131–140 of 173 posts
So in at least two fields in which the US still leads (biomedical research, AI), government action is actively harming their ability to compete because of ideological or political reasons.
How much death and suffering does this guy have on his conscience? I’m so curious how someone goes from being a professor to a science denier? I simply can’t imagine that journey.
[flagged]
Here's the top-line comparison:
Healthcare encounter:
new: 80 (0.4)
existing: 120 (0.6)
Each group had roughly 20k participants, mostly white.
No actual control group, no independent third party study. Junk.
Flu vaccines aren't immunizing vaccines. They protect against specific strains, and half the time they immunize against a strain that doesn't become widespread and do very little or nothing to protect you. They have side effects which vary widely in severity depending on the specific vaccine. This article has no data about why mRNA flu vaccines will improve these outcomes, and has no data about the risk/benefit ratio…
Are you remotely qualified to understand said data? Or do you, as you did below, just want an easy opportunity to swipe at things you know you lack expertise to understand?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One thing that's particularly frustrating about all this is that any conversation with the growing contingency of distrustful people has been made very difficult by what I would call poor, avoidable, and illiberal decisions made by the federal government during COVID. (TBF, decisions during a crisis are always hard.) Lab leak theory was dismissed and actively suppressed. Inflated claims were made a priori about absol…
There are many people who say they view any sort of paternalistic behavior with suspicion. But one obvious example of paternalistic behavior would be banning vaccines that people want to receive based on vague concerns of unproven harm. An even better example might be creating a site called realfood.gov, instructing the American people that only some kinds of food are "real" and you should ideally only eat "real" foo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is not a disaster. It is a part of carefully orchestrated attack on Western democracies by enemy states.
This stupidity is home-grown. Blaming "enemy states" is deflection - the quicker we understand that the quicker we can get to fixing this mess.
More deaths in the new study group for this product. More overall adverse reactions for the new product. Here's the top-line comparison: Healthcare encounter: new: 80 (0.4) existing: 120 (0.6) Each group had roughly 20k participants, mostly white. No actual control group, no independent third party study. Junk.
The subversion of scientific expertise to replace it with podcasters and political sycophants is one of the biggest disasters of the current years. The very concept of merit has been destroyed and replaced with judgement calls on celebrity (necessary for leadership role) and subservience to the political whims of the last 15 minutes (and you had better switch in the next 15 minutes or you're out).
One thing that's particularly frustrating about all this is that any conversation with the growing contingency of distrustful people has been made very difficult by what I would call poor, avoidable, and illiberal decisions made by the federal government during COVID. (TBF, decisions during a crisis are always hard.) Lab leak theory was dismissed and actively suppressed. Inflated claims were made a priori about absol…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are many people who say they view any sort of paternalistic behavior with suspicion. But one obvious example of paternalistic behavior would be banning vaccines that people want to receive based on vague concerns of unproven harm. An even better example might be creating a site called realfood.gov, instructing the American people that only some kinds of food are "real" and you should ideally only eat "real" foo…
What’s the problem with realfood.gov? I just read the entire landing page and it seems reasonable to me
What I don't see is how anyone could argue this isn't paternalism.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It didn't help that the AstraZeneca vaccine was fairly bad all things considered. At roughly 3 micromort according to the latest data it's quite a lot of risk for a modern vaccine actually. Now, compared to getting Covid it's still better. Even for a 10 year old the covid risk is ~20 micromort and we don't recommend vaccines for that group. Which seems a bit bonkers when you consider that trading 20 for 3 is clearly…
I suspect the issue is in part also just selfishness. That 20 is in large part the kid that was brought into the hospital too late if at all. The kid that might have had astma or what have you. The 3 is potentially yours or one in your family or friend group or community. It is a government mandated death and you might already distrust the gov. A tragic event vs an authoritarian death inflicted upon you from that per…
Well.. no. It was a government RECOMMENDED death at the most.
In fact, it's even more stupid. Sweden for example were so deadly afraid of anti-vaxxers that they threw away tens of thousands of doses of AstraZenecas vaccine. The one with 2 deaths per million. At the time it was estimated at 5 per million. Sweden has a population of 10 million. So if we instantly vaccinated the entire population we would see 2 deaths. While this decision to throw away doses was done we lost tens per day. And the government didn't allow those who understood math to take this if they wanted. No. They mandated the deaths. THOSE deaths WERE mandated. For real.