spadez
Joined 6 years ago
Karma
-11
Submissions
67
Member since
Sep 27
Recent submissions
Comment · 5 years ago
Comment · 5 years ago
> incredibly lax safety procedures.
Or someone having a bad day. Human beings are not robots. In fact they are quite opposite, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demon_core
> all you need is for some people to be near some sick bats.
Seems that there are multiple problems with that..
1. High level of optimisation for Human transmission, without many mutations indicating the possibility that it was pre-optimised somewhere before making the jump.
2. Presense of double `CGG` which is left as a common market to denote lab insertions.
>The insertion sequence of choice is the double CGG. That’s because it is readily available and convenient, and scientists have a great deal of experience inserting it. An additional advantage of the double CGG sequence compared with the other 35 possible choices: It creates a useful beacon that permits the scientists to track the insertion in the laboratory.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-science-suggests-a-wuhan-la...
So on the other hand, for lab leak, only these needs to be satisfied.
1. They were doing GoF research on viruses trying optimise for human transmission.
2. Someone had a bad day and didn't follow the strict procedures, and ended up getting infected with a super charged virus.
What makes the above far fetched is only if you take the chinese researcher's word for granted, and accpet that there was no such research being conducted there, and no virus that was close enough was stored in the lab to start the research with. But without that, I think the lab leak is much more probably, and I think most experts will agree as well (They don't because they have a hard time doubting fellow reserchers without evidence).
Comment · 5 years ago
Couple of them are described here..
https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2021/01/27/does-lockdown-work-...
Under the heading "The damage inflicted by medical ideas"
Comment · 5 years ago
Isn't the patent for Ivermectin expired already? So can't anyone produce the pills?
If that is the case, its pretty obvious why they are not supporting it..
Comment · 5 years ago
125 serious AEFI in 446,380 doses. 1:3571 indeed.
But here too the reporting is open to anyone, and is voluntary. So chances of large under reporting is present here as well. Which is a bit scary..
Comment · 5 years ago
> The technology is insufficient for the task, and it will never get better.
This is very true. But I don't think it is a problem with technology.
It is just that you cannot really have a valuable insight by putting a 10000 idiots in a room and have them argue it out. In other words, you cannot replace one intelligent man with a 10000 idiots, hence the failure of HN and similar forums.
These things are only good for sharing interesting things, so the best way to use is to just use posted links, and never to engage in discussion.
Comment · 5 years ago
> obvious lie that was implying the vaccines aren’t low risk.
If the brand new vaccines using a brand new technology are low risk, is really a matter of opinion. Basically it comes down to how much you trust the authorities and the how much you consider any given research or studies to be unbiased. (Particularly when the full data for the said studies remain unpublished)
You can plainly see that both of these are variable between different people, even within similar schools of thoughts.
So because someone does not share your opinion does not make them a liar.
If that is the case any one saying the new vaccines are "safe and effective", should also be an obvious lie, because the long term safety studies are not done, which objectively makes it a lie.
Comment · 5 years ago
I asked why Covid vaccines are absent from VAERS list of reportable AEFIs
https://vaers.hhs.gov/docs/VAERS_Table_of_Reportable_Events_...
And the person you are responding basically said that the new vaccines are so safe that it didn't have to be on that list.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27513984
I don't mean this as a personal attack on that user, but It is really concerning how blind and apologetic some people are to the various things that can go wrong with a Vaccine.
Comment · 5 years ago
>Xofluza, Relenza, and Tamiflu
None of them are as effective as Ivermectin (allegedly). It is only logical that efficacy is also important.
Comment · 5 years ago
> YouTube is not a legitimate source for medical/drug information.
It is not a source, and never was a legitimate source of anything, but a media of communication. I am not sure why people mix the two up. If doctors in one part of their world can share their observations with doctors all over the world, it has tremendous value.
Now it seems that doctors can only share their observations with W.H.O and any inference should come from the top, which they could delay citing sorry "no research" for an arbitrarly long time..
Comment · 5 years ago
Its the governments of the two states that are making the claims in the news articles.
I think it is safe to suppose they or the associated medical authorities have observed a big enough benefit before making that claim.
But no, no concrete numbers, as I think there was not much of tracking the number of patients who were given the drug. May be it is because such numbers are not much of a value in terms of research data due to lack of controls.
I would like to see all the data W.H.O looked at before making the evaluation. Also why is VAERS not mentioned?