COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events

[Robert Santana]

I agree with your sentiment on the FDA and “vaccine.”

To be clear, only certain formulations of those products containing phenylephrine are targeted.

Fun fact: phenyephrine has been known for years (decades?) to be ineffective. FDA is just getting around to it.

Known how?

[golftdibrad]

Not sure if this silliness made it in here yet.

FDA says Sudafed, Benadryl, other decongestants don't work

What utter hoseshit. As a long time allergy suffering human, anyone that says Sudafed and Benadryl doesn't work, and therefore I shouldn't have access to the same, should have their nostrils sewn shut while I proceed to ban edged implements. I was pissed enough when they put an extra step to buy pseudoephedrine AND required my ID - something one STILL does not need to show in order to vote. I wonder how all those without an ID get their sudafed?

As Coach Rip has stated, every word out of these monsters' mouths should be assumed to be a LIE until proven otherwise.

The FDA panel analyzed the early documents and studies that were used to support phenylephrine’s OTC use. The agency found that study results were inconsistent, did not meet modern standards for study design or had flawed data integrity.

Oh and all these vaccines we shove into our kids do? Let's do a similar exercise for every single one of them against REAL saline placebos and look at autism rates and settle this shit once and for all. But they wont do that study, because that's not how they get paid. As a result we might be irreversibly damaging yet another generation of kids.

Lets work on convincing Vivek Ramaswamy to add the FDA and CDC to his list of agencies that have the doors chained shut on Jan 21 2025. What a great way to start off the morning...rage.

[Satch12879]

::Jeff Tucker, please pick up the white courtesy phone::

So, I get pretty gnarly migraines occasionally from sinus inflammation mixed with transitory dehydration (or so I think). I’ve always had issues with sinuses my whole life. For the past several years, I’ve dealt with the headaches via a combination of ibuprofen and behind-the-counter Sudafed. I remember taking the old stuff that used to put you to sleep for three hours, which of course, they re-formulated. I’ve mistakenly used the in-front-of-the-counter substitute in a pinch and can confirm it’s useless, even for simple congestion. The stuff just doesn’t work, which is why you can get it in 25, 50, and 100 count packs. But nothing over the counter works anymore. Forget something like NyQuil, which was a staple. Who the hell is using Robutussin or Benedryl for congestion? Thanks NY Post.

[Eric Schexnayder]

it's interesting you are equating society and government and the law. I actually think that everyone living by their own authority might be an improvement, if a chaotic one. I think messy freedom is preferable to neat adherence.

It's far more interesting that you don't seem to equate these things, or at least acknowledge that they are indeed related. All societies have laws, whether written or implied, the difference being that when written they are consistently enforceable. And much like how atheism is itself a religion, anarchy is still a type of government, albeit it one with more-or-less fluid laws. The unifying tenets are just what is excluded instead of what is included.

I think people thinking things out for themselves rather than being spoon-fed by the media or the "experts" (who so rarely are) is preferable.

Implicit here is that someone - probably "them" - is maliciously doing the spoon-feeding. Once again, I will cite Hanlon's razor. The consumption and acceptance of corporate-generated mass media is an individual's economic choice, though most are too stupid to recognize this. This has nothing to do with who is in power, except that the media will pick the side that generates the best story for the most "sales". This is not a problem of freedom, but a problem of stupidity. You'll get that no matter the society.

You are free to think that people need to be constrained by something or things that make you shudder will happen.

We really need the law against murder.

I think those bad things are going to happen and curtailing freedom can't be exchanged for the reassurance of keeping those bad things at bay.

This is like saying I shouldn't buy homeowner's insurance because it won't stop a fire. The point is the recourse the individual has. And unlike a fire, a law or "constraint" might make an individual think twice.

Your way is top down. What's the incentive? The incentive to behave for leaders and peers you don't know or believe in? The incentive to curtail freedoms to participate in a society you don't agree with or recognize? Why should we sacrifice our individual selves on the alter of The Common Good?

The incentive is social cooperation. People get more done when they cooperate. This is innate in all humans. Note that language is a thing.

And The Common Good exists with or without "government" - it's the Invisible Hand that drives all economic activity.

This reminds me of those TV shows about people living "in isolation" in Alaska. They're "independent". They "don't need society". They "provide everything for themselves". And then the next scenes include them using a rifle to hunt and a chainsaw and bulldozer to clear land. Real independent, right?

Ironically, you hand back the freedom and the virtuousness will likely re-emerge.

Extraordinarily naive.

[anticausal]

I actually think that everyone living by their own authority might be an improvement, if a chaotic one..

You are absolutely correct. This "everyone living by their own authority" is a statist boogeyman, meant to keep the obedient children afraid. It never really happens, even in the "wild west". Humans just don't work that way. Things always sort themselves out, and rather quickly. Localization is better than centralization, and the more centralized the authority, the worse the society. The nightmare hellscape where everyone is at each other's throats is much more likely in the latter. If a strong man ruling a small region doesn't keep his promises, he's going to feel a lot more heat than a strong man keeping his enforcers fed from hundreds or thousands of miles away.

After what they did to old people and small children over this ridiculous virus, I think almost everyone should be able to see by now that even the mafia would behave in a less evil manner than this bullshit government, since even mafiosos have a better grasp of accountability than bureaucrats.

Really, the only thing holding anything together is money, not any authority. People are being bribed to stay peaceful and let the Clowns keep ruling over them. But the clock is ticking, and it's not going to keep working for much longer.

Imagine it something like this. Everyone is on a bus, and everyone is warm and safe in the bus. But this bus can only head in one direction. Outside there are dangerous animals, a harsh climate and poisonous snakes. The bus driver has been in charge for a long time, and she is driving towards a cliff. As they approach the cliff, even more dangerous animals and poisonous snakes start appearing. People become more afraid of what's outside. In the orgy of fear, the Bus Driver insists the cliff is just a mirage, and some of the people are so bedazzled by her authority that they believe her. A group of men on the bus insist that she must be removed by force or we're all going over the cliff. Another group says this is too dangerous because we might be eaten by the increasingly multiplying wild animals. And after all, we're not sure there is a cliff ahead of us anyway, are we? The cliff-bound appeal to a certain fear and present safety over an uncertain fear and future danger. The fear of what they can easily see wins in the minds of most of the people on the bus, and after all "this is a democracy!" They insist that we wait until we are right on the edge of the cliff before any action is taken. These are the moderates. The radicalized, on the other hand, are simply those who believe their own eyes and accept the grim reality of the cliff on horizon, as well as the ever increasing danger outside, and--most importantly--have the balls to make the difficult but necessary decision to ignore all the crying women and children and force the bus to come to a stop.

[UberBabs]

Your way is top down. What's the incentive? The incentive to behave for leaders and peers you don't know or believe in? The incentive to curtail freedoms to participate in a society you don't agree with or recognize? Why should we sacrifice our individual selves on the alter of The Common Good? Ironically, you hand back the freedom and the virtuousness will likely re-emerge. The education certainly will. I don't think it's top down. We don't need the government to keep us in check.

This is a false choice. It's not either no government or collectivism. I am not ashamed to say I am not an anarchist and believe in the value of limited government. That our government has egregiously strayed from its purpose is no reason to abandon government. Ayn Rand expresses my position much more eloquently than I:

The only purpose of government is to protect man's rights, which means to protect him from physical violence. A proper government is only a policeman, acting as an agent of man's self-defense, and, as such, may resort to force only against those who start the use of force. The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law.

Excerpt from Galt's Speech in For the New Intellectual (1961)

Without a properly limited government, the weak are at the mercy of the strong, the old at the mercy of the young, the individual at the mercy of the mob.

[Mark Rippetoe]

‘Unconscionable’: FDA Approves New COVID Vaccines — Even for Infants as Young as 6 Months — Based on Minimal Data or Testing • Children's Health Defense

All Democrats should immediately get this "vaccine," and should give it to their children. It's the only way we can stop the disease from spreading.

__________________________________________________ ______________

https://twitter.com/gunthertree2/sta...191310734?s=19

Don't let this get buried. WATCH IT. Unless you're a Democrat, in which case this is complete bullshit, lies, and distortions. Please, take your boosters. All of them.

[Eric Schexnayder]

Imagine it something like this. Everyone is on a bus, and everyone is warm and safe in the bus. But this bus can only head in one direction. Outside there are dangerous animals, a harsh climate and poisonous snakes. The bus driver has been in charge for a long time, and she is driving towards a cliff. As they approach the cliff, even more dangerous animals and poisonous snakes start appearing. People become more afraid of what's outside. In the orgy of fear, the Bus Driver insists the cliff is just a mirage, and some of the people are so bedazzled by her authority that they believe her. A group of men on the bus insist that she must be removed by force or we're all going over the cliff. Another group says this is too dangerous because we might be eaten by the increasingly multiplying wild animals. And after all, we're not sure there is a cliff ahead of us anyway, are we? The cliff-bound appeal to a certain fear and present safety over an uncertain fear and future danger. The fear of what they can easily see wins in the minds of most of the people on the bus, and after all "this is a democracy!" They insist that we wait until we are right on the edge of the cliff before any action is taken. These are the moderates. The radicalized, on the other hand, are simply those who believe their own eyes and accept the grim reality of the cliff on horizon, as well as the ever increasing danger outside, and--most importantly--have the balls to make the difficult but necessary decision to ignore all the crying women and children and force the bus to come to a stop.

I am 100% sure that somewhere, at some point, some climate change activist has used this exact analogy.

[Barry Charles]

This is a false choice. It's not either no government or collectivism. I am not ashamed to say I am not an anarchist and believe in the value of limited government. That our government has egregiously strayed from its purpose is no reason to abandon government.

Stick to your guns. This is reasonable, practical and rational.

These kind of discussions remind me of epistemological questions that come up in scientific fields. I always remind people that knowing something lies on a spectrum from absolute (rare) to beyond reasonable doubt, probably, statistically interesting,…., gut feeling. How you behave does not require rigorous evidence.

Jenni is very consistent (I’m pretty sure) in explicitly stating what she believes vs what she knows. That is an admirable characteristic and very helpful in having these discussions.

[Shiva Kaul]

Possibly the worst nutrition study ever published:

To study health outcomes in cats fed vegan diets compared to those fed meat, we surveyed 1,418 cat guardians, asking about one cat living with them, for at least one year. Among 1,380 respondents involved in cat diet decision-making, health and nutrition was the factor considered most important. 1,369 respondents provided information relating to a single cat fed a meat-based (1,242–91%) or vegan (127–9%) diet for at least a year.

But it’s good enough for The Guardian.