Notifications
Clear all
Despite all that, basic things like these not being vaccines have slipped past your "experts".
Things like the promise of them being sterilising vaccines (again, which they're not) being used to put the entire world in an extremely damaging holding pattern whilst awaiting their approval and distribution... and then much of the world being coerced into taking them for their "privileges" of freedom to be restored... have been at the expense of much of the music industry, and other entertainment industries, small businesses, and even many medium sized businesses etc.
The impact of lockdowns, vaccine based travel and access restrictions and the jab, regardless of your views on these jabs, is largely irreversible and directly applicable to the product designs, production opportunities, market pricing tolerances and almost everything else to do with musical equipment creations and releases. The subject of this thread is speculation, granted, but that speculation occurs within the shadows and context of what those jabs were promised to do and be and how that changed society, forever, in very sad and destructive ways... sadly.
And you'll still catch it, no matter how many jabs you have. Further, there's very good evidence suggesting the more jabs you have the more you'll catch it, or something of its ilk, and pass it around more, too.
Despite this, America's just extended the lockouts of those that haven't had a jab since August, which will begin directly influencing who comes to and performs in the country, etc.
Posted : 29/04/2023 2:43 pm
[quotePost id=121530]The impact of lockdowns, vaccine based travel and access restrictions and the jab, regardless of your views on these jabs, is largely irreversible[/quotePost]
So is death.
Posted : 29/04/2023 3:41 pm
Topic starter
No man is an island. Whatever you believe and whomever you trust, whatever philosophy, faith or political affiliation we're all inevitably tied to something which creates conflicts of interests. We're linked but there will always be two sides of every coin and that will never change. Is one side 100% correct while the other is 100% wrong? Odds are unlikely that extreme either way. Is it 60/40, 40/60, 50/50 or 25/75 etc.? To err is human so whichever is more correct, there is still risk and we will always be vulnerable. I know schools require vaccines and some people of faith refused it and children died unnecessarily. Some who got vaccines still got sick and died. No I'm not any expert just saying bad stuff happens. We'll never know everything in every possible situation. Even Jesus is confusing because he said not to be concerned with eating with unclean hands as much as being concerned about your heart being clean. I know what he meant priority wise however unclean hands can kill people considering all the diseases, germs etc. Kind of suggests not to worry about spreading disease as long as you're going to heaven or to place that as the priority. No I'm not ordained but that can be confusing. I also know experts that are concerned about offspring and long term effects which no one can know until years and years have past even as long as until they have offspring. It just proves we're all different and most of us want the best outcome simply, might not be a perfect outcome however. I suppose taking no side is also a side thus there are 3 sides to every coin and that's the edge of the coin which touches both other faces equally. The real enemy is the virus and its origin, it's not actually you or I. I'm also concerned about the county turning against itself internally more than any enemy from the outside. Divide and conquer or trojan horse is what is happening now and no one sees it. We need to unify on all fronts. All just my personal opinion of course and everyone has a valuable perspective that I am willing to hear. Now back to synth stuff that we all love.
Posted : 29/04/2023 7:09 pm
[quotePost id=121531][quotePost id=121530]The impact of lockdowns, vaccine based travel and access restrictions and the jab, regardless of your views on these jabs, is largely irreversible[/quotePost]
So is death.[/quotePost]
Here's an inconvenient truth:
The placebo arms of Pfizer trials had less death.
They sought to hide this for 75 years.
Posted : 30/04/2023 2:10 am
[quotePost id=121534][quotePost id=121531][quotePost id=121530]The impact of lockdowns, vaccine based travel and access restrictions and the jab, regardless of your views on these jabs, is largely irreversible[/quotePost]
So is death.[/quotePost]
Here's an inconvenient truth:
The placebo arms of Pfizer trials had less death.
They sought to hide this for 75 years.[/quotePost]
I'm talking only about the covid vaccine here, which does not have a 75 year history. Fewer people have died, because we have the vaccine. (Some links below.) (Also, besides fewer people dying from it, fewer people got it at all, meaning presumably also fewer cases of non-lethal but still serious and/or lasting complications.)
Life is full of risks. Nothing doesn't have a downside, and there are no guarantees. Every time you get in your car to go out to play a gig or go to a concert, there is a chance you're going to die in a car accident. For any action, all you can do is use science and statistics to maximize the odds of the benefits outweighing the risks.
---
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(22)00320-6/fulltext
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/united-states-rates-of-covid-19-deaths-by-vaccination-status
Posted : 30/04/2023 1:05 pm
[quotePost id=121536][quotePost id=121534][quotePost id=121531][quotePost id=121530]The impact of lockdowns, vaccine based travel and access restrictions and the jab, regardless of your views on these jabs, is largely irreversible[/quotePost]
So is death.[/quotePost]
Here's an inconvenient truth:
The placebo arms of Pfizer trials had less death.
They sought to hide this for 75 years.[/quotePost]
I'm talking only about the covid vaccine here, which does not have a 75 year history. Fewer people have died, because we have the vaccine. (Some links below.) (Also, besides fewer people dying from it, fewer people got it at all, meaning presumably also fewer cases of non-lethal but still serious and/or lasting complications.)
Life is full of risks. Nothing doesn't have a downside, and there are no guarantees. Every time you get in your car to go out to play a gig or go to a concert, there is a chance you're going to die in a car accident. For any action, all you can do is use science and statistics to maximize the odds of the benefits outweighing the risks.
---
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(22)00320-6/fulltext
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/united-states-rates-of-covid-19-deaths-by-vaccination-status
[/quotePost]
Risk is a good thing to talk about here, as it's the risk of being left behind, being out of pocket, buying soon before a new release etc that's some of the very strong and implicit contexts.
But nobody's being forced, coerced or threatened with reductions or limitations of their freedoms if they don't buy any synthesisers. That's a BIG difference.
And you've misunderstood the 75 years thing. When a court asked for transparency from Pfizer, to see the results of their trials, Pfizer attempted to delay the release of the information for 75 years. Why would they do that?
At any rate, a judge sped them up. You can now analyse their trials, in which less people died in the control arms.
As to the modelling of the beneficial impact of the jabs, that'll only make any sense when we do proper analysis of the negatives, too, and get truthful about the inaccuracies of the testing and modelling of the disease.
In the meantime, due to the blind belief in the infallibility of "The Science" we risk every nation agreeing to the WHO being a global governor under any and all future transmissible illnesses, and with vastly more power to shut down the world's economy than what we've experienced so far. Companies making products with expensive R&D cycles and in need of long model lives to recoup those costs have all MASSIVELY changed their product designs and marketing pipelines to reduce risks - because there's only one guarantee of giving bureaucrats power - they'll use it - which means more crimping of the world's freedom and economic activities.
For quite some time, it's been quite difficult to get any acknowledgement, at all, of the risks and harms in the immediate and short term after receipt of jabs. And we literally have NO IDEA what longer term issues await the injection of immune suppressing agents in conjunction with new lipid nano technologies and speculative mRNA. There's excess deaths in all nations that coerced significant portions of their populations to get jabbed. That's increasing, and will also impact all consumer markets.
Posted : 01/05/2023 4:26 am
[quotePost id=121544]As to the modelling of the beneficial impact of the jabs, that'll only make any sense when we do proper analysis of the negatives, too, and get truthful about the inaccuracies of the testing and modelling of the disease.
In the meantime, due to the blind belief in the infallibility of "The Science" we risk every nation agreeing to the WHO being a global governor under any and all future transmissible illnesses, and with vastly more power to shut down the world's economy than what we've experienced so far. Companies making products with expensive R&D cycles and in need of long model lives to recoup those costs have all MASSIVELY changed their product designs and marketing pipelines to reduce risks - because there's only one guarantee of giving bureaucrats power - they'll use it - which means more crimping of the world's freedom and economic activities.
For quite some time, it's been quite difficult to get any acknowledgement, at all, of the risks and harms in the immediate and short term after receipt of jabs. And we literally have NO IDEA what longer term issues await the injection of immune suppressing agents in conjunction with new lipid nano technologies and speculative mRNA. There's excess deaths in all nations that coerced significant portions of their populations to get jabbed. That's increasing, and will also impact all consumer markets.
[/quotePost]
I told you @Andrew I don't want to come on this forum hearing about your non-scientific conspiracy sh!te about the epidemic/vaccine!!
Everything you are blurting out, you try to (& believe you are) come across as if you have a clue about it, when you actually know d!ck all... Your severe ignorance and lack of understanding the science, the epidemiology, speaks volumes, and you selfishly only care about your precious freedoms, not the millions who are alive today because of the lockdowns & the vaccine...you don't care that the medical system did not completely collapse, which would have caused millions more to die, not just from Covid, but more so from not being able to get any medical care which would have saved their lives...But those people did get the care and are alive today.
No more spewing this garbage, mistruths, conspiracy theories as if it's fact and "The Science" is now the fiction. You don't even understand 1/10th of the f'@#$%g science, I can guarantee that!! I don't have a genius IQ, but I think that I'm relatively intelligent having 2 university degrees. Even though my scientist friends tried to dumb it down for my wife and I, more than half of what they explained went over our heads...
You never ran a top tier microbiology lab, analyzed data & published a single peer reviewed scientific journal in your life, yet you push your non-scientific "truth" as god's word. I don't want to hear anymore about it from you!!
Stick to topics about synthesis/equipment. That's the last I'm going to say about it
Posted : 01/05/2023 12:49 pm
[quotePost id=121544]And you've misunderstood the 75 years thing. When a court asked for transparency from Pfizer, to see the results of their trials, Pfizer attempted to delay the release of the information for 75 years. Why would they do that? [/quotePost]
I did misunderstand your point there, but regardless, your facts are wrong. Pfizer did not attempt to delay release... the FDA did. Well, not a 75 year delay per se, but they claimed they only had the resources to prepare and release 500 pages per month, which at that rate, would take 75 years to complete, and, responding to an FOIA suit, the judge essentially said no, re-allocate your resources, you need to release 55k pages per month. But that's on the FDA. Pfizer had already provided all that data to the FDA even before the suit was filed. So no, transparency from Pfizer is not the issue here.
[quotePost id=121544]At any rate, a judge sped them up. You can now analyse their trials, in which less people died in the control arms.[/quotePost]
Might you be referring to the misinformation alluded to at https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-964291665925 ? But the date doesn't line up... that was from info that was released well before the judged ordered the FDA to speed up its release of everything, so maybe you mean something else?
At any rate, that's all besides the point I was trying to make. You can ignore my first sentence (the one about 75 years), and everything else I said there (i.e. the more important stuff) is still true. The vaccine has reduced deaths and serious illness (from the vaccine's protections to the individual who got vaccinated, but also to some extent, likely the resulting lower spread even to those who were not vaccinated).
[quotePost id=121544]As to the modelling of the beneficial impact of the jabs, that'll only make any sense when we do proper analysis of the negatives, too, and get truthful about the inaccuracies of the testing and modelling of the disease.[/quotePost]
We already know the negatives of what "no jabs" would have been... a lot more dead people. It's true, we don't yet know for certain all the long term consequences of the vaccine. It's hard to imagine how bad they would have to be to have made it worth all the deaths in the mean time.
Science is imperfect. But I'd say it is better to take the path suggested by the best science available (flawed as it may be) than to pick a path at random, or based on how you "feel" about something, or based on anecdotes, or based on layperson interpretation of scientific data.
Posted : 01/05/2023 1:26 pm
The FDA's D part is ~ 75% funded by pharma:
When the FDA does anything with regards drugs, including recommending anything like the jabs for children as young as 6 months (think 1986), and approving the same sized doses for people with a 4x body mass differences... it's all rubber stamping.
When they claimed to not have the resources to do the paper work... were they a puppet?
Posted : 01/05/2023 6:25 pm
[quotePost id=121553]The FDA's D part is ~ 75% funded by pharma:
When the FDA does anything with regards drugs, including recommending anything like the jabs for children as young as 6 months (think 1986), and approving the same sized doses for people with a 4x body mass differences... it's all rubber stamping.
When they claimed to not have the resources to do the paper work... were they a puppet? [/quotePost]
I'm neither going to endorse nor dismiss your concerns there, that's a different discussion. The point remains that the vaccines have worked to greatly reduce deaths.
Posted : 01/05/2023 6:45 pm
[quotePost id=121554][quotePost id=121553]The FDA's D part is ~ 75% funded by pharma:
When the FDA does anything with regards drugs, including recommending anything like the jabs for children as young as 6 months (think 1986), and approving the same sized doses for people with a 4x body mass differences... it's all rubber stamping.
When they claimed to not have the resources to do the paper work... were they a puppet? [/quotePost]
I'm neither going to endorse nor dismiss your concerns there, that's a different discussion. The point remains that the vaccines have worked to greatly reduce deaths.[/quotePost]
Unfortunately, there's no evidence of this, these are "modelled" stats, based on flawed ideas about the rates of infectiousness within populations not informed of, nor able to easily procure means of prevention, and often not allowed to be prescribed all sorts of kinds of potential treatments and mitigating medicines.
Think about this... what is the current treatment protocol for a "case"?
Is it really so novel that nothing works against it?
There's other very good evidence suggesting more jabs = more infections by significant margins, and other issues with clearing illness, too, in those that have had more jabs, and indicating longer infections and more severe symptoms in the jabbed.
And then there's the models calculating harm at approximately one to one with the number you're quoting for saved, but are at least based on far better statistics and far more conservatively calculated than the models claiming that number saved.
Worse, there's been no proper monitoring of the jabs, despite their containing three new technologies. That's unprecedented levels of bioethical irresponsibility.
Further, and most applicable to this thread, there's enormous numbers of people not returning to work, throughout the highly jabbed countries, creating serious labour shortages and drops in productivity and economic activity, for many reasons. A significant portion of the reasons seems to be jab injuries, and fear of them, causing folks to want to stay away from situations that require them to take ever more boosters, which a lot of jobs and professions still require, based on "recommendations" and "approvals" from the CDC and FDA etc.
This reduction in active workforce is in a lot of higher skilled jobs, and having dramatic and compounding effects on consumer economies, and already dramatically reduced the global budget for all kinds of entertainment, including that which sells musical instruments, and forever changed/killed the hopes and dreams of many who might otherwise be buying all sorts of musical gear, and those considering adding to their creative tools.
Posted : 01/05/2023 7:58 pm
Got to be honest here, lots of time I see Andrew's posts and I shake my head, as it seems to me that he will post just to stir the pot. 🙂 On this post though he has done his research and his points are valid. Also if you look at the changing dialogue over the year(s) the experts have been wrong and some are not to stubborn to admit there error. It's nice to see that not all people are blindly accepting what they are told, people have to think for themselves and ask questions. Of course sometimes they are also wrong/mistaken, does not mean they should be shot down and dismissed. Dialogue and communications is all good.
Christopher.
Posted : 01/05/2023 10:26 pm
Topic starter
May 1st and still no Mosaic Montage+. Blake is scheduled for a techtalk about CK on May 2nd. Yawn. Wake me up when something cool happens.
Posted : 01/05/2023 10:47 pm
[quotePost id=121560]Unfortunately, there's no evidence of this, these are "modelled" stats, based on flawed ideas about the rates of infectiousness within populations not informed of, nor able to easily procure means of prevention, and often not allowed to be prescribed all sorts of kinds of potential treatments and mitigating medicines.[/quotePost]
I posted links with evidence, you can choose to believe or not. As for procuring means of prevention or prescriptions for potential treatments, it was called "novel" because it was new, as in never seen before. Therefore there was no known prevention nor treatment. Maybe something existing would work against it, maybe not, but nobody knew yet. People thought hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin (among other things) might work, they didn't. The only known "preventative" was essentially common sense stuff to avoid catching practically anything... e.g. don't let people breathe or cough on you (social distancing, masks), wash your hands. And while the extra hand washing ended up not being a very useful measure (because it rarely spreads by contact, but we didn't know that for sure yet), the distancing and masks probably helped quite a bit. But we just didn't know very much about it yet. So the emphasis on hand washing, washing your grocery packages, etc., ended up being erring... on the side of caution, because so much was unknown.
[quotePost id=121560]Think about this... what is the current treatment protocol for a "case"?
Is it really so novel that nothing works against it?
[/quotePost]
See above. Eventually there were the monoclonal antibodies (initially experimental, and expensive) and paxlovid (essentially a combination of an existing pharmaceutical with a newly developed one)... but it took a while to come up with these solutions and to test them). But yeah, up to then, it was so novel that nothing was known to work against it. And there was no guarantee about how long developing treatments like these would take, and whether they would have bad side effects making them largely unsuitable. We were all in unknown territory for a good while. That doesn't mean that everyone who got it got seriously ill or died. People vary in their own levels of natural resistance and ability to combat it. But if you got it, and got a bad case of it... no, there was no treatment. That's kinda why so many people died.
Posted : 01/05/2023 11:32 pm
[quotePost id=121567]May 1st and still no Mosaic Montage+. Blake is scheduled for a techtalk about CK on May 2nd. Yawn. Wake me up when something cool happens. [/quotePost]
😉 Yeah I think it will likely be a Montage+, but not on May 2nd...
My guess is either June 1st or early September. June 1st could potentially sell a bunch prior to the summer festivals and outdoor gigs/weddings/concerts, and I think maybe a lot of reggae, blues, pop, rock music, etc. Although September might be better for studio recording, gospel in churches, sound design as people start to stay indoors more..!? And it might depend a bit on if they add the AN-X at that point or not. I would think the AN-X would lend itself to those who are doing studio recording and sound design...
However, thinking ahead when a new Full Hardware Replacement Flagship is released (in 3-4 years!??), I think the new Yamaha 'Mosaic' would be a great fit as a replacement name. I think it's in line with the Motif, Montage themes and long time Yamaha owners/fans could easily accept and adopt that name... And it almost has a magical colourful image to it, so it would fit with a synth that has a more enhanced UI with more colour, touch movement based, AN-X enhanced synthesis, etc. Similar to the Fantom, but with the quality sounds of a Montage. I would guess they implement MIDI 2.0, maybe AWM3, FM-X2, and AN-Xe (enhanced)..? I would guess they'd hopefully have listened to the feedback and tweak the colours on buttons...they don't bother me, but some don't like them on the Montage, so Yamaha would be smart to take all these things into account for a brand new hardware design. If Yamaha do trademark the name Mosaic, I wouldn't want any royalties for it, just a free new Mosaic 8 would do just fine! :p
But you are correct, it's a bit blah and boring right now, as there doesn't appear to be any signs of movement.
Posted : 02/05/2023 1:19 am
