Dr. McCullough is a cardiologist, professor at a medical school, and has the most research publications in the world in his field dealing with cardiology and nephrology, according to him. I have not seen anyone doubt his credentials, so I accept that he is telling the truth about his academic and research career. He isn't a conspiracy theorist, he's qualified. You might disagree with his opinions, but again, not a nutjob.

Joe Rogan isn't a medical doctor, he just interviews them, and mostly what Dr. McCullough emphasized during his interview was the need for early treatment in case someone did in fact get Covid. Vaccines will not stop infection anymore, so in the case that someone, vaxxed or not, does end up getting a serious infection, it's worth looking into treatment that would prevent someone from landing in the hospital. Because at the point of hospitalization, it's probably too late for any treatment plan to work.

Molnupiravir works, but it's expensive and Merck has exclusivity for many markets, if I understand correctly. Wouldn't be terrible if there was a cheaper alternative.

When I describe poor, I just mean lack of access to capital. Hard to have any leverage when you don't have any capital, but even then, in any free market system where the laws/regulations are followed, the leverage the whales have can dissipate if they make the wrong move, as I alluded to in my GME example.

So the risk is relative, but still proportional. Wall Street is rich because they engage in risk, while poor people generally don't.

Problem with wall street is crony capitalism, but that's another discussion.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/14/politics/us-intelligence-russia-false-flag/index.html

Adding more uncertainty to the mix, there's the possibility of a Russian false flag in order to justify the invasion of Ukraine. In addition, a cyber attack targeted Ukrainian government websites. On the note of an alleged false flag being planned by Russia, this allegation is stemming from US intelligence, so I'd take it with a grain of salt. I still believe the US does not care enough about Ukraine to intervene, and any other NATO countries are obviously not going to get themselves involved either. Consider Ukraine gone if Putin wants to invade with military intervention. Ukraine isn't powerful enough to defend its own sovereignty.

You are injecting children with substances if you choose to vaccinate them, the question lies whether a vaccine would be effective in children, what side effects might factor in to the cost–benefit analysis (and part of that discussion, how deadly COVD is to children).

Vaccines are generally safe for children. Though I would present the valid concern of myocarditis that can be induced by the vaccine in healthy children, that would not have otherwise been exposed to myocarditis had they gotten a case of asymptomatic or mild Covid.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.23.21268276v1.full


In the paper, it's also mentioned that the risk of myocarditis is smaller than that of a Covid infection, which is often used by proponents of mass child vaccination to suggest the outcome of mass vaccination would then result in a lesser net caseload of myocarditis. Of course, as I alluded to above, this fails to discern the gradations of COVID. Not every COVID case is serious, and in fact, the younger and healthier you are, the less chance you have of a severe outcome.

So it would only be valid to compare the cases of mild/asymptomatic Covid myocarditis to the vaccine induced myocarditis instances. For obvious reasons, this hasn't been done because of how difficult it is to track asymptomatic/mild Covid cases in children. The stats just aren't there, countries do not test every child regularly.

I've seen some studies which suggest a second dose of the vaccine in younger males might increase the chance of myocarditis up to 16x.

Seems as if someone at particularly high risk, or in some vulnerable state, would be better off with a vaccine. An otherwise healthy individual doesn't have much incentive to take it, let alone children that are mostly healthy.

The premise of what OP saying isn't very logical. The more money anyone invests, whether it be an institutional investor or an ordinary person, that investment amount is directly proportional to the risk incurred, so why would anyone expect the profit structure to somehow stacked against the smaller investor? More risk means higher returns. Greater risks are also associated with greater losses. If a Wall street investor chooses to borrow money to invest, that's their prerogative. Recall during the GME squeeze, one of the investment firms responsible for shorting had to borrow millions in order to cover their losses. And of course, those millions went up in flames as the stock price continued to climb. In that instance, the wall street guys got burned, regardless of the access to capital they had.

In case you are unaware, the banning of crypto always starts as regulation. Then the regulation ends up going too far, usually ending up in an outright ban. If you immediately ban crypto, the potential economic ramifications aren't worth the short term gains of forcing citizens to use the country's currency -- ie, if the US or China were to ban crypto, some portion of their economy would suffer given the amount of growth that can be attributed to the crypto sector (an insignificant portion, nonetheless, but still). Pakistan I wouldn't imagine serves as a hub for the crypto sector -- my point only being that initial regulations inevitably result in a ban.

Concerning thing is that they voted 6-3 to strike down a vaccine mandate. For 3 judges it is apparently logical and constitutional for a vaccine mandate imposed by the government for "worker protection" through whatever "OSHA" does. You think it would be a straight 9-0 decision. And for the healthcare worker mandate, that in fact passed by a 5-4 vote. But most hospitals had already mandated it anyways, so it didn't matter.

Supreme Court of the U.S. blocks a vaccine and testing mandate for larger businesses in a vote of 6-3. Allows for a mandate of healthcare workers in a vote 5-4.

https://www.businessinsider.com/supreme-court-biden-vaccine-testing-mandate-covid-19-2022-1

I don't imagine the healthcare worker mandate makes any difference anyways. In most hospitals, standard operating procedures is for any doctors and nurses to get vaccinated or be removed from their position. Insofar any mandates are concerned, a hospital will take matters into their own hands as they see fit, just as any other reasonable business would. Any mandate of health workers is inconsequential.

In any developed world, and plenty of developed nations like India, a vaccine is available. The vaccine, by and large, prevents hospitalization and death.

The inflation caused by Covid was entirely preventable, and in essence, artificial. As I mentioned before, the entirety of inflation is based on the dollar losing its value due to supply and demand, not corporate greed. So people leaving their jobs due to Covid after a vaccine has been introduced is a byproduct of generous unemployment benefits with the federal government unwilling to let Covid go.

If you made the case that an economy should be shut down for 1.5 years back in March of 2020 when the world entered a lockdown period, people would have rightfully made the case that the economy would crash, supply chains would collapse, and inflation would run rampant. But somehow, there is a willingness to accept Covid restrictions even if that means withering away a strong economy because there are hundreds of thousands of cases of the sniffles.

Cases shouldn't dictate Covid policy, only hospitalization and deaths. The reason you're seeing people leave their jobs, aside from unemployment benefits, are because they're led to believe that Covid is a death sentence. It's far from it.

It's not merely a matter of caseload, which did go down for a significant period until the variants began to circulate, then you saw cases go up.

Vaccines are only good for preventing hospitalization and death. I use "only" very loosely here, because depending on the government official you ask, that may or may not be enough. Though, many of the health experts themselves concede the vaccines are no longer good enough against Omicron to prevent the initial infection.

Thankfully, Omicron is less deadly.

Omnivorous form of Covid? Is Covid now a flesh eating virus or something that attacks humans and plants? Some mutation.

No, Covid can not be eradicated through vaccines. We are no longer at the point where vaccines can stop transmission, they are only good for stopping hospitalization and death. The parameters keep shifting, and if you don't pay attention you might miss it.

That isn't to dissuade usage of a vaccine, because that's only a personal decision made between one's self and any counsel they receive with their physician. For most people it works. When break through infections become the norm post vaccination, there becomes a time where alternate therapeutics are needed, and the goals must become realistic, ie stop using vaccinations to end an "endemic" virus.

Countries of NATO don't trust Russia, they're aware of that. The West doesn't trust Russia, they're aware of that. There's a bit of a mutual understanding that whatever happens with Ukraine, including any concessions made about whether they join NATO or not, that any sort of war with Russia isn't worth it.

Can you blame them -- does Europe or the US really care what happens to Ukraine? They surely didn't do much when Crimea was annexed, the world sat and watched. The US routinely sends military aid, but that isn't going to do anything, Ukrainian military is too weak, and it is in their own interest to avoid a significant military conflict.

I've noticed the shift from anger towards government adding to inflation by reckless spending and supply chain issues move to the corporations. As if the corporations are responsible for supply chain issues, that they are merely raising the price for their own corporate greed and not because fiat currency is losing its value. Anything to keep people occupied -- can't hold the government responsible if the people don't know who's to blame for inflation. And with most things, demonize the capitalist system, the private businesses, in order to sell the idea that it is more government that can fix inflation. Meanwhile, they want to spend even more money in fighting Covid as well as a social spending spree to the tune of trillions.

Paypal owns Venmo, and Venmo directly competes with CashApp. CashApp allows stock trading but offers a large crypto platform too, so if Venmo doesn't already offer crypto, they soon will. I see Paypal as strictly a fiat based system and payment processor, doesn't seem to me that crypto users would be particularly interested. If they did create a stablecoin, they'd probably just use Venmo to to push it.

This is not a fact check, this is an editorialization, which further proves the point of mass formation psychosis for you to mindlessly link this and not even think twice.

Do you not find it suspect at all that such a "fact" check would come when people begin to question the Covid narrative?

Reuters, purported to be a "neutral" source of news just like the AP published a similar fact check on mass formation psychosis.

https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-coronavirus-psychology/fact-check-no-evidence-of-pandemic-mass-formation-psychosis-say-experts-speaking-to-reuters-idUSL1N2TN1RE

As expected, they arrive at the same conclusion the AP does.

Let me provide you an alternative fact check the AP/Reuters would never publish. An example that even you might understand. Recall when BLM terrorists are burning down American cities in 2020, violence you seem to condone as long as its social justice on the woke menu of the day. Do you remember the AP/Reuters ever publishing a fact check that only 13 unarmed black people were shot in 2019? That an unarmed black male has a greater chance of getting killed by the weather, perhaps a lightning strike, than being killed by police unarmed in the United States? That cancer, heart attacks, random gun violence by other black males themselves, are all causes of death which outrank police involved shooting deaths by a large margin? Would the MSM ever attempt to squash myths and irrational fears of being killed by police as a black man in America by publishing the true statistics of police involved deaths of African American men?

The answer is no.

In fact, if you do go against the giant media companies and the narrative they wish to pursue, you jeopardize your career: https://www.city-journal.org/black-lives-matter-thomson-reuters-and-the-price-of-dissent


A blog post, not a factual article to be clear. But it describes a statistician that worked for Reuters, who objected to the BLM narrative put forth by Reuters, and was chastised and fired for daring to dissent. 

The media have an agenda, and will refuse to touch anything politically unfeasible, whether it be systemic racism or Covid lock down restrictions. For the AP to go around hunting for the opinion of a few psychology professors, undoubtedly on the political left, and present their opinions as a "fact check" is by definition propaganda.

On Dr. Malone -- He is a medical doctor with an active medical license and training from Harvard medical school, with patents from the 1990's in mRNA technology. This isn't some quack with an online doctorate from Infowars. If you dispute what he says, don't attack his character, attack his arguments.

Well, at a certain point the "rage bait" headline isn't so much bait if the underlying principles are still egregious. You may not find them to be egregious, but after two years and enough of these headlines, they certainly seem to be pointing to to a common theme.

People get into investing thinking it's a method at easy, passive, income. It can be, given that you invest your funds properly and leave them in whatever market for a sufficient amount of time. There is a fine line between investing, and gambling (aka day trading) -- it hinges on how long you're willing to wait for a return on investment. Fortunately for crypto, holding is pretty simple, your funds can stay stagnant. A stock could theoretically tank the next day due to circumstances out of your control. Same could happen for crypto, but chances are significantly less than that of an individual company's stock due to decentralization. Considering this circumstance, funds in the stock market are constantly moving.

This is perfectly legitimate and realistically the biggest reason why crypto adoption is frowned upon. The common belief is that central banks support the legitimacy of a country's economy. After all, it's the central banks that back the value of the currency. Why would the average citizen have any reason to dispute them? Setting aside the clear reasons to not trust government, the simplest example would be going to a grocery store, paying with fiat, and accepting goods in return. Perfectly safe, correct? You're able to trade in intrinsically worthless paper for tangible goods. This creates a psychology, bonding you to fiat.

But, things turn sour when the value of the paper becomes lower, ie inflation. No longer does the paper allow for the same purchasing power. This is generally when people are awaken to the merits of crypto, and the psychology of the central bank's safety net is broken.

I think it can save an economy, granted the adoption of Bitcoin is universal or at the very least competitive enough for fiat currency within an economic system to be forced into competition with BTC.

Right now, any one country will have a monopoly on the currency, so there is no incentive for fiscal responsibility. If you take a failing economy, and either implement BTC as the universal currency, or relax regulations and encourage its adoption, I think you can stir up economic activity to a failing economy.

Though, goes without saying, it's counter intiutive for a government to introduce a currency that competes with its own, that's why you haven't seen BTC "save" an economy. The economies that aren't working are usually because of government corruption, and introducing BTC would give up too much control on the economy.

You probably don't recognize how insane that is because you agree with such draconian measures. It is excessive overreach of government intervention to "stop" a pandemic. I say stop with trepidation because it's actually not accurate to anyone that is paying attention to the raw data this pandemic has produced. Meaning, COVID is endemic. There is no stopping it, it will continue to mutate into variants, work its way through the population, until a new variant forms that evades previous immunity, and the cycle repeats.

Don't take my word for it, take the word of "the experts."

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00396-2


I could have told you this a year ago, so I'm glad you're now on the same page. There is no ending the pandemic. It's here to stay.

And you're also failing to account for natural immunity. For every one confirmed case, there could be as many as 5 unconfirmed cases. So people that naturally recover from the virus have don't have a necessity to immunize themselves again with a vaccine.

 

See above. COVID will not end.

 

Do you actually think vaccination stops transmission?

https://www.mayoclinic.org/coronavirus-covid-19/vaccine-tracker - 3 quarters of the US population has at least one dose, two doses for over 60 percent of the population.

Yet they are averaging 500k cases a day. Fully vaxxed and even boosted people are catching omicron, it isn't likely that it's unvaxxed people driving the spread. Omicron is evading vaccine induced immunity. And to be fair, it's evading natural immunity as well.

Omicron is too far distant from the original strain. But, the disease is very mild.


The death rate for the flu is greater than that of Covid. But I don't think you knew that so it's okay. If you can point me to vaccinate mandates, masking, school closures, and/or forcing children to eat outside in the cold while masked for the flu, I'm willing to hear it.


So you're okay with police harassing citizens over not wearing a piece of cloth over their face? Maybe when you drop the partisanship you'll have an understanding at how much power the government has gained over the last 2 years. It's ubiquitous.