Home Unbiased and uncensored debate Vaccines Confirmation Bias: Depending On Your Trustworthy Party

  • Confirmation Bias: Depending On Your Trustworthy Party

     richardnoakes updated 2 weeks, 4 days ago 2 Members · 6 Posts
  • TheRealRestoreInc.

    Member
    October 4, 2021 at 6:49 pm

    I did a search on Nancy Pelosi refuses Trump vaccine, but at the top was some unrelated result about the Trump administration rushing approval of a vaccine. Second on the results list was:

    Politifact

    Biden, Harris distrusted Trump with COVID-19 vaccines, not the vaccines themselves

    It wasn’t until the fifth result that anything was even close.

    What algorithm calibration are online searches using?

    The result was from Fox News Business:

    “I’m not a big needle taker. I mean, I had a hard time getting my ears pierced. I’m not a big needle fan,” she told reporters at a press conference.

    “I mean, they have to talk me into the flu shot under great duress each year — but if it serves as a model to other people, yes I would take the vaccine if it is approved by the regular order of things.”

    Sounds close to what I was looking for, but not that close. What happened to I don’t trust Trump’s vaccine?

    I took out the politics. Typed “Pelosi big needle” and ON TOP of the results was

    Pelosi ‘not a big needle taker’ but says she may take …
    › 2020 › 10 › 01 › pelosi-not-a-big-needle-taker-but-says-she-may-take-covid-19-vaccine
    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday she’s “not a big needle taker,” but would consider getting a COVID-19 vaccine to set an example.

    So back to my search… I typed in:

    I don’t Trust Trump’s FDA vaccine says Pelosi

    and the results that best fits were:

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., in a recent interview with MSNBC, said we don’t want a vaccine “one day sooner than it is ready,” hinting that the rush for a cure might create risks.

    and

    that shows us the tiny bit of mistrust from the search words “don’t trust Trump” in sequence.

    As a neutral researcher wanting unbiased and also not confirmation biased results, my “neutrality” might cause me to miss the emotional battle between the Democratic Party vs. then President Donald J. Trump, justified or otherwise:

    “Trump-deranged Democrats endanger lives by blocking vaccines”

    from the New York Post…

    “Monday’s news that a COVID-19 vaccine from Pfizer will be ready for Food and Drug Administration approval this month sent stock markets soaring and everyone celebrating. It is wonderful news for all humanity.

    A vaccine will slow the deaths, end the lockdowns, allow businesses to reopen, free children to return to school and return life to normal within half a year.

    Amazingly, one group isn’t celebrating: Democratic politicians. They would sooner criticize the breakthrough than allow the triumph to occur on President Trump’s watch. Gov. Cuomo in New York and Gov. Gavin Newsom in California are saying FDA approval of the vaccine isn’t enough, and they will insist on approval by experts in their own states, as well.

    That’s unconstitutional. Drug approval is a federal responsibility, and courts have ruled that states should stay out of it.”

    […]

    “Pfizer and its German biotech partner, BioNTech, announced that their vaccine appears to be 90 per­cent effective against the virus — a stunning achievement. The FDA minimum level of efficacy is 50 percent, which is standard also for flu vaccines. Pfizer’s vaccine will offer far more protection. Once Pfizer wins approval, it will sell 20 million doses a month to the United States government, also supply the European Union and Japan and eventually produce over 1.3 billion doses.

    More good news. Another vaccine developer, Moderna, using a technology similar to Pfizer’s, will announce its data later this month. Moderna’s likely approval will mean there will probably be sufficient production of vaccines in 2021 to stop this virus worldwide.”

    Now the reverse confirmation bias:

    From “Foreign Policy”, the publication of the Council On Foreign Relations:


    Trump’s Vaccine Can’t Be Trusted”

    “If a vaccine comes out before the election, there are very good reasons not to take it.”

    “In its mad sprint to Election Day, the White House has funneled billions of dollars into drug companies and ordered government agencies to execute their public health duties at breakneck speeds that defy credulity. Like most experts closely watching these developments, I have no confidence that a safe, effective vaccine will be ready for use by Halloween. Worse, I can no longer recommend that anyone retain faith in any public health pronouncements issued by government agencies.”

    So ask yourself what confirmation bias is before you proceed to:

    https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/second-opinions/93430

    “Why would the world’s greatest scientific thinkers apply the “good science” label so inconsistently? Perhaps the best explanation is what psychologists call confirmation bias, which is the tendency to interpret observations or data in a manner consistent with previously established beliefs and values.”

  • richardnoakes

    Member
    October 4, 2021 at 6:56 pm

    Doctor Performs Blood and Immune System Test Before and After COVID Vaccination, The Alarming Results Motivate Him to Share This Video

    October 4, 2021 | Sundance

    Dr. Nathan Thompson was approached by a long-term patient, we will call him Mr. Smith, who was being forced by his employer to get the COVID-19 vaccine. Mr. Smith and Dr. Thompson have a long history together, as the doctor helped his patient change his lifestyle and eliminate Mr Smith’s type-2 diabetes.

    Because Mr. Smith has a long history of blood tests to form the baseline for his healthy immune system; and because the patient was being forced to take the COVID-19 vaccination; Dr. Thompson and Mr. Smith decided to take comparison blood tests after the first shot and after the second shot to see if/ how the patient’s blood-work was impacted by the vaccine. The doctor states his, “Jaw dropped after seeing the blood test results following the second shot.”

    The results alarmed Doctor Thompson so much, with the patient’s permission, Thompson felt compelled to record this video and share the results. Overall, the blood-work showed a massive negative impact to the natural immune system of the patient. Because his patient is now more at risk after the vaccination, Dr. Thompson is left with multiple questions; including how long will this vaccine-induced autoimmune compromise last in his patient? WATCH:https://youtu.be/ZwR7natWqLk

    This video is not expected to last long. Watch while you can.Perhaps the most alarming aspect is the specifics of the weakened immune system making the patient more vulnerable to ordinary cancers.

    The Last Refuge

  • richardnoakes

    Member
    October 4, 2021 at 6:57 pm

    Jim Woodgett, former Director of Research at Mount Sinai Hospital (2005-2021)

    Answered May 5, 2021

    The SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein encodes a 1273 amino acid protein. Multiple by 3 to get the number of nucleotides and add some untranslated regions for directing translational start and aiding in stability it rounds to approximately 5,000 nucleotides. 1 nucleotide of RNA has a mass of (averaged) of 320 Daltons. So an RNA comprised of 5,000 nucleotides has a mass of 1600 kiloDaltons.

    There are 30 micrograms of RNA in a Pfizer/BioNTech single dose (in 0.3 ml). That means there are about 11.3 x 10 to the power of 12 molecules of RNA per shot.

    (First shot?)11,300,000,000,000 molecules of RNA (11,300 Trillion) approximately.

    The Moderna shot typically uses more RNA.

    Erwin Claassen, Wetenschappelijk Huurling at Waar Niet

    Answered May 5, 2021

    (2nd Shot) a shitload… dose is 100µg of mRNA (not all vaccines is mRNA), that is around 505.440.000.000.000.000.000.000 copies… more or less (505,440 Trillion Trillion)

    Me: Which is more mRNA particles, than the blood cells, you have in your body.

    So if you have a 3rd booster that might tanslate to a further 1,010,880 Trillion, Trillion, Trillion mRNA particles in your body?

    mRNa is a new treatment and has never been used in humans before, so with the above mRNA particles, why do we need blood at all?

    How COVID Vaccines Deregulate Your Vascular Function

    Dr.Bhakdi explains the science behind the blood disorders seen post-vaccination with gene-based COVID-19 “vaccines,” and why, in the long term, these injections may be causing dangerously overactive immune function in hundreds of millions if not billions of people.

    He believes the mRNA or DNA in the vaccines are being taken up by the endothelial cells that line your blood vessels. These cells then start producing the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in the blood vessel wall.

    “This is a disastrous situation,” Bhakdi says, “because the spike protein itself is now sitting on the surface of the cells, facing the bloodstream. It is known that these spike proteins, the moment they touch platelets, they active them [the platelets], and that sets the whole clotting system going.

    The second thing that should happen, according to theory, is that the waste products of this protein that are produced in the cell, are put in front of the ‘door’ of the cell … and is presented to the immune system.

    The immune system, especially the lymphocytes, recognize these and will attack the cells, because they don’t want them to make viruses or viral parts. And the viral parts are now being made in locations where viral parts would never, ever reach [naturally], like the vessel wall in your brain …

    If that ‘tapestry’ of the wall [i.e., the lining of the blood vessel] is then destroyed, then that is the signal for the clotting system to [activate], and create a blood clot. And this happens with all of these vaccines because the gene [the instruction to make spike protein] is being introduced to the vessel wall.”

    The fact that blood clots can occur anywhere in the body is evident from reports. For example, a 43-year-old healthy man lost a large portion of his small intestine after developing a blood clot following the AstraZeneca vaccine.14 His symptoms included headache, nausea, fever and vomiting.

    A 62-year-old woman suffered blood clots in her lungs a week after the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.15 The same fate hit an 18-year-old nursing student three weeks after getting the AstraZeneca jab.16

    Are the spike proteins injected, which are designed to be mass-produced in the bodies of the vaccinated, cause of the clotting? Is this having adverse effects on no fewer than 60 percent of people injected?

  • richardnoakes

    Member
    October 4, 2021 at 6:57 pm

    Vaccination Doesn’t Correlate to Reduction in SARS-CoV-2 Infection

    TrialSite Staff October 3, 2021

    A Harvard population health geographer and student researcher out of Canada sought to determine if increases in SARS-CoV-2 cases were unrelated to vaccination levels across 68 countries worldwide and 2947 counties around the United States. Led by SV Subramanian in Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, this study leveraged Our World in Data for cross-country analysis, collecting and analyzing data up to September 3, 2021. They computed the COVID-19 cases per 1 million people for 68 nations and counties across America and assess the percentage of the population that was fully vaccinated. The study verified TrialSite analyses that nations and countries with higher vaccination rates don’t experience lower Sars-CoV-2 cases per 1 million people. The evidence is absolutely showing the narrative pushed by POTUS as not data-driven nor correct. Rather the evidence points to the need to rethink the vaccine-centric vaccine to eradicate the pathogen in favor of a more diversified, open, and flexible approach. POTUS and his handlers need to immediately cease picking on the unvaccinated—as they continue driving a wedge between people that need to be brought together.

    TrialsiteNews

  • richardnoakes

    Member
    October 4, 2021 at 6:58 pm

    Neural Lace is when nanoparticles form a web around the brain so that it picks up brainwaves but can also send wave information to the brain. Neural link picks up the frequencies from Neural Lace then amplifies them, programs the brain and connects it to a Starlink network (AI remote control). Starlink are the Satellites.These things are owned by Elon Musk. He has also been seen on video talking about graphene, one atom thick, and able to be injected. There are now claims from Pathologists about this product being found in vials. SpaceX is the delivery system for Starlink. Stranger than fiction? If this is correct then the message is to never get tested or injected because AI technology is far more advanced than we realise.

    CairnsNews

  • richardnoakes

    Member
    October 4, 2021 at 6:58 pm

    SpaceX’s Starlink Ramps Up, So Could Light Pollution

    The constellation of internet-providing satellites is growing. Now the company and its rivals must avoid creating brighter night skies and space debris.

    Photograph: Joshua Conti/Department of Defense

    With some 1,800 satellites already orbiting Earth, providing internet access to about 100,000 households, SpaceX’s Starlink broadband service is poised to emerge from the beta testing phase this month, according to a recent tweet from Elon Musk, the company’s founder and CEO.

    Just a decade ago, there were only a few thousand spacecraft orbiting Earth. Now Starlink engineers aim to build up to 12,000 satellites, and SpaceX launches scores more on its Falcon 9 rockets almost every month. (A recent FCC report states that the company applied for authorization for 30,000 more.) The massive network of satellites, known as a “mega-constellation,” currently dominates the satellite internet industry, but other players, like Amazon and OneWeb, have plans to launch thousands of satellites of their own.

    As the Starlink fleet grows, SpaceX and its competitors will have to address some potential problems. One is that more orbiting bodies means that, eventually, there will be more space junk, creating more chances for collisions. And astronomers, environmentalists, and indigenous groups, among others, express concern that Starlink will irrevocably light up the night sky, thanks to the sunlight reflected off its satellites. For telescopes like the National Science Foundation–funded Vera C. Rubin Observatory, nearing completion in Chile, astronomers are trying to develop software to mitigate the effects of a sky filled with more private satellites, but they will inevitably leave streaks on their images of the cosmos.

    Featured Video

    SpaceX launches their internet satellites

    Over the past few years, astronomers have already spotted many Starlink satellites in the night sky. “If I walk on my porch and look up at night, I’ll see a bright satellite going across the sky, and usually I’ll see several. It’s a very weird sensation: All the stars then seem to move, like an optical illusion,” says Aaron Boley, a planetary astronomer at the University of British Columbia and codirector of the Outer Space Institute. “It’s going to have a much larger effect than people appreciate.”

    With the prospect of a total of some 65,000 SpaceX, Amazon, OneWeb, and Starnet/GW satellites orbiting in just a couple years, Boley and astronomer Samantha Lawler made predictions for their light pollution effects in a new research paper that’s currently going through peer review. (They aren’t affiliated with any of the satellite makers.) Based on observations and models of Starlink satellites’ brightness, they find that at latitudes near 50 degrees North and South—affecting people in Canada and Europe, for example—satellites will make up between 7 and 14 percent of lights one can see by telescope, and about one in 10 of those seen by the naked eye.

    Boley and Lawler identify tradeoffs: For example, satellites orbiting at around 1,200 kilometers above Earth linger in the sky for a while, while Starlink’s satellites move more quickly in low-Earth orbit, at an altitude of less than 600 kilometers—about as high as SpaceX’s all-civilian Inspiration4 flew. Lower satellites cover less area than higher ones, so SpaceX needs more of them to reach the same number of people. But to us on Earth, they also glow more brightly in the sky.

    Other industry players, who generally stick to one or the other of these ranges of orbit altitudes, include the UK’s OneWeb and planned satellite constellations like Amazon’s Project Kuiper, China’s Starnet/GW, and Canada’s Telesat. But Starlink’s constellation will likely remain the biggest one, at least for a while: SpaceX has already shipped terminals, which include a Wi-Fi router and satellite dish, to beta users in 14 countries, mainly in Western Europe and North America, including rural and remote users, according to Musk’s tweets, and the company plans to expand the user base to at least half a million.

    “It’s going to be difficult to compete against SpaceX in this domain, given its obvious advantage in launch. Competitors exist and are being formed, however, suggesting that the market still sees opportunity,” wrote Matthew Weinzierl, an economist at Harvard Business School who researches the commercialization of the space sector, in an email to WIRED.

    A representative from SpaceX’s communications team declined interview requests from WIRED.

    But a representative from Amazon indicated the company is aware of potential light pollution issues. “Reflectivity is a key consideration in our design and development process. We’ve already made a number of design and operational decisions that will help reduce our impact on astronomical observations, and we’re engaging with members of the community to better understand their concerns and identify steps we can take,” the spokesperson wrote by email.

    Katie Dowd, OneWeb’s director of government and corporate affairs in North America, wrote in an email to WIRED that the company is talking with groups, including the UK’s Royal Astronomical Society and the American Astronomical Society, to understand the effects satellites have on observations, “and to create design and operational practices that support both communities. We are also undertaking brightness measurements and will be looking at those results to explore solutions.”

    SpaceX and its rivals can’t avoid light pollution; they can only reduce it. Every object in the atmosphere reflects at least some light during part of its orbit, depending on its materials, color, and size. While satellites beam information down to Earth, a tiny bit of sunlight often gets reflected down, too, both by a satellite’s body and its solar array.

    Early last year, SpaceX tested a Starlink satellite nicknamed Darksat, giving it an experimental darkening coating on one side, including the antennas, to cut down on the reflective brightness, which the company claims was reduced by 55 percent. In one paper, some astronomers found that the measure did darken the satellite but not to that degree, though it made the satellite invisible to the naked eye. Others didn’t detect significant darkening at all. They found that the satellite’s measured brightness may vary, however, depending on the angle at which it’s observed and how the light scatters through the atmosphere.

    According to a post on the company’s website, SpaceX found that the dark surfaces got hot, putting the satellite’s components at risk, and that it still reflected light in the infrared. So the company later tested a different approach that it calls Visorsat, deploying a number of satellites with rectangular sun shades attached, like the one used on a car windshield. Those visors are intended to make sure that sunlight that bounces off the satellites’ antennas is reflected away from Earth.

    So far, SpaceX hasn’t publicly released any information about how well this approach works, or how it compares to Darksat. But another astronomer, in an unpublished paper posted on the academic preprint server arXiv.org, and Boley’s team in work-in-progress, both independently find that at least 70 percent of the Visorsat spacecraft were still brighter than their preferred threshold: a level that would ensure that the Vera C. Rubin Observatory’s images will be mostly unaffected.

    To draw attention to light pollution concerns and to work on developing solutions, the American Astronomical Society convened a virtual workshop on satellite constellations this summer, known as SatCon2. They plan to soon issue reports and recommendations, coinciding with a meeting beginning this Sunday, called “Dark and Quiet Skies for Science and Society,” organized by the United Nations and the International Astronomical Union.

    SatCon2 organizers made a priority of reaching out to a broad range of people concerned about the night sky, including amateur astronomers, astrophotographers, the planetarium community, environmentalists, and indigenous and tribal communities from the United States, Canada, New Zealand, and other countries. “Everybody wanted things to slow down. They want industry to engage more. This is something that belongs to everyone as a global commons,” says Aparna Venkatesan, an astrophysicist at the University of San Francisco and SatCon2 public engagement co-chair.

    As part of SatCon2, a working group of astronomers spoke with representatives from SpaceX and five other major satellite operators about what reflected light limits researchers propose, and how the companies could assess and reduce how reflective their spacecraft are. They also debated policy options within the US that could involve setting rules for how much light pollution internet satellites can create. These include the possibility of regulations imposed by the Federal Aviation Administration, which sets conditions for launch and reentry, or the FCC, which licenses radio frequencies in orbit. Some astronomers also would like to see the National Environmental Policy Act to end its exemption for space—that is, they see space as an environment in need of protection.

    “There is a little bit of tension, but we’re still considering both approaches: A cooperative approach, where industry really tries and we talk to them, and the possibility of getting regulations that make them try to commit to a [brightness] limit,” says Richard Green, an astronomer at the University of Arizona and chair of the SatCon2 policy working group.

    In addition to light pollution, all these companies face another challenge: space junk. Their satellites could be both part of the problem and potential victims, if another spacecraft or any of the hundreds of thousands of bits of orbiting debris smashes into them.

    SpaceX has the ability to move its satellites out of the way to avoid a collision, and like other companies with spacecraft in lower orbits, at the end of a satellite’s life, its engineers can bring it down into the atmosphere to burn up on reentry, says Brian Weeden, director of program planning at the Secure World Foundation, a nonpartisan think tank based in Broomfield, Colorado. “But there’s still some uncertainty there. Actively deorbiting only works if the satellite’s still functional,” he says. If, say, 2 percent of Starlink’s satellites go kaput before they can be moved or pulled down back to Earth, that still amounts to hundreds of derelict spacecraft.

    And the lack of rules about who notifies whom of a potential collision, and how close is too close, and who has to move as satellite owners play chicken in space, adds to the confusion. In April, Starlink and OneWeb satellites came uncomfortably close, and in 2019, a European Space Agency satellite fired thrusters to avoid hitting a Starlink one.

    The US Space Command currently monitors all pieces of space debris 10 centimeters in size or larger and calculates the odds of a space crash. “Megaconstellations and all these launch opportunities are overwhelming that system, so there’s the need to expand the capacity,” says Dan Ceperley, founder and CEO of LeoLabs, based in Menlo Park, California. Using radar systems around the globe, his company tracks space debris, including much of the small stuff, and provides data to companies that contract with them, which he says includes SpaceX.

    As Starlink and other constellations grow, Boley and his colleagues hope that these companies will better address both the light pollution and debris challenges. “I hope that as they’re modifying the satellites, that the engineering is not just a matter of retrofitting, but the actual design of the satellite as a whole takes into account brightness mitigation,” Boley says.

    As he points out, once those satellites go up, there will be no way for people on Earth to avoid their effects. “You can get out of the city, escape from city light pollution, and experience the night sky, but you can’t do that from satellite light pollution. There’s nowhere you would be able to go,” he says.

    Wired

Viewing 1 - 6 of 6 replies

Original Post
0 of 0 posts June 2018
Now