Recent studies have shown that taking hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine for covid as Trump suggested had absolutely zero positive effect and in fact caused 11% higher mortality. Over 17000 people died because they took it that would have survived covid without it.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S075333222301853X

This is what listening to idiots spouting nonsense gets you…on top of much higher (45%) rates of covid and death because you people still won’t get vaccinated.

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19/political-party-affiliation-linked-excess-covid-deaths

Trump policies caused a 40% increase in infections and deaths in America, hundreds of thousands of victims and trillions in losses we could have avoided with real leadership like other countries enjoyed.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trumps-policy-failures-have-exacted-a-heavy-toll-on-public-health1/


Meanwhile Trump has instructed his cultists to show up and vote for him, even if you are so sick it would kill you to do it, as long as you vote for him first that’s what you’ve gotta do, die for Trump. Yes, he did say that. Your life is worth far less than your vote to him.

Every double blind study done has proven zero positive effects and many negative side effects.
Every study indicating benefits have been combination drug treatments or non scientific studies of anecdotal data. Not double blind studies of hydroxy alone.
Every double blind study of hydroxychloroquine by itself has shown no effect on covid and many bad outcomes unrelated to Covid....there are multiple properly designed studies that confirm this.

More junk science from idiots who can't understand science but insist Trump knows more than doctors.

Tldw so no downvote, but I'm sure it deserves one.

Way too long, didn't watch, but I must disagree with the description.
Population control is hardly removed from the debate. IMO it's just ignored when it's brought up because the vast majority of people won't even consider not having children to the point where when China tried to take action and limit couples to one child the world called them draconian monsters instead of intelligent.
I personally often say I think every problem facing humanity and the planet is a function of overpopulation, and I'm not alone. I admit, I'm rare in that I put my money where my mouth is and had a vasectomy in my twenties before having children. I'm of the belief that no other action could possibly have the positive effect that not adding to the population does, but I also bought a full solar system over a decade back and try to grow most of my own food, and I drive well under 5000 miles a year.
There's no reason to abandon population control in favor of technological fixes or vice versa, indeed I believe maximising both won't fully solve our issues that have taken over a century to create, but I also believe not acting in every way possible to mitigate our damages leads to certain doom for most species.
I also think none of this will make a whit of difference in the grand scheme because way too many people have decided making any lifestyle sacrifices or not wastefully living above their means is intolerable even if it means their children suffer for it.

Sorry, but I disagree.

Touching a shoulder or hand can be enough to be accused of abuse.
Shit, just look at Shawn White, who was in a band with friends, and is now accused of sexual harassment for telling bandmates how he wants them to dress on stage, like most band leaders do, and for "making" her (and other friends) watch 2 girls 1 cup, like most teenagers/immature people did....publicly accused after settling with the band member who complained long after the fact and who accepted a settlement to drop it.
If that's sexual harassment, every man is guilty....as is every woman. Your parents are monsters, they actually forced you to wear what they said. Context is irrelevant.

Yes, today, asking a co-worker out and nothing more can and has led to harassment accusations and removal from their job....Jeffrey Tambor today, and he's never even heard what the accusations against him are or who made them, but he's already fired and his show, transparent, is certainly cancelled.

It's not that the whole world paints all men as rapists, it's that when any one person does paint any man (except Trump) as an abuser, the whole world seems to back them up without investigation or evidence. That's a problem, and is terrifying to many single men.

And women wonder why sexbots are becoming more popular daily, it's because to many men, their precious fairy vaginas aren't worth the risk of permanent scarlet lettering when there's a safe alternative. I just hope this has the positive effect of slowing population growth.

It's not about doing something that one thinks might lead to accusations, it's that any interactions can, and there's no recourse at all if you're accused, you're considered guilty off the bat.

Awesome to have real concrete information presented in a way that seems very distinct from what you'd get from sources on the far ends of the spectrum, like High Times or the DEA.

I'm quite surprised that smoking pot seems to carry an increased risk of bronchitis, like tobacco, but apparently NOT lung cancer (unlike tobacco). Are the carcinogens in tobacco cigarettes all from additional ingredients? Could people be growing their own tobacco and rolling their own cigarettes and avoiding one of the biggest health consequences? If so, shouldn't there be a market for tobacco cigarettes without any added ingredients?


I have never smoked pot OR tobacco. A lot of my reasons for avoiding either come down to a hatred of and pretty real sensitivity to / negative reactions to exposure to smoke. Some of my bias against that transfers into bias against pot in general, since smoking it is the default method.

At the same time, it seems ridiculous to me that pot is double-secret schedule 1 illegal while alcohol and tobacco are both perfectly legal. Especially when it seems apparent (although I don't really know what I'm talking about since I've never used it myself) that the intoxicating effects of pot are comparable to but generally LESS dangerous than alcohol, and the negative health consequences of pot are FAR LESS than either alcohol OR tobacco.

Getting real facts and knowledge out there like this video is doing has to have a positive effect on that very questionable policy.

As great as John Oliver is, he spent more time there mocking them over petty things as opposed to really concentrating on the (admittedly real) flaws in their platforms.

OK, Stein's "music" is cringeworthy. And Johnson's "skirt" comment is creepy and ill advised, but clearly meant in a metaphorical way.

It kinda bothers me when people (not just Oliver) do it to Trump and Clinton also. Like Trump having "tiny hands", or bringing up cankles or pantsuits for Clinton.

All of those things can be funny, a few times. But bringing them up constantly makes it seem like we have nothing of actual substance to criticize them for -- which is clearly not the case.


He did bring up legitimate concerns for some of Stein and Johnson's signature platforms. In both cases, that criticism boiled down to "you can't actually do that", as in the president doesn't actually have the power to implement the policy that they want. That's fair ... BUT, pretty much every single politician ever makes campaign promises that they don't actually have the power to implement. You pretty much have to if you want to get elected.

That doesn't mean that setting those policies as goals can't have value. Obama wanted a much more thorough overhaul of healthcare and insurance, but he didn't have the power to make it happen unilaterally. So we ended up with a watered-down version of Obamacare after the Republicans in the legislature did everything they could to obstruct it. But still, even though it isn't exactly what Obama originally had in mind, there are plenty of people now with some health coverage who had none before. That's a tangible positive result.

Trump will never build his wall, even if he ends up in the White House (not likely). I offer no defense for this idiotic idea, but it is at least possible for massive public works projects to be used to create jobs, improve infrastructure, and have other tangible positive effects; like FDR's New Deal.

Hillary would face lots of obstruction if she attempts to implement her plan to let people attend public universities for free. Probably more than Obama did on Obamacare. But trying to do something to make post-secondary education more available to everyone is a good goal. Even if the cynic in me thinks she only produced this "plan" as a way to try to win support of Sanders voters.

Johnson couldn't eliminate income tax, or abolish all those departments he mentioned. But he could rein in a lot of spending that the Executive branch does have power over. That could be a good thing in many cases (I'd be happy to see the TSA eliminated and military spending drastically reduced), but there are also a lot of potential problems. See Kansas transformation to "Brownbackistan" as a result of Sam Brownback's drastic tax cuts.

And Stein couldn't forgive student loan debt for this "entire generation". But just like Clinton's proposal to make public universities free, there is potential value to be found in just trying to do something about the insane problems with our university system. Hillary is a savvy enough politician to know not to say too much about her plan, which would open it up to scrutiny and criticism. Stein stepped into that by revealing her political inexperience, but I tend to trust that she does actually want to do something as opposed to Hillary just saying what she needs to say to get more votes.

As a Republican that switched to Democrat for Bernie, screw that!

First off, I'm not a Bernie Bro. That's a derogatory term coined by the Clinton campaign to marginalize the Sanders followers.

Secondly, I don't vote for corruption. There's far too much evidence that Hillary's done twisted stuff, and I'll not be party to it. The problem is that when corruption wins, it makes fighting future corruption all the more difficult. Hillary has enough political experience that she can put into place obstacles for future progressive movements like Bernie's, and that's a problem.

Trump may have his own issues, but at very least he won't make an already unfair system even worse, which would have a longer term impact on the democracy of this country.

Walls can be torn down, Muslim immigrants can start entering again after 4 years, and not all conservative Supreme Court Justices are terrible. (Scalia actually was a pretty bright guy that passed quite a number of laws that had positive effect, for example. And despite him, the more progressive laws were still passed.)

I'm not saying I'll vote Trump, as Stein and Johnson are still options, but I certainly won't help Hillary in any way.

A smart person can do more damage than an idiot.

I'd disagree with, " Of course, cocaine, amphetamines, benzodiazepines, alcohol and opiates also "cure" depression. So it's pretty complicated in practice."

Tryptamines have been known to combat depression when used correctly for a long time. They are non-addictive, you can't overdose and the positive effects are long lasting - due to experiencing what some call experiencing the "divine"- where the positive changes take place.

The false judgements of society are to blame for the misinformed perception of these compounds - when used responsibly.

It depends on the circumstances....in family restaurants, the fear likely generated overweighs the positive effect of exercising one's rights, so still heroic? Maybe...I'm torn. Douche-baggy for no reason? Certainly.

However, those that, alone, are willing to calmly and responsibly open carry in public places where it's allowed (IE not at a playground, bank, school, airport, etc.) in order to strengthen their right to do so, especially in locals where they know they'll be harassed at the least, yes, I would say they're heroic. Perhaps misguided, but heroic.
An argument could be made that it's maybe time to revisit that right in today's society, but so long as it's a right I support people exercising it (responsibly) and would say they're heroic if they do it responsibly and at some risk to themselves.

I'll just say I must expect if you're so certain, you must put your money where your mouth is, and are looking seriously into buying as much beach front property in Vanuatu as possible. Your mind is made up that there's no issue of ocean warming, rising, and/or acidification, so of course you will be taking advantage of those islanders that have been 'tricked' by the climate change frauds (oh, and also tricked by that water in their homes, the loss of snails, shellfish, fish, and the destruction of their reefs), and you'll be buying their properties at reduced rates, because the ocean rising is a fraud and you'll make a mint when everyone sees the 'truth' in 30 years...right? I have put my money where my mouth is, I have solar, I grow (most of) my own food, and I'm building a water catchment system.
Pay attention to what the scientists say, yes...but don't put too much stake in any single statement by any single group. Take the science as a whole, discard the crazed outliers, then examine and compare the remainder. After doing that, I always find that things are getting worse faster than nearly any study suggested it would, certainly more than the public 'consensus', in numerous ways that often re-enforce each other, and in ways that often were hidden under older study methods (such as the Greenland ice sheet, which is not only moving far faster than expected, but is also losing density much faster than expected, meaning older methods of measuring glaciers by size no longer apply...or the heating of the ocean where so much heat was 'hidden' in deep water, not found until recently so claimed to not exist, or the theory that certain diatoms might do better in acidic CO2 saturated water, but they found that that was wrong because in reality low light due to turbidity more than erased any positive effect.)

Today, one can find a 'study' to show anything one wishes, complete with scientists, data, conclusions, and affluent backers. The study you quote actually claimed that there will not be a loss of ice cover in Greenland and/or Antarctica, contrary to current conditions where there already IS loss of ice cover and it's accelerating exponentially. If you wish to believe that simply slowing the rate at which we increase the amount of CO2 we create by 2050 is going to solve the issues, (issues that will be totally disastrous by then by most estimations, for tens of millions it already IS disastrous) I've got some swamp land to sell you in Florida. The same goes for if you believe China and India are going to DECREASE their emissions. To date, they have done nothing but ignore their own additions to climate change as far as their energy production is concerned, they have not put extra money into 'clean' energy, but instead consistently go for the cheap, but dirty methods. There's no reason to believe this will change in the next 35 years as they ramp up their energy use to first world levels, that goes double if people are convinced (as you seem to be) that there's really no big problem with the climate, nothing to worry about, and any small inconvenience will be solved by technology and intelligent governments doing the right thing, even though it's the more expensive thing that they normally avoid like the plague. Unfortunately, history does not show that this is how people or governments operate.

Please explain how this 'enhanced oversight' works please. Since bribery is legal in your scenario, there's no reason victims of extortion would even bother to report it, because it's their word against the cop that will simply say 'it's a gift', case closed. Now they have the ability to extort any amount from anyone at any time, and like this cop they don't even have to follow through, they can simply demand payment then screw you a second time.
The incentive structure you describe is the incentive to extort money AND still screw people over because then they get paid AND have a good arrest record. There's no incentive for cops to act better t all, only worse in your scenario.
This story is proof that they are not free to extort today...he's fired isn't he? In your scenario, he's done nothing wrong.

It doesn't seem to me that your fringe scenario is likely to have a whit of positive effect, and only allows the worst kind of behavior to continue unhidden and unprosecutable. If you somehow believe that will cause bad cops to miraculously become good people, I've got some swamp land in Southern Florida to sell you. ;-)

While I cannot know what many experience - I have been the sitter for over 40 people. They tell me what they experience, when they come back their eyes say it all. They could never have imagined what had happened to them was possible. None of them had negative experiences. Though, for a strong "teaching" psychedelic like DMT a negative experience is not always "negative" there is a story to it. I should know, I would say that one of my "breakthrough" trips was the most terrifying experience I have ever had hands down. But, I learned from what that experience wanted me to experience and what I was taught has had long-lasting positive components in my life.

I think you are confusing DMT/ayahuasca with other psychedelics, salvia, mushrooms, LSD, MXE... etc etc. Show me ONE story where someone has committed suicide from taking DMT.

While, I would not say I am a drug riddled person, I almost never take them.
I have "experienced" substances out of curiosity. I've taken many different kinds and all of the big psychedelics, LSD, shrooms, mescaline a few times. I learned that the propaganda around these substances has no merit. Obviously, a person needs to take them seriously and with respect so that nothing goes awry. And no, DMT does not compare at all.

But,I am very well versed on the topic (DMT), I researched all of the negative/positive effects for about six years before I actually did it myself. I was very careful, since if you have ever read a decent trip report it sounds absolutely crazy. There is no way anything could take you to places like that, to meet creatures of a bizarre sort, it's just not possible I thought. Well, I found out, it's similiar to decent trip reports X 1,000,000. As Joe Rogan says - it's "mushrooms + aliens x 1,000,000". But, nothing in the human language(s) could ever prepare anyone for it and no one can express even 1% of what it is like.

I think you are over-exaggerating the negative effects while shunning the reality of what this molecule is, it is a mystery that can only be understood after having experienced it firsthand. It only lasts 5-10 minutes (2 million years) what are you waiting for?

You understand that people react to DMT differently, right? You understand that some people have horrifying trips on DMT, so horrifying they commit suicide while on it, often enough that it is a drug that requires a 'sitter' to take with any small amount of safety. You do understand that some people have flashbacks of this debilitating horrifying experience at random times in the future, destroying the possibility of a normal life, right?
Your attempts to cajole others into trying a quite dangerous drug with NO mention of the dangers is irresponsible in the extreme.
My own drug experience is wide and varied, and I have had un-named drugs that did nearly exactly what others (poorly) describe their DMT trips as doing. It was not pleasant or useful in my life, and was given to me by those that acted exactly as you do...hyper exaggerating the positive effects, and completely ignoring the drawbacks and possible permanent pitfalls.

I understand where you're coming from @ghark. However, judging by the video alone, it could be fuckin' heroin, and I would still advocate it's use in this scenario. There aren't many side-effects, highs, or dependencies that outweigh the positive effects in this particular scenario.

This is a very interesting question that I've thought quite a lot about during my life (to myself, not in any sort of professional capacity).

The conclusions that I have come to (so far) are:
I think that, yes, religion in general terms IS a significant (but it is a stretch to say the ONLY) restraint on a pretty large number of people. Which is a prospect that I personally have a negative and pessimistic reaction to, similar to what it sounds like you do.

However, I think that there are lots of mitigating circumstances. First, many different religions currently provide that restraint to people. And in the past, many many more religions provided it to even more people. Many of those different religions have been very very different. Some have been near polar opposites. That proves that if your goal is restraining people from being utterly evil, and someone suggests that religion has made or is making a noble effort towards that (like your uncle), the positive aspects they are cheering for are not unique to any single religion, or dogma, or whatever.

If one accepts that many many diverse and completely different religions can potentially have the positive effects that we're looking for, then the actual source of those effects can not be something specific to any one religion. Instead, it has to be something that is held in common by all such religions.

Religions are so diverse and different, it might be hard to imagine something that they have in common. No specific god is held in common, even though all the Abrahamic religions might arguably share that aspect. Not even the simple idea of a god or gods or creator is far from universal; Buddhists revere no god.

Yet I believe that there is one easily overlooked thing that all religions DO have in common. Humanity. They all come from flawed but usually well-meaning people.

However, atheists hold that humanity in common with religions as well. And that makes me believe that if we understand humanity better, either through psychology, or empathy, or whatever, we can achieve the positive effects of religions without the religions themselves. Certainly without the stone-age dogmatic nonsense -- which tends to have arguably as many if not more BAD effects as good. This actually gives me great hope for humanity; rather the opposite to the conclusion that I came to originally when pondering the question.

There may always be people who have no empathy, and for whom nothing would serve to restrain them from what humanity at large would easily identify as great evil. No religion will handle such individuals any better than no religion ... so I guess I don't lose any sleep over that.