virusrex comments

Posted in: 'Blood on your hands' if world steps back on tackling COVID now: WHO official See in context

The WHO knows a lot about having blood on your hands

Because of the work it has done to prevent and reduce many different diseases? people acting against it (including several goverments) would be a much more adequate target of the criticism.

These people have ZERO credibility to discuss anything, anytime, anywhere.

According to whom? experts and professionals in health in every country have collaboration efforts and use the WHO instructions and guidelines to deal with diseases, that clearly contradict your personal opinion about it.

Aylward... Isn't this guy in China's pocket? 

The WHO has been prived from any kind of political power since more than a decade ago, so it completely depends on the voluntary cooperation of every country in order to fulfill their roles, it simply can't put itself in the middle of the China-Taiwan situation, specially at a time when China was the only country that could provide information necessary to deal with the pandemic.

 I think the developing world is growing wary of the WHO and various other UN arms and NGOs.

Then why are so many dependent/benefit on the work the WHO is still doing? What other medical authority is doing the same work?

The actual problem with the WHO is direct consequence of the pressure of the developed countries that opposed all kind of power it had to pressure them to do what is necessary to deal with international health care problems. This means that the organization right now can't directly oppose any country and this obviously makes everything they do much more difficult. Developing countries still benefit greatly from programs of the WHO, but without a great deal more of political power it is just a losing game with the WHO and poor countries in one side and the rich countries in the other.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

Posted in: Tokyo Olympics bribery arrests widens to third Japan sponsor See in context

The arrests are also likely a setback for Japan’s ambitions in bidding for the 2030 Winter Olympics for Sapporo.

This assumes the IOC would give any importance to the arrests, seeing how it has been accused of similar problems and that it has decided to hold the games in countries with even more serious problems this may not even be a negative development for the bidding.

8 ( +9 / -1 )

Posted in: Japan simplifies COVID tracking to focus on elderly, high-risk people See in context

I certainly would participate in any Covid tracking system if I believed that the government and health agencies were competent and had our health and well being at heart.

What do you mean "participate"? the tracking system is being used by health care professionals as part of their duties, so it is not like they can simply choose to do it or not. Refusing to do their part on epidemiological surveys would be what indicates more clearly that their interest would not be having public health and well being at hearth.

What is the difference between seasonal flu and influenza ? Is the later the new influenza, H1N1 if I am not wrong, appearing in 2009 ?

No difference, flue is just another world for influenza. Pandemic influenza would be the one different from seasonal influenza.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Posted in: Japan simplifies COVID tracking to focus on elderly, high-risk people See in context

There are so many reputable institutions that have been critical of lockdowns and other measures.

specific instances? yes, but to the measures in general as you are assuming? no, not at all, as clearly as you could not bring any of them and still commented to make that evident.

Media collusion with global health agencies had a lot to do with making sure those opposing viewpoints got lumped in with mumbo jumbo and crackpot theories

You mean ALL of the institutions of the world are in a supposed conspiracy to hide the opposing viewpoints of the rest of them (as in the zero remaining)? how does that works in your mind?

 It doesn't mean they were wrong just diminished. Remember the trick is to question the science, not believe in it.

What you are trying to push is not question the science, is to promote things already demonstrated as false just because you like them, and to ignore the scientific consensus of the world without bothering to bring any evidence they are wrong, much less of data of the quantity and quality necessary to actually question it.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Posted in: Japan simplifies COVID tracking to focus on elderly, high-risk people See in context

The Great Barrington Declaration.

Yes, a very clear example of pseudoscience and disinformation that was clearly recognized as such immediately after being published, with experts all over the world criticizing the baseless arguments collected in the declaration and how the accumulating evidence clearly contradicted the main point from what the conclusions were taken.

They were ignored.

No they were not, they were debunked, later found hidden interests as their motives and people being unwillingly or unknowingly added to the declaration to make it appear more important.

In the end no actual scientific data supported the declaration and the actual experts in the field spend a lot of efforts to communicate the multiple things that were wrong with it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Barrington_Declaration

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Posted in: Japan simplifies COVID tracking to focus on elderly, high-risk people See in context

Why is it nonsensical to think this was known in March of 2020?

Because the only reason this reduction of risk has been achieved without countless deaths is because of vaccination and better treatment as well as less pathogenic variants. This means the measures in place were able to prevent countless deaths until the risk decreases enough so the measures gradually become less necessary.

The experts do NOT share the opinion that the measures were overblown or unnecessary in general, they surely know much better than someone baselessly proposes no benefit was gained with them.

The vast majority of people who got infected weren't dying or getting seriously ill and that was clear from March 2020.

Enough people were getting sick to swamp health services in many countries around the world, when everybody that requires hospitalization can't get it that means those numbers got converted into deaths. Reducing infections had the very important effect of preventing this when vaccines were not available.

Can you bring any institution of medicine or science that supports your personal opinion that measures in general were unnecessary or overblown? No? why do you think this happens?

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Posted in: Japan’s newest potato chip flavor: Convenience store fried chicken See in context

I really hope this new recipe is better because the old one was terribly bad, I like the proper famichiki and was expecting the chips to be at least simmilar in flavor, but they tasted stale and oily.

For me the best ones that have came lately were the "Strong abare shizo ume", as the name indicates quite strong flavor (big on the vinegary side, so not for everybody) but surprisingly good.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: New cystic fibrosis treatment changing lives See in context

No, you are proven wrong again.

No argument? just because you say so? I gave perfectly valid arguments why your understanding is wrong, just saying this is not the case only shows you don't want to accept it even when proved so.

You mean like a medical reference from the Center for Neurosurgical&Spinal Disorders with a sentence like:

*Each pair of nerve roots exit the spinal column and branch out into the body forming the peripheral* (outer) nervous system

Your reference clearly refers to the nervous system, not the skin, so obviously it is not reference that proves the skin is called this way. Once again you are just proving the nervous system itself have an external part, not that the skin is called this way, you just proved my original comment is correct, and your criticism of it meaningless.

See how this medical professional uses "outer" in exchange for the word "peripheral" so that laymen like us can easily grasp the meaning?

Your argument was that the skin is being described as our "outer nervous system", your reference do not say that at all, and since it is the only one you have provided it proves your idea about how the skin was called is after all completely wrong.

Or, do you have any reference that says the skin is called as our outer nervous system?

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Posted in: NASA spacecraft crashes into asteroid in defense test See in context

“What an amazing thing. We've never had that capability before," Glaze noted.

Indeed another example of the amazing things that have become a reality thanks to scientific discoveries, lots of people are now waiting very exited the data produced by this experiment and what the scientists will tell about how likely this kind of procedure can alter the orbit of asteroids.

Nudging space rocks one way or another could be used as an ultimate weapon against a foe here on Earth.

Waiting for who knows how many decades (or centuries) for a rock to be already in a collision course with the planet so a nudge could direct it against an specific place? it would be anything but an efficient use of resources, nor exactly something that could be done in secrecy. In that case it would be just better to direct the attack directly towards the real objective in the first place.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: New cystic fibrosis treatment changing lives See in context

I see you did not understand the meaning of epidermis. Basically it is the top layer of the skin.

The explanation still contradicts your correction, because it is not the epidermis that is fulfilling the roles of the nervous system, it is the nervous system itself that is simply doing its function in the epidermis.

Now with that understanding of a term used by medical professionals you have the understanding of the outer nervous system--again, a term used by medical professionals to describe something to laymen.

Since you have completely unable to provide any reference where a medical professional use this imaginary term to refer to the skin that means it is still a baseless appeal to authority about something only you personally believed, but could not demonstrate.

The same as when you like to imagine what other people do and accuse them of being or not something you have no idea nor evidence.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Posted in: New cystic fibrosis treatment changing lives See in context

Excellent description--medical professional quality--and gives us a "feel" for the outer nervous system.

Good to see that you now understand it is not the skin itself but the actual nervous system the one that is being described and therefore no need to point out to the skin itself as ifi it was another nervous system. This helps understanding why no medical professionals call it this way, as you mistakenly declared.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Posted in: New cystic fibrosis treatment changing lives See in context

In a nutshell, for the laymen, the nervous system has two main parts:

So once again you just called the nervous system the "outer nervous system" which obviously is an irrelevant distinction.

No mention yet of the skin replacing the nervous system or the supposed medical professionals calling the skin this way.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Posted in: New cystic fibrosis treatment changing lives See in context

It is unlikely you would have heard of the skin being described as our "outer nervous system", as this phrase is used by medical professionals as informal medical terminology for laymen to understand.

Still trying to make baseless accusations to taunt the mods? you still can't use imaginary facts you think you know from other people as arguments. If you don't have an argument against the comment you can always skip it instead of making up things.

The peripheral nervous system, which consists of the nerves outside the central nervous system, connects the central nervous system to the skin, for example.

Which completely supports the criticism I made, the nervous system would be then also this "outer nervous system" which makes the distinction irrelevant.

Hence, the skin being known in informal medical terminology as the "outer nervous system".

You just described the nervous system, not the skin. Can you even reference any of the supposed medical professionals you are trying to use as an appeal to authority to describe the skin in this way? because if not then your appeal is also imaginary, the same as what you think other commenters are or do.

7 ( +10 / -3 )

Posted in: Japan simplifies COVID tracking to focus on elderly, high-risk people See in context

I've been saying this since March 2020.

Which made absolutely no sense at the time, it is like a doctor that says to a patient he will no longer require chemotherapy for his cancer because it is now in complete remission and somebody says "see? I told you from the beginning you didn't need any of that"

It is not that science caught up with you, but that fortunately all the measures you disagree with made it possible for this to be considered.

1 ( +11 / -10 )

Posted in: New cystic fibrosis treatment changing lives See in context

How horrible. Perhaps massage will also help. The skin is our "Outer Nervous System".

There is no benefit from massage for the pathology, no possible mechanism could solve this very serious problem by just massaging, nor it have any nervous system component.

Also I have never heard the skin being described as our "outer nervous system", after all there is a very clear role of the usual nervous system fulfilling this role that can't be replace by any other kind of tissue of the skin.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

Posted in: Riken researchers develop rechargeable cyborg cockroach See in context

Sick and wrong in just about every way,

Not really, personal feelings produced from a personal bias do not make things "sick and wrong", how are the purposed future benefits negative?

This needs to stop, the slippery slope isn't a fallacy

What slippery slope? not understanding how ethical approval committees work do not mean they do not exist.

Why? Why would you MAKE one in the first place

It is mentioned in the article the possible ways this could help.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Posted in: Man arrested for assaulting wife after she asked for divorce See in context

Hopefully the wife will now be free from this violent criminal and he will have to respond for his lack of self control and violent tendencies.

19 ( +21 / -2 )

Posted in: Japan protests Russia's expulsion of official; denies spying See in context

Mr Tatsunori got it light by being expelled from Russia, with the current situation he could have suffered much more serious consequences from the accusation, true or not.

7 ( +18 / -11 )

Posted in: Two plead guilty over death of 5-year-old boy left on bus See in context

No other plea could realistically be made, the tragedy could have been prevented easily with proper controls and procedures that were ignored. The people that were supposed to safeguard the safety of the children made a mistake impossible to understand and will have to take responsibility for it.

12 ( +14 / -2 )

Posted in: Japan reports 43,587 new coronavirus cases See in context

even though Japan, like many Asian countries, relied on international experts here and ignored the WHO's advice at the beginning of this to not wear masks.

You keep commenting this, but it is still completely false. The WHO and the international experts from all around the world (including Japan) gave the same recommendation, to prioritize masks for symptomatic patients, which was also what was done in Japan.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Posted in: Conspiracy theories are dangerous even if very few people believe them See in context

In the peer-reviewed paper (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36055877/) that I mentioned a few times over the past two weeks, they clearly showed that for each covid hospitalization prevented

That is the same paper that has been completely disqualified with a dozen counterarguments that prove the authors methods do not allow for the conclusions they made, your source do not demonstrate what you (or the authors) wanted to prove, and this has been demonstrated with objective and valid scientific arguments you have not refuted.

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/peer-review-fail-vaccine-publishes-antivax-propaganda/

You have never refuted any of the arguments listed in this source, but you keep posting the same reference as if it was not already demonstrated as false? what does that indicate? using something that have been already demonstrated to you as false so clearly that you could not refute the arguments evidence a desire to do something very different from informing people, because that would require to use only things you know to be true, not the opposite.

Considering the FDA awarded an EUA to the mRNA products based on this same clinical trial data, which they tried very hard (but failed) to keep secret for 75 years, how can anyone think there wasn't a conspiracy.

The data still proves the vaccines as safe and effective according to the consensus of science (as in every institution in the world related to the topic) and the results are congruent with what has been observed with the literally billions of people vaccinated in the world, are ALL the countries in the world, ALL institutions of science and medicine in this supposed conspiracy?

-8 ( +2 / -10 )

Posted in: Conspiracy theories are dangerous even if very few people believe them See in context

None. I think people like you of their day just went in their equivalent of this message board and said “no it’s not” for 100 years while playing word games like people still do.

If no scientific arguments were used against him that means he is in the opposite side from conspiracy believers, that use the same kind of unscientific arguments to try and force what they think on the people that actually use science to guide their actions. It is fortunate the world is now full of Copernicus and Galileos and the antiscientific people are reduced to push baseless conspiracies.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

Posted in: Conspiracy theories are dangerous even if very few people believe them See in context

So you're denying the lawsuit ever took place? 

What part of your quote even say that? is misrepresenting what other people write the only resource you can use? clear example of a strawman, you have nothing that refutes the actual arguments so you have to pull out of thin air something nobody ever said to refute, leaving the actual real argument completely untouched.

What part of what was actually written you can disprove, nothing? well that is exactly the point.

 It's difficult to put an accurate number to them because they are woefully underreported in VAERS, Yellow Card and the like due to the complexity and active discouragement of doing so. 

Completely disproved argument, if someone can easily report becoming hulk as a side effect it is clear that anybody can report anything they want without problem, if that is not enough to raise the incidence above what unvaccinated people present that only helps disproving the false relationship antivaxxers want to force into vaccines, as if the vaccines magically caused side effects in the same rates in unvaccinated people.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

Posted in: Conspiracy theories are dangerous even if very few people believe them See in context

Why do I feel this same method was used by your ancestors to “disprove” Copernicus and Galileo when they were right?

What objective and verifiable scientific arguments were used to "disprove" Copernicus and Galileo? because that is the current standard of science.

Once again their situation is the opposite of what you want to use them, they had the scientific method on their side, and the people that disqualified them are using the same arguments the conspiracy fans are using right now, mainly "you must be wrong no matter your arguments and evidence because I want to believe in something different, even if I can't prove it in any way"

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

Posted in: Conspiracy theories are dangerous even if very few people believe them See in context

You're aware of how compromised the peer-review system is, right? 

Still much better than imaginary things not reviewed by anybody, specially the explicitly mentioned "post-publication" version of peer review, that is simply having all experts interested in a paper see it and express their opinions about it openly.

 You're also aware of the successful lawsuit that forced Pfizer, backed by their friends at the FDA, to release the trial data promptly instead of the 75 years Pfizer and the FDA wanted. 

See, this is very clear misrepresentation of what actually happened, the FDA could not be happier with the veredict, because the only reason it would take so much time to release the documents is because it had only a few people paid to do this job (prepare documents to be releases to the public) while literally thousands of other documents were still waiting to be prepared, the veredict gave the FDA grounds to demand funds to make possible this release, and gained a very positive capacity thanks to it.

Clearly, they were conspiring to keep the data from public view. That's another theory that was revealed as fact.

Not only this is not true, it is not even necessary, the data available from literally billions of people vaccinated is enough to prove vaccines are safe and effective, nothing found on just a few tens of thousands of people could ever contradict the hugely bigger and better data available to health professionals all over the world, the supposed conspiracy is meaningless, except for antivaxxers that tried very hard to represent the problem as if it had any importance at all.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

Posted in: Conspiracy theories are dangerous even if very few people believe them See in context

AJ is a gatekeeper, his job is to make "conspiracy theorists" look silly.

Is that something known? of course this would not be just some supposed conspiracy without proof, right?

We've provided lots of evidence (including peer-reviewed papers) showing that the "safe and effective" narrative is not valid; same with the zoonotic origin of Covid and the ineffectiveness or repurposed drugs.

That is false, you have provided references to retracted, debunked or heavily criticized reports where the authors have proven unethical manipulations in order to force a conclusion that is contradicted with proper scientific methods, references where those problems have been clearly explained have been given against neither you nor the authors of the discredited reports have mounted any defense.

Linking to discarded evidence is worse than not giving any reference, because it proves that there is no actual valid evidence that has not been declared invalid by the scientific community using objective parameters of what constitutes a valid conclusion.

The fact that the official narrative regarding Covid has been so wrong and yet so aggressively pushed and promoted in a highly coordinated manner, while equally aggressively silencing and attacking opposite views strongly suggests that a conspiracy was behind it.

No, that is not a fact, that is only the terribly forced explanation you give against the very clear consensus of medicine and science that says something you don't want to accept, when something you bring has been proved wrong you have been unable to defend it, when people that you agree with are found guilty of scientific malpractice (or even unethical human experimentation) you have not successfully argued how the accusations can be proved wrong. This means you are implicitly accepting their disqualification are correct and their conclusions discardable.

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

Posted in: Conspiracy theories are dangerous even if very few people believe them See in context

As for conspiracy theories about the covid vaccines, these are being proved true with alarming frequency.

And yet you have never provided any evidence that would prove anything of those conspiracy theories, including SADS, since covid is a much more frequent cause of cardiac problems than any of the vaccines the current scientific evidence is that vaccines reduce the risk of those problems, which is exactly the opposite of what you say was proved.

bullying of doctors and nurses by medical boards

If doctors and nurses act against the available evidence then they are being unprofessional and even unethical, that is a perfectly valid reason for penalties.

cover-ups of unfavourable trial results

Writing about all the problems of those studies that you have wanted to push that completely disqualify the conclusions made (or showing how the own authors contradict how you present those articles) do not constitute "cover-ups" it is just how post-publication peer review works, the real problem is trying to ignore huge, well designed and conducted studies when they contradict what you want to believe and instead having to reduce yourself to only believe things of much lower quality only because they share your bias.

suppression of cheap, safe and effective off-label treatments

No such things, cheap safe and effective things like dexamethasone are being used without any problem, what is being suppressed (and validly) are things that bring no benefit, only extra risks to the patients as proved scientifically.

-6 ( +6 / -12 )

Posted in: Conspiracy theories are dangerous even if very few people believe them See in context

Fact is that many of yesterday's "conspiracy theories" are now shown to have some basis in fact.

If something has basis on fact then it can't be disproved by objective evidence, which are the examples being used in the article, and "some basis" can mean "completely disproved" except for some irrelevant detail, so it is not really an argument to stop discarding things well disproved.

You want people to keep considering something? then provide evidence it is true, or at least that there is a significant posibility for it to be true, but pushing into consideration things well disproved has no merit.

Yes, I agree. But I am referring to the many "conspiracy theories" that are increasingly being shown to be true, but which continue being attacked and censored.

Like what? which of the examples in the article has been shown to be true and still censored? What kind of things that have been disproved beyond any reasonable doubt ended up being true later? People invested in their beliefs of conspiracies always argument this is the case, but then end up giving examples of things that have never been proved correct or that were widely known to be true since the beginning.

-5 ( +5 / -10 )

Posted in: Conspiracy theories are dangerous even if very few people believe them See in context

the initially disbelieved conspiracy theorist in the case took 100 years to be proven RIGHT, not wrong

Yes, it took that long to the people with the evidence to prove their point. In current times that is the opposite of those believing conspiracy theories, they are the ones without the evidence so it is sad to think it will take 100 years for those groups to be convinced (or reduced to non importance) by the actual evidence that proves them wrong.

Thankfully most conspiracies are proven true much faster now.

Only those that are true, which are a minority by definition (since many are mutually impossible to prove true) for the rest the people believing against the evidence are the same as Copernicus detractors, just saying they must be right no matter what science proves.

-3 ( +6 / -9 )

Posted in: Conspiracy theories are dangerous even if very few people believe them See in context

Yes, conspiracy theories are dangerous... for the powers that be, especially when they are true.

They are dangerous for everybody in general specially when they are not true but people keep pushing them even when they can be categorically disproved. The whole article is about this point, how people repeating proven falsehoods still can manage to change people minds into invalid beliefs and conclusions, nobody actually interested in progress and benefit of the public would argue that people have a right to promote things that can be proved false.

-4 ( +6 / -10 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites


©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.