The Playground

    Quote from Fm1

    by definition you are an anti Vaxer. How does it feel Thomas, just saying you question something such as passports

    Huxley is an anti Vaxer, how do you like the label Hippocrate

    Your definition of antivaxxer is obviously different from mine (I've given it above). And the whole point about antivaxxers is that they argue from a fixed set of ideas and do not question themselves. So by definition questioning something (which goes with being uncertain and without an agenda) is not what they do.


    Although antivaxxers will say "we are just questioning whether vaccines are safe" in reality they are not. Such questioning would look honestly at all evidence for or against (as I summarised over vaccine passports). Antivaxxers look only for evidence against, and then when they cannot find it, they make it up through bad science.

    Dietary Supplements and Deception – SkepDoc


    Steven Novella pointed out that the pharmaceutical industry spends over 18% of its revenue on research and development. A typical dietary supplement spends 0%. Why would they spend money on research if they can simply “mix blueberries and kale and claim it protects against cancer – all cancer?” Or they can “put some vitamin D into a capsule and make all kinds of specious claims. They’re safe, and they don’t have to show a word of evidence in support of their claims.”

    Supplements are not required to show evidence of efficacy and safety before marketing. They are allowed to make structure and function claims like “calcium builds strong bones” or “fiber maintains bowel regularity.” They are required to state in a “disclaimer” that FDA has not evaluated the claim. The disclaimer must also state that the dietary supplement product is not intended to “diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease,” because only a drug can legally make such a claim. The required disclaimer usually appears in very small print at the bottom of the page and is easily ignored or dismissed by consumers.


    Supplement manufacturers are supposed to report side effects to the FDA, but often they do not, and they don’t keep accurate records. If a product is found to be harmful, it is left up to the FDA to show the evidence and call for the product to be taken off the market. That rarely happens. When ephedra was found to have caused serious side effects and even deaths of prominent athletes, the FDA banned the sale of supplements containing ephedrine alkaloids in 2004. The ban was challenged in court but upheld in 2006 by a U.S. Court of Appeals. Today the sale of ephedra alkaloid-containing products is illegal, but it is still legal to sell products containing ephedra extract if they don’t contain ephedrine.


    Supplement manufacturers are supposed to follow good manufacturing practices, but they don’t always comply, and products are often found to contain more or less active ingredient than stated on the label (sometimes none at all), or to be contaminated with bacteria or heavy metals, or even adulterated with undisclosed prescription drugs. A recent study used DNA barcoding to test herbal supplements; 59% of the products they tested had DNA from plant species not listed on the labels. Toxic levels of lead and other heavy metals have been found in a large percentage of Ayurvedic products. In 1993 in Belgium, aristolochia was substituted for the intended Chinese herb in a weight loss product; 105 patients developed kidney damage, sometimes requiring dialysis or kidney transplants. There have been increasing numbers of ER visits and calls to poison control centers about dietary supplements; serious harms have been reported, sometimes resulting in hospitalizations and even deaths.


    When are supplements indicated?


    Is the diet deficient in some nutrient? The deficiency should be verified; most deficiencies are easily diagnosed by a doctor through lab tests. The first, most obvious remedy would be to improve the diet, but sometimes supplement pills are needed. Some examples: iron supplements for iron deficiency anemia, folate supplements to prevent neural tube birth defects in pregnancies, B12 supplements for pernicious anemia, etc. Such uses are supported by good evidence from scientific studies.


    Evidence lacking, regulation ineffective


    Most of the dietary supplements on the market are untested or inadequately tested. More worrisome, some have been tested and found to be ineffective or unsafe, but they are still being sold. Recently, public concern about Covid-19 has been exploited by unscrupulous marketers to sell useless or even harmful products with claims that they are effective for the pandemic coronavirus.


    The FTC is charged with regulating advertising; the FDA with regulating labeling. They can issue warning letters, but they lack teeth. The agencies lack adequate personnel and funding, and they can’t possibly respond to all the many violations.


    The DSHEA requires a disclaimer that the product is not intended to “diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.” But this requirement is often ignored; bogus claims abound. Actually, the sellers don’t have to make claims for their products. Others do that for them. Testimonials report miraculous improvements in all kinds of symptoms. Naturopaths and integrative medicine specialists promote the products. Many dietary supplements are sold through multilevel marketing schemes where distributors are free to say anything to their customers in private interactions: word-of-mouth marketing. And of course, the FDA and FTC can’t control what people say on social media.


    Many supplements claim to have evidence of effectiveness from clinical trials. Remember, if a supplement was supported by acceptable evidence, it would qualify for FDA approval and could be classified as a medicine rather than a dietary supplement. Classification as a dietary supplement means it is not supported by good evidence. The studies they cite are often laughable: low quality, poorly designed studies, junk science, studies with equivocal results, studies with no control group, etc. For some products, “clinically proven” seems to mean “we gave free samples to several friends and relatives and got them to agree that it worked.” Strong suggestion and placebo responses are responsible for the positive results of many studies. That’s not enough; to call a medicine effective, we need to show that it can outperform placebos.


    Warning: beware!


    Dietary supplements and deception are constant companions. Taking a supplement is a gamble. Skepticism and vigilance are advised. Caveat emptor.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Your definition of antivaxxer is obviously different from mine (I've given it above). And the whole point about antivaxxers is that they argue from a fixed set of ideas and do not question themselves. So by definition questioning something (which goes with being uncertain and without an agenda) is not what they do.


    Although antivaxxers will say "we are just questioning whether vaccines are safe" in reality they are not. Such questioning would look honestly at all evidence for or against (as I summarised over vaccine passports). Antivaxxers look only for evidence against, and then when they cannot find it, they make it up through bad science.

    By definition in webster's dictionary you are an anti Vaxer, live with it. As for looking at all the evidence, I do, I disagree with some and do question the validity based on where it is coming from. Like you I see bias, but I acknowledge it comes from all sides, you don't. You believe every positive article printed by the bought and paid for western media as gospel, yet the evidence is only pharma based. I don't believe the rank and file members of the FDA or CDC are currupt, however a politically appointed head bring along their little minions and yes men to make up the leadership and policy always follows the elected administration. You think your CDC is trustworthy, I know mine is not based on history. One more surge around the first of march in the northern hemisphere and a summer long Surge in southern hemisphere and I believe it's over . Then we can really have some fun talking lenr.


    Welcome to the world of anti Vaxer, even if it by definition alone. Kinda sucks doesn't it Thomas, all over questions

    CoFSM will provide "working in proximity to the unvaccinated" exemption letters based on religious belief.


    Many people have asked what is the Church’s stance on vaccinations and vaccination mandates.

    Many have asked if we provide exemption letters.

    I find it weird that religious exemptions are an accepted thing in general, seems like it would be best to leave public health policy to the most knowledgable, not religious leadership. But if Churches must take a position on the issue …

    I am happy to announce that we are offering Official letters for those Pastafarians who would like to be exempt from working in proximity to the unvaxxed.

    The unvaccinated may emit harmful virus particles which are forbidden to devout Pastafarians, therefore we expect all reasonable measures to be taken to help us avoid these virus particles. Please respect our religious liberty.

    Create your letter here with this form I made. Enter your information to get an Official letter (PDF).


    CoFSM is an irreverent but interesting example of the culture wars. It is a movement that is deliberately offensive (to many religions) and fired by an understandable anger at absurdity and harm sometimes done in the name of religion as during the Intelligent Design debates about how science should be taught in US schools.


    Personally - I find CoFSM (in parts) very funny. And I also find it less harmful than many organisations (e.g. Scientologists) that get away with being called religions.


    But it is also profoundly disrespectful to the religious beliefs of other people. It is wrong to mock people's beliefs full stop - even though it is also right to make sure that harmful beliefs are exposed and argued against. Of course, I don't think there are many people of true and strong faith who would worry about being mocked by CoFSM.


    The irony here is that I think it is also profoundly disrespectful to mock or minimise the beliefs of those for whom CoFSM and the views it espouses are important. Such beliefs (except where they harm people) should be respected, even if most people in established religions view CoFSM as not a set of religious beliefs. In fact it sort of is, just as atheism is sort of a religion, and fired by belief (that God does not exist). If you are not sure - then join me and Thomas Henry Huxley in being an agnostic.


    Just as most true religions will understand that religion can take many forms, the faithholder beliefs of atheists deserve similar respect. It is not about who is right, or which religion is most helpful, it is about everyone's right to be respected for having their own faith, whatever that might be.


    Perhaps you might view the light-hearted and childish (Old Testicle vs New Testicle as names of religious writing) views in CoFSM as problematic. It is - we often make fun of what at some level we fear - as in W calling me a clown. But people are not just one thing, and there is in CoFSM an underlying serious belief that I do respect, even though I think mocking other religions, which hurts people, is not helpful. Sometimes making fun of those with fixed ideas is a good way to present contrary ideas: through the ages religions have had more than their share of harmful fixed ideas.


    THH


    I good letter published on teh CoFSM website under hate mail. We could do with more of such hate:


    While life should not be taken too seriously, this doesn’t mean we should live with absolute frivolity. Yes, so-called religions attempt to mandate all sorts of opinions and behaviors about morality and social conformity. This does not mean that actual religion — the sincere attempt to understand the unknowable — is inherently stupid or necessarily bullshit.


    Quantum mechanics tells us that all possibilities exist simultaneously until foreclosed by inconsistent observations. So, with regard to what we truly cannot know or observe, it’s possible that all beliefs are equally "true" and very much real. It’s an incredibly powerful thought: that we can design our own eternity simply by imagining it.


    Personally, I’d want much more from my eternity than to party on a pirate ship with a bunch of beer and strippers. The ability to have that experience at any time and for any duration? Sure, that would be great. But plain old life has plenty to offer that’s much more sublime and extraordinary than simple hedonism. And it’s not even a very ambitious vision of hedonism.


    World history is replete with terrible evils committed in the name of "religion." Certainly, it’s an important message that moral and social "values" should not be elevated to the level of religious beliefs. But our ability as humans to recognize the fundamental unknowable questions — where are we from, why are we here, and where are we going — creates a fundamental human need to discuss and confront these questions.


    Pastafarianism does indeed celebrate the power of the individual to choose his or her own answers to these questions. Some might like the idea of choosing answers that are deliberately silly or absurd. But to do so simply to make a point about the beliefs of others is to degrade and dishonor one’s own spirit.


    and a bad example of hate mail published on the same site - shocking but alas more and more prevalent as social media validates people's worst tribal instincts:


    Please do not delude yourself that people of real faith are not interested themselves in where you and the other FSM assholes live, and where your loved ones attend school, or work etcetera….

    I am not making any threats of any kind, as I am a non-violent Christian.

    However, all of the people with my beliefs are not so willing to tolerate your silliness.

    My advice is to shut down this pathetic folly, before people far less tolerant of your mockery of their spirituality take an active interest in your membership on a very personal level…



    Other than joining you and Henry, by far the best post ever, thank you!

    Quote from Fm1

    By definition in webster's dictionary you are an anti Vaxer, live with it. As for looking at all the evidence, I do, I disagree with some and do question the validity based on where it is coming from.

    I'm happy to live by any dictionary definition - in this case I'll not agree with you.


    Questioning is the issue: and questioning only based on where information comes from is problematic, since what then does not get questioned is which sources are most reliable.

    Quote from Fm1

    You think your CDC is trustworthy, I know mine is not based on history.

    Actually I've always been profoundly distrustful of SAGE - the group of politicised doctors around the UK government. who give advice on COVID and acquiesce in the politically-determined decisions about lockdowns etc. They are chosen as those compatible with politics, and it is a difficult filter.


    But what I've learnt following the whole process is that even though sometimes you can see politics getting in the way of what is sensible, often there are true uncertainties about what it is best to do. No-one has certainty when new COVID variants are unknowable, and evidence on public behaviour, and disease transmissability, is partial.


    And I don't think the members of SAGE are corrupt - they are doing what seems to them best although as people that is variable and coloured by their politics and many other things.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    I'm happy to live by any dictionary definition - in this case I'll not agree with you.


    Questioning is the issue: and questioning only based on where information comes from is problematic, since what then does not get questioned is which sources are most reliable.

    Yes round and round we go. Maybe the challenge TSN threw out there to debate in an open public forum isn't a bad idea, using a panel of appointed experts acceptible by both debaters, to moderate.

    And here is a CoFSM hate mail letter pretty much in accord with my views (except I'm not a theist):


    I spent a while thinking of a good reply to this, without sounding like some sort of inbred hick or perhaps maybe to get your attention. However, I realize that there pretty much is no way for that to happen, if you put this in your hate-mail section, I’ll probably be mocked just as much as the next guy, who put the stupid comment about how you could never buy a pirate ship. I’m OK with that, I just wish people will actually think about what I have to say rather then ignorantly mocking what I believe personally. Whatever may happen, I don’t really mind, except that I cannot bring myself to be silent on this issue.

    I am a Christian, whatever you may think about me, or absurd assumptions you may have about what I look like, think like, or speak like, realize this, I think all beliefs should be treated with equality. Atheism, Hindu, Buddhist, Christian, Muslim, Agonist, Voodoo, whatever, I don’t care, if you believe that you are correct, then you have every right in the world to believe that with all your heart, and nobody should force you to believe what they believe. Now I also believe in open criticism of any of these religions, meaning your Pastafarian view that openly mocks religion. However, it is also my right to criticize the criticism, meaning though while I believe it is your right to mock, harass, and generally make religious persons miserable, I don’t believe it is morally right.

    Atheism is a belief just as much as Christianity. Say whatever you want about facts and how religion is stupid and all those who practice it are all idiots, but it still comes down to the fundamental truth that you must believe this to be more true over the other option. I am again, completely fine with that, and that is why I love America so much, because we CAN believe differently then one another, and still live peacefully (to a degree) together. However, mocking is not the right way to go about arguing your belief.


    By the way, here is the definition of mocking:

    1. Tease or laugh at in a scornful or contemptuous manner.

    2. Make (something) seem laughably unreal or impossible.

    To laugh at someone else’s belief that they dedicate their lives to is not funny or humorous, but I believe is rather childish and immature. This is the main reason why I would much rather sit down calmly with an atheist and have a rational discussion about each other’s beliefs, instead of smacking them in the face with a bible, and shouting how they are going to hell for not believing the undeniable truth that is the bible, or worse, calling their belief idiotic and getting my group of friends together and laughing and pointing in his face.


    Of course there are people that do this, hence, you, and there will always be people like you. My job is try to convince you to be rational and discuss each others view points.

    I could never put myself in your mindset and read this the same way through your eyes. To you, I just look like another idiot who took this seriously and decided to write a concerned letter and waste his time trying to teach you to be respectful, but the truth is, writing this helps me put my thoughts in order anyways.

    If you do have one ounce of thought for my beliefs, at least view this letter with respect, and try to think about what I am thinking when I read this:

    http://www.globalone.tv/forum/topics/student-punished-for-spaghetti?groupUrl=flyingspaghettimonster

    What I am thinking is that the joke has gone to far. Of course this letter asks for intelligent discussion, and that seems to have never existed in your website, so before I go, let my put it in your language.

    Fuck you, and lay off religion asshole.

    Sincerely,

    Austin


    One of the merits of CoFSM, whatever its demerits, is transparency. They do not hide from criticism.


    And re the definition of atheism: the dictionary definition includes "lack of belief" which would definitely not be a religion. But I have noticed from personal experience that those who are militantly atheist - and spend their time trying to debunk religions - have something more behind their attitude than just a neutral lack of belief. They have a real need to fight those of contrary views. I feel the same about antivaxxer memes based on wrong science: it is morally important to expose them, and morally bad to propagate them unless somone really cannot see the errors. Which perhaps makes me more somone of faith than I'd normally think of myself as being.


    Many here will dismiss CoFSM as silly and of no interest (I am nearly in that group). It is highly relevant when considering what are culture wars, and how purely scientific issues like the merits of vaccination or ivermectin can get caught up in them. It addresses the fundamental question of how can we engage with otehrs who have different views: respecting their beliefs but not having some post-modernist all-is-equal way of balancing different views. It is possible - in fact necessary - to respect those who have profoundly wrong views.

    Quote from Fm1

    Yes round and round we go. Maybe the challenge TSN threw out there to debate in an open public forum isn't a bad idea, using a panel of appointed experts acceptible by both debaters, to moderate.

    There is a journalistic process that can help resolve these issues, as followed here:

    Ivermectin, For and Against, with Tess Lawrie, Graham Walker & Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz


    But it takes some time and care: it requires a genuine attempt to understand, and then challenge, both sides of an argument.

    On Vaccine Safety, Ivermectin and the Dark Horse Podcast: An Investigation
    This article is a detailed investigation of the claims made around ivermectin and vaccine safety by Bret Weinstein, Heather Heying, and…
    medium.com


    Here is a genuine attempt to ask questions not excluding the outlying (antivaxxer-friendly) views - on the topic of COVID vaccines and ivermectin - prompted by the ideas of Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying on the Dark Horse Podcast.


    Bret Weinstein is a dangerous antivaxxer - and there should be no false equivalence between his (outlying) views and those of the mainstream. Equally I agree with the reporters here (who were previous friends and colleagues of Bret & Heather, and started not clear whether their views represented something closer to truth than the orthodoxy) that to find truth in the modern world we must engage with such powerful outlying views.

    Quote from RobertBryant

    “As the world changes, the forms of corruption also gradually become more cunning, more difficult to point out.”

    I was never more simple as today with CoV-19.

    Sample::

    1) Adrew Hill (Liverpool) runs pro Ivermectin presentations and programs. Gets 40 pharma millions and live damaging threats --> Cheats a paper about Ivermectin https://odysee.com/@FrontlineC…CC-WEBINAR-121521_FINAL:9

    2) Yale school of medicine. Gets about 100 mio. pharma grants (40,million form crappy Remdesivir source) --> everybody including cook & cleaning woman sign an anti HCQ letter...Gilead sponsored medicine.yale.edu-Pharma and academia partner for better health.pdf


    We are thrown back to archaic times. No more subtle corruption. It's kill or bill - mafia business.

    (From the text article accompanying the above video)


    The Sam Harris podcast made attempts to flesh out the authority claims with substantial arguments, but the limitations of the medium — a shorter dialogue between two people who already agreed, and who’d already decided what they believed before beginning — meant that they couldn’t tackle enough of the specific claims or show how they got there. It seemed that Sam’s guest believed that simply labelling Bret’s guests as “predators” would be enough to discredit them.


    Again, this is another feature of the Uncanny Valley we’ve mentioned between the mainstream and alternative. The mainstream is concerned about boosting the signal of outsiders by giving them publicity, while they find large audiences on podcasts where the host has no incentive to challenge what they are saying. The flipside is that many quite easily-disproved claims aren’t, simply because of a lack of engagement from critical thinkers.


    The problem is that a not-insubstantial portion of our population simply doesn’t automatically trust our institutions or its consensus. And with good reason.

    As Eric Weinstein explained in our recent film on the subject, the loss of our reflexive ‘lean in’ towards authority is a price the authorities themselves have paid for their own fuck-ups.


    Above all, the deliberate suppression of the ‘lab leak’ hypothesis — where a media narrative was cynically manufactured (as told in our Lab Leak film) in order to demonise anyone who thought the virus originated in a lab in Wuhan as a ‘conspiracy theorist’ — has seriously damaged trust.


    And vaccines sit in an awkward spot at the intersection of science, medicine and public health, which do not mix. Science is about examining things as carefully as possible with no agenda. Public health is ALL agenda, identifying one single course of action and trying to make people follow it.


    In this sense, you could argue that the messaging around vaccines is a ‘noble lie’. The vaccines are completely safe, we’re told, and anyone who disagrees is a dangerous ‘anti-vaxxer’ — ergo, we get people vaccinated. A more accurate message, however, would be that vaccines are medical interventions with a balance of risk and reward. And in the broader judgement of the medico-scientific community, the dangers of COVID-19 far outweigh any threats from the vaccines.

    This gap between simplistic government and media messaging and the complex truth is the fertile soil for conspiracy narratives to grow. People sense they are being lied to and fill in the gaps.


    The age of the internet has killed forever the time when public health messaging could be dumbed down, and authorities will have to develop public health messaging that treats people as adults, and communicates more than simple and catchy slogans in future.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    (1) to support ivermectin, or antivaxxer memes,

    Most anti-vaxxers I know do not know ivermectin. So our clown seems to be a scerwed up anti-antivaxxer. Do you remember the "- *-" problem in complex -clown - cases? Definitely above clown heads...


    Ivermectin is supported by evidence and science not by big pharma money as it is small money know.

    I asked a snake about vaccination. She answered: "its my profession why should I doubt?"

    My cat simply does not like the idea of vaccination. But does she now dislike snakes?


    But some people still mix up RNA cancer gene therapy with vaccine. Its like saying you can vaccinate with a gun... Or any needle will do it...

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    Most anti-vaxxers I know do not know ivermectin.

    There is quite an intersection between the two groups, for the reasons I explained (and maybe others I have not thought of).


    For example - Bret Weinstein & Dark Horse holds both views. TSN holds both views.


    As do you.


    Of course not all ivermectin advocates will be anti-vaxxers. There is a rational case for thinking, on balance that ivermectin is probably going to be helpful - it is matter of judgement and we do not yet know. If you say you are sure ivermectin is helpful, or it is obviously helpful, you show a lack of ability to deal with uncertain evidence - or you have not looked deeply at all of the arguments.


    But I think pretty well all antivaxxers will also be ivermectin advocates. it is too attractive an idea for them.


    Show me a prominent internet antivaxxer who also says they think the balance of evidence is against ivermectin being a useful treatment?


    THH

    The assumption that anyone questioning the safety of vaccines is stupid, is clearly wrong, these are complex arguments, about spike proteins, mRNA technology or data analysis of Ivermectin use are really complex.


    This links to another problem, one symptomatic of the Uncanny Valley crisis of media discussed earlier. We’ve seen a complete breakdown in our historic distinction between ‘opinion’ and ‘facts/news’ in the legacy and alternative media alike.


    Of course, this was never as absolute as was claimed. The ‘view from nowhere’ was always an affectation. But the alternative (especially podcasts and YouTube channels) doesn’t even attempt to split the two, so any analysis and factual claims come preloaded with the host’s views.


    This comes from, and is leveraged by, the biases we all have. Dealing with these emotive topics is extremely difficult — and it doesn’t help that the tech firms and social media platforms are literally paid to addict us to our screens and tribes.


    And just to be clear: I am all for questioning the safety of vaccines: it is just I'm not for agenda-driven arguments which claim certainty.


    It is not biologically impossible that spike protein could be harmful in various ways - but you get it (transient) from vaccines, and (over a significant time period) when you have a COVID infection. And there is no good evidence, in spite of billions of vaccinations, that it is causing harm beyond a certain small amount of immediate allergic reactions - as you would expect.

    Russell Brand on


    Is Noah antivax? Does Moderna want a Ferrari? Vaccine apartheid

    and the continuous evolution of consciousness

    Brand has a much more toys in his Playground than a rocking horse

    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.