# Your Set of Beliefs and Coronavirus



## Jorge (Apr 6, 2020)

Your beliefs may ultimately determine whether you live or die from the coronavirus. I will use Steve Jobs, one of the Apple founders who died from cancer, as an example: he was a difficult cancer patient and probably did not believe in alternative treatments; had he been otherwise in these two things, he might still be alive today.

If you believe in the power of alternative treatment in healing you when you are sick, you will be interested in the following post: Secret of How to Keep Yourself & Family Coronavirus Free


----------



## Biro (Apr 7, 2020)

Can you explain ....... _ he was a difficult cancer patient and probably did not believe in alternative treatments; had he been otherwise in these two things, he might still be alive today._


----------



## SueC (Apr 7, 2020)

Biro said:


> Can you explain ....... _ he was a difficult cancer patient and probably did not believe in alternative treatments; had he been otherwise in these two things, he might still be alive today._



Biro, I think it means (1) if he didn't have cancer and (2) believed in alternative treatments, he would be alive today. Just a guess, but I don't know what that has to do with "set of beliefs."


----------



## bdcharles (Apr 7, 2020)

Jorge said:


> Your beliefs may ultimately determine whether you live or die from the coronavirus. I will use Steve Jobs, one of the Apple founders who died from cancer, as an example: he was a difficult cancer patient and probably did not believe in alternative treatments; had he been otherwise in these two things, he might still be alive today.
> 
> If you believe in the power of alternative treatment in healing you when you are sick, you will be interested in the following post: Secret of How to Keep Yourself & Family Coronavirus Free



Science is the answer.


----------



## dither (Apr 7, 2020)

Genes imo.


----------



## Biro (Apr 7, 2020)

As well as science in new drugs and treatments. I do believe that eating and drinking the right foods, can boost your bodies defences and other functions.  So that they are all operating at 100% and can help you fight off disease.

Will this 'cure' you of serious disease?


----------



## bdcharles (Apr 7, 2020)

Biro said:


> As well as science in new drugs and treatments. I do believe that eating and drinking the right foods, can boost your bodies defences and other functions.  So that they are all operating at 100% and can help you fight off disease.



Indeed - and this too is science in action. Even - to be fair - having positive beliefs and whatnot can reduce your likelihood of getting disease and improve your quality of life somewhat by lowering stress and cortisol levels, also supported by evidence as I understand it. But curing cancer and covid-19? I don't think so. Then again, the OP claimed nothing but subjunctive-heavy conjecture, so I dunno what I'm really doing here tbh. Battling the forces of woo I guess.


----------



## Biro (Apr 7, 2020)

I did some work with the organic crowd a while back and one thing I found was a simple observation but not many people realise this.

Farm animals are kept in lush green fields but in their wild state they would eat a multitude of foods in many different areas.  They do this to get a varied diet is one reason.  Because we keep them restrained to one area.  The land they are on may be deficient in minerals and trace elements.  So the farmer 'should' give them these missing minerals etc in a 'lick'.  The animal needs them so it will grow healthy and fight off disease.

Our diet from non organic food is just veg and other food grown with fertiliser to grow as quickly and as cheaply as possible.  That food will be lacking in minerals and trace elements so in effect our food does not contain same and we lack those same things.

If we are lacking in those things then diseases and conditions can develop as they do in farm animals which do not have supplementary 'licks'.

Organic food does have a lot of these minerals etc because of several factors.

How many of us just eat 100% organic and more importantly how many of us take supplements to replace what may be missing from our diet?

If our bodies aren't getting the 100%, then they obviously can't be functioning at the 100%.  So is this how we are susceptible to disease?


----------



## andrewclunn (Apr 7, 2020)

Media pretends there isn't an issue, calls those voicing concern conspiracy nuts or bigots.  Problem becomes undeniable, calls those wary of loss of civil liberties and economic downturn idiots and ant-science.  "Science" is just code for academia and institutional power, having almost nothing to do with actual empiricism these days.  Fuck "science."  Trust your own eyes more and the media less.


----------



## Bloggsworth (Apr 7, 2020)

I was amused when, a Republican senator was talking about how CoVid 19 was mutating and a Democrate interupted him with the comment "_I thought you didn't believe in evolution_..."


----------



## bdcharles (Apr 7, 2020)

andrewclunn said:


> Media pretends there isn't an issue, calls those voicing concern conspiracy nuts or bigots.  Problem becomes undeniable, calls those wary of loss of civil liberties and economic downturn idiots and ant-science.  "Science" is just code for academia and institutional power, having almost nothing to do with actual empiricism these days.  Fuck "science."  Trust your own eyes more and the media less.



I'm not aware of the media pretending there isn't an issue unless we are talking at cross purposes and you think, I dunno, a sudden outbreak of yellow fever needs attention and isn't getting any. Media are far more likely to _overplay _the issue simply because there's more cash in it. And saying "science is just a code for institutional power" is, I'm sorry, but it is kind of a conspiracy-nut thing to say. It's not even correct, because it's institutional power that would make the media blow it up in spite of the data. I mean, who the hell listens to scientists anyway? In my opinion, when people dismiss science, it's a piece of rhetoric to present themselves as a greater authority on a subject than they are, likely for their own reasons - possibly commercial but often purely egotistical. There's rarely any substance behind it. It just sounds cool and that's why such ideas gain traction. It is very damaging and I will call it out where I see it. Sorry if this means you, but there you go.


----------



## Biro (Apr 7, 2020)

bdcharles said:


> I'm not aware of the media pretending there isn't an issue unless we are talking at cross purposes and you think, I dunno, a sudden outbreak of yellow fever needs attention and isn't getting any. Media are far more likely to _overplay _the issue simply because there's more cash in it. And saying "science is just a code for institutional power" is, I'm sorry, but it is kind of a conspiracy-nut thing to say. It's not even correct, because it's institutional power that would make the media blow it up in spite of the data. I mean, who the hell listens to scientists anyway? In my opinion, when people dismiss science, it's a piece of rhetoric to present themselves as a greater authority on a subject than they are, likely for their own reasons - possibly commercial but often purely egotistical. There's rarely any substance behind it. It just sounds cool and that's why such ideas gain traction. It is very damaging and I will call it out where I see it. Sorry if this means you, but there you go.



Newspapers when printing on paper had a certain amount of space for news stories.  Now they have endless web pages filled with pure garbage from illiterate snowflakes who can't even spell.  I admit I am terrible at spelling, but then I would never get a job in a newspaper.  A reporter used to be a person with skill who went out and covered a news story.  Today it appears to be the job of a school leaver who left without exam qualifications.

Point is the media is full of pure junk.

When all this started.  According to the media, it was just a 'flu' so watch out oldies.  Now it is something a lot more serious which is killing all ages but also is going to finish the world economy until it is cured or irradicated.

Can it be cured by eating a few mushrooms or eating the right food?   I am not qualified to even guess at that.  But eating the right food will put you in a better position to survive any infections and diseases.


----------



## andrewclunn (Apr 7, 2020)

You can call me a nut all you want.  I had masks, food, and everything back in January when the Chinese paid off WHO was downplaying things.  I recall the supposed "skeptical" movement that rose to prominence in the early 2000s.  They were so big on pointing out neurological heuristics and their biases, but seemed oblivious to institutional biases.  Crack pot, science denier, bigot... these are all cultural pressure words to keep the "good boys and girls" in line for fear of social ostracization in a cult like manner.  The dark realms of the internet I travel through find more truth through allowing the "crack pots" to contribute than to set up artificial barriers based on having boomer papers.  We see you there laughing at the straw men of red neck hillbillies you prop up in your mind as the enemy, spoon fed it as the opposition to make yourself feel enlightened by comparison by media outlets that seek to control rather than inform you.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to save you, and wouldn't if I could.  Being ahead of the curve in preparedness is just part of the Darwinian selection process, and deference to institutional authority is a sure way to ensure you won't be.  Or to quote Ayn Rand, "You can ignore reality, but you can't ignore the consequences of ignoring reality."


----------



## Gofa (Apr 7, 2020)

Jorge as you wrote 

If you believe in the power of alternative treatment in healing you when you are sick, you will be interested in the following post: Secret of How to Keep Yourself & Family Coronavirus Free

im sure you lived in 1347 and made a fortune selling alternative medicine amulets that were thrice blessed and guaranteed to protect the righteous 
and if a customer died  well by definition then were not righteous 
sales penetration was a function of the number of idiots per acre


----------



## bdcharles (Apr 7, 2020)

andrewclunn said:


> You can call me a nut all you want.  I had masks, food, and everything back in January when the Chinese paid off WHO was downplaying things.  I recall the supposed "skeptical" movement that rose to prominence in the early 2000s.  They were so big on pointing out neurological heuristics and their biases, but seemed oblivious to institutional biases.  Crack pot, science denier, bigot... these are all cultural pressure words to keep the "good boys and girls" in line for fear of social ostracization in a cult like manner.  The dark realms of the internet I travel through find more truth through allowing the "crack pots" to contribute than to set up artificial barriers based on having boomer papers.  We see you there laughing at the straw men of red neck hillbillies you prop up in your mind as the enemy, spoon fed it as the opposition to make yourself feel enlightened by comparison by media outlets that seek to control rather than inform you.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to save you, and wouldn't if I could.  Being ahead of the curve in preparedness is just part of the Darwinian selection process, and deference to institutional authority is a sure way to ensure you won't be.  Or to quote Ayn Rand, "You can ignore reality, but you can't ignore the consequences of ignoring reality."



Being cognizant of, and a beneficiary of, the science of a matter doesn't equate to being in thrall to the media. I suspect you meant to say pseudoscience.



Biro said:


> Point is the media is full of pure junk.



Agreed. It was just the subtle inclusion of science in with that, that was rather telling.


----------



## andrewclunn (Apr 7, 2020)

bdcharles said:


> I suspect you meant to say pseudoscience..



Nope.  The inability of academia to answer the demarcation problem has meant that the halls of science are anything but.  To the point where the vast majority of ideas promoted as science aren't, and the vast majority of those believing themselves to be advocates for or believers in science are unaware of the their own position as apologetics style defenders of perverse and corrupt institutions.


----------



## Irwin (Apr 7, 2020)

For those of you who don't trust the news media, can you cite some examples from the past few days that make you not trust it?


----------



## Terry D (Apr 7, 2020)

It is stupid to discuss 'the media' as if it is one entity with a single purpose. There are thousands of media outlets, each with their own set of objectives, standards, and biases. Even coagulating a few -- or many -- outlets into a group and calling them "the mainstream media" is too simplistic. 

What we lack are readers with the willingness to look at sources, to read/view a wide range of perspectives, to gather facts, and then to actually think about what those facts are telling them. Too many people want their media sources to align with their own viewpoint and are quick to disregard as 'fake news' anything which doesn't suit their worldview. 

A free press -- with all its faults -- is still our best hope for understanding what is going on. If you allow politicians to influence your opinion of news, of science, and of philosophy you will be a fool.


----------



## bdcharles (Apr 7, 2020)

andrewclunn said:


> Nope.  The inability of academia to answer the demarcation problem has meant that the halls of science are anything but.  To the point where the vast majority of ideas promoted as science aren't, and the vast majority of those believing themselves to be advocates for or believers in science are unaware of the their own position as apologetics style defenders of perverse and corrupt institutions.



"Ideas promoted as science" is pseudoscience. Without evidence or argument, I would be hard-pushed to call people working on a coronavirus vaccine or a cure for cancer apologists for that. The output from the medical and scientific communities has a far better success rate historically than the nonsense in the OP.


----------



## Biro (Apr 7, 2020)

bdcharles said:


> I would be hard-pushed to call people working on a coronavirus vaccine or a cure for cancer apologists for that. The output from the medical and scientific communities has a far better success rate historically than the nonsense in the OP.



That is a really strong statement.

A cure for cancer?........If there was such a thing.  Could any government allow it?  Could any company sell it for less than big bucks?  Would the people allow that company to sell for big bucks?  Again the world could not afford a cure for cancer.  Such a cure would kill the planet.  So the cure would kill all of us.

In fact now the best thing and probably the only thing that will save the planet is disease that ravishes humans.......... There's science for you!

If you look back in our history and watch what animals do.  You will see that besides the snake oil cures, our ancestors and animals knew the benefits of certain foods and the lotions and potions of certain plants/fungi/etc to treat disease and ailments.  A lot of them we still use today even under license and prescription from the medical authorities.

Just because it is made from natural materials quite simply does not mean it is of no benefit or cannot cure.


----------



## Biro (Apr 7, 2020)

Terry D said:


> A free press -- with all its faults -- is still our best hope for understanding what is going on. If you allow politicians to influence your opinion of news, of science, and of philosophy you will be a fool.



This is already being done by big corp on behalf of political people and to the benefit of big corp.

Google is a perfect example.  The internet that we mostly use is only what Google chooses to let you see.   The real internet is the internet you would have seen 20 years ago when Netscape and the like were search engines.  That internet would be what is referred too as the 'Dark Net' today.  Probably called that and demonised so you don't use it.  If you want to find the truth then that would be the easiest place to find it.  Unsuppressed and unregulated but no doubt full of crap.  Just like any pub.  Just like true life.

Youtube or should we say Googles second search engine is censoring nearly every topic of every video channel daily.  Letting you see only what they want you to see.  Do they do this in the hope that they can change and direct your political viewpoint? If this is true does it work?


----------



## Biro (Apr 7, 2020)

andrewclunn said:


> You can call me a nut all you want.  I had masks, food, and everything back in January when the Chinese paid off WHO was downplaying things.  I recall the supposed "skeptical" movement that rose to prominence in the early 2000s.  They were so big on pointing out neurological heuristics and their biases, but seemed oblivious to institutional biases.  Crack pot, science denier, bigot... these are all cultural pressure words to keep the "good boys and girls" in line for fear of social ostracization in a cult like manner.  The dark realms of the internet I travel through find more truth through allowing the "crack pots" to contribute than to set up artificial barriers based on having boomer papers.  We see you there laughing at the straw men of red neck hillbillies you prop up in your mind as the enemy, spoon fed it as the opposition to make yourself feel enlightened by comparison by media outlets that seek to control rather than inform you.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to save you, and wouldn't if I could.  Being ahead of the curve in preparedness is just part of the Darwinian selection process, and deference to institutional authority is a sure way to ensure you won't be.  Or to quote Ayn Rand, "You can ignore reality, but you can't ignore the consequences of ignoring reality."



Anybody who thinks out of the box is usually placed in the 'nut' category.

People are like sheep.  If one screams and runs away, then you will find others follow then others follow them.  So people just think the same.  Most can't or are too lazy to work things out for themselves, so they will go along with what others think because it is easier and also because they dont want to be cast aside and want to be accepted by the group.

Anybody who thinks different or wants to be different will be lonely, laughed at and be the center of accusations.  But certainly a survivor.


----------



## sleepindawg (Apr 7, 2020)

To start with let's take a look at the link provided by the OP. In his opening paragraph the author of that item says: 

"Although I am not a doctor, with more than 20 years as a constant and  eccentric researcher I have discovered a few "gems" that most doctors do  not know about and certainly do not want the public to get wind of."

I wonder how doctors can want anyone to know or not know anything that they themselves are not aware of. 

As for the bullet points following that paragraph, the first one should have been included in the paragraph and I wonder if that author considered that people got the same sort of news about the swine flu when it broke out years ago.

Paragraph 2 seems to claim that the author found a cure for Ovarian Cancer by researching the internet when his mother was already stage 3. Let me see, what would I do if I found a cure for something so major? I might try to make a profit on my cure, but profit or no I would make sure that as many people as possible were able to get the cure. IOW I would PUBLISH my discovery. The author of that item makes no mention of any attempt(s) to publish or share (even by selling it) this wondrous cure.

Paragraph 3 is quite interesting, it talks about the use of masks to help prevent the spread of the virus. I happen to be a resident of an ALF (assisted living facility) with a minimum age of 62, we are all at greater risk because of our ages but the staff are the ones who are required to wear masks. The reason the staff are to wear masks is to protect us from the virus if they happened to have picked it up while off duty because if they cough or sneeze the spray will be stopped by the mask. After all, why do you think doctors wear masks when opening up someone? If it was to protect the doctor then there would be many operations performed without masks.

The rest of the item reminds me of those videos that claim to be willing to give you information when in fact the goal is to entice the watcher to buy some product whether it's information that is supposed to help the buyer or it is goods that might help the buyer.

I tried following the link to the "company" that supposedly provides the mushroom complex but Firefox has it blocked for security reasons as did chrome edge made me jump through hoops to see the content and when I got to the page it looked like the usual snake oil product to me. 

My point is that I find the information that the OP's link leads to very questionable.


----------



## bdcharles (Apr 7, 2020)

Biro said:


> That is a really strong statement.
> 
> A cure for cancer?........If there was such a thing.  Could any government allow it?  Could any company sell it for less than big bucks?  Would the people allow that company to sell for big bucks?  Again the world could not afford a cure for cancer.  Such a cure would kill the planet.  So the cure would kill all of us.
> 
> ...




Well, sure. It depends on the context, and what the optimal goal is. If there’s an overpopulation or AGW problem a disease is handy. If people are concerned about a loved one dying, a cure is handy.



> Just because it is made from natural materials quite simply does not mean it is of no benefit or cannot cure.



It doesn’t guarantee panacea status either.


----------



## bdcharles (Apr 7, 2020)

Biro said:


> Anybody who thinks out of the box is usually placed in the 'nut' category.
> 
> People are like sheep.  If one screams and runs away, then you will find others follow then others follow them.  So people just think the same.  Most can't or are too lazy to work things out for themselves, so they will go along with what others think because it is easier and also because they dont want to be cast aside and want to be accepted by the group.
> 
> Anybody who thinks different or wants to be different will be lonely, laughed at and be the center of accusations.  But certainly a survivor.



Not always. Sometimes people labelled as nuts are genuinely wrong about stuff. That’s just not as compelling a story though, which also touches on your point about sheep; we like to go along with a narrative even if it’s loaded with falsehoods. But even there, being sheeplike is one of the things that has helped us survive and thrive as a species. I suspect more of us are more sheeplike than we’d care to admit. Not everyone is capable of leadership or independently surviving against the odds. But we like to think we are - and that’s okay. It’s more useful and empowering to believe you’ve got a good chance in the world, than to believe you don’t. But being objectively correct about matters is something different.


----------



## Irwin (Apr 8, 2020)

Some people are truly independent thinkers; their opinions and perception of reality aren't based on facts or logic. And that's okay, as long as they don't get into positions of leadership, in which case, we're screwed and people die needlessly.


----------



## sleepindawg (Apr 8, 2020)

Irwin said:


> Some people are truly independent thinkers; their opinions and perception of reality aren't based on facts or logic. And that's okay, as long as they don't get into positions of leadership, in which case, we're screwed and people die needlessly.



Do you currently have anyone in mind?


----------



## Biro (Apr 8, 2020)

Irwin said:


> Some people are truly independent thinkers; their opinions and perception of reality aren't based on facts or logic. And that's okay, as long as they don't get into positions of leadership, in which case, we're screwed and people die needlessly.






			
				sleeindawg said:
			
		

> Do you currently have anyone in mind?



Now only you both know where you may be going with this.  But if you are going down the road of including your political opposition of somebody in the present day could you please leave it out.


----------



## Biro (Apr 8, 2020)

bdcharles said:


> Not always. Sometimes people labelled as nuts are genuinely wrong about stuff. That’s just not as compelling a story though, which also touches on your point about sheep; we like to go along with a narrative even if it’s loaded with falsehoods. But even there, being sheeplike is one of the things that has helped us survive and thrive as a species. I suspect more of us are more sheeplike than we’d care to admit. Not everyone is capable of leadership or independently surviving against the odds. But we like to think we are - and that’s okay. It’s more useful and empowering to believe you’ve got a good chance in the world, than to believe you don’t. But being objectively correct about matters is something different.



Exactly.  This where you must have free speech so the really nutty ones can be called out.   Suppression of what people can say only allows those who aim to mislead and lie to deceive and attain power or wealth.

The sheep mentality works in many ways.


----------



## Biro (Apr 8, 2020)

sleepindawg said:


> To start with let's take a look at the link provided by the OP. In his opening paragraph the author of that item says:
> 
> "Although I am not a doctor, with more than 20 years as a constant and  eccentric researcher I have discovered a few "gems" that most doctors do  not know about and certainly do not want the public to get wind of."
> 
> ...



I agree with what you say and all residents I think should have masks as well in this present virus problem.

Claims of cures yes they are always there.  But only tests will prove their validity.  Is that science?


----------



## epimetheus (Apr 8, 2020)

Terry D said:


> It is stupid to discuss 'the media' as if it is one entity with a single purpose. There are thousands of media outlets, each with their own set of objectives, standards, and biases. Even coagulating a few -- or many -- outlets into a group and calling them "the mainstream media" is too simplistic.



Same is true of scientists. They might get together at conferences but the major talking points are where they disagree. Even major organisations like the IPCC and the WHO do very little to no research themselves - they rely on the various independent teams operating around the world. The idea of them getting together to set some global political agenda is laughable - you wouldn't even get them to agree on a venue.

The relationship between scientists and the media is also fractious with scientists believing the media will twist their words for big headlines. Every time you see a _Facebook causes cancer! _headline, you know there's a scientist crying somewhere. In this case it was one psychologist's conjecture (it was not original research) based on a small but reasonable evidence base around social isolation - he mentioned cancer a couple of times and didn't mention Facebook once. And yet _scientists_ say _Facebook causes cancer_...


----------



## sleepindawg (Apr 8, 2020)

epimetheus said:


> Same is true of scientists. They might get together at conferences but the major talking points are where they disagree. Even major organisations like the IPCC and the WHO do very little to no research themselves - they rely on the various independent teams operating around the world. The idea of them getting together to set some global political agenda is laughable - you wouldn't even get them to agree on a venue.
> 
> The relationship between scientists and the media is also fractious with scientists believing the media will twist their words for big headlines. Every time you see a _Facebook causes cancer! _headline, you know there's a scientist crying somewhere. In this case it was one psychologist's conjecture (it was not original research) based on a small but reasonable evidence base around social isolation - he mentioned cancer a couple of times and didn't mention Facebook once. And yet _scientists_ say _Facebook causes cancer_...



A question for your first paragraph comes to mind, that question is: What about peer review? That's where a scientist publishes the findings of his research with the intent that other scientists can check his findings and in that way, they can reach a consensus on the subject.

As to your second paragraph. Anyone who believes such a headline will likely do 2 things. 
1) Stop cluttering the bandwidth on the internet as much by not using Facebook anymore.
2) Buy the snake-oil that the one link seems to lead to.

The first thing would likely benefit us all while the second would be between him and his checkbook.


----------



## sleepindawg (Apr 8, 2020)

Biro said:


> Now only you both know where you may be going with this.  But if you are going down the road of including your political opposition of somebody in the present day could you please leave it out.



Whether or not Irwin and I were thinking of the same person doesn't matter to me, my comment was intended to make him chuckle. I hope I reached that goal.


----------



## Biro (Apr 8, 2020)

sleepindawg said:


> Whether or not Irwin and I were thinking of the same person doesn't matter to me, my comment was intended to make him chuckle. I hope I reached that goal.



I know and understand but it kills the topic as they all come out the woodwork.  Say something and you have to duck.


----------



## epimetheus (Apr 8, 2020)

sleepindawg said:


> A question for your first paragraph comes to mind, that question is: What about peer review? That's where a scientist publishes the findings of his research with the intent that other scientists can check his findings and in that way, they can reach a consensus on the subject.



The goal of peer review is not to build a consensus. At best you are going to get three other scientists looking at your work - usually two reviewers and maybe the editor, depending on whether the editor is in academia and how much spare time they have (smaller journals tend to have academic editors). The goal is to ensure sufficient rigour has been taken with the study and it's presentation. It's not until it's published, or maybe presented at a conference, that the work will be exposed to the scientific community and slowly fit into, or shift, the existing paradigms.

For instance Andrew Wakefield's study (the one that started the MMR and autism debacle) got through peer review at the Lancet. Should it have? It maybe should have found out that Wakefield was being paid by a law firm to find a link between MMR and autism, but if someone doesn't declare conflicting interests its very hard to investigate them. Regardless, post-publication it was found wanting - mostly because about a dozen independent studies failed to replicate the same results.




sleepindawg said:


> As to your second paragraph. Anyone who believes such a headline will likely do 2 things.
> 1) Stop cluttering the bandwidth on the internet as much by not using Facebook anymore.
> 2) Buy the snake-oil that the one link seems to lead to.
> The first thing would likely benefit us all while the second would be between him and his checkbook.



I wish i could share your view - though it's true enough for the Facebook example. Unfortunately there are some issues, like vaccinations, which effect everybody. If a significant enough proportion of the population fail to get vaccinated we don't develop herd immunity - then immunocompromised people are put at risk. Deaths from measles has increased since Wakefield's publication.

Sagan said said it best: _We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology._


----------



## Irwin (Apr 8, 2020)

sleepindawg said:


> Do you currently have anyone in mind?



It's a purely hypothetical scenario.  

(albeit one with an orange tint)


----------



## escorial (Apr 8, 2020)

aids was caused by having sex with a monkey...this one was by eating bats....any vegan killers


----------



## Biro (Apr 8, 2020)

escorial said:


> aids was caused by having sex with a monkey...this one was by eating bats....any vegan killers



I have seen a few tomatoes acting suspiciously and I have been known to make a killer vegetarian chilli con carni.


----------



## dither (Apr 8, 2020)




----------



## andrewclunn (Apr 9, 2020)

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethb...n-a-reporter-for-asking-about-taiwan-n2565899

I mean it's not hard at all to see agenda and bias within supposedly scientific organizations.  This shit is easy.  People who think agenda in science is laughable, or worse: that science itself would keep scientists from being corrupted by money or other institutional selective pressures, are unknowning followers of a cult like religion.


----------



## epimetheus (Apr 9, 2020)

andrewclunn said:


> https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethb...n-a-reporter-for-asking-about-taiwan-n2565899
> 
> I mean it's not hard at all to see agenda and bias within supposedly scientific organizations.  This shit is easy.  People who think agenda in science is laughable, or worse: that science itself would keep scientists from being corrupted by money or other institutional selective pressures, are unknowning followers of a cult like religion.



The WHO have to dance around China's sensitivity towards Taiwan same as anybody (even the US government kowtows to China on that issue). It's far from an ideal situation but what's it got to do with actual science (of which the WHO do very little to none)?

Consider me too stupid to see this 'easy shit' - what exactly is the agenda here ?


----------



## Biro (Apr 9, 2020)

epimetheus said:


> The WHO have to dance around China's sensitivity towards Taiwan same as anybody (even the US government kowtows to China on that issue). It's far from an ideal situation but what's it got to do with actual science (of which the WHO do very little to none)?
> 
> Consider me too stupid to see this 'easy shit' - what exactly is the agenda here ?



I think the point Andrew is making is that science and scientists have been corrupted by politics and companies to back or issue false info?  History has examples.


----------



## epimetheus (Apr 9, 2020)

Biro said:


> I think the point Andrew is making is that science and scientists have been corrupted by politics and companies to back or issue false info?  History has examples.



All scientists, most scientists or a few scientists? Is it a deliberate plot with some central control or some kind of uncoordinated group degradation, or just the odd scientist influenced by politics, religion or a company? How do they get round the requisite for evidence? I am as naive as i am stupid - could you list some of those examples.


----------



## bdcharles (Apr 9, 2020)

Biro said:


> I think the point Andrew is making is that science and scientists have been corrupted by politics and companies to back or issue false info?  History has examples.



And the point I was making can be summed up thus: just because it says something in a partisan website doesn't make it _*universal*_. Sure, corruption in science happens in some cases. It also doesn't happen in some cases. The world is big enough for more than one way for things to play out. I have to laugh, honestly, when people cite examples of corruption or undue influence by quoting something that is itself blatantly biased. Do people genuinely think we won't notice the juddering irony? I would say it beggars belief if I didn't know precisely why it happened. But I don't mind actually. I don't care. People can say and quote what they like. I'll just be gainsaying them all the way, doing my bit, lest their nonsense threatens to become some kind of default position.


----------



## andrewclunn (Apr 9, 2020)

That's post modern clap trap.  Saying "some do some don't" is soft goal post moving.  There are predictable ways in which institutions are corrupted, in the same way that there are predictable ways in which human pattern recognition and neurological heuristics misfire.  Using institutions as proxies for science, attacking individual cognition and pattern recognition as anecdotal evidence, conflating attacks on those institutions a anti-science, labeling anyone with an iconoclastic view of them as crackpots, and validating that assertion with strawman arguments pointing to the aforementioned dismissal of individual cognition: that's consistent and persistent.  Modern "science" is not empiricism.  It is corrupt institutions claiming the mantle of "science" as being theirs to promote whatever view is being pushed by the special interest groups that own them.  Academics chase funding, which biases not only what they study, but novel experimentation that incentivizes cheating, and disincentivizes reproduction studies to actually verify claims.  I could go on, but basically these people are more marketing specialists and a pseudo-intellectual priest class than scientists.


----------



## epimetheus (Apr 9, 2020)

andrewclunn said:


> Modern "science" is not empiricism.



So there are no experiments being conducted nor data being collected around the world?



andrewclunn said:


> It is corrupt institutions claiming the mantle of "science" as being theirs to promote whatever view is being pushed by the special interest groups that own them.



What special interest groups own them? 

And who is 'them' - the individual labs in universities, the universities themselves, various non-university R&D departments in other branches of the government (mostly military) or companies, the national level organisations (like the Royal Institution), or NGOs? Is it all of them?




andrewclunn said:


> Academics chase funding, which biases not only what they study, but novel experimentation that incentivizes cheating, and disincentivizes reproduction studies to actually verify claims. I could go on, but basically these people are more marketing specialists and a pseudo-intellectual priest class than scientists.



Many people argue having scientists chase funding is a good thing - it means scientists have to prioritise whatever their funders think important- a mix of charity and the people via government. Stops scientists just doing whatever they fancy. Hence cancer research gets a tonne of money while something like MS gets relatively little. Probably a fair balance given how much cancer effects people. What funding model would you suggest that is free from bias?

Are you going to answer any of my questions from before? I'm genuinely interested in this world view.


----------



## Biro (Apr 9, 2020)

bdcharles said:


> And the point I was making can be summed up thus: just because it says something in a partisan website doesn't make it _*universal*_. Sure, corruption in science happens in some cases. It also doesn't happen in some cases. The world is big enough for more than one way for things to play out. I have to laugh, honestly, when people cite examples of corruption or undue influence by quoting something that is itself blatantly biased. Do people genuinely think we won't notice the juddering irony? I would say it beggars belief if I didn't know precisely why it happened. But I don't mind actually. I don't care. People can say and quote what they like. I'll just be gainsaying them all the way, doing my bit, lest their nonsense threatens to become some kind of default position.



I am not arguing and I didnt mean all scientists.  But cigarettes and cancer is just one example.


----------



## Biro (Apr 9, 2020)

epimetheus said:


> Many people argue having scientists chase funding is a good thing - it means scientists have to prioritise whatever their funders think important- a mix of charity and the people via government. Stops scientists just doing whatever they fancy. Hence cancer research gets a tonne of money while something like MS gets relatively little. Probably a fair balance given how much cancer effects people.



People get concerned regards cancer because they know it kills them and everybody knows someone who dies from it.  

MS.  I have only ever personally known two people who suffered from it in my life.  So if I were an example of course I would most likely give to the cancer charities.

But now I think charities or organisations set themselves up saying that they are doing research into cures for whatever.  I think that some do it to get the funding from where ever and pay themselves good money.  They may claim they are close to finding cures for whatever they are researching but in fact very rarely do.  But they do get well paid for messing about with petra dishes at least.

Not a nice thing to say is it I know. But I still fail to see how torturing animals which have no relation to us regards whatever they are researching, will ever give them results.


----------



## epimetheus (Apr 9, 2020)

Biro said:


> But cigarettes and cancer is just one example.




It's an interesting history. We have German population level studies showing a correlation between cancer and smoking, later repeated by UK and US teams. However, correlation is not causation. Around the same time animal models in Argentina and Germany suggested a causal relationship, but it wasn't until a US study in 1953 that it was taken really seriously. It was then that tobacco companies started a campaign to refute these claims. But then there were cellular pathology studies started to track changes in human tissue exposed to tobacco, and the various carcinogens were identified, convincing even the industry scientists, who then found loads more carcinogens. It's now known that industry scientists at this point knew the truth, but would not publicly concede the point. It also took a while for doctors in general to acknowledge the link - medicine is notoriously slow to update itself. There's a really nice history here if anyone wants more details.

So we have an example of independent scientists first finding a correlation, then building a body of evidence. Other scientists openly in pay of tobacco companies tried to refute the evidence but were regarded with a lot of suspicion by other scientists for it  - only the public and some doctors really listened to them. But whether you are a fan of big companies or not, they have a right to defend themselves from these claims. In the end the evidence became sufficient that it couldn't be ignored and the discussion moved from whether it causes cancer to what should be done about it - which then becomes a political issue as we start to consider questions like whether to ban it.

What about this would you change? That we take scientists in pay of companies with vested interests with suspicion? Well that was already happening in the scientific community then. What else would you change?


----------



## Biro (Apr 9, 2020)

What would I change?  Never really thought about it but for a start I would stop the ridiculous testing on animals.  Then I would want the money scrutinized by a body to stop giving it to research organisations that never produce results.

Theres a start.


----------



## epimetheus (Apr 9, 2020)

Biro said:


> People get concerned regards cancer because they know it kills them and everybody knows someone who dies from it.
> 
> MS.  I have only ever personally known two people who suffered from it in my life.  So if I were an example of course I would most likely give to the cancer charities.



And that's a fair enough way to fund it isn't it? Prioritise what effects people. It does mean breast cancer gets loads of research money and prostate cancer hardly any, though they have comparable mortality rates - but if women have mobilised themselves to get the funding, power to them.



Biro said:


> But now I think charities or organisations set themselves up saying that they are doing research into cures for whatever.  I think that some do it to get the funding from where ever and pay themselves good money.  They may claim they are close to finding cures for whatever they are researching but in fact very rarely do.



Charities don't typically employ there own scientists but provide a source of revenues for scientists alongside government funds. Are you disappointed with the results? Mortality rates for cancer are falling all the time. Cancer isn't a single disease so unfortunately there isn't going to a single cure. When you consider humans spend more annually on hair products (~$88 billion) than cancer research (~$10-20 billion - very hard to estimate, does anyone have better figures?) what do you expect?



Biro said:


> But they do get well paid for messing about with petra dishes at least.



How much do you think the average scientist gets paid?



Biro said:


> Not a nice thing to say is it I know. But I still fail to see how torturing animals which have no relation to us regards whatever they are researching, will ever give them results.



Animal research i feel is a different topic, though i am sympathetic to your view. It does get results though - for instance the causative relation of tobacco to cancer was first seen in animals.




Biro said:


> I would want the money scrutinized by a body to stop giving it to research organisations that never produce results



That already exists to a degree - all funding applications are scrutinised and if they are deemed infeasible then the funding is not allocated. If a team consistently fails to get results they'll find it increasingly difficult to get funds.

But then there's a question of how we measure success. Is CERN a success - by confirming the Higgs boson they haven't changed anyone's day-to-day life. But what if this is the start of discovering a theory of quantum gravity that will eventually lead mankind to the stars, developing no end of usable technology on the way - as NASA has.


----------



## Biro (Apr 9, 2020)

I most likely the same as other people have no concern how much anybody gets paid.  I would be happy giving money to someone who does their job and gets results and not to a lab or organisation that just does tests which have probably been done by others many times and years before.  Does this happen?  I have no idea but being a little wise to the world, I imagine it does somewhere.

same goes for animal testing.  Needless tests and repeated.  As for the claim of the relation of tobacco causing health problems was first seen in animals.  Total bollox.  Anybody with one brain cell can see that smokers are different from other people and most smokers have shorter lives.

Talk to any smoker and you revile in disgust at their throaty flem and stench not too mention black teeth and haggard look.

I have yet to see a Beagle roll his own and claim that smoking his brand makes him sexy and gets him more bitches.

I suppose the fact that most asbestos workers dropped dead of the same rare cancer after 20 years was down to rabbits changing the brakes on their cars.

Not forgetting using phosphorus in matches and peoples jaws dropping off their faces was first discovered in chimpanzees lighting a fire.


----------



## hvysmker (Apr 9, 2020)

epimetheus said:


> Is CERN a success - by confirming the Higgs boson they haven't changed anyone's day-to-day life. But what if this is the start of discovering a theory of quantum gravity that will eventually lead mankind to the stars, developing no end of usable technology on the way - as NASA has.



Don't forget that a scientist at CERN gave us the WWWeb. Back in 1990, Tim Birners-Lee ( I can never remember the spelling) gave us the HTM Language and the first translator, the browser. Back in 1992 there were 200 web sites, world wide.  

I built and ran one of the first 300 porno sites around 1995-96. The new Web didn't really become popular until he brought in an "image" statement In 1995 and the "Netscape" browser was released.


----------



## epimetheus (Apr 9, 2020)

Biro said:


> I most likely the same as other people have no concern how much anybody gets paid.  I would be happy giving money to someone who does their job and gets results and not to a lab or organisation that just does tests which have probably been done by others many times and years before.  Does this happen?  I have no idea but being a little wise to the world, I imagine it does somewhere.



The trouble with science is that you're not guaranteed positive results - you wouldn't need to do experiments otherwise. So a number of negative findings are always going to occur - and these are useful knowledge. In terms of repeatability - that's an essential part of the scientific process, you need to make sure that findings weren't a statistical fluke or flawed experimental design.



Biro said:


> same goes for animal testing.  Needless tests and repeated.  As for the claim of the relation of tobacco causing health problems was first seen in animals.  Total bollox.  Anybody with one brain cell can see that smokers are different from other people and most smokers have shorter lives.



Did you read that article on the history of finding the link between cancer and tobacco? You can see for yourself the role animals models played in the discovery.

 It seems obvious now, but people before ~1930 apparently had no idea smoking was bad (a few still even deny it now). Maybe people didn't live long enough to die from it for it be clear in everyday life. In fact it was sometimes advertised as being healthy, same as uranium.


----------



## Biro (Apr 9, 2020)

epimetheus said:


> It seems obvious now, but people before ~1930 apparently had no idea smoking was bad (a few still even deny it now). Maybe people didn't live long enough to die from it for it be clear in everyday life. In fact it was sometimes advertised as being healthy, same as uranium.



No they knew it was bad or they suspected it was bad and the cause of ailments.

But just like many other things where money flashes around and just like your radioactive glowing clock dials.  People were told it was good for them and they had nothing to concern themselves about.

At the very least that is ignorance and accidental to criminal.

Smokers cough.  Most non smokers do not.  People biting their finger nails painted with radium have their teeth and jaw rot away.  Telling them the product is safe to use is no different than claiming tobacco will get you more women and make you sexy.

Or cant you see that?   It makes no odds that a person with an honours degree later forced dogs to smoke 40 fags a day and then cut them open to find their lungs were black and full of tumours..........just like the people who smoked that he had chopped up in the morgue.


----------



## epimetheus (Apr 9, 2020)

Biro said:


> No they knew it was bad or they suspected it was bad and the cause of ailments.
> 
> But just like many other things where money flashes around and just like your radioactive glowing clock dials.  People were told it was good for them and they had nothing to concern themselves about.
> 
> ...



Let me make sure i understand: you think people have always known about the dangers of smoking, let's say from ~1600, but that common people were swindled into believing it was actually OK for them, by companies and scientists? And then later some different scientists swindled money out of the government to perform tests on animals to show that in fact smoking was damaging?


----------



## Biro (Apr 9, 2020)

epimetheus said:


> Let me make sure i understand: you think people have always known about the dangers of smoking, let's say from ~1600, but that common people were swindled into believing it was actually OK for them, by companies and scientists? And then later some different scientists swindled money out of the government to perform tests on animals to show that in fact smoking was damaging?



No I am not saying that.  But what I am saying is people although not educated may not really be stupid and they see the link between things.  So should we really be saying......Are you saying that for nearly 400 years that people could not see the link between coughing your guts up, stinking like an ashtray, black teeth and people dying a painful death of throat, mouth and chest ailments?

It beggers belief that in nearly 400 years somebody somewhere couldn't see those similarities.

But actually they did thanks to my dads obsession with WW2 and Hitler.  I remember the Nazi's were totally against smoking.  Would all this be before your scientists and their puffing Beagles?

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tobacco_movement_in_Nazi_Germany


----------



## bdcharles (Apr 9, 2020)

andrewclunn said:


> That's post modern clap trap.  Saying "some do some don't" is soft goal post moving.
> 
> ...
> 
> Modern "science" is not empiricism.  It is corrupt institutions claiming the mantle of "science" as being theirs to promote whatever view is being pushed by the special interest groups that own them.



In every single case bar none?


----------



## epimetheus (Apr 9, 2020)

Biro said:


> No I am not saying that.  But what I am saying is people although not educated may not really be stupid and they see the link between things.  So should we really be saying......Are you saying that for nearly 400 years that people could not see the link between coughing your guts up, stinking like an ashtray, black teeth and people dying a painful death of throat, mouth and chest ailments?
> 
> It beggers belief that in nearly 400 years somebody somewhere couldn't see those similarities.



If people knew it was harmful there should be mentions of it somewhere - it art or literature for instance. I couldn't see any mention of associations of ill health and smoking - though there is plenty of smoking in general represented. I couldn't find any mentions in literature - might use the excuse to read some Dickens. Do you know of any mentions in historical documents, literature art - or any where else you can think of it might get mentioned?

We are talking about a time when people didn't know germs existed and miasmas were thought to cause ailments. Also the average person with lung cancer is diagnosed ~65, whereas life expectancy was ~45 in Victorian times, and less the further we go back. Maybe people realised that it gave you bad teeth and breathe - but it doesn't follow that they cause lung cancer. 

Didn't know about the Nazis and smoking. The animal experiments started about half a decade before the Nazi crackdown.


----------



## Irwin (Apr 9, 2020)

We have people claiming that science is corrupt and then using an opinion article from a conspiracy website as their "proof."


----------



## Biro (Apr 9, 2020)

epimetheus said:


> If people knew it was harmful there should be mentions of it somewhere - it art or literature for instance. I couldn't see any mention of associations of ill health and smoking - though there is plenty of smoking in general represented. I couldn't find any mentions in literature - might use the excuse to read some Dickens. Do you know of any mentions in historical documents, literature art - or any where else you can think of it might get mentioned?
> 
> We are talking about a time when people didn't know germs existed and miasmas were thought to cause ailments. Also the average person with lung cancer is diagnosed ~65, whereas life expectancy was ~45 in Victorian times, and less the further we go back. Maybe people realised that it gave you bad teeth and breathe - but it doesn't follow that they cause lung cancer.
> 
> Didn't know about the Nazis and smoking. The animal experiments started about half a decade before the Nazi crackdown.



No tobacco and sugar were products that the rich sought and used.  Just like the sheep that follow celebs habits today.  In times gone by the poor spent their hard earned cash on such products.  Tobacco was supposed to be a cure and healthy.  For a time at least.

In comparison.  Asbestos was once known as white gold such was it a money earner.........for some.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Apr 9, 2020)

Biro said:


> I am not arguing and I didnt mean all scientists.  But cigarettes and cancer is just one example.



Agreed, the tobacco industry has behaved atrociously at times, but there is a sting in the tail of this example. German scientists made that association back in the 1940's, and their findings were dismissed because they were Nazis. This had the result that a good few thousand people died before the statistics were studied again in the 1950's. There were some pretty terrible Nazi scientists, but simply being a Nazi does not make someone a bad scientist, one should be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.


----------



## Biro (Apr 9, 2020)

Olly Buckle said:


> Agreed, the tobacco industry has behaved atrociously at times, but there is a sting in the tail of this example. German scientists made that association back in the 1940's, and their findings were dismissed because they were Nazis. This had the result that a good few thousand people died before the statistics were studied again in the 1950's. There were some pretty terrible Nazi scientists, but simply being a Nazi does not make someone a bad scientist, one should be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.



Amazing how the 'Good Old USA' carted the Nazi scientists off to the New World if they were dismissed as being wrong and not worth their salt before then?


----------



## Olly Buckle (Apr 9, 2020)

Biro said:


> Amazing how the 'Good Old USA' carted the Nazi scientists off to the New World if they were dismissed as being wrong and not worth their salt before then?



Firstly I doubt very much that any German scientist doing research into the connection between cancer and smoking ever made it to America. The US was interested in a particular set of skills.
The thread is about the relationship between belief systems and disease avoidance/recovery. There is a link in the OP to a Quack medicine site and the contention is that belief can affect infection. As is usual in such cases anecdotal evidence of individual recovery is quoted, such evidence is not at all reliable. Reliable scientific evidence is based on many observations. In the case of smoking/cancer the relationship did not become clear at all easily, though once established it seems obvious, hardly anyone who does not smoke gets lung cancer. My point is that the belief system in the superiority of the Aryan race did not colour the results of the work. I doubt very much that anyone has ever done the statistical work needed to support the claim in the OP link that eating mushrooms to boost the immune system will keep you safe. It was probably initially a simple assertation from a mushroom salesman, and the probability is that it is backed up by little more than belief and anecdotal evidence. There will always be some people who recover from anything, the fact that they behaved in a certain way or held certain beliefs is unlikely to have any significance beyond coincidence. Science does not investigate the claims of people like homeopaths anymore, not because of what they represent, but because past investigations have shown their claims to be false on the whole, they do not become more believable because they change the unsupported (except by belief) claims.


----------



## Biro (Apr 10, 2020)

Olly Buckle said:


> Firstly I doubt very much that any German scientist doing research into the connection between cancer and smoking ever made it to America. The US was interested in a particular set of skills.
> The thread is about the relationship between belief systems and disease avoidance/recovery. There is a link in the OP to a Quack medicine site and the contention is that belief can affect infection. As is usual in such cases anecdotal evidence of individual recovery is quoted, such evidence is not at all reliable. Reliable scientific evidence is based on many observations. In the case of smoking/cancer the relationship did not become clear at all easily, though once established it seems obvious, hardly anyone who does not smoke gets lung cancer. My point is that the belief system in the superiority of the Aryan race did not colour the results of the work. I doubt very much that anyone has ever done the statistical work needed to support the claim in the OP link that eating mushrooms to boost the immune system will keep you safe. It was probably initially a simple assertation from a mushroom salesman, and the probability is that it is backed up by little more than belief and anecdotal evidence. There will always be some people who recover from anything, the fact that they behaved in a certain way or held certain beliefs is unlikely to have any significance beyond coincidence. Science does not investigate the claims of people like homeopaths anymore, not because of what they represent, but because past investigations have shown their claims to be false on the whole, they do not become more believable because they change the unsupported (except by belief) claims.



Very true Ollie and back on track my points are..........That people knew/realised/suspected that after time 'things' were doing us harm.  It didnt take a scientist to tell us.  What did happen was those who benefitted from those 'things' told us a different story and may have even used their money to alter/suppress any damaging findings.

Regards the OP............While we cannot prove their claims are incorrect, we cannot prove that they work either.  But we do know that eating proper nutritional food will help protect from disease and ailments.  

Side tracked to the naughty scientists of the once Master Race..........Those scientists who performed all those human scientific tests on humans were most possibly doing it for science and not for any superioty thinking.   Those scientists and their tests on humans may have discovered vital information we may even use today.  The Nazi's possibly thought that testing on animals was pointless and misleading and they needed positive and precise tests for exact results in the name of science.  So experiment on humans.  (Does that make sense?)  Those Nazi scientists were condemned as monsters.  

Scientists may do the same and similar and even more horrific tests on defenceless animals today. Yet those experiments may be pointless and just for money.  Also their science in some cases may be flawed because animal tests give different results in humans.  Law makers do not condemn these scientists as monsters and imprison them or more.

Funny old world innit.


----------



## Ma'am (Apr 12, 2020)

Covid-19 deaths in the US are expected to peak today, Easter Sunday, a day after the peak in hospital resource use. That's what I read, anyway. But that model assumes people will stay on lockdown until the end of May.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Apr 12, 2020)

Ma'am said:


> Covid-19 deaths in the US are expected to peak today, Easter Sunday, a day after the peak in hospital resource use. That's what I read, anyway. But that model assumes people will stay on lockdown until the end of May.


And that nice Mr Trump thought it would be all over by Easter and you could all enjoy going to church. It seems his belief systems have little relation to the reality of covid19. Why does this not surprise me?


----------



## Biro (Apr 12, 2020)

Olly Buckle said:


> And that nice Mr Trump thought it would be all over by Easter and you could all enjoy going to church. It seems his belief systems have little relation to the reality of covid19. Why does this not surprise me?



Because Ollie he has been no different than every one else.  He just hoped or peddled that this thing would be a flash in the pan and our lives will be back to norm very soon. It's a way of giving hope and averting doom.

But in reality if you havent realised it by now.  The life you took for granted before has now gone  and a different life awaits you from now on.  There will be no more foreign trips abroad for your hols.  Cheap goods from China will be no more as countries dump them.  I see Japan is now paying its companies to relocate back to Japan. More countries will follow.   Airlines and tourist destinations, cruise companies will be in ruins by the summer ends.

Etc etc with more of everything you liked gone forever maybe?  So far they have averted civil unrest or not reported it.  The stories of unreported deaths and hidden death totals appear to have some truth now.  Will we just stumble on to where we have to reset the monetary system as well?  As apparently we have at least 3 strains of this virus out of China now.

Blaming a political figure you dislike will not make any difference to this and is actually very boring to everybody as is listening to the doom and gloom.

But if you have all the 'answers'.  The floor is yours.


----------



## dither (Apr 12, 2020)

Deleted. Best not get involved imo.


----------



## Biro (Apr 12, 2020)

dither said:


> Deleted. Best not get involved imo.



No please do.  I would rather you slag me off and rip me to pieces than others.  It would probably be very entertaining and amusing.  Say anything you like my skin is like a Rhino's and the face not much better.:stupid:


----------



## epimetheus (Apr 12, 2020)

Biro said:


> But in reality if you havent realised it by now.  The life you took for granted before has now gone  and a different life awaits you from now on.  There will be no more foreign trips abroad for your hols.  Cheap goods from China will be no more as countries dump them.  I see Japan is now paying its companies to relocate back to Japan. More countries will follow.   Airlines and tourist destinations, cruise companies will be in ruins by the summer ends.



Or in a year or two herd immunity will have developed, Covid-19 will become a seasonal flu, like the other coronaviruses, a vaccine will have been added to the arsenal, and the life will go on much as it had before. Just like after the numerous of pandemics that have afflicted civilisation for thousands of years. The economic repercussions might reverberate longer, but economic collapses are also part of the life cycle of civilisations.


----------



## Biro (Apr 12, 2020)

epimetheus said:


> Or in a year or two herd immunity will have developed, Covid-19 will become a seasonal flu, like the other coronaviruses, a vaccine will have been added to the arsenal, and the life will go on much as it had before. Just like after the numerous of pandemics that have afflicted civilisation for thousands of years. The economic repercussions might reverberate longer, but economic collapses are also part of the life cycle of civilisations.



I really really hope so.


----------



## Irwin (Apr 12, 2020)

Months from now, the novel coronavirus will have mutated into a digital manifestation, and people will be infected through their cell phones and computers. Not only will we need nose and mouth protection, we'll also need ear and eye protection. Cows and chickens will be infected, but show no signs. Instead, covid-19 will lie dormant in their muscles until the meat is cooked and ingested by humans. Corn and wheat will also be carriers when the plants and virus have been genetically modified through evolutionary amalgamation. No food will be safe to eat except for tofu and other soybean products, which have a natural repellent to the virus.

Now that you have been exposed to the truth, I shall remove my aluminum foil hat and go about my day.


----------



## Biro (Apr 12, 2020)

Well in tonights news (if it is true).

People who have been infected are proving positive for the virus again after they have recovered.

The peak in the virus hasn't come as expected and a second wave is making the peak to be delayed.  So I think that means more or longer lock down?

More calls for China to pay for all this economic damage.  But what about the people who have died?  Aren't they responsible for those people as well?

The herd immunity in 12 months or two years epimetheus mentions may be correct but the worlds economies and your pensions and savings will have long dissolved by then.

The vaccine I think is the best bet but the last type of plague virus like the African ebola has no vaccine and the Middle Eastern Mers virus has no vaccine.  The last virus which killed en-mass Aids.  We treat but have no vaccine for that either after discovering it nearly 40 years ago.

We live in hope.

On a brighter note it will be sunny here tomorrow and rest of week.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Apr 12, 2020)

The world is always different, nothing is ever just the same, virus or no virus.
Some people are thinking 'What can we do to help all those affected by this?' Others are thinking 'How can I make a profit out of all this?', still others, 'How can this alter the social world to give me and mine a long term advantage?'


----------



## dither (Apr 13, 2020)

Everything changes and yet everything stays the same.


----------



## Amnesiac (Apr 13, 2020)

I've had to give up snorting coke off of Walmart toilet seats, but hey, we all have to make sacrifices, right? If anyone needs me, I'll just be at the Piggly Wiggly, licking the shopping cart handles.


----------



## Ma'am (Apr 13, 2020)

I'm wondering if the shutdowns will continue as-is until the end of May or if they'll start opening things back up after April with precautions like testing and temperature-taking. The US projection I keep seeing says the peak is going on now, more or less, but that's assuming the shutdowns do continue until the end of May. Personally, I'll probably stay in as much as possible either way but I am curious about what comes next.


----------



## Terry D (Apr 14, 2020)

Biro said:


> More calls for China to pay for all this economic damage.  But what about the people who have died?  Aren't they responsible for those people as well?



Placing blame for a virus makes as much sense as placing blame for an asteroid impact.


----------



## andrewclunn (Apr 14, 2020)

Terry D said:


> Placing blame for a virus makes as much sense as placing blame for an asteroid impact.



Assuming that this was a naturally occurring virus, and that the spread of ti wasn't intentionally suppressed by the government to ensure that money wouldn't be lost via closed down trade and travel... or worse yet to ensure that other nations would also be infected so that instead of being a Chinese recession, it would be a global one, so as not to hinder their economic accent.  But nah, I trust my international health organizations and media conglomerates.  China is trustworthy and super helpful!  I'm such an informed believer in science!


----------



## Biro (Apr 14, 2020)

Terry D said:


> Placing blame for a virus makes as much sense as placing blame for an asteroid impact.



Yeah but you can't let them bloody Martians get away with it.  You never know where it could lead.

I was just reporting news reports of that day.  But if it did escape from a Chinese lab which was working from American money (another news report that day).  Then who ought to give the rest of the world compo.  China or America?


----------



## PiP (Apr 14, 2020)

Biro said:


> Y
> I was just reporting news reports of that day.  But if it did escape from a Chinese lab which was working from American money (another news report that day).  Then who ought to give the rest of the world compo.  China or America?



Wouldn't believe everything you hear/read on the news.


----------



## Biro (Apr 14, 2020)

PiP said:


> Wouldn't believe everything you hear/read on the news.




I hardly believe anything I read in the news Pip.  I was just making light of what was there at that day.  Nearly every post I make has some kind of humour in it but people just see what they want.


----------



## PiP (Apr 14, 2020)

Biro said:


> I hardly believe anything I read in the news Pip.  I was just making light of what was there at that day.  Nearly every post I make has some kind of humour in it but people just see what they want.



Humour is like eating snails .... it is an acquired taste. British humour often doesn't translate.


----------



## Biro (Apr 14, 2020)

PiP said:


> Humour is like eating snails .... it is an acquired taste. British humour often doesn't translate.



Especially if you meet a German.  Oh no I did it again.:razz:


----------



## dither (Apr 14, 2020)

PiP said:


> Humour is like eating snails .... it is an acquired taste. British humour often doesn't translate.



Pip, I'm not sure about the comparison with eating snails but  , all of my working-life up until about fifteen years ago I'd worked in various jobs very close to home,  then I took a job about eight or nine miles away, and it seemed as though I'd transferred  to another planet. The peoples' sense of humour, their whole mentality was totally alien to me. It was quite a shock actually.


----------



## Biro (Apr 14, 2020)

dither said:


> Pip, I'm not sure about the comparison with eating snails but  , all of my working-life up until about fifteen years ago I'd worked in various jobs very close to home,  then I took a job about eight or nine miles away, and it seemed as though I'd transferred  to another planet. The peoples' sense of humour, their whole mentality was totally alien to me. It was quite a shock actually.



Thats funny.


----------



## Terry D (Apr 14, 2020)

Biro said:


> Yeah but you can't let them bloody Martians get away with it.  You never know where it could lead.
> 
> I was just reporting news reports of that day.  But if it did escape from a Chinese lab which was working from American money (another news report that day).  Then who ought to give the rest of the world compo.  China or America?



No one owes anyone compensation. This is from an article from the National Institute of Health. The entire article can be found here. 

No matter where you go online these days, there’s bound to be discussion of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Some folks are even making outrageous claims that the new coronavirus causing the pandemic was engineered in a lab and deliberately released to make people sick. A new study debunks such claims by providing scientific evidence that this novel coronavirus arose naturally.
The reassuring findings are the result of genomic analyses conducted by an international research team, partly supported by NIH. In their study in the journal _Nature Medicine_, Kristian Andersen, Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, CA; Robert Garry, Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans; and their colleagues used sophisticated bioinformatic tools to compare publicly available genomic data from several coronaviruses, including the new one that causes COVID-19.


----------



## dither (Apr 14, 2020)

Biro said:


> Thats funny.........try moving from a big major industrial city to a backwoods almost cut off place that had very few newcomers and every family is related.  i can tell you I went down a storm.  Especially as I always take the piss or make fun of everything.  The most confusing thing for them was when I made fun of myself.  They really couldn't get that and some became quite offended.........which of course just encouraged me more.
> 
> Self isolation is water off a ducks back to me....I am well used to it  25 years of it..



Biro, I cracked jokes, laughed at things that I found funny and they'd wonder what the hell I was laughing about.


----------



## Biro (Apr 14, 2020)

Terry D said:


> No one owes anyone compensation. This is from an article from the National Institute of Health. The entire article can be found here.
> 
> No matter where you go online these days, there’s bound to be discussion of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Some folks are even making outrageous claims that the new coronavirus causing the pandemic was engineered in a lab and deliberately released to make people sick. A new study debunks such claims by providing scientific evidence that this novel coronavirus arose naturally.
> The reassuring findings are the result of genomic analyses conducted by an international research team, partly supported by NIH. In their study in the journal _Nature Medicine_, Kristian Andersen, Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, CA; Robert Garry, Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans; and their colleagues used sophisticated bioinformatic tools to compare publicly available genomic data from several coronaviruses, including the new one that causes COVID-19.



No you could be wrong.  Because if it can only be spread from person to person then that means the airlines are responsible.   :congratulatory:


----------



## Biro (Apr 14, 2020)

dither said:


> Biro, I cracked jokes, laughed at things that I found funny and they'd wonder what the hell I was laughing about.



eaceful:


----------



## John Oberon (Apr 19, 2020)

News flash. Everyone (even you!) will die of something, and there's not a darn thing anyone can do about it. However, it's always a comfort to some to believe (erroneously) they have some kind of control over death.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Apr 19, 2020)

John Oberon said:


> News flash. Everyone (even you!) will die of something, and there's not a darn thing anyone can do about it. However, it's always a comfort to some to believe (erroneously) they have some kind of control over death.



Almost true. Everyone has died of something so far, so it seems probable we will too. We can postpone it, at least four things that would have killed me a hundred years ago have happened to me, and that is normal. The average age has increased enormously, seventy odd years ago when the old age pension was introduced only a third of working men lived to sixty to claim it. And it is possible to have some control over death, it can be deliberately precipitated even more easily than it can be postponed.

Take your point though, and if we are going to die we had best get on with some serious living while we have the chance.


----------



## clark (Apr 19, 2020)

What the hell--lots of other posts have been anecdotal, so permit me a couple. How about those cases where genes (I can think of no other factor) insulate a carrier from his own bad habits? My great-grandfather and his brothers had a HUGE tract of wheat land in northern Manitoba in the late 1800s--I believe it was close to 20 sections (about 13,000 acres). Grandpa worked like a dog all his life. His physical strength, resilience, and stamina were amazing. He got up at about 4:30 every morning, worked with animals and machinery until about 7:00, then came in the house for a breakfast of eggs, ham, sausage, hash browns, and coffee. Ton of sugar in his coffee. After breakfast he'd go to his study, maybe with a brother, drink half of his third coffee, fill the mug with rye whiskey and during the 30 minutes he was in there, he'd smoke three cigarettes. After dinner (steak or roast or  fried chicken or pork chops, heaps of mash and gravy, apple or berry pie, he'd sit with grandma or his sons, drink half a bottle of whiskey and chain-smoke. Day in and out. Had his appendix out and broke both his legs and caved in some ribs for a total of four times in hospital, life long. Never saw a doctor, except when he broke parts of himself. Never had a physical check-up or submitted a blood or urine test or had a chest X-ray.  Never took a holiday. Went to Winnipeg twice. Didn't like it.Was killed in a tractor accident at the age of 96. 

And a dear friend of mine quit smoking and drinking in his 40s, got lots of sleep, walked, cycled, exercised, _studied _foods and nutrition, did everything right . . .and dropped dead of a massive heart attack at the age of 59. I have read articles by geneticists who argue that with the union of two of the right sets of genes it doesn't seem to matter what abuse you subject yourself to, you will live a long and healthy life. 

Stay away from tractors.


----------



## Xander416 (Apr 21, 2020)

clark said:


> Stay away from tractors.


Don't worry, once we've made guns totally illegal, we'll be coming for the tractors.


----------



## dither (Apr 21, 2020)

clark said:


> I have read articles by geneticists who argue that with the union of two of the right sets of genes it doesn't seem to matter what abuse you subject yourself to, you will live a long and healthy life.



I've always held similar views clark. It's in the genes. Maybe that ties in with another credo of mine that " what doesn't kill you makes you stronger ". Booze, smoking, gluttony, in many cases,   cultivates and strengthens tolerances  imo. And then, for others, booze, smoking,  some foods even, can, and DO, kill.

Well? That's MY take on it anyway.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Apr 21, 2020)

On the other hand apart from a few asbestos workers almost everyone who gets lung cancer does or has smoked tobacco.

Tractors are dangerous things, I used to work for a lady whose husband had died in a tractor accident and whose son had inhaled a wasp and been stung in the throat whilst ploughing, died before he could get help.


----------



## Xander416 (Apr 21, 2020)

Olly Buckle said:


> Tractors are dangerous things, I used to work for a lady whose husband had died in a tractor accident and whose son had inhaled a wasp and been stung in the throat whilst ploughing, died before he could get help.


All heavy machinery is. My dad was a silage packer and one of the companies he worked for had a horrific accident where a chopper driver got out to clear a jammed blade, but didn't shut the machine down, and when he loosened the corn stalk that had jammed the blade, it pulled him right in and out he came through the chute in pieces no bigger than a quarter.


----------



## River Rose (Apr 23, 2020)

Covid is in the air.
Not breathable 
yet...
contagious. 
A minds receptor 
Lungs...yes
A restructuring of the mind.
Bad dreams
Lucidness to where we do not want to go.


----------



## Amnesiac (Apr 23, 2020)

I plan to live forever. So far, so good!


----------



## Neetu (Apr 23, 2020)

Forever? What is that???


----------



## BornForBurning (Apr 23, 2020)

> but didn't shut the machine down


'caught between' 
those words are torture porn for people who've read the OSHA statistics on work-related deaths.


----------



## River Rose (Apr 23, 2020)

Amnesiac said:


> I plan to live forever. So far, so good!


Lol. No spanks you...


----------



## Terry D (Apr 23, 2020)

Olly Buckle said:


> On the other hand apart from a few asbestos workers almost everyone who gets lung cancer does or has smoked tobacco.



It may be different on your side of the pond but, according to the American Cancer Society, about 20% of all lung cancer deaths are in people who never smoked.


----------



## Ma'am (Apr 23, 2020)

I read that anywhere from forty to seventy percent of deaths are lifestyle-related, which sounds right to me. 

So there's plenty to do to increase the odds of living longer. I think I'm pretty well on track with good habits for the most part but it took me a looong time to get here. The main one I see that I still need to work on now is exercise. If it's true that sitting is the new smoking, I'm toast. :/


----------



## Xander416 (Apr 23, 2020)

Terry D said:


> It may be different on your side of the pond but, according to the American Cancer Society, about 20% of all lung cancer deaths are in people who never smoked.


And the other 80%? :-k


----------



## Biro (Apr 23, 2020)

Ma'am said:


> I read that anywhere from forty to seventy percent of deaths are lifestyle-related, which sounds right to me.
> 
> So there's plenty to do to increase the odds of living longer. I think I'm pretty well on track with good habits for the most part but it took me a looong time to get here. The main one I see that I still need to work on now is exercise. If it's true that sitting is the new smoking, I'm toast. :/



Yeah but what have the snail cream for?   That's what we want to know.


----------



## Amnesiac (Apr 23, 2020)

Personally, I like to squish the snail cream between my toes. LOL


----------



## Olly Buckle (Apr 23, 2020)

Terry D said:


> It may be different on your side of the pond but, according to the American Cancer Society, about 20% of all lung cancer deaths are in people who never smoked.



The estimates over here seem to be between ten an fifteen percent. A large portion of that is ascribed to passive smoking, the risk goes up considerably if your partner smokes for instance. Other than that the blame is mainly put on asbestos, diesel engine particulates, and radon gas it seems. Hopefully we should be getting on top of all three of them.


----------



## River Rose (Apr 23, 2020)

The leading cause of death is...
birth/life


----------



## Biro (Apr 26, 2020)

dither said:


> Biro, I cracked jokes, laughed at things that I found funny and they'd wonder what the hell I was laughing about.



Well I posted this on another topic a week ago now and nobody found it funny .......... _Its spring now here so we can eat some natural wild foods as soon as we can get out to supplement our lock down diet.

Have to be careful though as I have been married 3 times and my first 2 wives died.

The first one died from eating mushrooms.

Then later my second wife died from a fractured skull. ..................She wouldn't eat the mushrooms.

_Perhaps it's just me.:geek:


----------



## dither (Apr 29, 2020)

MUSHROOMS!:cheers:.

Why didn't I think of that.:-k


----------



## Olly Buckle (Apr 29, 2020)

dither said:


> MUSHROOMS!:cheers:.
> 
> Why didn't I think of that.:-k



Keep the liberty caps for yourself, don't want to go giving anyone ideas.


----------



## Biro (Apr 29, 2020)

Olly Buckle said:


> Keep the liberty caps for yourself, don't want to go giving anyone ideas.



Olly we were hitting the red that night and watching probably the best one.  'Carry on Camping' and that mushroom joke was from there.  51 years old.


----------



## Olly Buckle (May 9, 2020)

Seems there are some fairly far out beliefs about the pandemic and conspiracy theorists have been having a field day. Now it seems facebook and youtube have both started removing such material. Now, I am not for one minute saying I subscribe to this nonsense, but why shouldn't people be free to talk nonsense? Discussion of where it arrived from and how it is being dealt with might be ill informed, but I don't see that it should therefore be censored, people are always talking rubbish about all sorts of things, so what? 

Finding out that they were being censored almost gives them credibility.


----------



## Winston (May 9, 2020)

> ...but why shouldn't people be free to talk nonsense?



Oh, Lord knows I try.  But then the ignorance shamers want to shut me up, and lower my self-esteem.  My parents work hard for years, heaping participation ribbons on me.  Now I've been triggered.  

Seriously, YouTube now removes all content with the words "coronavirus" or "Covid-19".  Congrats.  WF is a bastion of free-speech and independent thought... compared to _that_.


----------



## Olly Buckle (May 10, 2020)

One of my beliefs is that I should be cautious about providing personal information on line. Another is that people conducting respectable scientific research should be supported. That leads to a bit of a dichotomy.

There is a professor Tim Spector at Kings college who is running a Covid Symptom study app. (Not to be confused with the Govt. location app that I wouldn't touch with a bargepole) and I can't make my mind up whether to sign up for it. At the moment I am following the 'safe' option of 'do nothing', but I wonder if any of the younger members who are more systems savvy can help me make my mind up for or against?


----------



## Ma'am (May 10, 2020)

Olly Buckle said:


> One of my beliefs is that I should be cautious about providing personal information on line. Another is that people conducting respectable scientific research should be supported. That leads to a bit of a dichotomy.
> 
> There is a professor Tim Spector at Kings college who is running a Covid Symptom study app. (Not to be confused with the Govt. location app that I wouldn't touch with a bargepole) and I can't make my mind up whether to sign up for it. At the moment I am following the 'safe' option of 'do nothing', but I wonder if any of the younger members who are more systems savvy can help me make my mind up for or against?



I'm not especially tech savvy so fwiw... I wouldn't worry about signing up for the study you mention but I would be worried that they'd want me to take a Covid-19 test. From what I've heard and unless they've got an updated version now, the testing is quite unpleasant. They put a long swab into your throat via your nose. Yikes.

I am sometimes concerned about how some of the younger ones seem more likely to put out all sorts of private info. on forums and such without a thought. If someone was thinking that way, they could easily just trace through their posts and get a huge amount of personal info. about them.


----------



## Olly Buckle (May 10, 2020)

I just watched an NHS video of how to take the swab for a self test kit. Using a mirror, through the mouth you rub across the tonsil area, then insert up the nose about an inch until you meet resistance and rotate. Lots of extra stuff about keeping it clean and not touching anything else, but the swab does *not* go through the nose to the back of the throat, they are done separately. If you are offered the test don't worry, Ma'am, it looks pretty straightforward and painless.


----------



## dither (May 12, 2020)

Olly Buckle said:


> I just watched an NHS video of how to take the swab for a self test kit. Using a mirror, through the mouth you rub across the tonsil area, then insert up the nose about an inch until you meet resistance and rotate. Lots of extra stuff about keeping it clean and not touching anything else, but the swab does *not* go through the nose to the back of the throat, they are done separately. If you are offered the test don't worry, Ma'am, it looks pretty straightforward and painless.



I've been offered it, I keep phoning their freephone number and can't get through. I'm not able to e-mail.


----------



## ppsage (May 16, 2020)

Winston said:


> Oh, …………………………………..
> Seriously, YouTube now removes all content with the words "coronavirus" or "Covid-19".  Congrats.  WF is a bastion ......................................_that_.



I don't think this is true. I watch You-Tube a lot, and I hear those words a lot. I guess You-Tube tends to demonetize posts containing words currently hot in the news, (especially, apparently, the more technical sounding ones, if you want to believe blancoliero, which I sort of do, even though he's sometimes blatantly conservative,) and I've seen other posters say they're careful not to use them for that reason (camping and bush-crafting folks mostly.)


----------



## Ma'am (May 16, 2020)

Well, I'm not for censoring unless it's just not allowing crazy and dangerous misinformation, but tbh, on TV, I'm sick of them cutting in to blab on and say the same things every damn day. Dr. Phil is important! Or at least fun to make fun of...


----------



## Winston (May 16, 2020)

ppsage said:


> ... I guess You-Tube tends to demonetize posts containing words currently hot in the news...


You sir, are correct, and I mis-spoke.  I was thinking demonetizing.  
But in the end, that is the most efficient form of censorship:  Self-censorship.  Speak what you see as the truth, or lose your livelihood.  That is quite the choice.


----------



## ppsage (May 17, 2020)

If you are saying that You-Tube, as a profit-orientated business, has undue influence over what is in actuality a public utility, then I definitely agree. Otherwise, I don't think they're all that awful, at least for a private, commercial enterprise.


----------



## Biro (May 17, 2020)

ppsage said:


> If you are saying that You-Tube, as a profit-orientated business, has undue influence over what is in actuality a public utility, then I definitely agree. Otherwise, I don't think they're all that awful, at least for a private, commercial enterprise.


Youtube is Google.  They have a political agenda that suits them while they make billions.  They do what they like at present.


----------



## Olly Buckle (May 17, 2020)

It had been my belief that we had a universal health system; that , by law, the NHS provided health care to all who needed it regardless.
If you are in a 'care' home it seems you will receive no care, you will not be admitted to hospital and GPs will not visit, Perhaps someone should inform Médecins Sans Frontières. Seriously, is this even legal?


----------



## Biro (May 17, 2020)

Olly Buckle said:


> It had been my belief that we had a universal health system; that , by law, the NHS provided health care to all who needed it regardless.
> If you are in a 'care' home it seems you will receive no care, you will not be admitted to hospital and GPs will not visit, Perhaps someone should inform Médecins Sans Frontières. Seriously, is this even legal?



Correct Olly.  It was also the reason why you paid your National Insurance stamp every week.  But then if the NHS uses it's resources to treat people who have never paid this contribution, then they will have no time or money left for those who do and have complied with the NI contribution will they?  So Care Home oldies will never get what they paid for.


----------



## Olly Buckle (May 17, 2020)

And then they are talking about sending small children back to school, they are going to keep them separated. Good luck with that. Seriously, again, keeping small children separate and allowing no physical contact for eight hours a day so their parents can go back to work and create wealth amounts to cruelty in my book; even if none of them die; which a good few will.
Still, without the elderly or children to worry about the rest of you will be able to work longer hours, there is always a silver lining.


----------



## dither (May 17, 2020)

I wonder Mr.Buckle, I wonder. So many ponderables.


----------



## Xander416 (May 17, 2020)

Olly Buckle said:


> then insert up the nose about an inch until you meet resistance and rotate.


You know what, I think I'll pass on that. But you have fun with it, champ. :wink2:


----------

