Linus Torvalds Encourages Kernel Developers & Everyone To Get Vaccinated

[WeAreDoomed]

I have been doing my own research since march last year. Been looking at data, and still don't see a pandemic unless there is a pandemic every year.
Your the one calling bs on data because you don't like the link.
There are not that many people I despite, although 99% of my government comes damn close.
Because they have an agenda and were not in it.

I can't believe I have to explain that again. Finding links is not "doing researches". You have to look at the data used by the researches you linked and think critically about it. In short, cut the middleman, discard any conclusions and go back to the roots.
Now if we look at the numbers : deaths per year worldwide was 55-60 millions people prior the COVID pandemic, over-mortality is 5-10 millions over the last year, so it is a 10-15 % increment over a "normal" year, and this is with lockdowns, vaccines, etc. So it is signifiant, Not the worst pandemic ever, but signifiant.

Another way to look at it : over the last year the pandemic has (directly or indirectly, for example because of the hospitals being full) been responsible for 10-15% of the total deaths worldwide. You really have to understand that the toll of the pandemic is not only the primary deaths, but also the "secondary" ones (hospitals have reported operations and treatments, etc).

https://covid19.healthdata.org/global?view=cumulative-deaths&tab=trend

https://ourworldindata.org/births-and-deaths

And for the record, I don't believe in Governments and secret agenda. They are greedy mf, that's all, they just don't care about the people, but imo there is absolutely no way these guys could even come remotely close to a global conspiracy.

[coder]

Hello, friends! I haven't forgotten about you!
: )

I wanted to share the latest statistic from the US CDC:

"Preliminary data suggests that 99.5% of people (in the US) killed by Covid-19, over the last 6 months, were unvaccinated."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jemimam...data-suggests/

[coder]

You're quite ignorant then. Are you?

If there's good evidence that the mRNA vaccines do modify DNA, please share it. And I mean data from in vitro or in vivo tests, along with a description of the methodology of the study, and from let's say an accredited university. Not some random person whose identity and credentials we cannot verify.

3. "the risks" are mostly unknown. If you are honest, you cannot weigh them.

I can't quantify lots of risks, like the chance of getting run over by a cement truck, each time I cross the street. Yet, I still do it.

Sure, there's always a possibility that something extremely weird and unexpected happens. Nobody can rule that out. However, the science behind the vaccines is solid, and there's now been nearly 1 year since the first human trials started. So, there's all of that clinical data. When you weigh the risks vs. benefits, what you get is a pretty clear argument in favor of everyone taking the vaccine to create herd immunity.

What is "good enough" for you is not automatically acceptable by everybody else.

Understood. That's why I said there are non-mRNA options, if you're not comfortable with the mRNA vaccines.

Another sign that you're quite ignorant.

The neat thing about science is that it doesn't really depend on reputation. And being someone from outside the field, how can you know this guy is who he says he is, and that his contributions are as relevant as he claims?

Even if all that checks out, people are still sometimes wrong in their predictions. That's why properly-conducted studies and carefully-analyzed data are so important.

Your willingness to generally dismiss credentials if it goes against your opinion is a telltale sign of your preconceived opinion.

Where did I ever say it had anything to do with my opinion? I'm generally skeptical of any "experts" posting stuff on the internet.

However, your point leads me to wonder whether you surveyed what numerous different experts are saying, especially weighing contrary opinions? Or did you hear this one guy and decided it must be true because it aligns with your ideology?

The crux with the "scientific process" is: scientists are humans. Scientists too fall for things like bias, success, seduction and blackmail.

That's why there's a process with blind peer-review, publication, people trying to replicate results, and others doing meta-analysis. That makes science way more resilient to bad actors and human fallibility than if we just relied upon reputation.

My question for you is this: if scientists, who have to publish their theory, methodology, and data in detail, knowing others will be checking it, still sometimes fall prey to moral lapses or other vices or mistakes, how are these contrarian voices any less susceptible to those same failings? Do you think these anit-vax bloggers and others on the fringe don't have any incentives to say what they're saying? Who is checking their findings and work? How can you have so much confidence in them?

[coder]

You buy all the shit the gates foundation wants you believe, he has a history of philanthropy scams,

They're not scams. In all that criticism, you failed to show any example of self-dealing, which is where you started.

Basically, if you try to do anything big enough, for long enough, there are going to be some critics. Sometimes, people just have different opinions about what's best. Other times, they have a vested interest in the status quo or another path, so they might not be criticizing in good faith. Then, there are sometimes unintended consequences from what you try.

In all cases, there should be follow-up to see if the critics concerns played out and to see whether Gates self-corrected when they should have. The problem with Wikipedia is that it's not journalism, but that's what we really need, in order to properly evaluate these criticisms. I'm sure some are valid, but then you have to weigh the positives of his philanthropy against those negatives.

The criticisms I'm most sympathetic towards are the ones that basically a billionaire shouldn't have so much influence over public policy. I think most of his influence is good, and I believe that it's all well-intentioned, but he's not accountable to the people it affects. More importantly, there are wealthy who influence public policy according to religious beliefs or political ideology that's much more extreme or even self-serving. I think the solution is that it should be harder to accumulate such extreme amounts of wealth, but that's another discussion for another forum.

if the foundation earns much money trough this vaccines

We already established that they don't.

For fucks sake they even invest in private prison companies...

The foundation invests its holdings according to the principle of getting the maximum return. People combed through and found some very small % was invested in a prison company.

Now there are two schools of thought on this. Some people say it's immoral to invest in companies that cause social harms by proving things like tobacco, firearms, gambling, etc. There's another school of thought that if you don't invest in them, someone else will, which is basically true. It's very hard to organize a big enough boycott of a company's stock that you can really depress its price. So, the position Gates seems to have taken is to continue investing for maximum return, but then to use their shares to try and influence these companies to behave in better ways (i.e. through shareholder voting).

Again, reasonable people can disagree about that policy, but you're so desperate to find anything bad to say about them that you're exaggerating a tiny part of their investments and taking it out of context.

he still tried to get contact with him, for his stupid Nobel Price,

You cited NY Post, as your source. They aren't trustworthy.

He even was forced to get ouf of microsoft because he had a affair with a staffer and asked people out,

I think we should separate what people do in their personal life from what they do in public. We don't know about the state of his marriage, at the time, but there has been no allegation that the affair was non-consensual.

So, let's get this back on track. Gates is not self-dealing, with respect to the vaccines. Whatever else you think about him or his foundation, you've failed to provide any supporting evidence that he's advocating about vaccine production out of self-interest.

[coder]

we now know what kind of magnetic nanomaterial it is... it is Graphene Oxide

Graphene Oxide is the poison what cause Corona Virus (Covid19) this means there is no "virus" read again "NO Virus"

Millions of researchers in hundreds of countries have now studied this virus that you claim doesn't exist. A lot of those countries don't even like each other, so it's hard to imagine how they could all be collaborating on some grand conspiracy.

You're willingness to believe this level of nonsense shows that you'll basically believe anything outside the mainstream, but a lot of us already knew that from some of your other posts.

Whenever you see such an outrageous claim, you should always ask yourself whether it really makes more sense than if there actually is a virus!

"Biocompatible N-acetyl cysteine reduces graphene oxide and persists at the surface as a green radical scavenger"
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30892320/

This appears to be motivated by the desire to use Graphene in medical implants or treatments, not because they're worried about GO being used as a poison:

"This method offers new opportunities for the production of green biocompatible rGO and NAC-based therapies."

Alcohole and Tobacco also speed up the decompose of the Graphene Oxide

So, you're suggesting that people take up smoking and heavy drinking? That's irresponsible.

if you ask yourself who is the cabale?

If there are more people in a cabal than not, it's no longer a cabal.

[coder]

you have a deep misunderstanding of what marxism is and what the UDSSR was.

Sounds like you never studied Marx or 20th Century Russian history.

If you meant to say Communists, then say "Communists". Marxism is not Communism, strictly speaking. But, I know you're just using it as a club to beat anyone who rejects your insane conspiracy theories, so I really don't mind whatever you want to call me.

[coder]

"A new study released by Professor John P. A. Ioannidis of Stanford University, California, has found that the infection fatality rate (IFR) of COVID-19 is significantly lower than previous studies indicated. According to Ioannidis, a medicine and epidemiology professor, the virus is less deadly than once thought, registering at a mere 0.15% fatality rate."

Like I said, this is simply not possible, because the US already lost more of its total population to Covid-19 than that, yet the infection rate was far from 100%!

If you look at the study, there are a few things that jump out at me. First, they took only 6 evaluations out of 1084 initital search results. And one basis they used for rejecting studies was if "if they considered exclusively studies of particular populations at different risks of infection than the general population", which makes me question whether the studies included gave any consideration for groups at different risk than the general population.

To gain a better understanding of the quality of their findings, we could dig deeper into those 6 evaluations they used. It's possible they engineered their selection criteria specifically to filter out studies that would've resulted in a higher IFR, such as this one:

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imp...-Report-34.pdf

That study estimates:

we estimate the overall IFR in a typical low-income country,with a population structure skewed towards younger individuals, to be 0.23% (0.14-0.42 95% prediction interval range). In contrast, in a typical high income country, with a greater concentration of elderly individuals, we estimate the overall IFR to be 1.15%(0.78-1.7995% prediction interval range).

So, even their best-case estimate is higher than Ioannidis, and their worst is about 7.7 times Ioannidis'!

Also, a quick search seems to indicate that Ioannidis has a history of controversial publishing on the pandemic, which is all the more reason those findings should be scrutinized with care.

[coder]

you need to open up your eyes, turn your brain on

You need to look at the totality of evidence, instead of just latching onto what shreds support your ideology.

[coder]

@Qaridarium
I supposed you tried to warn your family and loved ones, right ? What did they tell you ?

Either they agree with him or they just ignore him.

Plenty of stories have been told by people who live with Q-Anon believers that they simply cannot be reasoned with. After a while, you either follow them down the rabbit hole or stop trying to pull them out. There aren't really any other options.

BTW, the most successful ways of getting people to let go of such beliefs seem to be by engaging them in other social activities or pursuits. Not by taking on the conspiracy theories, directly.

[blackiwid]

... Nonsense ...

So A no the falsehood is that he personally earned money through vaccines, but of course the foundation did... the "debunked" part is that he personally earned money from it.

B You cut shit very manipulative, I explicitly stated that:

morally I personally find it stupid to have such rules and I don't judge him for that

Yet you paint it as if I would have criticized him for that, which I did not do, either you have ADHD or have comprehension deficits or you cut this very manipulative, to win the discussion with debate tactics instead of real arguments, despite what I said you say:

but there has been no allegation that the affair was non-consensual

Not even the manipulative half sentence you quoted from me does make such a accusation, why do you bring up randomly rape (non-consensual)? I never hinted or said anything in that direction, the only reason I brought this thing up, is that other people (apparently including you) have very strange American moral views and see (boss has sex with a employee = at least evil if not rape).
And that this people exist is not only obvious but you proofed my point, small minded American feminist people think in such situation automatically on rape, so now a nobel Price could overshine that for people that WRONGFULLY see him as unmoral rapy or at least unmoral person.
Heck even cheating is something absurd in the US that people have to apologize here in Europe that is 100% between spouses nobody not totally idiotic would apologize to the public for his legal private live no matter what he does, if he did not break a law it's their private and nobody else's business.

Your argument that there are no businesses that a foundation that get tax breaks because they claim to do good things that are evil enough because otherwise somebody else would do it, that's why in America torture is a accepted practise case by case if you can make a good case that it might help go for it, not against American citizens maybe and not by the normal police maybe, even we talk here only about specific things, American prisons are torture in itself and the death sentence is torture of course... but even more clear cut torture is seen as positive as long as it's done in guantanamo bay and some other places in the world by American agencies...

And yes according to your logic if it would be 1940 we should all get stocks from nazi concentration camps and then give the money to some good cause to save animals... It's hard to argue against that... if that's your opinion I just can say we can agree to disagree on that, and that's it... It's like arguing with somebody that believes murder is a good thing why it's not... if it's not obvious then I find it not worth my time to come up with good arguments for it... the time investment vs effect of changing your opinion on this topic is to bad, especially if you are one of the only person on the planet that I would have to convince that investing in private prisons is not moral... so I would have to dig arguments up for only you and could never use this arguments ever again in any other discussion because nobody else would start a argument about it.