Posts by Anony Mous

44

Covid lung damage worse than from heavy smoking

by FatFreek 2005 in

we've probably all heard it, "i wish i could get the covid and that way it would be behind me", as if it were some annoying rite of passage.

"sure, i'll lose my senses of smell and taste for awhile, i'll lose my strength for awhile", etc.. what else could be the reasoning for ignoring the social distancing to attend maskless parties and similar large group gatherings?.

however, looking at the following xray images of certain lungs may help impress some folks into thinking that there are more serious happenings in the attack progression of this virus.

Anony Mous

@Sherman: not really, you get the vaccine so you don’t get sick. You can still carry the disease and make others sick although you won’t be a host. If you touch a surface that has the virus, you can keep it alive and transfer it, likewise as it floats in the air, you can sniff it up and sneeze it back out.

Although the chances are greatly reduced, since you won’t get sick and continuously shed the virus for 2 weeks. So eventually the hope is that sufficient people don’t keep shedding and the virus dies down.

Alternatively everyone gets sick and the virus burns itself out. This is kind of what happened in NY and NJ, they put everyone that was sick in old people homes, let thousands of people die in the first few weeks and then claimed victory when nobody else was around to die in great numbers. Sweden did a similar thing but protected the elderly. They basically told the elderly to stay home and shelter, let it burn through the young population with minimum casualties and then nobody passed it to the elderly later which minimized overall death.

There will be residual pockets of outbreaks and death, which we see in polio and HIV for example, even though vaccines are available, not everyone can get them or wants them, but the vaccine should curtail those cases to manageable levels. Countries in Africa and China will continue to be hotbeds for a while though.

44

Covid lung damage worse than from heavy smoking

by FatFreek 2005 in

we've probably all heard it, "i wish i could get the covid and that way it would be behind me", as if it were some annoying rite of passage.

"sure, i'll lose my senses of smell and taste for awhile, i'll lose my strength for awhile", etc.. what else could be the reasoning for ignoring the social distancing to attend maskless parties and similar large group gatherings?.

however, looking at the following xray images of certain lungs may help impress some folks into thinking that there are more serious happenings in the attack progression of this virus.

Anony Mous

@Sherman: You are misinterpreting the science. Yes, you can TEST POSITIVE for COVID multiple times. I have a family member who tested positive and negative on and off daily for 6 weeks straight (worked in a nursing home).

However unless biology is completely wrong, you cannot get infected with SARS-CoV-2 and develop COVID-19 after you've already obtained SARS-CoV-2 and went through the entire COVID-19 lifecycle.

The case studies and news articles you point to are about people testing positive multiple times, or getting sick, getting better and relapsing, or people that tested negative while being on treatment and then test positive again. That isn't completely unsurprising given the replication levels during testing give you orders of magnitude higher chance at false positive than they should be. There are also a margin where you can test and get false negatives. In most cases these relapses were in EU, Brazil, Mexico where many testing is done using Chinese-sourced test kits which have ~20% failure rate.

Now the question is whether you have been sick and tested positive, should you get vaccinated:

- I believe yes, as I said, the tests give orders of magnitude too many false positives. It is entirely possible you got a flu or a common cold, tested positive for COVID because you were too close to someone with actual COVID and some remnants of dead virus were in your nasal tract.

- If you have been part of a research study or you got a private COVID testing done, and your COVID-testing was done with blood samples, and that proved positive, then NO, it isn't necessary to get vaccinated. You have immunity, that's what the blood test tests for, whether you have T-cells that attack COVID-19 samples, and if you have immunity, that means you were infected at one point.

This also means, if you have your blood tested after the vaccine, you will test 'positive' for COVID-19 blood testing.

Note: I have been involved in HIV and other immunology research. Again, it is possible, but extremely unlikely that we are collectively wrong about viruses or about COVID-19 in particular. If COVID-19 was a 'designer virus' or mutates extremely quickly it could indeed be possible to get multiple infections, to date, there is no evidence of that, if we had evidence of that, we'd have no vaccine.

44

Covid lung damage worse than from heavy smoking

by FatFreek 2005 in

we've probably all heard it, "i wish i could get the covid and that way it would be behind me", as if it were some annoying rite of passage.

"sure, i'll lose my senses of smell and taste for awhile, i'll lose my strength for awhile", etc.. what else could be the reasoning for ignoring the social distancing to attend maskless parties and similar large group gatherings?.

however, looking at the following xray images of certain lungs may help impress some folks into thinking that there are more serious happenings in the attack progression of this virus.

Anony Mous

There is no proof of anyone being reinfected at this point. There are less than a half dozen cases across the world which is statistical noise.

All we have is proof that people can test positive multiple times, we also have proof the current testing regiment triggers on anything remotely related to COVID, including other coronaviruses and dead remnant particles of the virus.

Viruses don't work that way, unless they mutate, you won't get re-infected unless we have the whole field of biology very, very wrong for nearly 2 centuries. COVID seems to be able to mutate very slowly, the recombinant vaccine seems to be able to capture the extant mutations.

What is possible is that someone (China) creates another form of the virus using genetic manipulation. They sent COVID in ice cream the other day while claiming their entire country has zero infections. Either they're lying about the number of infected, or they're intentionally sending COVID.

The vaccine will help, that's what vaccinations are designed to do. So will getting sick, that's what it's designed to do. Look at any other viral disease - Polio, Chicken Pox. The only way to get sick multiple times is to contract different versions of the disease. So in some cases, it may still be necessary to get polio vaccines if you already contracted polio, because there are 3 polio variants in the world and you should get vaccinated against the other 2.

COVID-19 (aka the Trump virus) is by definition 1 variant of the coronavirus, you will still get sick with the common cold which is also a coronavirus, but until there is a COVID-21 (by prior definition will be called the Biden virus), this COVID-19 vaccine (by prior definition the Trump vaccine) created by Operation Warpspeed and funded globally by the US will protect you against all currently extant variations of COVID-19.

This last notion is important to understand if you don't live in the US. ONLY the vaccines created by the Trump admin have thus far worked. China's Sinovac has a 50% efficacy (basically a coin toss whether you get immunity) and Russia's vaccine has major side effects and was cancelled. I know in the EU, Brazil and some other socialist countries you can get Sinovac or will get Sinovac, those don't work or at least not very well. Hop on a plane to Florida like every other rich person in the world to get in line for a proper distribution system. Don't go to NY where we've so far destroyed 70% of our supply because it went out of date, because NYS wants to prioritize people based on race and hasn't even started distribution to the general population yet.

9

Oh What Is That Sound?

by Simon in

jw
friends

o what is that sound which so thrills the eardown in the valley drumming, drumming?only the scarlet soldiers, dear,the soldiers coming.o what is that light i see flashing so clearover the distance brightly, brightly?only the sun on their weapons, dear,as they step lightly.o what are they doing with all that gear,what are they doing this morning, morning?only their usual manoeuvres, dear,or perhaps a warning.o why have they left the road down there,why are they suddenly wheeling, wheeling?perhaps a change in their orders, dear,why are you kneeling?o haven't they stopped for the doctor's care,haven't they reined their horses, horses?why, they are none of them wounded, dear,none of these forces.o is it the parson they want, with white hair,is it the parson, is it, is it?no, they are passing his gateway, dear,without a visit.o it must be the farmer that lives so near.it must be the farmer so cunning, so cunning?they have passed the farmyard already, dear,and now they are running.o where are you going?

stay with me here!were the vows you swore deceiving, deceiving?no, i promised to love you, dear,but i must be leaving.o it's broken the lock and splintered the door,o it's the gate where they're turning, turning;their boots are heavy on the floorand their eyes are burning.. - w.h.auden.

Anony Mous

When they kick at your front door
How you gonna come?
With your hands on your head
Or on the trigger of your gun

When the law break in
How you gonna go?
Shot down on the pavement
Or waiting on death row

You can crush us
You can bruise us
But you'll have to answer to
Oh, the guns of Brixton

a bit later

You know it means no mercy

They caught him with a gun

The Clash - The Guns of Brixton

That song was written in the late 70's about the paranoia of living in an apocalyptic version of Brixton within the context of a Cold War while all sorts of rights were quickly eroded away by the government. The whole album is just chilling if you compare it to what policy makers have actually already done in London and the UK in general (the constant surveillance, the erasure of property, speech and gun rights)

It seems those things have come so close to true, not just in the UK but across the 'western world' where democracy once reigned.

76

Do You Support Trump Being Impeached Again?

by minimus in

jw
friends

it looks like it can happen again and i suspect if it does happen, the senate will not convict either because they can’t convict him since it’s after his presidency or simply because they don’t have sufficient votes..

Anony Mous

@TD: I did read the article. Just because the government or a government website has an opinion, does not mean it is legally interpreted as such.

My interpretation is not just the layman's interpretation, it's according to most, an originalist interpretation. Impeachment was never SUPPOSED to be political, some of the Federalist papers obviously argue as much, but other writers wanted this to be an emergency power when elections weren't feasible. This was written when distributing information and organizing an election would feasibly take at least a year or so. Now we can literally organize an election in weeks and people would know about it in 24h or less.

As I said, how it will be interpreted, depends largely on the Supreme Court, if it ever comes before the court, or if they will simply say "it's a political issue".

76

Do You Support Trump Being Impeached Again?

by minimus in

jw
friends

it looks like it can happen again and i suspect if it does happen, the senate will not convict either because they can’t convict him since it’s after his presidency or simply because they don’t have sufficient votes..

Anony Mous

@TD: That is one opinion off course, none of which has been tested in court. High crimes and misdemeanors did have a meaning at the framing of the constitution. If you're an originalist, then you'd interpret it as such.

High crimes - activity by or against those who have special duties acquired by taking an oath of office that are not shared with common persons

Misdemeanors - a less serious offense than a felony

This was intended to show that the presidency was to be held above reproach from any criminal wrongdoing, including non-felonious conduct.

The question is whether the President did anything wrong, and it will be very hard to prove the President did so. He told people to "peacefully protest" which is legal. He's not responsible for the mob peacefully protesting within the building, as much as Bernie Sanders was not responsible for the guy trying to shoot people of congress a few years ago after he said "they're trying to kill your grandmother". If Trump is held responsible for this, so should Pelosi be responsible for it, she's the one that indicated her contempt for the plebes with the "let them eat ice cream" controversy, or the Squad is responsible for BLM protests this summer etc etc.

76

Do You Support Trump Being Impeached Again?

by minimus in

jw
friends

it looks like it can happen again and i suspect if it does happen, the senate will not convict either because they can’t convict him since it’s after his presidency or simply because they don’t have sufficient votes..

Anony Mous

This is the party of peace and unity! Just inflaming the tensions, their ultimate goal is for another insurrection so they can ban the second amendment (which Michigan’s left-wing governor just did) and declare an eternal state of emergency and government control over the public places (which is what the DC mayor just requested)

@Davros: that’s right, someone just told me “you’ll be getting that 1200 check soon, the Georgia Democrats ran on that platform” ... I laughed, the election is over, you won’t be getting anything for another 2 years.

55

Should Difference of Opinion Be Squelched On Sites Such As FB or Twitter?

by minimus in

jw
friends

i think that for the most part, dissenting views should be allowed to exist because of free speech principles.

one person may strongly feel that something is true while someone else may present “facts” that support the opposing view.

when that is the case, healthy discussion is mostly productive.

Anony Mous

The right is already building these platforms. They will become invite only and they will host even more hostility, now competent hidden from view.

Twitter and FaceBook both already took a 5% nosedive today. That is a combined loss of $40B from these two companies in 24 hours. Amazon, Google and Apple all took a 2% hit when the market has been growing around them. That is billions erased over woke bullshit. And it serves them right.

And then the establishment will be surprised when the next revolution happens.

16

Hysteria & Final Thoughts

by Sea Breeze in

every republican president ever elected starting with reagan generated hysteria in the news media.

they belittled, cajoled, ridiculed, mocked and resisted the highest elected leader in the land in an attempt to overturn the will of the people.

reagan.

Anony Mous

Lenin also made sure the Mensheviks and others could not publish in the paper, printers wouldn’t take their pamphlets and businesses weren’t allowed to distribute their content... initially upon suggestion that they were causing instability for the country and a threat to democracy, then Lenin established enforcers of these rules that operated but were allowed outside the legal system, later these rules were enforced by law sounds familiar?

17

Suing The Music Industry

by Lost in the fog in

jehovah’s witnesses file copyright lawsuit in response to blundering christmas album - listen, obey, and be blessed.

.

https://www.toptutorials.co.uk/jehovahs-witnesses-file-copyright-lawsuit-in-response-to-blundering-christmas-album-torrentfreak/.

Anony Mous

@drearyweather: That is indeed correct. They own the rights to "the musical composition", not the song or its performance.

Sound recordings and musical compositions are considered two separate works for copyright purposes. Even though a sound recording is a derivative work of the underlying musical composition, a copyright in a sound recording is not the same as, or a substitute for, copyright in the underlying musical composition.

They have worded their argument very specifically. They want the singer to stop the distribution of the sound recording and public performance, by claiming they have the rights to the musical composition. This is so antithetical to copyright as it would mean that people that create sheet music of eg. Beethoven's fifth would suddenly own all the performances as well. It would also mean that the congregations could be liable for the few cents (51 cents I believe) per person it costs to license whenever they sing the song, actually, legally speaking, if they did not collect said license from their congregations, they may lose their rights to the work altogether.

You can buy the musical composition of many songs without buying the copyright on the further distribution and performance. You CAN buy public performance rights as well, but that is typically a ton more expensive and separate from the piece of sheet music from a composer. This is what makes the specific wording so suspicious, it points to a fact they do not own those rights, which means they did not write it themselves but purchased it from someone else. If you create a piece of music yourself, you can claim the performance rights, which they do not in the suit.

To give you an example, many (most) singers do not write their own songs, they buy them from someone, the bigger musicians will also buy the exclusive rights and the big labels will also pay out to get the exclusive rights on the public performance. Hence you cannot perform Beyonce's latest hit album and sell it, hell, they'll kick you off YouTube and fine you for just humming a snippet of it online. Same goes for Happy Birthday, licensed to I believe BMG or Warner Music, you can't perform it in public without paying them.