With your 1000 comments per day, you should know better. Users can't flag posts, they can only downvote posts. Users can only flag articles. My posts are flagged but not negatively downvoted. Mods definitely can flag posts.
Given your plethora of comorbidities, I understand why you would be so concerned about the vaccine, but unlike you, most of us talk about the specific topic at hand, such at the Pfizer therapeutic drug.
Dan, you're protecting tptacek from criticism which is absolute bullshit. I very fairly criticized his lack of reading comprehension, and the fact he's not an expert in anything except for security. What he accused me of in his comments was worse and protecting him is bullshit.
He came in attacking me twice and you do nothing to his account? He didn't even read my post and then started his rant about the vaccine when I wasn't even talking about the vaccine.
If you're going to threaten with banning, I suggest you do it to everyone fairly, even if he's one of your "favorites". You should be flagging his posts, not mine.
Plus, you flagged my perfectly accurate post on how thalidomide is safe, it's the chiral version of it that causes deformities?
I have this book, it was such an important and informative book at the time. It's so interesting that such an important book filled with a wealth of knowledge doesn't have much use these days.
Maybe just stick to discussions on software security where you actually have some credibility. Your reading comprehension combined with your desire for some sort of argument really shows your weakness outside of your field of expertise.
The biggest problem with Thalidomide is that THALIDOMIDE IS PERFECTLY SAFE for the fetus! But the molecule has 2 different shapes, one being the mirror image of the other. All testing was done using the correct version, but during the MANUFACTURING PROCESS, the mirror image was created, and that's what caused all the problems!
There are many many ways that problems can occur. The fact that one configuration of a molecule is safe and effective and the other configuration of that same molecule causes disastrous effects is just another example of how thorough testing is necessary when drugs are given to millions of people. How many people either died or were deformed because of lack of testing?
When drug companies skip the necessary testing because they know they can make billions upon billions, they aren't doing it because it keeps people safe. They love it because it makes things cheaper for them.
I have a friend that works at Gilead and runs clinical trials. He is shocked at how quickly the vaccine was approved for EUA, because his trials take years upon years. I'm not saying that the vaccines aren't safe, but I am saying that the more drugs we let skirt through the full testing period, the worse it is for all of us.
Look at remdesivir. It was approved from a single trial that showed lukewarm results and at the cost of thousands per dose. And now the empirical evidence is that it either does nothing, or might actually be harmful.
I'm suggesting that sometimes a very small amount of a substance can cause catastrophic effects a decade later. That's why we do testing before we release drugs.
And Pfizer isn't the hero here, they never have been.
1986: Pfizer had to withdraw an artificial heart valve from the market after defects led to it being implicated in over 300 deaths. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) withdrew its approval for the product in 1986 and Pfizer agreed to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation after multiple lawsuits were brought against it.
2003: Pfizer has long been condemned for profiteering from AIDS drugs. In 2003 for example, it walked away from a licencing deal for its Rescriptor drug that would have made it cheaper for poorer countries.
2011: Pfizer was forced to pay compensation to families of children killed in the controversial Trovan drug trial. During the worst meningitis epidemic seen in Africa, in 1996, Pfizer ran a trial in Nigeria their new drug Trovan. Five of the 100 children who took Trovan died and it caused liver damage, while it caused lifelong disabilities in those who survived. But another group of 100 children were given the conventional “gold standard” meningitis antibiotic as a “control” group for comparison. Six of them also tragically died because, the families said, Pfizer had given them less than the recommended level of the conventional antibiotic in order to make Trovan look more effective.
2012: Pfizer had to pay around $1billion to settle lawsuits claiming its Prempro drug caused breast cancer. Prempro was used in hormone replacement therapy, usually for women going through the menopause. The settlements came after six years of trials and hardship for the women affected.
2013: Pfizer paid out $273 million to settle over 2,000 cases in the US that accused its smoking treatment drug Chantix of provoking suicidal and homicidal thoughts, self harm and severe psychological disorders. Pfizer was also accused of improperly excluding patients with a history of depression or other mental disturbances from trials for the drug. Later, in 2017, a coroner in Australia ruled that the drug had contributed to a man’s suicide. The man’s mother campaigned to change the label on the drug.
2020: Pfizer reached an agreement with thousands of customers of its depo-testosterone drug in 2018 after they sued it for increasing the likelihood of numerous issues, including heart attacks.
Pfizer also made Celebrex, the anti-inflammatory that they knew caused health issues but they buried them and claimed it was safe.
We are living in an upside down world now. All of a sudden the drug companies are the "good" guys. Since when did the drug companies suddenly become the heroes?
1986: Pfizer had to withdraw an artificial heart valve from the market after defects led to it being implicated in over 300 deaths. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) withdrew its approval for the product in 1986 and Pfizer agreed to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation after multiple lawsuits were brought against it.
2003: Pfizer has long been condemned for profiteering from AIDS drugs. In 2003 for example, it walked away from a licencing deal for its Rescriptor drug that would have made it cheaper for poorer countries.
2011: Pfizer was forced to pay compensation to families of children killed in the controversial Trovan drug trial. During the worst meningitis epidemic seen in Africa, in 1996, Pfizer ran a trial in Nigeria their new drug Trovan. Five of the 100 children who took Trovan died and it caused liver damage, while it caused lifelong disabilities in those who survived. But another group of 100 children were given the conventional “gold standard” meningitis antibiotic as a “control” group for comparison. Six of them also tragically died because, the families said, Pfizer had given them less than the recommended level of the conventional antibiotic in order to make Trovan look more effective.
2012: Pfizer had to pay around $1billion to settle lawsuits claiming its Prempro drug caused breast cancer. Prempro was used in hormone replacement therapy, usually for women going through the menopause. The settlements came after six years of trials and hardship for the women affected.
2013: Pfizer paid out $273 million to settle over 2,000 cases in the US that accused its smoking treatment drug Chantix of provoking suicidal and homicidal thoughts, self harm and severe psychological disorders. Pfizer was also accused of improperly excluding patients with a history of depression or other mental disturbances from trials for the drug. Later, in 2017, a coroner in Australia ruled that the drug had contributed to a man’s suicide. The man’s mother campaigned to change the label on the drug.
2020: Pfizer reached an agreement with thousands of customers of its depo-testosterone drug in 2018 after they sued it for increasing the likelihood of numerous issues, including heart attacks.
Prions are "just" proteins that should get broken down by the body. But they don't, and they cause Creutzfeldt-Jakob in over 10 years after ingesting.
I'm skeptical about the idea that Substack has poor support.
I just listened to Chuck Palahniuk on Joe Rogan. He still writes on pads of paper, but he said Substack hand-held him and he loved it, and called Substack a "concierge service" and he said he enjoys Substack because it let's him concentrate on writing and not worrying about the tedious parts like formatting, etc.
It's a huge pivot to go from flipping houses to becoming a landlord. It would essentially be a disaster for them. That's a high-touch business and probably the costs associated with it, and the legalities around it are too complex. That's basically turning into an Avalon or something.
The interesting question is around their bonds. They were basically convertible bonds which likely triggered, but now they have to pay back the cash. How much of a liquidity crisis will this introduce to the company?
The more interesting thing is that this business crisis won't be reflected in their last quarter 10-Q which should be coming out soon. I'm assuming this is going to be talked about in that earning call, so that will be an interesting one to listen to.
I think Opendoor's model is a lot better, but I guess we will have to wait to see if there are any repercussions to their business.
You're distilling your impressions from thousands of people into a single sentence, and then you're taking a single person's response and using that to push your agenda that "people just love to hate big tech". It's fascinating that you think this is a valid observation on your part.
One thing you have to accept is that there is a problem with the way you communicate. People would not be going to HR if you were as unemotional as you think. So seek out advice and honest feedback from your friends, your coworkers and your family. Maybe you can find an expert in communications that can point out what the flaws are and how to correct them.
But DO NOT sweep this under the rug. There is a problem here, and it sounds like no one wants to help you fix it. That's probably another indication that there's a pretty bad problem.
Same thing happened with Tom Cruise a while back. He fired his publicist and started to go on interviews, and it turns out he's fucking wacky. He was jumping on couches on Oprah and laughing maniacally, and doing other really weird stuff. People were shocked, and his star dropped for a couple of years.
Lesson learned. Keep your mouth shut and let people think you're stupid, instead of opening it and confirming it.
You don't have to be a social butterfly to be liked. You just mainly shouldn't be an asshole.
And the key is to consistently not be an asshole, otherwise those things will accumulate and you will eventually get rejected. (I'm not accusing you of being an asshole.) If you're nice 90% of the time, but lash out or say shitty things 10% of the time, that's more than enough to get eventually rejected.
My son, unfortunately, is like this. 95% a sweet kid but 5% really, really shitty and saying mean things. We are working on it. He started out immensely popular but over the course of this school year, his classmates look at him lukewarm now, instead of being his close friends, and it's entirely his issue.
How can the SEC and the Treasury let these crypto coins continue to exist when it's so rife with scams? Based on the TOS of Tether, it's clearly as scam with no protections for any investors.
Why hasn't the US government regulated all these coins out of existence? I feel like it's turning into a systemic risk to our economy given how much money is being turned towards them.
NTSB and NHTSA can't investigate every single complaint. That's unfortunately not scalable. They would need to talk to the driver, talk to Tesla, get the data, etc. All for something that's handled through civil lawsuits. You can sue the driver because ultimately she is at fault, and if she wants to sue Tesla, that's her prerogative.
Yes, it's a little. A 20% increase over a small number is still a small number. I'm not talking relative risk, I'm talking overall risk. Most overweight people still have mild symptoms or were asymptomatic. The single factor that had the highest predictive factor for complications was age.
Except most obese people don't have issues with COVID. This is the thing that is most confounding about COVID. Most comorbidities only increase the risk factor by a little. The biggest and most reliable risk factor is age. We know there is almost no risk below the age of 5, and 15% chance of death over 75.