defaultprimate

Long enough for there to be a sufficient amount of statistically significant data that demonstrably proves that mRNA techniques are safe with no deleterious long term side effects especially compared to the afflictions they are supposed to mitigate, and in spite of their disastrous results in animal trials over the past few decades. You don't need a specific time because we have specific ways of determining statistically significant effects over time and populations. The amount of data that currently exists is 0.

Non eradicating vaccines during a pandemic of disease with transmissibility as high as COVID are actually a terrible idea for the same reason not finishing your antibiotics is: It applies selective pressure that promotes immune escape and treatment resistance.

>By virtue of its distribution these vaccines have already been tested far more extensively than any other vaccine in history at the time of their release. If you don't trust this vaccine then you should never trust any future vaccine.

This is a new level of newspeak. Releasing without testing is testing. Slavery is freedom. War is peace.

You clearly do not understand the scientific method or empiricism.

How about this? "I'm waiting to take the vaccine until we understand the long term effects because no data exists regarding them and it would be empirically and scientifically unsound to confirm a hypothesis (that the vaccine's long term benefits outweigh the costs) without sufficient evidence to overrule the null hypothesis and default state of being unvaccinated."

And has never made it to human trials before because of repeated catastrophic outcomes in animal testing.

People who refer to anyone that doesn't believe their same exact dogma as conspiracy theorists are not worthy of good faith or respect.

There's nothing conspiratorial about wanting to do science to explore unknowns consequences of known potential outcome. I'm done entertaining respect for folks that claim otherwise. It's bad faith and just generally being an asshole. They can take it if they're gonna dish it out

You do not understand the definition of liquidity.

Price in the crypto sphere is only dictated by transactions (which is why it's illiquid) because there is no intrinsic value. There is no wealth creation occuring. Volatility is definitionally illiquid.

In the equity sphere, assets have intrinsic value, and their price may be affected by extrinsic factors as well, but if the price tanks overnight because of bad quarterlies it's because the intrinsic value declined. The business's wealth creation potential declined.

>if you’re doing so with no information or insight, you are just randomly guessing.

No you aren't. You are doing the empirically sound thing and accepting the null hypothesis, the baseline of being unvaccinated, in the absence of sufficient evidence that the long term effects of the vaccines are more beneficial than detrimental.

We're not talking about things occurring "randomly". We're taking about reasonable probability assessments based on available information. Those refusing the vaccination are operating with the same level of information about long term effects as those that get it: none. People that get the vaccine have no empirical evidence that it will be beneficial or not harmful in the long run. No long term data exists for the techniques or methodology.

Your nutrition example is a great parallel because if we would have looked at the funding and long term data regarding the food pyramid, simple carbs, etc vs fats instead of just "trusting the experts" we wouldn't have an epidemic of obese, diabetic gen x and millennials. There's tons of sound empirical evidence about the long term health benefits of vegetables. It's complete false equivalence

Who knows? That's the point.

The time period of "long term" after vaccination literally doesn't exist yet

Maybe you didn't see what I said the first time:

Price and value are not the same. Ponzi schemes require buy in but still have no underlying value.

Also lol at crypto markets being liquid. In stablecoins maybe. Liquidity literally means volume has very limited effects on the price of an underlying. $100 or $5000 tomorrow is definitionally illiquid

Speculation does not impart value. Price and value are not the same

No they aren't, they are organizations that utilize collective bargaining in place of productivity or efficiency increases in the labor force, thereby diluting the labor market with an artificial baseline at levels lower than the market would dictate otherwise. They don't transfer any value, they just reduce the overall value of the industry and provide the illusion that union members are receiving a satisfactory portion of this reduced value.

13 years in the technology world is not "emerging"

>helped turn from worthless into ETH-comparable money

So still worthless.

I mean Google is genuinely evil, but unions do suck. UAW, NEA, and AFL-CIO have been absolutely terrible for their respective industries.

The program was named after Hooked on Phonics, but it was called Hooked on Pfizer, and they mostly looked over numbers and dollar signs.

Weird how the IPCC reports have consistently pushed their models' disaster and negative effect predictions further into the future every year for over a decade then.

Pfizer financed an accelerated reading program for them

This is basically a verbatim quote from 2016/2017 when Microsoft, IBM and other tech giants were starting blockchain research divisions, all of which were dissolved by last year lol

Wage growth was not strong compared to inflation

No evidence has been found in bats, just speculation

>provides as much safety

Not even close

https://www.investopedia.com/tech/bitcoin-lightning-network-...

https://cryptowhale.medium.com/why-the-bitcoin-lightning-net...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/billybambrough/2020/07/09/bitco...

Please describe which aspects are unfounded and provide evidence to the contrary

The only thing you see in bitcoin's price is how many unbacked stable coins have been printed

If what you described is true (it isn't), what allows the person to only open one channel?

You'll notice that he refuses to address any aspect of the and doesn't understand graph theory as much as he's pretending to, as noted in the top comment on the post.

Email and crypto are definitely comparable in their utility, usefulness, and technological advancement /s

Your comment takes me back to the late 90s in the dotcom bubble when everything was revolutionary and definitely not a scam

The psychological momentum of cryptobros far exceeds that of central bankers. Cryptobros and affiliated parties are comprised of thousand of vanguard who have built their entire financial future and self worth on their very limited life experience and ignorance of even the most basic economic principles and history, and a technological screw driver behaving as a hammer looking for a nail. BIS participants are, at minimum, involved for decades in global finance and markets with exceptional educations and understanding of the forces at work, unpredictable and unstable they may be.

Just as popular ignorance driven by hype, buzzwords, and FOMO has lead to bubble after bubble, victimization by ponzi schemers, and endless financial fraud, so to will the crypto space. It will help if we just stop debating whether crypto assets function in any way differently than a ponzi scheme and acknowledge they have zero capability of scaling as a currency to meet the demand of global finance, particularly while providing no security or recourse against basic human error like incorrect payee, charge backs, identity theft, etc, and are nothing more than a speculative asset with zero intrinsic value waiting for the next greater fool to come along.

"Just accept that my bags will always be around and eventually worth more than I paid for them"

No, I don't think I will

Weird how every time there's a crash there's suicide hotline posts on all the subreddits and crypto news websites then

This, but applied to crypto bagholders