patrick.net

Mother Nature installs different vulnerabilities and strengths in different biological units. Social animals have strengths and weaknesses in exchange for the overall advantages to the species of social organization and hierarchy.

Gullibility based on engines of trust is one of the weaknesses to particular individuals, but probably serves the higher purpose of social cohesion. It is a characteristic that can be evolved out assuming it catches the individual before they reproduce, or if it catches both them and their progeny at the same time.

So, humans exist on a bell curve of skepticism and gullibility depending. I'm kind of glad I am on the skeptic side of the curve instead of gullibility road kill.

Maybe someone in his family will have to get a clot or heart stoppage and die before he changes his mind. But confirmation bias is very tough to overcome.

Personally, I'm never getting another RNA type vax ever. Everything they said about it was wrong.
a. Not worth the risk for such a low-risk threat.
b. Poor and corrupt testing protocols kill.

I think the cure is much worse than the disease.

mell says

Only Gen Xer/Yer we know with a more pronounced and long-haul disease profile is double jabbed. All of the jabbed friends have gotten it by now and typically worse than the pure bloods

Yes, I think it's a generational thing. The boomers were fully indoctrinated to "trust the science/media," Gen X not so much, and subsequent generations "fuck no!"

Just like NAZI Germany - the oldest obeyed the dictates of the state, while successively younger generations were more doubtful, even in the presensce of overwhelming parental and other peer pressure (e.g. Sophie Scholl - although she might have been influenced by older mentors).

I remember there was a "social" experiment in Germany in the 70's/80's, where "they" placed placards on water fountains, saying "Male only" or "Female only." The younger women who tried to drink from the male-only fountains were castigated by elder Germans (most likely Katrinas) for violating the rules.

Fuck Karens and Katrinas - Think and act for yourself.
We'll all see how this plays out.

Rin says

That's like taking arsenic as a vitamin supplement because hey ... 'if it didn't kill me last time (despite hours of vomiting & abdominal pains), let's do it again, to see if I can make it again!'

Oddly enough, I do believe some people think this way. Not too different than that sex asphyxiation thing.

There is also a rule of ironies at work. In Santa Cruz, the wholistic/holistic medicine adherents, quite numerous, are already used to organizing against organized medicine. They also have many anti-vaxers since way before Covid.

So, they naturally fell into the industry of producing fake vax cards while profiting from alternative holistic 'cures' for Covid. They profited from the fear of the disease, while faking the desired official outcome of injecting the populace, kind of like the right result for the wrong reasons.

They are being vigorously pursued and punished now by an angry, frustrated official apparatus of death dealing vaxers. It is kind of funny but it isn't.

komputodo says

Downtown S.F.?

Its in a small strip in gated community Silver Creek CC, SJ

Blue says

komputodo says

Downtown S.F.?

Its in a small strip in gated community Silver Creek CC, SJ

You may have missed the joke. You wrote "effluent" instead of "affluent".

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/effluent

3) sewage that has been treated in a septic tank or sewage treatment plant.
4) sewage or other liquid waste that is discharged into a body of water, etc.

I mkae splilnieg mtskaeis all the tmie tguohh mlsyef.

Funny how the mind works isn't it? We don't read words, we instead encapsulate them with the first and last letter, and do an estimate on the letters in between. In speech, we hear with an inner voice constantly - that's why it's common to mix up similar sounding words.

richwicks says

You may have missed the joke. You wrote "effluent" instead of "affluent".

oops, my bad, thanks. Good sense of humor @komputodo

I don't feel like his thinking is irrational. Not necessarily correct, but rational given the info they believe to be true.

Most people aren't interested in spending time digging for alternative information, and so all they hear is MSM. While the whole covid era is clearly filled with corruption, BS propaganda, and ulterior motives, I think there's tons of people who just aren't aware of it, or dont believe it. The little bits of likely second hand info they hear are drowned out by very effective MSM counter propaganda.

- People getting infected with the same virus multiple times is far from being unheard of in history, especially if the 2nd virus is a variant. It's very common knowledge that a virus can mutate and change behavior, and that people who previously had variant A could then be vulnerable to variant B. For example, pretty much everyone has had the flu multiple times, despite building immunity towards a previous flu variant. Getting the flu twice within a few months is also not unheard of.
- It's not unfathomable to people that a vaccine or inoculation offers only imperfect partial protection, and potentially with side effects. Especially one that was rushed out the door. I don't know much about vaccines, but I would imagine history is filled with inoculations that may ONLY reduce the chance of getting sick, but if you get sick, you get just as sick as a non inoculated. Or vice versa - maybe it doesn't provide any protection against getting sick, but if you get sick, it reduces the severity of the sickness. Or some may offer protection from both angles, or even more angles.

I think many people intuitively understand these factors, and so if you operate under some assumptions like:
- getting covid multiple times is possible and normal.
- getting covid may kill me.
- the jab will reduce my chance of death if I get covid, and may also help reduce my chance of getting it.

I can see why many people would be eager to get more jabs. They feel like getting covid is an eventuality, and certainly feel the jab reduces their chance of death when the eventuality occurs. I also think many of them feel the jab reduces the chance of covid in addition to protecting against death, because thats how it was initially advertised. It doesn't matter what it actually does now, unless the person is aware of the new behavior, which MSM seems to dance around and avoid. I think people generally believe the jab has side effects, but also believe MSM when they simultaneously downplay the chance of side effects, while exaggerating the chance of covid death, especially in young healthy people.

Further, I think the "protection from death" is by far the most important factor to people. I think many people would continue to get jabs even if they felt that it "INCREASES chance to get covid, so long as it DECREASES chance of death from covid". And I don't think such a tradeoff is always a bad thing, although personally I would weigh things out and make a personal decision about whether the pros outweigh the cons along with their respective probabilities. And for me personally, I avoid the jab like the plague. Multiple threats to fire me from my job for being a pure blood bounced right off me and failed. But I also feel that the old and comorbid should probably get the jab, as they seem to get more benefit from it, and get less side effects too.

I think not getting vaccine is still a taboo topic at work at least for me that some times I hear conversations like "...mRNA is a game changer..." while still wear marks in the hallways even though only vaccinated are allowed into the facility which I believe the case for may hi-tech business around. The fault lines are clearly visible now.

Hircus says

door. I don't know much about vaccines, but I would imagine history is filled with inoculations that may ONLY reduce the chance of getting sick, but if you get sick, you get just as sick as a non inoculated. Or vice versa - maybe it doesn't provide any protection against getting sick, but if you get sick, it reduces the severity of the sickness. Or some may offer protection from both angles, or even more angles.

Actually the opposite, it is exceptionally rare in history for the reason you detailed: its not worth making a vaccine that does not fully protect and/or on a long enough timeline eradicate the virus/bacteria. That's why we don't have vaccines for the common cold which includes coronaviruses. The flu is a rare exception as it was deemed worth the partial protection if the guess of this year's dominant strain is partially wrong. Coronaviruses mutate even much much faster than flu viruses, and they have animal reservoirs, so the current covid jabs are entirely useless and dangerous not just due to the deadly side effects, but also due to progressively increased ADE. Almost all vaccines we continued giving throughout history either offer full protection (i.e. you won't have any symptoms if infected) or at least enough protection against infection to eradicate the virus over time, which is usually slowly mutating if at all and does not have animals reservoirs.

I kind of agree with Hircus. Pat.net is biased towards folks that look into diverse sources of information, and so one would not encounter people who get their news solely from CNN here. My inlaws, for example, have CNN on all the time, even when they get up in the morning in their BR. TV in the kitchen blaring CNN. When I point out the fake news that CNN has ran, they look troubled and ask what else can they watch, Fox news?

Believe it or not, a lot of people want someone to tell them what is real. They either lack the wherewithal, time, courage, or STAMINAH (h/t to Trump) to determine this themselves. They've willingly, and in some cases, desperately, outsourced thinking. Some are in denial about some trauma or troubling life reality, and don't want to head down the road of facing reality. Hence, a lot of the population can be manipulated quite easily.

Along with that need to be told what is reality comes a lack of holding the reality determiner to account when they are wrong. Because to do that means that the crutch cannot be reliable, and then uncertainty and anxiety creeps in or, Gawd forbid, they start developing the chops to determine things themselves. But it can be scary to put on the sunglasses, and so..... I did what I was told, la dee dah, oh well,..aargh,...thud!

Al_Sharpton_for_President says

They either lack the wherewithal, time, courage, or STAMINAH (h/t to Trump) to determine this themselves.

The problem is that a number of ppl w/ scientific background have also forgotten their education about biology and chemistry.

Rin says

Al_Sharpton_for_President says

They either lack the wherewithal, time, courage, or STAMINAH (h/t to Trump) to determine this themselves.

The problem is that a number of ppl w/ scientific background have also forgotten their education about biology and chemistry.

I don't think they've forgotten, I think they are pussies.

Regularly common citizens with no expertise in news will tell you the truth, but a journalist won't. I'm finding out that's true in engineering and scientific disciplines too. People are fucking pussies. I'm in Silly Con Valley, I have lost ALL RESPECT for all my former "smart colleagues". I don't think they are stupid, I think they are groveling cowards.

I can see precisely how the 3rd Reich, the Bolshevik revolution, and the Red Revolution of China happened now. You'd think highly educated people whose JOB it is to understand science and implement it would be the first to speak out. Nope - TRUCKERS did in Canada. I'm switching teams. Fuck our egghead twat nerds. I got into this field to start a revolution against propaganda and disinformation. The people I thought were working for the same thing are propagandists, and disinformationists. They can go fuck themselves.

DooDahMan says

Al_Sharpton_for_President says

Pat.net is biased towards folks that look into diverse sources of information

It is.

You literally can't have an in-depth conversation anywhere else that I know of.

Al_Sharpton_for_President says

Reminds me of a co-worker who was popping opioids. I warned him to be careful as they were addictive, to which he replied, "No, I take them all the time."

Never take any medicine unless it literally is life saving. Life saving is a fluid term, but I go by the rule of not taking anything. If the body is barking I need to figure out why and not mask what could be a legit issue. Hell masking the pain from a burst appendix could kill you if you have high level opioids on hand.

I also have a high threshold for pain, so maybe I'm a unicorn in that regard. I'm not some hippy homeopath type, but there are plenty of natural remedies as well. I've dealt with my own mental health issues (depression and anxiety). I will never take anything big pharma. Daily weed consumption, generally at night has been honestly amazing. Depends on career, kids and your comfort taking it, but I'd suggest it to anyone. I smoked it when I was younger, but infrequently, once a month max.

Since switching to daily edibles I'm a different person. My anger and anxiety are gone and my sleep is 1,000% better. Fun for intimacy too. BP is down. And hybrid mixes with high CBD have helped with the occasional pain/soreness. If Biden or Congress wants to get votes, they decriminalize or even make weed legal. A friend has a medical card here in IL and can grow. I'm going to start growing once we move. Might even do a grow room in the basement with pot and other veggies and spices for year round consumption. Buy a cow and pig once a year, grow veggies, grow pot and I'm set for the year for $1,500-2k roughly.

Although I have been known to get off at rest stops, I view weed usage as an exit from the highway. Some folks prefer to remain at rest stops, never to get on the highway again. To each their own, but even the Great Prophet recommended periods of purification, including dietary.

Al_Sharpton_for_President says

Although I have been known to get off at rest stops, I view weed usage as an exit from the highway. Some folks prefer to remain at rest stops, never to get on the highway again. To each their own, but even the Great Prophet recommended periods of purification, including dietary.

Maybe there's no need to be on the highway? Maybe the highway is the problem?

Big Pharma is the toll booth on the highway. All it does is cost you. Rest stops are free to use.

My take on weed isn't for everyone either. I just think it's a safe and effective illegal drug for many uses. As with anything, used in excess it can fuck your life up. Most successful people I know (7 out of 10) all smoke or consume edibles. All the crazies I know have a weekly pill popper calendar. My analytical data is spot on though. Crazy people pop pills to take care of minor ailments and get addicted.

I've thought about smoking weed once I hit retirement age.

WineHorror1 says

I've thought about smoking weed once I hit retirement age.

Not gonna lie, don't wait. We've talked before privately and I believe you work in a field that doesn't require drug testing. Do it at night, after dinner. Don't drive. Start slow and don't do it in public. Don't mix with booze at first as that leads to a sloppy mess for most. Maybe a beer or glass of wine if you imbibe on that.

Weed consumption depends a lot on personality too. I'm up at 4:30-5am every morning. Stoned or not the night before. It helps you sleep, but if you're prone to sleeping in drunk or high you need to be careful as that could influence work. 90% of mornings I'm up by 5am regardless of what I consumed the night before. It's been at least a decade since I slept past 8-9 am.

I couldn't stand it at first, but my wife working out at 5am (waking up at 4:15-30am) has changed my life. If you're disciplined smoking or eating edibles is not a big deal outside of any work issues (testing).

WineHorror1 says

I've thought about smoking weed once I hit retirement age.

Smoking anything is bad for you. Small particles clog up tiny structures in the lungs and associated circulatory system structures. As Wookie advises, edibles are a safer alternative. You can buy them, or make your own. Look up cannabis firecracker recipes, but ditch the crackers and just use peanut butter. And yes, decarboxylate the herb first. It may seem like double work, but it is worth it. OR SO I HAVE BEEN TOLD.

BayArea says

How can people think like this?

It's the shift towards fragmenting the responsibility for our lives out to others. Especially with so many routine things offered as services, and people with more money generally being very busy, it's not uncommon for them to farm out a lot of their lives to a support staff. The only thing you can really do is share your experience so he has a contrast to his. Did you never get covid, or only get it once, while remaining un-jabbed? Bring that up. If someone isn't asking you specifically for health advise, that's really your only in, sharing your own health journey so they understand their approach is not the only one out there.

clambo says

His kids had no need of the vaccine probably

Let me correct that for you. Not probably, DEFINITELY.

Hircus says

I don't feel like his thinking is irrational. Not necessarily correct, but rational given the info they believe to be true.

Regardless of how you feel, it is irrational to cling to one narrative in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
I know you probably meant think, not feel, but we have to stop talking like that. Feelings are transitory, and change from one moment to the next. Thinking is logical, based on following facts and evidence, and does not change with our mood.

Al_Sharpton_for_President says

Smoking anything is bad for you. Small particles clog up tiny structures in the lungs and associated circulatory system structures. As Wookie advises, edibles are a safer alternative.

Not true if done correctly. Use a hemp wick, NEVER inhale butane, very bad for you. Further, your product should be organic. I'm referenced this before, read a Tommy Chong article a few years ago where the guy talks about smoking none THC cannabis. Smoking over edibles because your body absorbs it much better. To get the same amount of CBD in your body through edibles requires ingesting a dangerous amount, which can cause liver issues.

I smoke a few times a month before going to bed for headaches/back and neck tension that builds from car accidents when I was younger, and computer work I do today. Along with massage and chiropractor helps keep me pain free without harmful drugs, and I plan to keep it that way.

NuttBoxer says

Not true if done correctly.

I am referring to smoking the vegetative matter, not oils or dabs. The dangerous microparticle composition of weed smoke seems to be well established science.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2751166/
https://tobacco.ucsf.edu/new-study-secondhand-bong-smoke-full-hazardous-fine-particles
https://no-smoke.org/wp-content/uploads/pdf/2018-Indoor-Air-Cannabis01-Schick.pdf

Wood smoke is also similarly hazardous. https://www.epa.gov/burnwise/wood-smoke-and-your-health

Rin,

this is what I tell people. When you get food poisoning from chicken, your body natural has an inclination to avoid chicken. This happened to me with Shrimp and I didn't want it for 5 years. The shot, I have the same inner mechanism. It made me so sick, 2 weeks of fever, lethargy, and pain, with another 2 of trailing effects. My body literally won't even let me consider it.

the whole mRNA is a game changer mantra is ridiculous. By any measure, these vaccines are a total failure in terms of preventing spread. You can argue whether or not they prevent death, but I think we'll need a lot more data before we can draw a definitive conclusion on that.

I know several people in finance and they all are rabidly pro-vaxx. Their companies still don't allow unvaxxed in the office and do require daily testing for everybody entering the office. Which, in practice, means that they are only testing their vaxxed employees. =))

theoakman says

You can argue whether or not they prevent death, but I think we'll need a lot more data before we can draw a definitive conclusion on that.

Or an argument about them CAUSING death.

The one thing i keep comming back to is that the mrna was originally developed as therapeutics for cancer. Now I haven't done a deep dive on the data, but I'm willing to bet that any long term impact if the mrna would be partially masked by the fact that the cohort has a finite life expectancy. Everyone has a different risk profile depending on age, health history, generics, etc.

For the young and the healthy who really knows the medium and long term risks of an mrna shot? No one does. Of course no one knows the exact long term effects of covid, but being a coronavirus there are at least other similar virus one can point to for guidance. For mrna? Not as much. It's too new to have long term data.

Might I remind you science doesn't always get it right

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21507989/

So what's worse? The symptoms or the "cure". Depends on the person. It would be one thing if these shots reduce transmission substantially but the data is inconclusive. I'll agree they reduce (or worse yet mask) symptoms, making the spread more probable not less.

For as bad as this has been it was never as bad as initial projections believed it could have been

NuttBoxer says

Smoking over edibles because your body absorbs it much better. To get the same amount of CBD in your body through edibles requires ingesting a dangerous amount, which can cause liver issues.

Liver can recover. Lungs can't for the most part if we're talking specific organs. I'll eat it 10 out of 10 times and not smoke it. You can do it the way you want to, but smoking is categorically worse for you. This is coming from a former cig smoker. Outside of a cigar, I'm done smoking anything. It's awful for you.

WookieMan says

NuttBoxer says

Smoking over edibles because your body absorbs it much better. To get the same amount of CBD in your body through edibles requires ingesting a dangerous amount, which can cause liver issues.

Liver can recover. Lungs can't for the most part if we're talking specific organs. I'll eat it 10 out of 10 times and not smoke it. You can do it the way you want to, but smoking is categorically worse for you. This is coming from a former cig smoker. Outside of a cigar, I'm done smoking anything. It's awful for you.

I'd agree though I'd say it is possible to inhale extremely cleanly with good preparation and the right devices. In general lungs were never designed to inhale, smoke, or nebulize vapor/smoke of any sort, so the lung function reduces slightly over time even if you are extremely careful. However smoking 2-3 cigarettes/cigars , joints or whatever per week is such a small amount that simply living in an air-polluted area may equal to the same amount. I wouldn't worry either way but I would definitely not inhale anything other than air into the lungs on a daily basis. Whatever floats your boat

WookieMan says

Lungs can't for the most part if we're talking specific organs.

Though I don't have the link on hand, when non-specific adult stem cell therapy is being administered, meaning IV dripping one's own extracted stem cells (from either the bone marrow or fatty tissue), the first organ system which picks 'em up are the lungs. And that's because the lungs need the most rejuvenation over time, even as an anti-aging program over let's say the liver or kidneys.

Lungs are the weakest organ system, unless weak genetics determines that it's the heart or something else first.

theoakman says

the whole mRNA is a game changer mantra is ridiculous.

mRNA is the scariest thing I've ever heard about, in terms of mainstream adoption w/ little oversight or critical review.

To quote myself ...

https://patrick.net/post/1345087#comment-1841537

"The mRNA is a stealth bomber. It's the only thing I've ever heard of which can by-pass a person's restriction enzymes which are critical to prevent one's food from contaminating oneself."

Al_Sharpton_for_President says

I am referring to smoking the vegetative matter

So am I. It's the most natural form of cannabis. The first study you linked to uses cigarettes, what bongs and bubblers(I use a bubbler). It mentions the release of toxic gasses by the particles, but if those particles are organic, filtered through water, and absent butane, what is the source of the toxins?

Have you looked at absorption rates via ingestion vs smoking, and the dangers too much CBD can pose to the liver?

WookieMan says

Liver can recover. Lungs can't for the most part if we're talking specific organs. I'll eat it 10 out of 10 times and not smoke it. You can do it the way you want to, but smoking is categorically worse for you. This is coming from a former cig smoker. Outside of a cigar, I'm done smoking anything. It's awful for you.

All organs have a limit of abuse, the liver is not an exception. You can always ingest safe quantities, you just won't get much of a benefit compared to if you smoked.

Look again at all the specifics of how I smoke, and see if there's still a vector for harm. I can understand your concern given your past, but cannabis use should be fundamentally different from cigarettes in so many ways, starting with you growing the plant yourself. Things may have changed, but last time I checked the people in my market only care about profits, organic and cannabis for medicine are the last thing on their minds.

Something else to keep in mind, cannabis is inhaled, and exhaled through the mouth, at least I don't exhale through my nose. The smoke sits at the entrance to the throat and lungs, not deep down. The point is to get it into the blood stream, not to coat your entire lung with it. Maybe this is a nitpick. But what's not is the lack of study of cannabis in general. How many studies have used the method of smoking I prescribe? How many are looking at cannabis alone, and throwing tobacco cigarettes completely to the side, as the comparison is not even close after you factor in all the chemicals that go into commercial cigarettes, starting with the filter.

It really seems like you guys aren't very far from pulling out the frying pan stories. Cannabis is NOT a drug, and it's NOT tobacco. Measure it on it's own merits, don't make alarmist comparisons bundling it with cigarettes.

NuttBoxer says

Something else to keep in mind, cannabis is inhaled, and exhaled through the mouth, at least I don't exhale through my nose. The smoke sits at the entrance to the throat and lungs, not deep down. The point is to get it into the blood stream, not to coat your entire lung with it. Maybe this is a nitpick. But what's not is the lack of study of cannabis in general. How many studies have used the method of smoking I prescribe? How many are looking at cannabis alone, and throwing tobacco cigarettes completely to the side, as the comparison is not even close after you factor in all the chemicals that go into commercial cigarettes, starting with the filter.

It really seems like you guys aren't very far from pulling out the frying pan stories. Cannabis is NOT a drug, and it's NOT tobacco. Measure it on it's own merits, don't make alarmist comparisons bundling it with cigarettes.

How you smoke it definitely affects the uptake into the lungs, cigar smokers usually use the same technique, not inhaling, keeping most of the action in the front of the mouth.