placeholder

The "Nazi problem" as you call it was basically about the Azov regiment in Ukraine. There were no reports of the widespread appeal of Nazism in Ukraine that I can recall. In fact, political parties favored by the neo-Nazis fared very poorly in the last elections.

Don't feed the...

Doesn't Tesla get a say in this? They don't have to agree to allow imports from China.

Clearly he should start with Joseph Ladapo, the person he appointed to be Surgeon General of Florida: Let’s all be honest about hydroxychloroquine: Evidence is more positive than many in the medical community admit By Dr. Joseph A. Ladapo and Dr. Harvey A. Risch https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-oped-lets-all-be-honest-about-hydroxychloroquine-20201013-5j5q4i23qvfuzos4jh7ztc3usa-story.html

It's funny. I clicked the link you posted from the govt and didn't see it in that report. I clicked on the link to a page created by some unspecified person and saw that graph there. I clicked on this link in this person's https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiODQ4NTg4OGUtNWU5ZS00MjQ3LWJmODgtNzI1N2RmOWY3N2Y3IiwidCI6IjZmMGU5YzQyLTk2Y2UtNDU1MS05NzAxLWJhMzFkMGQ2ZDE5ZSJ9&pageName=ReportSection1c3fdc161d4008c845a6&fbclid=IwAR0PvbWRAYcGM0fnEtBLg8SJBDParO4wjhSjyFcojiqg84k1YwIYwoQyzok and it seems clear that the graph you have featured was created by them. Why should I believe a graph from an anonymous party?

"high school age"? What is high school age? 18 years old is at least the age of consent virtually everywhere. So should a teach have sex with someone who is 18 years old? Is that immoral? The ethical problem in this case has nothing to do with age but the fact that a teacher is having sex with a student. That is unethical regardless of the ages of the teacher and the student even if the teacher is the younger party.

So you don't think people who are romantically involved with each other behave differently than those who are not. Do you hold hands with a friend if you meet them for a meal? Give them a kiss? Engage in flirtatious behavior?

Yes. It is a Florida court. So not chitchat. But if Governor DeSantis thinks court is an appropriate venue for those who spread vaccine misinformation, then he should start with his own surgeon general.

You asked a rhetorical question. Namely. why should you take a vaccine that is ineffective after 70 days. Claiming without qualification that it is ineffective after 70 days is a falsehood. As for people who come down with subsequent infections. How can that be accounted for in a public health system?

Yes, he said that there are 70 days of protection from infection. Which is not what you claimed. You claimed that the covid vaccine was ineffective after 70 days. Unfortunately, the mods deleted the post containing that falsehood, or I would quoted it here.

It’s soul-draining’: Health workers deployed to Covid hot zones are overwhelmed by deaths among the unvaccinated https://www.statnews.com/2021/08/18/health-workers-overwhelmed-covid-deaths-among-unvaccinated/

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/united-states-rates-of-covid-19-deaths-by-vaccination-status?country=~50%2B

I wonder if he's going to go after Florida's surgeon general, Joseph Ladapo. whom he appointed. Ladapo was and maybe still is a big supporter of ivermectin.

That was for the cost of building and running a renewable plant vs just running a fossil fuel plant that's already built. And this doesn't take account of the huge amount of the amount of subsidies for fossil fuel. The IMF estimates that amounts to about 5% of global gdp. Which dwarfs This chart shows unsubisided costs: https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-levelized-cost-of-storage-and-levelized-cost-of-hydrogen/ Solar and wind are both cheaper than fossil fuels. And keep in mind, that this chart dates from before the huge runup in fossil fuel prices.

A grand jury is your idea of a chit-chat? The rest of what you post is utterly irrelevant.

Raising extraneous issues much?

Sir John Bell says nowhere that there are 70 days of protection from a booster. There are not just 70 days of protection. That is a falsehood as I've already pointed out. And nowhere does Sir John say the risks of getting vaccinated outweigh the risk of coming down with covid. And basing your contention in a disputed paper is dodgy.

I guess it's in your immediate interests to ignore contrary information. Still, I'm sure you've looked into the issue carefully. And you've thoroughly familiarized yourself with the information the link below connects to: https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-levelized-cost-of-storage-and-levelized-cost-of-hydrogen/

You asked where does it happen. I gave you some examples.

I'm not criticising his move to taking down of that account. What I am criticising it is double standard. His post has clearly endangered someone's life. If Musk was consistent in his standards, he would ban himself from Twitter.

Selectively quoting someone's words to misrepresent their stance on an issue is definitely "spreading hoods." And that's exactly what Musk did. Karma of course, you completely ignore the evidence that I offered to establish that.

Musk claimed that the info on the account could endanger him. But to his way of thinking, it's perfectly OK to endanger Yoel Roth by spreading falsehoods about him and inciting anti-gay bigots.

And when things do start to fall apart, what are the odds that Musk and fanboys will blame it on sabotage?

*Deleted post edited out* One thing to take into account is the agenda of people who promote misinformation about covid booster. For instance the claim that there's only 70 days of extra protection from a booster. Booster longevity: Data reveals how long a third shot protects Indeed, the study from the U.K. found that the booster offers more robust protection against severe disease than against infection. Specifically, the researchers found that after a third shot of Pfizer, protection against hospitalizations starts out above 95% (two weeks after the shot) and remains around 80% even after four months. By comparison, with only two shots of any vaccine, protection against severe disease declines to 40% after six months. https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2022/01/19/1071809356/covid-booster-omicron-efficacy The 70 days that you cite is about protection against infection and minor symptoms. Not about protection against serious illness.