Based upon history, we should start preparing for it to end now
part of that is getting rid of masks and all the other hygiene theater stuff
and I don't see why every man woman and child should receive multiple vaccines for a 2019 coronavirus whatever pandemic there was is now fading into just background noise of other coronaviruses
You don't do dialogue. I see a repetitive monologue of misinformation and innuendo.
I'm the one having a dialogue you're just saying go read or try reading or you just keep saying repetitive monologue misinformation blah blah blah
all pandemics by definition end they have a beginning and they have an end
this pandemic is no different
how do you think this pandemic will end?
because I get the impression you think this is going to go on forever we're going to need to take covid-19 vaccines forever and that's not historically how it happens. Either they declare victory and just end it or they realize that the vaccines are causing more injury than they are preventing. How do you think that this pandemic will end?
because if you think this pandemic is just going to keep going on and on and on it'll be part of a new normal and everybody for the decades and decades are going to need to get injected for the 2019 coronavirus I just don't think that's accurate and I don't think it's true and I think you should rethink that.
Why do you think it's necessary to spread the same misinformation and innuendo over and over again? Seems a bit much.
So you just want to cancel and you don't offer any context of do you know anybody who has been injured by a vaccine like are there any side effects that are acceptable? I can look at the newspaper and see many young sports players who are passing out and having a heart attacks that is very weird and you just won't even want to have that conversation.
so who is the one being honest and open and who is the one who is just a turtle in their shell and want to close off the world and just repeat whatever USA today is printing.
Why do you think it's necessary to spread the same misinformation and innuendo over and over again? Seems a bit much.
You just want to cancel and suppress a dialogue.
to you there are no side effects there are no adverse events no adverse reactions everything is perfectly acceptable it's like eating a slice of bread there's not a single side effect and that is so dishonest.
you should look at your viewpoint and rethink it because you're just such a compliant follower that you're not open to looking at the evidence that is every day in the newspaper in many newspapers and in other sources.
I do believe it is misinformation and bad medical advice to mandate every man woman and child be injected multiple times with an experimental gene therapy.
Why do you think it's necessary to spread the same misinformation and innuendo over and over again? Seems a bit much.
Why do you think it's necessary to spread the same misinformation and innuendo over and over again? Seems a bit much.
I do believe it is misinformation and bad medical advice to mandate every man woman and child be injected multiple times with an experimental gene therapy.
Double or triple vaccinated and his career may be over. Karma: he was not supportive of the players who declined the jab and were prevented from playing in Australia.
Rafael Nadal was left concerned by a breathing problem at the end of his remarkable winning run after a final defeat to Taylor Fritz in Indian Wells.
The 35-year-old had won his first 20 matches of the season, claiming three titles including a 21st grand slam crown at the Australian Open, and was the favourite to win the first Masters event in 2022.
But instead that honour went to 24-year-old American Fritz, who celebrated a 6-3 7-6 (5) victory and the biggest moment of his career so far.
âNow is the moment to try to solve this problem as soon as possible, try to start on clay. The thing that worries me is about whatâs going on there, what I have to do now to recover and how long itâs going to take.â
Rafa admitted he felt a sharp pain while moving or breathing, describing it like having a needle inside.
"I had pain, honestly. I had problems breathing, and I do not know if it was something on the rib. I do not know yet. When I was breathing and moving, it was like a needle all the time inside here. I got dizzy a bit because of that pain.
It's a kind of pain that limits me a lot. It's not only about pain; I do not feel very well because it affects my breathing. It's more than being sad about the loss; that's something I accepted immediately, already before the match ended. It's more about that I'm suffering a bit, honestly," Rafael Nadal said.
Growing up in western England, a young Edward Holmes had a biology teacher who put a poster of an orangutan on the wall that read, âIâm not your cousin.â
The teacher told the class not to read the garbage in their textbook about evolution. That made the 14-year-old eager to dive in.
He went on to study the evolution of apes and humans, and then turned to viruses. Over three decades â working in Edinburgh, Oxford, Pennsylvania and finally Sydney â Dr. Holmes has published more than 600 papers on the evolution of viruses including H.I.V., influenza and Ebola.
Evidence based medicine has been corrupted by corporate interests, failed regulation, and commercialisation of academia, argue these authors
The advent of evidence based medicine was a paradigm shift intended to provide a solid scientific foundation for medicine. The validity of this new paradigm, however, depends on reliable data from clinical trials, most of which are conducted by the pharmaceutical industry and reported in the names of senior academics. The release into the public domain of previously confidential pharmaceutical industry documents has given the medical community valuable insight into the degree to which industry sponsored clinical trials are misrepresented.1234 Until this problem is corrected, evidence based medicine will remain an illusion.
The philosophy of critical rationalism, advanced by the philosopher Karl Popper, famously advocated for the integrity of science and its role in an open, democratic society. A science of real integrity would be one in which practitioners are careful not to cling to cherished hypotheses and take seriously the outcome of the most stringent experiments.5 This ideal is, however, threatened by corporations, in which financial interests trump the common good. Medicine is largely dominated by a small number of very large pharmaceutical companies that compete for market share, but are effectively united in their efforts to expanding that market. The short term stimulus to biomedical research because of privatisation has been celebrated by free market champions, but the unintended, long term consequences for medicine have been severe. Scientific progress is thwarted by the ownership of data and knowledge because industry suppresses negative trial results, fails to report adverse events, and does not share raw data with the academic research community. Patients die because of the adverse impact of commercial interests on the research agenda, universities, and regulators.
The pharmaceutical industryâs responsibility to its shareholders means that priority must be given to their hierarchical power structures, product loyalty, and public relations propaganda over scientific integrity. Although universities have always been elite institutions prone to influence through endowments, they have long laid claim to being guardians of truth and the moral conscience of society. But in the face of inadequate government funding, they have adopted a neo-liberal market approach, actively seeking pharmaceutical funding on commercial terms. As a result, university departments become instruments of industry: through company control of the research agenda and ghostwriting of medical journal articles and continuing medical education, academics become agents for the promotion of commercial products.6 When scandals involving industry-academe partnership are exposed in the mainstream media, trust in academic institutions is weakened and the vision of an open society is betrayed.
The corporate university also compromises the concept of academic leadership. Deans who reached their leadership positions by virtue of distinguished contributions to their disciplines have in places been replaced with fundraisers and academic managers, who are forced to demonstrate their profitability or show how they can attract corporate sponsors. In medicine, those who succeed in academia are likely to be key opinion leaders (KOLs in marketing parlance), whose careers can be advanced through the opportunities provided by industry. Potential KOLs are selected based on a complex array of profiling activities carried out by companies, for example, physicians are selected based on their influence on prescribing habits of other physicians.7 KOLs are sought out by industry for this influence and for the prestige that their university affiliation brings to the branding of the companyâs products. As well paid members of pharmaceutical advisory boards and speakersâ bureaus, KOLs present results of industry trials at medical conferences and in continuing medical education. Instead of acting as independent, disinterested scientists and critically evaluating a drugâs performance, they become what marketing executives refer to as âproduct champions.â
Ironically, industry sponsored KOLs appear to enjoy many of the advantages of academic freedom, supported as they are by their universities, the industry, and journal editors for expressing their views, even when those views are incongruent with the real evidence. While universities fail to correct misrepresentations of the science from such collaborations, critics of industry face rejections from journals, legal threats, and the potential destruction of their careers.8 This uneven playing field is exactly what concerned Popper when he wrote about suppression and control of the means of science communication.9 The preservation of institutions designed to further scientific objectivity and impartiality (i.e., public laboratories, independent scientific periodicals and congresses) is entirely at the mercy of political and commercial power; vested interest will always override the rationality of evidence.10
Regulators receive funding from industry and use industry funded and performed trials to approve drugs, without in most cases seeing the raw data. What confidence do we have in a system in which drug companies are permitted to âmark their own homeworkâ rather than having their products tested by independent experts as part of a public regulatory system? Unconcerned governments and captured regulators are unlikely to initiate necessary change to remove research from industry altogether and clean up publishing models that depend on reprint revenue, advertising, and sponsorship revenue.
not sure if this belongs in Covid or the Russian thread.
Russian President Vladimir Putin was nominated for the Nobel Prize in Medicine on Sunday for his novel approach to ending the COVID-19 pandemic.
The pandemic, which had killed millions worldwide and brought the world to a standstill for over two years, was itself brought to a sudden halt on February 24, when Russia conducted a âspecial medical operationâ in Ukraine.
Global medical and scientific experts expressed astonishment that the pandemic had been virtually eliminated from websites, twitter feeds and newspaper headlines.
âItâs amazing, we havenât heard anything about the COVID-19 pandemic since Russiaâs âoperationâ in Ukraine,â said Dr. Fauxi of the US National Institutes of Health, who nominated the world leader. âAll traces of the virus are gone from newspapers, television and Internet â which are all chief vectors of transmission. At least I think so. Weâll see what the science says next week."
In other new related to the war in Ukraine, the United States decided to ban White Russian cocktails from all bars throughout the country in what is being perceived as a crippling blow to the Russian war effort.
Following a prolonged debate in the Senate, in which Republican senators who opposed the move because they really like White Russians brought in expert Jeffrey âThe Dudeâ Lebowski to testify on their behalf, the bill passed by a narrow majority.
In a surprise move, instead of supporting those that opposed the bill, Lebowski reversed his position.
âI guess I could get used to drinking Black Russian cocktails instead,â he testified. However, when told that both drinks would be banned to show solidarity with the Ukrainian people, Lebowski responded, âIn that case, I could get used to drinking rum and cokes or Screwdrivers. Iâm in.â
That move, together with the decision to bar Russia from participating in this yearâs Eurovision Song Contest, could prove to be the tipping point for Putin, said former IDF Chief of General Staff Gabi Eyes-on-Top, a senior researcher for cushy positions at the Institute for International Insecurity Studies and Paper Wasting.
So now that we have established the precedent that companies and municipalities and employers and health and first responders all need to be injected quickly whenever they need to, seems we have crossed quite a threshold. Next autumn they could mandate boosters for the next season. Quite a lot has changed in the relationship between the individual and their rights being lesser than whatever any town or company or employer wants.
