I agree with all you wrote V.P. but god-damn-it you gotta' proof-read your stuff because sloppy wording is increasing in your otherwise excellent ejaculates. Exhibit A: "The forest: the FDA almost always picks the same strains **are** the WHO. And there is no evidence that the current selection process is anything other than a guessing game. Each year, ***fly*** vaccine effectiveness varies and is often poor, in part because these ****guess**** are bad. (From our paper)
I am one of Vinay's original subscribers. We have sparred occasionally (especially early on when he called masking "bioplausibile") but he is mostly right and I am one of his most ardent supporters.
I offered back then to proof his articles (many years as a journal editor) but he never took me up on it -- as near as I can tell, he never reads subscriber comments. But my offer still stands -- it is a shame to deprecate good content with those kinds of sloppy (mostly rushing) mistakes.
It's kind of genius on Trump's part. Just have MSM chasing its tail on EVERY EO, policy announcement. Even the most rabid TDS Leftists must be getting jaded by now. I voted for the wrecking ball, and that's EXACTLY what I'm getting. As it turns out...you *CAN* get tired of winning.
OK, but look at it this way: Maybe if the MAGA administration didn't ride roughshod and take a blind slash and burn, macho tough titty approach, the media would respond differently. Let's say, be selective, give strong reasons for cutting, cite evidence, and then move to the next thing. Explain where the waste and abuse are. Somehow I think there would be better journalistic research and debate on the merits. How much better I don't know. But my non-evidence-based crystal ball tells me that the scorched earth approach will not improve anything. Will leave a smell of sulfur and Musk. A democracy and Constitution in shreds. Lipstick on a pig--still a pig. (Sorry, pigs.)
I'm of the same mind. I disagree completely with the scorched earth approach. I am happy with some of the executive orders (like getting men out of women's sports and locker rooms) but I think there needs to be restraint. But I'm not sure the media would ever give the new administration the benefit of the doubt. Media is on a slash-and-burn rampage as well!
Well don't forget Fox News. But even the WSJ is alarmed about some things. I'm inclined to think an alarmist pen is appropriate against the Orwellian sword of Trump/Musk. (Ukraine started the war? Zelenyii is the dictator?) A frightening marriage of money, technology, propaganda (lies), and the reins of the state at work. The mainstream press is part cowed, part impotent by comparison. Even the military is under Gleichschaltung. RFK Jr. will not ... MAHA! (When was America healthy? Will he really take on Big Pharma and Big Food? Seriously.) I hope I'm proved wrong about where America is headed!
The opposition to Trump is largely driven by woke ideology and they will seize on anything to try and paint Trump as a lunatic on the loose and themselves as defenders of science and good. So even if Trump gives strong reasons, that message will not be allowed through IMO.
The Media will never respond differently. They will never change. The massive fraud within USAID is a prime example. I have yet to see any MSM outlet other than Fox follow stories that expose the abuse. All I see is stories about USAID employees losing their jobs.
RFK jr has made it abundantly clear he does not take the flu shot because of the risk of “vaccine injury”. ( which he overestimates). Is the meeting to plan next season’s vaccine canceled because of a desire to improve to design process or because of RFK’s biases? I fear it’s the latter.
This is what concerns me. Is his thinking simply too eccentric?
That said, people often adjust their rhetoric based on their position. When you're powerless, you tend to get angry and use hyperbole to make your point more forcefully. Is it possible that RFK Jr. overstated some of his beliefs in the past to provoke a stronger reaction, and that his actual thinking is more measured? Now that he has the opportunity to influence change, could he adopt a more reasonable, pragmatic approach? I'm not holding my breath but I you never know.
I am at a loss for words. I believe you have understood correctly, Dr. Prasad. It is impossible to have a ‘watcher’ or a ‘support group’ (which is the forest) without someone responsible for caring for the trees. Conversely, it is not possible to have everyone working on trees without a ‘watcher’ overseeing the entire project. The forest and the trees are relatively straightforward solutions; however, what is challenging is finding a staff of honest, productive, and strong individuals who have the ability to make or break this dynamic undertaking.
I agree with all you wrote V.P. but god-damn-it you gotta' proof-read your stuff because sloppy wording is increasing in your otherwise excellent ejaculates. Exhibit A: "The forest: the FDA almost always picks the same strains **are** the WHO. And there is no evidence that the current selection process is anything other than a guessing game. Each year, ***fly*** vaccine effectiveness varies and is often poor, in part because these ****guess**** are bad. (From our paper)
I am one of Vinay's original subscribers. We have sparred occasionally (especially early on when he called masking "bioplausibile") but he is mostly right and I am one of his most ardent supporters.
I offered back then to proof his articles (many years as a journal editor) but he never took me up on it -- as near as I can tell, he never reads subscriber comments. But my offer still stands -- it is a shame to deprecate good content with those kinds of sloppy (mostly rushing) mistakes.
It's kind of genius on Trump's part. Just have MSM chasing its tail on EVERY EO, policy announcement. Even the most rabid TDS Leftists must be getting jaded by now. I voted for the wrecking ball, and that's EXACTLY what I'm getting. As it turns out...you *CAN* get tired of winning.
OK, but look at it this way: Maybe if the MAGA administration didn't ride roughshod and take a blind slash and burn, macho tough titty approach, the media would respond differently. Let's say, be selective, give strong reasons for cutting, cite evidence, and then move to the next thing. Explain where the waste and abuse are. Somehow I think there would be better journalistic research and debate on the merits. How much better I don't know. But my non-evidence-based crystal ball tells me that the scorched earth approach will not improve anything. Will leave a smell of sulfur and Musk. A democracy and Constitution in shreds. Lipstick on a pig--still a pig. (Sorry, pigs.)
I'm of the same mind. I disagree completely with the scorched earth approach. I am happy with some of the executive orders (like getting men out of women's sports and locker rooms) but I think there needs to be restraint. But I'm not sure the media would ever give the new administration the benefit of the doubt. Media is on a slash-and-burn rampage as well!
Well don't forget Fox News. But even the WSJ is alarmed about some things. I'm inclined to think an alarmist pen is appropriate against the Orwellian sword of Trump/Musk. (Ukraine started the war? Zelenyii is the dictator?) A frightening marriage of money, technology, propaganda (lies), and the reins of the state at work. The mainstream press is part cowed, part impotent by comparison. Even the military is under Gleichschaltung. RFK Jr. will not ... MAHA! (When was America healthy? Will he really take on Big Pharma and Big Food? Seriously.) I hope I'm proved wrong about where America is headed!
The opposition to Trump is largely driven by woke ideology and they will seize on anything to try and paint Trump as a lunatic on the loose and themselves as defenders of science and good. So even if Trump gives strong reasons, that message will not be allowed through IMO.
WTF?
The Media will never respond differently. They will never change. The massive fraud within USAID is a prime example. I have yet to see any MSM outlet other than Fox follow stories that expose the abuse. All I see is stories about USAID employees losing their jobs.
RFK jr has made it abundantly clear he does not take the flu shot because of the risk of “vaccine injury”. ( which he overestimates). Is the meeting to plan next season’s vaccine canceled because of a desire to improve to design process or because of RFK’s biases? I fear it’s the latter.
This is what concerns me. Is his thinking simply too eccentric?
That said, people often adjust their rhetoric based on their position. When you're powerless, you tend to get angry and use hyperbole to make your point more forcefully. Is it possible that RFK Jr. overstated some of his beliefs in the past to provoke a stronger reaction, and that his actual thinking is more measured? Now that he has the opportunity to influence change, could he adopt a more reasonable, pragmatic approach? I'm not holding my breath but I you never know.
I am at a loss for words. I believe you have understood correctly, Dr. Prasad. It is impossible to have a ‘watcher’ or a ‘support group’ (which is the forest) without someone responsible for caring for the trees. Conversely, it is not possible to have everyone working on trees without a ‘watcher’ overseeing the entire project. The forest and the trees are relatively straightforward solutions; however, what is challenging is finding a staff of honest, productive, and strong individuals who have the ability to make or break this dynamic undertaking.
Fantastic article! The "forest" information provides the context, the rationale, that the legacy media and TDS sufferers never present.