Jump to content
The Corroboree

Freakosystem

Members2
  • Content count

    130
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    12

Posts posted by Freakosystem


  1. 1 hour ago, Amazonian said:


    1. definition of a vaccine ? 
    2. NSW health were transparent with covid-19 hospitalisations and vaccination status unlike other states. I’m not great at reading graphs n shit, but looking at this particular basic information  ( see pic and link) leads me to believe your point 2 not to be accurate?!  Am I misreading the info from the nsw website? 

    3. It is known that side effects are hugely underreported and we may never know the true numbers of reactions to the ‘vaccine’. Admittedly some reactions are minor  ( sore arm, headache  etc) but many are major.  Over time, I am sure we will see some new side effects rearing their head : ( 

     

    image.jpeg

    1. "A vaccine is a biological preparation that provides active acquired immunity to a particular infectious or malignant disease". This does imply full imunity and neither the Australian government nor the pharma companies involved were claiming total immunity when the first batch arrived in Australia. The claim was that the data showed they improve patient outcomes. This is still correct. 

     

    2. Are you misreading? No. You're drawing inferences which cannot be made from that data. There's insufficient data for your interpretation. You need to compensate for the fact that the very high risk population was the first to receive the vaccine. If you're many times more likely to die or be hospitalised from covid than the rest of the population and you take a vaccine which improves your likelihood of survival but not more than your pre-existing vulnerabilities, you're still far more likely to die from covid despite the vaccine.

     

    3. You didn't address my point despite quoting it and numbering yours. Are you referring to side effects from all vaccines (notnjust covid ones) or are you referring to side effects caused by the spike protein which is present in orders of magnitude more abundance when infected by covid and therefore not attributable to the vaccine but rather the virus?

     

    *edit* Again, I'm stopping short of telling anybody what to do with their life. I don't want to do that. I couldn't deal with the burden of having to make decisions for others. I think that's wrong.

     

    But I'm equally unapologetic about what opinions I hold. I'm explaining me, what I believe and why I believe it. No harm or disrespect meant to anybody.

    • Like 1

  2. 2 hours ago, fyzygy said:

     

    Anecdotal evidence, in my experience, supports only the first of your three conjectures. The third one is impossible to prove, especially as adverse vaccination outcomes are systematically underreported, i.e. excluded from data collection. I can't speak to symptoms such as tinnitus, but I'm still struggling with social anxiety after being abused and discriminated against on account of my vaccination status. That's been a downward spiral as far as mental/physical health is concerned. But absolutely none of this will be counted against the official public health response to Covid. 

     

    The map is not the territory. 

     

    You disagree with points 2 and 3?

     

    To recap, my points 2 was:

    2. Vaccinated people tend to have less severe symptoms and better outcomes

     

    If point 2 was wrong then the null hypothesis would be correct by definition. This would mean that vaccinated people would either have the same exact outcome as unvaccinated individuals or in fact have worse outcpmes that unvsccinated individuals.

     

    Broadly speaking, the constituents of the vaccine can be broken down into two categories; the stuff that's novel to vaccines and the stuff that isn't. The novel ingredient is the spike protein from the virus and the rest of the constituents are not novel. Everything other than the spike protein is used in other vaccines regularly so there's no logical way they would cause more harm in covid vaccines than other vaccines.

     

    Therefore, any additional harm is the result of the spike protein. For the null hypothesis to be true, there would either have to be no immune response (I.e. no change in outcomes for those vaccinated vs those who weren't) or the outcomes for individuals with covid would be worse amongst vaccinated than the unvaccinated.

     

    Given that the amount of spike protein supplied in a vaccine is tiny compared to the amount received when actually infected, how could it logically be that it is somehow more harmful? Is the spike protein somehow magically absolved of the dose/response curve that all other antigens adhere to?

     

    Point 3 was:

    3. The reduction in harm from the virus has a greater effect size than the risk of the vaccines.

    Again, the amount of spike protein in thr vaccine is incredibly low compared to the amount of spike protein an infected individual has. Even the smallest of immune responses offsets this spike protein load. And we inownpeople have immune responses due to the localised muscle soreness and mild flue like symptoms which many experience the day after a vaccination. Plus, the virus has additional structures which also have biological effects beyond that of the spike protein.

     

    You have my sympathy for being ostracised. Many were ruthless and thats not acceptable. Nobody should be shamed into doing something they don't want to do or bullied for not doing so. It's both gross and counter productice. I wish you a full recovery.

    • Confused 1

  3. The advice at the time the vaccines were first made available in Australia was:

    1. They don't keep you from getting the virus

    2. Vaccinated people tend to have less severe symptoms and better outcomes

    3. The reduction in harm from the virus has a greater effect size than the risk of the vaccines

     

    The data show these all to be true.

     

    I got tinnitus about 2 years before the vaccines were available. If I got it 2 years later, would I blame them? Possibly.

     


  4. I think we're all critical of Prue rather than Liam. I know people who we're interviewed for the book and very little of what they said was applied appropriately. They claim a lot was taken out of context or altered significantly, sometimes beyond recognition.

     

    I'm sure Prue had good faith. I've met her. She strikes me as genuine and kind.


  5. It's conflicting. On one hand, the fundamental right to change one's own perceptions without harming others should be normalised. On the other it seems way to risky to publish a name attached to a crime in the media. Add that it's federal funded media which has a recent history of being raided by the Feds and I'm honestly baffled. Then again, EGA and APS are also more sharing than most. Maybe it is a good thing?

     

    I think increased exposure to cultural use, human rights perspectives, scientific literature and media all have a big part to play in convincing the powers that be that a change is what's wanted. But I read this as "look what people are doing" rather than "lets explore why people are doing this and what we can learn from it". It's not "wrong" so far as it goes, just not persuasive or nuanced enough to provide support for the community that is beyond the risk it attracts, in my opinion.


  6. My predominant concern with misrepresentation of facts surrounding the nazi regime is that it gives credence to nazi sympathisers and undermines the genuine and disgusting atrocities that did occur. Morality may be a philosophy but facts are the foundation of the moral landscape that we must all agree upon or else we're simply having two different arguments.


  7. Can we all take a moment to thank the National Herbarium of New South Wales for sharing so much highly important historical data? It's great to have people in the community really connect with scientific institutions and get valuable information back. This should be celebrated.

    • Like 1

  8. I don't think they're rust spots but rather necrotic patches, likely caused by a sap sucking insect. Rusts are fungal pathogens and it's unlikely they would target only one branch, lack pustules and be non-gregarious in nature.

     

    If I'm correct, the patches will not change in size as the damage is done. The red patches may completely die off but won't get larger. If it is a fungal symptom, the patches will grow over time.


  9. Keep in mind you don't want to conaume any part of the next few generations after treatment. In the case of Cannabis with its visual trichomes, you can select individuals you expect to be potent and cross them with others of similar traits. But if working woth species which require bioassays, consuming mutagens is best avoided.

     

    It's also worth noting that polyploids generally only reproduce successfully with individuals of the same ploidy level as they are, and this may be hard to assess without a flow cytometer. So you've got some work cut of for you if you do success.

     

    By the way, the reason polyploids are useful for breeding is that they have two of more cookies of their genome. I.e. triploids have 3, tetraploids have four, hexaploids have five etc. This is useful because you could have a mutation if an essential gene on one copy but still preserve the essential gene on another. So where as that mutation in a diploid would result in the death of the plant as the essential function isn't filled, the polyploid allows for novel gene expression without sacrificing essential processes which would kill the plant. Very cool stuff!

    • Like 1

  10. Hi all,

     

    I've got about 100 seedgrown cacti I'd like to chuck into the ground and forget about for 5 to 10 years. I'm very much interested in seeing adult phenotypes for future breeding programs.

     

    If you own suitable land somewhere in NSW and think it highly likely you'll still own that land in 10 years time, I'd love to visit, plant out a whole bunch if cacti (well spaced) and come back in the future.

     

    I realise it's a big ask so I've been thinking about what I could offer in return. Perhaps naming rights for plants you like the most? I'd also be willing to cull half the plants after 4 years of growth in which case you'd have around 50 cacti to do whatever you'd like with. Or feel free to pitch me any other requests you have in exchange. Whatever seems reasonable to you.

     

    If interested, please let me know rough location and whether or not it's protected from goats etc. I can provide photos of my seedgrown cacti and we can take it from there!

     

    There's no reason they have to all go to one place either. I'd be happy to wet up a few stands in different places too.

     

    Cheers,

    Freeko

    • Like 2

  11. It has to be cotton for me. Why?

     

    Insane water requirements

    Insane pesticide usage

    Devastating land use

    Fertiliser run off

     

    It's an ecocidal plight of this country.

     

    Furthermore, the world would be unable to deny the requirement for other organic fibres such as hemp if we weren't being propped up by this terrible crop.

    • Like 2

  12.  

    AI maps psychedelic ‘trip’ experiences to regions of the brain – opening new route to psychiatric treatments

     

    https://theconversation.com/ai-maps-psychedelic-trip-experiences-to-regions-of-the-brain-opening-new-route-to-psychiatric-treatments-179263

     

    Studying the relationship of language used in trip reports from erowid and the receptor sites targeted by drugs in association with known neural networks.

     

    Amazing stuff!

×