The Natural Cures They Don’t Want You To Know About! (4-2-21)

00:00 Kevin Trudea’s book, The Natural Cures They Don’t Want You To Know About! https://respectfulinsolence.com/2014/10/28/ebola-right-to-try-laws-and-placebo-legislation/
03:00 Controversial TV Pitchman Kevin Trudeau Jailed, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghlNVeQuWgA
20:00 The case against challenge trials, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=138131
24:00 Friday Sessions on JML with Curtis Yarvin and Michael Anton, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrC0jWF42CI
1:44:00 WSJ: ‘How a Census Bureau error led Democrats to assume they were on the right side of inexorable demographic trends’, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=136917
1:59:00 Racism, sexism and misogyny broadcast on the airwaves, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g147JobmqxE
2:12:00 Rogue Superpower: Why This Could Be an Illiberal American Century, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2020-10-06/illiberal-american-century-rogue-superpower
2:28:40 Myth of Entangling Alliances — Michael Beckley on International Security Author Chats, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0AJdO-c-RE
2:33:00 Daryl Davis: American Hero, https://fakenous.net/?p=2214
2:47:30 The case for and against anonymity

Posted in America | Comments Off on The Natural Cures They Don’t Want You To Know About! (4-2-21)

Harold Robbins: The Man Who Invented Sex

Here are some excerpts from this 2008 book:

* “I realized it was because he did not care if he used the same adjective three times in three consecutive sentences. When you read one of his books, you realize what a rotten writer he is—he really has only four adjectives—but he’s a great storyteller.”

* “He is slender, tanned … a powdering of gray at the temples, a faintly humorous expression around his eyes. He smiles often, but a man who can earn a million by merely announcing he is going to write a novel has the right to laugh out loud.”

* Robbins’s new home [after his second marriage in 1965], at 905 North Beverly Drive, was a sign that he had arrived. Built on the site of Gloria Swanson’s old mansion and situated directly opposite the Beverly Hills Hotel, Robbins’s house was an architectural status symbol. Yet for all its connotations of wealth and power and material success, inside the house, among his close circle of friends, Robbins continued to behave like a down-to-earth boy from Brooklyn, quaffing pints of his favorite drink, Orange Crush, and playing practical jokes.

* The Adventurers is one of Robbins’s worst books, a bloated, sprawling epic without the wit or brio of The Carpetbaggers. It is sickeningly pornographic in its violence, but ultimately it fails as a work of popular fiction because it commits the sin of being mind-numbingly boring.

* By the end of the year [1965] Robbins, now back in Los Angeles, was regarded as the highest-paid writer in the world, while one survey conducted by the Library of Congress concluded that he was the most widely read author of the past six years. He had well and truly established himself as an all-American brand, without perhaps understanding the consequences of his ambitions. “I get this feeling of dissociation,” he admitted. “My books sell all over the world. I see them in airports in racks. Lucky Strike. Coca-Cola. Harold Robbins. But what is this product? Who is this guy?”

* “You need to get your lawyer to write to the heads of the casinos barring you from the tables. Otherwise you will never stop. You’re addicted.” Harold nodded solemnly, and although he appeared to think his friend’s advice was sound, he did nothing about it.

“Harold’s real entertainment was not women, it was gambling,” says Shagan. “And I witnessed that, I was part of it. He could not be kept out of those casinos in the South of France. He was able to rub shoulders with the people who shape our world—and he liked that. That was his form of escape.”

* Perhaps one reason he gambled—and indeed, spent increasingly large amounts of money—was that subconsciously he didn’t believe he deserved the enormous sums he was being paid for his books. Each time he stepped inside one of the gilded gambling palaces that graced the South of France, he flirted with financial danger. Logically, of course, this did not make sense, but the prospect of losing all his money, something he had worked hard to achieve, also tapped into his deepest desires and fears. He was a poor Brooklyn boy at heart, somebody who really did not belong mixing with the power brokers of the entertainment world or the superwealthy jet set. Also, if his fortune was wiped out, that would give him the opportunity to make it all over again; its absence would soon lead to the delicious anticipation of repossession, the adult equivalent of Freud’s classic observation of an infant repeatedly throwing his toy out of his baby carriage, only so it would be replaced.

* Hedonism was the religion of the newly moneyed classes, men and women on an endless quest for the ultimate high. Robbins reasoned to himself that he had a duty to document the lives of the rich and infamous—“I write about the modern scene,” he said—and so it was only fitting that he witness the excesses at close quarters.4 A year or so after he and Grace married, he told his wife that he expected her to accept that he would sleep with other women. Extramarital sex was essential for his writing, he said, and as he often went away for long periods of time, he was simply being honest with her. He did not mind if she slept with other men—in fact, he almost expected it of her—but it was important that they did not keep any secrets from each other.

* Robbins felt free to live out his wildest fantasies, especially when he was away from home. “Did he play around a lot? Yes, he did. Was he really discreet? No,” says Judi Schwam Yedor. “He was like a ringleader. He liked making fantasies come true, in real life, for everybody. He was a hedonist—it was obvious from his novels the man was not that far from his books.”5 Robbins’s reputation as something of a sexual predator often got him into trouble with his British publisher. “We would get calls from reps from the north saying, ‘That fucker Harold Robbins was all over the buyer at Smith’s and she didn’t like it one bit,’” recalls Peter Haining. “It was difficult to make excuses for him to some of the girls that he made quite blatant passes at. I’m sure there were a number of occasions where prostitutes were organized for him, and it was said that his great passion was for colored girls. I heard after I had left the company that he had spent a night with a black girl, and he was subsequently concerned with his physical condition. He wanted to be checked out by a doctor to make sure he hadn’t got a dose of the clap.”

Later Robbins would enjoy orgies at his Beverly Hills home. As guests cavorted in the vast bedroom, decorated the color of champagne, the participants would be able to see their naked forms reflected in the mirrored ceilings. Friends say that Robbins’s orgies were always lighthearted affairs, typical get-togethers in an age when swinging was, in some circles, as normal as a Sunday brunch party.

* On one occasion Robbins employed a sex therapist to instruct the women on how to engage in oral sex in the manner of Linda Lovelace in the pornographic film Deep Throat; apparently the secret was for the woman to imagine her throat gradually opening up until it resembled a large O shape. For his part, Harold prided himself on being a master of oral sex, using a sucking technique to pleasure a woman until she experienced multiple orgasms. Lovers say that, in the midst of their climax, Harold would look up from between their legs, smile, and say, “Gotcha!”

* He went on to dismiss the critics and to mock writers like Jack Kerouac, who was acclaimed but, he declared, unpopular with the general public. “There’s no question about it—I am the best there is,” he said. “This is all I do. I work damn hard at it … I’m a novelist, purely a novelist. I tell stories, and I want people to read them. Several of us first published right after the war—me, Mailer, James Jones, Irwin Shaw—but I’m the only one whose market has continually expanded … James and Shaw, people like them, lost touch. They jumped to Europe, they lost touch with America, they didn’t grow as human beings or as writers, they missed the all-important part of postwar growing pains.”

* He announced himself to a group of people, ‘I am to my generation what Charles Dickens was to his!’ I don’t think he meant it to sound arrogant. What he wanted to convey was, ‘I am representing my world as I see it now in the same way as Dickens did in his day.’

* “One of the things I finally realized is that people like Jackie [Collins] can write what they write because that’s the smartest they are,” said Slavitt. “There’s an authenticity to their doing it, and people like me who condescend to write best sellers are a little fraudulent … She hadn’t really invented anything! But why should she? She wasn’t an artist. She was an anthropologist. Jackie didn’t invent, because she didn’t believe, or couldn’t comprehend, the truth of fiction. And for America’s most popular novelist to be unable to understand what fiction is—that says something about publishing, and it says something about our civilization.”

Similarly, Robbins acknowledged that his skills were not so much creative as journalistic, telling one reporter in 1969 that he did not have the imagination to invent, merely the ability to rearrange facts. “Given the nature of his reportage, the conclusion can hardly be avoided that the Robbins oeuvre constitutes a commentary on our time as bleak as Beckett’s,” wrote one critic.34 Robbins, for one, accounted for his success by explaining that fundamentally he wrote from the heart. “I guess it’s because what I write is real,” he said. “They’re American stories, about the power game. The sex is incidental … I sell hundreds of thousands of copies in the Far East and the Near East—and these books are so American … And if it’s so simple, how come my imitators don’t do as well?”

* In the early to mid-1970s drugs, particularly cocaine, amyl nitrate, Quaaludes, and marijuana, became a permanent fixture in Robbins’s life. “I remember Harold had this pharmaceutical book, full of details about different drugs, how many milligrams you should take to help you up and down,” says his friend Patrick Young. “He liked pure cocaine, and mushrooms too. He also had this fountain pen, a Mont Blanc I think it was, that had an adjustable top. When he turned it, it would dispense cocaine, and he’d take a quick sniff now and again without anybody knowing what he was doing. Yet for all this he had a mind like a trap; he could analyze things incredibly well.”

* By the time [Michael] Korda started to edit Robbins, he believes, the writer had long since lost his touch. “I don’t think Harold was putting in a third of the time or thought that he used to put into a novel,” he says. “By the end of this period, which was drawn out and went on for a number of years, I think Harold was sloughing off pages in exchange for a check and couldn’t give a shit. I also think he had lost that capacity, either the working or mental capacity, to stop and change even if he wanted to. He was caught up on a never-ending roller-coaster of his own needs, which were very considerable.

“Although people talked about Harold’s generosity and kindness to his friends, I must say that in the years when I knew him I never saw that side of his personality. I saw an abrasive, disagreeable, aggressive, challenging man who was someone you’d run a mile to avoid. He was as disagreeable and odious in the days of his success as the days of his failure. He had every reason to be generous and good-natured and happy, but he was a mighty unpleasant fellow. There was a sort of growling, sneering, aggressive bitterness to him. He was doubly difficult to be around when he was with Paul [Gitlin], especially when they’d both had a few drinks. It was like defending yourself against an army of enemies.

“I’m a very structured editor—I take a manuscript and hand it back with what needs doing. I would send him a letter [of suggested corrections], and he would say he wouldn’t have time for this shit, these fucking changes. And so I would change what I wanted to change. I don’t think it made any difference. When Harold was really writing, he didn’t need any editing, that’s the truth of the matter. But when he gave up on writing, all the editing in the world wouldn’t have made those books one percent better because they were just a piece of shit to begin with.”

* After finishing The Lonely Lady—arguably his last “good” book—Robbins started work on a novel about the porn industry, which he entitled, rather tellingly, Dreams Die First.

* “I think of his story as a dreadful warning of what happens to people who become suddenly successful,” says Michael Korda. “Saying that he sold out is putting it both crudely and mistakenly, as I don’t think Harold made that decision. I think it was built into Harold from the very beginning. If his schemes to co-produce movies had ever worked out, I think he would have been perfectly happy never to have set finger to typewriter again, just as long as the checks rolled in from the studio. Writing for him, [at this stage], was a chore, something he didn’t want to do.”9 His friend Steve Shagan agrees. “Harold destroyed himself not with booze, drugs, or women. He destroyed himself with success.”

* [Larry] Flynt, for one, was pleased to have Robbins’s support, and the two men became close friends.

* Despite its faults, the dirtiest of Harold’s dirty books was an instant success. In the U.K. it sold 77,000 in ten days, while Goodbye, Janette had the largest advance first printing of any novel in the world: a total of 3.75 million copies in the United States, Canada, England, Australia, and Germany. “Call it pornographic,” said Robbins of the book, “because the people it deals with in the fashion world live pornographic lives—they exist to accentuate sex, that’s what fashion is all about: the body … They do things to heighten physical and sensual sensitivity, push themselves to the limits limits with flagellation, bondage and domination, mind-expanding dope, drugs that speed you up and slow you down, cocaine, acid.”

That spring Robbins was named the world’s best-selling living author, with total sales of 200 million, beating Barbara Cartland (150 million); Irving Wallace (130 million); the writer of westerns Louis L’Amour (110 million); and the author of contemporary gothics Janet Dailey (80 million). While the New York Times best-seller list was compiled using statistics from Publishers Weekly and from bookstores and wholesalers with more than forty thousand outlets across America, genre fiction was often absent from its chart because romances, thrillers, and Robbins’s novels were sold in establishments like truck stops that did not report their sales to the Times.

All these authors, said Scott Haller in The Saturday Review, “satisfy—and, at the same time, reflect—the fantasies and desires of vast segments of the book-buying public.” Robbins’s books were both “an exposé and a masquerade” as they “inundate us with gossipy inside information, and at the same time, they invite us to solve a mystery. Who is that masked celebrity climbing into the king-size bed?” What all these authors have in common, besides enormous wealth, is a clear understanding of the importance of story. Their books have an easily demarcated beginning, middle, and end. Narrative closure is essential—“these novels seldom conclude with a question mark or a questionable move,” said Haller. Aspiration is also a key ingredient—the writers create “worlds that are beyond the reach of most readers”—as is possession of the common touch. They all share a “sincere mass-audience mentality,” while their real lives tend to reflect, at least to some degree, the fictional worlds of their novels. Finally, the writers all explore the age-old battle between good and evil, rewarding the virtuous, punishing the wicked, and reminding us that “the rich are more miserable than you and me.”

* Harold Robbins may have been rich, but he was far from happy. By this point in his career he realized that he had started to plagiarize himself—many of the tropes of his novels were well worn, while the majority of his characters could wander into his other books without too much difficulty—and that the fictional image he had created for himself, the holograph that he had designed for the purpose of attracting money, sex, fame, and freedom, was in danger of imprisoning him. In order to maintain his playboy lifestyle—the yachts (he now had another one, harbored in Marina del Rey), the houses, Grace’s increasingly large credit card bills, and the properties he bought his mistresses—Robbins churned out a series of substandard novels that seemed to lack the spark of his earlier work. He had never been a great writer, but at least he could claim to have spun a good story; now, however, even that ability was beyond him. The things that once had given him pleasure had lost their luster…

* Robbins wrote Spellbinder quickly, finishing it in thirty-one days. In order to meet his deadline—and to make sure he banked the hefty check from Simon & Schuster—he knocked back a homemade cocktail of Coca-Cola, into which he heaped spoonfuls of instant coffee, no doubt accompanied by frequent snorts of cocaine. By February he completed the book, relieved that he had done so before the wedding of his daughter, Caryn, to her boyfriend, Michael Press. Little did he know, however, that 25 April 1982 would mark the beginning of his descent. Robbins, the ultimate dream merchant, was about to experience his worst nightmare.

* The confrontation with a fictionalized version of himself [in the novel Rich Dreams] was, perhaps, too much to bear. After all, he had spent half a lifetime constructing—and indeed living—a fantasy. As his identity was threatened, it fragmented and then split apart, a process that, exacerbated by his excessive lifestyle, finally culminated in a stroke that, in turn, left him with aphasia. Robbins frequently forgot words, and when he tried to write, his sentences were garbled and often written back to front.

* In Grace’s absence, Harold took it upon himself to hire a new personal assistant, Jann Stapp, a former advertising executive from Oklahoma who was in her late twenties. “The secretary took me upstairs, she opens these big double doors, and there’s this huge bedroom with mirrored ceilings and a white satin sofa,” she says. “He’s sitting in the middle of this huge bed, smoking a cigarette, having a cup of coffee and wearing his red jockey shorts.”6 The writer introduced himself by his full name and proceeded to conduct a formal interview, at the end of which he offered her the job. Later, Jann said, “I think we fell in love the first time we met each other. I felt he was the most wonderful thing.”

* Later, when asked by Esquire magazine to describe his favorite thing, Robbins responded, “a beautiful woman’s derriere … She [Jann] came from Oklahoma and gave my life more happiness than the biggest oil gusher. Her derriere made all my dreams come true.”

* [Despite emphysema] Robbins continued to smoke three packs of cigarettes a day.

* Michael Korda remembers it rather differently. “Harold’s sales began to plummet,” he says.18 “In interviews he always sounded cocky and quick to defend his books against the critics, but the truth was that he despised his readers and despised himself for catering to them.”

* His unique selling point of being able to churn out erotically charged, fast-paced epics was now being threatened by a whole new generation of mostly female novelists such as Judith Krantz, Shirley Conran, Celia Brayfield, Jackie Collins, and a host of imitators. These writers invested Robbins’s tired formula with a new energy, an emotional intensity that had been long absent from his novels. In addition, they challenged Robbins’s male perspective, shifting the presentation of the female from passive object to active subject. “I always remember thinking when I read him as a teenager that when I started to write novels my women would be as strong as Harold Robbins’s men,” says Jackie Collins.20 They were better at writing sex scenes too, more descriptive, more sensuous, more daring. Robbins may have invented the “sex and shopping” novel, but his female counterparts adapted the genre and in the process kidnapped a large share of his core readership.

* In order to boost his morale Robbins snorted even larger quantities of cocaine. On 23 February 1984, after a night out with Jann and a couple of friends, he took one toot too many and, while in the shower at his house, suffered a drug-induced seizure.

* [Confined to a wheelchair]… The recreational drugs that he had enjoyed over the years were now replaced by ones issued by the pharmacy; more than thirty different tablets a day. Suddenly his jet-set life—the international travel, his luxury houses and yachts, the parade of celebrity friends, and the endless supply of girls—shrank before his eyes as he was now confined to the reality of four walls.

* From a mansion overlooking the lights of Los Angeles, Harold, Grace, and Jann moved to a single-story rented house in the desert. Robbins was attracted to Palm Springs because of its aura of decadence, its association with Hollywood (it was one of the original party grounds for stars who wanted to escape the controlling influence of the studios), its proximity to Los Angeles, and the relatively cheap property prices. But Robbins must also have felt that he was retreating from the limelight. Palm Springs, for all its recent reinvention as a hip destination, was in the mid-1980s something of an elephant’s graveyard…

* Wayne Koestenbaum would write in The New York Times, “Robbins’s material is smutty but his prose is clean. Simple, speedy and efficient, his sentences demonstrate, in a parodic fashion, what Roland Barthes called “writing degree zero.” They seem transparent but in fact are opaque bonbons, coldly functional fetishes, absurdly themselves … Such bland utterances are so fake, they’re real. They have a quiet, mercenary dignity. Their refusal of insight makes them as modern as neon, or Niagara Falls.”

Posted in Literature | Comments Off on Harold Robbins: The Man Who Invented Sex

In a relationship, being responsible doesn’t always promote attraction

From Reddit:

I got divorced in the middle of last year, and about five months later I met my current girlfriend.

She’s Russian. And while she’s supportive and kind when I display true vulnerability, she also isn’t very tolerant of displayed weakness: complaining without action, not being proactive in planning activities, lack of independent thoughts or opinions, not following through with promises.

Those who have dated Russian or Eastern European women can likely attest to this.

Dominant, beautiful, and feminine women require men who are in their masculine center. A good woman will accept you for who you are fundamentally, and give you space to have your moments of weakness; however, if weakness becomes the baseline behavior, the attraction begins to erode.

Nice Guys will complain that this is arrogance or superficiality on the part of the woman, but it’s just the nature of polarity between masculine and feminine energies.

When I met her, I was in solid shape. I was attending kickboxing classes regularly. I was dating other women casually. My divorce allowed me to have time and space to focus on myself instead of constantly being consumed with my duties as a husband and father.

With my newfound freedom, I was able to build up my masculine core and physical appearance, which had increasingly been neglected throughout the course of my marriage.

By the time I had met my girlfriend, I was displaying masculinity, dominance, and value, because I had worked on myself and experienced rejection as well as success with many different women over the course of several months.

Earlier this year, my responsibilities began to pile up again. I purchased a new home, I was still learning to co-parent and be a part time single dad.

On top of this, I bought a fucking dog– my house started to smell like puppy shit on a consistent basis.

Being worn down by my duties, I had neglected staying on top of my physical fitness, and had gained roughly twenty pounds. Some days I was simply was too busy to give a damn.

In terms of my relationship, I consistently used my girlfriend as an emotional sounding board on how overwhelmed I felt with everything. Instead of working towards substantially addressing my problems, I adopted a position of victimhood, instead of being grateful for the things I had and taking responsibility for everything.

Last week, over the course of several days, her texts became less frequent and were shorter. On the days we didn’t see each other, her communication tapered off. I saw from a mile away what was coming.

Posted in Dating | Comments Off on In a relationship, being responsible doesn’t always promote attraction

Wicked Polarization: How Prosperity, Democracy, and Experts Divided America

From TheBreakthrough.org in 2013:

Consider public health efforts to frame obesity as the result of agribusinesses and fast food franchises, on the one hand, and material deprivation in the inner city on the other. Starting in the 1990s, sociologist Helen Lee notes, activist public health scholars and journalists unleashed a flurry of articles and books blaming industrial agriculture and a predatory food industry for our growing waistlines. Advocates produced studies purporting to show a link between obesity and inner-city food environments, even as better studies showed otherwise. Rather than seeing rising fatness as the unintended consequence of cheap food — a historic achievement and an extraordinary benefit to the poor — it was viewed by a coalition of public health and social justice advocates as a kind of injustice: the denial of healthy food to oppressed groups. The result has been a distracting governmental and philanthropic focus on symbolic solutions, like bringing more grocery stores into the inner city, and too little on proven strategies, like better medical treatment for obesity-related diseases, or better access to higher education, which is strongly correlated with better health outcomes, including lower levels of obesity.

Similarly, political scientist Christopher Foreman observes that global warming has been framed by climate justice advocates not as an unintended consequence of poor people becoming rich in developed economies but rather as a kind of racist neoimperialism that required global wealth redistribution. Where progressives blamed industrial agriculture for victimizing children and the poor with cheap, high-calorie foods, they blamed the fossil fuel industry in the West for victimizing poor nations in Africa with cheap, high-carbon energy. From Kofi Annan to Wangari Maathai to Greenpeace, climate justice advocates attributed myriad long-standing problems of underdevelopment — from vulnerability to weather extremes to malaria — to the West’s imperialist pollution emissions. The movement’s “bottomless advocacy agenda … serves polarizing constituency-building politics, not a pragmatic agenda for shared global growth and prosperity,” Foreman suggests. “By its use of blame, redistributive claims-making, and suspicion of all establishments, the climate justice movement ironically undermines agreement on the very public investments that are essential to forging a new environmental and economic future.”

As Americans have become wealthier over the past four decades, progressives have deftly shifted the focus of their class warfare advocacy from the working class to the middle class. In so doing, notes Scott Winship, they have engaged in a statistical sleight of hand, suggesting that slowing growth rates have left Americans materially worse off. In reality, living standards for virtually all Americans have continued to rise. Over the past 40 years, Americans have become absolutely richer at close to the same rate as they did in the postwar era, even though growth rates are lower. “In 1900,” notes Winship, “a 2.5 percent increase in gross domestic product (GDP) per capita would have translated into about $150 in today’s dollars for every man, woman, and child in the United States; in 2010, it would have been roughly $1,200.”

Conversely, the richer we become, the larger increases in wealth must be in order to sustain the same rate of growth. Progressives have invoked declining growth rates since 1980 to argue that America ought to return to the Keynesian economic policies of the postwar era. But comparing growth rates rather than income growth between time periods does no good for their cause. Such a discourse inspires anxiety and, argues Winship, “is as likely to inspire selfishness as generosity.”

In all three cases, partisan experts constructed highly polarizing political discourses that undermine policy actions to help the poor. The food justice movement has focused on unrealistic efforts to remake whole neighborhood food environments to the neglect of better medical care, school reform, and higher education, which have benefits that include but go far beyond addressing obesity. The climate justice movement has focused more on advancing a political discourse of apocalypse, reparation, and redistribution than an agenda of electrification and urbanization, which help the poor to become more resilient to the climate and climb out of poverty. And in focusing on growth rates rather than absolute wealth, progressive economists and experts have constructed a picture of the American mixed economy as fundamentally broken, undermining confidence in a common national future.

Rather than examining their own role in polarization, progressives have of late sought to blame Internet corporations like Google and Facebook for undermining democracy.

Posted in America | Comments Off on Wicked Polarization: How Prosperity, Democracy, and Experts Divided America

My Relationship With My Readers/Viewers

I’ve come to see my Youtube show, podcast and blog as a conversation and therefore a type of relationship with my audience. This thing we’re doing is not primarily about information or entertainment, or arriving at definitive conclusions. It’s about relating.
I relate to my readers, listeners, and viewers, I hear back from them, we meet up on the phone or in real life, and as a consequence I have built up a small community with some wealth and influence.
I talk to my friends regularly, not to arrive at definitive conclusions on anything, but because I enjoy their friendship. Same with my show. I like making money, but even more importantly, I like making friends.
When you arrive at conclusions, you instinctively defend them to the death. I prefer to have as few partisan attachments as possible. No sacred cows is my mission statement.
I like the Alexander Technique insight that all beliefs are just unnecessary muscular tension.

Posted in Personal | Comments Off on My Relationship With My Readers/Viewers

The Conscious Vs Unconscious Mind (3-31-21)

Posted in Psychology | Comments Off on The Conscious Vs Unconscious Mind (3-31-21)

Your 12-step work does not usually have legal privilege

Your 4th step can be subpoenaed. Someone who hears your fifth step can be subpoenaed to testify about it and can’t claim privilege. A therapist or member of the clergy will usually have privilege (meaning, what you tell them can’t be subpoenaed in most cases). Rabbis, by the way, do not generally consider things you tell them to be confidential, even if they tell you that what you confide will be held in the strictest confidence, because rabbis generally see the well-being of the community their highest priority. Christian clergy, particularly priests, usually hold confidentiality.

Posted in Addiction | Comments Off on Your 12-step work does not usually have legal privilege

The Pandemic’s Wrongest Man – In a crowded field of wrongness, one person stands out: Alex Berenson

It does not reflect well on Fox News that they have had this clown on their channel so often.

I followed Berenson on Twitter for about nine months because I saw him on Tucker Carlson’s show repeatedly and I thought he might be an important contrary voice, but when he started going off on the covid vaccines earlier this year, I unfollowed him because he was obviously wrong and irresponsible.

Derek Thompson writes for The Atlantic:

On February 11, Berenson warned his followers that early data from Israel proved that vaccine advocates “need to start ratcheting down expectations.” This was a strange claim to make at the time: An Israeli health-care provider had reported no deaths and four severe cases among its first 523,000 fully vaccinated people. But the claim seems even more ridiculous now, in light of Israel’s incredible success since then. New positive cases in Israel are down roughly 95 percent since January. Deaths have plunged, even though the economy is almost fully open.


When I asked Berenson to explain his beef with Israel’s vaccine record, he sent a link to a news story in Hebrew that, he said, reported “several hundred deaths and hospitalizations and thousands of infections in people who have received both doses.” I can’t read Hebrew, so I reached out to someone who can, Eran Segal, a computational biologist at the Weizmann Institute of Science, in Rehovot, Israel. He replied by email: “This link actually shows that the vast majority of those who died were NOT vaccinated.” By Segal’s calculations, the vaccines have reduced the risk of death by more than 90 percent in the Israeli population. Segal also said that “numbers of infections only went down, and even more so among the age groups who were first to vaccinate.”

Berenson is wrong about all sorts of little things when it comes to Israel, but I want to emphasize how straightforward and obvious the big picture is here. Israel is a world leader in vaccinations. Its COVID-19 cases have plunged, and its economy is roaring back to life.

Berenson’s claim: Healthy people under 70 shouldn’t get a vaccine.

The reality: Outside of extremely rare cases, every adult should get a vaccine—and if it’s authorized for children, children should get it too.

I wanted to know where Berenson stood on the most important question: Who does he think should get a vaccine, and who does he think shouldn’t? This was the core of his answer:

For most healthy people under 50—and certainly under 35—the side effects from the shots are likely to be worse than a case of Covid. Over 70, sure. The grey zone is somewhere in the middle and probably depends on personal risk factors.

This response has two huge problems. First, although the disease clearly gets more severe with age, drawing a line at 70 is nonsensical. Those in their 50s and early 60s are three times more likely to die from this disease than a 40-something, and 400 times more likely to die than a teenager, according to the CDC.

Second, the suggestion that the vaccine’s side effects are worse than having COVID-19 is ludicrous. The vaccine can cause chills, fever, and other symptoms in the first few days. That’s just the immune system doing its job; severe illness from the vaccines is vanishingly rare. But severe illness in a pandemic is not rare. More than 40,000 people under age 50 have gone to the hospital with COVID-19, according to COVID-NET, a surveillance network that captures hospitalization data. Several studies have indicated that at least one-third of hospitalized people suffer from long-term symptoms of COVID-19. (Guess what seems to alleviate the symptoms of some of these patients? Getting vaccinated.)

The idea that the vaccine is worse than the disease for the under-70 crowd falls apart utterly when we consider the “side effect” of death. Roughly 100,000 people under 65 have died of COVID-19. Meanwhile, out of more than 145 million vaccines administered in the U.S., a CDC review of clinical information found no evidence that they had caused any deaths. The current score in the competition between non-senior pandemic deaths and conclusive vaccine deaths is 100,000–0.

One hundred thousand to zero. That might be the most important statistic in this whole mess. Berenson doesn’t tweet blatantly falsifiable statements about the vaccines every day. For the most part, he peddles doubt, laced with confusing and expert-sounding jargon, which may seem compelling at first but can’t survive contact with expert opinion.

To be honest, I initially had serious doubts about publishing this piece. The trap of exposing conspiracy theories is obvious: To demonstrate why a theory is wrong, you have to explain it and, in doing so, incur the risk that some people will be convinced by the very theory you’re trying to debunk. But that horse has left the barn. More than half of Republicans under the age of 50 say they simply won’t get a vaccine. Their hesitancy is being fanned by right-wing hacks, Fox News showboats, and vaccine skeptics like Alex Berenson. The case for the vaccines is built upon a firm foundation of scientific discovery, clinical-trial data, and real-world evidence. The case against the vaccines wobbles because it is built upon a steaming pile of bullshit.

Posted in Covid | Comments Off on The Pandemic’s Wrongest Man – In a crowded field of wrongness, one person stands out: Alex Berenson

GG: Journalists Attack the Powerless, Then Self-Victimize to Bar Criticisms of Themselves (3-31-21)

00:00 My UCLA memories and why I love LA
20:00 The Truth About Dentistry, https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/05/the-trouble-with-dentistry/586039/
40:00 Journalists Attack the Powerless, Then Self-Victimize to Bar Criticisms of Themselves, https://greenwald.substack.com/p/journalists-attack-the-powerless
58:00 Inaugural advice segment
1:00:00 Relational Perspectives on the Body, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=138094
1:06:30 Big Think Interview With David Schnarch, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgAIY0or-hA
1:10:00 The Lukeosphere
1:11:00 Effective Communication Skills, https://www.audible.com/pd/Effective-Communication-Skills-Audiobook/B00D94332Q
1:26:00 Substack’s success shows readers have had enough of polarised media, https://www.ft.com/content/3e565df2-0cb2-4126-a879-eb2710eef03a
1:45:00 Trial of police officer accused of killing George Floyd
1:57:00 Journalists Are “Centering” Their “Trauma” Because It Enables Them To Acquire Power, https://mtracey.substack.com/p/journalists-are-centering-their-trauma
2:21:00 Anti-Dentite
2:33:00 Mike Enoch analyzed, https://youtu.be/nQUltWs-PXg?t=1005
2:37:00 Ethan Ralph shows up angry, drunk at his GF’s ex-BF and gets in a fight, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RYeOmf1UIE
2:52:00 Anglo vs Dutch vs German media
2:53:20 Keith Woods and the Weak Men who Created Hard Times, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uho0D98quw0&t=1170s
3:00:00 NWG ON THE FLAWS OF ED. DUTTON’S [APPARENT POSITION REGARDING HIS] ‘SPITEFUL MUTANTS’ THEORY, https://www.bitchute.com/video/7q2R1lujYeoc/
3:03:40 Sidney Powell’s Motion to Dismiss EXPLAINED – Viva & Barnes HIGHLIGHT, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnRwy7NMgG
3:15:00 Al Goldstein — Great Adult Entertainment innovator
3:22:30 Owen Benjamin Compliments Redbar, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jUUfvTRw7k&t=376s
3:40:00 Mersh on latest Ethan Ralph drama, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qmG3I4K0dk&t=4177

Posted in America | Comments Off on GG: Journalists Attack the Powerless, Then Self-Victimize to Bar Criticisms of Themselves (3-31-21)

The “only 6%” gambit: The latest viral COVID-19 disinformation

Surgeon David Gorski writes:

It’s always weird to try to get blogging again after an absence due to a health issue with a member of the family and other pressing issues that were more important than my little side hobby and thus crowded it out. True, the absence was only a week and a half, but it’s weird nonetheless. Sometimes, it’s hard to pick a subject. Fortunately (or unfortunately), over the weekend I started seeing memes and content on various social media that went something like this about “only 6%,” as shown by this collection of memes from @BadCOVID19Takes:

Many of them reference this blog post by one of the most idiotic right wing pundits out there, The Gateway Pundit:

The CDC silently updated their numbers this week to show that only 6% of all coronavirus deaths were completely due to the coronavirus alone. The rest of the deaths pinned to the China coronavirus are attributed to individuals who had other serious issues going on.

Jim Hoft, a.k.a. The Gateway Pundit, then went on to quote a Tweet by someone going by the handle Mel Q (@littllemel):

Mel Q's "only 6%" Tweet
Mel Q’s “only 6%” Tweet

Unsurprisingly, Mel Q was overjoyed to have had her Tweet retweeted by President Trump:

It was very disturbing indeed that President Trump chose to amplify this disinformation that “only 6%” of deaths attributed to COVID-19 had actually died of COVID-19 “alone” and that “only 9,210” had died from COVID-19. (Of course, these figures are a bit old, from when “only 153,504” died of COVID-19. The toll today is widely thought to be north of 180,000, which, according to the brain dead “logic” of people like Mel Q, would mean that “only” close to 11,000 people died of “only” COVID-19.)

This claim was rapidly amplified by COVID-19 denialists (those who deny that COVID-19 is deadly and that we need to take the pandemic seriously, instituting social distancing, masking, and in some cases lockdowns to control it), for example:

We’ve met Nick Gillespie before, when he spewed nonsense about the right-to-try and drug approval by the FDA. I’m not surprised that he swallowed disinformation about COVID-19 whole and then regurgitated it unthinkingly.

Amplification of the “only 6%” gambit also included Tweets by various conservative actors and celebrities, like Kevin Sorbo:

Unfortunately, even after Twitter deleted Mel Q’s Tweet, the “only 6%” hashtag is still going strong on Twitter.

I’m sure we’d all agree that this would be awesome if it were true! If “only 6%” of those who died with COVID-19 have actually died because of the coronavirus instead of dying of something else “with” the coronavirus at the same time, then it really would be true that the disease is much less dangerous than previously thought. Sadly, this claim is a huge truckload of fetid dingos’ kidneys piled on with a thick layer of bovine excrement. It’s a misrepresentation of the figures in this chart. Whether it’s unintentional or intentional can be debated. (Actually, to me it can’t. I know we’re not supposed to attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity, but in the case of COVID-19 deniers I’ve learned that malice and stupidity are usually both involved.)

Overall, the message was similar to previous messages by COVID-19 deniers:

  • That COVID-19 death tolls are being intentionally exaggerated by the media and government for nefarious purposes, in this case the “true” toll is “only 6%” of the toll usually cited.
  • That “only” the sick and the old are at risk.
  • That you don’t have to worry about COVID-19 if you don’t have one or more of the comorbid conditions listed.
  • That, because “only 6%” died of “only COVID-19,” lockdowns, social distancing, masks, etc., are unnecessary.

I sensed an astroturf campaign, much like the one that tried to promote hydroxychloroquine based on hilariously awful “science” not too long ago. But what’s behind it? Much in the manner that the campaign to promote hydroxychloroquine based on risibly bad epidemiology two weeks ago, this astroturf campaign to downplay the risk of COVID-19 (“only 6%” of what you thought it was!) is based on a laughably incompetent and awful interpretation of CDC statistics, with a dash of conspiracy theory thrown in (the CDC “quietly updated the COVID number,” as though the CDC was trying to hide something), because there’s always a conspiracy theory. Adding to the conspiracy theory was Twitter’s deletion of the original Tweet by Mel Q that had been retweeted by President Trump.

Also, note the “Q” in Mel Q’s Twitter handle. That’s not just any “Q.” It’s clearly a reference to QAnon, an utterly bonkers far right conspiracy theory that claims (among many other things) that a network of Satan-worshiping pedophiles—and cannibals who apparently eat the children after abusing them!—are running a global child sex-trafficking ring and are (not coincidentally) trying to take down U.S. President Trump, who, unsurprisingly, has refused to denounce QAnon as the dangerous nonsense that it is.

Worse, the idea has spread from the wingnutosphere into mainstream news. I’ve lost count of the number of stories in mainstream news sources that basically parrot (or at least don’t push back very much against) the idea that the CDC has somehow admitted that “only 6%” of those dying with COVID-19 died of COVID-19, although, fortunately, that changed as the weekend wore on, Trump retweeted the claim, and Twitter took down Mel Q’s Tweet. Unfortunately, that didn’t stop “only 6%” from going viral and trending on Twitter:

I also saw it all over Facebook, even in a Star Trek group that I joined a long time ago.

So what’s behind this “only 6%” gambit? Basically, on August 26, the CDC updated its breakdown of COVID-19 deaths in the US, and one of the tables has deaths categorized by what are described as “comorbidities.” Where did the “only 6%” figure come from? If you peruse the table first, as I did, you’ll have a hard time figuring it out, but then I looked at how the table (Table 3) is described on the CDC website:

Table 3 shows the types of health conditions and contributing causes mentioned in conjunction with deaths involving coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). For 6% of the deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned. For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 2.6 additional conditions or causes per death. The number of deaths with each condition or cause is shown for all deaths and by age groups. For data on comorbidities, click here to download.

If you peruse the table itself, you’ll soon see that it doesn’t show that “only 6%” of COVID-19 deaths were due primarily to COVID-19 and that, among those with comorbid conditions who died, there were 2.6 additional conditions or causes. The only way one might make such an misinterpretation is either through a profound misunderstanding of how this table was compiled or through willfully lying about the significance of the figures in this table. For one thing, looking at the table you’ll see things like “cardiac arrest,” “septic shock,” “multiorgan failure,” and “respiratory failure.” These can all be sequelae of severe COVID-19 infection that ultimately lead to death; so it would be shocking if they weren’t on the table:

To understand how the CDC table was tabulated, let’s elaborate on the Tweet above. You have to understand that it was compiled from standardized death certificates. It’s been a long time since I’ve had to fill out a death certificate—thankfully!—but I still remember how they work. On the death certificate form, there is a space for the immediate cause of death and then several lines for underlying causes. In brief, death certificates are filled out by the medical certifier (who can be the physician who had treated the patient before death), who provides his best medical opinion regarding the cause of death. Part I of the death certificate includes the proximal cause of death, or what directly caused the death, and Part II lists conditions that contributed to the death:

For example, if a patient dies of respiratory failure due to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), which was the result of pneumonia, which was the result of COVID-19, the proximal cause of death was the respiratory failure, but contributing causes were ARDS and COVID-19, with the one farthest up the chain being the underlying cause of death under Part I. If the patient had hypertension or asthma, that would go under Part II. As I like to say, if you suffer a cardiac arrest due to blood loss after being shot, the cardiac arrest might have been the proximal cause of death, but you still died of a gunshot wound. Still, that didn’t stop the Twitter brain trust from asking idiotic questions like:

https://twitter.com/mypersonalia/status/1300013312957087745?s=20

The answer is no. Anyone who has even the most rudimentary understanding of how death certificates are filled out would laugh at just how ignorant the person asking this question must be.

Sometimes these underlying causes contribute to the death. For example, if you have hemophilia and suffer a stab wound that leads you to bleed out and die when someone with normal blood clotting probably would have survived, then you still died of a stab wound, but the hemophilia was a contributing cause of death.

It’s really not that difficult to understand. Former fellow ScienceBlogs blogger Mark Hoofnagle Tweeted this:

And another, simpler, explanation:

And a couple of examples Tweeted three weeks before the “only 6%” disinformation campaign began:

It is true that sometimes determining the most important underlying cause isn’t always straightforward, but in the vast majority of COVID-19 cases it is. If someone with hypertension, obesity, and type 2 diabetes catches COVID-19, then develops pneumonia, then develops failure of multiple organ systems, and finally dies of respiratory failure, the proximate cause of death is respiratory failure, but the underlying cause of death is COVID-19, without which the respiratory failure never would have happened. Yes, it is well-known that certain conditions greatly increase your risk of dying if you contract COVID-19. These include, among several others:

  • Age (the chance of dying of COVID-19 begins to increase dramatically after age 50 and becomes truly frightening by age 80)
  • Obesity (BMI > 30)
  • Being male
  • Cancer
  • Chronic kidney disease
  • COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease)
  • Immunocompromised state (weakened immune system) from solid organ transplant
  • Obesity (body mass index [BMI] of 30 or higher)
  • Serious heart conditions, such as heart failure, coronary artery disease, or cardiomyopathies
  • Sickle cell disease
  • Type 2 diabetes mellitus

These are contributory factors, but if you have one or more of these conditions when you contract COVID-19 and later die, it’ll very likely be the COVID-19, not your underlying health condition, that killed you. The underlying health condition(s) might have played a role in making you sicker, but it’ll be the virus that does you in.

Of course, the “only 6%” gambit is even more dishonest than it seems. Why? Because we have actual data published the same day as Table 3 telling us that. More importantly, the actual interpretation of the underlying data for the table shows:

In other words, COVID-19 is the underlying cause of around 92.3% of the deaths in the dataset, not 6%.

Also, the US isn’t the only country in the world with COVID-19. There are data from many other nations. As “Health Nerd” notes:

One important thing to note is that a lot of this is specific to the U.S. There are, oddly enough, quite a few other countries around the world, and they all have their own way of recording deaths. In some places, for example India, there has been a lot of criticism that the death reporting is shockingly bad and thus the country may be missing some or even the majority of their COVID-19 deaths. In other places, like Belgium, the death reporting is so good that it may explain the high COVID-19 death rates — they are simply picking up coronavirus deaths that other places have missed.

However, one thing remains true: most countries go to great lengths to ensure that deaths are correctly classified. Death reporting is incredibly important, and in most places it’s a detailed process that has to be checked carefully. In most cases, we can say with some certainty that deaths attributed to COVID-19 are, at best, a solid count, and at worst probably an underestimate. If anything, it’s likely that we are missing quite a few deaths that have been caused by coronavirus, but for whatever reason not picked up in our reporting systems, and thus the death count is actually higher than the reported figure.

And I say all of this as someone who has spent quite a bit of time studying COVID-19 death rates. I’ve now co-authored two studies looking at the fatality rates of COVID-19, and can say with some certainty that they are pretty good estimates, if probably a little low.

The bottom line is that the “only 6%” gambit is disinformation. It’s likely either astroturf or a product of the deranged minds of QAnon conspiracy theorists (or both). What’s most depressing is that we have a President who amplifies dangerous disinformation like this to a social media ecosystem of willing accomplices, allowing nonsense like this to go viral. As for the inevitable tone police trolls who will likely lament that I’m being way too sarcastic, insulting, and nasty, tough. Anything related to QAnon doesn’t deserve my civility.

Posted in Covid | Comments Off on The “only 6%” gambit: The latest viral COVID-19 disinformation