I've probably gone as far down the rabbit hole researching this topic as any lay person can, after running into some pretty major "not living up to my potential" issues in my 20s (I was assessed as not diagnosable as ADHD or ASD by a psychiatrist, but I still seemed to be affected by at least some of the symptoms related to those conditions).
I've been as willing as anybody to believe theories (long commonplace among alt-med communities) like "it's antibiotics", "it's candida yeast" (or insert any other bacterial/fungus/parasite/virus species you can point to), "it's the effect of vaccines on the microbiome", "it's due to microbial dysbiosis in utero".
And after nearly 20 years of researching/contemplating/experimenting, I just find myself thinking "there's no singular, simple explanation or solution". And really, nor should there be; the body is a highly complex system.
Microbiome matters – but there's plenty of stuff you can do to improve it. Metals (mercury, lead, etc) and other environmental toxins (PFAS and other endocrine disruptors [1]) matter – but they can be detoxified over time via some fairly safe and non-invasive techniques. Inflammation matters a lot – and all kinds of things to do with diet, allergens, microbiome influence that. Genetics matter – but probably less than we presume, once all the other factors are considered and addressed (and it's probably more a case of genetic expression in response to stressors, rather than anything hard-coded/deterministic).
A big perspective-shift for me was finding that emotions and trauma matter a huge amount. This is the least-researched and discussed, both in mainstream and the alt-med circles, but in my own experience, nothing has made a bigger difference to my life outcomes (including physiological symptoms like inflammation) than regularly practicing techniques that identify and release deeply-held emotional complexes.
It can seem like an implausible, fringe theory until you think about it this way: if a person is perpetually traumatised, they can be in a "fight/flight/freeze" state, which takes up much of the body's energy and resources, instead of that being directed to healthy immunity (dealing with harmful microbes and allergens), digestion, metabolism, detoxification, tissue repair/growth etc.
And just to confound things even further, having to deal with an unhealthy microbiome in utero or early life can be a cause of trauma (just as it can be in later life when an infection like Epstein Barr can lead to CFS/ME).
I know this all seems very nebulous and speculative; it's taken me a long time to get my head around, but my takeaway after all this time is that to correct these kinds of conditions, these factors all need to be addressed in parallel: emotions, microbiome, toxicity, diet/nutrition.
I'm quite sure there will be no complete understanding and remedy for conditions like ASD and ADHD that doesn't incorporate all these factors.
> and other environmental toxins (PFAS and other endocrine disruptors [1]) matter – but they can be detoxified over time via some fairly safe and non-invasive techniques.
The safest I know of are infrared saunas (red bulb/near infrared is best), and breathing exercises, as well as overall good nutrition and emotional healing to support the body's natural detox pathways.
Clinical practices like intravenous chelation (ETDA etc) or supplements like spirulina, ALA, NAC, vitamin C, cilantro etc are popular and seem appealing from the promises made in their marketing, but they are often ineffective at removing the most deeply-stored toxins, and can do more harm than good by moving some toxins around the body to places where they can do more damage.
Not sure if it counts as non invasive, but I've read research suggesting donating blood lowers pfas levels reliably (not too mention other potential benefits that are not particularly well validated).
Meditation has only been a very small part of my practice. I've worked with a whole lot of different practitioners since about 2012. I can't really distil a decade plus of healing work into a comment that skeptical readers will find persuasive, but for those wanting to look into it for themselves, books by Gabor Maté and Bruce Lipton are a good start, and practices like Internal Family Systems, Family Constellations, EFT tapping, biofeedback/neurofeedback and Neuro-Emotional Technique are a worth trying.
In principle, emotional healing techniques are effective if they involve "letting go" of the physiological reaction (i.e., "trigger") that is activated when experiencing (or remembering) a traumatic event. Once the physiological reaction ceases to occur, the emotion is "processed", and is just a benign memory like any other. But that can take a huge amount of work over a long time for some complexes, if they are very, erm, complex, and deeply ingrained.
One of my practitioners, who I see every 2-3 months, specializes in releasing “armor” from the body with a specific massage technique.
I can easily believe that in many cases where someone is considered to be moderately-ASD, that it’s a case of this kind of armoring.
This is not to say there is no physiological or genetic component, but that the trauma and armoring is a significant factor in the expression of the condition.
My experience is quite similar, except my issue was recurring severe unexplained pain with scarring of the joints. I've come to believe the same conclusion that chronic fight or flight is the biggest factor and have healed myself within a year.
The difference is that I've come at it from a different approach, where this fight or flight is a neural pathway or habit of the unconscious mind that you can train yourself out of. Although trauma can probably be a significant factor on how people get to this state, "the way out" (title of the book by Alan Gordon that explained these ideas) is probable the same and I believe not all people with these issues have significant trauma, although in some it may be necessary to address as an underlying cause.
As for how you can train yourself, it's explained in the book mentioned above as well as the free podcast "Tell me about your pain". Since the podcast is free so the techniques are public knowledge, I believe I'm allowed to summarize my take:
1. Constant "problem solving" and overthinking about your health can put you in a state of stress that heightens your perception of your own body which in turn convinces you that something is seriously wrong (eg: you may hear your own heart beating very loudly even though it's beating normally, or you may feel pain even though the nerves are transmitting normal signals to your brain). If you've been to many doctors and they can't find an explanation, there's a chance they all missed a serious problem, but there's probably a bigger chance that there's nothing physically wrong with your body but your nervous system is causing the altered perception and over reaction. It can be freeing to realize you don't need to try a new diet, or spend all your free time on pubmed, or go see an expensive doctor that prescribes expensive supplements. If you have a "neuroplastic" issue these things will not only not help, but actually hinder your recovery.
2. Catching the "what if" thoughts. You can't stop yourself from going to a worst case scenario, but you can stop yourself from buying into it. Every time you think something like "what if I actually have an injury that the MRI and X-Ray missed"? You can reply to yourself how unlikely that is. The nervous system is part of the subconscious so making yourself feel calm will probably, over time, calm it down.
3. Somatic tracking, which is the action of paying attention to a painful, strange or otherwise uncomfortable sensation in your body through a lens of safety. Eg: wow, it's incredible that my brain can usually filter the sound of my heartbeat but now I'm able to hear it at full volume. If you understand that the sensation is safe and you have nothing to fear, paying attention to that sensation will slowly make it go away over time (not necessarily in one session, which although it can happen is not the goal). Your nervous system highlights pain or sensations because it believes they're dangerous and wants you to feel them to avoid further injury. When you pay attention to them in a lens of safety it understands that there's no danger so they get deactivated.
4.Paying attention to things that feel good and being mindful in the moment about them. Whether it's feeling your breath in mindfulness meditation or taking a walk in the park and consciously being present and enjoying the experience.
5. Filtering what you consume. Media and content nowadays tries to appeal to our most basic instincts, especially fear. Reading news can put you in a state of alert. Watching shorts or tiktok can overstimulate you. Try to be comfortable with stillness and doing nothing. You don't need to fill every free moment of time with your phone.
6. Have you ever though: if I was better I would do X, or when I get better I'll do Y? Being sick can bring apathy that can stop you from doing things you enjoy even after being physically capable. Actually doing them and learning to enjoy them again isn't just a possibility, it's a necessary part of recovery.
I'm sure there's more, but this is what worked for me to go from bed-bound with full body pain (with 3 surgeries to remove internal joint scarring without any injury) to being 98% recovered in less than one year. If any of this resonates with someone reading this I'd recommend listening to the podcast, it's free and got me 70% of the way there even without the book.
This comment from a similar thread over 10 years ago pretty much sums it up:
I just saw Sam Altman speak at YCNYC and I was impressed. I have never actually met him or heard him speak before Monday, but one of his stories really stuck out and went something like this:
"We were trying to get a big client for weeks, and they said no and went with a competitor. The competitor already had a terms sheet from the company were we trying to sign up. It was real serious.
We were devastated, but we decided to fly down and sit in their lobby until they would meet with us. So they finally let us talk to them after most of the day.
We then had a few more meetings, and the company wanted to come visit our offices so they could make sure we were a 'real' company. At that time, we were only 5 guys. So we hired a bunch of our college friends to 'work' for us for the day so we could look larger than we actually were. It worked, and we got the contract."
I think the reason why PG respects Sam so much is he is charismatic, resourceful, and just overall seems like a genuine person.
Companies can “fail”, for all kinds of reasons, even with perfect execution by the founders. I don’t really know why Loopt failed, but based on sama’s track record since, he is definitely a person who makes a huge impact with whatever he does (even if you think OpenAI hype is overblown, as I do).
It almost seems like fraud. If somebody is investing in or contracting with a company base on false impressions that were deliberately created by deception then... jeez.
It isn't to the same degree as Holmes saying that the blood machines work, but it is in the same direction.
The classic Accuracy International switcheroo. Always remembered fondly when it works out, not so much when it doesn't, but it's almost always interesting!
A theory going around a few weeks ago about his apparent inability to STFU is that his defence will be that he was affected by ADHD meds that impaired his judgement and made him impulsive, and have continued to do so even post collapse. I doubt lawyers could come up with anything better than this, really.
Does establishing impaired judgement due to ADHD meds require that he demonstrate continued impaired judgement regarding the specifics of the case? Can’t he just buy every old GameCube game that comes to mind on eBay and live bet the Las Vegas Raiders like the rest of us? “My client can’t possibly be guilty. He spent $80 dollars on a complete in box copy of Luigi’s Mansion and didn’t play past the first boss.”
>A theory going around a few weeks ago about his apparent "inability" to STFU is that his defence will be that he was affected by ADHD meds that impaired his judgement and made him impulsive, and have continued to do so even post collapse. I doubt lawyers could come up with anything better than this, really.
Doesn't seem far fetched honestly. He really reminds me people who took one too many adderall doses and suddenly think everything is a great idea.
Do ADHD meds differ from, say, alcohol from a legal perspective? My understanding is that being drunk is never a defense. The meds are something he chooses to consume as an adult so it seems like he should be compared to an unmedicated standard. But IANAL.
> Musk is an authoritarian at heart. What he cares most about is achieving the maximum authority with the least constraint
I'm really wanting to understand where this view comes from.
What are the specific pieces of evidence for this? Who does he want authority over? How does that help him achieve his desired outcomes?
From my position, I have no dog in the fight but from a brief assessment of his public words and actions I see someone who is fairly left-wing on economics, drug policy and the environment, and his underlying position on free speech seems congruent with those of George Orwell and John Stuart Mill, both of whom were strongly left-libertarian in their time.
What are the specific pieces of evidence that demonstrate what he really wants, and what will really benefit him personally, is to take away people's freedom and agency?
This is misreporting. The person who said "fuck off" was a former politician who was recalled by the Ukrainian government. People mistake him for being an active politician because he hadn't changed his Twitter bio. And it's important to look at the reasoning for why Elon said what he did. He's certainly misguided, but the reasoning was to reduce human death, not because of authoritarianism.
There's nothing authoritarian about this and this is certainly an argument that can be made. I don't think China rocks, but China's work ethic is definitely better than the US.
Attacking your boss in public with expletives will get you fired from any job I can think of. Nothing authoritarian here unless you want to say all bosses are authoritarians.
> He's certainly misguided, but the reasoning was to reduce human death, not because of authoritarianism.
Russia has invaded Ukraine. It's irrelevant what Musk's reasoning is. He is advocating submission to Russia's war aims.
Authoritarians always trot out platitudes to justify their authoritarianism. Trump, for example, claimed he was going to "make America great again" and save America from the "LameStream Media" which is, of course, the "enemy of the American people" and so on and so forth. Trump's latest idea is to terminate the constitution, so that's nice: https://edition.cnn.com/2022/12/03/politics/trump-constituti...
Of course he did. What do you think a "special administrative zone" is? It's certainly not Taiwanese independence or Taiwanese sovereignty. How'd Hong Kong's "two systems, one country" work out for it? Not too good. China quickly became bored with the pretense.
> There's nothing authoritarian about this and this is certainly an argument that can be made.
Sure there is. He likes good little workers and no back talk. He likes the authority.
> The important missing context is at the time Tesla was shut down with lower covid rates in the area while other car manufacturers were operating.
Uh huh. So it's all a big conspiracy and Musk is a victim.
Authoritarians do like to portray themselves as victims. They always have to do what they do because they have been victimized and they must right the wrongs in the world. And, what's more, they're doing it for our own good.
> At the time yes. He hasn't said as much recently.
Oh, so he was only a hypocrite in the past? Well that's alright then. Hooray!
> Attacking your boss in public with expletives will get you fired from any job I can think of.
Weak and thin skinned for a self proclaimed free speech absolutist.
It's always fascinating to see people being unable to believe that Musk is what he is.
> Russia has invaded Ukraine. It's irrelevant what Musk's reasoning is. He is advocating submission to Russia's war aims.
It's very important what Musk's reasoning is. Multiple lines of reasoning can lead to similar solutions. There is not a one-to-one mapping from ideas on how to handle something and conclusions.
> Authoritarians always trot out platitudes to justify their authoritarianism. Trump, for example, claimed he was going to "make America great again" and save America from the "LameStream Media" which is, of course, the "enemy of the American people" and so on and so forth. Trump's latest idea is to terminate the constitution, so that's nice: https://edition.cnn.com/2022/12/03/politics/trump-constituti...
Except "make America great again" is not a "platitude", it's an explicit nationalist goal with authoritarian innuendo. Unless you can somehow make the argument that any type of pacifist or non-violent request is arguing for authoritarianism then I don't know where you can go with this.
> Of course he did. What do you think a "special administrative zone" is? It's certainly not Taiwanese independence or Taiwanese sovereignty. How'd Hong Kong's "two systems, one country" work out for it? Not too good. China quickly became bored with the pretense.
Except he explicitly called out Hong Kong as an example of what not to do in that same message.
> Sure there is. He likes good little workers and no back talk. He likes the authority.
So do most bosses at any company. They're not authoritarian. It's human nature to feel good in commanding positions. It takes a lot of effort to cultivate people who will actually challenge you as you need to go against your natural feelings.
> Uh huh. So it's all a big conspiracy and Musk is a victim.
I never said it was a conspiracy. Tesla (not Elon) _was_ a victim of the situation though.
> Authoritarians do like to portray themselves as victims. They always have to do what they do because they have been victimized and they must right the wrongs in the world. And, what's more, they're doing it for our own good.
Almost all of what Elon has historically done has not been for his own good. He has a proven track record of creating products that better the world, save government money, and push technology in the industry forward. In terms of actual good for the world he's one of the most ethical leaders out there. He specifically rails on shareholders that ruin other companies by only caring about money. He actively praises other companies in the same industry when they achieve similar things.
> Weak and thin skinned for a self proclaimed free speech absolutist.
Last I checked, that person was still on twitter and hasn't had their speech restricted. He could have banned them from Twitter too, he didn't. If you attack your boss you affect the working environment as it makes working uncomfortable. I wouldn't want to work with a co-worker who was attacking my boss in public.
> It's always fascinating to see people being unable to believe that Musk is what he is.
I find it fascinating and depressing to watch the extent that people will go to defame one of the most important people of our era because of what he and his companies have accomplished, either through jealousy or misinformation or fear.
I understand you have a passionately held opinion about these matters, and it's unlikely I or anyone is likely to change your mind about much of it. But, as it's often said, you don't understand your own position thoroughly until you understand the other position thoroughly, so for the sake of you or anyone else who wants to be on solid ground, I'll put some responses.
To declare my hand somewhat, when I said I have no dog in the fight, that refers to Musk; I don't find him a particularly admirable person, or someone likely to lead bringing about the changes I want to see in the world. What I bring to this is at least a couple of decades deeply exploring the question of how every/any person can live with maximum liberty and agency, and achieve an objectively satisfying life, no matter the circumstances of their birth or other issues over which they had no control. Musk doesn't have a huge amount to offer on that topic, so I'm not here to support or adulate him, but I do care about words like "authoritarianism" being used with a reasonable level of accuracy, and I always hate seeing people being portrayed negatively on largely false grounds.
I'll note that your previous response contains a lot of just-so argumentation ("He likes good little workers and no back talk. He likes the authority"), and ad-hominem attacks/character insinuations ("It's always fascinating to see people being unable to believe that Musk is what he is"). You need to cut out these swipes if you want to be seen as an objective, good-faith debater.
To respond to your main arguments in the last comment:
- On Russia/Ukraine and China/Taiwan: He just seems to be focused on ending these conflicts with minimal bloodshed and destruction. He didn't argue for Ukraine to just submit; he said there should be an externally supervised referendum so the people in the contested regions can self-determine which country they're in and that everyone can peacefully accept the outcome. That's as anti-authoritarian as you can get. In both cases of Russia/Ukraine and China/Taiwan, he sees that the worst case scenario is utterly catastrophic (all-out global nuclear exchanges), and wants to find ways to resolve these disputes before it gets anywhere near that. As divorce negotiators will tell you, when everyone is playing an all-or-nothing battle, everyone loses, whereas if you can find a way for everyone to get 75% of what they want, a peaceful result is much more likely. It doesn't follow that his desire for peace is authoritarian; generally it's authoritarians who like endless wars. He's advocating for the most effective way to end/prevent war. You can disagree with his position, but authoritarianism is not the issue here.
- "Sure there is. He likes good little workers and no back talk. He likes the authority": You've presented no evidence for this, it's a just-so story, though a familiar one; plenty of people will similarly assert that he just wants to fill his companies with sycophants. The thing is, sycophants and "good little workers" don't get reusable rockets working reliably, nor newly developed automotive technology. The evidence I can see is that he wants highly skilled people who know their field extremely well and will just get shit done, not waste their colleagues' time and energy with endless petty drama. When people spend a lot of time stirring up drama, it's generally a pretty good sign that they're not so good at their work. So again, it's not about authoritarianism, it's about getting good work done without drama.
- On COVID lockdowns; you can disagree with his position, accuse him of playing the victim, fine, whatever. It just doesn't have much to do with authoritarianism. Clearly, the governments/bodies mandating lockdowns and vaccinations were authoritarian. You can say it was justified authoritarianism, sure. I've been fairly comfortable with the lockdowns and measures imposed where I live in Australia, which many have described as being very authoritarian. But you can't say the people arguing against lockdowns were authoritarian. Any criticism for opposing lockdowns has to use words other than "authoritarian".
That's probably enough of a reply from me; the earlier reply from someone else covered the rest.
As I said I don't expect to persuade you but if you must respond, please try to do so without ad-hom and just-so story.
> Musk doesn't have a huge amount to offer on that topic, so I'm not here to support or adulate him, but I do care about words like "authoritarianism" being used with a reasonable level of accuracy, and I always hate seeing people being portrayed negatively on largely false grounds.
Then you must hate Musk. He is, after all, always willing to portray people negatively on largely false grounds. According to Musk, cave divers are pedophiles, Apple hates free speech, California is fascist, and so on and so forth.
Authoritarians have a loose association with the truth. The truth is just too inconvenient.
> He didn't argue for Ukraine to just submit; he said there should be an externally supervised referendum so the people in the contested regions can self-determine which country they're in.
Of course he did. There can't be an externally supervised referendum. They have been invaded. They are at war. Putin doesn't recognize Ukraine as a country or Ukrainians as a people. Russia doesn't do democracy. It hasn't for a long time.
> In both cases of Russia/Ukraine and China/Taiwan, he sees that the worst case scenario is utterly catastrophic (all-out global nuclear exchanges), and wants to find ways to resolve these disputes before it gets anywhere near that.
The solution in both cases is simple: Russia gets out of Ukraine and China stays out of Taiwan.
Russia and China are authoritarian regimes. They both share the attitude that big countries tell little countries what to do. Musk's advocacy of appeasement and submission to their belligerence is apology bordering on the quisling.
I never did mind. The facts of the matter are the facts of the matter. It's not an "ad hominem attack" or a "just-so story" just because you don't like what's true.
You've presented zero facts that demonstrate Musk's authoritarianism. You've given your opinions on what positions others should have on highly complex, consequential topics like nuclear armed countries in prolonged conflict over deeply-entrenched grievances with long and complex histories. Fine, you're welcome to have opinions about those and any other issues. There's still no evidence there for Musk's authoritarianism, and you don't win arguments by dogmatically redefining words and insisting your opinions are facts. That would be, dare I say, authoritarian?
In true authoritarian fashion, Musk doesn't let facts get in the way. Here is a sycophantic interview in which Musk pathetically attempts to redefine the word "founder": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHmSrK238vI&t=2358s
So, by your own standard, we've found yet another example of Musk's authoritarianism.
By legal settlement he is the founder of Tesla, a term that is not as fixed as people believe. Early employees often haggle for founder status in startups. He joined the company as chairman from the instant of formation and contributed heavily to operations of the company, for example acting as designer of the Roadster. Read up on the early history of Tesla. He didn't just "buy the company" as I have heard claimed numerous times on the internet.
There's no value in defending authoritarians. They simply cannot control their nature and they will make a fool of you, as Musk is making a fool of you now.
I estimate it will take you a further 10 years to understand this. By then enough time will have passed for you to be able to reminisce about Musk's "good old days". But what you won't have understood is that there were no good old days. He was always like that.
After some research, it seems like ozone is a last resort treatment in non-evidence-based medicine when vitamins and magical crystals can not cure the cancer or HIV. At least, that is what the first page of Google results tells me. So I would also not advocate it.
> military patrolling your streets to enforce these covid laws
This is not happening. It's a complete beat-up and it's utterly false. The military has been engaged to provide labor, not enforcement. They have no enforcement powers. Parking inspectors have greater powers to enforce civil laws.
As for the inflammatory "checking papers" trope: many countries in all parts fo the world have had lockdowns, including in the U.S. Why single out Australia for condemnation when it is doing the same thing as so many others have done?
That aside, on the ground, there is really not much enforcement of the restrictions - less and less as each week passes and everyone accepts that the virus is here to stay.
Quarantine has been used in all kinds of societies for thousands of years during times of infectious outbreak. It’s described in the Bible, and it was used in the USA during the Spanish Flu. What is the point of quarantine without systems to ensure it is obeyed?
Used in the US and around the world for cholera and typhoid as well. For many years. There are a lot ruins of old quarantine facilities and several islands around New York were used for the purpose.
People don't understand how isolated some states of Australia are, even from the other states. Some parts of this country were barely touched by covid. It was just about the least dystopian life you could imagine apart from driving through the Mad Max landscape.
Exactly, for the life of me I cannot understand why some people just don't understand that. It's tragic really because many people have lost their lives through the bloodyminded actions of those who who've callous regard for others.
Your post could word for word be used for the opposite narrative too. Many people have lost their lives through the bloodyminded actions of those clamoring for a totalitarian regime and its systems of enslavement.
Nobody is using it for the opposite narrative. Quarantine has nothing to do with enslavement. You’re being histrionic, but also inconsistent when worrying about loss of life through totalitarianism but not loss of life through preventable illness. You’ve said elsewhere that the pandemic is not deadly enough to justify the actions we’re seeing, and I somewhat agree (population-wide lockdowns have been excessive), but hospital systems everywhere, including in Australia, have been pushed to beyond capacity. Australians can accept some limits to their freedoms to keep the medical system functioning. They won’t accept it forever, and regardless of any malicious intentions, governments can’t afford it forever.
You have no power over them if they choose to keep it this way forever. Especially in Australia. What are you going to do to the contrary? And how can you guarantee they won't choose to keep it this way forever?
The quaranting itself is not the enslavement. It's how they are going about it and what kinds of systems they want to build.
> It's how they are going about it and what kinds of systems they want to build.
You don’t seem to be well informed on how they’re going about it and what kind of systems “they” want to build. Who are “they”? Which of the multiple levels of government, several states and territories and multiple political parties who all have different policies and priorities do you mean? What do you mean by “enslavement”? None of it makes sense, and you’re making giant extrapolations from exaggerated and inaccurate headlines and reports in a media that you probably wouldn’t trust or believe on most other topics.
Yes they can. Especially in Australia where people don’t have means to defend themselves and are falling for the “vaxed vs unvaxed” narrative. Pit sides against each other and they’ll clamor for the state to protect the peace and establish order. And that it will do with increasingly invasive measures like arresting pregnant women for making anti-lockdown Facebook posts or locking residents of an entire apartment complex in their homes with no one allowed to leave.
Imagine being told in 2018 this would happen a short time later - the government there arresting or locking people in that way. Would you have believed it could happen?
Could you see it becoming worse, particularly if the media narrative about us-them continues until one side gets dehumanized?
Why rest in this blind faith about how much they can sustain? When they have already been sustaining this stuff for going on two years with no signs of letting up. If anything it seems to be getting worse per the OP, with even more idiotic systems being built “because of the antivaxers” or whatever convenient justification is peddled by media to divide the people and consolidate power towards the top of the top.
Every possible scenario would have been alarming. 50000 deaths and a collapsing hospital system would have been unthinkable too. Australia has chosen to avoid that nightmare, and has chosen a different, also highly undesirable but marginally preferable path.
People are getting whipped up into a frenzy about all this, based on mental models of government and population relations that may apply elsewhere but don’t apply in Australia.
In truth:
- there is heavy pushback on government by the media and population, acceptance of lockdowns is in rapid decline, and governments are being forced to change their polices week by week.
- We don’t have a heavily militarized and hostile relationship between police, military and the population, it has always been egalitarian and cohesive, like pretty much everything else in the country.
- Australia has been ranked in/near the top 10 freest countries in the world for a long time, and little of what has happened during the pandemic would warrant that changing.
> When they have already been sustaining this stuff for going on two years with no signs of letting up.
For what it's worth (you've revealed in another comment that you're not Australian, so you might not be aware,) in the period between the 2020 lockdown and the delta outbreak this year (approx. October 2020 to June 2021) things had almost returned to normal. I was back at work and at sport. Beaches and shopping centres were packed. State borders were open (a friend went on a camping trip to Queensland.) It was remarkable how quickly things returned to normal once the number of new cases dropped to zero, and it was surreal to watch international news and see that not everyone was able to live like us. This outbreak is more severe, but I have no reason to believe things won't be like that again once case numbers drop.
"Facebook posts or locking residents of an entire apartment complex in their homes with no one allowed to leave."
This IS the correct procedure during a disease pandemic. To halt the process of a disease it's been a common and effective practice throughout the centuries and across many countries to isolate those infected along with their close contacts for a period of time until the disease is over/can no longer propagate.
What do you specially find wrong with it and why? Sure it's inconvenient for those involved but it's the least harmful action for everyone - all of society benefits this way.
Clearly you don't know your history or you'd realize it was common practice. For example, until quite recently Sydney had a quarantine station at North Head for well over a century until the Government stupidly shut it down and turned it into a hotel: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Head_Quarantine_Statio...
Clearly, isolating people like this is new to you. Get used to the fact that it's not a new practice and the fact that you'll likely see it again in the future.
The same goes for the vaccinated versus the unvaccinated. Unvaccinated people are threat to the life and health of others so society has the right to isolate them for its own safety. This practice is not new either, it's been practiced ever since vaccination became common practice.
The them and us problem is simply solved by 'them' not being so damned selfish and getting vaccinated like the rest of society.
Please note: the matter of coercion with respect to public health matters is NOT like other forms of government coercion or government surveillance for political reasons. They are two completely separate matters - or they ought to be. If any of these COVID measures are later abused by Government then the citizenry has full rights to object in every way possible. Government has absolutely no right to take advantage of this tragic heath problem and it is incumbent on citizens to ensure that it does not.
* If any of these COVID measures are later abused by Government then the citizenry has full rights to object in every way possible. Government has absolutely no right to take advantage of this tragic heath problem and it is incumbent on citizens to ensure that it does not.*
It is naive to think this way. By then it will be too late. They are building tyrannical systems of enslavement in the name of public health because obviously they wouldn’t openly say they want to enslave you.
Waiting for them to build the systems before you evaluate if they’re abusing their power must be some kind of preemptive Stockholm Syndrome from a citizenry that deep down can sense what is happening but finds itself powerless or too afraid to speak up. And so they just eat their own by failing to be critical and cautiously paranoid at the right time.
Is that quote really your smoking gun evidence that Rogan is Republican or Republican-supporting? Try and replace the names with people who don't have a political charge attached, and try to honestly assess whether it's such an outrageous thing to say.
He didn't say he would vote Trump and there's no evidence that he did. He was simply commenting that Biden was in decline, which was and is increasingly there for everyone to observe, and is highly concerning for a person who holds the most powerful office in the world.
You can disagree that his cognitive impairment disqualifies him from being president, fine, but to make that kind of comment is just not deserving of the outrage, and clearly the media whipped it up and perpetuated it in order to keep us all clicking and arguing.
- As an infant, was evacuated from Greece with his (and his family's) life in grave danger. Spent his childhood mostly estranged from his family
- As a young man, served on a naval ship as part of the campaign to defeat fascist Germany and Japan. At least once helped save his ship's crew from a German bombing attack. Probably faced many other threats to his own life and to his comrades.
- Spent the rest of his life as an ambassador for his family and country, and counsel to his wife whose job it is to ensure the country and Commonwealth continues to function with stability and prosperity, including through political/economic crises, national emergencies, local/global cultural shifts, etc.
- Attended 22,000 official events and delivered 5000 speeches. Was an early advocate for environmentalism and animal welfare. Conceived and headed a youth development organisation for most of his public life.
- Endured family tragedies, relentless media/public scrutiny and criticism, and constant campaign against his family's wealth and role in the political system.
You may not like him. Fine. I didn't care much for him, and I don't hold a great deal of pity for him for the difficulties he and his family have faced.
I'm not going to debate the pros and cons of a dead royal. It is indisputable that he led an incredibly privileged existence, try to think what the life of your average commoner also born in 1921 was like if you are not sure.
You brought it up and keep replying, so you've clearly got an axe to grind. Not a single person is denying he was privileged. Your implication is that a privileged life is a life of "little to no worries", which is frequently asserted by people who seek to attack the wealthy simply for being wealthy, but it is a deep misconception in most cases, and particularly so for a sovereign leader. I understand you feel it's important to express contempt for a rich person at the time of their passing, but that doesn't excuse falsehoods.
I mentioned it and got attacked, so of course I'm going to reply. Both you and "gadders" have gotten your knickers in a twist over absolutely nothing. I've already spent more time in this thread thinking or talking about Prince Philip than I have in the last 3 decades, I think that is quite enough for me - I'm out.
The full context of the "spears" comment in Australia:
"[Prince Philip and the Queen] were coming down the [cable car] and we were putting on a special performance," Warren Clements recalled.
"We had royal fever so we said 'Let's go out the back and throw some boomerangs and spears and hopefully we'll get a glimpse of them as they come down'.
"They waved and we were showing off. I think Prince Philip took that in and that's why he said it.
I've been as willing as anybody to believe theories (long commonplace among alt-med communities) like "it's antibiotics", "it's candida yeast" (or insert any other bacterial/fungus/parasite/virus species you can point to), "it's the effect of vaccines on the microbiome", "it's due to microbial dysbiosis in utero".
And after nearly 20 years of researching/contemplating/experimenting, I just find myself thinking "there's no singular, simple explanation or solution". And really, nor should there be; the body is a highly complex system.
Microbiome matters – but there's plenty of stuff you can do to improve it. Metals (mercury, lead, etc) and other environmental toxins (PFAS and other endocrine disruptors [1]) matter – but they can be detoxified over time via some fairly safe and non-invasive techniques. Inflammation matters a lot – and all kinds of things to do with diet, allergens, microbiome influence that. Genetics matter – but probably less than we presume, once all the other factors are considered and addressed (and it's probably more a case of genetic expression in response to stressors, rather than anything hard-coded/deterministic).
A big perspective-shift for me was finding that emotions and trauma matter a huge amount. This is the least-researched and discussed, both in mainstream and the alt-med circles, but in my own experience, nothing has made a bigger difference to my life outcomes (including physiological symptoms like inflammation) than regularly practicing techniques that identify and release deeply-held emotional complexes.
It can seem like an implausible, fringe theory until you think about it this way: if a person is perpetually traumatised, they can be in a "fight/flight/freeze" state, which takes up much of the body's energy and resources, instead of that being directed to healthy immunity (dealing with harmful microbes and allergens), digestion, metabolism, detoxification, tissue repair/growth etc.
And just to confound things even further, having to deal with an unhealthy microbiome in utero or early life can be a cause of trauma (just as it can be in later life when an infection like Epstein Barr can lead to CFS/ME).
I know this all seems very nebulous and speculative; it's taken me a long time to get my head around, but my takeaway after all this time is that to correct these kinds of conditions, these factors all need to be addressed in parallel: emotions, microbiome, toxicity, diet/nutrition.
I'm quite sure there will be no complete understanding and remedy for conditions like ASD and ADHD that doesn't incorporate all these factors.
[1] https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news/2022/07/what-are-endo...