Arielle Popstar

I don't watch TV actually like the homeless guys. I did check the Covid tracker for my area and seen that the ICU patient numbers were down. There hasn't been a death since the third quarter of March and though I see case numbers increasing a bit, the overall deaths have been dropping since January. I still do not know of anyone that has Covid much less died from it but do know of several who have died as a result of the lockdowns including a friend three doors up who quietly offed himself when he couldn't get into a treatment facility. The charge of cognitive dissonance seems a little cognitively dissident considering I am one of the few in this forum at least who has been pointing out some methods for preventative measures while everyone waits for a vaccine that may or may not help depending on who is listened too. How about you? Are you helping anyone cope in the meantime or just wringing hands and gnashing teeth at all the news and throwing out accusations at those of us posting something a little upbeat in sea of depressive media announcements that you and yours are trotting out here? Here are some Canadian Doctors on Covid https://odysee.com/@All_About_Vaccines!:7/Canadian-Drs-Speak-Out:b

Ha ha I was thinking this morning how topic swerving seemed to be the domain for blue, right brain dominant, "feelers". Between this and the Covid thread it was striking me how the differing personality types were leading to breakdowns in communication based on the principles of The Art of Speed Reading People. Makes me wonder if Reds are more the Thinkers and Blues more the Feelers leading to neither side being able to understand where the other is coming from. No doubt that plays into whether the left or right brain is predominant in any particular individual.

AT least she had some to begin with Anyway here some news about the end of Covid by the end of the month when you will be reaching herd immunity according to John Hopkin's Dr Marty Makary Two homeless guys are under a bridge and one says to the other "why do you think we haven't gotten coronavirus", the other responds "cause we don't have a tv".

The posters arrogance was in the response of "Yeah cute. In the mean time, in the world of grown-ups..." when I observed that "not many people seem to find an unguided evolutionary framework to be a believable model of our origins", based on the posted polls. The linked paper was unintelligible and random as any sort of counter to what we were discussing. My own wide eyed wonder is in where I see new sciences intersecting with spiritual knowledge and writings written thousands of years ago. Those are considered supernatural and though even Feynman acknowledges that we may know the results of quantum mechanic experiments, we don't really understand it much like we don't understand what is considered the supernatural. Those who have studied both see a lot of parallels between them.

No, it is more like the haughty fanboys/girls who kneejerk reject any science that is not published on their list of approved journals rather then because of the actual science, seemingly unaware that science has a long list of theories that though initially rejected wound up becoming mainstream after all the critics finally passed away. What a sad testament to the advancement of science.

Nice try but as I am a mechanical technician/technologist by training and used to spend quite a bit of time in past with competition mud truckers and backyard mechanics, I can from experience say that evolutionary fanboys, especially the atheistic ones, are a class unto themselves when it comes to the airs of superiority brandished about when they have found someone to mock.

The Army created its own opensimulator spinoff after the Second Life Enterprise program was cancelled by Linden Lab in Spring of 2010. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Open_Simulator_Enterprise_Strategy

Just to clarify and point something out. Not sure if you meant your corporately or personally but for myself I have not been a Young Earth Creationist since I was 10 or 11 years old. Creationist yes, but then that should not be a problem for evolutionists as they consistently and persistently say they don't deal with abiogenesis or whatever term they use for that these days. I have no issue with long ages theologically per se but don't agree with the darwinian model of evolution. Some of these polls posted seem to not take that in consideration and force one to either agree to young earth creationism or theistic evolution. If I was to be asked for my belief of one or the other, my response would be to choose YEC. It would be better in my mind if polls would ask firstly if one believed in an old earth vs young earth and secondly in creation or evolution.

Dumping a barely intelligible paper about a new statistical method for determining the age of the last common ancestor, is supposed to be convincing somehow? That's not the world of grown ups but the world of haughty scientists thinking everyone should be able to understand the jargon and high level maths that they use every day. Perhaps if they understood it as well as they pretend they would be able to explain it in layman terms. Is it really any wonder that those of us whose career paths don't require the use of those, just roll up our eyes and just resort to believing God did it?

Depends what "expert" you listen to.

I hadn't really paid attention to Don's talking as the reference to Michael Shermer's quote of the gallup poll stats alone, points out that he is in a minority position: and a paltry 12 percent accept the standard scientific theory that "human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process." So Christian or not, not many people seem to find an unguided evolutionary framework to be a believable model of our origins.

I think Ivermectin is the new bullet based on the amount of videos and articles I have been noting from various sites. It seems to have a better efficacy than HCQ did and doesn't come with the political baggage. "Ivermectin, traditionally used as an anti-parasitic medication, has gained more and more attention as a potential preventative or treatment measure for COVID-19. We discuss the evidence behind these uses with a focus on COVID-19 prevention using Ivermectin. Specifically, a study on several thousand healthcare workers that reported an 83% decrease in COVID-19 infections in those that took two doses of Ivermectin."

Dragging this back to an evolutionary perspective. Came across a good talk by a Eugenie Scott on why Science is agnostic. Best explanation I have heard:

ok that was apparently the recommendation a month ago and now they have flip flopped on that March 15. https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-not-recommended-in-people-65-and-older-naci-1.5329033 OTTAWA -- Canada's National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) is not recommending the use of AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine in individuals aged 65 years and older, due to “the insufficiency of evidence of efficacy in this age group at this time.” This sort of flip flopping is what makes people lose confidence in the system of medical, pharma and political realms. It's really a small wonder there is so much conspiracy theories around it.

Sorry Rowan but I see that as weak justification. It had no political bias and simply correlated all the available studies for alternative remedies. Are you evading my question about your stance on suitable alternatives for those falling between the cracks or worse, if vaccines wind up being worse then what it is supposed to prevent?

Did you happen to note that all the Canadian Provinces have now put a stop to AstraZeneca vaccines for those under 55 and over 60? "The National Advisory Committee on Immunization, which provides guidance for the country, updated its advice, and is now recommending the shot not be given to those under the age of 55, while its potential link to blood clots is investigated further. This follows weeks of questions in Europe about what connection the dose might have to blood clots that a small number of recipients have experienced. Multiple provinces, including Ontario, Alberta, Prince Edward Island and Quebec, have now paused rollout of their doses." https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2021/03/29/new-astrazeneca-restriction-just-the-latest-bump-in-covid-vaccines-long-winding-road.html?rf Official solutions are becoming increasingly limited as they seem to find the side effects of vaccines to be not so rare.

I don't see where you pulled that "massive international study" quote from but then isn't a meta-analysis exactly that? A meta-analysis is a statistical analysis that combines the results of multiple scientific studies. Meta-analysis can be performed when there are multiple scientific studies addressing the same question, with each individual study reporting measurements that are expected to have some degree of error. Wikipedia I already stated their reasonings for not putting their names on the site and paper as they convey it in their FaQ. The studies and data sources are all listed under each sub-section with direct links to the studies themselves. When you say they misstate the results, do you mean they tweaked the actual data or the conclusions the original authors had? So what do you propose should be used for fighting Covid in those instances where the vaccines are not available or cannot be safely used on segments of the population? You've been all about vaccines and virulently against any alternatives but that leaves no room for all those who fall between the cracks.

Though I am not going to look for the sites again, there are those who blame the entire death toll on misinformation. Reality I think is quite a ways away from that. USA especially had some extreme events happening last year that really pushed up the numbers if those numbers actually reflect people who died of covid vs those who died with covid.

More than 546,000 Americans have died from COVID-19. first link from 'american lives lost pandemic"

546,000 lives if you talking American which I assume you are. That is how misinformation gets started!

Oh new fact checking! First link @ Newsweek fact checked a claim that AJM recommends Hydroxycloroniquine based on an article it published wherein it was stated : "1) when started late in the hospital course and for short durations of time, antimalarials appear to be ineffective, 2) when started earlier in the hospital course, for progressively longer durations and in outpatients, antimalarials may reduce the progression of disease, prevent hospitalization, and are associated with reduced mortality. In a retrospective inpatient study of 2541 patients hospitalized with COVID-19, therapy associated with an adjusted reduction in mortality was HCQ alone (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.34, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.25-0.46, P <0.001) and HCQ with azithromycin (HR = 0.29, 95% CI 0.22-0.40, P <0.001).23 HCQ was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 1955, has been used by hundreds of millions of people worldwide since then, is sold over the counter in many countries, and has a well-characterized safety profile that should not raise undue alarm. Administration in 1955, has been used by hundreds of millions of people worldwide since then, is sold over the counter in many countries, and has a well-characterized safety profile that should not raise undue alarm." AJM's response to the accusation: "This article does not mean the journal recommended this therapy," he said. "The authors recommended it just as others recommend other interventions. We just publish their findings and recommendations." Alpert said the journal often presents multiple sides of a scientific argument. So the study published in the American Journal of Science, basically states exactly the same thing as the site I was referencing . No fire here, move along. The Newswise article and attendant study is interesting from the perspective of the fourth point I mentioned in my previous post in that though the study itself was attempting to ascertain whether HCQ or HCQ/AZ would help with shortening the length of time people had the virus, they had to cancel the whole thing because of a lack of disease progression among the study participants. "We designed the trial to explore whether HCQ and HCQ/AZ decreased the frequency of disease progression to clinically significant endpoints – LRTI, hospitalization, and death. Although we recruited a population at substantial risk for developing severe COVID-19, few participants progressed, resulting in trial discontinuation for operational futility." Our results indicate that HCQ/AZ does not hasten viral clearance as was hypothesized based on observational studies [8,9], similar to findings by Omrani et al. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589537021000535 So basically looks like they were trying to determine whether Hydroxycloronique worked to clear the covid virus faster than without but that didn't pan out but they seemed to miss the point that in spite of that, noone died when they should have based on the participants conditions. Anyway this is also not a refutation of the results I posted before that show various anti-viral drugs listed at https://c19early.com/ could save a lot of lives.

1. They don't "push" anything, simply report the data from multiple studies. 2. I see at the bottom of each page what type of study and whether they have been reviewed. In their faq they specifically mention why they need to stay anonymous. The constant death threats seem to be a bit of a bother. Go figure. 3. Maybe you should look there again then as I see more links and information then I would know what to do with. 4. Perhaps the information from datasets they found to be relevant, was different then that from the original authors. That happens. Conclusions can differ depending on who is doing the concluding. Scientific biases come in different shapes and sizes. I guess that's why they have peer reviews. Why do you seem so adamant on proving them wrong? All the drugs and vitamins they study are all approved as safe for other uses and have multiple years of safety data and dosages. Taken in the recommended dosages they should be safe for the majority of people. Do you not get that there are going to be thousands if not millions who will not be able to get vaccinated at all or in time and that these optional remedies may be the only choice they have for surviving another day? USA alone has thousands dying per day while solutions are readily available. I really, really do not get your resistance.

A no-asset oar in Opensim should afaik only be a listing of the uuid's and their placements on the region. The actual asset is kept on the grid's asset server with all the appropriate permissions and creator name etc. When the oar is loaded back out, it pulls the appropriate assets out of the Grids database and places it correctly back on the region. There should be no issue as far as IP rules as long as it is the same region owner.

People who tout virus research and when the research is shown to them oppose it with random opinions found on the internet. Simply astounding indeed!

Dogs and to a lesser extent cats, are quite codependent I think and will sense the degree of comfort the owner has with others. So if an owner is uncomfortable or fearful of a particular gender, they will pick up on that and regard that gender with some suspicion at least until they get comfortable with the specific person. Cats just can't be bothered to play the social game unless they are affection starved it seems.