COVID-19

[Mike]

I really liked this documentary on the Japanese news NHK World's channel.  They did some data gathering and had some interesting findings.  It's about the origins of the virus.

https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/ondemand/video/4001389/

 

[siteunseen]

Where it started will be a good documentary someday but it doesn't mean anything now. It's part of our life we have to change together.

Edited April 18, 2021 by siteunseen

[Mike]

2 minutes ago, siteunseen said:

Where it started will be a good documentary someday but it doesn't mean anything now. It's part of our life now we have to change together.

Yeah, I agree that we have to live with it now.  However, I disagree that it doesn't mean anything.  If you watch the documentary, you'll hear that China locked down travel to the places where they think it started.  In order to find the genome to create a real vaccine, I would think it's necessary to get in and find the origin -- which means China will have to lift these restrictions. 

The video suggests that some suspicion is still around bats, but, more because people are using bat droppings as fertilizer.  Not around people eating bats or doing experiments in labs... 

I'm currently waiting for NHK to release the next part of this program because I'm very curious!

 

[240260280]

One thought on J&J clots is the needle injecting into a vein or artery rather than in muscle.  

 

This can be avoided by the injection technique: drawing back the needle after sticking it in.  If blood is seen then it is in a larger vessel so do not inject there!

[Racer X]

6 hours ago, Mike said:

What I am really worried about is using an experimental drug and having side effects.  I'm not so sure my insurance company covers health conditions caused by experimental/unapproved vaccines. 

Yeah, health conditions and side effects. Side effects like death.

I agree there is a threat to our health from this bug, and we must do whatever it takes to beat it.

But I'm not willing to be a guinea pig for the greater good.

 

Color me, "at the end of the line, and wearing a mask."

Masks don't have side effects.

Edited April 19, 2021 by Racer X
Wear your mask everyone!

[Racer X]

2 hours ago, 240260280 said:

This can be avoided by the injection technique: drawing back the needle after sticking it in.  If blood is seen then it is in a larger vessel so do not inject there!

That just sounds like torture.

[siteunseen]

26 minutes ago, Racer X said:

That just sounds like torture.

I know some folks that would argue quiet the opposite.

In fact they say "touchdown Alabama" when they pull back that blood. 

[siteunseen]

That's horrible I know but that's life. You're lucky if you get to say that before popping the big wheelie. Oh that's bad! I'll burn in hell for sure.

The sorry arse senators sit back and do nothing but talk. We know who they are to.

Edited April 19, 2021 by siteunseen

[Captain Obvious]

19 hours ago, siteunseen said:

That's news to me.

Pretty much everything these days depends on where you get your news. Here's my guide:

 

 

If you think your reliable news comes from something down in the lower left like "Occupy Democrats", then I think you're off in the weeds of unreliable and untrustworthy. And same thing, if your news comes from something untrustworthy way down in the lower right like "Epoch Times", then maybe it's time to re-evaluate your news sources,

Problem is, once you're mired into either of those two ends, part of the conspiracy and paranoia is designed to to keep you there. And that's probably what everyone mired down into either of the two ends would say about that media bias chart. They probably think the chart itself is unreliable. Kinda like the mental patient who is paranoid and thinks the doctors are trying to get him  so he hides his meds instead of taking them.

Maybe I'm just sheeple, but I want to stick towards the top tier of reliability. You can tend towards one side or the other within that top tier to find your own personal political leaning, but once you start to wander too far out of that top tier, the information, even if "technically accurate", is interpreted and presented in an incredibly misleading way.

There's a reason entities like the WSJ, Reuters, CBS, New York Times have been around for so long and have a reputation for being reliable.

Down at the bottom of the chart, you;d be better off getting your news from The National Enquirer. It's fake news, but at least it appears to be pretty close to the middle of the political spectrum. 

[Racer X]

24 minutes ago, Captain Obvious said:

Pretty much everything these days depends on where you get your news. Here's my guide:

 

 

If you think your reliable news comes from something down in the lower left like "Occupy Democrats", then I think you're off in the weeds of unreliable and untrustworthy. And same thing, if your news comes from something untrustworthy way down in the lower right like "Epoch Times", then maybe it's time to re-evaluate your news sources,

Problem is, once you're mired into either of those two ends, part of the conspiracy and paranoia is designed to to keep you there. And that's probably what everyone mired down into either of the two ends would say about that media bias chart. They probably think the chart itself is unreliable. Kinda like the mental patient who is paranoid and thinks the doctors are trying to get him  so he hides his meds instead of taking them.

Maybe I'm just sheeple, but I want to stick towards the top tier of reliability. You can tend towards one side or the other within that top tier to find your own personal political leaning, but once you start to wander too far out of that top tier, the information, even if "technically accurate", is interpreted and presented in an incredibly misleading way.

There's a reason entities like the WSJ, Reuters, CBS, New York Times have been around for so long and have a reputation for being reliable.

Down at the bottom of the chart, you;d be better off getting your news from The National Enquirer. It's fake news, but at least it appears to be pretty close to the middle of the political spectrum. 

Hmmm . . . . Would have figured FOX to be lower and further to the right.

[AK260]

Pretty much everything these days depends on where you get your news. Here's my guide:
 

 
If you think your reliable news comes from something down in the lower left like "Occupy Democrats", then I think you're off in the weeds of unreliable and untrustworthy. And same thing, if your news comes from something untrustworthy way down in the lower right like "Epoch Times", then maybe it's time to re-evaluate your news sources,
Problem is, once you're mired into either of those two ends, part of the conspiracy and paranoia is designed to to keep you there. And that's probably what everyone mired down into either of the two ends would say about that media bias chart. They probably think the chart itself is unreliable. Kinda like the mental patient who is paranoid and thinks the doctors are trying to get him  so he hides his meds instead of taking them.
Maybe I'm just sheeple, but I want to stick towards the top tier of reliability. You can tend towards one side or the other within that top tier to find your own personal political leaning, but once you start to wander too far out of that top tier, the information, even if "technically accurate", is interpreted and presented in an incredibly misleading way.
There's a reason entities like the WSJ, Reuters, CBS, New York Times have been around for so long and have a reputation for being reliable.
Down at the bottom of the chart, you;d be better off getting your news from The National Enquirer. It's fake news, but at least it appears to be pretty close to the middle of the political spectrum. 

Interestingly when Norm Chomsky was asked about what outlet is best for accuracy he stated that they all have their limits but he liked AP, WSJ, NYT and AlJazeera for accurate reporting.

Again not many are aware that Al Jazeera was originally set up by disgruntled BBC journalists who wanted to accurately report without the constraints laid upon them by the beeb. But now they are constrained by the Qatar government so even their reporting has certain no go zones!

Hmmm . . . . Would have figured FOX to be lower and further to the right.

Me too, but are we also blurring the boundaries between Fox & Friends and Fox News? I don’t really watch them but I figured Fox News is a little less biased. Didn’t Fox acknowledge that Fox & Friends wasn’t real news and was supposed to be classified more as entertainment?

[Racer X]

1 hour ago, AK260 said:

 

Me too, but are we also blurring the boundaries between Fox & Friends and Fox News? I don’t really watch them but I figured Fox News is a little less biased. Didn’t Fox acknowledge that Fox & Friends wasn’t real news and was supposed to be classified more as entertainment?

 

In the US Fox News is about as far right as it can get. It is biased so far, and disseminates such inaccurate drivel that I refuse to watch it.