Trusting data only makes sense if it's trustworthy. This data isn't for all sorts of reasons. The lack of concordance with observable reality is only one of those reasons.
1,350 karma · joined July 1, 2021
Actually the focus on my heart problems is weird and frustrating. I have a close friend who had a heart attack after taking the shots (it was never reported!) but by far the most common problems we've heard about affect women and their reproductive systems. Broken periods and the like. The frequency of this is massive compared to heart issues, but is being completely ignored.
Official stats on this are all useless for the reasons you can see in the first comment - deaths and injuries that are obviously vaccine related are constantly excluded. After insisting that someone previously healthy dropping dead two days after a vaccination is a mere coincidence, they report that there are miraculously almost no vaccine deaths or injuries and COVID is definitely worse. The entire medical and research system pushed vaccines on pain of them losing their licenses and careers, so you definitely can't take what they say at face value.
Huh, OK. Odd question though. Isn't this widely covered in the press?
The vaccines code for the spike protein lifted from the original 2019 RNA sequencing reported by China. They were never adapted, all boosters are just more of the original. Omicron is highly mutated compared to both the 2019 strain and Delta. It has something like 40-odd mutations in the spike alone.
Above you claim these are "allegations" but that's really weird. These are well known facts disputed by nobody, as far as I know. It's not some anti-vax talking point. Go read the documents submitted to regulators if you like. The chemistry of the mRNA vaccines is public, there's a good explanation of the microbiology here:
https://berthub.eu/articles/posts/reverse-engineering-source...
"Do you think differences in spike protein structure and chemistry have implications for immune system modulation via signaling molecules? If so, which signaling molecules and which cell lines?"
Well, this feels like a hostile question but whatever, I'll roll with it. At least you're engaging, which is better than most people with stars in their eyes about these things.
Omicron is materially different in ways that make the vaccines ineffective. This is one of at least three known reasons why case numbers in 2022 are much higher than in 2021/2020 despite everyone having taken a vaccine marketed as 95% effective. The three reasons (that I know of) are:
1. Antibodies to Wuhan spike fail to dock properly to Omicron spike, but the vaccine trains us to produce Wuhan spike.
https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.abn7760
(this paper also describes the mutations saying there are 37 but the numbers I've seen vary, not sure why)
2. The 95% effectiveness number was most likely never true, as the trials had at least (a) design errors that were guaranteed to create the appearance of effectiveness in literally any substance (even water), and (b) trial fraud which is now only coming to light, in particular for Pfizer at the Argentina site.
3. The vaccines are triggering something called OAS, which is a form of imprinting. Immune systems repeatedly exposed to the vaccine over-train and start producing antibodies to the Wuhan-2019 spike even when challenged with Omicron, delaying the bodies initial response and meaning that people can get repeatedly sick with Omicron, over and over, without building proper immunity. The memory subsystem of the immune system just doesn't seem 100% precise, or maybe it's not meant to be, but whatever the reason it's been proven during the Moderna Omicron vaccine trials that this has happened (previously vaccinated people produced the wrong antibodies when injected with Omicron vaccine, which has delayed approval). This effect has been known about for decades but is poorly understood, and the risk of creating it simply wasn't considered during vaccine design or rollout.
So whilst that's not an explanation at the level of individual signalling molecules, it is an explanation in terms of immune system biology. Hope that satisfies.
Medical drugs have been in use for hundreds of years. Fearing experimental drugs isn't rational.
Or
Doctors have been doing surgery for hundreds of years. Fear of surgery isn't rational.
There are at least three entirely rational reasons to "fear" vaccines:
1. They're a category, not a specific product. Safety of one doesn't automatically imply safety of all. See examples above.
2. The history of vaccines is full of failures which ended up injuring or killing healthy people e.g. polio, in more recent times, Pandemrix.
3. Vaccines appear to trigger deeply problematic psychology in which people point blank refuse to believe in any downsides at all, something you don't see in e.g. chemotherapy, surgery, drug treatments and so on. Probably it's the combination of giving them to healthy people and the collective/coercive policies that often accompany them. If anything goes wrong at all, ever, then you've hurt an innocent person who was previously fine and who trusted you, which would be tough for even the coldest most calculating person to handle. And people in public health appear to be the exact opposite of that.
Therefore the sort of people who believe most strongly on vaccines are often poorly informed about them. You gave us a great example of this problem above when you revealed you thought VAERS had only 28,000 reports in it total. This is basic data and you weren't aware of it, so how rational can you really be on the topic? Certainly, vaccines are surrounded by immense propaganda as a topic.
By the way in case you're wondering, before the COVID mandates I never thought about vaccines, had taken my set of shots and held "anti vaxxers" in contempt like a typical HN user. Not anymore. Watching the process of development, testing, rollout subsequent cover-ups of the real data, and blanket censorship has changed me forever. You can't unsee what happened.
Who is allowed, in theory anyone but if you browse the database you'll discover most are coming from doctors and pharma firms. The latter are obliged to report events when they become aware of them and awareness of reporting systems outside the medical profession is low. The one I cited was picked semi randomly while writing that post (first report that was of a young person's death with more than a few lines of detail), and it came via pharma.
At any rate, as you just saw, the reports from medical "professionals" are not more professional than ones from average people. They have more detail but are so reluctant to acknowledge the obvious that they'll happily claim deaths that occur days after injection from known vaccine side effects are just coincidences.
If you doubt that, just browse this thread with showdead turned on. The people pointing out that the vaccines could be causing this are all being killed. Probably this comment will be gone within minutes. Yet those comments are also providing evidence and citations. Meanwhile, the "pro-vax" comments are all like yours: merely wishing away people who disagree with no arguments or evidence.
So which side is truly the one with the appreciation for science and reason?
e.g. https://openvaers.com/covid-data/covid-reports/2251260
"On 06-Feb-2022, the patient received the 3rd vaccination with this vaccine. Pyrexia of 39 degrees Celsius developed. The patient took loxoprofen sodium hydrate, and the symptoms subsided. On 08-Feb-2022, around 20:00, the patient was confirmed as alive. Myocarditis developed. On 09-Feb-2022, at 07:00, the patient was found dead in the room. On an unknown date, autopsy was performed. No dissection was performed. The outcome of pyrexia was reported as resolved. The outcome of myocarditis was reported as fatal. Follow-up investigation will be made.
Company Comment: The events developed after the administration of ELASOMERAN and there is temporal relationship. Reporter's Comments: Since no electrocardiogram was performed during the medical examination, the condition of the heart is unknown. There is no lesion in the brain such as subarachnoid hemorrhage. As CT scan showed no remarkable findings, the causality between this vaccine and death is considered unknown."
(n.b. Elasomeran is the Moderna vaccine). There are ~28,000 like that in VAERS and more in other countries equivalents. The party line on these reports is they're all written by fools and things like a healthy 29 year old dying of myocarditis just days after taking a vaccine known to cause exactly that problem, is simply "unknown causality" and a coincidence that tells us nothing.
Unfortunately there's also the correlation with excess deaths.
https://bartram.substack.com/p/increased-deaths-in-england-f...
"I note that we managed to get through the Omicron wave in the UK with normal levels of excess deaths in those aged 75-85, but as soon as the booster doses were rolled out we rapidly hit the threshold for a ‘substantial increase’."
People who are trying to convince themselves and others that this is all just mysteriously undetectable COVID need to explain why the correlations are wrong.
https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_webp,q_...
Note that it correlates with the start of the vaccine rollout, not the start of COVID. The idea expressed above that it's all "long COVID" doesn't make much sense given that fact.
At this point it's very hard to see how it can be under-reported COVID deaths because Omicron mutated to become so much milder. The vaccines however generate large quantities of the more potent Wuhan 2019 spike.
The problem was that the app had a mix of low latency requests to access some parts of a large data structure, but the actor had to do a combination of fast and slow requests, so low latency requests would end up sitting in the queues for unacceptably long periods even when they needed access to only a small and stable part of the overall data. A related problem was the code size and complexity increase that came from having to make immutable snapshots of the underlying mutable data structures. Adding locking fixed all that and it didn't lead to any noticeable increase in bugginess. If anything the code was simpler, because the readers could simply access the data when it was in an immutable (locked) state, get what they needed and get out as quickly as possible, with RW locks ensuring good scalability and memory locality.
The actors approach also ran into circular deadlock when increasing the granularity of the actors, but unlike with locks there was no tooling support to find the issues (Guava has cycle-detecting lock classes).
The experience soured me on anything claiming to be a silver bullet for concurrency. It felt like the problems had been transformed into different shapes but not actually decreased in volume. Since then I use whatever approach feels intuitively right at the time.
1. Start the Keychain App and you can manage your certs and keys.
2. Click the app menu, Certificate Assistant and then one of the options there to open wizards for various PKI related tasks.
The certificate assistant is quite amazing. It can do an enormous amount of stuff, including things like actually running a whole CA for you complete with creating root certs, intermediate certs, gathering CSRs, converting them into issued certs, evaluating cert validity, rendering cert contents and so on.
People don't know about it because only developers interact with certs really, and documentation likes to have copy/pasteable commands that work on Linux as well as OS X.
In reality they are going to be treated together, because governments tend to reason in terms of countries and people not technical details. Apple/Android are both rich US tech firms who aren't going to leave the market regardless of how big the fines get, and in Android's case literally can't (because someone else could simply license it or use it and step in to replace Google). So it'll be like all other attempts at tech regulation, it'll just turn into cranking the handle on the cash cow to try and fill a part of the lockdown-created budget holes.
As for the EU being "forced" to accommodate, that tactic was also tried. That was Cameron's pre-referendum negotiations. It was a total failure, he was rebuffed on everything and hardly talked about his supposedly great deal after he returned because it was clear to all that the EU had compromised on nothing. Both during the process and after it, the EU's position was always the same and boiled down to "we don't care what voters think, you obey entirely or quit and accept that we'll blank you from then on".
The idea that only ignorant people could vote against the EU is a popular meme amongst Remainers but actual polls have shown consistently there's little difference in EU knowledge between the two camps and to the extent one side has an advantage, it's those who wanted to leave who knew more.
- Osborne: We will impose massive emergency taxes if you are naughty enough to vote leave (a lie).
- Cameron: I will definitely not resign as PM if I lose the vote (a lie which made the previous lie more believable, he resigned immediately)
- Cameron: I will trigger Article 50 immediately (a lie).
- HM Treasury: Voting leave will cause an immediate recession that will destroy 500,000-800,000 jobs according to expert modelling (wrong, baseless)
- Clegg: the EU army Brexit supporters talk about is a fantasy (a lie, the first post-brexit EU meeting was dominated by the sudden urgency of setting up an EU army)
- Obama in 2016: UK at the "back of the queue" for a US trade deal if voting for Brexit. A lie, turned out Cameron had asked him to say this, by 2018 US Treasury Secretary was saying "UK at front of the queue" for trade deal when ready.
- A vote to leave would cause Scotland to leave the union (didn't happen).
- John Major, Paddy Ashdown, Nick Clegg: The referendum vote is final and a once in a lifetime decision (a lie, all these politicians agitated for a second referendum)
- Cameron: my negotiations secured a "special status" for the UK in EU (a lie sent to every household in the UK via mailshot: everything Cameron got agreement on was either not new or not legally binding).
- Osborne: families will be exactly £4300 a week worse off if leaving the EU (an attempt to divide modelled reduction in GDP growth by population which is nonsensical, even the BBC rejected this one).
HN is flooded with self proclaimed "EU citizen" types so this perspective is rarely presented here, but the reality is that especially once they realized they might lose, a staggering number of influential media and political elites started lying their pants off to try and ensure they'd win. This probably backfired in the end, as their lies were often quite transparent and led people to wonder what they were all so afraid of.
The modern variant is that everyone is either "white" or "minority", but these labels have nothing really to do with race despite surface level appearances. They're just relabelings of the same old ideas. That's why the immediate reaction when you point out the illegal racism of woke people is they say "you can't be racist against white people because they're in power". That makes zero sense when interpreted literally because it's a direct statement of Bolshevik ideology, just with s/capitalist oppressors/white people/. The original formulation was wrong but at least coherent, whereas the modern formulation is completely nonsensical.
That's why so many people understand that the word "white" doesn't mean the skin color. It means anyone who stands opposed to leftism. If you look at how black conservatives are treated you can see this immediately. Just a few weeks ago a black pastor in the Church of England was fired (by a bunch of old white men) because he insisted that England wasn't in fact institutionally racist. By arguing that, he made himself unapologetically "white" in the eyes of the woke bishops and thus they had no moral difficulty with firing him. This sort of thing is commonplace.
Although you're presenting this as obviously absurd, taking that risk into account was long practice wasn't it? Forcing companies to pretend women are as likely to suddenly disappear for long periods as men is ultimately an economic choice and debatable as such in economic terms. It's essentially a kind of welfare that companies are made to pay, except instead of being an insurance scheme with actuarial rigor and smooth risk sharing over the entire population, it's a form of regressive taxation that disproportionately impacts smaller firms.
It can therefore be argued that it'd be better for society to take a different approach here, maybe more similar to (non-US) healthcare, e.g. mandatory maternity leave insurance, and then allow companies to simply price in the higher risk of extended absences. If they're no longer on the hook for paying wages this difference would be basically disruption risk and shouldn't be a particularly large difference for any but the tiniest firms, especially as motherhood comes with a much longer notice period than the typical resignation.
Bergamo coffins are not a great example to pick because that was an artifact of telling the local undertakers (whom were all quite old) that handling the bodies would be a death sentence, so they refused to do it and as a result coffins piled up.