In other news, your barber thinks you need a haircut.
Until there is a proven net overall health benefit to this therapy, I wouldn't waste much ink on it. Also, can someone please tell me how one controls the dose for an mRNA therapy ?
If you actually had melanoma (a very aggressive type of skin cancer) you would be glad for one more chance of maybe still being alive a few years from now.
Cancer treatment is different. We have a high tolerance for side effects because many cancers are aggressive and deadly. It's a risk-analysis. If your odds of dying from cancer in the next year are 50%, and the drugs have a 25% chance of killing you, then the drugs are worth it.
In actuality, even extremely aggressive therapies like high-dose chemotherapy with stem-cell transplant have shockingly low risk of death. Less than 5%. Bear in mind, that's for a therapy that literally wipes out all of your bone marrow. You know, the part of your body that produces your blood? Your body stops making blood and your immune system. And yet, we've gotten the death rate as low as it is.
See my comments below on Vioxx - even the manufacturers admitted covid shots caused myocarditis in young men - why are you so sure this new therapy won't cause the same issues, or worse ?
Covid itself has a higher risk of myocarditis than the covid vaccine.
And even if it did, it doesn't matter. You didn't read my comment at all. There are cancer treatments which can kill you outright, I know because I've received them. I think maybe you don't understand what cancer is. We can be very aggressive with the treatments. We have much, much bigger fish to fry than a small risk of myocarditis.
As there is no safety data available on this new drug, what makes you say it is safe ? Pre 2020 it took an average of 10 years to release a new vaccine - why do you think it took that long ?
Radiation dose, for example, is precisely measured - we know exactly how much radiation the body is exposed to during therapy. mRNA products work by making our cells produce the desired protein/drug. There is no way of controlling how many cells are producing the drug and for how long they are producing it - ergo there is no way of controlling the dose. I hate to break it to you but they have found people producing spike protein over 3 years after getting the covid shot.
Something to keep in mind - responsiblestatecraft.org is published by the Quincy Institue, considered by many to be a de-facto lobbying group for the Islamic Republic of Iran. Here is one data point: https://quillette.com/2024/06/20/the-quincy-institute-middle...
Thanks for the heads up. It's useful information. From the article:
> The Quincy Institute routinely vilifies supporters of Israel in Washington. Its principal goal is to reorient American policy in the Middle East, marginalising America’s two leading allies, Israel and Saudi Arabia, while promoting Iran as a future regional hegemon. John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, authors of The Israel Lobby, are both Quincy fellows and regular contributors to its website. In March, Mearsheimer gave an interview to Al Jazeera, which the Institute promoted under the headline, “Israel Lobby’s Influence on U.S. Policy as Powerful as Ever.”
Sounds no different to what Israel lobbyists do in the US too, though? American democracy at work ...
Here's the difference though - Israel is an ally of the United States while Iran is a sworn enemy that has killed thousands of Americans since the 1979 revolution and routinely chants "Death to America". So, not equivalent.
No reason? And how exactly do you see that? The Iran of 60 years ago before the revolution was a completely different country than it is today. It has taken glee in killing thousands of Americans directly and through its proxies, and shouted death to America a gazillion times since.
I see all you've got from the past 60 years is one tragic friendly fire incident. Iran has intentionally killed thousands of American civilians and service men either directly or through its proxies since 1979, including 43 American civilians murdered and 13 taken hostage on October 7, 2023.
Israeli lobby sent those US soldiers to the Mid East in the first place. It's not the early 2000s anymore, American public isn't buying the WMDs excuse again.
America was first to torture, take hostage and kill thousands of Iranian civilians through the CIA and SAVAK. I understand completely why Iranians despise Israel and America.
Why do you expect me to get angry at Iranians for using American tactics? Is turnabout not fair play, am I supposed to support it when the US and Israel tortures people but balk when Iran does it?
Israel is very open about manipulating public opinion in the US. They call it hasbara and they just vastly increased their budget for doing it. You don't need the Quincy Institute (not that there's anything wrong with them!) to learn about it either. Here's a recent Time article:
I don't take any issue with this pic if it's real, but it seems either fake or not from where he claims. So it's hard to take that org seriously. And yeah tbh that last name makes me take a second look.
The plane's proportions look out of whack in the photo. I don't think the scribbling is implausible, but either way it's strange for an exec of an org like that to be posting unverified stuff like that.
Who founded it, who funds it, what is the broad consensus on the coverage they typically run, what do I see in their coverage when I look through it, what have they retracted, what have they not retracted, what advertisers do they permit. Probably some other criteria, to be honest. Maybe "does the editor here seem to have a conscience".
I think it is important to separate the artist's life from their works of art.Their lives are in some way immaterial to the enjoyment of their work, which even they themselves may not fully comprehend.
Also life is messy:
“You know how you’re always trying to get things to come out perfect in art because it’s real difficult in life"
Unfortunately, a lot of people don't seem to think that way. Which is made more unfortunate by targeted character assassination attempts intended to discredit everything a person has said. Not saying that is what's going on here at all, but it's always at the top of my mind when I see something that looks like a hit piece: "What's the intent of the authors?"
A lot of self described artists seem to believe that the artist is the entire value of works of art. At least, that’s what they’ve claimed since AI hit the scene. I can’t tell if they’ve always felt that way or if they adopted it in order to discredit the use of AI - “if it has no artist then it has no value.”
It is more like, "If no human before me has encountered it and thought it worth writing down, I, another human, don't want to take chances with reading it".
Marshall McLuhan: I heard what you were saying! You know nothing of my work! You mean my whole fallacy is wrong. How you got to teach a course in anything is totally amazing!
this issue today is that governments can coerce people into taking those risks, regardless of risk appetite, or they can hide the actual risk. We saw this in real time over the past 6 years. That's why the precautionary principle is so important, also the Nuremberg code.
I mean some fetishes have science behind why they exist. For example, the part of the brain that process feet is located next to the area that processes genitals. At least, some are explainable. Some are not.
Natural selection had a say in female mammals leaking blood trails every month, which is, mildly said, fcking stupid. Natural selection does not create optimal beings, it creates stuff that, somehow, kinda, works.
If you have the time for it, I highly recommend the lecture series on behavioral evolution by Robert Sapolsky, it's on the Stanford YouTube channel.
It's stupid from a practical perspective but the energy required to build up the uterine lining and tear it down on a (basically-)monthly basis is much lower than its upkeep
The article clearly implies that one of the reasons why they "talk such nonsense" is because they are male, but no explanation is given - bog standard misandry that I take umbrage with.
I'm going to assume you left it off intentionally if you can't even address it.
Read it again. They narrow it two ways in addition to being male:
"0. but the main reason is that they are, overwhelmingly, males
1. who come from narrow Stem (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) backgrounds
2. and are trapped in a particular mindset that the technology writer Evgeny Morozov called “solutionism”.
It's not that they are male, it males who come from Stem with a particular solution oriented mindset. I think in a different context you would be less offended. We are talking about driven, solution oriented people. It's a bias. Biases are fine, we all have them, this article is just talking about it.
I could ask again, would you agree that there are differences in the sexes? A different set of biases even?
Luzin's students referred to their community in Moscow during the 1920s as Luzin's Paradise, often nicknamed "Luzitania". I'm surprised the article didn't mention the
"Luzin affair" : http://old.math.nsc.ru/LBRT/g2/english/ssk/case_e.html
