T-Bone

Thanks for that link – and great stuff in just the first two paragraphs: “New research in Psychological Science provides evidence that belief updating is proportional to the magnitude of prediction error. In other words, people are more likely to update their beliefs after learning that there is a large gap between what they (falsely) thought was true and what is in fact true, but are relatively less likely to update their beliefs when the gap is small. The findings suggest that the element of surprise could play a role in reducing the spread of misinformation. “Designing and testing belief change strategies is a research direction I became interested in after several large-scale misinformation campaigns were deployed around the world, with long-term disastrous consequences. In our work, my collaborators and I are looking for tools policy makers can use to fight misinformation by changing false beliefs in vulnerable communities,” explained Madalina Vlasceanu, a postdoctoral research fellow at New York University and the corresponding author of the new study.” There’s two critical issues that the above article does NOT address: 1. What if there is NOT outstanding or obvious big differences between what one thinks and what is actually true? That would probably require a discipline of nuanced thinking - where one has to exercise extreme care to recognize and understand the finer points of distinction and to be more detail-oriented in their observations. What comes to mind is how some folks were impressed by Bullinger/wierwille’s teaching of the 4 crucified with Jesus - falling for the piecemeal narrative concocted out of the 4 Gospels and the mangling of some Greek words. Whereas a person more familiar with the Bible than your typical PFAL student and having a concern for and an appreciation of the integrity of ancient literature would probably realize wierwille’s sleight of hand deception. 2. On the other hand, what if there are obvious big differences - but they are not perceived as obvious big differences by the person - that is perhaps a sign of cult-mentality. To ask the question another way - why would a cult-follower refuse to change their belief about something? What is/are the reason(s) that a person refuses to resolve a cognitive dissonance? Especially if it could cause more problems – for example, it leads the person to justify or rationalize behaviors that could be harmful to themselves and/or others. And if – for whatever reason - a person doesn’t want to fix the cognitive dissonance – what would be the consequences? Would they feel miserable? Frustrated? How would they go about fixing THAT ? If one couldn’t fix it – maybe there’s something to soothe the pain…I thought of the expression “misery loves company” – which may explain in part why some diehard cult-followers are fervent recruiters. “Misery loves company because in a profound state of feeling alone we pull in anyone who gets caught in our vortex. We do not wish to leave each other to pain but also we are often not sure how to sooth it either. One sure way is to feel it with them. resonate with them. Now two people are clearing out the tissue box. People are beautiful. We do care so much for each other when we allow ourselves to. Beautiful… but completely toxic and unhealthy. To say misery loves company is a poetic little reminder that to break this tide you can’t go with the flow. We have to actively hurl a neutralizing component as salve. I don’t say positivity because if you’ve ever been miserable positivity can feel condescending and unattainable. We must defy the thoughts, we must learn to listen with compassion to others without needing to bring their misery home. They do not need our alliance they need our compassion.” from: Quora: What does misery loves company mean? The article How Cults Like QAnon Respond to Embarrassing Failures gets into that 'misery loves company' idea too: “…The first person I spoke with was Laurence Moore, a retired Cornell University history professor who’s the author or co-author of five books on American religion including Religious Outsiders and the Making of Americans. (Disclosure: He was my faculty adviser.) Moore harked back to “the Great Disappointment” of Oct. 22, 1844, when the world disappointingly didn’t end, contrary to the confident prediction of the Baptist preacher William Miller. “When something doesn’t happen on the original schedule, a variety of things can happen,” Moore said. “One of them, some will just drop out. Others will be more fervent in their belief, change the date it’s going to happen, or change the script.” Some followers of Miller regrouped to form what became the Seventh-day Adventist Church. One surprising effect of a bad prediction, said Moore, is that those who stick around become even more active in proselytizing, because it helps ease the cognitive dissonance they feel: that queasy sense that one’s understanding of the world doesn’t match what one is seeing and hearing. “To the degree they can convince other people that they’re right,” they will be surrounded by people who see the world the way they see it, and the cognitive dissonance they feel will ease, he said. The cognitive dissonance theory appeared first in a 1956 book about a cult in Chicago that believed they would be rescued by a flying saucer before a great flood in 1954, and the psychological coping mechanisms the followers used when the saucer and flood failed to materialize. The book, When Prophecy Fails: A Social and Psychological Study of a Modern Group That Predicted the Destruction of the World, is by Leon Festinger, Henry Riecken, and Stanley Schachter. The zaniness of cults’ beliefs is a short-term asset but a long-term liability. In the short term the embrace of far-fetched assertions binds the followers together against a skeptical outside world. Eventually, though, the zaniness shatters the cult when the core beliefs are seen to be wrong. Said Moore: “They change the prediction with more particulars that are just as subject to disconformation. You can only go with this so many times.” Rachel Bernstein is a marriage and family therapist in Los Angeles who’s developed a specialty in counseling cult members. She has a weekly podcast called IndoctriNation. When a cult’s prediction doesn’t pan out, she said, followers fall into one of three D’s: the determined, the disillusioned, and the despondent. The determined are already concocting theories…The middle group, the disillusioned, are “waiting and hoping,” she said. “Then you have the people who are despondent. They had a dopamine rush. They didn’t get to taper slowly off their drug. Those are the people who fell into tears. They felt left behind, and all their self-sacrifice was for naught, and that was devastating.” Said Bernstein: “What’s very true about a lot of these groups is they have a militaristic bent. They trigger an aggressive part of their nature. It’s nearly impossible to have a conversation with them that feels like a conversation. They jump up out of their chairs. They’re so worked up into a frenzy and so angry and frustrated that I don’t believe [what they’re saying], even though I haven’t said anything yet.” “They think they’re trying to save us,” Bernstein said. “They’re conspiratorial missionaries.” from: Bloomberg: How cults like QAnon respond to embarrassing failures

I like their Bloomin’ Onion too! I saw a lot of Subaru Outbacks in Colorado…that is one reliable car and handles great – their symmetrical AWD is awesome...I saw a You Tube video of a Subaru Outback outdoing all these 4WD vehicles trying to make it up some steep dirt hill made for sport.

Speaking of 5G there’s The 13 Most Outrageous Covid-19 Myths and Misconceptions

Me too…I was hoping for some kind of superpower – maybe not as stupendous as Magneto – but just enough so I could move the car that’s in my parking space.

we certainly appreciate The British Invasion !!!!

Quoting this post for posterity…as far as your vulgar-adolescent-insult goes - does that reflect your current "superior" state of mind? seems reminiscent of vulgar and mean-spirited cult-leaders like wierwille & LCM. …and it does make me wonder about our differences in age and cognitive development. I left TWI in 1986 – I was 33 years old. I’ve expressed on Grease Spot many times the specific reasons I left and the long and arduous task of unpacking and tossing the intellectual / emotional baggage and cult-mindset. So, for you to vaunt about your superiority of overcoming cult-mentality – I seriously doubt that based on your some 88 posts so far on this thread mostly filled with conspiratorial-disparaging-science-stats-and-facts-pontification reminiscent of the Advanced Class …but maybe your track record or methodology might reveal a more intelligent side of your posts...so Did you receive revelation from God about cult-followers who licked the jockstraps of cult-leaders? Did you see it in a vision – or did you taste it? Since you mentioned the use of the tongue. LCM was homophobic…I am a happily married heterosexual and have a clear conscience before God and others that I have never fooled around on my wife nor desired - nor pursued any sexual activity with man, woman, child, cult-leader or beast…and I have never owned a blow-up doll of a football player dressed in a too-too with an authentic tasting jockstrap. In other words, your revelation is faulty – it doesn’t jibe with the facts, the “truth behind the facts” ... reality. What programs did you participate in and what responsibilities did you have up until the time you left TWI? You may have already shared some of the things I ask here – but if you don’t mind sharing them again so I can better understand the difference between you and me…and if you have really changed that much since you left TWI... oh, if we’re tag teaming with Allan AND ghostwriters – feel free to combine everyone’s experiences – but don’t lump it altogether - rather break it down individually – for example listing you were WOW 12 times during your 2 years in TWI sounds kind of squirrely. How long were you in TWI ? What was your age when you left? Why did you leave? Did you join an offshoot? How is your current mindset – evidenced so clearly on this thread – any different than the mindset you had while in TWI?

I’m not gonna even bother playing some tit-for-tat game with some pot calling the kettle black – but since you let the Kool-Aid out of the bag with these posts I’ve quoted here – maybe it’s time to address the cult-mentality in the room. your post that suggests Dr. Seheult is duplicitous is not just slanderous to him – but is absolutely preposterous and goes against everything he has ever stated or done publicly in written works, online videos, interviews and in the hospitals he serves…interesting you should reference wierwille as the divine seer who sees all and knows all especially when it’s out of his area of expertise (which is just about everything except con games and Drambuie). So…do you know for a fact that Dr. Seheult would like to publicly dismiss the covid vaccine and/or stated vitamin D as an alternative to the covid vax but won’t for fear of being “struck off the medical register and very likely be charged with an offence” ? How do you know that? What information has led you to think that? Your suggestion is absurd and seems desperate. For Dr. Seheult to reject the covid vaccine and/or state that vitamin D is an alternative to the covid vax is the antithesis of everything he is known for publicly – it’s flat out hypocritical. Shame on you for fabricating malicious lies about a well-respected doctor to forward your conspiratorial-political-science-denying-agenda…in case you forgot – I was in the same cult as you…but back then, who knew about the sneaky manipulative tactics of cults? Only nowadays – it seems the manipulative tactics of cults are mainstream in social media and with certain politicians – trying to overwhelm others with misinformation, conspiracy theories and fearmongering to frighten folks to buy into their “knowledge of what’s really going on”. It’s like a weird Terminator movie twist of Skynet the artificial neural network-based conscious group mind / artificial super-pseudo-intelligence system of wierwille’s Advanced Class legacy has become self-aware and is now playing on broadcast TV. …I am so fvcking familiar with cultic-mind-games it’s not even funny – though I have to admit, I laughed out loud when I read your post revealing Dr. Seheult’s evil plan to subvert the power and authority of the science and medical communities – it’s sheer genius ! Inform others of the benefits of Vitamin D and the effectiveness of vaccines – and then when they least expect it – boom – tell them vaccines don’t really work that good…genius !!!! I use to fall for bull$hit like that in TWI. As some other Grease Spotters have already pointed out – you push links and cite material that actually weakens your case - or goes counter to what you want to prove – so it doesn’t look like you’re driven by any solid information and you certainly don’t come across as someone who has actually read the very articles and links you refer to - which makes me wonder what is your motivation, since your mission appears to be making faulty attempts to refute evidence, stats and facts. Once again thanks for letting the Kool-Aid out of the bag.

Thanks for posting that video ! Even though your challenge wasn’t addressed to me, I decided to listen to it anyway because I am familiar with Professor Seheult and his impressive career…the video is very informative…and NOWHERE in the video does he dismiss getting the vaccine and NOWHERE in the video does he suggest or recommend a vitamin-D regimen as an alternative to getting the vaccine…So after watching it I reread this challenge/post of yours and was really puzzled: Why did you address your challenge of picking apart the video to "In big pharma we trust" followers ? Did you watch the video all the way through yourself? What do you think was the point of his video? I am curious as to your intention with posting the video – and - I’m willing to give you the benefit of a doubt if you could reasonably explain why your summons to pick apart the video is based on anything other than a display of a lack of good listening skills and no logical correlation. For anyone else who follows Seheult’s work there are a couple of other links you might enjoy: click here this is a lengthy podcast but well worth a listen – in an interview Seheult discusses Covid-19, vaccines and various therapies. and here in a July 2021 video Seheult discusses the effectiveness of 4 major vaccines against the Delta variant. This thread reminded me of an encounter at my doc’s office building early this year. Going into the doctor’s office was like entering another world: signs outside saying to wear a mask, if you have any flu-like symptoms to call this number and you will go around to another entrance and it further explains the hi-tech CDC hazmat suit and protocols that are followed, inside there’s a no-contact temp reading station and you get issued a sticker with your temp on it, Plexiglas shields at the receptionist counter, social-distance label markers on the floor, part of an adjacent hallway sectioned off with clear plastic and duct tape, hand-sanitizer stations in the hallways and waiting room. Another patient and I were the only ones in the spacious waiting area – we were about 15 feet apart sitting perpendicular (me on back row of chairs and him on the right-side row) – both of us wearing masks. Since I was second to enter the waiting room, I thought I’d make a casual comment about all the new protocols at the office – I just said “wow this sure is different.” (I figured my brief comment might start a friendly conversation…boy, was I wrong). The guy gives a big snort of derision and then pulls his mask off and starts talking about all this nonsense is just making some people richer and we’re paying for it and this new administration is just letting them have at it, and blah blah blah politics blah blah blah politics blah blah blah…To say this “conversation” was one-sided is not a figure of speech – I literally did not say one thing the whole time this guy was holding a one-person political rally in the doctor’s waiting room. Fortunately for me I’ve already developed heard-immunity to cult-talk – it doesn’t even go through one ear and out the other – since I listened to crap like that for 12 years in TWI and realized that stuff doesn’t just go through you – it lays eggs and problems develop – cult-mindset – emotional and intellectual baggage…once I got rid of the flotsam and jetsam of heard-stink…which is like group-think…heard-stink is the unpleasant, scandalous, pontificating, conspiratorial sounds of cult-indoctrination that assault the airwaves of those adamantly convinced they are the enlightened ones…yeah there was a time in my life when I followed a cult-leader - so I heard it all and believed it all ... …fyi: heard-immunity is based upon the proper functioning of the complex operations (cognitive skills) inside the cranial fortress. I’m no social butterfly but I am really put off by people who lack the sensitivity and courtesy …or social barometer – to gauge where I’m at on some issue – especially if we’ve just crossed paths at some neutral territory – the doc’s waiting room was NOT a political rally. Since I kept my mask on, he couldn’t see the expression on my face – which by the way, was a scrunched-up mouth as if I had got a taste of some rancid Kool-Aid – my mouth was that way during his entire conspiratorial-political-science-denying-soliloquy. He seemed undeterred by my lack of response – a few times I even looked down and shook my head in disgust.

"Okay I'm awake now " does that mean you got some sleep or were you sleep-posting ? = = = = = = = "I was originally trying to get under why others refuse the vaccine as they appeared to me to point to independence/self-reliance as a reason . . . I'm not getting the vaccine in order to assert my individual rights which I feel are threatened. I depend on me and me alone. I grow my own food and dig my own latrine. Safety/comfort vs freedom didn't come from a political angle in my view . . . but I think I can see now how it often does." I agree – a change in the context might mean that a different set of “rules” are necessary: a hermit living on a remote deserted island would have to fend for himself versus a group of people living together in one place. Which brings to mind a book I had to read in high school “Lord of the Flies” “ a 1954 novel by Nobel Prize-winning British author William Golding. The book focuses on a group of British boys stranded on an uninhabited island and their disastrous attempt to govern themselves. Themes include the tension between groupthink and individuality, between rational and emotional reactions, and between morality and immorality.” from : Wikipedia - Lord of the Flies I think most of the time when we hear the term “political angle” – it relates to the ideas or strategies of a particular party or group in politics - - but I understood your comment as referring to the bigger picture - relating to the government or the public affairs of a country – assuming that most countries have some form of government – political science gets into stuff like that: “Political science is the scientific study of politics. It is a social science dealing with systems of governance and power, and the analysis of political activities, political thought, political behavior, and associated constitutions and laws. Modern political science can generally be divided into the three subdisciplines of comparative politics, international relations, and political theory. Other notable subdisciplines are public policy and administration, domestic politics and government (often studied within comparative politics), political economy, and political methodology. Furthermore, political science is related to, and draws upon, the fields of economics, law, sociology, history, philosophy, human geography, journalism, political anthropology, psychology, and social policy. Political science is methodologically diverse and appropriates many methods originating in psychology, social research, and cognitive neuroscience. Approaches include positivism, interpretivism, rational choice theory, behaviouralism, structuralism, post-structuralism, realism, institutionalism, and pluralism. Political science, as one of the social sciences, uses methods and techniques that relate to the kinds of inquiries sought: primary sources, such as historical documents and official records, secondary sources, such as scholarly journal articles, survey research, statistical analysis, case studies, experimental research, and model building." from: Wiki - political science = = = = = = "We often use the word democracy but are technically a type of republic." You are correct !!!! “Founding Father James Madison may have best described the difference between a democracy and a republic: “It [the difference] is that in a democracy, the people meet and exercise the government in person: in a republic, they assemble and administer it by their representatives and agents. A democracy, consequently, must be confined to a small spot. A republic may be extended over a large region.” The fact that the Founders intended that the United States should function as a representative democracy, rather than a pure democracy is illustrated in Alexander Hamilton’s letter of May 19, 1777, to Gouverneur Morris. “But a representative democracy, where the right of election is well secured and regulated & the exercise of the legislative, executive and judiciary authorities, is vested in select persons, chosen really and not nominally by the people, will in my opinion be most likely to be happy, regular and durable.” from: thought co - democracy vs republic

At this point I doubt if I can answer any of your questions. It doesn’t matter. It’s just a conversation. And besides due to inflation my two cents isn’t even worth two cents anymore…why just the other day a Grease Spotter said to me “a penny for your thoughts” and I had to give them an I.O.U. …perhaps some other folks will chime in and answer your questions.

I didn’t say anything about it detracting from the thread – I was just wondering how it tied into your safety/comfort vs freedom argument. As far as the second half of your statement: “I am interested in how we can obtain rights and freedom.” I believe one way to answer your question is to refer back to the definition of a Democracy that I gave in my previous post: Democracy - a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives; control of an organization or group by the majority of its members; a form of government in which people choose leaders by voting. The nation has chosen democracy over monarchy. Of course there are other ways to obtain rights and freedom - we'll have to define the context. I'm most familiar with a democracy - that's why I mentioned it.

I am puzzled why you posted this you tube – the official title is “MASS PSYCHOSIS - How an Entire Population Becomes MENTALLY ILL” …it opens with a quote from Gustave Le Bon defining Mass Psychosis as “an epidemic of madness & it occurs when a large portion of society loses touch with reality & descends into madness”. The speaker then gives as examples the American and European witch hunts of the 16th & 17th century and in the 20th century with the rise of totalitarianism ( which according to Internet dictionary is a system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state). The you tube narrator also quotes Joost Meerloo (a Dutch/American Doctor of Medicine and psychoanalyst, author of Rape of the Mind, an analysis of brainwashing techniques and thought control in totalitarian states) “Logic can be met with logic, while illogic cannot. It confuses those who think straight. The Big Lie monotonously repeated nonsense have more of an emotional appeal…than logic & reason. While the people are still searching for a reasonable counter-argument to the first lie, the totalitarians can assault them with another.” The you tube narrator goes on to say “Never before in history have such effective means to manipulate a society into the psychosis of totalitarianism.” I don’t see how the you tube video relates to this discussion on Covid-19, vaccines, safety protocols and mandates. Maybe you could explain connection with the Mass Psychosis video. the video has some interesting points – and I was tickled to read a comment Adam B posted a month ago “I imagine people on both sides are watching this and thinking it applies to the other side and not theirs.” Is this a follow up from an earlier post of yours? Which I responded to by saying: The article I quoted redefines the “safety/comfort vs freedom argument” as more like a working relationship or well-balanced formula. To put it another way – you present a false dichotomy – an “either-or” type of argument. Two choices are presented, when more might exist, and the claim is made that one is false and one is true - or one is acceptable and the other is not… Rather than an either-or - do you think it can be a both/and ? could there be laws in a particular society that ensure both our safety and our freedom? The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right to keep and bear arms. So, do you think you have the right to carry a gun into a bar in Texas? Answer = “You cannot carry a gun open or concealed in a bar if 51% of their business comes from the sale of alcohol . You can carry in a place that serves food and alcohol as long as the greatest part of the business is the sale of food… All ‘bars’ in Texas post “51%” signs to warn licensed firearm carry permit holders of the restrictions.” From: https://www.quora.com/Is-open-carry-of-guns-permitted-in-bars-in-Texas . So, one could argue that a bar in Texas is infringing upon their 2nd amendment rights. But I’m of the opinion not allowing guns in a bar is a good thing – and hopefully it helps prevent a law-abiding-drunken-hothead from shooting up the joint…both / and tries to address both safety and freedom - in the above case by more than one law. I’m confused… By posting the you tube that gets into totalitarianism you seem to be suggesting that a democratic society’s concern for safety/comfort, wanting to implement laws and mandates for their own safety/comfort is somehow fear and a great opportunity for implementing social controls and totalitarianism. Maybe you can clarify what you meant to say. btw I am using dictionary definitions to establish terms: Democracy - a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives; control of an organization or group by the majority of its members; a form of government in which people choose leaders by voting The nation has chosen democracy over monarchy. Totalitarianism - a system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state; Totalitarianism is a form of government and a political system that prohibits all opposition parties, outlaws individual opposition to the State and its claims, and exercises an extremely high degree of control and regulation over public and private life. It is regarded as the most extreme and complete form of authoritarianism. In totalitarian states, political power is often held by autocrats, such as dictators and absolute monarchs, who employ all-encompassing campaigns in which propaganda is broadcast by state-controlled mass media in order to control the citizenry.

This seems to be faulty reasoning - a straw man argument - the real subject of the argument (the facts and stats of covid deaths and effective vaccines and effective safety protocols) is not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a false one – alleging there is “hysteria and rhetoric around it and the 'group think' is resoundingly close to cultism.” Can you explain why you think people who follow the science and get the vaccine are caught up in hysteria? ( hysteria - exaggerated or uncontrollable emotion or excitement, an old-fashioned term for a disorder characterized by neurological symptoms often accompanied by exaggeratedly or inappropriately emotional behavior) and engage in rhetoric (rhetoric - language designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect on its audience, but often regarded as lacking in sincerity or meaningful content). could you point out some specific examples you've noticed?

Nope ! not going to another Rock of Ages ever again. I’m free !!!!

Your statements brought to mind a couple of things. From the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” And something I read in an article that redefines the “safety/comfort vs freedom argument” as more like a working relationship or well-balanced formula: “People who say that freedom and safety have no correlations, and that safety is more important than freedom or freedom is more important that safety, have not considered it’s daily applications. In society today, people demand both freedom and safety. While more and more Americans demand freedom to do things as they please, they want the feeling of protection and safety. Safety is needed when more freedom is given. An example of this lies in our homes. As children have later curfews as they grow older, their parents demand for more of their own protection for their children. Ultimately, curfews are reasonable guidelines and should be followed. It is important to maintain respect for your parents and the rules they set throughout your adolescent years. “While it may seem unfair or unreasonable at the time, you will eventually realize how beneficial such rules were and will thank your parents for looking out for your well-being. ” (Why Curfews Should Be Enforced). This correlation is evidence that with more freedom, people need more safety to keep them in check and to keep people in line. Freedom in this case cannot exist without the need for safety and safety is not necessary if there is no freedom. Freedom and safety are desired by everyone. However, unlike popular belief, they cannot be separated. Like a well-balanced formula, freedom and safety intertwine in a well-defined system. In this contemporary society, freedom is important for the liberties of the people; however, safety is important for the security of the people. Both freedom and safety are important factors for people today.” excerpts from PHD Essay safety versus freedom

Folks often ask my wife how the Grinch stole Ho Ho Re-Lo ( jabs his thumb at himself) …yeah right , like Debbie Downer is gonna have any good news.

That’s understandable on a thread named Undertow…but rest assured the condition of the water at Grease Spot Café is safe and ideal for surfing…and besides that you've been here before many times...so surf’s up Dude.

wife, daughter and I got our Moderna booster shot late afternoon ...no soreness...then we went to Hopdoddy for the most delicious mushroom, bacon, cheese burger and parmesan fries !

Yes ! I Googled “do statistics show that the covid vaccine save lives?” and got quite a few hits – the first one quantifies the lives saved and even gives an economic value to it: According to National Institutes of Health study mentioned in an October 2021 of Psychiatric Times: “Covid-19 vaccines have so far reduced the number of fatalities that would have occurred due to the disease by about 140,000. The study researchers examined data from between December 21, 2020, and May 9, 2021, to assess the impact of state-level vaccination campaigns. The investigators compared the amount of time each state took to reach a series of milestones, beginning with 5 doses per 100 adults and escalating to 120 doses per 100 adults. They also calculated the number of vaccine doses per 100 adults at the end of each week. The researchers found that COVID-19 vaccines prevented more than 139,000 deaths during the first 5 months they were available. Although 570,000 Americans died due to COVID-19 through the study period, the researchers’ model projected that there would have been 709,000 deaths without the vaccine. “The researchers found that COVID-19 vaccines prevented more than 139,000 deaths during the first 5 months they were available.” In addition, the investigators estimated that the economic value of saving these lives was between $625 billion and $1.4 trillion. from: Psychiatric Times - how many lives have been saved by Covid-19 vaccinations these links provide other aspects of the vaccines: Myths and Facts about Covid-19 facts USA Today article - American lives saved by Covid-19 vac flawed paper on supposedly covid-19 vaccine deaths * * * * DVD bonus feature: Another question I Googled was “did people question or doubt the smallpox vaccine like they do the covid-19 vaccine?” and found this stuff: "History Does Repeat: Pandemic Vaccine Uproar Is Nothing New… Oct. 14, 2021 -- Even as the fourth wave of COVID-19 cases trends downward, one aspect of the pandemic remains strong: differing opinions on the value of COVID-19 immunization and vaccine mandates across the U.S. Strong feelings around vaccination are nothing new. Claims that link the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine to autism and opposition to measles vaccination that triggered outbreaks in California are recent examples. People who were against smallpox immunizations, for example, ran advertisements, wrote to newspapers, and formed anti-vaccine organizations, as seen in news clippings from the 1860s to the 1950s. In other words, although the furor over vaccines feels like a modern experience, disagreements throughout history reveal many similarities. "There are a lot of parallels -- many of the same exact arguments," says Anna Kirkland, PhD, director of the Institute for Research on Women and Gender at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. In this etching from 1808, vaccine pioneer Edward Jenner, at right in blue, tries to convince vaccination opponents to get the smallpox shot. "Some of the differences now are the stark political alignments by party that we see under COVID, which were there in some ways before but became very prominently organized by party," she says. "Those are only differences of degree, though, because there has long been an anti-government backing of anti-vaccine sentiments." For example, the Anti-Vaccination Society of America was founded in 1879. Its public campaign against mandatory smallpox vaccination used wording about personal freedoms that might sound familiar today: "Liberty cannot be given, it must be taken." The society was part of a larger movement that also questioned the motives behind promotion of the smallpox vaccine. "The anti-vaccination movement questioned the data released by health authorities, and accused politicians, doctors and pharmaceutical companies of conspiring to act on their economic interests rather than health considerations," notes MyHeritage, which maintains an archive of pro- and anti-vaccine news clippings. "For this reason -- and because MyHeritage has access to billions of historical records, including newspaper clippings -- it was natural for us to check the newspaper archives, to try and make sense of today's significant vaccination debate," says Roi Mandel, lead researcher at MyHeritage. Other historians point out that the anti-vaccination movement in the U.S. got its start in the 1850s with the announcement of smallpox vaccine mandates. "Much of that movement was predicated on widespread concern about the safety of smallpox vaccine, as well as a belief that vaccination laws were 'a tyrannical violation of individual liberty,' wrote Joseph B. Domachowske and Manika Suryadevara, both MDs, in a 2013 report in Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics. "Unfortunately, the anti-vaccination activism helped bring about a significant decline in immunization rates, resulting in the re-emergence of smallpox just a couple of decades later," they said.” from: WEB MD vaccine opposition not new and don't forget CUNY EDU News - a tale of two pandemics Forbes tales from the vaccine vault T-Bone's disclaimer: I firmly believe Blockbuster's friendly reminder to be kind and rewind is still applicable in this age of digital media and streaming services.

Yes -I think so

thanks for the link, Bolshevik...very entertaining to listen to...and I found out I'm a passive narcissist...entertainment and self-realization !

if I say something was God-given doesn’t that assume God is a supernatural being? But that's beside the point - If you were asking because of my post mentioning magical thinking – then let me elaborate on what I said…– referring again to the Wikipedia definition – it says: “Magical thinking, or superstitious thinking, is the belief that unrelated events are causally connected despite the absence of any plausible causal link between them, particularly as a result of supernatural effects.” The last part indicates a variable “particularly as a result of supernatural effects” in other words “particularly” means “to a higher degree than is usual or average” . Magical thinking doesn’t ALWAYS have to incorporate belief in something supernatural being involved in the event…the essence of magical thinking is the disconnect from the real world of cause and effect – which is exactly opposite what the scientific method is all about – a lot of experimentation and observation…which is why we have warning labels on tobacco products: "In 1981 the FTC issued a report to Congress that concluded health warning labels had little effect on public knowledge and attitudes about smoking. As a result of this report, Congress enacted the Comprehensive Smoking Education Act of 1984 (Public Law 98–474), which required four specific health warnings on all cigarette packages and advertisements: SURGEON GENERAL’S WARNING: Smoking Causes Lung Cancer, Heart Disease, Emphysema, and May Complicate Pregnancy. SURGEON GENERAL’S WARNING: Quitting Smoking Now Greatly Reduces Serious Risks to Your Health. SURGEON GENERAL’S WARNING: Smoking by Pregnant Women May Result in Fetal Injury, Premature Birth, and Low Birth Weight. SURGEON GENERAL’S WARNING: Cigarette Smoke Contains Carbon Monoxide. By the mid-1980s scientific evidence revealed that smokeless tobacco use causes oral cancer, nicotine addiction, and other health problems. The Comprehensive Smokeless Tobacco Health Education Act of 1986 (Public Law 99–252) required three rotating warning labels on smokeless tobacco packaging and advertisements: WARNING: This product may cause mouth cancer. WARNING: This product may cause gum disease and tooth loss. WARNING: This product is not a safe alternative to cigarettes." from: gov warning I remember wierwille claiming his believing allowed him to smoke cigarettes without getting cancer. If you recall wierwille taught in PFAL the law of believing worked for saint and sinner alike. It actually took God out of the picture – he likened the law of believing to the laws of physics – it didn’t matter if you believed in God or not – you combine 2 parts of Hydrogen with 1 part of Oxygen you get water every time. wierwille taught that the causal link to his immunity to cancer - even though he smoked like a fiend - was his believing.

Thanks for pointing that out, Raf ! It got me thinking about TWI’s magical-thinking-mindset… “Magical thinking, or superstitious thinking, is the belief that unrelated events are causally connected despite the absence of any plausible causal link between them, particularly as a result of supernatural effects.” From: Wikipedia - magical thinking I fail to understand how one person’s natural recovery from Covid-19 translates into wondering if the vaccine is safe and then determining they don’t need it right now…what about all the people who have died from Covid-19? – see Our World in data: covid deaths Sometimes ignorance likes to play with fire…recently I had my yearly physical with my doc and we usually get in some conversation about health issues in the news. Of course, we got into the pandemic and vaccines. He got very passionate about risks that anti-vaxxers and anti-maskers are taking and maybe just as dangerous is how that lack of safety measures allows the viruses to not just spread but also mutate – some variants becoming more deadly than previous virus strains. He made a big deal about the benefits of getting the majority of a population on board with measures to limit the spread of viruses which will reduce the possibilities of them evolving into something even harder to deal with. Also see a July 19th article: “ Is it possible to prevent a virus from mutating? Well, you can't prevent the virus from mutating, but what you can do is limit the virus's spread, and in that way you reduce the chances that a mutation can emerge that is going to help the virus infect humans better. Say, for example, it's a one in a million chance that a mutation will be advantageous to the virus. If you let the virus replicate itself 900,000 times, odds are that the advantageous mutation will occur. But if you limit the overall replication of the virus to 1,000 times, then it's much less likely that the random advantageous mutation is going to occur. And that's where public health interventions really help us a lot during this pandemic—by reducing the total amount of virus replication and therefore reducing the chances that the virus can improve or adapt.” from: delta variants And here’s an article about another virus that spread in a similar way to Covid-19 and how it was eradicated: “Smallpox – the only infectious disease we've ever eradicated…It was eradicated by a collaborative global vaccination programme led by the World Health Organization…The virus spreads in droplets, much like coronaviruses, and can be expelled into the air via coughing and sneezing. But it can also be passed on via the fluid from smallpox blisters. Typically, someone would need to have been in close proximity to an infected person before catching it themselves…The last known natural case was in Somalia in 1977…The following year, an accident in a research laboratory led to the death of one person from the disease, and in 1979 smallpox was officially declared eradicated. from: how smallpox was successfully eradicated Here’s an article that addresses those who are immunocompromised – and the threshold for herd immunity: “Effective herd immunity depends on vaccination. Because immunity varies with age and not everyone can get vaccinated — such as those who are immunocompromised, have specific allergies or pregnant women with certain types of vaccines — herd immunity is a crucial protective phenomenon. To establish it, one important factor is the number of immunized people within a population has to be at a certain percentage or threshold. According to the WHO, this figure was eight out of every 10 people for smallpox, based on its early eradication effort.” from: fact check on vaccination helping to eliminate smallpox and last - some info on herd immunity: "Herd immunity (also called herd effect, community immunity, population immunity, or mass immunity) is a form of indirect protection from infectious disease that can occur with some diseases when a sufficient percentage of a population has become immune to an infection, whether through previous infections or vaccination, thereby reducing the likelihood of infection for individuals who lack immunity. Immune individuals are unlikely to contribute to disease transmission, disrupting chains of infection, which stops or slows the spread of disease. The greater the proportion of immune individuals in a community, the smaller the probability that non-immune individuals will come into contact with an infectious individual. Individuals can become immune by recovering from an earlier infection or through vaccination. Some individuals cannot become immune because of medical conditions, such as an immunodeficiency or immunosuppression, and for this group herd immunity is a crucial method of protection. Once the herd immunity threshold has been reached, disease gradually disappears from a population. This elimination, if achieved worldwide, may result in the permanent reduction in the number of infections to zero, called eradication. Herd immunity created via vaccination contributed to the eventual eradication of smallpox in 1977 and has contributed to the reduction of other diseases. Herd immunity applies only to contagious disease, meaning that it is transmitted from one individual to another. Tetanus, for example, is infectious but not contagious, so herd immunity does not apply." from: Wikipedia - herd immunity

the mow abundant lifestyle

I recall Popeye’s friend Wimpy saying “ I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.”