It's not just that people weren't warned, it's that we were presented with a bunch of a priori reasoning about why mRNA shots couldn't possibly have this effect. So it raises the question, which of the other assertions (which were not backed by long term clinical data, because none existed) were also wrong?
If you dig into the actual data cited in the paper, the assertion that recovery was demonstrated at T3 is dodgy at best. The study authors may have put some reassuring language in their commentary to get past political roadblocks to publication. I would not have added the quotes myself, but they're not necessarily misplaced.
Just on practical grounds, it's essentially impossible for Bruce Ivins to have been the culprit in the 9/18 and 10/09 anthrax mailings (two separate events, the first round going to media outlets and the second to Congressional offices), as Fort Detrick didn't have the required material to manufacture the stuff. His convenient suicide prior to being named as a suspect made any risk moot of a repeat of the failed effort to blame Steven Hatfill (who won $6 million in a defamation lawsuit over the bogus allegations by Justice 7 FBI). If Hatfill had 'committed suicide' it's pretty clear they'd have closed the case then as well.
As far as who did have the means, well, after the revelations about the scale of the Soviet bioweapons progam by a pair of defectors in the early 1990s, various US agencies worked to replicate some of their 'advances in the field', such as preparation of highly aerosilizable dry anthrax powder, in programs which ran through at least 2000, named Jefferson, Clear Vision, maybe a few others, in violation of BWC treaty obligations not to manufacture bioweapons (they claimed it was for 'studying defenses'). Notably Fort Detrick wasn't involved with any of that; it was a place in Ohio contracted to the CIA called Battelle Memorial Institue that did the actual work, apparently. That's likely where the material in the letters was sourced from, although it's anyone's guess whose bright idea it was.
All of Ivin's colleagues at Fort Detrick know he didn't have the means and some said so publicly later, although the FBI slapped the whole place with a gag order for years.
Ironically, Hatfill turned into a Trump inside team member promoting hydroxychloroquine and the attempted 2020 election coup, causing more damage than the anthrax attacks.
I would still be more focused on DeFi and maybe large leveraged positions like Saylor's over Tether, which is ultimately backed by Bitfinex, a highly profitable crypto exchange which is probably still doing decent volumes during this down wave. If Tether does fail it might very well come toward the tail end of crypto price declines, when trading volumes have dried up and the incentive to prop it up is gone.
Bitcoin has only just reached its marginal cost of production. The dynamics of Bitcoin are probably different (it doesn't take years to shut down or spin up a mine), but when they enter bear cycles, many commodities will trade below the marginal cost of production for years. The marginal cost of production itself could also fall if energy prices decline from here.
Unfortunately that's true. There are also many other models to have elites, some more fair or less cruel than others.
This way or another the main equation never changes. That is, the resources we consume are below the resources we produce. Left or right, communists or capitalist or other kind of ideologues are just different groups of people who have different ideas on how to distribute the roles.
US foreign policy and actions of private companies have absolutely decimated other countries, cultures, and economies so now those countries are reliant on the income from rich US capitalists exploiting their populace's dire straights. That we placed them in.
Throughout bitcoin's entire existence, the Federal Reserve and central banks globally have been in a posture of monetary easing and accommodation. There may be some reason to believe this crypto winter will be deeper and longer than the prior ones, and that the absurd heights of Ponzi speculation that were reached this time will not be seen again for a long time, if ever.
> might reduce the time they can spread it to more at risk people or possibly reduce the viral load
That the vaccines could do this (especially for the new variants) was never demonstrated in any rigorous randomized controlled trials whatsoever, and if anything the experience of highly vaxxed countries and jurisdictions (hello, Bay Area!) suggests that they are actually increasing the rate of infection. It's possible that the main effect of the vaccines is to suppress immune response, which helps prevent the immune-induced cytokine storm which leads to severe disease, but also allows for higher asymptomatic viral loads.
The reference to "inconvenience" shows you are really either unfamiliar or obtusely dismissive of the skeptics' reasons for declining COVID vaccines.
It does seem like there should be some happy medium between this and Tesla's policy of not counting it as an Autopilot crash if it disengages one second before impact.
I guess at the end of the day I mostly care about the overall accident rate, AP or not. Since the premise is that this kind of car will be safer, you would expect that rate to be lower.
And they're surely not the only ones. Michael Saylor at MicroStrategy insists he won't have any forced sales all the way down to $3,500 but it seems hard to believe.
Micheal Saylor and MicroStrategy have 129,000 bitcoin. They take a margin load of 205,000,000. If they put all of the bitcoin up for collateral they would have until around a bitcoin price of $1,600. It doesn't seem hard to believe at all.
It seems highly unlikely that Silvergate would be willing to accept 129,000 BTC as repayment for the 205M USD loan that Microstrategy took out. There's not enough liquidity on the order book for Silvergate to liquidate that entire position to get back USD (this is looking at current liquidity, which would suffer even further if BTC fell more). Thus it seems much more likely that the actual price where liquidation would happen is much higher, since Silvergate needs repayment in USD, not BTC.
Like around 3500 which is the rumored liquidation price? 1600 is if there was perfect liquidity and MicroStrategy could get current asking price for each coin.
