ecosophia | Open (More or Less) Post on Covid 202

We are now approaching the end of the fourth year of these open posts. When I first posted a tentative hypothesis on the course of the Covid phenomenon, I had no idea that discussion on the subject would still be necessary all these years later, much less that it would turn into so lively, complex, and troubling a conversation. Still, here we are. Crude death rates and other measures of collapsing public health are anomalously high in many countries, but nobody in authority wants to talk about the inadequately tested experimental Covid injections that are the most likely cause; ~~public health authorities~~ government shills for the pharmaceutical industry are still trying to push through laws that will allow them to force vaccinations on anyone they want; public trust in science is collapsing; and the story continues to unfold.

So it's time for another open post. The rules are the same as before:

1. If you plan on parroting the party line of the medical industry and its paid shills, please go away. This is a place for people to talk openly, honestly, and freely about their concerns that the party line in question is dangerously flawed and that actions being pushed by the medical industry and its government enablers are causing injury and death on a massive scale. It is not a place for you to dismiss those concerns. Anyone who wants to hear the official story and the arguments in favor of it can find those on hundreds of thousands of websites.

2. If you plan on insisting that the current situation is the result of a deliberate plot by some villainous group of people or other, please go away. There are tens of thousands of websites currently rehashing various conspiracy theories about the Covid-19 outbreak and the vaccines. This is not one of them. What we're exploring is the likelihood that what's going on is the product of the same arrogance, incompetence, and corruption that the medical industry and its wholly owned politicians have displayed so abundantly in recent decades. That possibility deserves a space of its own for discussion, and that's what we're doing here.

3. If you plan on using rent-a-troll derailing or disruption tactics, please go away. I'm quite familiar with the standard tactics used by troll farms to disrupt online forums, and am ready, willing, and able -- and in fact quite eager -- to ban people permanently for engaging in them here. Oh, and I also lurk on other Covid-19 vaccine skeptic blogs, so I'm likely to notice when the same posts are showing up on more than one venue.

4. If you plan on making off topic comments, please go away. This is an open post for discussion of the Covid epidemic, the vaccines, drugs, policies, and other measures that supposedly treat it, and other topics directly relevant to those things. It is not a place for general discussion of unrelated topics. Nor is it a place to ask for medical advice; giving such advice, unless you're a licensed health care provider, legally counts as practicing medicine without a license and is a crime in the US. Don't even go there.

5. If you don't believe in treating people with common courtesy, please go away. I have, and enforce, a strict courtesy policy on my blogs and online forums, and this is no exception. The sort of schoolyard bullying that takes place on so many other internet forums will get you deleted and banned here. Also, please don't drag in current quarrels about sex, race, religions, etc. No, I don't care if you disagree with that: my journal, my rules.

6. Please don't just post bare links without explanation. A sentence or two telling readers what's on the other side of the link is a reasonable courtesy, and if you don't include it, your attempted post will be deleted.

Please also note that nothing posted here should be construed as medical advice, which neither I nor the commentariat (excepting those who are licensed medical providers) are qualified to give. Please take your medical questions to the licensed professional provider of your choice.

With that said, the floor is open for discussion.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Of course, there may also be a selection bias, in that pre 1950s, people took fewer photos and they were more expensive, so the ones that are still around are much likelier to be of pretty faces, largely because they're likely to be of more well-off people who ate well in early childhood.

That said, I'd love to see a proper study comparing same-age, same-angle photos of fully-vaccinated vs. unvaccinated people.

I had all the recommended ones, but it was a shorter list in the 80s. Face not notable symmetrical, but the aspect of that I always found interesting is that whatever the expression, the left side of my face looks more sincere than the right. Always thought it was a leftbrain/rightbrain thing where the right brain (intuition etc) connects to the left side of the body, and left brain (logic, language, etc) connects to the right. But even a very tiny difference in muscle function might have a similar effect.

I think you are mistaken about the selection bias, as photography was invented in the early 1800's, and 'mass' photography was available in the early 1900's, whereby people can take photos and leave the processing and printing on paper to dedicated labs. I vaguely recall Midwesterndoc was just using random stock pictures from the past where the facial features were clear enough to make the comparisons. Then either in the article or possibly in the comments, I recall a comparison of some high school yearbook pictures which again illustrated the differences over the last few decades.

Yes and no.

For a really good comparison, you'd need yearbook photos from a variety of districts: wealthy, poor, rural, urban. Childhood nutrition and health has a lot to do with how you look, and those things are not unrelated to wealth, environment, and resources.

I can say for certain in my own family tree, there was a vast difference between those who grew up desperately poor in the Depression, and their children, born from mid-1940s to 1960s. Interestingly, the Depression generation, despite being materially poor, raised their own food and livestock and had access to fresh food. They all had beautiful teeth, in an age where orthodontics wasn't really a thing. My grandma lived to 75ish and still had every one of her teeth, no cavities. Grandma was one of *many* children, and they all stayed in the same area I grew up in, so I grew up actually knowing my dozens of first and second cousins, oodles of great-aunts, etc. The 1950s-ish generation: my parents and their cousins: they all grew up considerably more affluent and comfortable than their parents had been, but they didn't live "on the farm" and canned and packaged foods were the bees' knees for the Depression generation: cheap, easy, and you didn't have to pick weevils out of it! My parents' generation had lousy teeth. Crowded, crooked, and they've all got a few fillings. They got braces as kids, and tbh they are not as good-looking as my grandparents' set. But the polio vax was not even a thing until 1955-- they probably all got it, but a lot of them were older children at the time: 6-15 maybe. Not preschoolers. A lot of what you are going to look like is already pretty well set up by then. So if I had to take a wild guess at it, I'd reckon it had more to do with what they were eating, and possibly running down the street after the DDT truck, than with vaccination campaigns.

I do think vaccines have a lot to answer for. I just don't think it's quite as simple as comparing old photos to new ones. There's a lot going on there, and I'm not sure you can tease out that one factor so easily. If you're looking at yearbook photos, for instance, it's important to make sure you're comparing apples to apples. Are you comparing wealthy kids to other wealthy kids? Poor kids to other poor kids? Recent immigrants to other recent immigrants? Are you inadvertently chopping off a huge segment of the population by comparing people who made it as far as high school in 1950, to people who made it to high school in 2020? The standards are quite different now: it used to be pretty common to quit after 8th grade to go to work.

--you'd also have to answer the question: when did yearbooks start being a thing, and did every school make them, or just the schools in affluent districts?

I've seen graduation pictures from as far back as the 1920s, of Rural and small town school districts. Even back then, it was seen as important enough that any school district of any level of prosperity made sure to record their graduates through photographs.

– Donald Hargraves

That might be good for a comparison, then ;)

Open (More or Less) Post on Covid 202

Re: The Walking Wounded

Re: The Walking Wounded

Re: The Walking Wounded

Re: The Walking Wounded

Re: The Walking Wounded

Re: The Walking Wounded