winsor

I suppose it shouldn't surprise me that we are on such different wavelengths, and I can't get too hung up because the level of communication is thus zero. My guess is that we are doomed to talk past each other. I have witnessed rather a few videos and posts that made no unfounded accusations and simply referenced research that was not in accordance with the prevailing orthodoxy disappear. These were not antivax or whatever, and did not call anyone names or recommend anything dangerous or ill considered, but they were swept up in the ban. Yes, I know Google, Microsoft, Facebook, etc. are private companies, and understand that your censorship is always justified and noble, but I am referring to the prevailing tendency to tune out or drown out anything that calls into question a narrative that differs from the current liturgy. I know there are people who miss the DDR and the USSR and the like, but when I was there my personal impression was "this really blows." That doesn't make them wrong and me right - or that 'capitalism' is good, for that matter, it's just my take. I stand by my observation that Orwell was an optimist. BSBD, Winsor

Your most eloquent criticism has been noted and considered for its merits. Regarding clinical trials as a function of the EUA process. do your homework and get back to me. BSBD, Winsor

This: https://anestesiologia.blog/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/2021-EVMS-COVID-19-Management-Protocol.pdf is the pdf file for EVMS' COVID protocol. The 386 references they cite are not hyperlinks, but rather a few can be tracked down, and they are interesting. The references to work that does not show up on a Google search of the subject are hardly comprehensive. The point here is that there is a lot more going on besides vaccination. What concerns me is the level of censorship afoot. If someone wants to publish a work that does not stand up to scrutiny, it seems to be a lot less damaging to subject the thesis to scrutiny than it is to censor the work outright. I suppose Godwin's law applies if I suggest that Kristallnacht was 'largely peaceful' and that burning books in the Bebelplatz was just a harmless bit of venting by students. I still am concerned by censorship, which is the hallmark of totalitarian ideologies. Anything on Facebook, YouTube or other popular social media that points out less than optimal features of vaccination tends to disappear in short order, regardless of the credibility of the source. A logical 'proof' generally involves failing to disprove the theorem under consideration rather than denigrating the attempt to disprove it. Scientific theories that are put forth with religious fervor are all the more suspect - when someone says "The Science is SETTLED!," the only thing they achieve is to convince me that they have a poor understanding of the scientific process. From such data as I can obtain, it makes sense to get vaccinated, though I'd avoid the Astra-Zenica and J&J products as a matter of course. Given studies of unexpected migration of lipid nanoparticles, I'd want more reliable data before giving the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines to a kid. Balancing long-term immunity against long term side effects is why we conduct clinical trials - which have been bypassed for these vaccines. Since autopsies of COVID-19 fatalities show vitamin D deficiency across the board, 4,000 IU a day of D3 can't hurt. Zinc (no more than 50 mg/day) with an appropriate ionophore such as Quercetin seems to improve the odds. Ascorbic acid (1,000 mg/day of Vitamin C) appears related to better resistance to SARS-CoV-2 infection as well. There are other supplements associated with an improved outcome, but this is a start. As with most viruses, keeping the inoculum low improves one's odds. Life is by its very nature a stochastic process (a crapshoot). Thus, loading the dice in one's favor to the extent possible improves the odds and is strongly advised. Though I hear various sources saying 'let them die' with regard to anti-vaxers or others with whom they disagree, I do not wish this disease on anyone. It is a bad bug, and the damage inflicted by microthrombi is of the permanent sort, where even if you 'get better' your life trajectory has been permanently altered for the worse. I don't ask that anyone 'believe' me, but that they do their homework and do everything in their power to avoid getting sick in the first place - even those who are generally mad at me. Good luck, Winsor

The article on "The Hedgehogs of Critical Race Theory" nails it rather succinctly: https://johnnotesandessays.blogspot.com/2021/07/the-hedgehogs-of-critical-race-theory.html This concept applies equally to any popular notion of "Justice" as well. For example, our 'System of Justice' is actually a 'Legal System;' as J. Edgar Hoover noted "Justice is incidental to Law and Order." Having seen the results of all too many utopian 'theories' when put into practice, I tend to view them as I do 'Perpetual Motion' - if one claims to violate the Clausius Inequality, their work can be dismissed out of hand. I again cite one of my favorite cynics, Henry L. Mencken (the Bard of Baltimore): "For every complex problem there exists a solution that is simple, elegant - and wrong." While I agree that many of the issues raised by the Woke are indeed significant, the 'solutions' they propose are anything but. BSBD, Winsor

You're right, 3 grams a day is off the charts, and there are better choices late in the game. I grabbed the wrong article, but read this one first: https://www.palmerfoundation.com.au/journal-of-medicine-says-hcq-zinc-reduces-covid-deaths/ This article seems to address the mechanism whereby HCQ is effective in conjunction with Zinc, as well as the politics behind the censorship of anything HCQ related. I know the orange man touted HCQ, and all too many people would rather die than agree with him. All things being equal I hope something occurs that takes him out of the equation (he enters a monastery or prison or whatever), but do not accept or reject anything just because he said it. Come to think of it, about the only time I hear anything from him is when he is quoted. If I can come up with a printout of the references that EVMS published I will post them. They did a pretty good job of coming up with worthwhile research. Live long and prosper, Winsor

Prophylaxis.

You're right, at least the same extent as usual. https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2021/06/09/hydroxychloroquine-study-n2590700

Remdesivir is almost 2x as effective as a placebo. There is a significant difference between a valid treatment for severe cases of the disease (as noted, I manufacture one of them) and an effective prophylaxis. If you have a severe case of the disease, or even show positive for exposure, the vaccine does nada. BSBD, Winsor

I agree that the article pushes it when calling the policies in South Africa 'CRT.' One can make a solid case that systemic racism of any stripe is evil using Rhodesia -> Zimbabwe as an example, but saying that this was due to CRT is demonstrably false. Given the results in those two countries, CRT seems to do the same things while expecting different results. BSBD, Winsor

Much of the coverage of COVID-19 therapies borders on the bizarre. For example, if one publishes on many of the popular social media platforms data from reputable sources suggesting that an existing medication may be effective, it is taken down immediately and the source is likely to be either banned or demonetized. Also, one would think that serious funds would be applied to identifying existing approved treatments that would limit the damage of the pandemic, but I can find no trace of a serious effort to do so. An example of counterproductive research is the University of Oxford's Recovery trial, which could easily have been the result of intentional for the worst possible outcome. Given what was known at the time regarding replication of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, there was no expectation that hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) would be effective more than a week after onset of symptoms or in the absence of supplemental Zinc. My sister had Lupus and took 200 mg of HCQ daily for years, and it is an over the counter medication in locales where Malaria is endemic. A quick check shows that therapeutic doses are limited to 400 mg a day, and anything over 800 mg on the first day begins to show toxicity. The Recovery trial was limited to patients with severe symptoms, well after HCQ might be effective, did not include Zinc, and used 2,400 mg/day - well into the toxic range. If I was to design a study of how to use HCQ to worsen the survival rate of severely ill patients, I could hardly do better than did Oxford. At first glance it appears to make no sense why the ONLY treatment for COVID-19 is vaccine. However, given the fact that any of the vaccines are only available under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA), a line of reasoning is possible. FDA criteria include the requirement that "there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives" (copied and pasted from the FDA website). Since I manufacture a last ditch therapy under EUA (you don't want to need it), I have a passing familiarity with the EUA process. Thus, if other "adequate, approved, and available alternatives" were established, the EUA for vaccines goes away. Since we have bet the ranch on the use of unapproved vaccines, finding anything else that works is counterproductive, so the model fits. I am more comfortable with Hanlon's Razor than with conspiracy theories per se, but the results are the same. When people who refer to 'science' do so with hand waving in lieu of data, saying that this, that or the other thing has been 'discredited,' my response is fine, let's see your data. That generally yields crickets. Even understanding that the lipid nanoparticles used for delivery of the MRNA vaccine tend to migrate instead of remaining at the site of injection as intended, I have been vaccinated. Given that data regarding the various vaccines has reached a Medieval level of access and reliability, I am more than hesitant to have my kid get it. We're banking on long term effects to avoid infection, so I am not confident that long term side-effects are impossible. I went to school with people whose mothers were given Thalidomide while pregnant, so I'm impressed by how badly highly educated researchers can get it wrong. The Eastern Virginia Medical School did a great job of gleaning every bit of data available regarding COVID-19 treatment around the world. The last time they published their treatment protocol they had over references to over 360 papers to support their approach. EVMS has handed off their work to the Front Line COVID Critical Care Alliance, which does not append the references to their protocols, more's the pity. Their website is here: https://covid19criticalcare.com/covid-19-protocols/ If I can find a link to the various studies, I will post it. The papers are all technical, but interesting. Although I have been vaccinated, I still do everything I can to avoid being infected and infecting others. Everything one can do to load the dice in their favor is advised. Good luck, Winsor

I'd grant him that the larger turbocharger might provide air supply greater than the stoichiometric minimum. Go below that and you're 'rolling coal.' Despite some of the ill considered environmental regulations in place, I came into agreement with regs regarding two-stroke engines by strolling around Bangkok. When the light turned green at a major intersection, hundreds of 125 cc Yamahas took off at full throttle, leaving a blue cloud behind them that you could cut with a knife. Though many locals wore masks, it wasn't enough, and it left my eyes burning for quite a while. The closest to ideal the I've seen is municipalities where people might have a Benz in the garage, but ride bicycles in town and take the (electric) train into the city. If you drive into Munich you have to lose the car before you get to the walking areas anyway, and using a car go get around Manhattan is just silly. I have a pickup truck, but use it only when I need the capacity. My practice of leaving a small ecological footprint is more from being a Boy Scout than from mindlessly obeying regulations. BSBD, Winsor

You should be more careful with your use of quotes. Unless, of course, your purpose is obfuscation. Humans are, on an evolutionary basis, subject to embracing concepts that are entirely and completely false. This vulnerability is exploited by various ideologies and can be beneficial, depending on where you stand on the whole good/bad thing. Most people who adopt a particular ideology either don't read the source material or cherry pick what they do read. The Hebrew Scriptures mandate all sorts of wonderful things like slavery and genocide, but 'Good Christians' will go through extraordinary contortions to explain away the parts of the 'Holy Bible' that are truly awful. Muslims similarly will claim their ideology is a 'Religion of Peace,' but the founder was a violent, psychotic pervert as a matter of record. In modern Islam homosexuality is haram and punishable by death, but sex with a male Kaffir is halal. Putting a daughter to death for being raped is accepted without batting an eye in large parts of the Islamic world, and Sharia overall is equally well adjusted. Being a violent extremist is mandated by the fundamentals of Islam, and much of the Islamic world accepts as 'holy' the teachings that result in violent extremism. What am I missing? There are people I like a lot who are blind or paraplegic. Am I okay with being blinded or crippled? No, these conditions are not what one might choose. Quite what is going on with people who conclude they are a different sex is not something that fascinates me, but I can't escape the notion that there is something severely amiss with them. I have known enough people with alternative sexuality that I am as likely to like or dislike an individual no more or less than if they were breeders. I have always considered Priests and Nuns to be sexually dysfunctional, but there are some of them with whom I get along fine. Perversion is defined as something that you won't do, and I am largely indifferent so long as you keep kids out of the mix. When you have people who advocate initiating sex changes for people who are less than 18, that's where I draw the line. Since 'Woke' mandates 'Equity' rather than 'Equality,' that leaves me out. Don't hold your breath waiting for me to be cool with Islam or National Socialism, or to view 'Gender Dysphoria' as well adjusted. BSBD, Winsor

Very cool. These are things I didn't know - tell me more!

Having watched the 'progress' in sub-Saharan Africa since the '60s, this: https://www.revolver.news/2021/07/south-africa-riots-looting-critical-race-theory/ is anything but surprising. I wish it had sorted itself out differently. BSBD, Winsor

I know such authorities as Kimberle Crenshaw, Kendall Thomas and Patricia Williams dispute my observations, claiming what I have witnessed is all a big misunderstanding. I have heard their 'logic,' and find it terminally flawed. I have endured all too many hours of 'training' regarding 'diversity,' equity' and 'inclusion,' and I'm sick to death of it. Like any religious instruction, its accuracy is largely an abstraction. Treating differing opinions as heresy is an approach I do not condone. I am fine with the realities of these principles in a sense, but I recoil against it forced down my throat as dogma. The road to hell being paved with good intentions, Social Justice Warriors blithely espouse all too much of what led to the worst form of totalitarianism. I don't give a rat's ass whether someone is straight or gay, male, female or unsure, or quite where their forebears were from. It's none of my business, and it is not my job to care about it one way or another. The very people who feel that it is okay to offend me are the ones who insist that I avoid offending them. Gee, I guess that's fair. It is the Woke crowd that is most insistent that everyone adhere to their idea of what is or is not acceptable, and I find that repellent. Where I differ from the Woke ideologies is that I can like someone and note that they are wrong, or despise someone even if they say something accurate. The Woke would take anything said by Trump, for example, and dispute it simply because he said it. I agree that he is and always was a scumbag, and still can't stand the sound of his voice, but if he said something accurate (usually phrased in a manner that an 8th grader should find embarrassing), I had to note the he screwed up and got it right. CRT is like Climate Change, where there is ONE factor of consideration when all is said and done. If someone claims a SISO solution to a system analysis, there is an overwhelming likelihood that it is terminally flawed. Thus, while I am strongly in favor of equal rights ad equal responsibilities for all, I have yet to any indication that the Woke are anything but humorless assholes. The more exceptions to that observation there might be, the better I like it. BSBD, Winsor

The fact that the cops behaved in an unprofessional manner is unacceptable. I've been in many places where there was every bit as much of an us/them divide between the cops and the locals that had nothing to do with race. Making it all about race is racist, and BLM is 100% racist. If you're okay with that, fine. I'm not. BSBD, Winsor

I suppose I misunderstand the whole point of CRT, since it is clearly about coming together in peace: https://jonathanturley.org/2021/07/16/let-them-die-fairfax-pta-and-naacp-officer-calls-for-the-death-of-who-oppose-crt-to-die/ I don't know where I got the idea that it was a divisive ideology. BSBD, Winsor

Again, nice try. Commonality between CRT and BLM? Let's see, shall we? Seeing everything through a racist lens? Check. Being sacrosanct by dint of espousing 'good racism?' Check. Relying on 'logic' that wouldn't pass muster with Monty Python (and thus falling under the title of the thread)? Check. Being spawned by self-proclaimed Marxists? Check. I could go on, but you get the drift. Given your credentials from a Highly Esteemed Educational Institution (vs. my never having finished High School, or obtained a B license for that matter), I would expect a more nuanced understanding of the subject. When Michael Brown was killed, was it all about race? I dunno, I suppose a guy of Czech extraction, built like a linebacker, who had just committed a strongarm robbery and was walking down the middle of the street, would get a pass when he physically attacked an armed cop who stopped him to discuss the issue. Or maybe it would be ignored as 'suicide by cop' if he wound up dead for his efforts. CRT having its roots in Academia does not make its tenets any more valid. A casual perusal of history will demonstrate a real dog's breakfast of nonsensical 'theories' that have been in and out of favor over the years. A professor whose specialty is CRT is about as impressive as one whose dissertation was on Theoretical Phrenology. As far as suffocation by blocking the pores of the skin, may I point out that murder by coating all of the skin with an impermeable material has been described in the literature by a source educated at Eton, Sandhurst and the Universities of Munich and Geneva no less (Goldfinger - LTCDR Ian Fleming). That pretty much settles that. I get the impression that you got at least the undergrad exposure to Probability and Statistics/Stochastic Processes, but I have been surprised by the extent to which you do not apply these fundamentals to issues you appear to hold dear (I suppose you could be playing Devil's Advocate just for amusement, which would be a relief). Penn and Teller did a great job of demonstrating how the pet 'theories' of Woke ideology tend to get things pretty much backward; since they tend to be funny as hell, that supports the basis of this thread. Anyone that supports 'Diversity, Equity and Inclusion' (tm) with a straight face may be dismissed as a humorless twit. BSBD, Winsor

If American History included such works as "Bury my Heart at Wounded Knee" and the like, I'd be all for it. Len Deighton's histories of the Second World War are much more nuanced than is typical, and Barbara Tuchman has a marvelously skeptical view of dearly held beliefs. Wikipedia is hardly a definitive source, but some times the references are legit. Their treatment of CRT: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory seems to fit what I've read. The Marxist foundations of Critical Theory and BLM suggest that the fundamentals cannot withstand scrutiny. Also, the lack of data analysis to support theirl premises undercuts the veracity of their conclusions. While I agree that many of the things to which they are opposed are dreadful, for both CRT and BLM the cure is worse than the disease. BSBD, Winsor

What suggests that you have either the credibility or authority to provide assignments to me? Why on earth would I expect you to be able to put it together if I diligently followed your orders? What gives you the impression that I value your opinion, cognitive or correlative abilities even slightly? Stick to name calling, it appears to be your long suit.

Not even close. At least you're consistent.

If you actually had a point to make, instead of simply venting your spleen, it might be useful. Or not. Some 50 years ago I was sitting in the barracks reading a book as was another guy, one of the Brigade Headquarters clerks. We got into a discussion of various authors' work at various parts of their careers, in particular the difference between Aldous Huxley's early vs. later works. A group of Black guys came in and he said "Yo, Homes, wadditiz?" and engaged in the DAP with them. After they had left, I asked what I had just witnessed. He said that however educated he became, he would never be White and did not expect to be fully accepted by White society. It thus behooved him not to alienate his Black compatriots. He said that while going to school in Harlem he had to bring his textbooks home in a gym bag to avoid being labeled an Oreo, and he did not seem particularly worked up about it. Though he may have been quite upset by having to go through this at one time or another, while discussing it with me he seemed to accept it as a reality with which he had to deal, and he dealt with it gracefully. In Grad school I lived in an affordable neighborhood, which was diverse by any standard. Neighbors included Medical Students, Pharmaceutical Students and Drug Dealers, all of similar ethnicity but by no means socially interchangeable. The predators in the neighborhood were remarkably egalitarian in their selection of prey, and showed no favorites from a demographic standpoint. I was not studying Sociology, but it felt like I was in a large scale study. The bottom line is that the fundamentals of CRT are terminally flawed. A statement that is conditionally true, without use of the necessary conditions is false. A syllogism based on false premises is invalid, and many of the premises of CRT are demonstrably false. I have lived enough places which I found unrecognizable when returning after 20 years, and I have learned to be careful not to claim current knowledge of a place that has most likely changed a lot. Things that used to be common are now illegal and vice versa. If someone chooses to describe the U.S. legal system from a racial standpoint on the basis of the realities of 50 or 100 years ago, the accuracy of their conclusions is on a par with trying to navigate with maps of a similar vintage. Much of what was quite legal then is now proscribed. Going through the tenets of CRT is like reviewing the basics of Scientology. It's hard not to conclude that anyone who buys into either is is hard of thinking, but I suspect the issue is more akin to the cognitive vulnerability that causes the suspension of disbelief upon which religious belief is contingent. Anything that is believed without question should be held suspect. All too often, a careful review of closely held beliefs reveals them to be flawed. BSBD, Winsor

Given your penchant for orthodoxy, I'll take that under advisement. "Mein Kampf" includes some specifics that are factually accurate; if I somehow make reference to particulars that are in accordance with that work it certainly doesn't mean that my argument is in support of the overall conclusions contained therein. Too many syllogisms upon which CRT is based are terminally flawed, and the fact that you don't pick up on that is telling. Perhaps the urge to fight evil with evil is too strong, but it is all evil. BSBD, Winsor

The logic is simple. Racism is evil. Critical Race Theory is 100% racist. Q.E.D. I am aghast at the fact that you support CRT, every bit as much as if you supported the Klan. BSBD, Winsor

Taylor Caldwell noted that "5% of the population think, 5% think they think, and 90% would sooner die than think." Quite who is who is situational and debatable, but the sentiment rings true. If you are proud of yourself for limiting your name-calling, that certainly says more about you than it does me. DZ has killfile capabilities these days. It works pretty well, but you are free to do as you please. BSBD, Winsor