Science & Technology News

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Editorial characterisation.

That was technically correct. All new flu viruses are named after the place they first present.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by newhaul

That was technically in-correct. All new flu viruses are not currently named after the place they first present.

I know that [you think that] you're never wrong, but you might consider:

In 2015, the World Health Organization (WHO) issued guidelines [1], for the naming of new human infectious diseases.
Recommended disease nomenclature calls for avoidance of locations, people’s names, and specific foods, animals or other culture- or occupation-specific identifiers. These guidelines are in place to prevent the negative effects of stigmatization, misunderstanding or offense.
Accordingly, the novel coronavirus, that was first reported in cases in Wuhan, China, in December of 2019, has officially been named SARS-CoV-2, and the disease that it causes has been named COVID-19.
Although viruses have specific geographic origins, it should be obvious that they do not have a race or ethnicity. This current outbreak is a global pandemic, so stigmatizing entire regions, or people, by naming infectious diseases after a location, is unhelpful.

[1] “World Health Organization best practices for the naming of new human infectious diseases”
➥ https://www.who.int/publications/i/i...O-HSE-FOS-15.1

In any case, I believe that, your intention wasn't geographic specificity [you've previously claimed it originated over 1,000 mi away, in Tibet] [nor historical tradition], but stigmatization, and self-identification with your 'tribe'.
According, it compromised your, well-intentioned, condolences.

[Thumbs Up]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Why am I not surprised that a crackpot conspiracy nut like you would overlooked the fact that the statistics showing fewer doctors having received vaccination was earlier in the pandemic, and the statistics showing higher vaccination rates was later in the pandemic?
AMA survey from June 3 to June 8, 2021, 96% doctors vaxxed
Arkansas Department of Health data from August 4th, 2021, 70% doctors vaxxed
CDC report March 1–April 4, 75% doctors vaxxed
Your inability to accurately process information is a major reason why your conclusions and recommendations are totally unreliable.
On this we can agree. I've lost family members to COVID,condolences and others are facing months, if not years, of rehabilitation to recover from COVID. I am incensed that charlatan imbeciles like you have such a pernicious influence on our society. I am also appalled and discouraged that so many people prefer to get their medical advice from loudmouth backwoods ignoramuses rather than subject-matter experts.such as Dr. Peter Mccullough?

Knowing that the jabs were available to most health care workers by the end of December 2020 you will have to point out how you have proven me wrong (because I am not seeing it). Thanks for toning down the insults though. Being called a charlatan imbecile loudmouth backwoods ignoramus almost sounds like a compliment compared to the vitriol you were spewing before but you know what they say (and I think it is true) is that "haters gonna hate"

[Adelie]

Originally Posted by newhaul

That was technically correct. All new flu viruses are named after the place they first present.

Not anymore, not since 2015.

Also it was not technically correct, It is generally known as COVID-19 and has been officially since early Feb-2020. While there were some early vernacular names that used Wuhan, continuing use of the Wuhan name has generally been in a political context as apparently is your use here.

There was some very early detection in Brazil & Italy, so it may have actually originated there. Probably not but maybe.

The disease known as the Spanish flu actually had it's first victim in Kansas. Should we rename it the Kansas or US flu pandemic of 1918. The reason it became known as the Spanish flu is that the WW-1 allies were hiding their losses and Spain wasn't.

[Thumbs Up]

Originally Posted by GordMay

As far as I know, Peter McCullough hasn’t been [yet] stripped of any credential.
He has been enjoined from publicising any affiliation with Baylor Medical Center.......
.... doctors “have an ethical and professional responsibility to practice medicine in the best interests of their patients and must share information that is factual, scientifically grounded and consensus-driven for the betterment of public health.”......
.... Interestingly, Dr. McCullough’s paper [above] ranked 7TH.
➥ https://boldly.cma.ca/blog/top-ten-m...21-at-elsevier

Mccullough's recent comments on his Baylor affiliation:

On July twenty eighth, my former health system who effectively terminated my contract after perfect service, a perfect grant track record, perfect practice statistics, perfect program administration, and I had had higher positions in other health systems. In the end of January, [they]did not renew my contract and violated all due process and gave no explanation for it. At the end of January, the only thing I had done is treated COVID 19 patients and lead some efforts in early treatment. I made not a single statement about the vaccines. Now, five days after a very public court case in central Texas, the Carroll case, where a family took Baylor, Scott and White to court for poor care in the ICU and Baylor prevailed in that case, and the patient was dead within two days, four days after that case and the same day Baylor announced its vaccine mandate, they put a lawsuit against me saying that it violated terms of my separation agreement, that I was associated with them in the media. Ok. Now, by doing this, Baylor is associating with me in the media. Obviously, if you Google, Baylor and Dr. McCullough, all the top hits are the lawsuit, but my wife and I are the biggest donors, the physicians to the foundation. You know, I was a student at Baylor when I was at South-Western in 1986, before those people were even there. There is an endowed scholarship at Baylor University in my name. I’m the most published person at Baylor University Medical Center since John Fortran in GI. And these profiles, I have eight hundred thousand profiles on the internet, if you search me, I have 16 million hits...........The temporary restraining order, which says I’m restrained to my contract, which I’ve always have been; that’s not new news. This has been; somebody is behind the scenes provoking something. And this is provoked not to necessarily injure me. I think this is a message to the media. This is a message to media that this guy is damaged, this guy is tainted. Don’t have him come on the news.
Somebody, somebody is; is funding this writer because there’s no news from the courts. There’s no there’s no judgment, there’s no hearing. There hasn’t been any discovery. This is just what we call basically, slander or defamation. .... If we don’t act now, what people say is we are going to be like Australia. Australia has very little COVID. On most days they have more vaccine deaths than COVID deaths. There’s something wrong going on in Australia. Big time. South Africa is next in line. Europe is next in line......https://www.bitchute.com/video/RtsMA5PvVJEW/

About the concept of consensus driven:

Groupthink
Consensus seeks to improve solidarity in the long run. Accordingly, it should not be confused with unanimity in the immediate situation, which is often a symptom of groupthink. Studies of effective consensus process usually indicate a shunning of unanimity or "illusion of unanimity" that does not hold up as a group comes under real-world pressure (when dissent reappears). Cory Doctorow, Ralph Nader and other proponents of deliberative democracy or judicial-like methods view explicit dissent as a symbol of strength.......Confusion between unanimity and consensus, in other words, usually causes consensus decision-making to fail, and the group then either reverts to majority or supermajority rule or disbands.
Most robust models of consensus exclude uniformly unanimous decisions and require at least documentation of minority concerns. Some state clearly that unanimity is not consensus but rather evidence of intimidation, lack of imagination, lack of courage, failure to include all voices, or deliberate exclusion of the contrary views.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consen...issent_options

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Thumbs Up

Mccullough's recent comments on his Baylor affiliation:..

Oh my ... an accused who claims innocence. How novel.


A man, and his lawyer, walk into the courtroom, and stand before the judge.
The judge asks: "What does the defendant plea?"
The lawyer replies: "Your honor, my client pleads trans-guilty."
The judge has a puzzled look on his face.
Lawyer: "He identifies himself as an innocent man."

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by GordMay

I know that [you think that] you're never wrong, but you might consider:

In 2015, the World Health Organization (WHO) issued guidelines [1], for the naming of new human infectious diseases.
Recommended disease nomenclature calls for avoidance of locations, people’s names, and specific foods, animals or other culture- or occupation-specific identifiers. These guidelines are in place to prevent the negative effects of stigmatization, misunderstanding or offense.
Accordingly, the novel coronavirus, that was first reported in cases in Wuhan, China, in December of 2019, has officially been named SARS-CoV-2, and the disease that it causes has been named COVID-19.
Although viruses have specific geographic origins, it should be obvious that they do not have a race or ethnicity. This current outbreak is a global pandemic, so stigmatizing entire regions, or people, by naming infectious diseases after a location, is unhelpful.

[1] “World Health Organization best practices for the naming of new human infectious diseases”
➥ https://www.who.int/publications/i/i...O-HSE-FOS-15.1

In any case, I believe that, your intention wasn't geographic specificity [you've previously claimed it originated over 1,000 mi away, in Tibet] [nor historical tradition], but stigmatization, and self-identification with your 'tribe'.
According, it compromised your, well-intentioned, condolences.

The Communist that is of was in charge of the WHO decided that to provide woke cover for the Chinese considering a lot of new ( over last 300 years ) viruses came out of the region that wuhan is in .
That was and is nothing but politics at work

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Adelie

Not anymore, not since 2015.

Also it was not technically correct, It is generally known as COVID-19 and has been officially since early Feb-2020. While there were some early vernacular names that used Wuhan, continuing use of the Wuhan name has generally been in a political context as apparently is your use here.

There was some very early detection in Brazil & Italy, so it may have actually originated there. Probably not but maybe.

The disease known as the Spanish flu actually had it's first victim in Kansas. Should we rename it the Kansas or US flu pandemic of 1918. The reason it became known as the Spanish flu is that the WW-1 allies were hiding their losses and Spain wasn't.

See response above

Edit . The now first confirmed case was in Wuhan China in late November of 2019.
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/soci...se-traced-back

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by newhaul

The Communist that is of was in charge of the WHO decided that to provide woke cover for the Chinese considering a lot of new ( over last 300 years ) came out of the region that wuhan is in .
That was and is nothing but politics at work

Perhaps, when you sober up, you could rephrase [or reconsider] that idea more intelligibly.


What To Say To Someone Who Has Fallen For A Conspiracy Theory
1. “I get it. Lots of people are stupid.”
Let them know that they’re not alone in their paranoid ignorance.
More ➥ https://www.theonion.com/what-to-say...40476/slides/6

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Perhaps, when you sober up, you could rephrase [or reconsider] that idea more intelligibly.


What To Say To Someone Who Has Fallen For A Conspiracy Theory
1. “I get it. Lots of people are stupid.”
Let them know that they’re not alone in their paranoid ignorance.
More ➥ https://www.theonion.com/what-to-say...40476/slides/6

Perhaps you would like to do some digging Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus
Is a member of the communist party .
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-51720184
And hand picked by the CCP in Beijing.

[Thumbs Up]

FDA Testimony of Peter Doshi, PhD - We are in the dark on safety of boosters. (3 minute testimony with slides):

https://rumble.com/vn04xe-fda-testim...boosters..html
Pfizers booster application reports on just 329 people with no control data.

Peter Doshi is a senior editor at The BMJ and on the News & Views team. Based in Baltimore, he is also an associate professor of pharmaceutical health services research at the University of Maryland School of Pharmacy. His research focuses on the drug approval process, how the risks and benefits of medical products are assessed and communicated, and improving the credibility and accuracy of evidence synthesis and biomedical publications. Doshi campaigns for greater transparency of clinical trial data and leads the Restoring Invisible and Abandoned Trials (RIAT) initiative, which aims to ensure clinical trial publications are accurate, complete, and data are publicly available.https://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/editor...ff/peter-doshi

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Thumbs Up

FDA Testimony of Peter Doshi, PhD - We are in the dark on safety of boosters.

Since people (in trials and now out in the general population) have had 2 shots of all the "2-shot" vaccines with very low incidence of harm, is it not logical to think that a 3rd dose of the same vaccine would likewise be well-tolerated?

[Thumbs Up]

Lake Effect, you and me arguing about logic and semantics means nothing. You phrased your question with an unproven assertion. The incidence of harm is not low at all compared to any other vaccine we have ever allowed. If they were paying attention to incidences of harm they would have stopped the program long ago. There are independent Vaers reviews that say over 80% of those reports are likely from the vaccines and there are studies finding as low as 1% of these events even get reported.

If you want to debate based on public report data or scientific studies and articles, I'm game. The fact is that the rate of infections has been shown to be unrelated to levels of vaccination means that the vaccines do not work as vaccines (they don't prevent the disease).
There are many news stories claiming that it is by far more unvaccinated that are severely ill and dying but they are all based on anecdotal reports. When they list numbers for the unvaccinated they include the numbers for the partially vaccinated (< 14 days since second dose). Without a verifiable breakdown of the data, there is nothing to conclude. We need to see risk vs benefit ratio for different age groups. It may make sense to give the elderly a third dose. I don't have a problem with that. It has also been shown that the vaccinated breakthrough cases have the same viral load as unvaccinated but less symptomatic which, I think would make them more likely to be contagious asymptomatic carriers than the unvaxxed. With less restrictions on the vaccinated, that pretty much shifts the blame to the vaccinated as most likely to spread the disease. Vaccinating children with this unproven toxin (they will go after 6 month old babies next according to Fauci) constitutes crimes against humanity. The trials are a farce and they destroyed the control groups early on. Convicted felons should not be allowed to conduct their own trials. There is very little oversight, only outright coercion. What we need is easy access to existing, cheap, safe medications that are proven to work so we can administer them in the home at the first signs of illness. All the charts show Covid death rates spikes following the vax campaigns. How do we know the vaxxes aren't to blame if they won't show us the partially vaxxed death data? I know you guys think you are correct but I think you are brainwashed by the media and the government. 25-30% of medical doctors seem to agree or they would have took the vax.

[bcboomer]

Originally Posted by newhaul

The Communist that is of was in charge of the WHO decided that to provide woke cover for the Chinese considering a lot of new ( over last 300 years ) viruses came out of the region that wuhan is in .
That was and is nothing but politics at work

Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, an Ethiopian has been in charge of the WHO since 2017.

Check your facts.

I forgot, facts don't matter to some people.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by bcboomer

Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, an Ethiopian has been in charge of the WHO since 2017.

Check your facts.

I forgot, facts don't matter to some people.

Really I forgot you are not an abstract thinker. I should have been precise about the disease thaat is called covid19 first presented in Wuhan China on November 17 2019. But Ghebreyesus gave cover for the ccp until he couldn't anymore .

You aren't really thinking I was talking about him wrt the over 300 year history of major disease coming from the ( what is now ) the Hubei Province . I suppose if you can't refute you must find something negative . I shall indevor to be more specific for you in the future.