wbsss4412

60,000 IU per day or per week?

5,000 IU is most likely a daily dosage in this instance.

> I can't! That's the only thing you provided.

Quotes aren’t editorializing. I’m referring to the quotes + the fact that he has yet to provide any proof of those assertions.

Disregarding any editorializing from the AP, not following up these quotes:

> “People think, when they hear AIDS, they hear HIV. No, the vaccines aren’t causing you to be infected with the HIV virus,” said Malone, during a taped interview with a website that focuses on COVID-19. “They are causing a form of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, that’s what AIDS stands for.”

With concrete and compelling evidence, is irresponsible and unbecoming of someone who is claiming expertise in a subject.

That’s the point. One can have a discussion about the integrity of the media in general, but that doesn’t have any bearing on the facts of Dr Malone’s public behavior. We’re talking about someone who clearly knows the ethics of his profession who is going around making extremely inflammatory statements without providing evidence, and tweeted out a video claiming a kid died from the Covid vaccine without actually making a basic effort to examine its provenance.

Y’all want to sit here and point fingers but my point was never about the integrity of the media nor tech companies. The original question was more or less “I don’t see why they have a problem with this guy“ and I answered it.

I find it amusing that simply because I pointed out the faults of Dr Malone, you assume I’m some sort of devotee of the Washington Post/NYTimes. This is a fabrication inside your own mind.

Well I can see why you’d put so much faith in a man of such unimpeachable integrity.

I don’t see how targeted ads are any less insufferable than a viagra ad. I don’t watch ads for fun.

No matter how “relevant” an ad may be, you’re still breaking context to insert yourself, and distract me from, the thing I’m actually interested in.

Not sure what services you’ve looked at, but it definitely doesn’t cost $10/month.

Your personal solution seems pretty good though.

You can install chargers on the curbside.

Is that the solution? I don’t know, but honestly all of these issues are solvable problems and the idea that we can’t figure it out in 13 years says more about our self belief than it does about the tractability of the problem.

I’ve owned a BEV for over a year and can’t charge at home. I rely on workplace + public charging. It’s been pretty great honestly.

You don’t have to spend 40 minutes at a charger either. That only happens if you want to go from empty to full. That’s bringing a gas tank mindset to a completely different paradigm. You charge when you can for how much you need at the time and you’re fine.

> Wouldn't QE be anti-liquidity since it's net result is more cash goes to the Fed and QT be pro-liquidity since the opposite happens?

You have QE and QT backwards.

QE => fed builds up it’s balance sheet, it sends out cash.

QT => fed reduces its balance sheet, it gets cash back.

>On this earth, liquidity is about transaction velocity, and The Fed taking transactions off the table (by being a guaranteed buyer at every auction) makes non-Fed transactions happen at lower prices. The end.

Transaction velocity matters but it’s not everything. You’re myopically looking at one market, while the rest of us are talking about the systemic effects.

Transaction volume follows from the supply and demand for money. If you remove money from the system, you remove liquidity.

Look, you quoted a blatantly incorrect definition of QE/QT below. You clearly have no idea what you’re talking about.

> EDIT: Maybe this helps - you're taking for granted that the US Treasury auctions an increasingly large amount of Treasuries to cover an increasingly large amount of debt, but The Fed doesn't create that debt, that's a separate phenomenon. If the government balanced its budget for a year, does that create liquidity?

Do you actually understand what liquidity is?

Bonds are just one instrument the fed uses, the bond market isn’t the end all be all of open market operations. As I noted earlier, the fed was previously injecting liquidity by buying bonds and mortgages. What you’re talking about is tangential.

Liquidity is the amount of cash in the system relative the size of the market for assets. All else equal, adding or removing is the same as adding or removing cash.