All public policies have been proven to be moronic here in 2021, causing massive encomic and psychological damage to 1000X more people than COVID itself (well-off people and corporations made out like bandits). The twaddle-dee-twaddle-dum “we are all in this together” trope surely was invented by parasites in government, and welcomed by the virtue signalling wealthy. But ordinary folk have been hammered.
So it is only fitting that the anagram for the COVID Omicron variant is Moronic.
At least one South African doctor speaks about the Moronic variant as “very mild”. Maybe so, maybe not, but a new variant is a terrible thing to waste, as the “news” will educate you on.
To throw cold water on the fear-mongering COVID terrorists: what the world needs is an effective natural 'vaccine' to end this train wreck—a highly infectious but very mild variant that yields the far superior natural immunity.
Maybe the Moronic variant will get us there, and maybe it won’t. Probably it is still too dangerous to too many. But a wimpy COVID variant would be ideal, because it should be obvious to anyone with an IQ higher than a donkey that COVID is otherwise not going away anytime soon. And vaccines lasting 3-5 months and only working partially at that are not getting the job done to stop transmission.
Vaccines have been a total failure in terms of stopping waves of infections, a fact stunningly absent from the “news”, even if they have saved lives. But is even the saving lives part credible? The death toll with vaccines is far higher here in 2021 than in 2020, with a very large segment of the population being vaccinated and another massive segment having natural immunity. How can that be? It sure looks like something is happening that no one is being truthful on. Sure looks like a pandemic of the vaccinated. Of course, I could be wrong. But so far no experts have done anything but mis-predict from the start.
And all I want for XMAS is the CDC Pfizer trial documents printed on a 32-pack of toilet paper.
Stick to cameras, lenses and the like or set up an entirely unlinked account for your attitudes to covid treatments , your ideas about vaccines and possible immunity from infection.
Your exaggerated reactions to the covid pandemic and treatments make me wonder about the trustworthiness of your camera and lens reviews. INMHO
WIND: luckily, I get very few emails of this nature.
They are characterized by one key trait that stands above all the rest: a failure to engage in the realm of ideas combined with denigrating the speaker, directly or subtly. That is what makes them unpleasant. An honest disagreement and its reasons are productive, and I might learn something.
This reader was triggered into cognitive dissonance, for which there are at least two "tells". First, it attacks the speaker instead of the ideas ("exaggerated reactions", "trustworthiness", "attitudes", etc). Attacking the speaker is always a "tell" for cognitive dissonance, with narcissism often flavoring the brew. Second, a failure to provide reasons/arguments related to even a single idea.
You and I learn nothing from this kind of ugly.
We all experience cognitive dissonance as part of brain function. I’ve had to work hard to consciously and proactively defuse triggers for it, and to monitor myself for my reactions. But it’s always a challenge.
My wife acquired COVID 3.5 months after her second Pfizer jab, my unvaccinated brother is recovering from it (a rough ride for 5 days or so), and I finally seem to be emerging from an 18-months Long-Haul COVID ordeal, as I am able to ride my bicycle most days again, though sleep remains a time-demanding challenge.
So all of that is to say that COVID can be serious, and should be taken seriously. Which means being as healthy as possible (nutrition, exercise, sunlight, etc). Which hardly anyone does.
And then considering the vaccination, which is not risk-free. Anyone who tells you there is no risk is either a fool or a manipulator. And they have no skin in your game. It might save your life, and it might hurt you. Life is full of difficult choices.
If you have already had COVID and thus natural immunity, the whole thing is simplified: all science suggests that with rare exceptions, you’re 'good'. Since half the country or so has such immunity (including a probable super majority of children), the whole vaccine thing has become a mass hysteria, IMO.
But how much risk of what kinds and duration (both vaccines and infection)... the data is highly suspect IMO, and I think the only fair thing to say is that it is poor data and poor science heavily influenced by those who stand to benefit financially, but also that the vaccines probably saved lives.
But if that is true, why are there far more deaths in 2021 vs 2020 after the weakest of us succumbed early-on, and nearly all high-risk people are now vaccinated as well as a super majority of the population along with a super-super majority of vaccination+natural immunity? It makes no sense. My bullshit meter is pegged-out at redline. Statistical sleights of hand by the CDC are not going to persuade me that we have a net gain on this one until at least two years have passed.
But again to repeat: for some people vaccination is a no-brainer, as their bodies are not likely to withstand COVID. Everyone else? That’s a far more complex question.
The disbanding of the control groups was/is terrible 'optics', as it works great to hide problems, relegating us to the scientifically sketchy area of observational studies over time. Two months of data to authorize a vaccine is absurd. And no control groups for even a one-year control along with a 55-year schedule for releasing the documents. Calling that out as possible scientific fraud is entirely justified, because it sure looks like it.
Which is not to say the vaccine is bad, or more risky than COVID for many, but maybe it is for some. The only thing you can know for sure is that you cannot trust authorities to be truthful, let alone be proactive in seeking truth. They would have to unfollow the money and offer-up mea culpas. They are not going to do that until safely dead.
We cannot rule out that vaccination of healthy people will cause inferior toy-grade immunity that results in far more harm in the next several years. Very much like how modern medicine treats disease—hook 'em on a little of X, add more X, then add Y and Z, for a lifetime of expensive bandaid treatment and steadily declining health. Very possibly the vaccinations will turn out to follow that proven “care” model. And maybe not, who can say yet?
Immune response is far more complex than just some proxy test of antibody levels! Natural immunity is surely far superior, since it involves all the mechanisms of the immune system. All credible evidence supports that notion and it is obvious that the vaccines have failed to stop COVID or even slow it down. You can argue about net harm/gain and for whom but it’s clear that vaccines are a failure in terms of what a classical vaccine was expected to do (durable and rigorous immunity).
Vaccine effectiveness is now acknowledged to fade rapidly in a few months. No one disputes that; with only minor quarrels of how much benefit if any remains after six months (some, apparently, but far less than needed for the infirm). Boosters are proof of the marginal results.
When doing risk assessment, no one in authority that I am aware of has objectively factored in the risks of vaccination and weighed that against the very short-term protective duration, particularly the young and healthy with long lives ahead... the equation is far less obvious. Maybe the vaccines would never have been generally approved had they been studied for six months? But now they are gifts to us, which we are fools to refuse, so we’re told. Life is never that simple.
What it comes down to is guessing at whether COVID itself will cause more harm than the vaccine for you as an individual. The science on that is pathetically bad with at best modest persuasiveness for the young/healthy (even if you trust the statistical sleights of hand of the CDC). Experts will quote you epidemiological data which is by definition a crude probabilistic guess when applied to an individual, and one that ignores all risks of vaccination. Ignore the harms (don’t ask / don’t tell) and consider only the benefit = fraud. How significant it is no one can yet say with certainty. Maybe nothing, maybe something nasty yet to come, and something no one has foreseen—doubtful but not ruled out.
So what is really comes down to is letting the authorities mandate your decision in a one-size-fits-all approach. We are now so degraded in humanity that our own individual circumstances and psychology are grist for The Machine. And that is a real harm that no one is acknowledging.
You can never trust the government or Big Pharma. Yet I would caution against using that as the only reason in deciding about vaccination, because vaccination might nonetheless be your smart move, for your particular situation.
As far as I can tell, a rogue doctor (as used by the “news” today) is a doctor who:
- Strictly and respectfully follows the most core tenet of medicine (“first, do no harm”). Particularly for the vulnerable, such as children.
- Is willing to say “I don’t know”.
- Recognizes that some psychological harms can be far worse than some physical harms or risks.
- Regularly questions dogmatic medical beliefs with weak foundations, at least inside his/her own head.
- Recognizes the standard of care guidelines as deeply flawed when mechanistically applied to individuals.
- Understands that individuals are not the same as epidemiological datasets.
- Understands that anecdotal cases can be either worthless or highly valuable, because individuals and specific facts matter. Understands that if something works, it works, and that’s what matters for a specific patient. And that it might work for others.
- Understands that harm comes in many forms, can be short or long term, and can by physical and psychological. And that no doctor and noone could ever anticipate what can happen in a highly complex biological system.
- Understands that mind and body are inseparable.
- Maintains a high-level of skepticism of pharmacological treatments vs lifestyle changes.
- Engages in critical thinking. Sadly, many doctors I’ve met are memorization drones and that’s as far as it goes. Wisdom and insight benefit from a wide base of knowledge across many fields (rare!), but do not stem from it.
- Strives for risk assessment in every individual case. And not by a formulaic standard of care guideline.
- Is always looking for a better way to treat patients, to cure the issue and not just mask it.
- Does not work for an institution.
A “good” doctor today must lack most of the above qualities or at least hide them.
The nail that stands up gets hammered down by the employer and the state medical board and the insurance companies and his/her peers. Being a doctor today is surely one of the most difficult professions imaginable.
Lies and deceit run around the world overnight, while the truth is still looking for its shoes. Then the lies kick the truth in the head each lap.
In a sense, I can’t believe I’m writing this article. From a scientific perspective, this issue has been firmly settled. The answer is very clearly “NO!”. And yet, if I google “is saturated fat unhealthy?”, then seven of the top nine results proclaim with great certainty that “yes, it is”.
...And here’s what the US government tells its citizens: “Eating too many foods high in saturated fats can be bad for your health. By replacing saturated fats with unsaturated fats, you may lower your risk of getting heart disease.”
To be fair, the US government doesn’t sound quite as confident as the UK health authorities. There’s a lot of “can” and “may” in that sentence. Which is actually a bit funny, when you consider that it was the US government that got the whole world to cut down on saturated fats in the first place.
Interestingly, none of the self-appointed fact checking organizations that have sprung up in recent years has yet tried to pull the NHS or the US government off the internet for spreading misinformation.
The claim that saturated fat is unhealthy originated with physiologist Ancel Keys in the mid-part of the twentieth century. He initially believed that cholesterol in the diet was what caused heart disease. Unfortunately, he soon noticed that feeding people cholesterol had no effect whatsoever on the cholesterol levels in their blood streams. So he was forced to abandon that line of thinking. On doing some further research, he noticed that increasing the proportion of saturated fat in the diet did however appear to increase cholesterol somewhat.
This led him to develop the diet-heart hypothesis, which basically says the following: Saturated fat in the diet leads to increased cholesterol levels in the blood stream, which causes heart disease. So it’s a two part hypothesis. As I’ve already discussed before on this blog, the second part of the hypothesis has been disproven – cholesterol in the blood stream does not cause heart disease.
The authors of the meta-analysis identified 21 prospective cohort studies, with a total of almost 400,000 participants. That’s a big data set. The studies followed participants for between five and 23 years. So, what did they find? The difference in risk of cardiovascular disease... was exactly zero...
...Let’s move on and look at what the randomized controlled trials show. A Cochrane review was published in 2020 that looked at the ability of a diet low in saturated fat to prevent heart disease and death... In the low saturated fat group, 6.4% of participants died, while in the high saturated fat group, 6.2% of participants died. So 0.2% more people died in the low saturated fat group than in the high saturated fat group. As you would expect for such a small difference, it isn’t statistically significant.
So it’s not possible to conclude that a diet high in saturated fat increases overall mortality. What about if we look specifically at heart attacks? ...So the people in the high saturated fat group actually experienced fewer heart attacks than the people in the low saturated fat group. Again, after statistical weighting, it appears that there should have been slightly fewer heart attacks in the group with the low saturated fat diet (rougly 0.3% less). Just as before, however, the difference isn’t statistically significant.
To conclude, the sum of all the observational and randomized trial evidence now available to us does not allow us to conclude that there is any increased risk of cardiovascular disease or death with increased intake of saturated fat. Considering that the data sets that these conclusions are based on are massive, we can be certain that even if there were a benefit, it would be so tiny as to not be worth bothering with. It is therefore shocking that public health agencies still tell their populations to cut down on saturated fats, instead of focusing on the things that have actually been shown to make a difference.
WIND: no shock here: following the science runs head-on into follow the money.
In the last 20 years, the (lame at best) case for the diet-cholesterol hypothesis has disintegrated, but dogma takes decades to fade away, requiring a generation or two of atherosclerotic intellects to literally die away. And no matter the field, cognitive committments and confirmation bias always has a long drawn-out demise, if ever. Fifty years from now, expect holdouts—which is good—science needs competing viewpoints.
The cholesterol hypothesis fraud of Ancel Keys is the orginal and best-designed medical fraud in history. Tens of millions remain on the slow-drip poison we call statins while consuming a shopping cart full of sugar a year. “Follow the money”* has neve been more apt than today’s utterly corrupt “healthcare” industry.
For your own amusement, ask your doctor about saturated fat and what is a “good diet”. But run for your life from any doctor who is certain that it is unhealthy (reasonable doubt may be tolerable), or who quotes you the food pyramid or BMI. Women should be especially wary of doctors who prescribe them a statin; these maintream doctors are quack doctors, as statins have no benefit for women as a group, and all sorts of harms.
Modern medical “care” is mostly about medicalizing if not infantalizing the populace with a wide array of “bandaids” that never cure anything or improve baseline health, but paper-over problems so that more and worse problems result, which then accelerate the decline of health. All while ignoring real factors that are absolutely deadly for health, indeed, being wholly ignorant of them. I’m stunned at the sheer ignorance of the doctors I’ve had.
“Standard of care” is a brilliant and almost unstoppable psychological match to patient hopes and expectations (and laziness), and it fits like a glove with follow the money. Trust your doctor to follow the standard of care (paint by numbers medicine), with rare exceptions. I applaud the holdout doctors with the courage to remain in independent practice and think for themselves.