‘If this were true, where are the lawsuits against the vaccine makers?’
Surely they’ve been shielded from liability so there won’t be any.
To me, ‘evil’ means ‘should be destroyed if possible’. Therefore I don’t like to hand out the label recklessly, as it leads generally to impotent rage, which is harmful to me.
Is only 1⁄3 of Long Covid sufferers actually having had covid definitely a thing, too? I think it is (or maybe antibody tests give many false positives?)
That seems a bit overconfident. Immunity is one supposed long-term effect. Death is another long-term effect though obviously infrequent in approved vaccines.
In order to weigh about the possibility of long term effects of the MRNA covax (Pfizer, Moderna), we need some plausible categories of mechanism; my understanding is that a known-harmful spike protein is produced in some quantity (surely dose dependent; why do they dose large people the same as small?) which may cause some clots or other harms acutely, but then days later spike levels are back to zero at which point there’s nothing more to worry about except lingering cancer type damage that won’t heal fully, and autoimmune (more likely in case of response to covid exposure than broadly own-tissue-attacking which we’d have seen already after 100m doses). I’ve heard no specific evidence that the spike insult or the MRNA mechanism would cause either but those are the categories of risk as I see it, FWIW.
How much lower is the chance of being ‘infected eventually’ if you keep current on your annual (or whatever it ends up at) corona vaccination booster?
Convincing. Good question re: Disulfiram. Maybe drugs that make it easier to ride out physical dependency (+ alcohol withdrawal poisoning) are of greater practical use/demand—methadone seems popular [for rehabilitating opiate addicts, not alcohol, obv.].
Why? ‘EET-A will show temporary benefits as an anti-ageing therapy (70% as above) and will work “better” than* senolytics in that it will actually reverse ageing rather than needing to be taken at higher concentrations over time (40%).’
How would you obtain and how would you dose if you were performing a human study?
(and why 3 separate parts?)
This may have made sense to the author, but to me it’s unclear and unmotivated.
Clearly the second dose of pfizer/moderna increases effectiveness.
It also clearly increases the chance you’re mildly sick for about a day. Probably skipping the second is fine but presumably people are keeping quiet when they do this so as to not reduce herd compliance.
What of the 6x or worse effectiveness against a few strains gaining currency e.g. the brazilian one? Seems still valuable under this model.
Algorithms should minimize the chance that initial luck (bad or good) leaves a lasting effect on end popularity.
Really great, accessible stuff pumped out regularly will eventually rise.
Please elaborate ‘the best “simplified” way of looking at human intelligence is how well your “System 1″ performs (approximately) Bayesian inference’
Reverse osmosis (RO) is gold-standard. I prefer the taste to that of our mineral-heavy local rural water. AmazonBasics has a ripoff that’s cheaper but I used Brondell Circle which was easy to install (just need to drill or poke a hole in drainpipe, and an opening in counter to place the faucet, which you may already have or could be cut with a circular cutting bit or jigsaw)
It’s believed that severe symptoms are a fn of viral load, but perhaps a sensitive test would show some level of asymptomatic infection after a low load exposure?
This is reasonable but doesn’t excuse us not running experiments.
For example, suppose there’s a varying Health factor (how much sleep, overtraining, stress, nutrition, etc) and that if you’re above a threshold you will not succumb to exposure at some proximity no matter the duration. If this were true (I don’t think it is, but we need experiments to know), then Bob would be less likely to get sick if his Health has enough daily variation.
Why do you think Google is in the wrong here?
Novavax (non-mRNA) may be more effective on new variants. https://www.biospace.com/article/comparing-covid-19-vaccines-pfizer-biontech-moderna-astrazeneca-oxford-j-and-j-russia-s-sputnik-v/
I just want to offer: feeling uncertain or insecure about your kid’s prospects is normal and healthy. Be curious but also explore the idea that a delayed kid is happy+great too. Also, pretty much everyone learns to speak normally eventually. Irrelevant personal anecdote (my speech-delayed kid is not really an ‘einstein’) follows:
My 1st was mildly precocious in signing, speaking, singing; I felt uncertain about my 2nd, who was many months slower on his first words yet did have ~80 words by 2 (below avg, though his understanding seemed fine) and now at almost 3 years is normally competent+chatty. It’s apparently more common for boys to have this sort of delay. I wondered if some chipped teeth (avoided dentist during covid) might have contributed. I read into him a low desire to verbally communicate (insecurity of some sort? preference for physical grabbing/pointing/showing?) yet he loves to narrate + interact now. He only rarely tries to hum/sing—some people are musical, seems mostly unrelated to speech. He got started trying to speak mostly in the context of peekaboo type 1.4 year old game playing (“oh no! you’re stuck” “the ball is stuck!” repeatedly wedging self or toy behind couch). Sounds like a completely different trajectory/mechanism from your son’s speech delay. (My 3rd is 4 mo old but far more expressive w/ babble+eye contact than her sibs—perhaps competing for limited attn or fed by more toddler stimulus?).
I’m very confident that a follow-up to this post in 2 years would be “well, totally normal speech now”.
Yes, RationalWiki are collectively shallow+glib ‘believe Science’ snarkists.