2090 replies to this topic

[Daniel Cooper]

Can we make critical comments about the statements people make without it being considered ad hominem?

Absolutely.
 

For example, instead of saying "you win the Quack of Year award for that one", is it acceptable to say "the statement that the COVID vaccines have killed 217,000 Americans and seriously injured 33 million is utter quackery"? That targets the statement, not the person.

 

As you say, the target of the "quack" comment isn't another forum member. So not over the line.
 

Or for example, is it acceptable to say "the idea that Cannabis is the universal panacea for all diseases is demented and deranged"? Again, that targets the statement, not the person.

 

Again, you are not attacking the person. I don't think "demented and deranged" adds anything to discussion and I think you would be better served by avoiding that sort of language, but I'm not inclined to call that a violation.
 

And if someone posts a nutty conspiracy theory, is it acceptable to say that "conspiracy theories like that are often the product of people with the mental health problem of schizotypy". That is a factual piece of information, and targets the conspiracy theory, not the person posting it.

You really are trying to walk right up to the line here. By implication, you are suggesting that the person that made the comment has a mental disorder (your new favorite "schizotypy"). Everything is a judgement call but I don't think this one is that close. Over the line.
 

You have to let people who are clueless about science know that they are clueless. If you let them keep posting nonsense, the discussion goes downhill, as it has done on these COVID threads.

I'm not sure that's really your or anyone else's job here, but let's say I accept your premise - As long as you can do that without insulting them, have at it.

The impression I get from your questions is "how close to the line of insulting someone can I get?". I think that is a bad direction to come at this from. It seems you really feel a need to insult people that you disagree with. You seem to  feel as if their positions are so beyond the pale that they require you to put them in their place.  Let me suggest that this is a good test for you to run mentally before you hit the "Reply" button - "Is the purpose of my post to bring light to a subject, or am I really just trying to insult someone because I think they are so stupid they deserve it?"

 

My suggestion is that you focus on trying to be civil rather than trying to see just exactly what you can get away with. If you live right next to the line, eventually you will misjudge and step over it and you're going to catch a temporary suspension for your troubles. I don't want that to happen.

Edited by Daniel Cooper, 09 February 2023 - 08:01 PM.

[Hip]

 It seems you really feel a need to insult people that you disagree with.

 

Not at all, I love rational discussion, where if people post things that are factually wrong, you can give a clear explanation for why they are mistaken, and that solves the issue. I post on many forums, and 99% of the time, that approach works, and most people are thankful for the clear explanations. 

 

However, as I detailed in my above post, clear explanations take a long time to write. It can take an hour to write one. 

 

So when there is a deluge of misinformation posted, it becomes impossible to keep up with writing clear explanations. It only takes a second to post misinformation, so it's an easy job for the misinformation posters. But it can take an hour to counter every piece of misinformation with a clear explanations, if you want to do it rationally and politely.

 

This is crux of the problem of misinformation across the Internet: the ease with which misinformation is posted, versus the considerable effort it takes to counter that misinformation if you want to do it politely and rationally. 

 

This is why rational and scientific people become exasperated, and resort to emotional responses involving heavy criticism. 

 

 

Censorship is one way to deal with the deluge of misinformation: just ban people who continually post misinformation. This is something the owners of Longecity should consider. 

 

But in lieu of that, the only way to keep up with the prolific misinformation posters here is to use emotional responses, which are much quicker to write than detailed rational responses.

 

 

 

Over a decade ago, I was a member of a great forum, now defunct, called the Mind and Muscle forum. It was a bodybuilder's forum, but it had some serious scientific experts there, like people with PhDs in biochemistry. If someone posted some scientifically clueless nonsense on that forum, other members would make fun of them. It was was no-nonsense male locker room talk, as you might expect from a bunch of body builders! That helped keep those forums free of scientific bullshit. They did not need censorship, they just used to mock those who posted scientific nonsense. That sorted out the men from the boys!

Edited by Hip, 09 February 2023 - 08:36 PM.

[Daniel Cooper]

Censorship is one way to deal with the deluge of misinformation: just ban people who continually post misinformation. This is something the owners of Longecity should consider. 

 

 

I know that is your preferred method of dealing with things, but history is so rife with the conventional wisdom being overturned at a later point I don't understand how someone with a scientific bent would support that position. 

 

And it's just too tempting for those in power to declare things they don't like or threatens their programs or positions as "disinformation". If for instance someone were to hand the keys to Longecity over to yourself, I'm pretty sure in short order "disinformation" and "things Hip disagrees with" would be nearly 100% congruent.

 

In any case, if Longecity ever decided to censor "misinformation" they would certainly be doing it without my assistance. Fortunately I see no inclination to make such a move on their part.

 

 

 

[Daniel Cooper]

Over a decade ago, I was a member of a great forum, now defunct, called the Mind and Muscle forum. It was a bodybuilder's forum, but it had some serious scientific experts there, like people with PhDs in biochemistry. If someone posted some scientifically clueless nonsense on that forum, other members would make fun of them. It was was no-nonsense male locker room talk, as you might expect from a bunch of body builders! That helped keep those forums free of scientific bullshit. They did not need censorship, they just used to mock those who posted scientific nonsense. That sorted out the men from the boys!

 

Now defunct you say?

[Hip]

 Now defunct you say?

 

Yeah, there was a change in ownership and management of the Mind and Muscle forum, and the new managers wanted to use the forum for making money by promoting and selling body-building supplements — to whore the forum in other words. So the forum ethos changed, and all the smart people rapidly left. The forum continued for many years under the new management, but it was crap, there was no longer any scientific expertise there. 

 

Similar to what happened in the COVID threads on Longecity. Due to the incessant posting of misinformation, nearly all the scientists have left the discussion, leaving only the conspiracy theory aficionados on the COVID threads. This is how you can destroy a forum, if you create an environment that promotes pseudoscience and conspiracy, rather than science. 

 

The moderators and owners of Longecity should be doing something to counter this, because it's bad for the forum. From my perspective, since the COVID pandemic started, and all this misinformation started getting posted, my opinion of Longevity has gone downhill. I no longer see Longevity as a place where fascinating science is discussed, but a place where conspiracy theorists gather.

[Hip]

But, you’re not hip if you don’t do cannabis! 

 

If one needs drugs to make them hip, clearly they cannot be naturally hip! 

 

That's not actually true, but I thought it was a good riposte!

 

 

Exposure to Cannabis during your formative years can do great things for creativity. The Beetles used to be a trivial band of pop entertainers. Their songs were rather shallow.

 

Then they took a trip to New York, and met Bob Dylan, who introduced them to ganja. They totally changed after that, and became great artists, not merely pop entertainers, and created seminal albums like Sgt Pepper's, one of the most influential concept albums ever produced. Even the Beatles themselves acknowledged that their meeting with Dylan cause a revolution in their minds. 

 

And Cannabis I think helped Steve Jobs become the brilliant digital visionary he was. Along with his spiritual interests in Zen.

 

So Cannabis can be a great creativity tool, and can open your mind. Though you don't want to smoke too much of it so that you are so open, your brains fall out!

Edited by Hip, 09 February 2023 - 09:28 PM.

[Daniel Cooper]

The moderators and owners of Longecity should be doing something to counter this, because it's bad for the forum. From my perspective, since the COVID pandemic started, and all this misinformation started getting posted, my opinion of Longevity has gone downhill. I no longer see Longevity as a place where fascinating science is discussed, but a place where conspiracy theorists gather.

 

 

There are certainly views and sources used that I personally would not support. But once we start censoring those things, where does it stop?

 

For instance - in the first year or 18 months of the pandemic it was absolutely verboten to suggest that the virus might have originated from the Wuhan Institute of Virology. That view has gone from completely unacceptable, to grudgingly accepted as remotely possible, to seriously discussed, to almost the conventional wisdom at this point.

 

My impression is that were you in charge of this forum when the official spokesmen of the health bureaucracy were denouncing the "out of the lab" theory, you would have banned that viewpoint from the site as being nothing but the product of "kook QAnon conspiracy theory nutjobs". In fact how could you have been consistent with insisting in only allowing opinions with the imprimatur of the healthcare establishment and not have censored that from the site?

 

Longecity for as long as I've been here has been a mix of lay people and those with a professional background. I think that's worked pretty well.

 

 
 

Edited by Daniel Cooper, 09 February 2023 - 09:30 PM.

[Hip]

There are certainly views and sources used that I personally would not support. But once we start censoring those things, where does it stop?

 

For instance - in the first year or 18 months of the pandemic it was absolutely verboten to suggest that the virus might have originated from the Wuhan Institute of Virology. That view has gone from completely unacceptable, to grudgingly accepted as remotely possible, to seriously discussed, to almost the conventional wisdom at this point.

 

I tend to agree that censorship can be a blunt tool, that may cause as many problems as it solves. With the Internet still being a new phenomenon, nobody is really sure on how to deal with all the issues and problems this new medium of communication creates.

 

From my perspective, I don't really have an issue per se with people posting crazy ideas or unscientific nonsense. There are millions of spaces online where foolishness is posted every day. And anyway, half the Internet is just about posting inane cat videos and the like. I have no issues with those who just like posting videos of their cat at play.

 

But what I have noticed is that in a quality online space, if too much nonsense and misinformation gets posted, the smarter people eventually leave. So a great space where you had the pleasure of meeting great and knowledgable minds can go downhill. Then you lose that nice intelligent community that you were a part of. So it's the corrosive effect of a deluge of misinformation in a good online community that is concerning, because it can wreck that community. 

[Daniel Cooper]

I guess the issue at hand is that you seem to think that you can run off "bad posters" posting "misinformation" by ridiculing or insulting them. If not run off, at least silence them.  This is your alternative to Longecity practicing some form of censorship which is your preferred solution.

 

1.) I don't think this really actually works. Ridicule and insults are more likely to run off quality posters (even if they are not directed at them) than these "misinformed" posters that so vex you.

 

2.) Apply the rule - if everyone did what I do would the world (or this site) be better or worse? If everyone simply hurled insults at people they thought were wrong or misinformed, the place would descend into a bunch of chimps flinging the aforementioned crap at each other. It only "works" if you're the only guy ridiculing "misinformed" posters and to the extent that works we simply end up with a Hip echo chamber. As edifying as that might be for you, we probably won't have a lot of takers from the wider community.

 

3.) The best antidote for misinformation isn't censorship or mob action, it is more correct information. I know it galls you that your views should be forced to compete with those of the misinformed unwashed masses, but such is life.

 

I think we've belabored the point enough. But at the end of the day the rule has to be "be civil or be gone".

 

I think we've beat this particular horse enough. We now return you to your regularly scheduled program .....

 

 

Edited by Daniel Cooper, 10 February 2023 - 01:06 AM.

[william7]

 
 
So on this article at the top there is a big blue "Fact Checked" mark.
 

 
Who fact checked it and what is their background? Who pays their salary?

 

I'm highly skeptical of "fact check" marks on articles. I don't trust them when Facebook does them, and I'm not impressed when someone self publishes an article on their website and claims it is "fact checked".

 
I don’t know how Dr. Mercola has his articles fact checked. I would hope he has it done by an independent and unbiased source. With all the attacks from mainstream media and big Pharma, I’ve never heard anything bad about his fact checkers. I’ve been reading Dr. Mercola’s articles since 2006 and don’t agree with everything he says. I do agree with him and the others about the so-called Covid vaccines. I also agree with him about the corruption in politics and big business. We live in an oligarchy, not a democracy. Jimmy Dore and Chris Hedges explain this real well in the video below. 
 

[Daniel Cooper]

 
I don’t know how Dr. Mercola has his articles fact checked. I would hope he has it done by an independent and unbiased source. With all the attacks from mainstream media and big Pharma, I’ve never heard anything bad about his fact checkers. I’ve been reading Dr. Mercola’s articles since 2006 and don’t agree with everything he says. I do agree with him and the others about the so-called Covid vaccines. I also agree with him about the corruption in politics and big business. We live in an oligarchy, not a democracy. Jimmy Dore and Chris Hedges explain this real well in the video below. 
 

 

You are swerving into a purely political discussion. And while there is definitely a crossover between Covid policy and politics, your video seems almost purely political and has little to do with the topic of this thread.

 

Let's at least try to stay reasonably on topic.

 

As far as fact checkers are concerned, I doubt whether they exist in the "independent and unbiased" flavor. I'd bet you a dollar that the fact checker is either Mercola himself or someone in his employ.

Edited by Daniel Cooper, 10 February 2023 - 02:26 AM.

[Hip]

Mind is obviously right about the so-called vaccines being gene therapy and not your traditional vaccine.

 
Obviously, because Mind merely stating that the COVID vaccines are gene therapy is all that is needed for proof on this forum, right? On this forum, you don't need to provide any evidence for your statement, you just have to make any outlandish statement, and everyone agrees.  
 
Same with your statement that Cannabis can treat a wide range of diseases. You don't feel the need to provide any clinical trial evidence for your statement. You merely state it, and everyone here believes you.  



 

Even though I’m a strong supporter of using cannabis as a food and as a nonintoxicant, the only solution in your case might be to find some high THC cannabis and get high and happy.

 

No thank you. Myself and many of my friends enjoyed Cannabis when we were younger, in our 20s. But most of my friends started getting responsibilities in their lives by their 30s (wife, family, children, careers, etc), so stopped smoking dope. However, the friends of mine who continued smoking Cannabis right through their 30s, 40s and beyond are the ones who achieved absolutely nothing in life. 

 

These long term dope smokers did not just have poor achievement in their career and finances, but also in the things that really matter in life, like finding a partner, getting married, and creating a loving family. Of course, correlation does not imply causation, so maybe it was not dope that caused life failure; maybe the other way around: because of their life failure, they want to console themselves, or escape their reality, through getting high.

 

 

 

Edited by Hip, 10 February 2023 - 03:07 AM.

[william7]

You are swerving into a purely political discussion. And while there is definitely a crossover between Covid policy and politics, your video seems almost purely political and has little to do with the topic of this thread.

 

Let's at least try to stay reasonably on topic.

 

As far as fact checkers are concerned, I doubt whether they exist in the "independent and unbiased" flavor. I'd bet you a dollar that the fact checker is either Mercola himself or someone in his employ.

Glad you agree there’s a crossover between Covid policy and politics. It seems that the original post of this thread was broad based and envisioned the politics of Covid policy. All those concerned with longevity need to consider all aspects of the vaccine. If the vaccine is the product of a corrupt oligarchy, that made many billions of dollars off of the vaccine while largely ignoring and suppressing other avenues of prevention and treatment for Covid - that needs to be considered carefully.

 

 

“Regarding the vaccines, I think this is a question we All should be asking as members of a longevity-promoting website.”

[Daniel Cooper]

 

Glad you agree there’s a crossover between Covid policy and politics. It seems that the original post of this thread was broad based and envisioned the politics of Covid policy. All those concerned with longevity need to consider all aspects of the vaccine. If the vaccine is the product of a corrupt oligarchy, that made many billions of dollars off of the vaccine while largely ignoring and suppressing other avenues of prevention and treatment for Covid - that needs to be considered carefully.

 

 

“Regarding the vaccines, I think this is a question we All should be asking as members of a longevity-promoting website.”

 

 

Oh, there has been an intrusion of politics into covid policy since day one, but that video seems to have nothing to do with covid vaccines that I could detect. I didn't watch the whole thing but I scanned it in maybe a dozen segments across the whole 25 minutes and I detected no one talking about covid vaccines.

 

The topic is "Regarding the vaccines .....", so the discussion should have something to do with the ... you know ... vaccines. We're not going to ignore politics entirely but this isn't a political forum so any discussion of politics should have something to do with the topic at hand.

 

Same thing with cannabis, the price of tea in China, etc. etc.

 

 

[smithx]

MIT Professor Retsif Levi is indeed a professor at MIT... a professor of Management.

 

He's not a medical professional, researcher, or scientist. He's talking about things that are entirely outside his area of expertise and should be taken as seriously as a juggler would be if he tried to claim expertise in blacksmithing.

 

 

It's not just us dear Hip

 

MIT professor Retsif Levi

https://twitter.com/...124058229800962

 

 

[smithx]

Is it just the one study that you're hanging your hat on with respect to second infections being more deadly?

 

Here's a good one:

Acute and postacute sequelae associated with SARS-CoV-2 reinfection

https://www.nature.c...591-022-02051-3

 

 

Compared to no reinfection, reinfection contributed additional risks of death (hazard ratio (HR) = 2.17, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.93–2.45), hospitalization (HR = 3.32, 95% CI 3.13–3.51) and sequelae including pulmonary, cardiovascular, hematological, diabetes, gastrointestinal, kidney, mental health, musculoskeletal and neurological disorders. The risks were evident regardless of vaccination status. The risks were most pronounced in the acute phase but persisted in the postacute phase at 6 months. Compared to noninfected controls, cumulative risks and burdens of repeat infection increased according to the number of infections. Limitations included a cohort of mostly white males. The evidence shows that reinfection further increases risks of death, hospitalization and sequelae in multiple organ systems in the acute and postacute phase. Reducing overall burden of death and disease due to SARS-CoV-2 will require strategies for reinfection prevention.

[smithx]

 Due to the incessant posting of misinformation, nearly all the scientists have left the discussion, leaving only the conspiracy theory aficionados on the COVID threads. This is how you can destroy a forum, if you create an environment that promotes pseudoscience and conspiracy, rather than science. 

 

The moderators and owners of Longecity should be doing something to counter this, because it's bad for the forum. From my perspective, since the COVID pandemic started, and all this misinformation started getting posted, my opinion of Longevity has gone downhill. I no longer see Longevity as a place where fascinating science is discussed, but a place where conspiracy theorists gather.

 

When links to scientific papers are consistently marked as "pointless and time wasting" it's a clue that whomever is doing that doesn't care about science and only wants to maintain their preconceived notions.

 

That makes this a non-science forum, and it's sad to see Longecity go downhill this way.
 

[healthmysteries31]

I think talking about science  in the context of covid is hypocritical. Since the pandemic started we have seen very questionable science being pushed by so-called trusted health authorities who have been consistently wrong about many things.

 

A lot of the weakest and worst science came from the actual experts themselves which shows that when there is political pressure or fear scientists can themselves start acting completely irrational as a group.

 

Let's take masking for example: This was hyped as highly effective and many studies with exaggerated high efficacy numbers were published. Critics were shunned or even persecuted.

 

Now that the pandemic is fading away and people are less driven by emotions, reviews are finding  that masks in general as used by the public aren't really that effective.

 

Same with vaccines creating herd immunity. This was totally unrealistic and yet we had 1 year  with questionable studies hyping the idea of herd immunity wanting to force 8 billion people to take  a vaccine hoping we could  create a magic shield that could make the virus disappear from this earth.

 

Fortunately people came back to their senses and "discovered" what had been known for 100 years. Herd immunity is not realistic with a rapidly mutating respiratory virus.

 

I still remember when scientists were called crazy or "conspiracy theorists" and many papers were "debunking" the obvious truth that covid had leaked from a lab. 

 

In my experience people who talk a lot about science often don't care about the actual science, they are the first ones to reject or ignore science when it doesn't support their pre-conceived notions, they only care about being right and want to control the debate so they use words like science to make themselves bigger and more authoritative.

 

People don't care about science, people care about validating their personal beliefs or want to force them on others and they use science rhetoric to do that.

Edited by healthmysteries31, 10 February 2023 - 10:32 AM.

[Hip]

I think talking about science  in the context of covid is hypocritical. Since the pandemic started we have seen very questionable science being pushed by so-called trusted health authorities who have been consistently wrong about many things.
 
A lot of the weakest and worst science came from the actual experts themselves which shows that when there is political pressure or fear scientists can themselves start acting completely irrational as a group.
 
Let's take masking for example: This was hyped as highly effective and many studies with exaggerated high efficacy numbers were published. Critics were shunned or even persecuted.
 
Now that the pandemic is fading away and people are less driven by emotions, reviews are finding  that masks in general as used by the public aren't really that effective.

 
That statement shows a lack of understanding not only of the scientific process, but of human life itself 

 

In science (and in human life), there are different levels of certainty. Some things are known with a high degree of certainty, and other things are less certain. And this is a dynamic situation, in that as more information comes in, things that were uncertain may become more certain. Or those things may be proven wrong, and so opinion then changes.

 

The pandemic was a situation where some things were known with certainty, and others known with less certainty, and this knowledge was in a dynamic state of flux, being updated and changed as time went on, as new information came in.

 

At any point in time, the advice and decisions made were done with the best knowledge available at the time. If things later were proven incorrect, people should not be blaming the scientists for this, because they acted with whatever knowledge was available at the juncture in time the decisions were made. 

 

Furthermore, the pandemic was an emergency situation, like a war. If you have ever read anything about military history, you will know that during war, lots of mistakes are made, partly because of the stress and time-pressure of the situation, and partly because again, at any one time, there is only partial knowledge about what your enemy is doing, so people have to make their best guesses.

 

People here should be aware of this, yet they are not. Throughout the Internet, it seems the pandemic exposed not so much the ignorance of science, but the ignorance of the critics of science. Criticism is valid, but ignorant critics are the most tedious breed. 

 

 

 

 

Same with vaccines creating herd immunity. This was totally unrealistic and yet we had 1 year  with questionable studies hyping the idea of herd immunity wanting to force 8 billion people to take  a vaccine hoping we could  create a magic shield that could make the virus disappear from this earth.
 
Fortunately people came back to their senses and "discovered" what had been known for 100 years. Herd immunity is not realistic with a rapidly mutating respiratory virus. 

 
That statement is completely false. From the very beginning, immunological experts were aware that neither prior infection nor vaccination would likely create long-term immunity, and that therefore boosters would be required. Of course they hoped for the best, but it was known that because of the nature of coronavirus, long-term immunity may not be possible. 

 

The fact that neither vaccines nor prior infection create long term immunity to coronavirus is not primarily to do with viral mutation into new strains, but relates to certain features of the coronavirus spike protein. This was known before the pandemic even started.

 

This has been explained this before on these COVID threads, but of course, when someone posts actual science on these threads, nobody actually reads it (or perhaps they just don't understand it). It seems most only read the conspiracy theories, fake new and misinformation, which of course, unlike complex science, are designed for mass consumption.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Hip, 10 February 2023 - 03:18 PM.

[healthmysteries31]

In science (and in human life), there are different levels of certainty. Some things are known with a high degree of certainty, and other things are less certain. And this is a dynamic situation, in that as more information comes in, things that were uncertain may become more certain. Or those things may be proven wrong, and so opinion then changes.

 

 

I was not talking about cases where the information simply wasn't available and opinions changed when better information became available I was talking about cases where enough information was already there but ignored for ideological, political or whatever reasons.

 

Of course some people would like to pretend that these things never happened but they did.

 

That statement is completely false. From the very beginning, immunological experts were aware that neither prior infection nor vaccination would likely create long-term immunity, and that therefore boosters would be required. 

 

 

This has nothing to do with boosters. You can't create herd immunity with boosters either.

 

Actually there was  a lot of talk about that once  a certain threshold of the population, a magic percentage was vaccinated we could achieve herd immunity. This was then often used to accuse people who didn't take the vaccine of preventing us from reaching herd immunity.

 

Even the WHO helped push this idea and the head of the NIH, Fauci also did.

 

In retrospect this is embarrassing so of course people will deny it ever happened.

 

How Much Herd Immunity Is Enough?

Scientists initially estimated that 60 to 70 percent of the population needed to acquire resistance to the coronavirus to banish it. Now Dr. Anthony Fauci and others are quietly shifting that number upward.

 

https://www.nytimes....oronavirus.html

[Daniel Cooper]

When links to scientific papers are consistently marked as "pointless and time wasting" it's a clue that whomever is doing that doesn't care about science and only wants to maintain their preconceived notions.

 

That makes this a non-science forum, and it's sad to see Longecity go downhill this way.
 

 

I don't think people are really using the rating system to say that scientific papers are "pointless and time wasting". What's happened is that the rating system has become a means to convey "I don't like this poster" or "I don't like what this poster is saying", which is not what the rating system should be used for and it does tend to bring the tone of the discussion down across the board.

 

If I were king I might think about getting rid of the ratings system entirely or maybe try to implement a limit where a user gets to award a relatively small number of ratings (maybe 2-3) per day. That way people might put a bit more thought into how they use it.

 

But, given the system as it exists today - it would be nice if everyone would make a commitment to use the rating system judiciously and not as a means to strike back at posters they don't like or people saying things they merely disagree with.

Edited by Daniel Cooper, 10 February 2023 - 04:28 PM.

[Daniel Cooper]

MIT Professor Retsif Levi is indeed a professor at MIT... a professor of Management.

 

He's not a medical professional, researcher, or scientist. He's talking about things that are entirely outside his area of expertise and should be taken as seriously as a juggler would be if he tried to claim expertise in blacksmithing.

 

I'm agree with this to an extent but disagree as well.

 

Retsif Levi absolutely doesn't have a medical degree. He isn't a medical doctor nor is he any sort of researcher.

 

He seems to be a data analytics, statistical analysis, machine learning, "math guy" bases on his published papers and CV. So while he's probably completely unqualified to speak on any biological mechanisms, he does appear to have a relevant background for taking large amounts of data, analyzing it, and deriving trends and conclusions.

 

I haven't read his paper so have no opinion on that whatsoever. But his background is relevant to an extent in some areas and just looking at the abstract it seems like he may be "staying in his lane" of expertise.

[Hip]

I was not talking about cases where the information simply wasn't available and opinions changed when better information became available I was talking about cases where enough information was already there but ignored for ideological, political or whatever reasons.

 

Of course some people would like to pretend that these things never happened but they did.

 

 

This has nothing to do with boosters. You can't create herd immunity with boosters either.

 

Actually there was  a lot of talk about that once  a certain threshold of the population, a magic percentage was vaccinated we could achieve herd immunity. This was then often used to accuse people who didn't take the vaccine of preventing us from reaching herd immunity.

 

Even the WHO helped push this idea and the head of the NIH, Fauci also did.

 

In retrospect this is embarrassing so of course people will deny it ever happened.

 

 

In these COVID threads, nuanced scientific points seem to be beyond the ability of most people to grasp. People only do black and white here it seems, which is useless for understanding a nuanced subject like science.

 

You missed all the nuance in my previous post. I will repost in a larger font:

 

From the very beginning, immunological experts were aware that neither prior infection nor vaccination would likely create long-term immunity, and that therefore boosters would be required. Of course they hoped for the best, but it was known that because of the nature of coronavirus, long-term immunity may not be possible. 

 

In case you still missed it, the nuanced point in the above is that scientists were from the beginning well aware that the vaccines may not be able to create long term immunity, but (and here comes the nuanced bit), they hoped for the best, they hoped that the vaccines might produce long term immune protection.

 

It's only when you actually roll out the vaccines that you know one way or the other. As it turned out, the vaccines did not produce long term immunity, but this scenario was already predicted as quite likely beforehand.

 

So contrary to what you said, none of these scientists "would like to pretend that these things never happened" because the scientists already envisioned both possibilities right from the beginning: the hope that the vaccines might create herd immunity, but the appreciation was there from the beginning that herd immunity may not be possible from the vaccines.

 

 

 

Here is an article from March 2021, as the vaccines were just starting to be rolled out: Five reasons why COVID herd immunity is probably impossible. So even before we saw the results of vaccination, scientists knew herd immunity might be unachievable. 

 

 

 

Edited by Hip, 10 February 2023 - 05:31 PM.

[pamojja]

Indeed, the people marking with red buttons posts that contain good science links and explanations are like religious fundamentalists, who have their own fantasy-based believe system, and don't like facts to get in their way of their preconceived fantasies.

 

This is a straight out personal attack on all who rated his personal attacks for 3 years as 'unfriendly'. Due to compete failure of moderators to enforce forum rules. And now again after the misleading announcement, that such personal attack would from now onward be moderated.

 

 it would be nice if everyone would make a commitment to use the rating system judiciously and not as a means to strike back at posters they don't like or people saying things they merely disagree with.

 

Since moderators are still completely negligent to enforce the forum rules of longecity, I will of course have to tag such continuing personal attacks to anyone opposing hips posts as unfriendly. Or pointless, since a personal attack is a fallacy of discussion, and adds nothing further of intelligence.

 

Hip is allowed to add to his by now hundrets of personal attacks, but an observing reading member should from now on only be able to tag 2-3 of them as unfriendly or pointless? - To what a complete joke has moderation here deteriourated?

 

Do your job, and nothing would be left from hip to tag as unfriendly or pointless!

Edited by pamojja, 10 February 2023 - 05:32 PM.

[healthmysteries31]

In these COVID threads, nuanced scientific points seem to be beyond the ability of most people to grasp. People only do black and white here it seems, which is useless for understanding a nuanced subject like science.

 

You missed all the nuance in my previous post. I will repost in a larger font:

 

 

I think you missed the nuance. It never was realistic to expect herd immunity and yet the idea was promoted  by many including leading health authorities suggesting once we reached a specific threshold we could achieve that.

 

Of course once the first variant arrived all of this was refuted but any knowledgable person could have already predicted this. They should have never suggested it as an achievable goal.

 

Here is one of many examples of this irresponsible messaging which came from leading health authorities. This is an example of how politics can replace science.

 

The United States probably won’t reach herd immunity until children are vaccinated, Anthony Fauci, MD, said. .

 

 

Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said he has estimated 70-85% of the population would need to be vaccinated or immune to reach herd immunity.

 

 

https://www.webmd.co...r-herd-immunity

Edited by healthmysteries31, 10 February 2023 - 05:44 PM.

[Hip]

This is a straight out personal attack on all who rated his personal attacks for 3 years as 'unfriendly'.  

 

You are right, it was a personal attack, which I made in error because I used the wrong grammar and sentence construction. I apologise. 

 

I take back my comment, and I will reword it in a non-personal way: 

 

"The act of marking with red buttons any posts that contain good science links and explanations is like religious fundamentalism, which is a fantasy-based believe system which does not like facts to get in the way of its preconceived fantasies."

 

That is not personal, as it refers to the act, not the person.

[Advocatus Diaboli]

In post #889 smithx writes:

" Here's a good one:

Acute and postacute sequelae associated with SARS-CoV-2 reinfection

https://www.nature.c...591-022-02051-3"

Post 696 by hip, January 21 2023, cites that study

Post 697 by healthmysteries31 offers a countervailing citation.

https://www.scienced...16344532200010X

Post #720 by smithx (you) indicates awareness of the study and, presumably, that it was under discussion by the forum.

Post #834 by geo12the rediscovers the veterans study.

And now you, smithx, are re-rediscovering and linking citations that you (post #720) and other readers should already be aware of.

It makes me wonder if people are actually reading (and remembering) citations posted by others, and by themselves, apparently.

 

 

 

[Hip]

It never was realistic to expect herd immunity and yet the idea was promoted  by many including leading health authorities suggesting once we reached a specific threshold we could achieve that.

 

Of course once the first variant arrived all of this was refuted but any knowledgable person could have already predicted this. They should have never suggested it as an achievable goal.

 

 

"It was never realistic to expect herd immunity", you say. It's easy to sound smart when you make such comments in retrospect, and most of the general public like to pretend they are clever in this way by being "Captain Hindsight", pretending they knew something all along.

 

But can you link me to any of your posts in which you say "it was never realistic to expect herd immunity" before the vaccines were rolled out?

 

Anthony Fauci said this well before the vaccines were rolled out. This newspaper article from June 2020 about Anthony Fauci says:

 

The US is “unlikely” to achieve herd immunity to the coronavirus even with a vaccine, according to the country’s leading public health expert, who warned that a “general anti-science, anti-authority, anti-vaccine feeling” is likely to thwart vaccination efforts

 

 

 

As for variants, as I have explained before, it's not the variants which are the primary factor creating the short lasting vaccine immunity, and the short lasting natural immunity. See my previous posts for the real explanation.

 

In fact the new omicron bivalent vaccine has proven no more effective really than the original delta vaccine. 

Edited by Hip, 10 February 2023 - 07:17 PM.

[Daniel Cooper]

Indeed, the people marking with red buttons posts that contain good science links and explanations are like religious fundamentalists, who have their own fantasy-based believe system, and don't like facts to get in their way of their preconceived fantasies.

 

You have been warned numerous times. Perhaps a temporary suspension will drive home the point.

[healthmysteries31]

"It was never realistic to expect herd immunity", you say. It's easy to sound smart when you make such comments in retrospect, and most of the general public like to pretend they are clever in this way by being "Captain Hindsight", pretending they knew something all along.

 

 

It's just not possible since these respiratory viruses mutate rapidly., We already had over 50 years of experience with the flu vaccines.  These viruses adapt too well, before you even have finished vaccinating enough people. Even if you had a nearly 100% effective vaccine, which is very  unlikely you would have to rapidly vaccinate the entire population of the earth(not plausible), update the vaccine and repeat this process again(even less plausible). You would need to keep doing this forever(even less plausible). We couldn't even do this with the flu even even if we wanted though we have decades more experience and development.

 

All of this was known before the pandemic and many were discussing it. It's not hindsight or difficult to understand.

 

Anthony Fauci said this well before the vaccines were rolled out. In this newspaper article from June 2020, Anthony Fauci says:

 

 

Yes but this just confirms what I had said. Fauci does suggest that it could be in theory possible but could fail because some people would refuse to get vaccinated, which means he suggest there is a threshold were you could create herd immunity. Of course anti-vaxxers are the least of the problem because even with a 100% compliant population it wouldn't work.

 

As for variants, as I have explained before. it's not the variants which are the primary factor creating the short lasting vaccine immunity, and the short lasting natural immunity. See my previous posts for the real explanation.

 

 

 

that's not the only reason. the variants alone make it impossible. We can't do it with the flu either. It's a known problem not limited to coronaviruses.

 

Even after decades no one would suggest herd immunity with flu vaccination is realistic. With coronavirus it's even less realistic so all the talk about herd immunity was obviously unscientific nonsense and yet we had to hear this BS for many months.

 

One of many examples during this pandemic where science was replaced with politics/ideology/wishful thinking.

Edited by healthmysteries31, 10 February 2023 - 07:35 PM.