When Windows Vista was brand new they redid the whole network stack and had security vulnerabilities that had not existed in the previous iterations of Windows (Windows XP and NT) at the time of Vista's release.
When there is a new way of doing things wait. You might have missed out on cell phone convenience, diet coke, and other great modern things but when things are new we normally do not know what the true costs are. In the case of sweeteners, we have this new study from last month out on the cognitive decline linked with non sugar sweeteners:
This is true when it comes to things like new altcoins, lightning network, RPA payments, new versions of Windows, new kinds of medicines (injections). Be careful. Certain places where incentives favor creation of dangerous products: "vaccines" which were a genetic therapy technology being used in a way never before successfully used in this way previously will inevitably result in them being worse than not having them. The danger of injections were to their favor in some statistics because they would count those clearly injured within two weeks of the injections as "unvaccinated."
Under that standard of within two weeks after treatment you count as the untreated, you could make any dangerous behavior seem safer than not doing it. Jump off the empire state building top floor without a parachute. For argument sake, I'd say, if 100 people jump, then between 98 and 100 people die because I believe in miracles. Then they will say 100 people were "unfallen" and that is why 98 died and 2 are in really bad shape. Then they could say these two in the ICU are "unfallen" and you should jump off the building soon before you get injured or die too.
I wont argue whether 100 people would try that or not. My mind is made up, and I don't see a benefit in knowing better if I am wrong, so lets go on to other topics.
For probably a large number of us, if you care for children, or patients or customers over time, you will naturally become selflessly concerned for the well being of said people. There are psychopaths that wont, but lets just say normal doctors will want to do what is best for themselves but also for their patients.
They are strongly incentivized against going against certain narratives because of medical boards and so on. Those working for a drug company trying to make a sugar alternative are strongly incentivized to do studies badly to get positive but really inconclusive results to present as proof of safety.
Listen to the minority voice. A medical doctor who loses his license, is like me loosing my miners that pay a BTC or more per year after paying for power costs. It is a loss that many would rather just let other people die in order to keep. Honestly, how many of you would keep a super miner in exchange for silence? So, here we were with doctors on both sides, and it was clear which one had incentives against them and these had to be the most sincere of the group. Many of them were on Hive. We should use minority platforms and protocols. Hive is a protocol, not a platform.
