22 Comments

Dr V

I have some bad news for you

Millions and millions of Americans are 100% behind every single one of these measures. Evidence doesn't matter. Efficacy doesn't matter. You are looking at broken people and in many cases broken kids.

The fact that we are still in "wear a mask if you want to" and not "take the damn mask off you lunatic" says a lot.

Expand full comment

VP at some point I'd love for you to chime in on the Pfizer document dump + allegations of clinical trial irregularity (fraud) as documented in the British Medical Journal.

Expand full comment

Just completed a Memorial Day long weekend road trip through the blue ridge parkway/ Skyline drive, finishing the trip at Harpers Ferry Brewery (packed) enjoying the band and company of strangers! Not a soul worried about CoVid and people joyful to visit with one another. It was glorious! CoVid is dead to me.

Expand full comment

“Experts have lost their minds”. Full stop.

Expand full comment

Why stop at "20" years old. All aged humans need our mental health!

Expand full comment

Honestly, every time I see these headlines I keep thinking, “HEAR YE, HEAR YE! Stop the spread of the common cold! Think of the children!”

I’m really sick of the unnuanced views that are so heavily platformed. We missed out on so many important discussions during this pandemic.

Expand full comment

My son wears an N95 when he walks through San Francisco too. He swears he'll never go back to breathing SF's air unfiltered. That's how awful the smell is between the three P's: the Pot, the Poop, and the Pee!

Expand full comment

Just wondering, how did we arrive at the 93-98% figure? It certainly sounds reasonable, but I don’t know how we got there.

Expand full comment

Agreed. Watching everyone around you, boosted or not, get same level of covid is a pretty persuasive argument against everything the hypochondriac experts have told you. At least the experts the gov and media were willing to quote. Now, prepare for the great monkeypox shift and push for what used to be considered a vaccine with unacceptable risk. As far as I can tell, there is no level of unacceptable risk according to current FDA regime. 20% increase over control in mortality, no problem. Increased excess deaths post vax campaign, piffle. Regulatory capture? How dare you, you conspiracy nut! What myo/peri, clotting, autoimmune, cancer stats? Remember thimerosal and CDC actions because that is the future. Never acknowledge risk. Quietly phase it out. Bury the studies that showed harm. Maybe at one point mission was societal health. Now, it is further pharma goals. Medicine is hierarchical like the military. If you can politicize the CDC, most docs have no alternative but to tow the line. Tired of sending billions to pharma? The Pentagon has a few imperatives for you! Just think of what all that money could have done for our country and children’s future... actually don’t, it’s nauseating.

Expand full comment

If the vaccines have created OAS then repeated Covid will eventually system issues. Hopefully the medics will start looking into how they will stop that.

Expand full comment

Amen!!

Expand full comment

Is there evidence that once someone gets it & recovers that subsequent infections (if they occur) will be milder?

(I was "3 doses vaxxed" when I came down with it in January. It was like a bad head cold for ~ 7days.)

Expand full comment

I really like the sound of things fizzling out at 93-98% infected, but I wonder how that's possible given that so many people have already been infected multiple times. I know of at least 5 in my relatively tiny circle of family, friends, and acquaintances. I know one ~6yo who caught it twice just ~2/5.5 months after getting two shots (both infections were probably Omicron). The evidence seems to suggest that the vaccine is particularly short-lived in 5-11, but...the overall prevalence of stories like that is deeply concerning.

Expand full comment

You claim "you face it with the best odds you ever will". What about the possibility of improved therapies in the future? You've made the argument that you may be better off catching it sooner rather than later when you're older, given that risk rises with age, but do you really think that outweighs advances in therapeutics? For instance, if someone catches it for the first time 2 years from now at age 52 vs. right now at age 50, it seems likely to me that the advances in therapies in 2 years would outweigh the modest increase in risk from being only 2 years older.

Expand full comment