Fauci is full of baloney

The Unkle wrote:

Such as?

Such as the timeline I posted relating to improved (easier) diagnosing and required evaluations by public schools.

It blows up your whole argument so you won’t pay attention to it.

You’re a clown with poor reasoning and no evidence.

Agreed, When your argument is that “my position has just as much validity as the notion that increasing obesity improves longevity“ I think you have a problem.

All the usual Covid chestnuts have surfaced - with a detour into anti-vaxxer conspiracy theories about autism. A thread that has promised baloney - and more than delivered. Over 3500 Americans are dying from Covid each day. The numbers will increase. That isn't a theory. But it will make a fine epitaph for the deniers.

Well, no, you're partially right here.

But we would have to evaluate every death on a plane of

FROM Covid

WITH Covid (and a pre-existing condition)

From Pre-existing condition (Covid asymptomatic carrier)

Natural Causes (Covid asymptomatic carrier)

in order to isolate Covid vs. Non-Covid deaths.

Science is progressive, but there's no practical way to do or to even viably try this.

There are several symptoms that are common to Covid and therefore, if it appears to be a Covid death, they are calling it a Covid death.

Otherwise, if someone tested positive for HIV and started experiencing Kaposi's Sarcoma and then later, Rous' Sarcoma, and they died, they would have to isolation which sarcoma or other autoimmune disease or complication that killed the person...instead, they say the person died of AIDS because the cascade of syndromes is congruent with AIDS and the positive HIV test.

More covid deaths;

NEW: Oxygen device explodes and causes fire at intensive care unit in southeast Turkey, killing 9 coronavirus patients

My broader point is that it needs to be about the economy. And about COVID. And about impacts on peoples health. Essentially, the total picture needs to encompass all positive and negative externalities.

First being that children and teens are not significant vectors of COVID spread comparatively, which reduces the impact of them.

Humans evolved as exceptionally social creatures, and not just one on one socialization. They vary significantly on the amount of socialization required. A small percentage are like you, and can have social interaction like that relatively unscathed, develop well into confident, high esteem adults. The majority cannot, and are deeply affected by it and this is consistently borne out in the literature. Everything about establishing your mental models of the world, your own biology, your self concept, is related to other people and how you interface with them.

It's massively damaging to children, who are biologically driven to high levels of group social interaction FAR more than adults. Even to adults it's damaging, and that's reflected in the significant rise in anxiety, depression, other mental illnesses, and in suicides. These are MAJOR harms. Every kid that suicides is orders of magnitude worse than someone in their 80s dying of COVID. Ten, probably even a hundred, older people dying is absolutely worth it to prevent one kid from suiciding or even from developing depression that begins to sabotage his/her life.

[/quote]

Interesting, Parsec. I am not quoting you to the full extent. So if I have missed something the blame is on me.

First, the economic impact of locking down. Yes, damaging, but it depends on how you do it. And ther economic impact of not locking down "soon" enough and opening up to "soon". Where I live I think we have made a balance which has worked. But we don't know yet. We will see when this is evaluated next year. It depends very much of what kind of society you are living in.

How would a free spread of the virus impact business? And, most of all, our health systems that were not ready at all for such a pandemic.

Secondly, your statement here is theoretical. Taken out of a textbook. For example the Kriegskinder in Germany suffered mostly when they grew old, it was often not until old age that the full extent of the consequences became visible. But the kids, not in US and not in my country, are not Kriegskinder, very far from it. And it is also a cultural aspect; kids might be more robust in one country than another. It is not universal. We have seen that in wars, soldiers from one country are breaking down psycologically not so soldiers from other countries. USA had probably the most under WW 2.

We are not speaking of long term "hardship" when it comes to children. Empirical studies, not theoretical "speculations", will determine. So I might be wrong, but seriously I doubt it.

We had, not a total lockdown, but quite a hard one. Studies shows so far that the number of sucides are going down, not up. So do you have any studies that states that suicides are going "significantly" up in USA. If so, that would be interesting for comparative studies.

I agree with you, one kid that suicides because of the pandemic is worth quite a few of older lives, like my own. But are you sure that this is not a false contradiction. And even if so, how are we going to manage the pandemic. The worst consequence of all, in my opinion, would be a break down of health care. How to avoid that must be prioritized, you agree? If not .... both for the childrens sake and people in old age.

old_dead_people wrote:

I really hate how this has devolved into anti vax. Vaccines have been one of the most powerful tools we have seen in medicine. A big part of what has curtailed infectious disease along with antibiotics, hygiene etc . Are there risks involved with vaccines...yes. Do benefits on average outweigh risks...no question. Am I a little concerned with the covid vaccine...yes but mainly because of rushed timeframe and how political it has all become.

Vaccines have also done much damage.

Why are the Vax makers shielded from legal action when their vaccines damage or kill people?

That is a huge red flag.

[quote]trashcan wrote:

Sorry, I got a bit sloppy with my description, I tried to fix, but unkle found my explanation confusing. I will try to give an explanation again.

One thing we would want to separate out is the effects on the diagnosis of autism from changes in environment, culture, or medical practice overtime, or different countries.

How the heck can you do that?

This is gibberish.

Why has autism exploded over the past few decades?

Science says we don't know.

But we do know it is not vaccines.

The liability release for vaccine makers is not a red flag. Vaccines are unprofitable for drug makers (historically). They are given to millions. Some people get problems around the same time, about 1-2 per million, and they sue. A jury can decide in favor of them even if no scientific studies demonstrate any connection. So, companies could either spend a lot on liability insurance and lawyers for something unprofitable or they could abandon developing new vaccines and making the old ones. Hence, the need for liability protections. The FDA insures that they are safe by requiring the four stage trials and examining the #'s themselves. In fact, federal money is needed to get them to make any vaccines. But vaccine development is necessary because they are the second or third greatest cause of increased longevity since the 1800s with sewer systems and clean water and antibiotics.

The Unkle wrote:

[quote]trashcan wrote:

Sorry, I got a bit sloppy with my description, I tried to fix, but unkle found my explanation confusing. I will try to give an explanation again.

One thing we would want to separate out is the effects on the diagnosis of autism from changes in environment, culture, or medical practice overtime, or different countries.

How the heck can you do that?

This is gibberish.

Why has autism exploded over the past few decades?

Science says we don't know.

But we do know it is not vaccines.

I don't understand how you separate out different variables, therefore it is gibberish.

You can rule out vaccines because you can look at autism in relation to vaccine use and lack of vaccines in different places with different people. Why don't you claim that vaccines relate to obesity, since they are much more closely related in development? Anything in the mental health field in terms of diagnosis has exploded in the past two generations except maybe something easy and clear to diagnose such as schizophrenia.

Stoppit Smith wrote:

Well, no, you're partially right here.

But we would have to evaluate every death on a plane of

FROM Covid

WITH Covid (and a pre-existing condition)

From Pre-existing condition (Covid asymptomatic carrier)

Natural Causes (Covid asymptomatic carrier)

in order to isolate Covid vs. Non-Covid deaths.

Science is progressive, but there's no practical way to do or to even viably try this.

There are several symptoms that are common to Covid and therefore, if it appears to be a Covid death, they are calling it a Covid death.

Otherwise, if someone tested positive for HIV and started experiencing Kaposi's Sarcoma and then later, Rous' Sarcoma, and they died, they would have to isolation which sarcoma or other autoimmune disease or complication that killed the person...instead, they say the person died of AIDS because the cascade of syndromes is congruent with AIDS and the positive HIV test.

In your example the person died due to AIDS. No AIDS, no Sarcomas to follow.

These dying with Covid deaths are generally people who were dying of something else. They already had cancers, heart disease, diabetes, and more...before Covid even existed.

Do you really need that explained to you?

zcxvcxzv wrote:

[quote]The Unkle wrote:

[quote]trashcan wrote:

Sorry, I got a bit sloppy with my description, I tried to fix, but unkle found my explanation confusing. I will try to give an explanation again.

One thing we would want to separate out is the effects on the diagnosis of autism from changes in environment, culture, or medical practice overtime, or different countries.

How the heck can you do that?

This is gibberish.

Why has autism exploded over the past few decades?

Science says we don't know.

But we do know it is not vaccines.

I don't understand how you separate out different variables, therefore it is gibberish.

You can rule out vaccines because you can look at autism in relation to vaccine use and lack of vaccines in different places with different people.

Except you can't if you look at those things.

Very high correlation between the massive growth on the use of vaccines and the incidence of autism.

if there was not such a correlation then you could rule out vaccines.

But there is,

[quote]zcxvcxzv wrote:

The liability release for vaccine makers is not a red flag. Vaccines are unprofitable for drug makers (historically).

Wow. Big Pharma does not make big money on vaccines? That's your argument? And that Big Pharma would be treated unfairly by and so needs blanket legal protecion?

From 2014-2015 flu season

Big Pharma Has the Flu

Flu vaccines make pharma companies $3 billion a year and aren't very effective.

Separating out variables is key to studying anything that cannot be performed in a placebo controlled trial.

As an example, I might say “frequency of autism diagnosis has changed over time, therefore I’m going to take a bunch of kids who have autism and kids who don’t.

I will compare kids born in the same birth year

I will see if the kids with autism received more vaccines than those that didn’t

Now the other effects that have occurred over time are eliminated

When those issues are addressed as in the studies from the meta-analysis there is no effect

The researchers who put out these articles and peer reviewed journals utilize a lot of complicated techniques to generate the most accurate information. Rejecting their articles because the complicated techniques look like gibberish to you will prevent you from accessing any of the most accurate information. I think in order to really read the research you need to understand some of the techniques.

Otherwise you will conclude that prevalence of obesity increases longevity, I mean just look at the last 60 years!

Neither cancer, heart disease, diabetes, nor other diseases are automatically a path to dying.

What aren't YOU understanding?

Armstronglivs wrote:

All the usual Covid chestnuts have surfaced - with a detour into anti-vaxxer conspiracy theories about autism. A thread that has promised baloney - and more than delivered. Over 3500 Americans are dying from Covid each day. The numbers will increase. That isn't a theory. But it will make a fine epitaph for the deniers.

You mean 2500? Correct? Liar.

Stoppit Smith wrote:

Neither cancer, heart disease, diabetes, nor other diseases are automatically a path to dying.

What aren't YOU understanding?

Neither is Covid-19; 99.7% chance of survival; what aren't you understanding?

No he means 2600!! Stop name calling!

Lead Foil Hat V wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

All the usual Covid chestnuts have surfaced - with a detour into anti-vaxxer conspiracy theories about autism. A thread that has promised baloney - and more than delivered. Over 3500 Americans are dying from Covid each day. The numbers will increase. That isn't a theory. But it will make a fine epitaph for the deniers.

You mean 2500? Correct? Liar.

99.7%= .3% die Got it. But science can't isolate a gene, codon, chromosome or blood type (or blood antibodies) that can predict who will be in that .3% Those that care don't want their loved ones or own selves to be in that .3% You can't even guarantee you're not destined to be.

Lead Foil Hat V wrote:

Stoppit Smith wrote:

Neither cancer, heart disease, diabetes, nor other diseases are automatically a path to dying.

What aren't YOU understanding?

Neither is Covid-19; 99.7% chance of survival; what aren't you understanding?