#47

and of course it is all “new findings”, and if people like me ask, well how did we know since long ago, well we fell for pseudo science that by coincidence turned out to be “true” but really is not. Man am I glad to have stuck to my own reading comprehension and refused all corona type virus vaccines and pseudo vaccines. Pure blood here! My body can still deal with the sniffels.

2 Likes
#48

Obviously that’s true. His house, his rules. I don’t dispute it in the least. I’m speaking of “platonic ideas” here, what’s objectively the best way to handle the flow of ideas, in my subjective opinion :wink:. And it seems to me he’s more or less of my mind based on the way I see him moderate content. Keeping out absolute jerks or people who are clearly off their rocker (perpetually manic individuals come to mind) is more conducive to keeping a good “salon” type of virtual establishment than a close supervision or censorship of ideas trafficked. You can have rules of engagement, such as, if you’ll make substantive claims, always make sure to back them up with studies cited or other sources of info — so then the sources can be evaluated on the merits. In general suppressing opinion only emboldens it in the long run.

1 Like
#52

so we are on Harry Potter level now? sorry, I never cared for such. Around medical forums and suchlike, pure bloods are increasingly sought after for blood and plasma donations, since their fluids have no spike protein, and they are more reliable for vital high exhaustion tasks, since less likely to suddenly croach to myocardial affairs.

#53

how is it still allowed to cite the CDC on covid? just imagine if I were to cite Andrew Wakefield or whatever his name was, the outrage I would get, but you promote outright liars covering their deceptions. There is no point discussing with you if you have still not woken up to what they did. Millions dead because of their deceptions, and all you would need to do to see it is looking at excess deaths over the last few years in different locations and switch your brain on.

2 Likes
#54

I am 100% in opposition to your point of view. There is nothing more sacred than freedom of speech.

12 Likes
#55

Is there any source you trust for decision making about RSV, COVID, and/or flu vaccines?

1 Like
#56

Also this might be hair splitting but I think there’s a difference in the ideal way to moderate based on the content of such a forum compared to this one. A highly technical subject, let’s say, about a programming language or software application, is about helping people learn the ins and outs of a closed system. Truth is known there a priori as it’s a man-made system. Aside from maybe spotting a bug or unintended shortcoming, there is no truth to discover or to debate. There’s a deductive epistemic flow from the top down. What could a member be contributing by making up fringe notions? They would simply be WRONG and proving them so would always be possible, in principle at least, by backing into the original source material, some master manual or documentation. One complete ultimate source of truth. There’s no real uncertainty. And any joker on the forum deviating from the mainstream is simply peddling false information — where’s the possible value in that?

Forums about subjects like longevity / biohacking are grappling with the unknown and the truth finding process is not only inductive as opposed to deductive, but also factors in a fair deal of uncertainty. Yes there’s a reasonable hierarchy of sources of evidence along the lines summarized by @RapAdmin but the picture is often incomplete — some meta analyses are weak, some RCTs inconclusive or one contradicts the other or you can see a clear lack of incentives for there to be RCTs or you’re faced with absence of evidence vs. evidence of absence or with N=1 truths that for the individual concerned trump all other sources, and even so, you’re faced with properly interpreting one’s own biometric data over time, keeping all variables steady. In short, it’s messier. Much harder to speak with absolute certainty about things than whether a certain bit of code works or doesn’t work, is valid syntax or isn’t (not saying your technical forum had to have been coding related but only using it as an illustrative example). So it takes greater epistemic modesty, is what I’m saying. And the likelihood of shutting out good ideas with “controversial” speech, much higher.

2 Likes
#57

It just is not as simple as “where is the source you can trust”. Adult life does not work that way. Intellectual maturing is to come to that realization. On vaccines and covid testing, I trusted some of what the celebrated originators of mRNA and pcr had to say, when they were suddenly demonized, but that does not mean I gonna now trust those guys for ever. I have in my years in science met so many who were brilliant in one thing, and autistic retards otherwise, in fact the real great ones are all like that, and most at some point just lose it completely, annd it is sad to see, but it is as it is. It is all just humans.

#58

So how have you decided to not take the RSV, flu, or COVID vaccine?

#59

Well, once the realization hits that almost all of the hyped medical issues are loaded with bias and fraud, the proper reaction is to be very careful with whatever they come next with. Yes, might be I miss out on an actually good one, but I doged many a bullet.

1 Like
#60

So, in summary, you don’t believe any sources really. This could be interpreted as a very broad conspiracy theory that automatically rules out anything that goes against your perceived beliefs.

How is it possible for you to follow any science if you think believe “all the issues where establishment corruption”… it seems like an extremely cynical viewpoint that makes any effort at identifying a actionable path forward impossible based on scientific studies in the longevity field. The belief of widespread “establishment corruption” is a non-falsifiable statement.

How would it be possible to have a reasonable scientific discussion with you given these beliefs? It seems that any research you don’t like is going to be labeled as the result of a corrupt establishment or “loaded with bias and fraud” ; which effectively makes it impossible to have a rational discussion impossible.

8 Likes
#61

The problem is, this is making a strawman argument.

Nothing is 100% solidly backed. Rapamycin sure as hell isn’t. The best we have is some mouse data and some weak money data. Recent human study (PEARL) actually failed, and we’ve then given justifications as to why it failed.

So holding something to a 100% standard is unrealistic, just to begin with.

Also, vaccines do go through testing, FDA approvals etc. However, due to their nature as preventative, and the impact on public health, they are not assessed in the same way as an interventional RCT.

And lastly, it’s fine to be sceptical of Covid vaccines and have your own standards based on your own situation. However, I’d point out that the SARS-COV-2 virus itself is an “unknown entity entering your body”. And that entity hijacks your cells to self-replicate itself, spreads to multiple organ systems, infects vasculature, causes blood clots, damages the heart, and it mutates itself. By that comparison, the vaccine is much more benign.

Since this was/is a global pandemic, it’s a safe assumption that everybody is going to get infected - thus you choose, do you want to “raw dog” it and take your chances against the virus, or do you want to use the vaccine as a chance to get a head start against the virus. Sitting it out wasn’t an option.

For me, I decided to get vaccinated because I saw otherwise healthy friends get f*cked by this virus, whereas the vaccine at least had defined safety data from the studies. A 38 year old I know ended up on a ventilator and he has permanent lung damage now due to that virus. A 42 year old I know died from a pulmonary embolism when he got Covid. On the other hand, the vaccine was given out and the adverse effects were measured carefully in a population, at least for a period of time. The actual virus gave us no such opportunity, and obviously a lot of infections were unreported or unknown, so it was difficult to know the actual % risk. Thus, I had to make a decision in the moment, pandemic ongoing, knowing I’d be infected one way of another. In end, I have no regrets.

You did not know this until you roll the dice though. A healthy 38 year old friend of mine (avid gym bro) ended up in hospital for 5 weeks when he got Covid. Meanwhile, his 75 year old obese diabetic mother shrugged it off with nothing more than a head cold. So this is a profoundly ignorant and arrogant thing to say.

Same deal for the vaccine. Some people got vaccinated and then downplayed their Covid infection, with no basis for knowing how bad or good their experience would have been.

@AnUser Just to support your point; do people know what else causes blood clot and myocarditis, aside from the Covid vaccine? Getting Covid! The virus causes all of those adverse events, and many more.

This is a private internet forum. Nobody has “rights” here. Moderation is needed to achieve a balance between allowing people to express opinions versus crowding out useful information with BS. As we know, spreading nonsense, trolling, and “hit and run” tactics are fast and easy, whereas refuting them takes time and energy. Nobody wants to play fact checker forever to an endless stream of conspiracy theories.

I have only recently joined (though I’ve been reading for a while). However, if this place just becomes some sort of antivax conspiracy-fest, it will lose the educated, insightful and open-minded posters which have made it so awesome.

4 Likes
#62

@Beth

Fellow layperson here. Don’t feel discouraged or avoid posting here. By asking questions, you learn and your healthspan increases as you take actionable steps.

Thats until @RapAdmin gets tired of us.

5 Likes
#63

I guarantee @RapAdmin won’t get tired of you guys. :slight_smile:

4 Likes
#64

The issue we’re talking about seems to always come back related to vaccine and especially the Covid vaccine. So instead of trying to find one great rule that encompasses all debates here, we could just rule on vax topics. For instance we could:

  1. Ban vaccine related discussions, or
  2. Have a single dedicated thread for the Covid vax. Any mention of the Covid vax outside that thread would lead to a warning and then ban. Those not interested can just mute that thread.
6 Likes
#65

The latter is sensible. (Option 2). There might be a role for vaccines in longevity. Personally I don’t think so. However, no-one can assume that they are right on all things.

1 Like
#67

I enter this discussion at a late stage, a discussion is of vital interest.

It is in part a large question about the freedom of speech and the freedom to choose a belief system. Should irrational thoughts that are based only on thoughts and feelings be allowed? The answer is in general yes; the individual is allowed to believe in whatever they want. But society should stand up for rational thoughts in the service of the common good. But using rationality and pushing forward the common good can also go very wrong. Think of the actions based on Darwinism which led to Eugenics, which was a movement that emerged in the late 19th century and became widespread during the first half of the 20th century. Proponents of eugenics were rational and implemented actions for the common good, based on empirical biological science. They wanted to improve humanity through selective reproduction - encouraging reproduction among people with “desirable” traits and preventing reproduction among those with “undesirable” traits. Rational thought can lead terrible effects.

In many countries, including Sweden, the United States, and Germany, eugenic ideas led to laws that enabled forced sterilization of people considered to have “inferior” genes. This particularly affected people with disabilities, mental illnesses, and individuals from marginalized social groups.
After World War II and the Nazis’ extreme application of eugenic ideas, the movement was marginlized, but in some countries like my country, Sweden, forced sterilizations continued well into the post-war period and the late sixties.

My take is that freedom of belief and fredom of speach is a cornerstone of liberty. Suppressing beliefs—even irrational ones—risks authoritarian overreach, and a pluralistic society respects diverse viewpoints, fostering inclusivity and reducing marginalization of minority groups. And allowing fringe ideas to exist in public discourse forces individuals to engage, question, and refute them, strengthening societal resilience to misinformation and we avoid echo chambers.

Irrational beliefs can provide meaning to a persons life and give comfort and coping in uncertain times, and thereby strengthening the individual. Irrational beliefs (like vaccine distrust or that aliens are walking among us) can reflect deeper societal problems, like institutional mistrust or lack of societal belonging, issues that need addressing.

There are of course good arguments AGAINST Allowing Irrational Belief Systems. Some belief systems cause direct harm. Not only to public Health. Think of the extreme example of irrational beliefs among the indigenous peoples of Borneo, particularly groups such as the Iban, Dayak, Kayan, and Kenyah, historically practiced headhunting (ngayau in Iban). While the practice has been outlawed and largely eradicated since the early 20th century due to colonial intervention and rational modernization. Of course, I think it is very correct to outlaw headhunting, even if it is a part of a deeply rooted religious belief. It is a question of morality—what is the good and the right thing to do? Head-hunting cause direct harm to people. Vaccine hesitancy fueled by conspiracy theories can prolong pandemics, overwhelm healthcare systems, and cost lives. Misinformation undermines confidence in science, medicine, and governance, weakening collective responses to crises. Vulnerable Populations lacking education or critical thinking skills like children, marginalized groups can be disproportionately harmed. There is also an epistemic harm when we normalize falsehoods, which erodes shared reality, making constructive dialogue impossible.

My final take: While freedom of belief is vital, actions stemming from those beliefs may warrant regulation. Not all irrational beliefs are equally harmful. Context matters, and it is important to distinguish between private beliefs and public misinformation campaigns. Combating harmful beliefs is more effective through education and transparency than outright censorship, suppression, or de-plat- form specific individuals that voice an unpleasant opinion.

Balancing individual liberties with societal well-being requires nuanced policies that protect free expression while mitigating tangible harms. Critical thinking, empathy, and robust institutions are essential to navigating this tension. With this said, I leave this issue to our “institution” @RapAdmin

1 Like
#69

“in summary, you don’t believe any sources really.”
I said that no sources can simply be trusted; all have to be approached with critical thinking.

" rules out anything that goes against your perceived beliefs."
Nonsense. I do not have “perceived beliefs”. Good scientists hold hypothesis to some degree depending on plausable evidence.

“extremely cynical viewpoint that makes any effort at identifying a actionable path forward impossible based on scientific studies in the longevity field.”
Is that what you have taken away from my writing on rapa issues? You and me cannot discuss rectal versus intra nasal because I do not believe some source that can be fully trusted? Nonsense. What is wrong with just sticking to feet on the ground arguments? Why so emotional? You really have your trousers in a knot because I do not conform to your meta studies food pyramid? Look, I would love for it to be all that easy, but it just is not.

“The belief of widespread “establishment corruption” is a non-falsifiable statement.”
WHAT? Are you completely blind to recent history? For example the issue of sugar versus fat? Are you saying that it was not the sugar and crisco shortening guys bribing the research, leading to all that fructose consumption destroying the health of millions of trusting people? Such is not verifyable??? It is all out by now. Fool me so many times, fool me again and again?

“How would it be possible to have a reasonable scientific discussion with you given these beliefs?”
Again, are you saying you cannot discuss with me whether rapa solves better in DMSO or butyl alcohol, just because I am aware of the murky history of the suppression of once widely used DMSO? What utter nonsense.

“It seems that any research you don’t like”
“research I do not like”??? What are you implying? Oh, I get it. Anything I criticize that you like is simply what I just don’t like, like chocolate ice cream versus vanilla. Guess what, I am a scientist! If I do not “like” some research, I have damn good reasons for that, or else I don’t give an opinion. Do not project your own shortcomings on others. I am high Asberger autistic. I have no such problems with like or not like. I think scientifically since I was a very young child. I like what makes scientific sense after rigorous scrutiny.

“effectively makes it impossible to have a rational discussion”
Your emotional state is what makes it impossible. I am perfectly able to have rational discussions.

1 Like
#70

The motto here is 'Go easy on the people and hard on the science '.

As a warning to all, please refrain from personal attacks. People who make personal attacks will be banned.

Of course I am posting this because it seems like things are heading in that direction.

5 Likes
#71

“And that entity hijacks your cells to self-replicate itself, spreads to multiple organ systems, infects vasculature, causes blood clots, damages the heart, and it mutates itself. By that comparison, the vaccine is much more benign.”
So why then post vaccine problems are usually far worse than “long covid”? Because usually, the virus being encountered leads to evolved responses, and it is relatively benign, while the mRNA gene therapy is only propagandized as benign, but if you were to open your eyes, look at the death statistics etc., you would realize, it is not as benign.