When the alledged pandemic was just getting legs in the news, I started a thread like this one. I consider it about time to do the hindsight is better thread.
I am not the editor of Nature, or JAMA. This is a conversational thread, not a debating society product. No links will be accepted. It's gotta be your opinion and your reasons, with no representations of any universal sort of truth either spiritual or political.
Just noticed that an antiviral product is now presented to our FDA for approval in the treatment of Covid. I worked in this field for some years, and knew of a lot of things researched for antiviral values. Never made any sense to me not to just use them in a pinch. Lots of stuff with no or very minimal posible side effects, well except for cancer, say, commencing twenty years downstdream. Better than being dead now.
It has been pretty concerning to me to see Covid politicized, to see the Democrat Party leadership stepping up as great advisors in medicine, then to see computer geeks of no known moral bearings taking positions on what is "disinformartion" on various issues, this health issue included. Seeing the mainstream news acting like accredited medical providers moralizing nightly on the news about people should do.
If there were any kind of tread of adverse effects of Covid treatments of any kind......whether from an approved, or unapproved sort..... people with freedom to talk about it would be spreading the word pretty good.
So it just makes no sense for anyone to make this subject ajpolitical issue.
Here we have all we need to know, in plain sight, to decide that governments nor any form of public square proprietorship should never have unrestricted license from authorities or the public to proscribe or prescribe human speech.
In the professional circles of study, it should also be a sort of competitive race between proponents and scientists who care to get things right.
Public or government financing of "peer-reviewed" journals, or professional reference works of any kind, has been for nearly a hundred years now, a dead weight against progress. Ever since the first issues of JAMA, I'd say. Goes to the people who started the journal, I'd say. The modern progressive movement has always been a wacko project to protect "the interests". The human cost, the lives lost, to so-called "approved medicine" rivals all the genocidal tragedies of the 20th century. Most of the time, the quackery of professional medicine, when realized or exposed somehow, has not gotten enough public awareness to flick a flee.
The problem, fundamentally, has always been the organizational profiteering interactions between industry, the media, and the government. We die, they thrive.
So here's a series of posts about what reasonable people can do to survive a government program.
I am not the editor of Nature, or JAMA. This is a conversational thread, not a debating society product. No links will be accepted. It's gotta be your opinion and your reasons, with no representations of any universal sort of truth either spiritual or political.
Just noticed that an antiviral product is now presented to our FDA for approval in the treatment of Covid. I worked in this field for some years, and knew of a lot of things researched for antiviral values. Never made any sense to me not to just use them in a pinch. Lots of stuff with no or very minimal posible side effects, well except for cancer, say, commencing twenty years downstdream. Better than being dead now.
It has been pretty concerning to me to see Covid politicized, to see the Democrat Party leadership stepping up as great advisors in medicine, then to see computer geeks of no known moral bearings taking positions on what is "disinformartion" on various issues, this health issue included. Seeing the mainstream news acting like accredited medical providers moralizing nightly on the news about people should do.
If there were any kind of tread of adverse effects of Covid treatments of any kind......whether from an approved, or unapproved sort..... people with freedom to talk about it would be spreading the word pretty good.
So it just makes no sense for anyone to make this subject ajpolitical issue.
Here we have all we need to know, in plain sight, to decide that governments nor any form of public square proprietorship should never have unrestricted license from authorities or the public to proscribe or prescribe human speech.
In the professional circles of study, it should also be a sort of competitive race between proponents and scientists who care to get things right.
Public or government financing of "peer-reviewed" journals, or professional reference works of any kind, has been for nearly a hundred years now, a dead weight against progress. Ever since the first issues of JAMA, I'd say. Goes to the people who started the journal, I'd say. The modern progressive movement has always been a wacko project to protect "the interests". The human cost, the lives lost, to so-called "approved medicine" rivals all the genocidal tragedies of the 20th century. Most of the time, the quackery of professional medicine, when realized or exposed somehow, has not gotten enough public awareness to flick a flee.
The problem, fundamentally, has always been the organizational profiteering interactions between industry, the media, and the government. We die, they thrive.
So here's a series of posts about what reasonable people can do to survive a government program.