https://thespun.com/.amp/more/top-stori ... nouncement
John is suffering from CTE.
Coronavirus
-
Typical Lax Dad
- Posts: 32578
- Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:10 pm
Re: Coronavirus
“You lucky I ain’t read wretched yet!”
Re: Coronavirus
Doubt anyone will watch this as it passes the fifteen minute attention span we mostly get in the world today.
If you do, please tell me how you write this guy off as a quack, as one to be ignored. Dumbforkistanians are
very interested in your input here.
"Biased funding research"....like we got from the one gvmt agency who gave us the results of their marijuana research, quite different from what we got when independent researches enter the picture.
https://worldcouncilforhealth.org/multi ... onference/
If you do, please tell me how you write this guy off as a quack, as one to be ignored. Dumbforkistanians are
very interested in your input here.
"Biased funding research"....like we got from the one gvmt agency who gave us the results of their marijuana research, quite different from what we got when independent researches enter the picture.
https://worldcouncilforhealth.org/multi ... onference/
-
Typical Lax Dad
- Posts: 32578
- Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:10 pm
Re: Coronavirus
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/unit ... ion-statusDMac wrote: ↑Fri May 05, 2023 8:01 pm Doubt anyone will watch this as it passes the fifteen minute attention span we mostly get in the world today.
If you do, please tell me how you write this guy off as a quack, as one to be ignored. Dumbforkistanians are
very interested in your input here.
"Biased funding research"....like we got from the one gvmt agency who gave us the results of their marijuana research, quite different from what we got when independent researches enter the picture.
https://worldcouncilforhealth.org/multi ... onference/
Which line is higher and which is lower?
“You lucky I ain’t read wretched yet!”
Re: Coronavirus
So you'll be one who doesn't watch it.
Awful lot of food for thought in there,
but will be written off as just another
Dumbforkistanian's post.
You obviously think those lines are to
be trusted. All legit, no room for question
there. I'm not convinced, the Dr. (who is
vaccinated) has questions and research
results.
Awful lot of food for thought in there,
but will be written off as just another
Dumbforkistanian's post.
You obviously think those lines are to
be trusted. All legit, no room for question
there. I'm not convinced, the Dr. (who is
vaccinated) has questions and research
results.
-
Typical Lax Dad
- Posts: 32578
- Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:10 pm
Re: Coronavirus
I will watch it but prefer info from infectious disease experts.DMac wrote: ↑Fri May 05, 2023 9:01 pm So you'll be one who doesn't watch it.
Awful lot of food for thought in there,
but will be written off as just another
Dumbforkistanian's post.
You obviously think those lines are to
be trusted. All legit, no room for question
there. I'm not convinced, the Dr. (who is
vaccinated) has questions and research
results.
EDIT: https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/ ... ccination/
“You lucky I ain’t read wretched yet!”
Re: Coronavirus
No doubt many who would dispute that analyses.
As noted, much food for thought in the Dr's presentation,
not easily just written off.
Tigers go up by 1, 12 to go.
Ooops, all even.
7 might win it.
As noted, much food for thought in the Dr's presentation,
not easily just written off.
Tigers go up by 1, 12 to go.
Ooops, all even.
7 might win it.
-
Typical Lax Dad
- Posts: 32578
- Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:10 pm
Re: Coronavirus
I looked him up. He is an anti-vaxxer and cherry picked his data it seems. Just really stupid silliness to question whether vaccines have been effective….but this is 2023 and a presidential candidate is on trial for rape and attempting to overthrow a fair election but people don’t believe it’s true.
“You lucky I ain’t read wretched yet!”
-
runrussellrun
- Posts: 7464
- Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2018 11:07 am
Re: Coronavirus
The claim to the FDA was 95% effective..that one will NOT get covid, at all. Won't spread, it either, was ANOTHER claim.Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Fri May 05, 2023 10:51 pmI looked him up. He is an anti-vaxxer and cherry picked his data it seems. Just really stupid silliness to question whether vaccines have been effective….but this is 2023 and a presidential candidate is on trial for rape and attempting to overthrow a fair election but people don’t believe it’s true.
yeah, so silly.
ILM...Independent Lives Matter
Pronouns: "we" and "suck"
Pronouns: "we" and "suck"
-
runrussellrun
- Posts: 7464
- Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2018 11:07 am
Re: Coronavirus
yeah, TLD....thanks for the data...we guess.Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Fri May 05, 2023 8:22 pmhttps://ourworldindata.org/grapher/unit ... ion-statusDMac wrote: ↑Fri May 05, 2023 8:01 pm Doubt anyone will watch this as it passes the fifteen minute attention span we mostly get in the world today.
If you do, please tell me how you write this guy off as a quack, as one to be ignored. Dumbforkistanians are
very interested in your input here.
"Biased funding research"....like we got from the one gvmt agency who gave us the results of their marijuana research, quite different from what we got when independent researches enter the picture.
https://worldcouncilforhealth.org/multi ... onference/
Which lie is higher and which is lower? (fixed )
To be clear, humans that have received tRumps fake shot, have DIED from the actual sickness ( covid) that the shot was supposed to prevent.
Just wow........again, thanks for the data. fhizer claimed to the FDA that the shot was 95% effective.
wonder, if some, are re-following tRump on twitter
ILM...Independent Lives Matter
Pronouns: "we" and "suck"
Pronouns: "we" and "suck"
-
Typical Lax Dad
- Posts: 32578
- Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:10 pm
Re: Coronavirus
https://www.economist.com/science-and-t ... -rumble-on
Where did covid-19 come from? You might imagine that the question would be a matter for science. Instead it has become embroiled in acrimony, politics and, at times, conspiracy theory.
New diseases in people almost always come from close contact between human populations and animals. A “spillover” happens when viruses from an animal species jump into humans and then go on to wreak havoc. But the idea that sars-cov-2, the virus that causes covid-19, instead leaked from a Chinese research laboratory has persisted since the earliest days of the pandemic. Though this theory has rested largely on rumours and circumstantial evidence, it has nevertheless set the stage for a bitter three-and-a-half year row.
It had been hoped that information from America’s intelligence services could resolve the row in favour of one theory or another. Those hopes were scotched late on June 23rd, when a report was delivered by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (odni)—as directed by Congress—on the potential links between the Wuhan Institute of Virology (wiv) and the origin of the pandemic. It contained no evidence of a laboratory leak. However, anyone hoping the report would burnish instead the hypothesis that covid-19 emerged in a food market in Wuhan would also have been disappointed. The report concluded that “both a natural and laboratory-associated origin remain plausible”.
Some 72% of new human infectious diseases originate in wildlife. Those include Ebola, Zika, hiv, and the original sars (whose emergence in 2003 was thought to be tied to animal sales). Such events are often tied to the sale of live animals or the consumption of bushmeat. China also has extensive wildlife and livestock farming, wildlife trafficking, many live animal markets and lax regulations. Soon after a mysterious new pneumonia appeared in China, the source of the disease was quickly pinned to the animals sold in the Huanan Seafood Market in Wuhan. Many (although not all) of the people who had become sick had worked at or visited this site.
Yet a “natural” spillover is not the only route by which a new virus might enter humans. Researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (wiv) had also been carrying out high-risk research on coronaviruses in inadequate biosafety conditions. Scientists in the city also conducted field trips to sample bats and collect viruses from remote regions of China. These activities could have provided a route for a new virus to be accidentally picked up by humans in the laboratory, who could then have gone on to start an outbreak in Wuhan.
Since the start of the pandemic, two tribes have battled it out in online discussions of the origins of covid: the “zoonati” and the “lab leakers”. Michael Worobey, professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at the University of Arizona, didn’t start out as a zoonati, a term that was once pejorative on social media and thrown at those who didn’t support a laboratory leak. (Dr Worobey says the word has been “happily” co-opted.) He says there are three main lines of evidence that support the market hypothesis: geographic, zoonotic and evolutionary.
The strongest evidence is probably the first: the spatial pattern of the earliest cases which centred on a small animal market in a city of 11m people. Although there was some bias towards collecting cases from the market (given its early implication in the outbreak), Dr Worobey says the very earliest onset cases, ones that just turned up in hospitals, lived in a “bullseye right around the market”.
It is also clear that animals that could be infected with sars-cov-2 were being sold in the Huanan Seafood Market. By June 2021 this zoonotic line of evidence was firmed up in a paper published in Scientific Reports, in which swabs of the surfaces and corners of the market collected in January 2020 indicated that various species such as raccoon dogs, badgers, mink and civet cats were present before the pandemic. None of these animals were disclosed by the Chinese authorities; they were found thanks to market surveillance under way before the outbreak. The animals were sold alive, in cages stacked on top of one another, and in poor conditions. Many shops offered butchering services. And the route to the market would also have brought stressed animals into close contact, allowing for the intermingling and amplification of coronaviruses.
One note of caution here is that, although the animals found at the market were capable of hosting the human variant of sars-cov-2, whether the pandemic virus emerged here is not provable with the information available. The viruses picked up by the swabs taken at the market in January 2020 could also have come from infected humans in the market, rather than from animals.
The third line of evidence for the market hypothesis comes from studying how different specimens of the virus are related to each other, from an evolutionary point of view. As coronaviruses replicate, random mutations occur in its genome and are passed on to successive generations. Over time these changes will accrue. If viruses are sampled from many different people over time, it is possible to work out which viruses begat other viruses, and the amount and rate of the changes can tell scientists roughly what the virus’s evolutionary history looks like.
In 2022 Jonathan Pekar of the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues found that two major lineages of sars-cov-2 appeared at the start of the outbreak in Wuhan, known as A and B. These were likely, said the researchers, to be the result of at least two separate spillover events in humans. The combination of the geographic pattern of cases around the market, a short timeline for the emergence of the virus, and two independent lineages, paint a picture of a market-related event tied to a group of infected animals carrying similar (but not identical) versions of the sars-cov-2 virus that jumped.
Again, not everyone agrees. Other scientists have challenged the idea that the two lineages of sars-cov-2 represented separate introductions. As they differ by only two mutations, one lineage could have evolved into another within humans, they argue, rather than coming from separate spillover events.
The question is whether quibbles like these create enough wriggle room to leave open the possibility that the pandemic started elsewhere, leaving the market to be simply a place where the number of infections in humans was amplified. The hope was that the odni would resolve this issue one way or another, particularly in relation to persistent rumours that scientists at the wiv were infected with the first cases of covid-19. On this matter the report was clear—although some researchers at wiv did fall ill in the autumn of 2019, the symptoms reported were not diagnostic of covid-19. In other words, they could have been sick with any disease.
Another remaining area of uncertainty concerns missing data from the early days of the outbreak in Wuhan. Maria Van Kerkhove, an infectious disease epidemiologist at the World Health Organisation says her group has repeatedly asked for an independent re-analysis of surveillance cases in 2019 that had been ruled out as being covid-19. And also she has asked for more information about the 174 early cases of covid-19 that China has disclosed. What this obfuscation and opacity from China amounts to is unclear. However, Dr Worobey points out that there were probably only a handful of cases of covid in late November 2019, and that six retrospective studies, including on throat swabs, blood donors and plasma samples, do not find a signal of a larger outbreak in November—although they did find that influenza was relatively common at the time.
Prior to the release of the odni’s report, two-thirds of Americans believed a laboratory leak was the cause of the pandemic, according to a poll by The Economist and YouGov. This impression came despite the growth of scientific papers pointing to the market. Last week’s release of intelligence will not persuade people on either side that they might be wrong. Instead it will fuel a new cycle of claims and counterclaims. Yet with further new information not expected, the marginal gains of continuing the row are rapidly diminishing. The hunt for the heroes and villains of covid is drawing energy and attention from the more obviously urgent need to improve global biosecurity in the animal trade and lab safety. The mysterious origins of covid may, for now, need to take a back seat. ■
Where did covid-19 come from? You might imagine that the question would be a matter for science. Instead it has become embroiled in acrimony, politics and, at times, conspiracy theory.
New diseases in people almost always come from close contact between human populations and animals. A “spillover” happens when viruses from an animal species jump into humans and then go on to wreak havoc. But the idea that sars-cov-2, the virus that causes covid-19, instead leaked from a Chinese research laboratory has persisted since the earliest days of the pandemic. Though this theory has rested largely on rumours and circumstantial evidence, it has nevertheless set the stage for a bitter three-and-a-half year row.
It had been hoped that information from America’s intelligence services could resolve the row in favour of one theory or another. Those hopes were scotched late on June 23rd, when a report was delivered by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (odni)—as directed by Congress—on the potential links between the Wuhan Institute of Virology (wiv) and the origin of the pandemic. It contained no evidence of a laboratory leak. However, anyone hoping the report would burnish instead the hypothesis that covid-19 emerged in a food market in Wuhan would also have been disappointed. The report concluded that “both a natural and laboratory-associated origin remain plausible”.
Some 72% of new human infectious diseases originate in wildlife. Those include Ebola, Zika, hiv, and the original sars (whose emergence in 2003 was thought to be tied to animal sales). Such events are often tied to the sale of live animals or the consumption of bushmeat. China also has extensive wildlife and livestock farming, wildlife trafficking, many live animal markets and lax regulations. Soon after a mysterious new pneumonia appeared in China, the source of the disease was quickly pinned to the animals sold in the Huanan Seafood Market in Wuhan. Many (although not all) of the people who had become sick had worked at or visited this site.
Yet a “natural” spillover is not the only route by which a new virus might enter humans. Researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (wiv) had also been carrying out high-risk research on coronaviruses in inadequate biosafety conditions. Scientists in the city also conducted field trips to sample bats and collect viruses from remote regions of China. These activities could have provided a route for a new virus to be accidentally picked up by humans in the laboratory, who could then have gone on to start an outbreak in Wuhan.
Since the start of the pandemic, two tribes have battled it out in online discussions of the origins of covid: the “zoonati” and the “lab leakers”. Michael Worobey, professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at the University of Arizona, didn’t start out as a zoonati, a term that was once pejorative on social media and thrown at those who didn’t support a laboratory leak. (Dr Worobey says the word has been “happily” co-opted.) He says there are three main lines of evidence that support the market hypothesis: geographic, zoonotic and evolutionary.
The strongest evidence is probably the first: the spatial pattern of the earliest cases which centred on a small animal market in a city of 11m people. Although there was some bias towards collecting cases from the market (given its early implication in the outbreak), Dr Worobey says the very earliest onset cases, ones that just turned up in hospitals, lived in a “bullseye right around the market”.
It is also clear that animals that could be infected with sars-cov-2 were being sold in the Huanan Seafood Market. By June 2021 this zoonotic line of evidence was firmed up in a paper published in Scientific Reports, in which swabs of the surfaces and corners of the market collected in January 2020 indicated that various species such as raccoon dogs, badgers, mink and civet cats were present before the pandemic. None of these animals were disclosed by the Chinese authorities; they were found thanks to market surveillance under way before the outbreak. The animals were sold alive, in cages stacked on top of one another, and in poor conditions. Many shops offered butchering services. And the route to the market would also have brought stressed animals into close contact, allowing for the intermingling and amplification of coronaviruses.
One note of caution here is that, although the animals found at the market were capable of hosting the human variant of sars-cov-2, whether the pandemic virus emerged here is not provable with the information available. The viruses picked up by the swabs taken at the market in January 2020 could also have come from infected humans in the market, rather than from animals.
The third line of evidence for the market hypothesis comes from studying how different specimens of the virus are related to each other, from an evolutionary point of view. As coronaviruses replicate, random mutations occur in its genome and are passed on to successive generations. Over time these changes will accrue. If viruses are sampled from many different people over time, it is possible to work out which viruses begat other viruses, and the amount and rate of the changes can tell scientists roughly what the virus’s evolutionary history looks like.
In 2022 Jonathan Pekar of the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues found that two major lineages of sars-cov-2 appeared at the start of the outbreak in Wuhan, known as A and B. These were likely, said the researchers, to be the result of at least two separate spillover events in humans. The combination of the geographic pattern of cases around the market, a short timeline for the emergence of the virus, and two independent lineages, paint a picture of a market-related event tied to a group of infected animals carrying similar (but not identical) versions of the sars-cov-2 virus that jumped.
Again, not everyone agrees. Other scientists have challenged the idea that the two lineages of sars-cov-2 represented separate introductions. As they differ by only two mutations, one lineage could have evolved into another within humans, they argue, rather than coming from separate spillover events.
The question is whether quibbles like these create enough wriggle room to leave open the possibility that the pandemic started elsewhere, leaving the market to be simply a place where the number of infections in humans was amplified. The hope was that the odni would resolve this issue one way or another, particularly in relation to persistent rumours that scientists at the wiv were infected with the first cases of covid-19. On this matter the report was clear—although some researchers at wiv did fall ill in the autumn of 2019, the symptoms reported were not diagnostic of covid-19. In other words, they could have been sick with any disease.
Another remaining area of uncertainty concerns missing data from the early days of the outbreak in Wuhan. Maria Van Kerkhove, an infectious disease epidemiologist at the World Health Organisation says her group has repeatedly asked for an independent re-analysis of surveillance cases in 2019 that had been ruled out as being covid-19. And also she has asked for more information about the 174 early cases of covid-19 that China has disclosed. What this obfuscation and opacity from China amounts to is unclear. However, Dr Worobey points out that there were probably only a handful of cases of covid in late November 2019, and that six retrospective studies, including on throat swabs, blood donors and plasma samples, do not find a signal of a larger outbreak in November—although they did find that influenza was relatively common at the time.
Prior to the release of the odni’s report, two-thirds of Americans believed a laboratory leak was the cause of the pandemic, according to a poll by The Economist and YouGov. This impression came despite the growth of scientific papers pointing to the market. Last week’s release of intelligence will not persuade people on either side that they might be wrong. Instead it will fuel a new cycle of claims and counterclaims. Yet with further new information not expected, the marginal gains of continuing the row are rapidly diminishing. The hunt for the heroes and villains of covid is drawing energy and attention from the more obviously urgent need to improve global biosecurity in the animal trade and lab safety. The mysterious origins of covid may, for now, need to take a back seat. ■
“You lucky I ain’t read wretched yet!”
Re: Coronavirus
... I watched to the end of his talk.DMac wrote: ↑Fri May 05, 2023 8:01 pm Doubt anyone will watch this as it passes the fifteen minute attention span we mostly get in the world today.
If you do, please tell me how you write this guy off as a quack, as one to be ignored. Dumbforkistanians are
very interested in your input here.
"Biased funding research"....like we got from the one gvmt agency who gave us the results of their marijuana research, quite different from what we got when independent researches enter the picture.
https://worldcouncilforhealth.org/multi ... onference/
The first half of his talk was largely a yawn to me. Not new, pharma is a corrupt money making machine. There is a solution, I have advocated for a long time -- take the profit out of it!!! I am called a socialist or worse. There are cases of individual physician corruption, but that is a small number, and relies on big pharma's existence. The part where he claims COVID MRNA does more harm than good, is more interesting. I will need to actually read his paper. He quoted some statistics I am not sure they are valid - looking at the problem the way he did.
A word of caution, he has gone through a change in his perspective, triggered by his father's death. I have seen a couple cases of individuals go through this with friends losing loved ones who have come to blame the medical community, irrationally IMO, not the particular physician involved. The other caution is thinking everyone involved in the COVID vax is involved in a conspiracy. I don't believe that is actually possible.
The jury is out for me.
Re: Coronavirus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Council_for_Healthjhu72 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 27, 2023 1:43 pm... I watched to the end of his talk.DMac wrote: ↑Fri May 05, 2023 8:01 pm Doubt anyone will watch this as it passes the fifteen minute attention span we mostly get in the world today.
If you do, please tell me how you write this guy off as a quack, as one to be ignored. Dumbforkistanians are
very interested in your input here.
"Biased funding research"....like we got from the one gvmt agency who gave us the results of their marijuana research, quite different from what we got when independent researches enter the picture.
https://worldcouncilforhealth.org/multi ... onference/
The first half of his talk was largely a yawn to me. Not new, pharma is a corrupt money making machine. There is a solution, I have advocated for a long time -- take the profit out of it!!! I am called a socialist or worse. There are cases of individual physician corruption, but that is a small number, and relies on big pharma's existence. The part where he claims COVID MRNA does more harm than good, is more interesting. I will need to actually read his paper. He quoted some statistics I am not sure they are valid - looking at the problem the way he did.
A word of caution, he has gone through a change in his perspective, triggered by his father's death. I have seen a couple cases of individuals go through this with friends losing loved ones who have come to blame the medical community, irrationally IMO, not the particular physician involved. The other caution is thinking everyone involved in the COVID vax is involved in a conspiracy. I don't believe that is actually possible.
The jury is out for me.
Seems fishy…
Re: Coronavirus
... thanks, was not aware! TLD also presented a review of the paper that was very critical I noticed after responding.RedFromMI wrote: ↑Tue Jun 27, 2023 2:31 pmhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Council_for_Healthjhu72 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 27, 2023 1:43 pm... I watched to the end of his talk.DMac wrote: ↑Fri May 05, 2023 8:01 pm Doubt anyone will watch this as it passes the fifteen minute attention span we mostly get in the world today.
If you do, please tell me how you write this guy off as a quack, as one to be ignored. Dumbforkistanians are
very interested in your input here.
"Biased funding research"....like we got from the one gvmt agency who gave us the results of their marijuana research, quite different from what we got when independent researches enter the picture.
https://worldcouncilforhealth.org/multi ... onference/
The first half of his talk was largely a yawn to me. Not new, pharma is a corrupt money making machine. There is a solution, I have advocated for a long time -- take the profit out of it!!! I am called a socialist or worse. There are cases of individual physician corruption, but that is a small number, and relies on big pharma's existence. The part where he claims COVID MRNA does more harm than good, is more interesting. I will need to actually read his paper. He quoted some statistics I am not sure they are valid - looking at the problem the way he did.
A word of caution, he has gone through a change in his perspective, triggered by his father's death. I have seen a couple cases of individuals go through this with friends losing loved ones who have come to blame the medical community, irrationally IMO, not the particular physician involved. The other caution is thinking everyone involved in the COVID vax is involved in a conspiracy. I don't believe that is actually possible.
The jury is out for me.
Seems fishy…
-
MDlaxfan76
- Posts: 26212
- Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 5:40 pm
Re: Coronavirus
"seems"RedFromMI wrote: ↑Tue Jun 27, 2023 2:31 pmhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Council_for_Healthjhu72 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 27, 2023 1:43 pm... I watched to the end of his talk.DMac wrote: ↑Fri May 05, 2023 8:01 pm Doubt anyone will watch this as it passes the fifteen minute attention span we mostly get in the world today.
If you do, please tell me how you write this guy off as a quack, as one to be ignored. Dumbforkistanians are
very interested in your input here.
"Biased funding research"....like we got from the one gvmt agency who gave us the results of their marijuana research, quite different from what we got when independent researches enter the picture.
https://worldcouncilforhealth.org/multi ... onference/
The first half of his talk was largely a yawn to me. Not new, pharma is a corrupt money making machine. There is a solution, I have advocated for a long time -- take the profit out of it!!! I am called a socialist or worse. There are cases of individual physician corruption, but that is a small number, and relies on big pharma's existence. The part where he claims COVID MRNA does more harm than good, is more interesting. I will need to actually read his paper. He quoted some statistics I am not sure they are valid - looking at the problem the way he did.
A word of caution, he has gone through a change in his perspective, triggered by his father's death. I have seen a couple cases of individuals go through this with friends losing loved ones who have come to blame the medical community, irrationally IMO, not the particular physician involved. The other caution is thinking everyone involved in the COVID vax is involved in a conspiracy. I don't believe that is actually possible.
The jury is out for me.
Seems fishy…
Yup, and this specific guy is quite the piece of work himself. Made himself famous with some good advice about reducing sugar, but then started promoting a fad diet that has serious issues. And then claimed it could quickly reduce Covid risk... $$$...claims the money goes to charity...celebrity.
The problem with his dietary recommendation is that it is extreme, encouraging very, very low carb intake (not differentiating between fast and slow burning carbs) and promotes high fat intake...yes, some fats are quite good, but others are not...
Diabetes associations, heart health associations, brain health, all say this is very bad idea. Harvard, Tufts, etc...say not a viable diet.
We need balance and should certainly reduce sugar and fast burning carbs (converting to sugar) in favor of slower, protein and some fats like olive oil etc, avoiding trans fats and limiting sat fats.
Good news is that can taste good and not be a program of denial, but rather one that can be maintained for a lifetime.
Kernels of truth, twisted...
Re: Coronavirus
Ha!... WikipediaRedFromMI wrote: ↑Tue Jun 27, 2023 2:31 pmhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Council_for_Healthjhu72 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 27, 2023 1:43 pm... I watched to the end of his talk.DMac wrote: ↑Fri May 05, 2023 8:01 pm Doubt anyone will watch this as it passes the fifteen minute attention span we mostly get in the world today.
If you do, please tell me how you write this guy off as a quack, as one to be ignored. Dumbforkistanians are
very interested in your input here.
"Biased funding research"....like we got from the one gvmt agency who gave us the results of their marijuana research, quite different from what we got when independent researches enter the picture.
https://worldcouncilforhealth.org/multi ... onference/
The first half of his talk was largely a yawn to me. Not new, pharma is a corrupt money making machine. There is a solution, I have advocated for a long time -- take the profit out of it!!! I am called a socialist or worse. There are cases of individual physician corruption, but that is a small number, and relies on big pharma's existence. The part where he claims COVID MRNA does more harm than good, is more interesting. I will need to actually read his paper. He quoted some statistics I am not sure they are valid - looking at the problem the way he did.
A word of caution, he has gone through a change in his perspective, triggered by his father's death. I have seen a couple cases of individuals go through this with friends losing loved ones who have come to blame the medical community, irrationally IMO, not the particular physician involved. The other caution is thinking everyone involved in the COVID vax is involved in a conspiracy. I don't believe that is actually possible.
The jury is out for me.
Seems fishy…
This seems fishy too:
Wikipedia co-founder says site is now ‘propaganda’ for left-leaning ‘establishment
Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger has warned that the website can no longer be trusted — insisting it is now just “propaganda” for the left-leaning “establishment.”
https://nypost.com/2021/07/16/wikipedia ... blishment/
Wikipedia Conforms to Wokeness
"We should be worried that the orthodoxy of opinion, which has been prevalent in American academia for a considerable time, is seeping into the Internet, which is supposed to be more populist than academia. Wikipedia going woke is, unfortunately, just the latest example."
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/w ... -wokeness/
-
MDlaxfan76
- Posts: 26212
- Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 5:40 pm
Re: Coronavirus
He had a falling out with wikipedia in 2002. That's 21 years ago...since then he's been the sites loudest critic.tech37 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 27, 2023 5:53 pmHa!... WikipediaRedFromMI wrote: ↑Tue Jun 27, 2023 2:31 pmhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Council_for_Healthjhu72 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 27, 2023 1:43 pm... I watched to the end of his talk.DMac wrote: ↑Fri May 05, 2023 8:01 pm Doubt anyone will watch this as it passes the fifteen minute attention span we mostly get in the world today.
If you do, please tell me how you write this guy off as a quack, as one to be ignored. Dumbforkistanians are
very interested in your input here.
"Biased funding research"....like we got from the one gvmt agency who gave us the results of their marijuana research, quite different from what we got when independent researches enter the picture.
https://worldcouncilforhealth.org/multi ... onference/
The first half of his talk was largely a yawn to me. Not new, pharma is a corrupt money making machine. There is a solution, I have advocated for a long time -- take the profit out of it!!! I am called a socialist or worse. There are cases of individual physician corruption, but that is a small number, and relies on big pharma's existence. The part where he claims COVID MRNA does more harm than good, is more interesting. I will need to actually read his paper. He quoted some statistics I am not sure they are valid - looking at the problem the way he did.
A word of caution, he has gone through a change in his perspective, triggered by his father's death. I have seen a couple cases of individuals go through this with friends losing loved ones who have come to blame the medical community, irrationally IMO, not the particular physician involved. The other caution is thinking everyone involved in the COVID vax is involved in a conspiracy. I don't believe that is actually possible.
The jury is out for me.
Seems fishy…
This seems fishy too:
Wikipedia co-founder says site is now ‘propaganda’ for left-leaning ‘establishment
Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger has warned that the website can no longer be trusted — insisting it is now just “propaganda” for the left-leaning “establishment.”
https://nypost.com/2021/07/16/wikipedia ... blishment/
Wikipedia Conforms to Wokeness
"We should be worried that the orthodoxy of opinion, which has been prevalent in American academia for a considerable time, is seeping into the Internet, which is supposed to be more populist than academia. Wikipedia going woke is, unfortunately, just the latest example."
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/w ... -wokeness/
Sour grapes?
Here's his own wiki page...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Sanger