chris_gee
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
As the ICJ reaffirms the duty of all nations to stand against genocide and not support it, I look forward to the USA and UK acting.
Is the point of the air-conditioning panel the ashtray underneath. I remember an ashtray on every hospital bedside cabinet, and many drs’ desks.
Israel has an estimated 120+ nuclear weapons. It has wanted to attack Iran before Iran became nuclear armed. Faced with a loss I think it would opt to go out with a bang.
Other countries would make the bombs available to Iran.
The US and Russia may agree to hold back but the leading players don’t inspire confidence in their wisdom or judgement.Link to Putin’s latest speech, His coherence contrasts with that of many other leaders, http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/69465
The trouble is Ardern as a source of disinformation. Well perhaps less the originator than an uncritical perpetuator.
i just posted this in NZ. Little enough but venues here for such comment are virtually non-existent.
At the risk of bringing the conservatives out of the woodwork, and attracting the attention of the S.I.S. or even the CIA, with the likelihood of WW3, probably in the end nuclear, it seems to me to be desirable, indeed critical, to not allow those whose ideological stance fosters it free rein.
The propaganda that the Russian invasion of Ukraine is illegal and immoral omits the history of intervention since 2014 and before. Much like the bully provoking and provoking, and then screaming blue murder, and feigning innocence when there is a reaction.
Ardern’s reported comments at the U.N align her squarely with Biden, Trudeau, Truss, Macron et al – a motley and dangerous group to ingratiate oneself with.
Sure, in the fifties there was the domino theory, followed by Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran Syria etc. All for whose benefit?
So who determines our diplomatic and foreign policy? To say war is ultimately in the domain of parliament, while true in a sense, would be to ignore the stoking of the fire, and the effect of unchallenged propaganda.Ok most of us have an idea of the usefulness or not of vit D. For an interesting view of medical thought lines on research and the appropriate base for medical practice and the difficulties of definitive research and random controlled trials versus anecdotes see https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/968682
Essentially the author reviews the literature and says no effect. What is interesting is the 200 or so comments supporting or disagreeing, ranging from personal anecdotes, to analysis as to complicating factors in research design. These include dosage, exclusion of low levels, and that there is reason to believe that genetic differences give 3 groups with different responses. One example is of darkskinned people whose melanin protects them in tropical conditions but in high latitudes gives too low absorption.
It casts light on the “a study showed x” group even without critical appraisal, and the fact that medics may or not always be right. Personally I have found the suck it and see approach helpful. It may be a lemon but we all have genetic variations most of which are unknown.The Pebe Escobar site also has a good article on NZ politicians essentially taking a US centric position as regards Asia Pacific geopolitics, against traditional Labour policies, and the likely weight of public opinion were that that could be determined, if discussion were possible.
In a recent speech on China NZ relations she called for rules based order and called for China to oppose the “indefensible” invasion of Ukraine to which NZ has provided military aid.
Good on the touchy feely stuff, but independece and courage to take a stand not so much. I doubt that cheerleading for a US China war helps anyone traditional links or not.The Cynthia Chung article referenced by Michael Reid above is well worth reading along with others of her’s this led me to.
From thecritic.co.uk
Anyone who asks the question “what is a woman?” is thereby revealing that they have the intelligence of your average garden slug. This is why we shouldn’t trust these so-called “archaeologists” who claim to be able to determine whether those ancient skeletons they’ve uncovered are “male” or “female”. This is pure pseudo-science. Next they’ll be telling us they can work out their pronouns by measuring the femurs.Let me settle this matter once and for all. A woman is anyone who says she is a woman. A woman is a feeling, a shimmering nimbus of possibility, an echo of distant dreams reverberating gingerly through a winter’s gloaming. She is a mewling constellation, a bagful of semi-felched pixies, the enchanted stardust that pirouettes luminously on the spindle of time.
It’s got absolutely nothing to do with tits.
Yeah right!
@kassandra
Thank you for sharing. If I could relieve your pain I would. Just because your parents had problems does not mean you were unworthy of love, happiness etc. May the sun shine upon you, a child hug you, and all good things.One of the dilemmas of the current world is that several world leaders, while certain of their rectitude, could be viewed as making fools of themselves and their countries.
The media are largely participants in promoting this propaganda, presenting themselves as purveyors of truth and counters to disinformation – a touch of arrogance and ignorance to my mind.
Countering this is difficult because access to the media and debate are largely denied, except for a few sites such as this, which only slowly percolate through to a wider audience.
My idea for a counter attack is not to focus on detailed figures, arguments, and research reviews which are not very productive at changing what are in effect emotionally held beliefs eg Russia bad USA good.
What may penetrate are brief say aphorisms, easily adopted, and which expose these positions to ridicule.
What we have here in NZ are a series of billboards sponsored by a brewery, taking the form of atatement followed by Yeah right, conveying pull the other one.
Thus we get “Safe and effective. Yeah right.”
Where Britain goes we go. Yeah right.
We have nuclear shelters. Yeah right.
US & US yeah right.
Go WWW3 yeah right
Boris and Joe. Yeah right
Ministry of Truth. Yeah right.
I suggest bumper stickers. Not that I have any experience in that field or idea of costs. Sure, coverage and impact would be limited, but it might be a start.Some countries are considering joining NATO and others are concerned that they might be in line for a Russian invasion.
Would these counties be safer by coming under what is really a US nuclear umbrella by allowing US nuclear bases, thus meeting the aim of ringing Russia with weapons within a four minute range?
As a thought experiment how would a country whether Russia or the US respond to such a situation?
For a start if missiles could be launched without notice, a response would need to be made within the four minutes. Not much room for error. Secondly control would have to be disseminated and contain redundancies. For example, n missiles from say Poland are detected, the response is directed to Poland and who else? NATO ? France, and the UK are nuclear armed but the US calls the shots and would control the bases in say Poland directly and more or less the others.
I would think that allowing such bases would make one an automatic target which might be a prompt to more thought and less rhetoric.
If 70% of Americans think of Russia and China as enemies where is the moral, even pragmatic leadership?
Australia seems all in. I question why NZ is even in the Five Eyes. The British empire is dead. Rah rah Jacinda.The video on Paul Keating is very interesting although long. A former Australian prime minister, he seems well-informed and sensible, and puts many current leading figures to shame. Ukraine and Russia are touched on around 58 min.
The article stating that authorisation for PCR tests was withdrawn and they were inaccurate is misleading and untrue.
The protocol withdrawn was the first developed. Initially some of the nucleotide sections were natural and some constructed. Later samples of the virus were obtained and made available for reference testing. In time many other test regimes were developed by others and approved about 150 of varying sensitivity. Labs were free to develop their own or use an existing one.
The CDC withdrew its protocol, but maintained it was accurate. Others were faster etc.
As I understand the technique it involves testing for the presence of various small segments of the rna. With enough matches of points of comparison it becomes a workable approximation of the particular virus. It is not a complete duplication of the virus.
See https://www.cdc.gov/csels/dls/locs/2021/08-02-2021-lab-alert-Clarifications_about_Retirement_CDC_2019_Novel_Coronavirus_1.html
As for the idea that many will end up with HIV this runs away with the idea that vaccines compromise immunity = acquired immune deficiency syndrome = the cause HIV!!
This stuff is difficult and complex enough without misleading incorrect information which doesn’t even hold up to rudimentary checking.This seems a different and cogent interview with Michael Hudson https://www.globalresearch.ca/nato-russia-proxy-war-revealing-signs-of-a-fading-america/5775462
He argues that the real target of the USA is Germany and Europe to maintain or regain an economic advantage rather than lose trade to Russia and China. Greater arms spending would also help. I found his analysis succinct and interesting.I think it is 100k US troops and 40K NATO troops moved to the borders of Ukraine, and billions in arms sent. I don’t see anyone capable of statesmanship, rather idiotic mouthpieces. It seems pretty clear that they want war, not peace, and manipulate public opinion to that end.
@ Bill Roope above.
Iurii Poliaka in Vineyard of the Saker . Agree he seems a very bright cookie. I know I don’t grasp the implications of it all, but get this is a battle between the US and Russia which puts me above the pack. Usually one imposes sanctions to hurt the relatively weak or at least those less able to hit back. This time – doesn’t look good, until all realise this is not getting what they want. Then one only has to look at domestic disputes to see rationality is not always trumps.@ Formerly T_bear.
The NYT article was very good and interesting. Thanks. Unfortunately there must be a third part as it is cut short. Ny chance of someone finding the reference?Re the NZ statistics.
There seem to be some anomalies in the statistics, eg uptake by ethnicity. The numbers of partial vs fully vaccinated are virtually the same i.e 4m but 2.392m are boosted for a total of 4.2m. What is being done is one category includes the previous one. Except that the boosted reduces the previous fully vaccinated. Some logic in it but misleading.
Further proportions of Maori and Pacific Islanders compared to European and other vaccination rates show rates of .93 and .99 for fully vaccinated when we know the overall rate is roughly 95%. However another table shows the PI rate as <5% full and 43.7% partly.
In the article the formula given is nil or partial – fully vaccinated /fully vaccinated. There should be brackets.
So the figures are 11/2 (2914-314)/2914 =.89% efficacy.
24/2 (22699 – 1830)/22699 =91.9%. efficacy. That doesn’t mean that the vaccine is 91% effective it means that it is slightly worse than not being vaccinated. Does that mean that the immune system is 9% compromised? Nope.
My area has the current worst rate. The fact is the rate amongst Maori is 4x the European rate and the Pacific Islander rate is 7x. Not facts you see mentioned. There could be several factors contributing to this, from the Islanders being more likely to go to church, overcrowding etc or simply lower vaccination rates despite efforts to increase them. Behaviourally the vaccinated may be more free in their activities being allowed to eat out etc. Of course the unvaxd are not, but sssh we wouldn’t want to spread misinformation would we Jacinda? Therefore the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups are not the same. Now lets see how the serious health effects work out.Biden is quoted as saying in effect – Ukraine was premeditated, unprovoked, and Putin refused diplomatic resolution. Sure 1 is true the others not so much.
Putin’s proposals for arms restrictions seem worth considering, primarily limiting using other countries as bases for nuclear arms.
It seems to me that having nuclear weapons within a short range, means that there is a limited time to assess any seeming attack and increases the chance of human error.
It seems clear the USA wants to ring in Russia as policy and has no interest in peaceful solutions. Anything vaguely suggestive of being socialistic, eg medicine for all, causes a vapour fit presumably because it would mean less profit for some.
Unfortunately many respond unquestioningly. Whatever happened to considering others’ points of view and moral leadership?The Geert article while not an easy read is sobering. A pity it won’t register with the vaccine fanatics. Looking at you Jacinda et al.
expatkiwi
General mandates were avoided by heavy promotion of vaccinations and negative incentives, like vaccine passports for restaurants bars etc
As to the future betting the farm on vaccinations is likely to be seen as futile. As against that the low rates in NZ and that it lags 2-3 months behind other countries means that they want to keep it that way. So you have a combination of conservative medical zealots, naiive politicians and media as flagwavers with questioning suppressed.
At the moment re-entry is stopped by the suspension of miq availability from March. Quarantine and isolation periods have just been extended.
In short I would expect a conservative authoritarian approach stopping short of mandates.
How they habdle a major outbreak and facing the ineffectiveness of vaccines will be interesting. Given parochialism I doubt that they will be quick to adapt,I did not make an argument for or against euthanasia rather showed the law passed after a referendum. That you hold life is sacrosanct in all circumstances is a view, but it is not hard to see that the application of this fails in many areas of social justice, environment etc.
The section on euthanasia in NZ for covid patients is misleading.
The original article citing the freedom of information act response starts by saying “Patients admitted to hospital with Covid -19 can die by euthanasia if doctors decide they may not survive.”
Not true actually.
The report goes on to state the criteria apparently from the M.O.H. but omitting all the ANDS which appear in the legislation End of Life Choice Act 2019 section 5.
This reads,
Meaning of person who is eligible for assisted dying or eligible person
(1)
In this Act, person who is eligible for assisted dying or eligible person means a person who—
(a)
is aged 18 years or over; and
(b)
is—
(i)
a person who has New Zealand citizenship as provided in the Citizenship Act 1977; or
(ii)
a permanent resident as defined in section 4 of the Immigration Act 2009; and
(c)
suffers from a terminal illness that is likely to end the person’s life within 6 months; and
(d)
is in an advanced state of irreversible decline in physical capability; and
(e)
experiences unbearable suffering that cannot be relieved in a manner that the person considers tolerable; and
(f)
is competent to make an informed decision about assisted dying.These are not alternative clauses but all must apply. Further the request must originate with patient not the doctor.
All the MÓ.H said was yes there may be occasions where this applies to a Covid-19 patient. AS in this may be one of the conditions in which these circumstances apply. Unlikely however that it is a terminal illness likely to result in death within 6 months, with unrelievable pain and the patient is conscious and able to request it.
There is no suggestion that patients could be terminated if the doctor decides on the basis of a bed shortage.Largely I agree, except that I don’t think cabinet papers are made public. There was also some value in taking advantage of being an island nation. Since it has become increasingly authoritarian in that self righteous way. I am not aware of any local venue for dissent or contrary views.
As it happens that vaccines don’t protect against infection or transmission even by the asymptomatic, and likely in the future compromise of the immune system becomes apparent their position will be less sustainable.
In large part I think conservatism amongst medical advisers is to blame but the politicians readily kow tow and are happy to go along with it all.So Ardern will be remorseless in seeking out and pressurising the last unvaxed. One wonders if these people are adequately briefed, or are they just unable to stand up to their medical advisers/lobbyists. There is sufficient research now available to make their chosen stance at best questionable.
“He said research has shown the risk of infection between two unvaccinated people is 20-fold higher than between two vaccinated people.”
This is the Mayor of Auckland justifying the ban on unvaccinated people from council premises.
Sure, this type of thing is familiar to others elsewhere but it still makes me angry.
The origin here appears to be from a widely criticised analysis by an Australian statistician, seemingly essentially taking the initial mrna trials and making an adjustment for lessened efficacy. This was given repeatedly by the Stuff news site as showing either a person had either 10 or 20 x the chance of acquiring the virus from an unvaccinated person.
Critical discussion is either not allowed or moderated out. Leading to the comments like the anti-vaxers are selfish and putting the country at risk predominating.
So you get people forming policy on the basis of a view or belief based on taking a reported so called fact as true. To be fair once or twice recently a better analysis has been attempted.
So the golf club now requires a pass to enter the clubhouse, and members can’t play without it. For your own good and to protect the staff. Hardly a contact sport.
As to the original claim, the unvaccinated appear to be perhaps slightly more likely, to half as likely to carry the virus and no more likely to transmit it. That is on a one person to one person basis. Looking at groups, there are many variables, namely the likelihood of getting tested if you are asymptomatic, the number and circumstances of contacts e.g. clubbing (not golf). Never mind the limitations and nuances of research, ill-founded opinion and propaganda hold sway.I watched the Dr Peter McCullough video. So the mrna vaccines use the body cells to produce the spike protein. The virus enters the cells through the ace2 receptor, and the spike circulates through the plasma ending in various organs where it leads to an auto-immune attack. He says the same applies to the adenovirus carried J & J. Well rightly or wrongly that seems to me to be the gist of it. My question is this. Novovax seems to use nano particled spike protein so the body does not create it nor is the actual virus present. I guess it could attach to the ace2 receptors does it then cause some auto immunity but less so as the dose is much smaller?
I thought this was funny in a sick way. The local but national news on the relatively infrequent ocassions when it invites comments censors them for being misleading. In other words not in accord with the line they are promoting.
Yesterday they had an article in effect you are 20x more likely to contract covid from a unvaxd person. I took them to task referring them to the 22 articles papers article suggesting in essence that vaxd are 2x more likely to have and be infectious and at say 80% of population therefore 8x as likely to be the source of infection.
Result nadda.
My assessment is that a lot of journos don’t have a clue and merely seek out a dr or whatever, a nut in some cases, to support their opinion and mislead the general population. Fourth estate??I use Iherb. Most of the NAC was labelled out of stock, ask to be notified when it is available a month or so ago. I checked today – essentially the same but some brands the most expensive were available. I didn[t comment on the reason FDA, supply problems (I suspect most brands are repackaged).
I don’t advocate anything as a miracle cure. A good varied diet is probably number one, with the emphasis on fresh food, not something picked days before or worse. However for the older or those with genetic variations it may well be that the suck n see school of medicine I subscribe to may offer something or not.Unfortunately NAC has become unavailable. I don’t fully understand why – seemingly it is no longer a health supplement. Pity as I have used it for years with no issue.
The New Zealand Prime Minister has just announced a new traffic light system for Covid which will do away with lockdowns. Howver it requires 90% vaccination first in each local District Health Board area. Auckland has 3 ranging from 70-80% vaccinated. It is unlikely to reach this target before Christmas, so most shops will remain closed. Then the unvaccinated will be able to shop but not go to a restaurant, bar, or get their haircut etc. I could ask my neighbour I guess, as she gave her boys crewcuts, hmm or maybe long hair will be a new marker.
I am trying to suggest some reference to international data but the medical leadership, media, and politicians and public all know vaccinations are the answer, so time will tell.
In the meantime I am growing my garden and hair. The former from seed as seedlings are not available, and even seeds take two weeks to be delivered a couple of miles.@ figmeund shreud
Is this the same person convicted of fraud, who announced an uncontrolled multi armed treatment protocol?@cooch
It is not my wish to argue, and as you say mistakes are possible. I agree with the idea of checking on a prima facie basis to see if something has basic plausibility.
I think your error is in par 3 where in moving from a per 100k figure to a % you misplace the decimal point getting 7.5% instead of .75%.
Unfortunately this fits with the Public health view cited, whereas the point is to check that. As vaccinated is considered double vaccinated, it is probably a lower % than you take. However on a ball park basis it looks like in that age group the vaccinated are 2x as likely to get infected, and being a higher proportion of the population, roughly a new infection is 80% likely to arise from a vaccinated person. Likely not more likely.
