Saturday morning links

Elizabeth Holmes was just more blatant, and hotter, than a lot of people that VCs pour money into. They don’t need to get lucky that often to do well….there’s a reason they’re not neurosurgeons.

#1 DblTap on 2022-01-08 07:50 (Reply)

Correct. Her sentence would've been heavier had she been a man.

#1.1 Maniac on 2022-01-08 09:58 (Reply)

I believe that if the government is going to mandate something like masks or business closing that then it is incumbent on them to prove beyond any doubt that their mandate is extremely effective.

But there is an even more important point to be made about the mandates and that is where in the constitution does the government get the authority to mandate masks, business closings, vaccinations even when contraindicated? And if the Supremes in their position to interpret the constitution decide that the government can do this where are the limits??? It is a fact that if you remove a women's breasts that she won't get breast cancer. Could the government, in the name of the greater good, mandate that every women have her breasts removed at age 18? If not why not? It would literally end breast cancer. Don't you want to end breast cancer??? You could make the same argument about removing the prostate. Why not? Where does it end if the government has the right to mandate that you accept medical intervention even while healthy.

I have a further suggestion in the name of equity. The federal government should shut down Amazon, facebook, google, Twitter, etc. for two years. Completely shut them down and fines of a million dollars a day if they fail to comply. Why? Because shutdowns work and we have now entered year three of two weeks to slow the spread and it is only fair (equity) that those companies do their fair share to help us here.

#2 Anon on 2022-01-08 10:19 (Reply)

Anon: And if the Supremes in their position to interpret the constitution decide that the government can do this where are the limits???

The courts apply a standard that, in response to epidemic diseases, the government not act in "an unreasonable, arbitrary or oppressive manner." (See Jacobson v. Massachusetts.) The powers have to be enacted by statute, however. The current question before the Supreme Court is which powers have been granted by the congress to the president.

Anon: It is a fact that if you remove a women's breasts that she won't get breast cancer. Could the government, in the name of the greater good, mandate that every women have her breasts removed at age 18? If not why not?

Because breast cancer is not contagious.

#2.1 Zachriel on 2022-01-08 11:47 (Reply)

Check out Australia's new tyrannical mandates http://www.libertystorch.info/2022/01/07/peoples-republic-of-australia/

#2.1.1 Anon on 2022-01-08 12:04 (Reply)

Anon: Check out Australia's new tyrannical mandates

It might be helpful not to post a video polemic. There is a stream of claims in the video, but no way to directly verify the claims. Try to provide a more reasonable source.

Keep in mind that government powers during pandemics are deeply rooted in common law. Australia is a common law system, so these powers are not new.

#2.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2022-01-08 12:17 (Reply)

That is true if you live in DC or an ivory tower. But everyone else who is paying attention already know these things and are astonished when you show you are ignorant of them. If you don't know something you would be better off simply keeping your mouth shut. I get it! You are so busy refuting everything that you don't have time to see what is going on in the world, but every time you do this you make a fool of yourself.

#2.1.1.1.1 Anon on 2022-01-08 14:18 (Reply)

Anon: If you don't know something you would be better off simply keeping your mouth shut. I get it!

Actually, if we don't know something, we ask, which we just did. Let us know when you can support your claims.

#2.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2022-01-08 15:02 (Reply)

The sun is just coming up. It shines in through the kitchen window at this time every morning. Of course we all know that, right? But I don't have a citation so Zach believes that the sun doesn't come up in the morning unless I can prove it. AND if you disagree he will try to make it appear that you are a far right crazy who is spreading conspiracy theories about the sun.

#2.1.1.1.1.1.1 Anon on 2022-01-09 09:48 (Reply)

Anon: The sun is just coming up. It shines in through the kitchen window at this time every morning.

Technically, it is the Earth that is rotating (Heraclides c.350 BCE), but okay.

Anon: But I don't have a citation so Zach believes that the sun doesn't come up in the morning unless I can prove it.

Well, no. Lack of evidence wouldn't say one way or the other. However, there is plenty of observational evidence that the sun appears to rise in the morning. Moreover, there is ample evidence of the Earth's actual rotation (e.g. Foucault 1851; Anders 1968).

You had claimed Australia was imposing "new tyrannical mandates." We asked for some evidence of this.

Are all mandates tyrannical? Does making someone stop when the light is red constitute tyranny? After all, the freedom to come and go would seemingly be an inherent right.

#2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2022-01-09 10:24 (Reply)

LOL! Point taken. The sun doesn't "rise". How could I have been so wrong. I am going to reconsider all of my prior beliefs.

#2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Anon on 2022-01-09 18:50 (Reply)

Says the Zachbot that routinely makes claims without posting links to evidence. Predictable.

#2.1.1.1.2 Earle on 2022-01-08 15:58 (Reply)

Earle: Says the Zachbot that routinely makes claims without posting links to evidence.

On this thread, we have posted the following evidence:

A Supreme Court case detailing the limits of government power during epidemics.
Cited data on vaccinated vs. unvaccinated COVID infection and hospitalization rates from Public Health Ontario and Public Health Agency of Canada.
Provided specific data on HadCRUT4 and how to interpret uncertainty ranges.
When asked to "check out Australia's new tyrannical mandates," we pointed out that Australia is a common law nation, and asked for more information.

#2.1.1.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2022-01-08 16:11 (Reply)

Thanks, KiddieZ. Have a cookie. Y'all earned it.

#2.1.1.1.2.1.1 Zachinoff on 2022-01-09 14:36 (Reply)

The new IRS rules go into effect and they will track various pay apps to find those people who have other income streams that aren't now declared. Now imagine that this begins to discover people on welfare babysitting or selling stuff on Ebay and other income streams. What do you suppose the government will do with this information? They should of course demand the taxes due. BUT they should also prosecute the welfare queen for fraud. Do you think that they will? I would be good after tax money that in the name of "equity" they will not prosecute fraud on certain "groups".

#3 JustMe on 2022-01-08 10:42 (Reply)

Starting this year, eBay is required to report all sellers with a gross income of $600 or more to the IRS via 1099 forms.

#3.1 feeblemind on 2022-01-08 11:26 (Reply)

Don't blame Ebay, blame Congress. Make sure to punish your legislators for having done more "pass it so we can see what's in it" legislating; it was snuck into the "American Rescue Plan" bill.

#3.1.1 Dave on 2022-01-08 20:06 (Reply)

"How Elizabeth Holmes fleeced the elites"

A good story always trumps reality to the Wokels.

#4 bilejones on 2022-01-08 11:29 (Reply)

re Maxwell May Get A Second Trial, But What About the Rest of Epstein’s “Significant Others”?

How much do you want to bet that she either goes free or dies mysteriously?

As for the other "significant others", given how reluctant the DOJ and FBI have been to investigate and prosecute this case, I don't believe the other 'significant others' have much to fear in the way of prosecution.

Gates and Clinton are not going to allow this to be exposed and have enough money to stop the process.

#5 feeblemind on 2022-01-08 11:32 (Reply)

It may make sense that doctors and nurses get vaccinated. But it does not make sense to fire them if they are not vaccinated. What this has done is caused hospitals to close and very long waits to see a doctor or even get an appointment. This incredibly stupid policy has created a Hobson's choice where before you could have seen a doctor who chose not to get vaccinated but also was not infected with covid or NOW you cannot see a doctor because the doctor was fired. But it gets worse, since the vaccine does not prevent getting the disease there is a pretty good chance that your fully vaccinated health care worker will have covid. So what was accomplished other than a political statement similar to a toddlers tantrum?

#6 Anon on 2022-01-08 11:34 (Reply)

Anon: It may make sense that doctors and nurses get vaccinated. But it does not make sense to fire them if they are not vaccinated.

A medical institution would be liable if they transmitted COVID to someone who may already be weakened, especially if they haven't taken even rudimentary efforts to limit the transmission of disease.

Anon: But it gets worse, since the vaccine does not prevent getting the disease there is a pretty good chance that your fully vaccinated health care worker will have covid.

Vaccination reduces the chance of infection, certainly for earlier variants, and probably for Omicron. Testing is generally required, as well. You have to do what you can to protect those who are hospitalized. Vaccination is a very minimal step. Imagine a nurse or doctor bringing measles into a medical ward full of people who are already hurting.

#6.1 Zachriel on 2022-01-08 11:51 (Reply)

Canadian papers have already reported that covid is now a pandemic of the vaccinated. Hospitals are closing as their vaccinated staff are sick with covid. Looks to me like the political leaders have stepped on their pecker.

#6.1.1 Anon on 2022-01-08 12:20 (Reply)

Anon: Canadian papers have already reported that covid is now a pandemic of the vaccinated.

QUOTE:

Confirmed Cases of COVID-19 Following Vaccination in Ontario (December 12, 2021):

In the past 30 days, unvaccinated individuals were approximately 3.7 times more likely to become a case of COVID-19 compared to fully vaccinated individuals
In the past 30 days, the rate of COVID-19 in unvaccinated individuals was higher compared to fully vaccinated individuals in every age group
In the past 30 days, unvaccinated adults 60 years of age or older were approximately 33.0 times more likely to be hospitalized due to COVID-19 compared to fully vaccinated adults 60 years of age and older
Similar trends are observed for hospitalizations and deaths, with unvaccinated cases accounting for 90.0% of hospitalizations and 89.4% of deaths while breakthrough cases accounted for 3.6% of hospitalizations and 4.1% of deaths. Cases following a third dose accounted for 0.1% of hospitalizations and 0.2% of deaths

https://www.publichealthontario.ca/-/media/documents/ncov/epi/covid-19-epi-confirmed-cases-post-vaccination.pdf

#6.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2022-01-08 12:44 (Reply)

Let me guess... You were a cherry picker in a former life? Did I get it right???

#6.1.1.1.1 Anon on 2022-01-08 14:21 (Reply)

Anon: You were a cherry picker in a former life?

With 38% of Canada's population, Ontario is hardly cherry-picking, especially when the data is so lopsided. And medical data from Ontario is certainly a stronger and more specific citation than "Canadian papers."

Here is the data for the whole country:

QUOTE:

Compared to unvaccinated cases, fully vaccinated cases were 79% less likely to be hospitalized and 71% less likely to die as a result of their illness.
https://health-infobase.canada.ca/covid-19/epidemiological-summary-covid-19-cases.html

#6.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2022-01-08 15:09 (Reply)

So than, what you are saying is you don't know what cherry picking is?

#6.1.1.1.1.1.1 Anon on 2022-01-09 09:50 (Reply)

Anon: So than, what you are saying is you don't know what cherry picking is?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking

Your claim concerned COVID cases in Canada. We cited Ontario statistics, which represents a large portion of the Canadian population. When you suggested cherry-picking, we explained why that was probably not the case, which you ignored. But we also then provided nationwide data, which, as it includes the entire set, can’t be cherry-picking.

All of this, any of this, is a stronger and more specific citation than “Canadian papers.”

#6.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2022-01-09 21:02 (Reply)

"Incredibly, nobody asked to see the results of the quality-control tests on Theranos’s machines."

I would change the word incredibly to predictably.

Why would the investors mentioned perform any due diligence? They had a huge potential upside with no significant downside. It's not like they would lose their home or their retirement if their investment went to zero.

It's all confidence game at every level.

Play along long enough and the little people will get sucked into paying off all the early investors. When it collapses ayou get to tell the little people "that's the risk you take when you purchase stock."

These early investors should be charged as co-conspirators. They didn't look for problems because there was no upside for them in doing so.

#7 OldDude on 2022-01-08 11:39 (Reply)

QUOTE:

Global warming statistically insignificant: Climate emergency is imaginary . . . Based on the HadCRUT4 data set, there has been no statistically significant global warming for more than nine years – Aug. 2012 to Oct. 2021.

How Contrarians View Global Warming

HadCRUT4 trend from 2012:
0.217 ±0.304 °C/decade (2σ)

While outside the range of statistical significant (95%, 2σ), the range means there is a 92% chance of at least some warming, and only an 8% chance of not warming. For longer periods, of course, warming is virtually certain.

HadCRUT4 trend from 1980:
0.172 ±0.032 °C/decade (2σ)

#8 Zachriel on 2022-01-08 12:08 (Reply)

Ah, yes, the KiddieZ love them some flawed climate models.

QUOTE:

The researchers say that their results also expose a possible flaw in climate models, because they do not reproduce this early Atlantification at the beginning of the last century.

“Climate simulations generally do not reproduce this kind of warming in the Arctic Ocean, meaning there’s an incomplete understanding of the mechanisms driving Atlantification,” said Tommaso. “We rely on these simulations to project future climate change, but the lack of any signs of an early warming in the Arctic Ocean is a missing piece of the puzzle.”

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/12/29/arctic-ocean-warming-began-already-in-early-20th-century-meaning-natural-factors-strongly-at-play-not-co2/

#8.1 Zachinoff on 2022-01-08 12:29 (Reply)

The Australian article seems to contradict itself. They're acting as if their gender-blind hiring experiment was wrongfully favoring men, and yet their results show the opposite:

"The trial found assigning a male name to a candidate made them 3.2 per cent less likely to get a job interview.

Adding a woman's name to a CV made the candidate 2.9 per cent more likely to get a foot in the door."

Do they even know what they want?

#9 Dave on 2022-01-08 17:50 (Reply)

Sotomayor has been a fool for years, but crises are exposing that more clearly now. I thought Kagan was better, but now maybe not so much.

#10 Assistant Village Idiot on 2022-01-08 19:19 (Reply)

I remember reading some fawning article about Elizabeth Holmes some time before the Carryrou article on the WSJ came out. My first thought was along the lines of: "What she is taking about is highly improbable. Can it be done? Possibly. Can SHE do it? No. No one is THAT brilliant. Despite what this article is telling me, NO ONE is THAT 'brilliant.'" I read Carreyrou's book and I felt so terrible for Ian Gibbons and his family.

#11 Lee Also on 2022-01-09 10:04 (Reply)

The truth behind Build Back Better https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2022/01/08/brilliant-neil-oliver-goes-there/

#12 Anon on 2022-01-09 10:08 (Reply)

"Bill Filed In Washington (state) Would Authorize ‘Strike Force’ To ‘Involuntarily Detain’ Unvaccinated Families: ‘They Have Already Set Up The Internment Camps’

Are we really going to do this?

#13 OneGuy on 2022-01-09 10:49 (Reply)

OneGuy: "Bill Filed In Washington (state) Would Authorize ‘Strike Force’ To ‘Involuntarily Detain’ Unvaccinated Families: ‘They Have Already Set Up The Internment Camps’

Current law allows the state the quarantine people who may be contagious and who refuse to self-isolate. This is a power deeply rooted in common law. Do you really think society is helpless against people who are contagious moving about in public? Regardless, people have the right to contest their quarantine in court.

#13.1 Zachriel on 2022-01-09 11:03 (Reply)

Hopefully not a court with Kagan, Sotomayor, and Breyer.

#13.1.1 Zachinoff on 2022-01-09 23:43 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Saturday, January 8. 2022

Saturday morning links