Reasonable interview about CoVID-19

[RealityChecker]

interesting indeed as you and I appear to be on the same page with regard to many things, including the post I a quoting. I was raised in a very large (11 children) Catholic family and taught by nuns. I remember one day at age 11 where my back was breaking and doing what is called "The Stations of the Cross" and the church had just a few people as it was mid-week after school and I looked at the several nuns fervently praying and thinking "What if they are wrong?" That was a blasphemous thought that could end you up being eternally punished and I had to suppress it. In my early twenties, I determined that Catholicism was contrived, and this led to decades of debate with Christians.

The tactics used to indoctrinate people are the same no matter whether it is religion or politics and go in this approximate order and if you think of the political climate today and how they ruined Trump, you will see the connections between politics and religion.

1.) You put people in fear. With religion it is retribution and hell and politics it is that you will lose out on something and life will be more strenuous.
2.) You instill hatred in people. With religion, atheists are scorned and hated and with politics, the other side is.
3.) You make them feel guilty. With religion, it is that you are a sinner and nonbeliever and should be ashamed. With the left, it is that you are a racist and selfish and don't want to share.
4.) You repeat lies with feeling and drama and emphasis. With religion, it is that the bible is the word of God and every syllable is. With leftism, it is that the right is responsible for the problems in America.
5.) You demonize them. With religion it is over morals and lack of belief and that because they aren't like you, they are evil people to be hated and scorned. We have seen this for at least the last 5 years with MSM demonizing Trump which has now switched to all white conservatives.

Joseph Goebbels was a master propagandist, having studied what buttons to push and repeating a lie over and over was his strong suit. He was just ONE guy and his rantings led to 6 million Jews being killed. We now have hundreds of Goebbels in the MSM.

Interesting. I too was raised a Catholic although I went to public rather than Parochial schools. I got a taste of what it was like though from catechism class after mass every Sunday. I must admit that unlike most kids I really struggled with developing faith. Nevertheless, I missed mass only once up until about age 21y. That was when my father was driving up to Maine for a fishing trip on Sunday morning. He made the executive decision to drive on rather than to stop I believe Bangor, ME and thought we could find a church Further north. We did but their last Mass was at 10AM and we got there close to 11AM. So I missed mass. Somehow my father was not all that concerned even though I was taught in catechism class that skipping mass was a serious sin. I mostly hid my inability to have faith thinking there was something wrong with me. Perhaps there is as most people seem to need faith in something far more than I do. Long story short I gave up going to mass for Lent before my 21st B-Day (born in April). For a while I was pretty anti-religion because my brain just resists taking things on faith. But eventually, I came to see religion as preferable to atheism for most people. So why I mostly agree with your equating religion with political cultism I have a slightly different take - especially on #2. Certainly the progressive left instills hate in people and so do some religions. Hard to argue that radical Muslims do not hate people who won't submit to their version of god. But I do not see Judaism and most of Christianity (at least in the USA) as promoting hatred. Indeed, it seems to protect people who have faith from having faith in progressive leftism and Marxism, which definitely promotes divisiveness, envy, intolerance and hate. So I am not really anti-Judeo-Christian, because I do not see it as a real threat to my individual liberty. I do see progressive leftism and Marxist as a potential existential threat to individual liberty and much of what helped make America a great country. But it became a great country despite or even perhaps in part because it helps many people lead more ethical or moral lives. In any case I have gone way OT so enough of this here. Perhaps this topic will be discussed in a more appropriate place here at DP? Food For Thought (FFT)

 

[RealityChecker]

“ Once you understand these folks have lost contact with reality it is easier to understand their psychopathology. ”

This part of your post I agree with.

One of the problems the far right wing extremists have is that they automatically assume that anything they are told by scientists, doctors, and political leaders is FALSE.
Those of us with an ability to reason believe what we are told if what we are told is supported by facts from reputable sources and if something sounds fishy WE will research it on our own.
Believing that everyone is lying to you all the time is not a healthy way to live.

Well I am by nature a skeptic. As such I am inclined to question would be authorities. I have a lot of problems with the way medical care is being practiced and often do not do what my MDs recommend. I have spent my life pursuing objective reality and so the last thing I would do is reject the scientific method or science in general. However, I have frequently over the years question the status quo. I did this as a student and as a licensed health professional. I also encouraged my students when I taught at Lehigh University and UCLA to challenge me if they thought something in their text book or something I said in lectures was illogical or out of sync with reality. I would question the sanity of anyone so naïve that they accepted everything some politician claims be they Republican or Democrat. Politicians are professional liars and very good at misleading people for political gain. There is nothing wrong with believing what you are told IF it is supported by facts and is logical. As a skeptic I try to keep an open mind. I would agree it is not healthy to assume everyone is lying to you all the time. It is perhaps even worse to trust people who are lying to you. That is true whether the liar is an investment advisor, a politician looking for a donation and/or your vote, a teacher/professor, an MD, a scientist, etc.. Trust is something that must be earned IMO. My inclination is to trust those who have earned my trust by demonstrating they are honest and ethical repeatedly. Do you disagree?

 

[Ethel2]

Well I am by nature a skeptic. As such I am inclined to question would be authorities. I have a lot of problems with the way medical care is being practiced and often do not do what my MDs recommend. I have spent my life pursuing objective reality and so the last thing I would do is reject the scientific method or science in general. However, I have frequently over the years question the status quo. I did this as a student and as a licensed health professional. I also encouraged my students when I taught at Lehigh University and UCLA to challenge me if they thought something in their text book or something I said in lectures was illogical or out of sync with reality. I would question the sanity of anyone so naïve that they accepted everything some politician claims be they Republican or Democrat. Politicians are professional liars and very good at misleading people for political gain. There is nothing wrong with believing what you are told IF it is supported by facts and is logical. As a skeptic I try to keep an open mind. I would agree it is not healthy to assume everyone is lying to you all the time. It is perhaps even worse to trust people who are lying to you. That is true whether the liar is an investment advisor, a politician looking for a donation and/or your vote, a teacher/professor, an MD, a scientist, etc.. Trust is something that must be earned IMO. My inclination is to trust those who have earned my trust by demonstrating they are honest and ethical repeatedly. Do you disagree?

I tend to trust people (to a degree) until they prove that they do not deserve my trust. I believe that most people are inherently decent at heart and do what they believe is the right thing to do. If someone tells me something that doesn't sound logical I ask them for proof to back up what they have stated-or I do my own research. I also believe in something Reagan once said: "trust, but verify", so I guess I am part skeptic too.

 

[minnie616]

I don’t fear religion .
I don’t fear politics.

I always try to look for the positives in life and I will look for the good in others.

When the new virus first showed up in United States in January 2020 I was encouraged when President Trump blocked travel from China except to allow Citizens to return home through several designated airports where temperatures would be checked and those returning would be quarantined I was encouraged we could contain this new virus like we contained SARS in 2003 and we contained Ebola and MERS but doctors and scientists were not aware that this coronavirus was not like any coronavirus scientists and doctors ever came in contact with before. It spread pre symptomatically and asymptotically.

I researched as many medial and scientific articles as I could
( I have a bit of a background in medical technology ) so I have that knowledge.

My philosophy was the virus is the enemy, we are in together , and together we can contain the virus .

We just needed to take it one day ant a time and survive until a vaccine or medical treatment could contain this virus.

Now we have a vaccine that is even more effective than many of us ever could have hoped for.

 

[Ethel2]

I don’t fear religion .
I don’t fear politics.

I always try to look for the positives in life and I will look for the good in others.

When the new virus first showed up in United States in January 2020 I was encouraged when President Trump blocked travel from China except to allow Citizens to return home through several designated airports where temperatures would be checked and those returning would be quarantined I was encouraged we could contain this new virus like we contained SARS in 2003 and we contained Ebola and MERS but doctors and scientists were not aware that this coronavirus was not like any coronavirus scientists and doctors ever came in contact with before. It spread pre symptomatically and asymptotically.

I researched as many medial and scientific articles as I could
( I have a bit of a background in medical technology ) so I have that knowledge.

My philosophy was the virus is the enemy, we are in together , and together we can contain the virus .

We just needed to take it one day ant a time and survive until a vaccine or medical treatment could contain this virus.

Now we have a vaccine that is even more effective than many of us ever could have hoped for.

Turns out we were battling two enemies: the virus...................and ourselves. We never did come together as a team. Had we done that hundreds of thousands of lives could have been spared.
There is a time for people to do whatever they want to do within the confines of the law. And there is a time for people to look the enemy in the eye AS ONE NATION and defeat it. Unfortunately, too many people can't tell the difference.
That is why we failed as a nation and it is why we will continue to fail in the face of a common enemy.

 

[RealityChecker]

Well.. suffice it to say this is the problem with non scientific/non medical people making conclusions about research they don;t understand.
The research you linked to.. DOES NOT CONCLUDE THAT MASKS DON"T WORK..
Yes.. if found that no significant reduction in the rates of wearers of masks. So what does that mean? It does not mean that masks don;t work.

I have a PhD from Rutgers and have published studies in peer reviewed scientific journals. And before retiring 3 years ago I was a licensed health professional. Suffice it to say I likely know a tad more about scientific research than you do. Allow me to demonstrate. Actually the results of this study do in fact mean these surgical masks either do not work at all or at best do not work very well at protecting the mask wearer from catching CoVID-19. That is also exactly what I claimed. You stand corrected.

1. The study actually found that those who wore masks were less likely to get infected than the control group who did not wear masks. So yes there was a reduction. However, they set their significance at 50% reduction.. and the masks didn't quite reach that

Actually the statistic found that although the difference observed was not statistically significant, the 95% CIs was compatible with a 46% reduction to a 23% increase in infection. So the reduction in infections in the group wearing masks was 11.5%. Do people wearing mask understand that the only randomized controlled clinical trial on their efficacy for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infections was only 11.5%? Now N95 masks work far better but most masks being worn by the public are paper or cloth masks and they may cut your risk modestly at best. Your claim that the CI showed the study's results "didn't quite reach" statistical significance tells me you have little understanding of statistics. The results were not even remotely close to being statistically significant. If the CI had been from a 105% reduction to only a 46% reduction then they would have just missed statistical significance. You again were far from reality.

2. And this is the big thing. The study only looked at the reduction of infection FOR THE WEARER. In other words, how much protection did the wearer of the mask get from other people. What the study DID NOT look at.. is what was the protection against infection when the person wearing the mask was infected and the mask reduced infection to other people.

True but most people were led to believe mask the best research showed they substantially reduced the risk of catching SARS-CoV-2. In fact the only controlled clinical trial seriously undermined that oft reported but very questionable claim.

More recently.. it has been found that mask wearing actually affords the wearer.. some measure of protection as well. As the study you linked to also found.

Wrong and wrong again. The study I posted was the only controlled trial ever. Such trials establish causality but the observational studies published later do not. Why? Such studies have trouble controlling for confounding variables so the so correlation but not causation. Thanks for giving it a shot at debating me. Hopefully you learned something.

 

[noonereal]

Dr. Saphier interview about her new book on CoVID

https://www.theepochtimes.com/dr-ni...tter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2021-02-19

What's it about?

What are your impressions?

 

[RealityChecker]

What's it about?

What are your impressions?

It is about CoVID-19. My impression is that Dr. Saphier did a very nice job of explaining what is and is not likely true about CoVID-19. I am rarely impressed by experts and pundits but this interview I found spot on.

 

[jaeger19]

I have a PhD from Rutgers and have published studies in peer reviewed scientific journals. And before retiring 3 years ago I was a licensed health professional. Suffice it to say I likely know a tad more about scientific research than you do. Allow me to demonstrate. Actually the results of this study do in fact mean these surgical masks either do not work at all or at best do not work very well at protecting the mask wearer from catching CoVID-19. That is also exactly what I claimed. You stand corrected.

Actually the statistic found that although the difference observed was not statistically significant, the 95% CIs was compatible with a 46% reduction to a 23% increase in infection. So the reduction in infections in the group wearing masks was 11.5%. Do people wearing mask understand that the only randomized controlled clinical trial on their efficacy for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infections was only 11.5%? Now N95 masks work far better but most masks being worn by the public are paper or cloth masks and they may cut your risk modestly at best. Your claim that the CI showed the study's results "didn't quite reach" statistical significance tells me you have little understanding of statistics. The results were not even remotely close to being statistically significant. If the CI had been from a 105% reduction to only a 46% reduction then they would have just missed statistical significance. You again were far from reality.

True but most people were led to believe mask the best research showed they substantially reduced the risk of catching SARS-CoV-2. In fact the only controlled clinical trial seriously undermined that oft reported but very questionable claim.


Wrong and wrong again. The study I posted was the only controlled trial ever. Such trials establish causality but the observational studies published later do not. Why? Such studies have trouble controlling for confounding variables so the so correlation but not causation. Thanks for giving it a shot at debating me. Hopefully you learned something.

Ahhh..now look at you taking it back...so now you admit that the study DOES NOT SAY..that masks don't work to stop infection.. its that masks don't necessarily have a tremendous reduction for the wearer...
Which does not mean masks don't work because masks could work and that's what research shows by reducing transmission from someone with covid but wearing a mask vs someone with covid not wearing a mask.
Sorry dude either you were not smart enough to understand the difference....or you are purposely trying to deceive people.
2. Nope..thats in your head. Clearly researchers were showing that mask wearing was about reducing the chances of someone with covid..particularly asymptomatic of giving it to another person. You wear a mask to protect others..
3. So? Cohort studies use temporal framework that also assesses causality.
As far as controlling for confounding variables? Yeah an observational study can statistically control for confounding variables as well.
For example in the Danish study...was each group purposely exposed to covid? Of course not.. so actually behavior is a determining factor..which was not controlled. And the study took place when there was low incidence of covid in the community...meaning that statistically the chance of getting the virus mask or not was potentially so low that getting a statistically significant effect with the n they had would be difficult.
However there are observational studies on mask use that control for such variables by assessing compliance and exposure.. for example comparing a household with a covid patient wearing a mask..with a household with a covid patient not wearing masks.
By the way..you may want to read what the Danish authors say about mask use before you continue..

 

[Paradoxical]

I have a PhD from Rutgers and have published studies in peer reviewed scientific journals. And before retiring 3 years ago I was a licensed health professional. Suffice it to say I likely know a tad more about scientific research than you do. Allow me to demonstrate. Actually the results of this study do in fact mean these surgical masks either do not work at all or at best do not work very well at protecting the mask wearer from catching CoVID-19. That is also exactly what I claimed. You stand corrected.

Actually the statistic found that although the difference observed was not statistically significant, the 95% CIs was compatible with a 46% reduction to a 23% increase in infection. So the reduction in infections in the group wearing masks was 11.5%. Do people wearing mask understand that the only randomized controlled clinical trial on their efficacy for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infections was only 11.5%? Now N95 masks work far better but most masks being worn by the public are paper or cloth masks and they may cut your risk modestly at best. Your claim that the CI showed the study's results "didn't quite reach" statistical significance tells me you have little understanding of statistics. The results were not even remotely close to being statistically significant. If the CI had been from a 105% reduction to only a 46% reduction then they would have just missed statistical significance. You again were far from reality.

True but most people were led to believe mask the best research showed they substantially reduced the risk of catching SARS-CoV-2. In fact the only controlled clinical trial seriously undermined that oft reported but very questionable claim.


Wrong and wrong again. The study I posted was the only controlled trial ever. Such trials establish causality but the observational studies published later do not. Why? Such studies have trouble controlling for confounding variables so the so correlation but not causation. Thanks for giving it a shot at debating me. Hopefully you learned something.

Mighty impressive post. Not that you want it, but mega kudos. One of the best. Of course, it helps that you confirm what I have been saying to this crowd for months and it hasn't sunk in. My hope is that with your credentials it will.

 

[jaeger19]

Mighty impressive post. Not that you want it, but mega kudos. One of the best. Of course, it helps that you confirm what I have been saying to this crowd for months and it hasn't sunk in. My hope is that with your credentials it will.

Bwaaaahhhhh...

 

[Ethel2]

I have a PhD from Rutgers and have published studies in peer reviewed scientific journals. And before retiring 3 years ago I was a licensed health professional. Suffice it to say I likely know a tad more about scientific research than you do. Allow me to demonstrate. Actually the results of this study do in fact mean these surgical masks either do not work at all or at best do not work very well at protecting the mask wearer from catching CoVID-19. That is also exactly what I claimed. You stand corrected.

Actually the statistic found that although the difference observed was not statistically significant, the 95% CIs was compatible with a 46% reduction to a 23% increase in infection. So the reduction in infections in the group wearing masks was 11.5%. Do people wearing mask understand that the only randomized controlled clinical trial on their efficacy for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infections was only 11.5%? Now N95 masks work far better but most masks being worn by the public are paper or cloth masks and they may cut your risk modestly at best. Your claim that the CI showed the study's results "didn't quite reach" statistical significance tells me you have little understanding of statistics. The results were not even remotely close to being statistically significant. If the CI had been from a 105% reduction to only a 46% reduction then they would have just missed statistical significance. You again were far from reality.

True but most people were led to believe mask the best research showed they substantially reduced the risk of catching SARS-CoV-2. In fact the only controlled clinical trial seriously undermined that oft reported but very questionable claim.


Wrong and wrong again. The study I posted was the only controlled trial ever. Such trials establish causality but the observational studies published later do not. Why? Such studies have trouble controlling for confounding variables so the so correlation but not causation. Thanks for giving it a shot at debating me. Hopefully you learned something.

“ True but most people were led to believe mask the best research showed they substantially reduced the risk of catching SARS-CoV-2. In fact the only controlled clinical trial seriously undermined that oft reported but very questionable claim. ”

Who are these “most people “?
I had no delusions that wearing a cloth mask (I wear a KN95 which is much better) would do much to protect ME. I wear a mask to protect OTHERS.
It has been hammered by many people that YOU wear a mask mainly to protect ME and vice versa. I remember Cuomo saying that over and over again during his briefings.
You are a health professional; so is Jaeger and so am I. Our resumes are not particularly relevant. Only the facts are relevant and in this case the relevant fact is this:

Masks reduce but do not eliminate viral transmission

 

[RealityChecker]

Ahhh..now look at you taking it back...so now you admit that the study DOES NOT SAY..that masks don't work to stop infection.. its that masks don't necessarily have a tremendous reduction for the wearer...
Which does not mean masks don't work because masks could work and that's what research shows by reducing transmission from someone with covid but wearing a mask vs someone with covid not wearing a mask.
Sorry dude either you were not smart enough to understand the difference....or you are purposely trying to deceive people.

Here's exactly what I stated and it is at the top of your post above so anyone can check it out to see you are pretending I claimed things I did not in fact claim.

"It seems a lot of faith in face masks being worn by the public being effective for stopping the spread of SARS-CoV-2. Sadly the only controlled clinical trial on the use of such masks found no statistically significant reduction in infections with such masks. The results of this study demonstrate these flimsy face masks are largely or completely ineffective for stopping one from getting sick with the Wuhan virus. Those interested in science rather than hanging on to unfounded beliefs might be interested in this study:" RealityChecker (RC)

To be crystal clear this study showed that people randomly assigned to wear face masks over the next 30 days saw NO statistically significant reduction in their risk of catching SARS-CoV-2 compared to people who were not given 50 masks and instructed to not wear face masks. The research says nothing about people not involved in the study. So if you are wearing a paper or cloth face mask and believe it will cut your risk of catching the Wuhan virus the results showed such masks are largely or completely ineffective at preventing the wearer from getting CoVID-19. My intent (which you clearly do not know) is to educate and not as you claim to deceive is without merit.

2. Nope..thats in your head. Clearly researchers were showing that mask wearing was about reducing the chances of someone with covid..particularly asymptomatic of giving it to another person. You wear a mask to protect others..

Do people wearing mask with CoVID-19 (symptomatic or not reduce their chances of spreading it to others? Maybe and maybe not. RC

3. So? Cohort studies use temporal framework that also assesses causality.

True but they are not as effective as randomized controlled clinical trials at establishing causality. RC

As far as controlling for confounding variables? Yeah an observational study can statistically control for confounding variables as well.
For example in the Danish study...was each group purposely exposed to covid? Of course not.. so actually behavior is a determining factor..which was not controlled. And the study took place when there was low incidence of covid in the community...meaning that statistically the chance of getting the virus mask or not was potentially so low that getting a statistically significant effect with the n they had would be difficult.
However there are observational studies on mask use that control for such variables by assessing compliance and exposure.. for example comparing a household with a covid patient wearing a mask..with a household with a covid patient not wearing masks.
By the way..you may want to read what the Danish authors say about mask use before you continue..

Your point here escapes me but your suggestion I read the conclusions of the authors is pointless as I already read the entire study. Here are the study conclusions:

"The recommendation to wear surgical masks to supplement other public health measures did not reduce the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate among wearers by more than 50% in a community with modest infection rates, some degree of social distancing, and uncommon general mask use. The data were compatible with lesser degrees." Bundgaard H. et.al.

 

[RealityChecker]

“ True but most people were led to believe mask the best research showed they substantially reduced the risk of catching SARS-CoV-2. In fact the only controlled clinical trial seriously undermined that oft reported but very questionable claim. ”RC

Who are these “most people “?
I had no delusions that wearing a cloth mask (I wear a KN95 which is much better) would do much to protect ME. I wear a mask to protect OTHERS.
It has been hammered by many people that YOU wear a mask mainly to protect ME and vice versa. I remember Cuomo saying that over and over again during his briefings.
You are a health professional; so is Jaeger and so am I. Our resumes are not particularly relevant. Only the facts are relevant and in this case the relevant fact is this:

Masks reduce but do not eliminate viral transmission

Well I agree with you that properly fitted N95 masks worn in hospital settings have been proven to reduce, but not eliminate, the risk of catching CoVID-19. Of course, if your health professional is wearing a N95 mask with exhaling vents they still likely cut the risk of the person wearing that mask from catching SARS-CoV-2. However, they likely provide very little or no protection for the patients and others they come in close contact with. If you and Jaeger are indeed health professionals and especially if you were working with CoVID-19 patients before getting vaccinated I admire your bravery. RealityChecker

 

[minnie616]

Well I agree with you that properly fitted N95 masks worn in hospital settings have been proven to reduce, but not eliminate, the risk of catching CoVID-19. Of course, if your health professional is wearing a N95 mask with exhaling vents they still likely cut the risk of the person wearing that mask from catching SARS-CoV-2. However, they likely provide very little or no protection for the patients and others they come in close contact with. If you and Jaeger are indeed health professionals and especially if you were working with CoVID-19 patients before getting vaccinated I admire your bravery. RealityChecker

Agreed.
However , masks are so 2020 and in the past for the vaccinated.

We do not to be concerned about how effective a face mask is. In fact I will just wear a light weight disposable type mask when entering a place of business or wherever else it’s required.

The unvaccinated however , will not be able to travel places or attend places of business that only the vaccinated are allowed to go..

Vacation destinations here I come !

 

[minnie616]

To be honest, the only thing I know about the Epoch Times is an ad I see from them from time to time saying they are about being conservative. At least they admit it, unlike the clowns in MSM

Consider your lucky you never came in contact with the Epoch Times before.

We got a few of the papers in our mail last winter even though we did not subscribe to them.

I don’t know if they were unsolicited or someone else subscribed them to be mailed to us.

I have no idea how they got our address.

The newspaper was full of lies and sensationalism.

It was like An Enquirer newspaper on steroids.

 

[RealityChecker]

Mighty impressive post. Not that you want it, but mega kudos. One of the best. Of course, it helps that you confirm what I have been saying to this crowd for months and it hasn't sunk in. My hope is that with your credentials it will.

Thanks, I appreciate the feedback. I am pretty sure that my academic credentials are not going to convince many people I am an expert. Of course, my expertise is not in virology. Of course, in FB discussion group there was a woman with a PhD in virology (although she did not use here real name so no one confirm she really had that academic credential). While I respected her opinions about CoVID-19 and think it very likely she had a PhD in virology the progressive leftists and even some on the political right showed no respect for her expert opinions about CoVID-19. And I have been in LinkedIn groups that actually were set up to discuss the topic in which I have a PhD and since everyone could see my real name and google me and see many of my publications including some in clinical journals it did not matter to most people. As Rodney Dangerfield used to say "I don't get no respect".

BTW- Rodney was a very funny guy who sat in on several of my lectures more than two decades ago. It is a pity what has happened to comedy today thanks in large part to the progressive left's assault on free speech.

 

[RealityChecker]

Consider your lucky you never came in contact with the Epoch Times before.

We got a few of the papers in our mail last winter even though we did not subscribe to them.

I don’t know if they were unsolicited or someone else subscribed them to be mailed to us.

I have no idea how they got our address.

The newspaper was full of lies and sensationalism.

It was like An Enquirer newspaper on steroids.

Well from what I have seen about The Epoch Times it is not much like the National Enquirer. But I am a big fan of freedom of the press and am concerned at the growing efforts to censor people and publications that have a different political perspective. I am also not a fan of CoVID-19 "passports". There is a reason we have HIPPA regulations and empowering the Federal government to have such information and force people to get vaccinated in order to fly or go on a cruise seems wrong. A friend of mine who happens to be an MD who travels a lot got vaccinated just so he could fly. He was actually one of the first Americans to be Dx with CoVID-19 after doing a talk to a group of mostly Chinese Americans in Chicago back in late February (if memory serves). Perhaps 40% of Americans have antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 and the research shows they are likely as immune to infection and likely pose no more risk than those (like myself) who have been vaccinated. Forcing all those people get vaccinated is wrong and a big waste of money. Also those vaccine they got should be going to people who are at high risk of infection and not to those who are already immune IMO.

 

[Paradoxical]

Consider your lucky you never came in contact with the Epoch Times before.

We got a few of the papers in our mail last winter even though we did not subscribe to them.

I don’t know if they were unsolicited or someone else subscribed them to be mailed to us.

I have no idea how they got our address.

The newspaper was full of lies and sensationalism.

It was like An Enquirer newspaper on steroids.

Watching CNN and MSNBS is like getting the visual of The National Enquirer and The Onion all in one.

 

[Paradoxical]

Thanks, I appreciate the feedback. I am pretty sure that my academic credentials are not going to convince many people I am an expert. Of course, my expertise is not in virology. Of course, in FB discussion group there was a woman with a PhD in virology (although she did not use here real name so no one confirm she really had that academic credential). While I respected her opinions about CoVID-19 and think it very likely she had a PhD in virology the progressive leftists and even some on the political right showed no respect for her expert opinions about CoVID-19. And I have been in LinkedIn groups that actually were set up to discuss the topic in which I have a PhD and since everyone could see my real name and google me and see many of my publications including some in clinical journals it did not matter to most people. As Rodney Dangerfield used to say "I don't get no respect".

BTW- Rodney was a very funny guy who sat in on several of my lectures more than two decades ago. It is a pity what has happened to comedy today thanks in large part to the progressive left's assault on free speech.

I rarely watch a movie more than once. I have watched Caddie Shack 6 times now at least and it is still funny.I got a glimpse of him decades back when he was filming a movie near where I worked in Encino, Calif. He was funny just to look at it. One of his best jokes was, "My wife told me she wanted to have sex in the back seat of the car." Then she said, "You drive!"

One of the things that the left-wing does is to "expert" shop, which is what skilled attorneys do and what the insidious, devious and odious "fact-checking" does. After reading your few postings to date, I have no doubt whatsoever of your qualifications and it is amusing to watch you run circles around Jaeger and others. As I am sure you know, once they confirm a person's credentials and then confirm that person knows his stuff, when that "stuff" doesn't conform to their own belief system, they will ignore that person because they know they are not qualified to deal with that person's superior knowledge. The left-wing totalitarian companies such as FaceBook set up a system of fact-checking done almost solely by liberals masquerading as unbiased and of primarily conservatives for the sole purpose of indoctrinating humanity. Just as an attorney can find a doctor to spin the facts in an injury case, a fact-checker can find an "expert" in any field who would spin the facts to paint the picture he wants. Someone like yourself, they would ignore because your worldview doesn't fit theirs. It would be as if you didn't exist and the public would never see or hear what you had to say. Indoctrination is more about what people do NOT know than what they do know.

On many occasions, I would post what various experts had to say on a certain topic and the liberals here would then find a way to denigrate and ostracize that expert, rather than deal with the facts. The typical attack would be that the expert is a nutcase, right-winger, racist, previously discredited or (fill in the blanks). This site had a post by either the moderators or owners that said the posters should attack the information in the post and not the poster or person but, of course, that post is routinely ignored when the left cannot counter the facts, which is often.

 

[Quag]

Thanks, I appreciate the feedback. I am pretty sure that my academic credentials are not going to convince many people I am an expert. Of course, my expertise is not in virology. Of course, in FB discussion group there was a woman with a PhD in virology (although she did not use here real name so no one confirm she really had that academic credential). While I respected her opinions about CoVID-19 and think it very likely she had a PhD in virology the progressive leftists and even some on the political right showed no respect for her expert opinions about CoVID-19. And I have been in LinkedIn groups that actually were set up to discuss the topic in which I have a PhD and since everyone could see my real name and google me and see many of my publications including some in clinical journals it did not matter to most people. As Rodney Dangerfield used to say "I don't get no respect".

BTW- Rodney was a very funny guy who sat in on several of my lectures more than two decades ago. It is a pity what has happened to comedy today thanks in large part to the progressive left's assault on free speech.

FYI bolded is frankly true. This is an anonymous message board there is no way to prove your claimed credentials so they literally mean nothing. If you keep repeating them people will assume you made them up. Best to use your knowledge to make your points and leave any claims of experience, education out of it, instead back up your claism with links.
Please note I am not saying dont state your education and or experience but dont expect them to replace links supporting your claims.

 

[Paradoxical]

FYI bolded is frankly true. This is an anonymous message board there is no way to prove your claimed credentials so they literally mean nothing. If you keep repeating them people will assume you made them up. Best to use your knowledge to make your points and leave any claims of experience, education out of it, instead back up your claism with links.
Please note I am not saying dont state your education and or experience but dont expect them to replace links supporting your claims.

I see your expert and raise you TWO experts.

Oh, WAIT!! I'm looking at your hand. It's a loser and besides you never had any real experts. *Taking the pile of chips and dragging them over to my side.

PS. Since when did YOU, of all people, post a link of a qualified expert along with an extract of the salient parts that you believe support your weak hand?

 

[RealityChecker]

FYI bolded is frankly true. This is an anonymous message board there is no way to prove your claimed credentials so they literally mean nothing. If you keep repeating them people will assume you made them up. Best to use your knowledge to make your points and leave any claims of experience, education out of it, instead back up your claism with links.
Please note I am not saying dont state your education and or experience but dont expect them to replace links supporting your claims.

On that we agree 100%. In my field I am pretty sure most of the "PhDs" are from diploma mills. Indeed years ago when I used to appear on several mostly local TV stations fairly regularly with "Consumer Reporters" exposing the many scams and con artists. I was contacted by an investigative journalist at the LA Times who heard me pointing out that someone pretending to be an expert had a "PhD" from a diploma mill. Long story short - The LA Times ended up publishing an extensive article on a local quack who had granted the phony "PhD" to a quack I had exposed on a local TV news show. The LA Times reported that this one diploma mill was granting more "PhDs" in my field than all of the accredited universities in the United States combined. I only state the fact I have a PhD in response to posts from people who claim I am some dubious anti-science nut or I lack any understanding of science, which is exactly what happened in this discussion group.

 

[Quag]

On that we agree 100%. In my field I am pretty sure most of the "PhDs" are from diploma mills. Indeed years ago when I used to appear on several mostly local TV stations fairly regularly with "Consumer Reporters" exposing the many scams and con artists. I was contacted by an investigative journalist at the LA Times who heard me pointing out that someone pretending to be an expert had a "PhD" from a diploma mill. Long story short - The LA Times ended up publishing an extensive article on a local quack who had granted the phony "PhD" to a quack I had exposed on a local TV news show. The LA Times reported that this one diploma mill was granting more "PhDs" in my field than all of the accredited universities in the United States combined. I only state the fact I have a PhD in response to posts from people who claim I am some dubious anti-science nut or I lack any understanding of science, which is exactly what happened in this discussion group.

There is a guy I used to interact with on here who was a 911 truther. He started off claiming he was a helicopter pilot, but over time he kept adding more to his resumé. He was a flight instructor, biz jet pilot, jet test pilot, etc etc.. All the time showing a monumental lack of knowledge about basic aviation. It became clear he was not a pilot and had probably never been in a plane in his life.- Yes I am a pilot but I provided the links to back up my claims where all he ever did was claim he experienced this or he saw it on the internet but that it has since been scrubbed etc. etc...
Kinda enjoyed that as it was when I first came here to DP and got me to learn to back up what I already knew. Most of it was very common knowledge but some was a bit more specific and required a bit of work to find a link to support what I said (Often I had the documents but they were either not online or not viewable to the public so I had to find alternative sources)

 

[Paradoxical]

On that we agree 100%. In my field I am pretty sure most of the "PhDs" are from diploma mills. Indeed years ago when I used to appear on several mostly local TV stations fairly regularly with "Consumer Reporters" exposing the many scams and con artists. I was contacted by an investigative journalist at the LA Times who heard me pointing out that someone pretending to be an expert had a "PhD" from a diploma mill. Long story short - The LA Times ended up publishing an extensive article on a local quack who had granted the phony "PhD" to a quack I had exposed on a local TV news show. The LA Times reported that this one diploma mill was granting more "PhDs" in my field than all of the accredited universities in the United States combined. I only state the fact I have a PhD in response to posts from people who claim I am some dubious anti-science nut or I lack any understanding of science, which is exactly what happened in this discussion group.

That a poster here would even question your credentials after reading your posts, which anyone with half a brain would know that you know your stuff even if you aren't a PhD, and I fully believe you are, is indicative of the cognitive dissonance on display of the left who must tell themselves that only their "experts" are right and anyone else claiming credentials must be some hack, or a fake and a fraud. In doing so, they get to maintain their current belief system because any opposing information doesn't fit into their brains because they then have to realize that everything they believed heretofore was a lie, and that is extremely uncomfortable. This is the reason that it is so difficult to break anyone away from a cult or a relationship everyone else can see is bad. They cannot bring themselves to realize they were wrong.