Atlantis

OP: How racism, etc....were woven into the fabric of of the UK. BM's: ....."are you saying there's no racism" in the UK? And many variations on that old theme. What a cheap diversionary tactic that wastes everyone's time.

This 'mass psychosis elsewhere' has been exhibited by yourself and others on here, whereas I have not seen any overt support for this QAnon nonsense that you gleefully jump on. When it comes to 'whataboutary', your deafening silence when other posters of your persuasion literally write "What about Trump..." says a lot about your standards.

He was not defending QAnon whatsoever. The complaint was a simple one: the article was unbalanced. I disagreed with this assertion - any mention of BLM in the original article would almost certainly be off-topic. But there was nothing in his post to suggest he had sympathies for QAnon or the murderer.

Really? You need this explained. Wacky BS falls on a spectrum. They consist of made-believe too-surreal-for-satire nonsense, to twisting and misrepresentation of facts.

Ah I see! No TV but You READ about everything Fox News says, gotcha. No echo-chamber effect possible when it's in print!! Most Republican's don't read? Wow, I never knew that! And when I point out your ignorant caricature of media you don't consume, your rock-solid logic tells you that I must be) 1. American - lol 2. Republican - lol "Yours is a faded empire" - oh my lord... Like I said, people like you need to read more widely.

Exactly. When some have no where to go and yet still want to save face, yelling “hate speech!” is too often the last act of desperation. Veer too close to totally dismantling their positions, and instinctive cries of (pick one or more) racism / transphobia / islamophobia etc come gushing out. At the same time: guy heckling during a funeral procession - not hateful at all. Nope. Sometimes, you just have to feel sorry for them and move. Instinctive defense mechanism at this point.

Compared to other developed nations, Sweden is/was very much a centre-left country. The fact that the hard-right has made such strides in the most recent election indicates, once again, the bone-headed overreach by the cultural progressive left. Why they felt their tiny little country had to do such heavy lifting when it came to refugees is baffling. White Knight syndrome, ignorance, or simply not giving a <deleted> about their native population. What an unfortunate mess they are in now. If they’d taken a more sensible approach to immigration, they could have had their cake and eaten it too.

‘The news source preferred by political / cultural opponents is not worth watching so I’ll stick to my own silly echo-chamber biases’…all the while suggesting others of doing the same.

I can’t see where he said they were a cult in the strict sense of the word, or a conspiracy. Why? Who said they were low / high? And what good would it do to try and add up acts of violence ‘in the name of’ some other thing…e.g. BLM was mentioned.

Not all BLM members are unhinged violent, looting criminals. Now, for the benefit of some other more excitable posters above, this self-evident statement can easily be applied in many different relevant contexts. Here we go: Not all Republicans are Trump supporters Not all Trump voters are ‘baaaad’ - he was one of two choices Not all Trump supporters are Q-Anon believers Not all Q-Anon believers are hardcore Not all hardcore Q-Anon believers are violent Not all violet nutcases are murderers.

Mass psychosis he says. Yes, if only it was confined to the right-wing fringe of the US. You know, as opposed to being ripe in the supposedly ‘better-educated’ part of the political spectrum… …all those non-psychotic decent ‘liberal-minded’ people who genuinely advocate extreme anti-science BS about basic human biology. And those lovely individuals who genuinely believe in conspiracy of a Racist Patriarchy.

With regards to ‘a balanced article’, I’m more aligned with some of the other replies: it would be off-topic and contrived.

Can anyone explain to me where is Moderna and Pfizer in all of this? - Why did it take until mid-2022 for a team of Thai doctors to carry out a real world cohort study on cardiovascular effects? I thought Big Pharma are legally required by the FDA to carry out fund such follow-up studies once vaccines were broadly rolled out.

There is a very good reason for why this data is "out-of-sync" with prior studies. Tim Newton even mentioned it in the Youtube clip. Prior studies are based on retrospective aggregated data. While there's plenty of it, there's massive challenges related to the data itself and statistical inference procedures. The NIH Q&A link can hide behind language like "the most intensive safety monitory in US history" (link below) but anyone clued in will immediately recognize that trying your best to do a statistical analysis on historical after-the-fact, incomplete, often voluntary, data is miles apart from what the Thailand team bothered to do - apparently with all the latest medical equipment. This Thai study doesn't require kids to feel sick enough to see a doctor, or even sick enough to notice something is wrong with their heart. They tracked them stringently straight after vaccination. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/reporting-systems.html

@Bkk Brian Do you routinely counsel such abundance of caution when data comes out in support of vaccine effectiveness or safety? Please correct me if you have done and I missed it. Second, would it be off-topic for me to give dozens of examples of the US CDC citing not-yet peer-reviewed pre-prints in their communications? And finally, what on earth is the relevance of this? "The paper has currently had zero official comments by readers on the site and the current average of preprints that are actually then published in peer reviewed journals is just 10% "

From the Thailand study referred to in the OP: Abstract Cardiovascular effects were found in 29.24% of patients, ranging from tachycardia, palpitation, and myopericarditis. 3.2. Cardiovascular findings Cardiovascular adverse events observed during the study were tachy-cardia (7.64%), shortness of breath (6.64%), palpitation (4.32%), chest pain(4.32%), and hypertension (3.99%). Fifty-four patients had abnormal electro-cardiograms (predominantly sinus tachycardia or sinus arrhythmia) after vaccination. https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202208.0151/v1

It actually gets worse. If you scroll down to footnote 10, which links to Jason P Block's data, you arrive here: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7114e1.htm?s_cid=mm7114e1_w Under the 'Discussion' section: "The findings in this report are subject to at least six limitations....SARS-CoV-2 infections were not captured if testing occurred in homes, schools, community sites, or pharmacies." Oh. That would be a very big number. On top of another big number for those with Covid-19 but didn't test for whatever reason. Whats 40 divided by [a million plus two very large numbers]. Is it still 4 per 100,000? What a darn minute. Could it be that if you actually properly counted those who got whatever strain of Covid that the 4 per 100,000 figure may actual drop towards or even below (?!) the (supposed) 2 per 100,000 figure for the vaccine-induced heart conditions. The real-time cohort study from Thailand suggests the true figure is MANY MAGNITUDES HIGHER - when you actually bother to constantly monitor kids with proper equipment after their vaccinations. It really blows the mind how widely trusted respected authorities such as the NIH feels its completely okay with the quality of the Q&A article above. Shameless editorializing with no sign of disclaimers about the underlying data. They should know better.

Scott, with the utmost respect, and recognition for your typically balanced, fact-based, non-partisan Covid-19 posts across a long span of time.... 1. Can you not see the pathetic editorializing in this Q&A article from nih.gov - there's tons of it in both the text and the graphic. It's quite blatant. 2. When a very rare real-time cohort study of vaccine side-effects purportedly shows risk to the heart is many, many magnitudes bigger than prior studies using aggregate data, I would hope the more informed posters on here will do more than imply "but the US NIH concluded otherwise over a month ago." The results of this "controversial" (says who?!) study should be so alarming that I actually hope they find some serious fraud going on. Would be miles better than the alternative truth.

Not even close. Try taking a look at dome damning polling data. But glad you crassly took the opportunity to insert your extremist culture war nonsense into a thread about the attempted murder of a renowned author.

Oh my goodness gracious me. On a thread about the attempted murder of Salman Rushdie, did I really just read posts attempting to compare aborting human life to some words in a book? Wow. Bringing up bombing of abortion clinics (!) on a thread about violent Islamic extremism really is uncalled for. Everyone should leave their silly identity politics nonsense out of this. Hope Salman makes as full a recovery as possible and with a massive boost in The Satanic Verses book sales.

Did you try and dress up a generic, word salad of “MSM, conspiracy etc” to deflect from that fact that not only did you undermine your own assertion regarding paleoclimatic records with a poor choice of link, but also (amusingly) confused yourself with which climate thread you are messaging on. Before you comment any more on a ‘critical thinking mind’ or attempt to attribute any other off-topic nonsense to me, try to read this actual thread and remember just what ii is you are wrong about this time. Thanks.

Almost, but once again, no cigar. If only the actual question was “what is interesting / news-worthy about this article”, you might have a point! …as opposed to whether it actually undermines the notion that paleo climate records are highly reliable by themselves. D’oh!

Not at all. Btw, I think you may be confusing two different threads unwittingly, as you’re likely active on both. Remember how we got here in the first place: the comment about proxy measures for temperatures from “millions” of years ago, and the other statement about the unprecedented (rate of) in temperatures.

Yes somebody is, and that somebody is finding another very different but nevertheless educational use for the link: demonstrating how posters (in this instance yourself) apparently switch off all critical thinking when linking to a post in support of their own position. You’re being very helpful again with your self-assured “the facts” when I’d 90% of all posters on here will immediately recognize what kind of study is being described here. Critical thinking shouldn’t end the moment you find an article that confirms to your biases; that is when it should begin. In this case, it’s not even that on-topic if you’d read it and the initial comments on page 1 of this thread.

2. A summary of a link done in good faith goes a long way. while one done in bad faith can easily backfire. In this instance, the actual article contains the following: “Different methods exist for reconstructing past temperatures. The team combined two independent datasets – temperature data from marine sediments and computer simulations of climate – to create a more complete picture of the past.” “This reconstruction suggests that current temperatures are unprecedented in 24,000 years, and also suggests that the speed of human-caused global warming is faster than anything we’ve seen in that same time,” said senior author Jessica Tierney, an associate professor at the University of Arizona.” “Computer-simulated climate models, on the other hand, provide temperature information based on scientists’ best understanding of the physics of the climate system, which also isn’t perfect.” Is this research potentially a welcome addition to the scientific literature? Sure, and let’s see what their peers have to say in good time. But is it as definitive as the claim made above? - shorn of all moderating language and context (‘suggests’, ‘reconstruction’ ‘computer simulation’ etc.). Clearly not. The original point of disagreement related to the relative reliability paleoclimatologia records - not combining them with the latest computer model - (as interesting as that may be.)