Honestly, it's likely that many of these stressors have had some negative effect on people. I know my mental health has taken a hit since being "let go" and, quite frankly, wondering if certain places I go would ask for my vaccination status. The issue is that these wouldn't really be measured since this would just appear as typical mental stress which we know has certainly been on the incline.
It's only that the mental stress, when paired with the vaccines, may create a combination that may greatly increase the risk of an adverse reaction. Again, that's not to say that mental stress is causing the adverse reactions, but we should investigate if the damage from mental stress, when paired with the damage from the vaccines, create that unique scenario that is so detrimental.
It now has certainly become quite obvious to ALL "sides" the pro vax and the con vax groups, the various governments, etc., that the stress of NOT being able to attend school and interact socially during the very period humans learn social interaction skills such a empathy, acceptance, cooperation, etc. has taken a toll on a generation to come which may never be overcome. Look to the "stress" ahead of a generation of people void of such skills due to childhood deprivation !
On point with every item on your list ! ! I could add a list even longer than yours concerning the unbelievably faulty structure of this "STUDY" ? How that could be called a "study" is beyond belief, surely I am not the only one with the education and experience to know what an actual "study" entails ? An abstract, summary, conclusions, etc. means absolutely NOTHING, not one thing ! One must look carefully at the structure of the study, the controls, the standard deviations (remember, the "researcher" chooses the standard deviation he/she will use. All of these are details doctoral students are taught (or USED to be taught ?) and make clear exactly how a "researcher", should they lack an ethical foundation, or have significant pressure to draw particular conclusions (due to promised financial reward, public recognition, or both. Very few people have the necessary skills to recognize that when a magazine or news article cites "a recent study found".... it is a completely useless statement, "a recent study found" has no meaning what so ever, and few people are willing to look up and analyze the elements of the study: the sample size ? the METHOD of selecting the sample ? This list could be nearly endless !
To the actual paper, no it seems to be rather adamant in its position. To what extent this would be used as an explanation for the vaccine side effects is yet to be seen (at least by me). It appears this paper has been spread around more by vaccine critics than zealots, but I'll be honest and state that I haven't looked too deeply.
Indeed, if the vaccine critics spread this paper they would be allowing there are actually side effects. Probably this is the cause they haven't talked much about it.
I don't think so, and you probably know that also. MANY of "us" know how to skew "research" to our specifications.... sadly, many have no idea ! To the general population, a "study" is a serious body of work. My I add, yesterday in my personal life, I conducted a "study". I had several cups of caffeinated coffee in excess of my usual 2 cups. I took a nap less than 2 hrs later, unheard of for me. I plan to publish my ground breaking study concluding that the accepted view that caffeine stimulates is actually the exact opposite. We now know from my study, that it actually induces tiredness, lethargy, and "naps". I'm going to "shot-gun" my conclusions to every popular publication so watch for future headlines: Recent study reveals caffeine not actually a stimulant but a relaxant. Garbage, but I'll be wealthy and famous.
What about the stress caused by totalitarian mandates, vaccine Nazis, mask extremists, leftist science deniers, treatment suppression and digital genocide?
I think the appropriate analogy would be to tell someone to not have sex in case of getting an STD, they still have sex and end up getting an STD, but then comes back and blames your warnings as causing them to rebel and do the thing you didn't want them to do 🤷♂️.
Perfect example.... but... those who actually believe the "conclusion" of this faux "research", will never understand your analogy...would just be too confounding for them to make the "connection"...LOL !
It certainly makes it look like a paper that wanted a different explanation first aside from the adverse reactions. Like I said, if Palmer just considered this to be a possibility and put it out there as something worth investigating that would be one thing. However, to be so adamant that this is THE explanation and that it's because of "anti-vaxxers" makes the article wholly driven by narrative.
The role of stress and anxiety has been essentially ignored in the full history of the COVID pandemic. There is excellent and abundant research on the impact of stress in weakening the immune system, for example. Yet from the very beginning the mantra of the media and our government has been "Be afraid. Be very very afraid". This is repeated and increased whenever there is a new variant of the virus. It has been used as the primary motivator for getting people vaccinated. It has been used against those who have chosen not to be vaccinated . . . suggesting that these people should make everyone else afraid of being around them because of the risk of killing their grandmother etc. Our common mind-set is usually toward trying to identify the single variable or cause of every situation. . . especially when related to illness and death. Yet we know that nothing ever comes as a single "cause". Einstein and many others in the field of physics have repeatedly stressed that everything is vibration . . . energy. And, most importantly, everything is interconnected. Because of this factor, it is unrealistic for any of us to try to prove a single causation. Stress is a big contributor to illness or general unwellness for many reasons. During all of the COVID drama, I keep asking myself: What if the "be afraid" mantra weren't constantly used as a motivator? Perhaps without the body's negative response to this message we would see fewer severe cases and deaths from COVID. The relief from the fear message with the arrival of vaccines could also have played a role in reduction of cases of COVID simply through the placebo effect.
Certainly true Suzane. We can't be looking for THE answer, but examining may variables and seeing how they all may interact. Things are extremely nuanced and we don't do ourselves any favors by stating that we have found out the cause or the sole reason for what we are witnessing.
In the same vein, I have commented before that Chris Martenson of Peak Prosperity evaluated a UK COVID hospitalization study which considered that around 40% of hospitalized COVID patients showed signs of stress and anxiety, and so the question was did the infection lead to changes in hormones and biochemical processes that influence someone's mental state, or did the stress and anxiety from getting COVID help contribute to the hospitalization.
It's unfortunately an issue in which many people may want a boiled down, simplified answer rather than looking deeply into the matter.
Edit: Chris not Christ! Must have been reflexively typing quickly!
And that's what the media gives them, but then are led into a false sense of assuming they can tackle complex scenarios.
I've previously commented that Fahrenheit 451 shouldn't be looked at for the allusions to book burnings and censoring material. The entire premise of Fahrenheit was that people wanted condensed versions of information, and so every topic went from textbooks to "X for dummies" so that it was more accessible to people. It was only after that when books were being targeted for not being accessible to everyone or because of some ridiculous offenses that may have been within them.
And so it's inherently a dumbing down of the public and making them act rash based on their limited information.
By stressors that have negative effects on one's immune system, could you also include: forbidden church services, cancelled yoga classes, closed gyms, along with no painting/art classes, no cooking/gourmet club meetings, separation from ill relatives, "rules" against social "congregating", closing of libraries (to discourage the relaxing pass time of reading for pleasure), discouraging use of public trails and exercise equipment in parks, and forbidding or discouraging any form of "vacationing"... oh, what about dining out, to be forbidden since it could "lead to relaxation and therefore might STRENGTHEN the immune system ? Thankfully, one thing know to boost the immune system, sleep, was somehow not forbidden, wonder how "they" missed that one ? Many not enough personnel to enforce it ? LOL ! Final thought concerning the powerful "placebo effect". Wouldn't a REAL study, with a REAL control group and significant size sampling, of saline injections vrs. various "vaccines" be an interesting one ! ! !
Thanks for offering a "buffer" for this article. Otherwise I was set to just ignore it. My knowledge of the subject matter is limited, apart from being substantially experienced in spotting scientific deception, and most of the time it's just too much work for me to plow through these things myself.
Science papers can be hard to get through. This is one of those where it's just so blatant in its claim that you can briefly read it and get the gist. I didn't look closely into the evidence of stress and vasoconstriction because that isn't quite pertinent to this article, and instead I focused on the suggestion that this is the the most likely explanation which really isn't properly substantiated in this article.
You really hit the old proverbial "nail" on the head with your comments. This kind of garbage gets published constantly in popular media (and at times, even in refereed journals) because it IS a pain to do expend the time and work necessary to look up the original work and studiously analyze it like an academic exercise... and that is only IF the person has the necessary knowledge and skills to take on such a task in the first place ! I fully understand why the majority of people just read an accept when they read " a study" ! ???
The establishment narrative peddlers tend to drip with arrogance and Palmer is no exception. That makes it all the funnier that despite massive pro-vaccine propaganda, their credibility has continued to decline throughout the pandemic. They cannot understand why people do not blindly follow them even though their guidance and advice have been exposed over time to all except the most brainwashed to be wrong and at odds with reality. Yes, they have fancy degrees and resumes, but their fundamental flaw is that they serve narratives dictated directly or indirectly by an industry pursuing profits above all else. Most of the government, media, and medical establishment has been thoroughly corrupted by the pharmaceutical industry. If you want credibility, you need to pursue the real science and not financialized science. Of course, if you pursue real science your medical/science career will be inhibited if not terminated. The choice is $$$$$ and career advancement vs. ethics. Most are going to choose the former unfortunately, but that is how humans roll.
There's a big problem in how science is funded. It's unfortunately so expensive that many scientists aren't going to be able to fund their own research unless they make critical breakthroughs, which would also require a good deal of funding as well. It's why science tends to go in the direction of public opinion and specific subjects such as cancer or AIDS research. A ton of scientists started doing COVID research and COVID testing because they were getting funding.
I've been growing more critical to the idea of credentialism, in which a person's degree, education, and profession provide validation to their arguments instead of the actual substance. This happens far too often where even putting a mere "Dr." in front of someone's name may provide them more credibility even if that doctorate is in a completely different field or is in no ways pertinent to the given topic. It's something to always look out for when perusing around.
I am passionate about scientific research but found out very early on that I was not suited for grant hunting and butt kissing; not matter how important research might be.
I have much in common with you....LOL ! The "butt kissing" to get the $$$ and the promises of outcomes what would please the folks who provided those $$$, the memorizing of the "buzz words" that must be present in the proposal to get consideration, yes, I know EXACTLY what you mean. I stayed for quite a while, but like you, I found my ethical foundation and values were not a good fit. But, I have never regretted the rigorous education I received when it was "tough" to complete a doctoral program. Actually, after friends and family, it is one of my most cherished possessions; the knowledge and skills I received.... at the time.... LOL... I probably would not have had such praise concerning the stress and nearly impossible demands of the program !
May I add my comments for what they might be worth ? In the "old days", obtaining a doctorate was quite a challenge. For openers, there was no prescribed number of hours or classes, etc. that once completed, resulted in the degree. In other words, unlike an M.S. or M.A. or such, you did NOT automatically received the degree if you completed the printed requirements. Another deterrent was the requirement that you demonstrate a competence in 3 or more research skills such as statistics, ability to read research in a language other than your native language, and so on. Scores on the Graduate record and often, other tests were required. Writing samples, especially those demonstrating a basic knowledge of scientific method, were required, then there was the campus visit and several personal interviews. Many people would view these as deterrents, obstacles, secure "doors" to prevent anyone from obtaining what some considered the "ultimate degree". All of this has changed of course. It's now possible to obtain a doctorate without ever stepping foot on a campus, physically sitting in a class or working in a lab. Without 2 to 3 years of research and the writing of a dissertation, which by the way, required constant oversight by one's dissertation committee (senior professors) who critiqued the study proposal and structure, sampling technique, and the writing at every step of the process (at least ever 2-3 months during the years of one's research study. And that was not the end once the dissertation was accepted and published, the prospective recipient must first under go both oral and written examinations of their work. Such exams were "public", meaning held in auditoriums on campus with all students and professors from other disciplines invited, as well as anyone from the public/community. Today, this type of rigorous program would be considered "elitist" (and believe me, I was about as far from "privileged" or "elite" as one could get), and possibly even considered "racist" (that's another discussion not germane to this specifically). But in the "deal" we made, to throw open the path to training our professors and researchers in the interest of "fairness" (it was VERY hard for me personally to resign my job, my ONLY income or stability, for the "hope and dream" of obtaining a doctorate and the stress and uncertainty of if I would be one of the 8 out of 10 (at the time) who began doctoral studies and never finished. Now all those deterrents have been removed, but the question now is: Have we, as a society, actually benefited ? Or, in the interest of breaking down what some viewed as an "elite" group, actually devalued and deleted the quality of research in general ? I leave that question to everyone to decide.
One of the important factors is that the definition of "stressor" is highly individual. It is linked in to a person's underlying beliefs as well as their personal associations with all of the things you have listed (which are, indeed, stressors for a great many people). What is a major stressor for one person, may be a mild stressor for another, and no stressor at all for someone else. I think that the number of individual stressors during a given period is also a major factor. Any of the potential stressors you have listed may play a relatively minor roll for a person when dealing with one or two of them at a time. Most people have the resilience to handle relatively few or relatively mild stressors. But when they all come together . . . as we experienced during the height of the COVID pandemic, they can play a huge roll in reducing immune system function.
I have a strong feeling that this next "dump" of information from Twitter/Musk, is going to surpass the bombshells we've already received. Usually surf all the news networks in an effort to compare "news reports" on the various networks. The little that has leaked out (?) concerning the government placing coercion on Twitter to squash any comments that did not praise the effectiveness of the "vaccines", certainly just scratches the surface. Personally I've followed the bewildering (to me) positions of Scott Gottlieb, the former FDA commissioner, Pfizer board member, frequent TV "personality", etc. who (again to me) seems as interesting a character is the "pandemic" drama as Fauci. Pop the popcorn as the old saying goes, this next revelation from Twitter might be quite shocker... or, maybe because we know the truth deep down but most are afraid to voice it, we won't be so shocked after all. Did hear on a radio broadcast today, that the decision to place the cost of a Covid injection (after the government ceases to pay for them) at approximately $65 has been discarded, with the price now more likely to be $125 or slightly more. Also mentioned they are expecting a HUGE demand this winter ? Hummm ? Sure not seeing that in my area, even among senior citizens (though the public service announcements continue to try to frighten those folks. The "ads" or "pubic service announcements" are certainly not friendly reminders, really rather chilling threats, not very kind to our seniors to try to keep them in constant fear.
I know it’s crazy. I worked against obstacles. For my oral exam I wore a cute, pretty pink blouse with a piece of mob asking tape that say “FUCK YOU” over my heart.
Some additional whataboutisms...
-what about the stress of the threats of losing your job because you prefer to not be vaxxed
-what about the stress of vaxxed parents hauling in an unwilling child to be vaxxed
-what about the stress of hearing our leaders tell us it’s a pandemic of the unvaxxed
-what about the stress of having vaxxed family members look down their noses at the yet to be vaxxed members
-what about the stress of those that have a very real phobia of needles and doctors
-what about the stress of having to get vaxxed just to attend school, or go to a movie or any social function
AND
-what about the stress of knowing you are taking a shot that has no safety record yet
AND
- the stress of knowing the manufacturer has zero liability?
My sentiment exactly. And yet the unvaxxed are not dropping dead on TV.
Honestly, it's likely that many of these stressors have had some negative effect on people. I know my mental health has taken a hit since being "let go" and, quite frankly, wondering if certain places I go would ask for my vaccination status. The issue is that these wouldn't really be measured since this would just appear as typical mental stress which we know has certainly been on the incline.
It's only that the mental stress, when paired with the vaccines, may create a combination that may greatly increase the risk of an adverse reaction. Again, that's not to say that mental stress is causing the adverse reactions, but we should investigate if the damage from mental stress, when paired with the damage from the vaccines, create that unique scenario that is so detrimental.
It now has certainly become quite obvious to ALL "sides" the pro vax and the con vax groups, the various governments, etc., that the stress of NOT being able to attend school and interact socially during the very period humans learn social interaction skills such a empathy, acceptance, cooperation, etc. has taken a toll on a generation to come which may never be overcome. Look to the "stress" ahead of a generation of people void of such skills due to childhood deprivation !
On point with every item on your list ! ! I could add a list even longer than yours concerning the unbelievably faulty structure of this "STUDY" ? How that could be called a "study" is beyond belief, surely I am not the only one with the education and experience to know what an actual "study" entails ? An abstract, summary, conclusions, etc. means absolutely NOTHING, not one thing ! One must look carefully at the structure of the study, the controls, the standard deviations (remember, the "researcher" chooses the standard deviation he/she will use. All of these are details doctoral students are taught (or USED to be taught ?) and make clear exactly how a "researcher", should they lack an ethical foundation, or have significant pressure to draw particular conclusions (due to promised financial reward, public recognition, or both. Very few people have the necessary skills to recognize that when a magazine or news article cites "a recent study found".... it is a completely useless statement, "a recent study found" has no meaning what so ever, and few people are willing to look up and analyze the elements of the study: the sample size ? the METHOD of selecting the sample ? This list could be nearly endless !
Is that paper kidding?
To the actual paper, no it seems to be rather adamant in its position. To what extent this would be used as an explanation for the vaccine side effects is yet to be seen (at least by me). It appears this paper has been spread around more by vaccine critics than zealots, but I'll be honest and state that I haven't looked too deeply.
Indeed, if the vaccine critics spread this paper they would be allowing there are actually side effects. Probably this is the cause they haven't talked much about it.
I don't think so, and you probably know that also. MANY of "us" know how to skew "research" to our specifications.... sadly, many have no idea ! To the general population, a "study" is a serious body of work. My I add, yesterday in my personal life, I conducted a "study". I had several cups of caffeinated coffee in excess of my usual 2 cups. I took a nap less than 2 hrs later, unheard of for me. I plan to publish my ground breaking study concluding that the accepted view that caffeine stimulates is actually the exact opposite. We now know from my study, that it actually induces tiredness, lethargy, and "naps". I'm going to "shot-gun" my conclusions to every popular publication so watch for future headlines: Recent study reveals caffeine not actually a stimulant but a relaxant. Garbage, but I'll be wealthy and famous.
What about the stress caused by totalitarian mandates, vaccine Nazis, mask extremists, leftist science deniers, treatment suppression and digital genocide?
Uh OK
Thinking about sex causes STDs
I think the appropriate analogy would be to tell someone to not have sex in case of getting an STD, they still have sex and end up getting an STD, but then comes back and blames your warnings as causing them to rebel and do the thing you didn't want them to do 🤷♂️.
Perfect example.... but... those who actually believe the "conclusion" of this faux "research", will never understand your analogy...would just be too confounding for them to make the "connection"...LOL !
"I personally find it strange that such a short article would find a need to contain an Abstract as well as a Conclusion"
And we both know what section of those mentioned was written, or at least thought up, first.
It certainly makes it look like a paper that wanted a different explanation first aside from the adverse reactions. Like I said, if Palmer just considered this to be a possibility and put it out there as something worth investigating that would be one thing. However, to be so adamant that this is THE explanation and that it's because of "anti-vaxxers" makes the article wholly driven by narrative.
The role of stress and anxiety has been essentially ignored in the full history of the COVID pandemic. There is excellent and abundant research on the impact of stress in weakening the immune system, for example. Yet from the very beginning the mantra of the media and our government has been "Be afraid. Be very very afraid". This is repeated and increased whenever there is a new variant of the virus. It has been used as the primary motivator for getting people vaccinated. It has been used against those who have chosen not to be vaccinated . . . suggesting that these people should make everyone else afraid of being around them because of the risk of killing their grandmother etc. Our common mind-set is usually toward trying to identify the single variable or cause of every situation. . . especially when related to illness and death. Yet we know that nothing ever comes as a single "cause". Einstein and many others in the field of physics have repeatedly stressed that everything is vibration . . . energy. And, most importantly, everything is interconnected. Because of this factor, it is unrealistic for any of us to try to prove a single causation. Stress is a big contributor to illness or general unwellness for many reasons. During all of the COVID drama, I keep asking myself: What if the "be afraid" mantra weren't constantly used as a motivator? Perhaps without the body's negative response to this message we would see fewer severe cases and deaths from COVID. The relief from the fear message with the arrival of vaccines could also have played a role in reduction of cases of COVID simply through the placebo effect.
Certainly true Suzane. We can't be looking for THE answer, but examining may variables and seeing how they all may interact. Things are extremely nuanced and we don't do ourselves any favors by stating that we have found out the cause or the sole reason for what we are witnessing.
In the same vein, I have commented before that Chris Martenson of Peak Prosperity evaluated a UK COVID hospitalization study which considered that around 40% of hospitalized COVID patients showed signs of stress and anxiety, and so the question was did the infection lead to changes in hormones and biochemical processes that influence someone's mental state, or did the stress and anxiety from getting COVID help contribute to the hospitalization.
It's unfortunately an issue in which many people may want a boiled down, simplified answer rather than looking deeply into the matter.
Edit: Chris not Christ! Must have been reflexively typing quickly!
So true, so well stated. As a general rule of thumb, the public at large does want ONLY a Reader's Digest condensed version of most everything.
And that's what the media gives them, but then are led into a false sense of assuming they can tackle complex scenarios.
I've previously commented that Fahrenheit 451 shouldn't be looked at for the allusions to book burnings and censoring material. The entire premise of Fahrenheit was that people wanted condensed versions of information, and so every topic went from textbooks to "X for dummies" so that it was more accessible to people. It was only after that when books were being targeted for not being accessible to everyone or because of some ridiculous offenses that may have been within them.
And so it's inherently a dumbing down of the public and making them act rash based on their limited information.
By stressors that have negative effects on one's immune system, could you also include: forbidden church services, cancelled yoga classes, closed gyms, along with no painting/art classes, no cooking/gourmet club meetings, separation from ill relatives, "rules" against social "congregating", closing of libraries (to discourage the relaxing pass time of reading for pleasure), discouraging use of public trails and exercise equipment in parks, and forbidding or discouraging any form of "vacationing"... oh, what about dining out, to be forbidden since it could "lead to relaxation and therefore might STRENGTHEN the immune system ? Thankfully, one thing know to boost the immune system, sleep, was somehow not forbidden, wonder how "they" missed that one ? Many not enough personnel to enforce it ? LOL ! Final thought concerning the powerful "placebo effect". Wouldn't a REAL study, with a REAL control group and significant size sampling, of saline injections vrs. various "vaccines" be an interesting one ! ! !
Thanks for offering a "buffer" for this article. Otherwise I was set to just ignore it. My knowledge of the subject matter is limited, apart from being substantially experienced in spotting scientific deception, and most of the time it's just too much work for me to plow through these things myself.
Science papers can be hard to get through. This is one of those where it's just so blatant in its claim that you can briefly read it and get the gist. I didn't look closely into the evidence of stress and vasoconstriction because that isn't quite pertinent to this article, and instead I focused on the suggestion that this is the the most likely explanation which really isn't properly substantiated in this article.
Quite honestly, this should not be considered a scientific paper. I am not sure what to call it besides propaganda.
Bravo ! Bravo ! A voice in the wilderness. ( "the wilderness" of accepting anything seen or written as "truth" ? )
Same!
You really hit the old proverbial "nail" on the head with your comments. This kind of garbage gets published constantly in popular media (and at times, even in refereed journals) because it IS a pain to do expend the time and work necessary to look up the original work and studiously analyze it like an academic exercise... and that is only IF the person has the necessary knowledge and skills to take on such a task in the first place ! I fully understand why the majority of people just read an accept when they read " a study" ! ???
The establishment narrative peddlers tend to drip with arrogance and Palmer is no exception. That makes it all the funnier that despite massive pro-vaccine propaganda, their credibility has continued to decline throughout the pandemic. They cannot understand why people do not blindly follow them even though their guidance and advice have been exposed over time to all except the most brainwashed to be wrong and at odds with reality. Yes, they have fancy degrees and resumes, but their fundamental flaw is that they serve narratives dictated directly or indirectly by an industry pursuing profits above all else. Most of the government, media, and medical establishment has been thoroughly corrupted by the pharmaceutical industry. If you want credibility, you need to pursue the real science and not financialized science. Of course, if you pursue real science your medical/science career will be inhibited if not terminated. The choice is $$$$$ and career advancement vs. ethics. Most are going to choose the former unfortunately, but that is how humans roll.
There's a big problem in how science is funded. It's unfortunately so expensive that many scientists aren't going to be able to fund their own research unless they make critical breakthroughs, which would also require a good deal of funding as well. It's why science tends to go in the direction of public opinion and specific subjects such as cancer or AIDS research. A ton of scientists started doing COVID research and COVID testing because they were getting funding.
I've been growing more critical to the idea of credentialism, in which a person's degree, education, and profession provide validation to their arguments instead of the actual substance. This happens far too often where even putting a mere "Dr." in front of someone's name may provide them more credibility even if that doctorate is in a completely different field or is in no ways pertinent to the given topic. It's something to always look out for when perusing around.
I am passionate about scientific research but found out very early on that I was not suited for grant hunting and butt kissing; not matter how important research might be.
I have much in common with you....LOL ! The "butt kissing" to get the $$$ and the promises of outcomes what would please the folks who provided those $$$, the memorizing of the "buzz words" that must be present in the proposal to get consideration, yes, I know EXACTLY what you mean. I stayed for quite a while, but like you, I found my ethical foundation and values were not a good fit. But, I have never regretted the rigorous education I received when it was "tough" to complete a doctoral program. Actually, after friends and family, it is one of my most cherished possessions; the knowledge and skills I received.... at the time.... LOL... I probably would not have had such praise concerning the stress and nearly impossible demands of the program !
Birds of a feather
I know, God I know
May I add my comments for what they might be worth ? In the "old days", obtaining a doctorate was quite a challenge. For openers, there was no prescribed number of hours or classes, etc. that once completed, resulted in the degree. In other words, unlike an M.S. or M.A. or such, you did NOT automatically received the degree if you completed the printed requirements. Another deterrent was the requirement that you demonstrate a competence in 3 or more research skills such as statistics, ability to read research in a language other than your native language, and so on. Scores on the Graduate record and often, other tests were required. Writing samples, especially those demonstrating a basic knowledge of scientific method, were required, then there was the campus visit and several personal interviews. Many people would view these as deterrents, obstacles, secure "doors" to prevent anyone from obtaining what some considered the "ultimate degree". All of this has changed of course. It's now possible to obtain a doctorate without ever stepping foot on a campus, physically sitting in a class or working in a lab. Without 2 to 3 years of research and the writing of a dissertation, which by the way, required constant oversight by one's dissertation committee (senior professors) who critiqued the study proposal and structure, sampling technique, and the writing at every step of the process (at least ever 2-3 months during the years of one's research study. And that was not the end once the dissertation was accepted and published, the prospective recipient must first under go both oral and written examinations of their work. Such exams were "public", meaning held in auditoriums on campus with all students and professors from other disciplines invited, as well as anyone from the public/community. Today, this type of rigorous program would be considered "elitist" (and believe me, I was about as far from "privileged" or "elite" as one could get), and possibly even considered "racist" (that's another discussion not germane to this specifically). But in the "deal" we made, to throw open the path to training our professors and researchers in the interest of "fairness" (it was VERY hard for me personally to resign my job, my ONLY income or stability, for the "hope and dream" of obtaining a doctorate and the stress and uncertainty of if I would be one of the 8 out of 10 (at the time) who began doctoral studies and never finished. Now all those deterrents have been removed, but the question now is: Have we, as a society, actually benefited ? Or, in the interest of breaking down what some viewed as an "elite" group, actually devalued and deleted the quality of research in general ? I leave that question to everyone to decide.
One of the important factors is that the definition of "stressor" is highly individual. It is linked in to a person's underlying beliefs as well as their personal associations with all of the things you have listed (which are, indeed, stressors for a great many people). What is a major stressor for one person, may be a mild stressor for another, and no stressor at all for someone else. I think that the number of individual stressors during a given period is also a major factor. Any of the potential stressors you have listed may play a relatively minor roll for a person when dealing with one or two of them at a time. Most people have the resilience to handle relatively few or relatively mild stressors. But when they all come together . . . as we experienced during the height of the COVID pandemic, they can play a huge roll in reducing immune system function.
I have a strong feeling that this next "dump" of information from Twitter/Musk, is going to surpass the bombshells we've already received. Usually surf all the news networks in an effort to compare "news reports" on the various networks. The little that has leaked out (?) concerning the government placing coercion on Twitter to squash any comments that did not praise the effectiveness of the "vaccines", certainly just scratches the surface. Personally I've followed the bewildering (to me) positions of Scott Gottlieb, the former FDA commissioner, Pfizer board member, frequent TV "personality", etc. who (again to me) seems as interesting a character is the "pandemic" drama as Fauci. Pop the popcorn as the old saying goes, this next revelation from Twitter might be quite shocker... or, maybe because we know the truth deep down but most are afraid to voice it, we won't be so shocked after all. Did hear on a radio broadcast today, that the decision to place the cost of a Covid injection (after the government ceases to pay for them) at approximately $65 has been discarded, with the price now more likely to be $125 or slightly more. Also mentioned they are expecting a HUGE demand this winter ? Hummm ? Sure not seeing that in my area, even among senior citizens (though the public service announcements continue to try to frighten those folks. The "ads" or "pubic service announcements" are certainly not friendly reminders, really rather chilling threats, not very kind to our seniors to try to keep them in constant fear.
I know it’s crazy. I worked against obstacles. For my oral exam I wore a cute, pretty pink blouse with a piece of mob asking tape that say “FUCK YOU” over my heart.
Palmer has assigned COVID jab skeptics incredible power to influence physical health.
Imagine the great efficacy of our alternative medicine and herbal remedies, bolstered by the incredible force of our healing intentions.
(It really is helpful for a patient to have confidence that his caregiver wants him to be well. People don't get that from the medical overlords.)