A small tool to view real-world ActivityPub objects as JSON! Enter a URL
or username from Mastodon or a similar service below, and we'll send a
request with
the right
Accept
header
to the server to view the underlying object.
{
"@context": "https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams",
"type": "OrderedCollectionPage",
"orderedItems": [
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/673196578051203075",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/673196578051203075/entities/urn:activity:1695431781584474118",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/673196578051203075",
"content": "Highlights All The Way Down from “Turtles All The Way Down: Vaccine Science and Myth” (book from 2022).<br /><br />My latest book review got me suspended from cross-posting on Medium! This review contains some of this MUST-READ book’s most potent claims, framings, summaries, and questions on vaccine sub-topics.<br /><br />2-minute Trailer Video:<br /><a href=\"https://odysee.com/@wikiworldorder:c/trailer-for-highlights-all-the-way-down-from-turtles-vaccine-science-2022:4\" target=\"_blank\">https://odysee.com/@wikiworldorder:c/trailer-for-highlights-all-the-way-down-from-turtles-vaccine-science-2022:4</a><br /><br />Full Book Review Video:<br /><a href=\"https://odysee.com/@wikiworldorder:c/highlights-all-the-way-down-from-turtles-vaccine-science-2022:9\" target=\"_blank\">https://odysee.com/@wikiworldorder:c/highlights-all-the-way-down-from-turtles-vaccine-science-2022:9</a><br /><br />Full Book Review Essay:<br /><a href=\"https://worldorder.wiki/2024/03/20/highlights-all-the-way-down-from-turtles-all-the-way-down-vaccine-science-and-myth-2022/\" target=\"_blank\">https://worldorder.wiki/2024/03/20/highlights-all-the-way-down-from-turtles-all-the-way-down-vaccine-science-and-myth-2022/</a><br /><br />PDF version of Essay:<br /><a href=\"https://worldorder.wiki/turtles-pdf\" target=\"_blank\">https://worldorder.wiki/turtles-pdf</a>",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/673196578051203075/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1695431781584474118",
"published": "2024-10-22T12:00:35+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "Highlights All The Way Down from “Turtles All The Way Down: Vaccine Science and Myth” (book from 2022).\n\nMy latest book review got me suspended from cross-posting on Medium! This review contains some of this MUST-READ book’s most potent claims, framings, summaries, and questions on vaccine sub-topics.\n\n2-minute Trailer Video:\nhttps://odysee.com/@wikiworldorder:c/trailer-for-highlights-all-the-way-down-from-turtles-vaccine-science-2022:4\n\nFull Book Review Video:\nhttps://odysee.com/@wikiworldorder:c/highlights-all-the-way-down-from-turtles-vaccine-science-2022:9\n\nFull Book Review Essay:\nhttps://worldorder.wiki/2024/03/20/highlights-all-the-way-down-from-turtles-all-the-way-down-vaccine-science-and-myth-2022/\n\nPDF version of Essay:\nhttps://worldorder.wiki/turtles-pdf",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/673196578051203075/entities/urn:activity:1695431781584474118/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/673196578051203075",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/673196578051203075/entities/urn:activity:1402341357699207176",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/673196578051203075",
"content": "Technocratic Party Posturing Observed In Natural Habitat (8/2/2022) Too bad these candidates don't understand the key philosophies & science of the past two years <3 <a class=\"u-url mention\" href=\"https://www.minds.com/CorbettReport\" target=\"_blank\">@CorbettReport</a> <a class=\"u-url mention\" href=\"https://www.minds.com/mediamonarchy\" target=\"_blank\">@mediamonarchy</a> <a class=\"u-url mention\" href=\"https://www.minds.com/TragedyAndHope\" target=\"_blank\">@TragedyAndHope</a> <a class=\"u-url mention\" href=\"https://www.minds.com/TLAVagabond\" target=\"_blank\">@TLAVagabond</a> <a class=\"u-url mention\" href=\"https://www.minds.com/wearechange\" target=\"_blank\">@wearechange</a> <a class=\"u-url mention\" href=\"https://www.minds.com/jasonbermas\" target=\"_blank\">@jasonbermas</a><br /><a href=\"https://worldorder.wiki/2022/08/05/technocratic-party-posturing-observed-in-natural-habitat/\" target=\"_blank\">https://worldorder.wiki/2022/08/05/technocratic-party-posturing-observed-in-natural-habitat/</a>",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/673196578051203075/followers"
],
"tag": [
{
"type": "Mention",
"href": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/100000000000000000",
"name": "@CorbettReport"
},
{
"type": "Mention",
"href": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/100000000000000000",
"name": "@mediamonarchy"
},
{
"type": "Mention",
"href": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/653380512588509198",
"name": "@TragedyAndHope"
},
{
"type": "Mention",
"href": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/829874027219656723",
"name": "@TLAVagabond"
},
{
"type": "Mention",
"href": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/100000000000000000",
"name": "@wearechange"
},
{
"type": "Mention",
"href": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1095121050707959814",
"name": "@jasonbermas"
}
],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1402341357699207176",
"published": "2022-08-05T17:23:53+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "Technocratic Party Posturing Observed In Natural Habitat (8/2/2022) Too bad these candidates don't understand the key philosophies & science of the past two years <3 @CorbettReport @mediamonarchy @TragedyAndHope @TLAVagabond @wearechange @jasonbermas\nhttps://worldorder.wiki/2022/08/05/technocratic-party-posturing-observed-in-natural-habitat/",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/673196578051203075/entities/urn:activity:1402341357699207176/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/673196578051203075",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/673196578051203075/entities/urn:activity:1320490489601855499",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/673196578051203075",
"content": "Thanks for the shout out, <a class=\"u-url mention\" href=\"https://www.minds.com/mediamonarchy\" target=\"_blank\">@mediamonarchy</a>, and for helping us all through another gas lit year!-) <3 <3 <3<br /><a href=\"https://mediamonarchy.com/20211216morningmonarchy/\" target=\"_blank\">https://mediamonarchy.com/20211216morningmonarchy/</a>",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/673196578051203075/followers"
],
"tag": [
{
"type": "Mention",
"href": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/100000000000000000",
"name": "@mediamonarchy"
}
],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1320490489601855499",
"published": "2021-12-22T20:37:45+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "Thanks for the shout out, @mediamonarchy, and for helping us all through another gas lit year!-) <3 <3 <3\nhttps://mediamonarchy.com/20211216morningmonarchy/",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/673196578051203075/entities/urn:activity:1320490489601855499/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/673196578051203075",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/673196578051203075/entities/urn:activity:1270768918406893584",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/673196578051203075",
"content": "A team from MIT put together a fascinating study on online research communities. I loved reading it and wanted to share with others to help them try to understand my world. Some of the research communities they studied sounded adjacent to independent research and media communities that I have participated in since before the 2009 Swine Flu Pandemic. The full video includes reactions to this recent MIT study plus a review of the ‘pro-mask’ studies cited by it.<br /><br />Transcript / essay / show notes:<br /><a href=\"https://worldorder.wiki/2021/05/20/mit-study-anti-maskers-more-scientific-rigor-not-less/\" target=\"_blank\">https://worldorder.wiki/2021/05/20/mit-study-anti-maskers-more-scientific-rigor-not-less/</a><br /><br />Video Variations:<br />[Trailer] MIT study finds anti-maskers are “grounded in a more scientific rigor”<br />4 min: <a href=\"https://odysee.com/@wikiworldorder:c/mit-study-anti-maskers-grounded-in-a-more-scientific-rigor-trailer:7\" target=\"_blank\">https://odysee.com/@wikiworldorder:c/mit-study-anti-maskers-grounded-in-a-more-scientific-rigor-trailer:7</a><br /><br />[FULL Reactions+Research] MIT study finds anti-maskers are “grounded in a more scientific rigor”<br />151 min: <a href=\"https://odysee.com/@wikiworldorder:c/mit-study-anti-maskers-grounded-in-a-more-scientific-rigor-full:2\" target=\"_blank\">https://odysee.com/@wikiworldorder:c/mit-study-anti-maskers-grounded-in-a-more-scientific-rigor-full:2</a><br /><br />[Reactions+Research Conclusions] MIT study finds anti-maskers are “grounded in a more scientific rigor” (Parts 1+2)<br />48 min: <a href=\"https://odysee.com/@wikiworldorder:c/mit-study-anti-maskers-grounded-in-a-more-scientific-rigor-reactions-research:a\" target=\"_blank\">https://odysee.com/@wikiworldorder:c/mit-study-anti-maskers-grounded-in-a-more-scientific-rigor-reactions-research:a</a><br /><br />[Research Conclusions] MIT study finds anti-maskers are “grounded in a more scientific rigor” (Part 2)<br />11 min: <a href=\"https://odysee.com/@wikiworldorder:c/mit-study-anti-maskers-grounded-in-a-more-scientific-rigor-research-conclusions:6\" target=\"_blank\">https://odysee.com/@wikiworldorder:c/mit-study-anti-maskers-grounded-in-a-more-scientific-rigor-research-conclusions:6</a><br /><br />[Research Notes] MIT study finds anti-maskers are “grounded in a more scientific rigor” (Appendix A+B)<br />61 min: <a href=\"https://odysee.com/@wikiworldorder:c/mit-study-anti-maskers-grounded-in-a-more-scientific-rigor-research-notes:2\" target=\"_blank\">https://odysee.com/@wikiworldorder:c/mit-study-anti-maskers-grounded-in-a-more-scientific-rigor-research-notes:2</a><br /><br />[Familiar CDC Meme] MIT study finds anti-maskers are “grounded in a more scientific rigor” (Appendix C)<br />3 min: <a href=\"https://odysee.com/@wikiworldorder:c/mit-study-anti-maskers-grounded-in-a-more-scientific-rigor-meme:4\" target=\"_blank\">https://odysee.com/@wikiworldorder:c/mit-study-anti-maskers-grounded-in-a-more-scientific-rigor-meme:4</a>",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/673196578051203075/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1270768918406893584",
"published": "2021-08-07T15:41:59+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "A team from MIT put together a fascinating study on online research communities. I loved reading it and wanted to share with others to help them try to understand my world. Some of the research communities they studied sounded adjacent to independent research and media communities that I have participated in since before the 2009 Swine Flu Pandemic. The full video includes reactions to this recent MIT study plus a review of the ‘pro-mask’ studies cited by it.\n\nTranscript / essay / show notes:\nhttps://worldorder.wiki/2021/05/20/mit-study-anti-maskers-more-scientific-rigor-not-less/\n\nVideo Variations:\n[Trailer] MIT study finds anti-maskers are “grounded in a more scientific rigor”\n4 min: https://odysee.com/@wikiworldorder:c/mit-study-anti-maskers-grounded-in-a-more-scientific-rigor-trailer:7\n\n[FULL Reactions+Research] MIT study finds anti-maskers are “grounded in a more scientific rigor”\n151 min: https://odysee.com/@wikiworldorder:c/mit-study-anti-maskers-grounded-in-a-more-scientific-rigor-full:2\n\n[Reactions+Research Conclusions] MIT study finds anti-maskers are “grounded in a more scientific rigor” (Parts 1+2)\n48 min: https://odysee.com/@wikiworldorder:c/mit-study-anti-maskers-grounded-in-a-more-scientific-rigor-reactions-research:a\n\n[Research Conclusions] MIT study finds anti-maskers are “grounded in a more scientific rigor” (Part 2)\n11 min: https://odysee.com/@wikiworldorder:c/mit-study-anti-maskers-grounded-in-a-more-scientific-rigor-research-conclusions:6\n\n[Research Notes] MIT study finds anti-maskers are “grounded in a more scientific rigor” (Appendix A+B)\n61 min: https://odysee.com/@wikiworldorder:c/mit-study-anti-maskers-grounded-in-a-more-scientific-rigor-research-notes:2\n\n[Familiar CDC Meme] MIT study finds anti-maskers are “grounded in a more scientific rigor” (Appendix C)\n3 min: https://odysee.com/@wikiworldorder:c/mit-study-anti-maskers-grounded-in-a-more-scientific-rigor-meme:4",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/673196578051203075/entities/urn:activity:1270768918406893584/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/673196578051203075",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/673196578051203075/entities/urn:activity:1270155339764862995",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/673196578051203075",
"content": "Klaus at corona restaurant: \"For our entrée, we would love to order the chaos.\"<br /><br />;-p <3<br /><a href=\"https://wikiworldorder.org/2020/12/23/klaus-schwab-says-sars-cov-2-does-not-constitute-an-existential-threat-but-thank-goodness-for-the-great-reset/\" target=\"_blank\">https://wikiworldorder.org/2020/12/23/klaus-schwab-says-sars-cov-2-does-not-constitute-an-existential-threat-but-thank-goodness-for-the-great-reset/</a>",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/673196578051203075/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1270155339764862995",
"published": "2021-08-05T23:03:50+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "Klaus at corona restaurant: \"For our entrée, we would love to order the chaos.\"\n\n;-p <3\nhttps://wikiworldorder.org/2020/12/23/klaus-schwab-says-sars-cov-2-does-not-constitute-an-existential-threat-but-thank-goodness-for-the-great-reset/",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/673196578051203075/entities/urn:activity:1270155339764862995/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/673196578051203075",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/673196578051203075/entities/urn:activity:1246182916788289536",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/673196578051203075",
"content": "“Ten RCTs were included in meta-analysis, and there was no evidence that face masks are effective in reducing transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.” <br />(WHO systematic review in Oct 2019)<br /><a href=\"https://www.who.int/influenza/publications/public_health_measures/publication/en/\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.who.int/influenza/publications/public_health_measures/publication/en/</a><br /><br />“There is little information on the efficacy of face masks in filtering respiratory viruses and reducing viral release from an individual with respiratory infections …” <br />(Apr 2020)<br /><a href=\"https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0843-2\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0843-2</a><br /><br />“Although mechanistic studies support the potential effect of hand hygiene or face masks, evidence from 14 randomized controlled trials of these measures did not support a substantial effect on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza. … There is limited evidence for their effectiveness in preventing influenza virus transmission either when worn by the infected person for source control or when worn by uninfected persons to reduce exposure. Our systematic review found no significant effect of face masks on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.” <br />(CDC systematic review in May 2020)<br /><a href=\"https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article\" target=\"_blank\">https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article</a><br /><br />“Previous data from randomised trials are mainly for common respiratory viruses such as seasonal influenza, with a systematic review concluding low certainty of evidence for extrapolating these findings to COVID-19.” <br />(The Lancet systematic review in Jun 2020)<br /><a href=\"https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31142-9/fulltext\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31142-9/fulltext</a><br /><br />“Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of such studies have provided suggestive, although generally weak, evidence.” <br />(Jun 2020)<br /><a href=\"https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/pdf/10.1377/hlthaff.2020.00818\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/pdf/10.1377/hlthaff.2020.00818</a><br /><br />“… there are insufficient data on cloth-based coverings, which are being used by a vast majority of the general public …” <br />(Jun 2020)<br /><a href=\"https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32624649/\" target=\"_blank\">https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32624649/</a><br /><br />“There is low certainty evidence from nine trials (3507 participants) that wearing a mask may make little or no difference to the outcome of influenza‐like illness (ILI) compared to not wearing a mask … There is moderate certainty evidence that wearing a mask probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory‐confirmed influenza compared to not wearing a mask …” <br />(Cochrane systematic review in Nov 2020)<br /><a href=\"https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub5/full\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub5/full</a><br /><br />“Several systematic reviews found no conclusive evidence to support widespread use of masks in public settings to protect against respiratory infectious diseases …” <br />(Nov 2020)<br /><a href=\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7588529/pdf/20-3003.pdf\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7588529/pdf/20-3003.pdf</a><br /><br />“The impact of face masks worn in public on the spread of COVID-19 has yet to be systematically analyzed.” <br />(Dec 2020)<br /><a href=\"https://www.pnas.org/content/117/51/32293\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.pnas.org/content/117/51/32293</a><br /><br />“Prior to the [COVID-19] pandemic, the efficacy of community mask wearing to reduce the spread of respiratory infections was controversial because there were no solid relevant data to support their use.” <br />(Jan 2021)<br /><a href=\"https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2776536\" target=\"_blank\">https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2776536</a><br /><br />“Although evidence suggests that masks help to curb the spread of the disease, there is little empirical research at the population level. … Segmented regression analysis of reported mask-wearing showed no statistically significant change in the slope after mandates were introduced; …” <br />(Jan 2021)<br /><a href=\"https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2776536\" target=\"_blank\">https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2776536</a><br /><br />------<br />To me, far more progress must be made on topics like this before high certainty becomes actionable for public policy including fines, jail, or censorship.<br /><br />Long-form review of over 100 published references throughout conclusions and appendix:<br /><a href=\"https://wikiworldorder.org/2021/05/20/mit-study-anti-maskers-more-scientific-rigor-not-less\" target=\"_blank\">https://wikiworldorder.org/2021/05/20/mit-study-anti-maskers-more-scientific-rigor-not-less</a><br /><br />After reading my appendix, if anyone still believes that I’ve missed some overwhelming pro-mask evidence here, then I would be earnestly curious to understand what it is, and why you find it compelling enough to establish a new public health paradigm. ;) <3",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/673196578051203075/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1246182916788289536",
"published": "2021-05-31T19:25:59+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "“Ten RCTs were included in meta-analysis, and there was no evidence that face masks are effective in reducing transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.” \n(WHO systematic review in Oct 2019)\nhttps://www.who.int/influenza/publications/public_health_measures/publication/en/\n\n“There is little information on the efficacy of face masks in filtering respiratory viruses and reducing viral release from an individual with respiratory infections …” \n(Apr 2020)\nhttps://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0843-2\n\n“Although mechanistic studies support the potential effect of hand hygiene or face masks, evidence from 14 randomized controlled trials of these measures did not support a substantial effect on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza. … There is limited evidence for their effectiveness in preventing influenza virus transmission either when worn by the infected person for source control or when worn by uninfected persons to reduce exposure. Our systematic review found no significant effect of face masks on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.” \n(CDC systematic review in May 2020)\nhttps://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article\n\n“Previous data from randomised trials are mainly for common respiratory viruses such as seasonal influenza, with a systematic review concluding low certainty of evidence for extrapolating these findings to COVID-19.” \n(The Lancet systematic review in Jun 2020)\nhttps://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31142-9/fulltext\n\n“Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of such studies have provided suggestive, although generally weak, evidence.” \n(Jun 2020)\nhttps://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/pdf/10.1377/hlthaff.2020.00818\n\n“… there are insufficient data on cloth-based coverings, which are being used by a vast majority of the general public …” \n(Jun 2020)\nhttps://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32624649/\n\n“There is low certainty evidence from nine trials (3507 participants) that wearing a mask may make little or no difference to the outcome of influenza‐like illness (ILI) compared to not wearing a mask … There is moderate certainty evidence that wearing a mask probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory‐confirmed influenza compared to not wearing a mask …” \n(Cochrane systematic review in Nov 2020)\nhttps://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub5/full\n\n“Several systematic reviews found no conclusive evidence to support widespread use of masks in public settings to protect against respiratory infectious diseases …” \n(Nov 2020)\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7588529/pdf/20-3003.pdf\n\n“The impact of face masks worn in public on the spread of COVID-19 has yet to be systematically analyzed.” \n(Dec 2020)\nhttps://www.pnas.org/content/117/51/32293\n\n“Prior to the [COVID-19] pandemic, the efficacy of community mask wearing to reduce the spread of respiratory infections was controversial because there were no solid relevant data to support their use.” \n(Jan 2021)\nhttps://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2776536\n\n“Although evidence suggests that masks help to curb the spread of the disease, there is little empirical research at the population level. … Segmented regression analysis of reported mask-wearing showed no statistically significant change in the slope after mandates were introduced; …” \n(Jan 2021)\nhttps://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2776536\n\n------\nTo me, far more progress must be made on topics like this before high certainty becomes actionable for public policy including fines, jail, or censorship.\n\nLong-form review of over 100 published references throughout conclusions and appendix:\nhttps://wikiworldorder.org/2021/05/20/mit-study-anti-maskers-more-scientific-rigor-not-less\n\nAfter reading my appendix, if anyone still believes that I’ve missed some overwhelming pro-mask evidence here, then I would be earnestly curious to understand what it is, and why you find it compelling enough to establish a new public health paradigm. ;) <3",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/673196578051203075/entities/urn:activity:1246182916788289536/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/673196578051203075",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/673196578051203075/entities/urn:activity:1239582388817571840",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/673196578051203075",
"content": "If some people are acting like the declared pandemic is over, it might be because most states have probably been below 2018 seasonal levels of all-cause mortality for a month or two. ;) <3 <br /><br />Weekly number of deaths (from all causes)<br /><a href=\"https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm</a><br />\"Figure Notes:<br />Number of deaths reported on this page are the total number of deaths received and coded as of the date of analysis and do not represent all deaths that occurred in that period. Data are incomplete because of the lag in time between when the death occurred and when the death certificate is completed, submitted to NCHS and processed for reporting purposes. This delay can range from 1 week to 8 weeks or more, depending on the jurisdiction and cause of death. See <a href=\"https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/COVID19/index.htm\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/COVID19/index.htm</a> for more information. Data for New York excludes New York City. Data on all deaths excluding COVID-19 exclude deaths with U07.1 as an underlying or multiple cause of death. Death counts were derived from the National Vital Statistics System database that provides the timeliest access to the vital statistics mortality data and may differ slightly from other sources due to differences in completeness, COVID-19 definitions used, data processing, and imputation of missing dates. Weighted estimates may be too high or too low in certain jurisdictions where the timeliness of provisional data has changed in recent weeks relative to prior years. Data for jurisdictions where counts are between 1 and 9 are suppressed.\"",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/673196578051203075/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1239582388817571840",
"published": "2021-05-13T14:17:50+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "If some people are acting like the declared pandemic is over, it might be because most states have probably been below 2018 seasonal levels of all-cause mortality for a month or two. ;) <3 \n\nWeekly number of deaths (from all causes)\nhttps://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm\n\"Figure Notes:\nNumber of deaths reported on this page are the total number of deaths received and coded as of the date of analysis and do not represent all deaths that occurred in that period. Data are incomplete because of the lag in time between when the death occurred and when the death certificate is completed, submitted to NCHS and processed for reporting purposes. This delay can range from 1 week to 8 weeks or more, depending on the jurisdiction and cause of death. See https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/COVID19/index.htm for more information. Data for New York excludes New York City. Data on all deaths excluding COVID-19 exclude deaths with U07.1 as an underlying or multiple cause of death. Death counts were derived from the National Vital Statistics System database that provides the timeliest access to the vital statistics mortality data and may differ slightly from other sources due to differences in completeness, COVID-19 definitions used, data processing, and imputation of missing dates. Weighted estimates may be too high or too low in certain jurisdictions where the timeliness of provisional data has changed in recent weeks relative to prior years. Data for jurisdictions where counts are between 1 and 9 are suppressed.\"",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/673196578051203075/entities/urn:activity:1239582388817571840/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/673196578051203075",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/673196578051203075/entities/urn:activity:1239197072730435584",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/673196578051203075",
"content": "Classic <a href=\"https://www.minds.com/search?f=top&t=all&q=foodforthought\" title=\"#foodforthought\" class=\"u-url hashtag\" target=\"_blank\">#foodforthought</a>: Asch conformity experiments were a series of studies directed by Solomon Asch studying if and how individuals yielded to or defied a majority group and the effect of such influences on beliefs and opinions. Developed in the 1950s, the methodology remains in use by many researchers.<br /><a href=\"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYIh4MkcfJA\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYIh4MkcfJA</a><br /><a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments\" target=\"_blank\">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments</a>",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/673196578051203075/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1239197072730435584",
"published": "2021-05-12T12:46:45+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "Classic #foodforthought: Asch conformity experiments were a series of studies directed by Solomon Asch studying if and how individuals yielded to or defied a majority group and the effect of such influences on beliefs and opinions. Developed in the 1950s, the methodology remains in use by many researchers.\nhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYIh4MkcfJA\nhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/673196578051203075/entities/urn:activity:1239197072730435584/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/673196578051203075",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/673196578051203075/entities/urn:activity:1238903805637873664",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/673196578051203075",
"content": "\"Why are we obsessed with danger, and conversely with safety? The Swedish psychiatrist and author David Eberhard comments on the effects that a lockdown has on a population, and on how we feel less and less secure despite arguably living in the safest period of time in human history. David has worked in psychiatry for most of his adult life, at multiple different centers in Stockholm. Since 2019, David is working as the head of staff at PRIMA Maria Addiction Care Clinic.<br /><br />In addition, he is a bestselling author and active lecturer, focusing on everything from responsibility and human rights and violations of these, to security thinking and child rearing.\"<br /><a href=\"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43J7hD9I0jY\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43J7hD9I0jY</a>",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/673196578051203075/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1238903805637873664",
"published": "2021-05-11T17:21:24+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "\"Why are we obsessed with danger, and conversely with safety? The Swedish psychiatrist and author David Eberhard comments on the effects that a lockdown has on a population, and on how we feel less and less secure despite arguably living in the safest period of time in human history. David has worked in psychiatry for most of his adult life, at multiple different centers in Stockholm. Since 2019, David is working as the head of staff at PRIMA Maria Addiction Care Clinic.\n\nIn addition, he is a bestselling author and active lecturer, focusing on everything from responsibility and human rights and violations of these, to security thinking and child rearing.\"\nhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43J7hD9I0jY",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/673196578051203075/entities/urn:activity:1238903805637873664/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/673196578051203075",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/673196578051203075/entities/urn:activity:1238631048148623360",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/673196578051203075",
"content": "Anyone seen the strongest claims here addressed well? <3 \"Had the CDC used the 2003 guidelines, the total COVID-19 be approximately 16.7 times lower than is currently being reported.\" (through August 23rd data source)<br /><br />COVID-19 Data Collection, Comorbidity & Federal Law: A Historical Retrospective<br />October 12, 2020<br /><a href=\"https://www.ratical.org/PandemicParallaxView/C19dataCollection-C+FL-HistPerspec.pdf\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.ratical.org/PandemicParallaxView/C19dataCollection-C+FL-HistPerspec.pdf</a><br /><br />\"... The CDC published guidelines on March 24, 2020 that substantially altered how cause of death is recorded exclusively for COVID-19. This change was enacted apparently without public opportunity for comment or peer-review. As a result, a capricious alteration to data collection has compromised the accuracy, quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of their published data, leading to a significant increase in COVID-19 fatalities. This decision by the CDC may have subverted the legal oversight of the OMB as Congressionally authorized by the PRA & IQA as well.[7][8]<br />...<br />April 14, 2020 – In potential violation of the PRA & IQA, the CDC adopts the CSTE COVID-19 Position Paper, significantly altering standard established medical criteria for diagnosis, exclusively for COVID-19 . In doing so, the CDC bypasses federal oversight by the OIRA once again.[16][18]<br /><br />April 24, 2020 – National Institutes of Health (NIH) cancels funding on previously supported gain-of-function research for bat coronaviruses. [10]<br /><br />June 13, 2020 – CDC initiates PCR test based strategy requiring all patients that need hospitalization for any reason be tested at time of entry regardless of symptoms. A patient testing positive is categorized as a new COVID-19 case and hospitalization. Patients testing positive are required to be PCR tested every 24 hours until they have 2 consecutive negative PCR tests at least 24 hours apart. There are no data collection guidelines within the CSTE Position Paper adopted by the CDC on April 14, 2020 to prevent the same patient being counted multiple times. Additionally, there are no data collection guidelines published separately by the CDC to explicitly prevent the same hospitalized patient from being inaccurately counted as a new case and hospitalization each time they are tested while hospitalized.[24]<br />...<br />By failing to act in accordance with Congress’ clear intent as to how an agency may propose changes to data collection as codified in 44 USC 3506 (c)(2)(A), there is no record of information the CDC relied upon to make its decision to change how deaths are reported.<br /><br />Previous reports detailed the substantial changes on how causes of death were forcibly modified by the CDC through the NVSS, and how together, both federal agencies inflated t he actual number of COVID-19 fatalities by approximately 90.2% through July 12th, 2020.[18]<br /><br />We believe this deliberate decision by the CDC and NVSS to deemphasize pre-existing comorbidities, in favor of emphasizing COVID-19 as a cause of death, is in violation of 44 U.S. Code 3504 (e)(1)(b), which states the activities of the Federal statistical system shall ensure “the integrity, objectivity, impartiality, utility, and confidentiality of information collected for statistical purposes.” In doing so, the CDC and NVSS have compromised the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of data, and concomitantly usurped the oversight of the “Authority and Functions of the Director of the OMB/OIRA”.[40]<br />...<br />As a result, people hospitalized with a positive PCR test could be tested every 24 hours and each time counted as new COVID-19 to the complete absence of basic rules to ensure that this could not happen.<br />...<br />Based upon our investigation of Federal Register Records for 2020, there was no formal, transparent, public review process initiated by the NVSS or CDC prior to or following the issuance of the March 24th NVSS COVID-19 Alert No. 2 that dramatically altered cause of death reporting exclusively for COVID-19. In this regard, we allege that the CDC and NVSS’s alterations to cause of death reporting guidelines exclusively for COVID-19, violated the IQA & PRA by compromising data quality, objectivity, and utility.<br /><br />Additionally, our investigation into Federal Register Records for 2020 revealed that there was no formal, transparent, public review process initiated by the CDC prior to or following the adoption of the April 14th CSTE position paper that dramatically altered what defines a new case exclusively for COVID-19. In this regard, we allege that the CDC changes to cause of death reporting exclusively for COVID-19 violated the IQA & PRA by compromising data quality, objectivity, and utility.<br /><br />By implementing new rules exclusively for COVID-19, while denying the public an opportunity for meaningful participation in the decision making process and failing to create a record in which the agency clearly set forth the reasons for its action, we allege the CDC violated the express intent of Congress and acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner.<br /><br />As a result of these changes, we allege the CDC compromised the quality, objectivity and integrity of all COVID-19 data collected to date.<br />...<br />The CDC compromised data integrity by altering how cause of death records are reported, and did so exclusively for COVID-19, in the March 24, 2020 NVSS COVID-19 Alert No. 2.<br /><br />On April 14, 2020, the CDC again compromised data integrity when it adopted the CSTE position paper and created categories for ‘probable’ cases that eliminated the medical standards of proof of infection through positive lab testing. From April 14th to July 16th, the CDC actively promoted a test-based strategy for diagnosis, meaning everyone should be tested regardless of the presence or absence of symptoms. Additionally, the CSTE position paper paved the way for unlicensed and medically untrained contact tracers to illegally diagnose patients without any medical examination or confirmatory lab testing. In fact, they could do so without even seeing or talking to the patient in question.<br />...<br />Would the 94% of fatalities with at least 1 comorbidity have been counted as COVID-19 fatalities if the CDC had used the guidelines for reporting that the nation has been using for 17 years instead of the COVID-19 guidelines issued on March 24, 2020?<br /><br />To properly answer this question, it is necessary to compare the unproven March 24 COVID19 Alert No. 2 cause of death reporting guidelines against the 2003 CDC Medical Examiner’s and Coroner’s Handbook on Death Registration that has been the proven national standard for 17 years without incident.<br />...<br />Public health policies that create more collateral damage while attempting to avoid an infection with a 99.05% rate of recovery in the vast majority of citizens must be objectively investigated and critically questioned if the goal of living in a healthy society is to be realized.<br />...<br />Figure 9. COVID-19 Using the March 24 Exclusive Guidelines vs Using the 2003 Guidelines. Had the CDC used the 2003 guidelines, the total COVID-19 be approximately 16.7 times lower than is currently being reported. [1][30][State & Territory Health Departments]\" (through August 23rd data source)<br /><br />---<br />As with a decent percentage of the things I've posted over the past year... If just one such answer was demanded of accountable institutions last spring, then 2020 could have played out very differently. And perhaps my extended family members with pandemic policies as direct comorbidity would have lived another year. <3 Please forgive me if my standards for actionable data seem high.",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/673196578051203075/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1238631048148623360",
"published": "2021-05-10T23:17:34+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "Anyone seen the strongest claims here addressed well? <3 \"Had the CDC used the 2003 guidelines, the total COVID-19 be approximately 16.7 times lower than is currently being reported.\" (through August 23rd data source)\n\nCOVID-19 Data Collection, Comorbidity & Federal Law: A Historical Retrospective\nOctober 12, 2020\nhttps://www.ratical.org/PandemicParallaxView/C19dataCollection-C+FL-HistPerspec.pdf\n\n\"... The CDC published guidelines on March 24, 2020 that substantially altered how cause of death is recorded exclusively for COVID-19. This change was enacted apparently without public opportunity for comment or peer-review. As a result, a capricious alteration to data collection has compromised the accuracy, quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of their published data, leading to a significant increase in COVID-19 fatalities. This decision by the CDC may have subverted the legal oversight of the OMB as Congressionally authorized by the PRA & IQA as well.[7][8]\n...\nApril 14, 2020 – In potential violation of the PRA & IQA, the CDC adopts the CSTE COVID-19 Position Paper, significantly altering standard established medical criteria for diagnosis, exclusively for COVID-19 . In doing so, the CDC bypasses federal oversight by the OIRA once again.[16][18]\n\nApril 24, 2020 – National Institutes of Health (NIH) cancels funding on previously supported gain-of-function research for bat coronaviruses. [10]\n\nJune 13, 2020 – CDC initiates PCR test based strategy requiring all patients that need hospitalization for any reason be tested at time of entry regardless of symptoms. A patient testing positive is categorized as a new COVID-19 case and hospitalization. Patients testing positive are required to be PCR tested every 24 hours until they have 2 consecutive negative PCR tests at least 24 hours apart. There are no data collection guidelines within the CSTE Position Paper adopted by the CDC on April 14, 2020 to prevent the same patient being counted multiple times. Additionally, there are no data collection guidelines published separately by the CDC to explicitly prevent the same hospitalized patient from being inaccurately counted as a new case and hospitalization each time they are tested while hospitalized.[24]\n...\nBy failing to act in accordance with Congress’ clear intent as to how an agency may propose changes to data collection as codified in 44 USC 3506 (c)(2)(A), there is no record of information the CDC relied upon to make its decision to change how deaths are reported.\n\nPrevious reports detailed the substantial changes on how causes of death were forcibly modified by the CDC through the NVSS, and how together, both federal agencies inflated t he actual number of COVID-19 fatalities by approximately 90.2% through July 12th, 2020.[18]\n\nWe believe this deliberate decision by the CDC and NVSS to deemphasize pre-existing comorbidities, in favor of emphasizing COVID-19 as a cause of death, is in violation of 44 U.S. Code 3504 (e)(1)(b), which states the activities of the Federal statistical system shall ensure “the integrity, objectivity, impartiality, utility, and confidentiality of information collected for statistical purposes.” In doing so, the CDC and NVSS have compromised the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of data, and concomitantly usurped the oversight of the “Authority and Functions of the Director of the OMB/OIRA”.[40]\n...\nAs a result, people hospitalized with a positive PCR test could be tested every 24 hours and each time counted as new COVID-19 to the complete absence of basic rules to ensure that this could not happen.\n...\nBased upon our investigation of Federal Register Records for 2020, there was no formal, transparent, public review process initiated by the NVSS or CDC prior to or following the issuance of the March 24th NVSS COVID-19 Alert No. 2 that dramatically altered cause of death reporting exclusively for COVID-19. In this regard, we allege that the CDC and NVSS’s alterations to cause of death reporting guidelines exclusively for COVID-19, violated the IQA & PRA by compromising data quality, objectivity, and utility.\n\nAdditionally, our investigation into Federal Register Records for 2020 revealed that there was no formal, transparent, public review process initiated by the CDC prior to or following the adoption of the April 14th CSTE position paper that dramatically altered what defines a new case exclusively for COVID-19. In this regard, we allege that the CDC changes to cause of death reporting exclusively for COVID-19 violated the IQA & PRA by compromising data quality, objectivity, and utility.\n\nBy implementing new rules exclusively for COVID-19, while denying the public an opportunity for meaningful participation in the decision making process and failing to create a record in which the agency clearly set forth the reasons for its action, we allege the CDC violated the express intent of Congress and acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner.\n\nAs a result of these changes, we allege the CDC compromised the quality, objectivity and integrity of all COVID-19 data collected to date.\n...\nThe CDC compromised data integrity by altering how cause of death records are reported, and did so exclusively for COVID-19, in the March 24, 2020 NVSS COVID-19 Alert No. 2.\n\nOn April 14, 2020, the CDC again compromised data integrity when it adopted the CSTE position paper and created categories for ‘probable’ cases that eliminated the medical standards of proof of infection through positive lab testing. From April 14th to July 16th, the CDC actively promoted a test-based strategy for diagnosis, meaning everyone should be tested regardless of the presence or absence of symptoms. Additionally, the CSTE position paper paved the way for unlicensed and medically untrained contact tracers to illegally diagnose patients without any medical examination or confirmatory lab testing. In fact, they could do so without even seeing or talking to the patient in question.\n...\nWould the 94% of fatalities with at least 1 comorbidity have been counted as COVID-19 fatalities if the CDC had used the guidelines for reporting that the nation has been using for 17 years instead of the COVID-19 guidelines issued on March 24, 2020?\n\nTo properly answer this question, it is necessary to compare the unproven March 24 COVID19 Alert No. 2 cause of death reporting guidelines against the 2003 CDC Medical Examiner’s and Coroner’s Handbook on Death Registration that has been the proven national standard for 17 years without incident.\n...\nPublic health policies that create more collateral damage while attempting to avoid an infection with a 99.05% rate of recovery in the vast majority of citizens must be objectively investigated and critically questioned if the goal of living in a healthy society is to be realized.\n...\nFigure 9. COVID-19 Using the March 24 Exclusive Guidelines vs Using the 2003 Guidelines. Had the CDC used the 2003 guidelines, the total COVID-19 be approximately 16.7 times lower than is currently being reported. [1][30][State & Territory Health Departments]\" (through August 23rd data source)\n\n---\nAs with a decent percentage of the things I've posted over the past year... If just one such answer was demanded of accountable institutions last spring, then 2020 could have played out very differently. And perhaps my extended family members with pandemic policies as direct comorbidity would have lived another year. <3 Please forgive me if my standards for actionable data seem high.",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/673196578051203075/entities/urn:activity:1238631048148623360/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/673196578051203075",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/673196578051203075/entities/urn:activity:1238176667620847616",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/673196578051203075",
"content": "STOP WARS on sovereign nations, races, terror, drugs, viruses, information…<br />Most wars are filled with fog, civilian casualties, propaganda, and fail to help more than hurt.<br /><br />If you really like this profile pic overlay:<br /><a href=\"https://wikiworldorder.org/.../profile-stop-wars-overlay.png\" target=\"_blank\">https://wikiworldorder.org/.../profile-stop-wars-overlay.png</a><br />---<br />The creator of this “STOP WARS” text does not endorse the layers added in my variation. But you can buy t-shirts, etc, with their logo here:<br /><a href=\"https://www.teepublic.com/user/sillyshirts?query=stop+wars\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.teepublic.com/user/sillyshirts?query=stop+wars</a>",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/673196578051203075/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1238176667620847616",
"published": "2021-05-09T17:12:01+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "STOP WARS on sovereign nations, races, terror, drugs, viruses, information…\nMost wars are filled with fog, civilian casualties, propaganda, and fail to help more than hurt.\n\nIf you really like this profile pic overlay:\nhttps://wikiworldorder.org/.../profile-stop-wars-overlay.png\n---\nThe creator of this “STOP WARS” text does not endorse the layers added in my variation. But you can buy t-shirts, etc, with their logo here:\nhttps://www.teepublic.com/user/sillyshirts?query=stop+wars",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/673196578051203075/entities/urn:activity:1238176667620847616/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/673196578051203075",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/673196578051203075/entities/urn:activity:1238101565895421952",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/673196578051203075",
"content": "Anyone seen an updated systematic review? <3 — UPenn Center for Evidence-Based Practice, Dec 2020: \"Adverse Effects of Messenger RNA Vaccines: An Evidence Review from the Penn Medicine Center for Evidence-based Practice ... EVIDENCE SUMMARY<br /> - There are no specific guidelines for use of messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines or contraindications to mRNA vaccines.<br /> - No large trials of any mRNA vaccine have been completed yet.<br /> - The only evidence on safety of mRNA vaccines comes from small phase I and phase II trials of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, with<br />follow-up typically less than two months.<br /> - Systemic adverse events such as fatigue, muscle aches, headache, and chills are common.<br /> - Severe systemic adverse events were reported by 5 to 10 percent of trial subjects.<br /> - Localized adverse events such as pain at the injection side are common.<br /> - Both systemic and local adverse events usually are resolved within one or two days.<br /> - The rate and severity of adverse events appears to be higher for the second dose of vaccine than for the first.<br /> - Higher vaccine doses appear to increase the rate and severity of adverse events.<br /> - Larger trials of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are in progress, with results expected in mid-2021.<br /> - There is not sufficient evidence to support any conclusions on the comparative safety of different mRNA vaccines.<br /> - Direct evidence on the comparative safety of mRNA vaccines and other vaccines is lacking.\"<br /><br /><a href=\"https://www.uphs.upenn.edu/cep/COVID/mRNA\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.uphs.upenn.edu/cep/COVID/mRNA</a> vaccine review final.pdf<br />(Thanks for sharing this, TLAV!-)<br /><a href=\"https://www.thelastamericanvagabond.com/penn-university-study-finds-mrna-vaccines-gives-5-10-of-recipients-severe-adverse-reactions/\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.thelastamericanvagabond.com/penn-university-study-finds-mrna-vaccines-gives-5-10-of-recipients-severe-adverse-reactions/</a><br /><br />For many reasons, I choose to keep my body in the control arm of this novel experiment. Some of my reasons are summarized by UPenn's systematic review. Therefore I think some of my reasons are indeed reasonable, widely understandable within human rights, and are not nearly as fringe as popularly framed. <3",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/673196578051203075/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1238101565895421952",
"published": "2021-05-09T12:13:35+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "Anyone seen an updated systematic review? <3 — UPenn Center for Evidence-Based Practice, Dec 2020: \"Adverse Effects of Messenger RNA Vaccines: An Evidence Review from the Penn Medicine Center for Evidence-based Practice ... EVIDENCE SUMMARY\n - There are no specific guidelines for use of messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines or contraindications to mRNA vaccines.\n - No large trials of any mRNA vaccine have been completed yet.\n - The only evidence on safety of mRNA vaccines comes from small phase I and phase II trials of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, with\nfollow-up typically less than two months.\n - Systemic adverse events such as fatigue, muscle aches, headache, and chills are common.\n - Severe systemic adverse events were reported by 5 to 10 percent of trial subjects.\n - Localized adverse events such as pain at the injection side are common.\n - Both systemic and local adverse events usually are resolved within one or two days.\n - The rate and severity of adverse events appears to be higher for the second dose of vaccine than for the first.\n - Higher vaccine doses appear to increase the rate and severity of adverse events.\n - Larger trials of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are in progress, with results expected in mid-2021.\n - There is not sufficient evidence to support any conclusions on the comparative safety of different mRNA vaccines.\n - Direct evidence on the comparative safety of mRNA vaccines and other vaccines is lacking.\"\n\nhttps://www.uphs.upenn.edu/cep/COVID/mRNA vaccine review final.pdf\n(Thanks for sharing this, TLAV!-)\nhttps://www.thelastamericanvagabond.com/penn-university-study-finds-mrna-vaccines-gives-5-10-of-recipients-severe-adverse-reactions/\n\nFor many reasons, I choose to keep my body in the control arm of this novel experiment. Some of my reasons are summarized by UPenn's systematic review. Therefore I think some of my reasons are indeed reasonable, widely understandable within human rights, and are not nearly as fringe as popularly framed. <3",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/673196578051203075/entities/urn:activity:1238101565895421952/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/673196578051203075",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/673196578051203075/entities/urn:activity:1237378676768772096",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/673196578051203075",
"content": "Has anyone seen strong studies which estimate the impacts of mass-vaccination campaigns on different types of virus mutations? E.g. Reducing mutations due to less replication, and/or instigating faster mutations for survival?<br /><a href=\"https://www.minds.com/search?f=top&t=all&q=COVID19\" title=\"#COVID19\" class=\"u-url hashtag\" target=\"_blank\">#COVID19</a> <a href=\"https://www.minds.com/search?f=top&t=all&q=InfoBucketList\" title=\"#InfoBucketList\" class=\"u-url hashtag\" target=\"_blank\">#InfoBucketList</a> Thanks!-) <3 ",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/673196578051203075/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1237378676768772096",
"published": "2021-05-07T12:21:05+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "Has anyone seen strong studies which estimate the impacts of mass-vaccination campaigns on different types of virus mutations? E.g. Reducing mutations due to less replication, and/or instigating faster mutations for survival?\n#COVID19 #InfoBucketList Thanks!-) <3 ",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/673196578051203075/entities/urn:activity:1237378676768772096/activity"
}
],
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/673196578051203075/outbox",
"partOf": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/673196578051203075/outboxoutbox"
}