Goddess

That's cool. 😎 Mine is Waipio Valley in Hawaii (on the big island.) You can only travel it if you have a 4X4. Waipio Valley - This Hawaii Life

From Dr. Vinay Prassad's substack RE: the booster shots for this Fall: Years ago, a famous scientist told me “I am going to have a problem when they recommend 23 boosters over 22 boosters without a randomized study” I laughed. No one would ever do that, I thought. Yet, that day steadily approaches. This week, the FDA authorized a new fall COVID booster. This was done without any studies measuring the impact on severe disease or hospitalization or death. Worse, the viral target was chosen by Peter Marks, against advice, and is already out of date. First, let me highlight the most honest, decent scientist on the topic. My UCSF colleague: Next. Here is data on the target’s frequency: It's simply bad medicine to recommend a medical product to people, many of whom have just had COVID, without evidence that benefits exceed harms and worse without ongoing studies to answer open questions. It's especially bad if the target is out of date. I consider such recommendations to verge on malpractice, even if sanctioned by captured ‘authorities’. Now consider some of the most shameful tweets promoting this product. First, the CDC director: Cohen has the temerity to recommend that little children get this shot— which is inconsistent with most European nations. Moreover, even though she has the clout to demand or even run a randomized study, she does not. Mandy Cohen has joined Rochelle Walensky as two of the worst CDC directors since the agencies inception. Vaccine mistrust is in part due to people like her. Here is a link to the full tweet that falsely claims the booster reduces severe disease. The FDA has no data for that claim. I encourage all readers of this post to community note this claim and cite this post. The FDA should not be allowed to engage in false statements. Now look at how doctors extrapolate. This is Ashish Jha former Biden COVID Czar: Jha has the audacity to invent the best time to get a booster. A data free recommendation on timing for a data free vaccine. Dr Akkad, an ID doctor agrees this is damaging to public trust. I think it is inconsistent with being a scientist, who would want better studies. But it gets even worse. This is Dr. Vin Gupta, the MS/NBC correspondent: He recommends this out of date booster for a woman who just had an actual infection. This claim is problematic, both because her future risk is low… And worse, adverse events appear higher when doses are given after infection. I am concerned Vin Gupta is spreading dangerous medical advice with the false legitimacy of being a TV pundit. Per his biography he works at the University of Washington. I tried to find him on open payments and found he takes payments from Pfizer. How is it possible for a doctor to make recommendations for an unproven vax, appear on NBC and not disclose payments from Pfizer? Across the board, I believe the physicians recommending this shot are dishonorable. None of them are advocating for randomized studies. Many of them are promoting Pfizer's interests. Some may even be paid by the company. A few weeks ago, I discussed a new paper showing trust in medicine is on the decline. It isn't low enough. These doctors mean you don't distrust doctors enough. We live in concerning times where drug companies push unproven products, the FDA rubber stamps them, and sell outs promote them. It's sad times for evidence based medicine when the sellouts get promoted.

You sound like you have good defensive driving skills. I feel like this is lacking in Canada, maybe due to our "wide, open spaces". I noticed during my travelling years, in countries that had few lights, skinny, winding mountain roads with no guardrails, no speed limits, etc, that they seemed to be much more aware of what other drivers around them are doing.

Vaccines, like all drugs, have side effects. This should not be controversial. No vaccine is “safe and effective” for everyone. This should not be controversial. Drawing attention to the serious side effects listed on every vaccine insert should not be controversial. Advocating for individuals who have been injured by vaccines should not be controversial. Making vaccines safer should not be controversial. Holding vaccine companies accountable for their products should not be controversial. Preventing pharmaceutical companies from influencing regulatory bodies that approve drugs should not be controversial. Ensuring that the regulatory system is not weaponized against the public while safeguarding pharmaceutical companies should not be controversial. Instead, for the last number of years, individuals, scientists and doctors with valid concerns have been disparaged, censored, and labeled as “anti-vaxxers” or “conspiracy theorists.” This behavior is detrimental to the public interest and contributes to a lack of trust in public institutions and officials. Time to ensure that the actions of public agencies truly serve the public interest. This should not be controversial.

LOL The more I think about it, the more absurd you are! The gov't and pharma industry ADMITTED lying to the public about vax injuries and you're still here saying they WEREN'T lying!!!! You're a special kind of stupid.

Yes, I know you've said before - they are all liars. How would you know? The Canadian and US gov'ts and all the alphabet entities said they deliberately censored vax injuries and deaths from the public. Are you saying all the people (evidence on the ground) are lying and the studies are lying the datasets are lying because YOU haven't seen anyone injured (that you know of)? You're so vocal about your denial that I doubt if anyone close to you had an injury, you would be the last one they'd tell. You'd just call them a liar. I sure wouldn't confide in you. Really? That's your stance? A total rejection of science? You support gov'ts deliberately lying to you about it? I'm not really surprised. Just surprised you admit it.

Home - React19 That's just one of many websites. I've given it to you before, but you refused to look at it. I'm sure you will refuse again. So, you don't get to say there are no injuries or deaths when you simply refuse to look at the evidence, the scientific studies or the datasets. That website/group, BTW, was started by one of the women who was badly injured in the vaccine trials.

It's because you refuse to listen to those who have been injured or had loved ones die from it. I'm not saying it. Peer-reviewed medical studies from all over the world are saying it. Datasets from all over the world are saying it. Excess deaths are up almost 20% in every highly-vaxxed country. Disabilities have sky-rocketed in both Canada and the US. And it's not the elderly, obese or terminally ill dying now. It's young people and working age people dying suddenly in their sleep or from heart attacks/strokes, or "unknown cause".

Glad you're doing well. Lots are not. I just post what the scientific studies are showing.

Ironically, it may be unvaccinated people who have this specific gene that are the key to solving covid. Some people never get COVID-19: researchers say a specific gene could be why | Watch (msn.com)

LOL You're new here. I have taken a beating from the majority of people on this forum for being and speaking AGAINST many things in Muslim culture and talking about how bringing masses of people from these cultures will change our own and not for the better.

Last night I was watching a newscast from the UK and one of the items was CCTV footage from inside a restaurant. A young woman was serving a Muslim man/woman/and child. I don't know what was said, it looked all normal at first - the young woman server walked over and set a try down on the table that had their meals and the Muslim man just hauled off and smashed her in the face. The wife leaped across the table and grabbed his arm so he couldn't hit the young lady again. The reporter said police were called but they laid no charges because "The man is only human and we all make mistakes." It is women that will bear the brunt of mass immigration of these types of men with this type of cultural upbringing. We see it already in the human trafficking, grooming gangs (there was just one in Edmonton) sexual assaults and beatings of non-Muslim women and children on the streets. The UK has had all these problems (Rotherdam grooming gang) and yet people wonder why the Brits are rioting. Many of these senseless attacks are recorded by the attackers themselves and uploaded to social media.

This is what I was talking about. This guy is a menace to women. Former patient testifies doctor told her future husband would regret it if she got tubes tied | CBC News Professional misconduct accusation Moodley is accused of professional misconduct and incompetence related to three complainants. The first testified earlier in the hearing that he performed a surgical procedure against her wishes during childbirth. A second woman, who was also pregnant, alleged Moodley dismissed her labour pains as back spasms and ignored her requests for epidural pain medication, and testified staff at Cape Breton Regional Hospital failed to pay close enough attention, which may have led to health complications for her son. The panel is hearing evidence about the complaints and is tasked with examining whether Moodley engaged in professional misconduct. Moodley is expected to testify in his own defence at a later date. Moodley has previously been disciplined. In 2021, his licence was suspended for five months and he was ordered to pay $325,000 after two female patients said he made inappropriate sexual remarks to them. Years ago, I had a friend who went through a c-section without anesthesia. She told the doc she could feel everything and he just kept cutting. She sued and got a sum of money. In court, he admitted he did it because he didn't like women. Same ethnicity as this doctor.

5 Years In Prison For A Truck Driver Who Killed Two Children (truckstopcanada.com) Here's the video, horrifying

Here's a sample from the above book on the posted topic:

Prof. Gad Saad has a great book out right now about this: I'm actually on the chapter about college/university campuses right now.

I have to do a bit of customer service in my current position. We don't have enough staff and the ones that are here are getting covid continually. I laugh a lot at how stupid people are. I'm pretty good at not bringing it home. People like FakeFlyer and id10t customers, I view as litterbugs, throwing trash around. Pick it up and throw it in the garbage where it belongs. Don't let it stick to you. They clearly have issues that are entirely their own and nothing to do with you.

I currently work with 2 Filipino women and there have been problems with them since Day 1. (I'm not saying this is usual, I'm just sharing my experience.) They both work under me. I find them very catty, very over-emotional, very immature. They are supposed to be "best friends" but they will throw each other under the bus whenever they need to. There's a lot of crying at work 🙄 I have to walk on eggshells with them all the time and find that when they're asked to do things, they will only do it for a while and then stop and have to be prodded into doing it again. They make the same mistakes over and over and over and I've sort of come to the conclusion that they don't' really give a shite about doing a good job.

That's a great idea.

Just something to consider that I have learned from working with and following nurses and listening in on their conferences and meetings: The first issue is that their nursing degrees do not always meet the requirements of N. American degrees. There is often a high degree of "cultural" or "traditional" medicine that is not really scientific and can be downright harmful. For this reason, I agree with programmes that test and examine them for competency and provide refresher-type courses before they work here. I do not have a problem with foreign nurses working here, to be clear. The second issue that's been brought up many times is that women (it's mainly women nurses) from these countries are very subservient. Which might be good in some scenarios, but not in medicine. Nurses are the ones who see patients many times during the day and will report small but important changes to the attending doctor. Nurses are often the ones who catch the "errors" doctors make. They have to be not afraid to confront a doctor with "Hey, did you MEAN to prescribe this overdose amount of this medication?" They have to be not afraid to challenge a doctor on a treatment he advises but that the attending nurse feels may not be appropriate or will be net harmful. Nurses are a patient's best advocate. In N. America, it's actually part of their oath. If you knew how many nurses save patients from near-misses by doctors, you'd be flabbergasted.

This is a perfect example of why politicians need to butt out of medical/scientific issues and stop the virtue-signaling and pandering to the chicken littles, hypochondriacs and fanatical health puritans amongst the citizenry. This is absurd policy, Irrational covid fear and love of unproven boosters are two faddish ideas among the extreme progressive wing of their party and they are catering to this. It is just a shame that they don’t have the courage to educate their supporters instead. The CDC, proud sponsors of ‘lets make 2 year olds mask in day care except when they nap’ recommends COVID shots annually for everyone, even if they have had COVID many, many times. Of course the CDC is wrong. They have no data that repeat doses improve clinical outcomes for *all people*. Worse, the harms of annual boosters likely are larger than benefits for young people, and people who had COVID. It is possible a repeat dose helps a nursing home patient, but even here there is no data, and I am not sure it does. A better policy would be to not recommend COVID boosters to anyone until the company runs an appropriate randomized study. The CDC is also out of step with Americans who retain common sense. Most do not get annual vaccines. For young men, repeat doses are HARMFUL. COVID-19 vaccine boosters for young adults: a risk benefit assessment and ethical analysis of mandate policies at universities (bmj.com) Our estimate shows that university COVID-19 vaccine mandates are likely to cause net expected harms to young healthy adults—for each hospitalization averted we estimate approximately 18.5 SAEs and 1430–4626 disruptions of daily activities—that is not outweighed by a proportionate public health benefit. Serious COVID-19 vaccine-associated harms are not adequately compensated for by current US vaccine injury systems. As such, these severe infringements of individual liberty and human rights are ethically unjustifiable. Mandates are also associated with wider social harms. The fact that such policies were implemented despite controversy among experts and without updating the sole publicly available risk-benefit analysis to the current Omicron variants nor submitting the methods to public scrutiny suggests a profound lack of transparency in scientific and regulatory policy making. FIVE ETHICAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST UNIVERSITY BOOSTER MANDATES: 1. Transparency Risk-benefit assessment is essential to the ethical acceptability of public health policy, and transparent, peer-reviewed assessments help maintain trust in public health, especially in the context of controversial policies. There is an even stronger rationale for thorough and transparent risk-benefit assessment when interventions are mandated or when (given uncertainty or relevant population differences) some people might face harms not outweighed by individual benefits. 2. Potential net expected individual harm The reasonable possibility of a net harm to individuals (as presented in our risk-benefit assessment) should provide a strong basis to argue for the ethical case against booster mandates for young adults. Mandates at institutions of higher education serve the age group with one of the lowest public health burdens from COVID-19. Hence, boosters provide a low and transient impact on transmission and hospitalisation for an age group with a vague and unquantified prospect of benefit. Arguably, this has been considered by most universities and colleges and is the reason why most do not have booster mandates for the fall of 2022. 3. Lack of proportionate public health benefit Proportionality, a key principle in public health ethics, requires that the benefits of a public health policy must be expected to outweigh harms, including harms arising from the restriction of individual liberty and basic human rights such as access to education and employment. COVID-19 booster mandates often involve a degree of coercion, including the threat of loss of access to education and free choice of occupation, disproportionately affecting disenfranchised groups. Contrary to those who restrict the concept of coercion to situations of a direct threat to something people should have access to as a matter of right, we endorse here a broader concept of coercion that includes situations of structural pressure that deprive people of reasonable options. To be ethically acceptable, such severe restrictions of individual liberty need to be justified by an individual benefit and by the expectation that vaccination reduces harm to others. Booster doses of COVID-19 vaccines provide limited lasting reduction in the probability of infection or transmission, hospitalization and limited expected benefits to young healthy individuals, especially those who have already been infected. 4. Failure of reciprocity Most vaccines are covered in the USA and Canada by an injury compensation programme based on fair (reciprocal) compensation for those who experience a vaccine-related harm. Mandatory vaccines arguably require even stronger protections for individuals who experience consequences that lead to permanent harm because their free choice regarding vaccination has been limited. Thus, universities and colleges that mandate COVID-19 boosters are pressuring young adults to receive a vaccine that, in case of injury, has no transparent legal route to adequate compensation. In sum, one core precondition for vaccine mandates is a functioning and fair compensation programme, which has not been achieved for COVID-19 vaccines. 5. Wider social harms Strong coercion may create significant social harms. COVID-19 vaccine mandates have generally involved a high degree of coercion, effectively ostracizing unvaccinated individuals from society. University mandates involve significant coercion in that they exclude unvaccinated people from the benefits of university education (or employment) and thereby entail major infringements to free choice of occupation and freedom of association. When such mandates are not supported by a compelling public health justification and where exemptions are not easily available, the likelihood of reactance and negative social effects are increased. The fact that such policies were implemented despite controversy among experts and without updating the sole publicly available risk-benefit analysis to the current Omicron variants nor submitting the methods to public scrutiny suggests a profound lack of transparency in scientific and regulatory policy making. Politicians have NOT been "following the science" during covid. They have pandered and bowed to the chicken littles of society and it must STOP.

Paid for by Pfizer and the pharma industry. It's also based on "models". That means they pulled shit outta their a$$ to make their point. It also talks a lot about a vax with 95% efficacy, which this one was well below that. Wanes into the negatives after a few months. You really need to learn how to evaluate information. Find something current, as well. There's lots of current studies and datasets. We don't need modelling studies any more. We need RCTs.