think contagion theory has been politicized yet. But idk everything seems to get politicized and it’s super annoying. Lately I’ve grown to dislike republicans more than democrats even though I’d probably piss off more democrats than republicans.

I'm proud that my politics piss of every member of my extended family on both sides.

I'm slowly training all of them that if you say dumb political shit in front of me I'm going to call you out in front of everyone at the get together. Since I can out argue any of them it is dangerous to bring up politics at all or you might end up looking like a fool.

Contagion theory arguments as I understand it.

Contagion side: if you get exposed to germs your immune system must fight them, if it fails you get sick.

Non side: but sometimes exposed people don't get sick!

Contagion: That's what I said.

Non: but it proves you wrong.

Contagion: no my theory explains that perfectly if you read past the first sentence.

Non: but you said exposed people get sick.

Contagion: I also said only if their immune system loses the initial battle

Non: but how can you be sure it was the germs

Contagion: just look at the boogers in the microscope and see the virus

Non: I think those germs poofed into existence because they got sick not the other way around.

Contagion: I can show you the virus in every step from person to person before they got sick

Non: I still think you are wrong.

BTW, viruses mutate so fast that they could use genetic sequencing to figure out the order you passed that cold around your house. They don't because it is too expensive for the payoff, but they could and have as part of virus research.

What if our bodies made the virus as a byproduct of sickness? It could just be waste that your body expels after it has accumulated too much toxicity. That’s one theory that I’ve read. Your body secretes toxins through sweat when you exercise. If you don’t exercise, your body accumulates tons of toxins. Eventually those toxins will harm you. So your body starts a forced detox by making you sick. You secrete those toxins more aggressively through a runny nose (i.e. mucus), night sweats, diarrhea, vomiting, and coughing. A fever would make sense in this context. Your body raises its temperature which makes mucus easier to move around. If the toxins accumulate in your mucus, then making it hotter will make the mucus more liquid like. The mucus has to come out of your nose. This also explains why “medicine” makes you get sicker and seemingly

weakens your immune system. Medicine shuts down this process of detoxification. So the toxicity in your body remains in your body. The next time you get sick, it’s more severe. That’s why when i stopped taking medicine, i noticed my illnesses were much less severe and less frequent. I have less toxin accumulation. And what happens if you take medicine for your entire life? The toxin buildup eventually leads to something worse: presumably cancer. This theory makes a lot more sense to me than some microscopically tiny particle that you can’t see entering your body from someone’s sneeze and causing total mayhem. Making people afraid of things they can’t see is very reminiscent of religious nonsense.

I read another theory that made a lot of sense to me as well. During the winter, most people turn on their heaters. In their homes, at work, in the car. This forces unnatural warm air into your environment. That dries up the air that you breathe in which dries up the mucus in your lungs. This increases your risk for sickness and explains why people have dry coughs. After reading about this theory, I began cracking open the window slightly whenever I use the heater. Air humidifiers also seem to be effective at preventing this type of sickness. It keeps the air from being too dry. I’ve never gotten sick when doing this. I’ve never gotten sick during the winter seasons when I never used the heater at all. I used to live with my grandmother many years ago. She is definitely immunocompromised. One year, she didn’t get sick because we never used the heater. Her children and their families all got sick twice that year. But the following year, she went and stayed with my uncle for about a week. They use the heater throughout the winter. She got sick and came back while still sick. No one else got sick because we never used the heater. This makes a lot of sense to me. I see people use those little heater fans that just blast hot air at you. That dries up your skin so why wouldn’t it dry up the mucus in your chest? The mucus is there for a reason and if you dry it up, you’re harming the natural balance of your respiratory system. The sickness could be your bodies attempt to mobilize resources from other parts of your body to protect a very important system for your survival.

There's a theory - similar to the first one in your post - that when tests find bits of viral dna (they never find a full strand, oddly enough) what they're actually finding are exosomes from our own cells - bits and pieces, debris, that our bodies are constantly cleaning up.

🤔 that aligns with the quote I posted from the book earlier about a pure isolated form of a virus never being found. If sickness comes from outside our bodies, we should be able to find a virus before it infects us right?

We should be able to find it, period. We should be able to isolate it (and replicate that isolation), and then use it in experiments - without other agents that are known to be toxic to animals - and reliably create infection or symptoms in other organisms.

As nostr:nprofile1qy28wue69uhnzv3h9cczuvpwxyargwpk8yhsz9nhwden5te0dp5hxapwdehhxarj9ekxzmny9uqzqqgd7ry53l56k4xjedl2gg8l5zx409vfsxmw568g8248avka8uz65aehaz noted, some humans/animals may not get ill because of the strength of their immune system, but you should at least see some pattern of infection from this isolated infectious agent.

And if not, then we should really turn our focus not to infectious agents but to the immune system.

Correct! This is almost word for word what was written in one of my books. If you can’t isolate the virus, then the cause of illness shouldn’t be the virus. It should be those factors that bill mentioned. I believe those would be considered the independent variables. In animal studies, you can manipulate those factors and see if there is a cause and effect relationship. If you can’t isolate the virus, then how would you even expose someone to it?

Yes

The book - is it Virus Mania? I have it but haven't read it yet

No it’s goodbye germ theory

oh! haven't heard of that one. Good?

It’s pretty good but it is more opinionated and doesn’t have a references section. Right now I’m reading can you catch a cold by Daniel Roytas and it has tons of sources. This one feels more professional for sure and he tries to not take a side.

Isolation is also a misleading argument. An analogy using the same form of argumentation, I've never seen a fish live once we isolate it from the water so fish aren't real living things.

I've also never seen a living human outside of the air, they die every time really quick. Totally proves they aren't independent living beings.

If you take a living organism outside of the environment it evolved to live in it dies and then decays. Duh.

The isolation is of the organism or infective agent itself.

You can isolate a whole fish, and you can see it live in the water or dead out of water.

Until relatively recently, we always used isolation in looking at illness: identify and isolate a bacteria, then test it in different contexts. Isolation is not a novel or unusual concept.

So where did the virus come from then?

The virus has to live in a very narrow, temperature, humidity, PH, and so on range. Just like you do. Take them out of that and they start to die and then decay. Just like you do.

For cold and flu relatives that basically means inside your nose and lungs. Briefly in bits of snot, boogers, and drool you blast into your general vicinity by breathing, sneezing, or picking your nose then touching something.

Sat next to me, you breathed in some of my tiny boogers I sprayed around by breathing. Ever smelled a fart so bad you could taste it? You just eat shit. Life is gross.

Remember you talked about relative humidity drying out your mucus membranes causing illness earlier? That is already part of contagion theory. The health of your mucus membranes affects how hospitable they are to the virus. That means they affect the % chance you get sick after spending time next to someone else who is shedding virus particles.

But how did the virus get into my mucus membrane or nose or whatever humid environment it needs?

I just told you. You inhaled clouds of snot that were fresh enough that the virus hadn't died yet.

Where did that person’s snot get the virus?

From another person's snot. So it goes with the virus mutating all along the way and those mutations are where new viruses come from.

It is no different than saying where did the first human in NYC come from? Or any other larger living thing and place. Slow genetic mutation and travel from a prior living thing all the way back to the first replicator. TLDR, evolution applies at both scales. It actually started on those tiny things and then created bigger ones.

So you’re saying that someone is always carrying a virus all the time even if they’re not sick?

No, but with 7 billion of us someone is always sick somewhere.

Okay so someone somewhere will be sick and then it spreads to everyone. Why doesn’t everyone get sick?

We’re going in circles again. Not everyone gets sick because there are certain factors and conditions that need to be in place. So if the presence of a virus alone cannot be established to create a cause and effect relationship. Then it shouldn’t be considered the cause of illness. It should be those factors and conditions that you talked about like stress, fatigue, and those other things you mentioned.

Ethics aside, if I wanted to make someone sick then I would compromise those factors. I wouldn’t just expose them to the virus. This actually would make more sense because I’ve been told that you are constantly fighting off viruses and bacteria all the time. That they are everywhere.

But again, the variability in the effectiveness of the immune system is already part of contagion theory.

I need a spark and a fuel to make a fire. Both.

Sparks happen in confined spaces with no fuel and no fire happens all the time. Flammable things sit around not catching fire all the time. I'm posting this sitting on a wooden chair.

Sometimes sparks are big or small (virus exposure level, think passing a stranger on the street vs making out with someone) and sometimes they land on fire bricks or gasoline (a strong or weak immune system)

No one who understands contagion theory would argue that the immune system response doesn't vary and massively effect your chances of getting sick.

You are focused entirely on the flammability. I'm not denying that the flammability matters. I'm saying that the can of gasoline in my garage year round for my mower proves that the spark is important too.

We’ve drifted so far past the initial topic of discussion. I’m going to bring it back to the beginning. I asked for a double blind placebo controlled comparative study that shows vaccinated individuals have better health outcomes than unvaccinated individuals. This doesn’t exist. But this is the gold standard in scientific research. Without this, how can one truly attribute causality? You can’t.

You argued about it being unethical to expose people to a virus because it endangers them. But you’ve made this claim without evidence. It hasn’t been established with true science that viruses cause illness. So you’re starting with a presumption that virus causes disease and then you start finding solutions for an unproven premise.

So now they put a vaccine in people. But the vaccine doesn’t impact the other factors we talked about like stress and your immune system. And since viruses and bacteria are everywhere and have been found in our bodies even when healthy, the real causal factors of illness should be those factors like your immune system. Instead of giving vaccines, maybe they should be giving immune boosters.

And my last question, why haven’t they done a comparative study on vaccinated and unvaccinated populations? Just look at the health outcomes. Do they get sick more often? Do they have more health problems? It’s not even an experiment, we just want to know who is generally healthier. We know that exercise is good for you because people who exercise generally have better health outcomes.

A lot of this I already tried to answer as we went.

I will say I looked for an all cause mortality comparison. I can't find it. Disappointing. Search results are all about the covid vaccine and I already said I won't piss on that electric fence.

The best I can do is point to a rise in global life expectancy after the invention of vaccines. A lot of other things changed so I won't declare that to be a final answer. I'm here to share truth backed with real evidence not just say what I think will win the argument for my side.

I think a lot of your misunderstanding comes from wanting a binary yes or no answer to things. Science simply doesn't work that way. Each bit of scientific knowledge has a little imaginary probability attached to it. Higher or lower probability based on the quality of reseach and number of studies that align with that fact.

We're always building that body of knowledge and that means that probability for each "fact" MIPis always changing. If you don't have an intuitive sense that those probabilities are there and what they are for different current scientific beliefs it is rough. You'll never understand why sometimes a challenge to existing science is met with a laugh and sometimes it gets a maybe.

If you do grasp that you can see why I say sure the data isn't gold standard but this model has more data showing how it aligns accurately with observation than any other model for this thing, so we let it ride here.

Once upon a time there was a visualization of this concept rating various supplements by meta analysis of existing studies. 1 axis showed confidence rating of the average study and bubble size showed how many studies there were. I can't find it now but the mental model stuck with me. Also holy shit take Creatine for sure no excuses no other supplement was even close.

I take creatine every day. I’m not sure if I should be taking more than 5 grams though.

Here’s one last thing I’ll post from another study someone shared about this topic. This study mentioned that a majority of the research found a large variance of 0-80%. Maybe I’m not understanding exactly what that means but my initial reaction is to question the reliability of most research findings. Seems like a giant mess to navigate research in general.

nostr:note1ms3cvcylymmr4chr88kgm6ean7wpmxsg7l77dvc6h3u5heql8e6qzcgxwg

Depends on your size and activity level. There is a chart somewhere that shows dose by weight. For men 10g daily is around 220 to 240lbs.

I’m not that big I’ll stick with 5 grams for now

Maybe you aren't getting your mantras right.

On that note. Time for my fat ass to do some cardio.

You might find this interesting 🤭

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25824106/

I know. I don't actually do cardio to lose weight. I just say stupid things for a laugh.

Low intensity steady state cardio is good for helping your body transition back into a relaxed state. I try to do some every day, just a walk is fine. I can see the difference in my heart statistics in my tracker with only a couple days doing it or skipping it.

Endurance training definitely has its benefits

Do you believe in things like that? Been trying to learn about it and keep an open mind but fuck it just seems so illogical

Sort of but not really.

I like to deadlift to Simon Says by Pharoahe Monch. It changes my mindset that make it easier for me to dig deeper.

Were not talking a huge difference. But in the realm where if you think you can you can and if you think you can't you can't I think it can make it so you can.

That’s kinda where I am right now

If you study a person's snot - and keep the snot at body temperature, humidity, etc - you should be able to find the full virus.

You can. It is just easier if you grow it up to a billion particles instead of the thousand you start with. They were found first, then the process of growing them in cultures to make them easier to find was devised.

One of the side effects of the shingles vaccine is "shingles-like symptoms." So if you take the shingles vaccine and get shingles, doctors assume that it *can't* be shingles, so they call it a shingles-like rash.

I think other vaccines have similar notes in their side effect list ("measles-like symptoms" and so on).

It's so absurd it's hard to even explain to people.

YES! Heads I win, tails you lose.

There is a problem with TBE where I live. Vaccines are (afaik) effective and harmless.

It's no fun disease.

But what I miss in these debates is a how big risk you're trying to mitigate with vaccination.

They guestimate 2-7% ticks are infected.

The risk of getting sick is ~30%

That's 1-2%

Mortality is ~1%

The risk I die is 0.01~0.02%

So is it worth getting the vaccine?

Unfortunatly, doughter of my neighbor died on TBE at age of 12.

Now tell me, should I vaccinate my kids or not?

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10515056

"the protection wanes as early as one year after vaccination"

Also, the word placebo wasn't used a single time in this entire review.

That's for eldery, isn't it?

They said it out loud that it loose effectivity with higher dosage.

The thing is, I'm not sure if I can live with a dead child because I did not vaccinate them.

I can't live with myself if the vaccine cause them any harm.

So far I'll stick with the math. The risk is way too low.

That’s how they get you. Through fear. My friend’s kids got vaccines recently. They’re delaying a lot of the vaccines and avoiding a lot of the ones they think are unnecessary. One of them is 3 years old. Never had allergies until he got the chickenpox vaccine. Now he’s always congested and has watery eyes. The solution? Allergy medicine. Big pharma profits, the parents feel less anxiety and fear by relieving their personal responsibility, and the child suffers.

You should watch the vaxxed documentary. It is even more brutal. Full blown autism in children that were completely normal before. Whatever you choose to do, you must be willing to live with the health consequences. I’m taking my chances on nature and modern medicine. I’ll take my chances with the immune system that nature provided. I’ve talked to parents of autistic children who swore that their kid was completely normal before they got vaccinated. RFK has tons of videos where he talks about this shit. Look up vaccine injuries in Africa. Look up the federal vaccine court that removed all liability from big pharma. If you have an injury due to a vaccine, you can’t sue the pharma company. You take your case to a taxpayer funded federal vaccine court that pays you out. So safe and effective.

I won't engage in autism line.

But regarding allergies, it's well known fact that you can build one through repetitive exposure to allergens.

it's not that simple.

Again, I'll wage my chances by math. It's probably the only way I understand.

As long as you are absolutely certain the math is reliable. Good luck!

The math says it's unlikely to get sick or die.

so no vaccine.

but yes, good luck to me 🤣

I’m not sure you understand math but ok 👍

if it's not dangerous (below my trashold) I won't vaccinate.

what's wrong with my math?

Do you remember all the lies about Covid deaths? I remember reading articles about hospitals getting thousands of dollars for every reported Covid death. There was an article about a guy that died in a fucking motorcycle accident and they said it was a Covid death. My friend’s father died during Covid due to a head injury. He was literally brain dead from a fall and they wanted to label it as a Covid death. He threatened to sue them for it. Do you think this is the first time they lied and manipulated data to suit their needs? If you actually have the courage to protect your family, read this book. It goes into the bogus history of vaccines and the faked numbers and suppressed testimonies of people who were hurt by the “amazing vaccines.” There are dozens of books written by doctors and doctors who had their licenses revoked simply for questioning the benefits of vaccines. Look up videos of RFK or articles about vaccine injury in Africa. Bill Gates funded vaccine studies in Africa and these innocent young girls became infertile and/or became disabled. That’s not a risk worth taking. And this is not how an industry behaves when their product is actually useful. This is how you behave when you cover up a lie. Notice the difference in the way they treat people who claim that the earth is flat or aliens exist. They don’t really care. Sure they mock them but no one’s livelihood is attacked. No one loses their job. But question vaccines? Then go at you hard. The same thing happens with cholesterol.

Yes covid vaccines were weaponized.

Doesn't mean they are all bad.

I read at 9 books on this topic. I believe I do have information I need.

Don't bring politicians and oligarchs into the discussion. They are all liers.

You're being dogmatic.

I think we can agree that mandatory plans are evil and we disagree on vaccines as a whole.

I'll wrap it up here.

✌🏻

Yes I’m being dogmatic about vaccines. Unvaccinated children do not have worse health outcomes.

Source:

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/3fd8/df559fa29b045887c94b5aa2fda2a930f5aa.pdf

I fully support looking into the available evidence on this topic.

There are interpretation issues due to selection bias with these things, that have to be kept in mind.

Office visits are not equivalent to any particular health outcome. To even use them as a proxy requires an assumption that parents of unvaccinated kids are just as likely to take their kids to the doctor.

That seems highly unlikely. Another interpretation of these charts is that parents who don't get vaccines for their kids also forego other medical interventions.

My understanding is that this data is only on kids that come in for regular visits. It’s a pediatrician who collected the data then go his license revoked. Obviously noticing that vaccinated kids are sicker than unvaccinated kids is malpractice.

Yeah, that helps, but it doesn't totally address the selection issue. Parents willing to forego vaccines will differ in other ways too, even if one element is accounted for.

It would be ideal if they just compared vaccinated to unvaccinated people in general but it’s hard to when you’re risking your career over it. Thank big pharma for that.

For sure. We already know how to do this well, based on experimental designs that were used to study the effects of smoking on pregnancy.

I’m not familiar with those designs

There are at least two US doctors who kept long term records of their vaccinated vs unvaccinated patients. It's likely that parents who forgo vaccinations are less likely in general to take their kids to the doctor, but the differences in diagnoses probably need more explanation than that.

No doubt. Each piece of evidence adds to the case and reduces the set of things that still need to be ruled out.

Spread the word! Truth will out

Huh? Over 93% of the population is vaccinated with something so yea these lines are obvious. Doesn’t take a genius to figure out that if 93 out of a hundred people have been vaccinated than there would be more hospital visits from that group.

“The number of office visits for the unvaccinated is adjusted by a sample size multiplier factor (4.9) to the expected value as if the number of unvaccinated in the study was the same as the number of vaccinated.”

I think it's adjusted

You think or you know. Matters.

Already answered your question

nostr:note1pxazr582w5ge5cpsjyqme434y8nu7rw94qkr9znnqv0ye8lxejhswkrurk

Vaccinated against what?

Link to the study is there

It doesn't say.

“We compiled and presented the number of diagnoses for infections targeted by vaccines (considering the CDC pediatric schedule) in the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups in the full cohort. We evaluated each vaccine targeted infection individually and analyzed the association between vaccination status and overall occurrence of vaccine-targeted infections using vaccine-targeted diagnoses.”

It's a chicken and egg problem. e.g. For measles the herd vaccination protects unvaccinated minority from even getting it. They should compare TBE or malaria occurrences which are not part of the pediatric schedule. But ofc those diseases are more rare, so that's why they're not part of the schedule.

FYI in YU we used to get vaccinated against https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1972_Yugoslav_smallpox_outbreak. The disease was successfully eradicated so this was removed from the pediatric schedule in 20 years or so.

These are all minor issues where willingness to interact with the medical system affects reporting rates. By being vaccinated that group has indicated higher willingness to interact with the medical system.

Does it say that the unvaccinated were less willing to go to their doctor visits?

By definition they interact with doctors less because we started from saying they avoided a medical procedure, it is recursive.

Are you really going to argue that after the vaccine decision they make every other medical decision identically? That doesn't align with human psychology or behavior. Every change in behavior is an uncontrolled confounding variable. In this case basic logic shows us that those variables will tilt the scale in a known direction.

They still go in for the regular visits and checkups what do you mean. They just don’t go for emergencies and hospitalizations as much.

No, they don't interact with doctors in the same way. Christian Scientists for example are unvaccinated and completely avoid the medical establishment believing that all medical interventions violate gods will.

Did you read the study I posted?

They did not properly control for willingness to interact with the medical establishment.

No single medical decision is in isolation. They arise out of a system of beliefs that affects your every decision.

But hospitalizations are still lower right? There are still times when you have to go

If you are unconscious after a car accident you don't get a say, the ambulance is going to take you.

For everything else you get a say. Your own beliefs, I'm fine without a doctor or I need help to be healthy, will shade every decision.

All of your "worse among the vaccinated" examples are things a stubborn person could choose to just ignore.

My nose runs sometimes. Do I self diagnose with allergies that I report to a doctor or blow my nose and forget about it?

If that behavior was problematic or unhealthy, it would inevitably lead to severe negative consequences. If they don’t lead to severe negative consequences, then who is to say that the unvaccinated are not better off?

We don't know, or do we? The gold standard here would be all cause mortality at various ages compared between the two groups. No one is faking or downplaying their death to minimize a health issue to their doctor.

Even that would be a muddy number. I know more than 1 man who has nearly died because they tried to avoid a hospital visit they needed, myself included.

Sepsis from minor cuts, burst appendixes, ignored heart attacks, and so on.

And why won’t they do any studies comparing those two groups? Why do they revoke licenses of doctors who try?

That depends on the quality of the study. Wakefield, the OG vaccine autism guy, lost his license because he faked the data. He admitted to it under oath. It requires no epidemiological understanding to prove it. Real world data looks different under statistical analysis than made up data. His data was made up. In the trial they proved he made up the data and outed his motives for lying.

There are lots of quirks of numbers that will give you away. Go look up the 1 paradox how numbers generated by humans for any purpose are most likely to start with a 1, not an even distribution of the 9 digits.

Beyond that we would need to go case by case. Maybe the person deserved it maybe they didn't. I don't think the system is perfect. I already talked about how their slow adoption of new knowledge personally hurt me with leaky gut.

Look at Newtonian physics vs general relativity. Science advanced. Here is the thing though. People knew about problems with Newtonian physics. Sometimes it worked and sometimes the math wasn't quite right. General relativity wasn't just an opposition to Newtonian physics. In order to be adopted the math has to explain everything that Newtonian physics does equal or better and solve some of its problems. If your new solution doesn't fit with what we know to be true it gets thrown out right out of the gate unless you can also prove that other knowledge is wrong somehow.

Walk into a room of Mathematicians and declare 2+2+2=7 because 2+2=5 and 5+2=7. You'll get laughed out of the room and no one is going to call you a Mathematician anymore. They shouldn't. You made a basic mistake in mathematics and insisted you were right rather than saying oops when it turned out you didn't even have the knowledge you were trying to overturn right. Since this is medicine human safety is on the line and they should take your license just like that mathmatician shouldn't be allowed to calculate safe bridge loads and spans anymore.

Idk a lot about Andrew Wakefield but why would he fake numbers like that? What does he have to gain by doing so? I can see why big pharma would fake those numbers as it very profitable.

And didn’t you say that viruses are always evolving and changing? So how does a vaccine give you immunity when viruses are hardly ever the same?

He held a patent for a competing immunization method for MMR so he stood to benefit financially if he could show a problem with the existing MMR vaccine. His "study" was also proven to have been funded by the lawyers he used to sue the vaccine manufacturer, which shows entire thing was premeditated.

Saying viruses is a big umbrella for a lot of similar organisms. Like fungi, big umbrella term that collects things that will kill you, make you high as fuck, just taste good, or maybe improve your health. Each virus is different and some of them mutate more or less from generation to generation. Slow mutating viruses are easier to vaccinate for while faster mutating viruses like annual flu have vaccines that must constantly change and still only sort of work at best.

So why hasn’t the Covid vaccine actually been effective?

Covid is a fast mutater. The entire cold/flu subgenre of viruses is. Cold so fast they don't even both trying to make a vaccine.

(Breaking my own rule here but I've explained this before on nostr and survived)

The way the covid vaccine is supposed to work is this. The spikes we all saw in the pictures were just the shell. The replicator part of the virus was inside the ball. So, they made spikey balls without the replicator code inside them and inject them into you. Now your immune system learns to recognize the virus shape with a controlled exposure that can't copy itself and overrun your body.

Here is where it all falls down. The "symptoms" of cold and flu are actually your immune system response. The virus would happily just use your cells to copy itself without turning you into a walking snot bubble. Those symptoms make you stay home and spread it less, worse for the viruses evolutionary mandate to maximize copies of itself. All that snot is there to literally physically remove virus cells in sneezes. Too bad if you catch a virus booger in the eye, my body just wants to protect my genes in that moment and you might not even be related. Fever because you are trying to raise your temperature too high for the virus. And so on with various symptoms.

So, strictly speaking the covid virus never killed anyone. The immune system overeacted so hard in some people that their own immune system killed them. This was known relatively early, remember them talking about the cytokine storm? Cytokines are not virus particles they are a part of your immune system. Now that is a distinction without a difference to the dead and had they not been exposed to covid their immune system would not have self destructed like that.

Beyond here we leave the realm of established science and enter the realm of Bill Cyphers personal theories. That was background knowledge. Now you can enter the ultra elite covid conspiracy that as far as I know has 1 believer.

So here is what I can't help but notice. The vaccine harm complaints and long covid complaints are the same symptoms. The alleged vaccine deaths, hard to validate for political reasons, have the same direct causes of death as covid deaths. Put the lists side by side for yourself.

I think where they fucked up was they failed to properly comprehend ahead of time that the immune system was what was killing covid patients if they died. They knew it but they didn't see how it affects the vaccine. Vaccine theory is always controlled volume exposure of a form that cannot replicate so that the immune system can learn to respond quickly and beat that virus before it gets out of hand.

So it wasn't the guts of the ball that was causing people's immune systems to take up self harm like an angsty goth girl. It was the spike ball shape. Oops. Now we have a vaccine that does the exact same harm as the virus.

Maybe they didn't know. Maybe they did and they figured that the smaller dose that can't replicate will cause a less severe immune reaction so they did it anyway.

Now, we get back to lawyers corrupting the system like I talked about before. If they recall that is an admission of guilt that will open them up to lawsuits by everyone who got a covid vaccine. Better to slowly fade out the level of pressure to get it until they can claim lack of demand.

No, we don't remember all the lies. My coworker, a 45 yo diabetes patient, was in coma for 2 months after being diagnosed covid. Then she had another 6 months of rehabilitation to get back on her feet and now she's half-time employed. She has focus issues and regular headaches. Please stop spreading lies about covid disease being a non-issue.

The same goes for other diseases where vaccines can help. OFC it doesn't make sense to you while you and your close ones are healthy.

Dude the symptoms of autism set in at the same age and always have. That age just happens to be at the same time as the schedule for a round of vaccinations.

Weren't you here preaching correlation and causation earlier when if fit your narrative?

FWIW, my parents were total slackasses and all my childhood vaccines were late as hell if at all. Meanwhile my autism severity scores are right at the extreme edge of the ranges reported among people who are capable of functioning without a full time handler. My symptoms all set in at the normal ages. It has to do with the development of the brain as we grow.

Also, I happen to love being autistic. Normies are fucking weird and boring as hell. I'd never give it up.

The age thing just isn’t true. Some kids show signs of autism in infancy. Some show it in their toddler years.

I’m showing correlational studies because that’s all that is available. The ones who just compared vaccinated to unvaccinated get their licenses revoked. There’s not much else I have to work with.

Sorry about your autism.

Why be sorry about my autism? I'm having a blast.

This is a big contention I have with the vaccines causing Autism people. You all insist autism is a bad thing. It isn't. Sure there are people who are autistic who are non functional, but there are non functional retarded people who aren't autistic too. Both are extreme rare cases.

I don't run around talking about curing neurotypicalness because 1% of you are window lickers, why the double standard?

Most of you are too ignorant of the history to know how close your anti autism stance is dancing to literal nazi death camp eugenics.

By a wide margin most engineers in most Engineering fields are on the spectrum. You Dipshits are talking about curing scientific progress.

The reason is not about the intelligence factor, the reason people want to avoid autism is the added difficulty in general. If you could choose to risk you left arm falling off or not which would you choose? To keep the arm right? Not because some people with one arm are stupid.

Autism is a social connective hindrance. It is just a simple disadvantage no hatred or animosity required.

So, would you let your children play with fireworks at 5 years old if there was a good chance they would blow their arm off? Probably not. And since most humans don't understand statistics they base these risk tolerances on conjecture and public opinion.

What about the hindrance of being neurotypical?

Throw out the non functional people from both sides because they are edge cases on both sides.

Neurotypicals are generally worse at math. Generally worse at all formal logic applications really. You are also basically completely incapable of entering the state of hyperfocus that allows autistic people to learn new subjects in a fraction of the time.

I completed all the work for my accredited masters degree in under 6 months. Hyperfocus is basically a superpower level advantage compared to neurotypicals.

Who gets to set the frame of reference that says social skills are more important to have an advantage in than the skills that autistics have an advantage in? Oh right, the neurotypicals decided and it never once occurred to them to consider their disadvantages.

On top of that, what social skills advantage? You waltzed into my thread to compare me to an amputee without ever asking about how my autism affected my life. Did it ever occur to you that might be rude as fuck? Did it ever occur to you to take a moment to empathize with the life experience of a real autistic person and see the world through their eyes before you decided it was so horrible? Nah, you're just sure that my disdain for small talk about the weather makes me worse at socializing without ever considering the depth of relationships I get to build with other autistics who have shared special interests.

I'm being rude on purpose for revenge. I know it. It was not an accident caused by my autism.

I mean, you also don't know whether I am autistic or sociopathic or anything. Maybe not considering others' emotions seems to be hindering a productive conversation right now...

It's a fact that social cohesion is what makes humans the most powerful class of beings on earth. Our ability to organize and work collectively is precisely our evolutionary advantage along with thumbs (which autistics have) and higher cognitive capacity, which may be a wash.

The reason I likened it to an accident was because I personally was changed by massive head trauma. But again, I am not going to throw that in your face because you don't know me very well. The analogy is sound because literally everything is chance, including the way your brain functions. There are contributing factors to everything. Also, what is rude about comparing any one to an amputee? Are they lesser people not to be compared to you higher beings? I kind of don't get your hostility in general here.

I could make a pretty good guess about the autism based on your displayed understanding of the experience of being autistic.

Had a few concussions myself, brain injuries are horrible to try to recover from. Good luck, no sarcasm at all.

Hey look, the autistic guy was first to try to reach out and connect over shared experiences. I thought we are bad at socializing? I already addressed cooperation and social connections. Who wins that one depends on how you define what is important to good social connections. Autistic people can find a shared interest, connect over it, and be working on a problem in that field at a speed that would make your head spin. Small talk is not the be all and end all of social human interaction.

You set the frame of amputees being somehow less than. If you want to rug that now your own entire argument collapses. I'm happy to start over and prove your new argument wrong also.

No, I see you might have misunderstood what I meant by hindrance. Your life is more difficult than it otherwise would be if not absent that condition. Not having an arm doesn't make you less than, it makes your life more difficult. The same thing applies to neurodivergence by definition.

I am not talking about small talk, that is a strawman of much more complex social interations. And by definition if you are autistic you cannot see the distinction. It's like arguing with a tritanopia colorblind person about the distinction between green and blue. They would say the distinction is unimportant where as typical sight would beg to differ. People call an autistic friend an asshole a lot before he explains his autism. He over-accentuates his frustrations which to the typical seems, and is, rude. It's not that he isn't being abrasive it's that he doesn't have the capacity to not be.

Anyway, I am not looking to get into a flex off where arguments are made about who is more capable of doing arbitrary things, which is rude, by the way. I was pointing out that there is a logical basis for wanting to avoid deviating too far from the mean as a survival strategy.

I dated a girl that was mildly autistic. Something was off and kinda weird about her but I couldn’t figure it out. She was difficult to read. She communicated very poorly. Yeah I know average people aren’t great at communicating, especially the ones with traumatic experiences, but she was especially difficult to understand. I told her once that she was difficult to read and as a result, difficult to connect with. She literally said yeah maybe that because I’m partially autistic. Thought she was joking then noticed she had a book about understanding her autism in her bedroom. She was a therapist too by the way. She would tell me about some of her clients and how frustrated she was with some of them. So I’m sitting there thinking these complaints aren’t that bad and wondering if she actually had the capacity to be a therapist. She lacked the social awareness/skills. Idk if you ever felt that way but it is at least a mild hindrance in your social life. It’s even more problematic for men imo because women rely so much social cues and feeling safe.

Is it more difficult? Maybe in one or two contrived cases you set up. On balance across my entire life? I honestly doubt it.

I AM autistic and I CAN see the difference. This is a common neurotypical misunderstanding about autistic people. The issue is that given the autistic brains frame of reference your social rules are irrational, autistic people generally have no respect for irrational rules. There are different social rules that are natural to autistics. From our perspective neurotypicals are rude as fuck and difficult to work with. So who gets to decide which frame of reference should be the one that sets THE rules about manners? I could just as easily say that I have decided all neurotypicals are socially deficient because they can't properly engage with autistic social structures.

I'll point again to all the things built by all the autistic engineers around the world. For example, the entire global telecom system is a constantly growing body proof that autistic social norms enable cooperation that builds amazing things and drives society forward.

You could say that autistic social rules should be the norm, just as I could say everyone is dumb except me. The problems come when more than one person outside of your frame of reference offers the counter evidence.

If being autistic created absolutely no problems for the individual, then people wouldn’t notice any difference and the individual wouldn’t even realize he was autistic. But when someone becomes aware of their autism, it’s because it has led to some kind of problem in some aspect of their life.

I planted my flag with the global telecom network. What is the global monument to neurotypical cooperation?

Finalized product tells the tale more than assumptions from your own perspective.

Whatever you say, it doesn't the mean neurotypical way is better. Only that they are both capable of great things despite working different.

I don't need to beat your example. My single example of global cooperation by millions of individuals invalidates your argument that the autistic way of connecting doesn't work to be more than individuals through cooperation.

So true about the engineers. Well, all of it, but that's super relatable for me. I started off college majoring in engineering - quit not because it was hard (it wasn't), but because I couldn't deal with all the intense autism in both the professors and students. I'm pretty sure I'm on that spectrum, but not like that.

Haven't you looked at a nice cold window in winter and wanted to lick it? Only if its glass, though.

Nope, but flagpoles for sure.

I love that the internet has allowed autistic people to connect and start writing their own story of what autism is instead of the one neurotypicals forced on us. For example, tell me about your socks?

Fuck socks.

Big spoon, small spoon, indifferent, depends? (The eating utensil)

Spoons don't matter. Forks matter. Small, or chopsticks. Big forks are stupid.

Actually, spoons do matter, but in a different way. Weight. A hefty spoon is worth its weight in spoon metal.

This is an important conversation deserving all platforms exposure

Looks like he's saying sensible things... But this is a helluva thread... No telling what I missed...

Yeah, I am not sure why I have gotten this aspersion cast upon me. I don't really see that I have stated anyone was inferior and as a matter of fact, said that is precisely what I am not doing.

Literally the definition of autism is a social awareness deficiency. That is not my opinion. Now if someone contends with that definition fine. But then one must assert a new definition that is widely agreed upon. (Language being a map of the terrain of reality, can have different legends but not different topography)

Deficiencies make one's like more difficult. That is also definitional. So, I would hope someone could point out where I have put an opinion out to be maligned this way.

Is it really just a lack of social awareness? I think that used to be me, but I don't think so anymore. I might actually be cured, idk... But the moment where I think the cure occurred was when I died, literally. Thanks, hospital. But not to get diverted... I think its more about focus than anything else. The lack of social awareness is because you're too focused on whatever else you're doing. Autistic people also get angry easier, which definitely used to be me, and I think that's also a focus thing.

Yeah I don't think anyone would choose to have any degree of autism. I'd say its a disability. I'd say life with it is inferior to life without it.

Extreme focus causes those social issues, yes. But you would classify tumors as the main characteristic of cancer not so much the elongation of telemirs at the end of one's DNA chains. But the former is the symptom and the latter is the cause. See what I mean?

I think its the shortening of the telemers, but yes I see your point. Also can be caused by a malfunction where the wrong proteins are overproduced, usually after an immune response. Lol, focus...

Shorter telemers reduce the risk of cancer but shorten your overall lifespan. (Less DNA to replicate when it gets damaged) but yes causal factors as well, point being symptoms versus causes.

Oh okay, that does sound kinda familiar

Wait but it sounds like telemeres can get longer. Really? Doesn't that mean we can live forever by inducing that purposefully?

Sort of, but it has it's own problems because as you add lifespan you add replication and with each replication cycle come the risk of harmful mutation.

We know this because we bred mice to live longer (so we could do more long term experiments) and the mice with lengthened telemers, had higher rates of cancer. There's not really a good work around for random genetic mutation.

Very interesting! Was it as simple as just breeding the lineages that lived longer selectively? I can imagine possible work arounds for the increased replication error - freeze t-cells, or stem cell therapy, or induced autophagy.

I am not certain. Brett Weinstein broke that story and lost his tenure at evergreen college over it. Kind of crazy.

I think social awareness/skills is a big part of an autism diagnosis. Men are generally worse in this domain than women and this aligns with the frequency of diagnoses being higher with males. Autistic people tend to make others more uncomfortable in social situations without realizing it. They may not make eye contact in socially appropriate ways and they may not realize how their tone, body language, or behaviors are perceived by others as inappropriate. A few months ago I was in the bathroom of a restaurant washing my hands and this autistic teen stood somewhat close to me. I couldn’t tell right away he was autistic but I immediately started mentally preparing myself for some type of conflict. He kept staring and started leaning close to me. I was high as fuck so I was a little more paranoid than usually and reacted kind of aggressive and told him to back up. When I looked at his eyes I realized he was severely autistic. You can tell by the dull stare. But he had no idea that what he was doing is inappropriate and couldn’t tell that it made others uncomfortable. I think the autism spectrum may have caused more confusion by grouping functional autists with dysfunctional ones under the same label. I think it would be more useful to call functional autists neurodivergent and everyone else just autistic.

Yeah I can see how that grouping can be harmful - in the understanding of it and also the feeling of inferiority it might induce in someone who is mostly functional. But also I wouldn't want people to be unaware of what's going on... You can become more self aware and start working on yourself.

That kid might've just smelled the joint and was hoping for a puff.

Never crossed my mind to lick a window

You should try it. You gotta try stuff to know if you like it.

Need more convincing than that lol

Studies show conclusively that happiness and abstinence from window licking are inversely correlated.

I wanted an excuse to use that and you didn't give it to me, so I used it anyways

Autistic people, as you accurately point out, are less distractible, and quite capable of thinking for themselves.

Why oh why could that be a problem for the systems of control and intense cultural programming that so easily hook/engage the neurotypical mind?

#thinkdangerously

They also show no respect for social heirarchies that are imposed instead of earned.

The age when symptoms of autism set might be consistent, or it could be just the age at which they are most easily recognised (to an extent that's literally what a symptom is anyway though). The young age at which most people get diagnosed is largely due to the imbalance of support given to young children – in a lot of countries the probability of a child being accurately diagnosed plummets as soon as they hit 13, and almost nobody is diagnosed in the second half of their life.

No number of vaccines is ever going to change anyone's DNA or give/remove a geneic condition like autism. If there was then humanity would have already cured disorders like Down's syndrome which have, in comparison, extremely clear chromosomal indicators.

There's an argument that vaccines could "exaggerate symptoms" of autism, though of course almost none of the thousands of studies on links between autism symptoms and vaccine administration have ever picked it up because it would be impossible to test when so many other factors do the same, or the effects would be so tiny that finding a conclusive result wouldn't even be useful in the real world.

Yes but that's usually the population that needs it most

it attacks youngs and eldery the hardest.

if you have health issues, you probably won't spend that much time in woods or hiking.

so not sure if it applies here

Do you really think that the human species is so fragile that it needs constant and annual vaccines to survive? How the hell did we not go extinct sooner?

no. there are other ways to mitigate the risks.

if you have kids spending 50% of their time in places infested with sick ticks, you may re-evaluate.

You cannot see viral particles in snot. Doctors who are on your side of this argument would admit this. They have to take snot and “culture” it in a Petri dish along with other things like monkey kidney cells to then “see viruses.” This is not “isolation” and is junk science.

The study someone posted the other day took those samples and put them in rotten eggs

Yes you can. The problem is in naturally occurring environments the concentration is low. So rather than scroll around the microscope all day hoping to get lucky they intentionally increase the concentration to make it easier to find and study.

They were found first. The process of making them easier to study by growing them on cultures was invented later.

If you are sick enough to spread an illness because of a virus, then these samples should be teaming with viruses. But they have to scroll around all day looking for them? And also, what you are even claiming is not true. They can’t find any “viruses” until they “culture” them or do some other elaborate process. It’s pseudoscience. Here’s a study where they claim they found viruses in oral samples but then you read the damn thing and see they have some elaborate process and introduce loads of chemicals and things before they finally “find” the viruses: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10099536/

They picked the conclusion and then jumped through all kinds of hoops trying to make it stick. Like a lot of fiat science.

The virus can copy itself after it gets into you. Your exposure does not need to be the entire virus particle count at peak of your illness.

The table leg isn't real because I can't see it until the lights are turned on which is the whole convoluted process involving power plants miles away and tons and tons of wires, or even more absurdly by using fusion on the sun which isn't even on earth!

Believe that all you want you'll still break a toe if you kick it.

I know how viruses supposedly work. But the point is, they claim you are so full of these things that if you even look at someone funny, they can catch your virus, but then also claim that the concentration of viruses is so low that they can’t find any until they add a bunch of other shit to the snot sample.

Also, what are you taking about? I can just wait for the sun to come up and see the table leg with my own eyes. Your analogy is retarded.

Another question that came to mind. Why were people that got the Covid vaccine still getting Covid?

Right. Of course, they have some excuse about some viruses being “fast acting” and others not. Gaslighting, goal post moving, and threatening you with being a grandma killer if you don’t fall in line with the cult is the modus operandi. And most folks are too ideologically possessed to understand they are spouting nonsense.

I don't know you, we have no conversation history. You show up and call me a retard after two posts while also clearly not having even read all of what I wrote.

I'm going to ignore you now. I'll be focusing on mutual follows who are engaging in good faith.

I haven't blocked you, but don't expect me to continue to answer you in this thread.

Apologies if I offended you. I said your analogy was retarded, not that you are retarded. There is a difference. I’m sure I say at least 1 retarded thing every day. 😅

That doesn't change that you didn't read my post the whole way through. Also, you called me a name rather than ask a question.

I'm taking my time to try to be a science educator because I think it is important. As an anarchist I can't force you to do anything. I need you to be educated enough to make the right choice on your own. Sure all hell not raking in the zaps on this thread to meet my typical hourly rate for the time I put in.

I did read your posts. You are spouting typical talking points of “educated” people who went through public school indoctrination.

What name did I call you?

I’d encourage you to start thinking on your own. We don’t need more “educators” who just regurgitate government propaganda. For a self-claimed anarchist, you might want to start looking a bit more critically at how much government influences and directs so-called “science.” People pushing the supposed science of virology locked down the planet and all but force injected millions of people with poison. So yeah, I think I’ll trust my common sense over “science” educators.

Bill is a great guy and a good follow. Been interacting with him for a while now and this is the first point of disagreement we’ve had. I admit that it’s more complex than I initially thought. However, I still disagree with him about contagion/germ theory and vaccines. Don’t let disagreements destroy a potentially useful connection. No two people will ever agree on all topics.

Well, based on that endorsement, I will give him a follow.

I didn't go to public school.

You called me a retard.

If you read all of what I wrote I repeatedly avoided talking about the covid vaccine and explained why. Google less wrong politics is the mind killer.

I'm opposed to all mandates. I'm also opposed to acting against my own self interest to spite a mandate. The people should take basic precautions to avoid getting sick no matter what the government says. The people should also be educated enough about how and why they get sick to know which precautions to take and when.

The worlds stupidest person can say the sky is blue. It still is and you'd be the idiot if you disagreed just because they were the worlds stupidest person.

This is the challenge I see people failing. Just because they tried to apply it by force doesn't mean everything they said about the field of epidemiology is false.

Even private schools still have to meet state mandates for curriculum. Doesn’t matter all that much.

And I said your argument was retarded. There is a difference.

Glad you are opposed to mandates.

I hope you take a step back and examine the actual evidence for the opposition side.

I learned and believed all of the things you claim are true. And then I started to look with my own eyes and mind.