I never before voted Republican, — MondoR

Yeah, we’re all really convinced of that. :lol:

Yeah, we’re all really convinced of that. — Xtrix

The Democratic Party has become the party of Totalitarian Corporatocracy. A disgusting bunch of weasels socking away their kickbacks in Bitcoins. Now, I have to inject crap into my body because they Pharmaceuticals have found a money trove. Forget it. Bidens polls are crashing, and hoping the Corporatist is gone quickly. Midterms should cook the Democrats goose.

For example, If one respects the right of the individual to choose for oneself. — Merkwurdichliebe

Well, I guess that is all there is to it. Where do you live. I want to come over and do nasty things to your porch. Obviously you won't mind. After all, I want to. So what I do is none of your business. Yes?

Joe Mercola: An antivaccine quack tycoon pivots effortlessly to profit from spreading COVID-19 misinformation (Jul 26, 2021)

Well, I guess that is all there is to it. Where do you live. I want to come over and do nasty things to your porch. Obviously you won't mind. After all, I want to. So what I do is none of your business. Yes? — tim wood

Do you mean you'd like to fuck my mailbox?

Why aren't politicians telling people to stop eating junk food, since obese people are 3X more likely to develop severe symptoms? — MondoR

No wonder there is a bed shortage in hospitals, each of those fatties must require 5-6 beds minimum

Why aren't politicians telling people to stop eating junk food, since obese people are 3X more likely to develop severe symptoms? — MondoR

Oh I know the answer for that one: Because politicians are ghouls sucking up people precious bodily fluids. All of them without exception. They have a secret room in the senate for it. The fatter the better for them canibals...

Better to this than laugh at them ...

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/global-warming/last-1000-years

Say nothing and just post the data.

Do you mean you'd like to fuck my mailbox? — Merkwurdichliebe

I think he just meant he wanted to expose himself to your mailbox.

I think he just meant he wanted to expose himself to your mailbox. — frank

I can post the security cam pictures and make him famous

Now, I have to inject crap into my body because they Pharmaceuticals have found a money trove. — MondoR

:lol:

The country is now being completely run by the pharmaceuticals industry and they have the greatest marketing pitch ever devised: If you don't do as we command you will DIE! Totalitarianism in it's purest form, but instead of a gun they use psychological manipulation of the mind.

I can post the security cam pictures and make him famous — Merkwurdichliebe

I don't think that's enough to get attention. You'd need to add a cat somehow.

This is now making the rounds again, being propagated and re-posted who knows where:

Nearly 50k Medicare patients died soon after getting COVID shot: whistleblower (Sep 28, 2021)

It's been investigated before ...

• Conspiracy theory claims Biden covered up 45,000 vaccine deaths (Jul 21, 2021)
• “45,000 confirmed dead from the COVID-19 shots within three days… and they’ve covered it up.” (Jul 22, 2021)
• Did 45K People Die Within 3 Days of Getting COVID Vaccine? (Jul 22, 2021)
• Fact check: There is no evidence 45,000 people died from vaccine-related complications (Sep 10, 2021)

... and, by the way, a record like this might warrant some caution: mediabiasfactcheck, adfontesmedia, wikipedia

The accusations are dead serious, but making them is cheap, especially with no independent verification and corroboration.
But, such likes matter little once the story (or just the headline) has made a sufficient number of readers afraid fearful anxious, or confirmed the biases of entrenched/incorrigible readers (who may dismiss investigators with a casual handwave and some yelling).
And so you have it, damage done, history ignored, lingering suspicions added to would-be deniers (and gullible fence-sitters), mission accomplished.

You missed the point completely - not surprising for someone who is not interested in the point. You go o the not-worth-the-trouble list.

This is now making the rounds again, being propagated and re-posted who knows where... — jorndoe

...well, here now. Since you've not replied to anyone who actually raised it here all you've done is given it more airtime.

Still, made a nice little straw man for you to knock down.

Here comes the pat on the back...

Well done.

made a nice little straw man for you to knock down. — Isaac

Don’t forget another misconception that is being knocked down:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/09/the-vaccinated-arent-just-as-likely-to-spread-covid/620161/

Don’t forget another misconception that is being knocked down: — Joshs

Now that one has been mentioned. But I see no mention in the article of the issues raised (at least by me)

The studies don't address transmission, as I mentioned above. They don't address viral loads in the nasal mucosa, they don't address viral load in asymptomatic cases, they don't address behavioural changes in vaccinated people, they don't address different responses in the full range of cohorts. — Isaac

None of the actual studies cited in the article address transmission directly. I'm sure someone as astute as you will spot that the actual claim in the title is only directly addressed by the authors own comments with citations limited to support for peripheral claims (such as vaccination reduces infection, most cases are in the unvaccinated...). The actual premise in the argument (that a lack of measured infection means you won't transmit the virus to others as much) is only directly addressed by assertion.

I'm not saying the evidence to support that claim isn't out there, but the article is good example of why people oppose this stuff. It's little more than "believe me because I'm right".

I'm not saying the evidence to support that claim isn't out there, but the article is good example of why people oppose this stuff. It's little more than "believe me because I'm right". — Isaac

Maybe we’re taking about different things. I thought you were advocating against young, healthy people getting vaccinated because there was wasnt clear evidence it would significantly slow the spread of the virus. Aren’t the “peripheral’ claims, that vaccination reduces infection and most cases are in the unvaccinated, enough to support recommendations for vaccinating the young?
Or are you arguing a different point?

Aren’t the “peripheral’ claims, that vaccination reduces infection and most cases are in the unvaccinated, enough to support recommendations for vaccinating the young? — Joshs

I don't see how. To counter an argument that the spread of the virus isn't sufficiently slowed in young healthy people to justify vaccination, you'd need a study showing that the virus spreads quickly among unvaccinated young healthy people, no? What's been presented in the article are studies showing that the viral load is reduced in those who take the vaccine immediately after doing so, and that vaccination largely eliminates hospitalisation in those who were prone to it over the study period. I'd disagree with neither of those claims.

Since none of the studies stratify by cohort, nor measure the actual spread of the virus (but rather the viral load in whatever test medium is used), I don't really see how they address the claim.

A study that addresses the claim would be stratified by age and health, would measure viral load in both blood and airway mucosa and would contain follow-up data for at least six months (since any vaccine which needs repeating at that interval would be as good as useless). We'd then need to multiply the ORs from that study by the risk for catching the virus in the first place (again stratified, by behaviour here), to get the OR for transmitting the virus for young healthy unvaccinated people relative to young healthy vaccinated.

I know of no such study.

It depends what you take as your default assumption. Assume it probably works and you'll need a study to show it doesn't to change your mind. Assume it probably doesn't and you'll need a study showing it does. Given the atrocious history of the pharmaceutical industry, I'm in the latter camp.

You missed the point completely - not surprising for someone who is not interested in the point. You go o the not-worth-the-trouble list. — tim wood

But you made no point, other than indicating that you're a pervert.

It depends what you take as your default assumption. Assume it probably works and you'll need a study to show it doesn't to change your mind. Assume it probably doesn't and you'll need a study showing it does. Given the atrocious history of the pharmaceutical industry, I'm in the latter camp. — Isaac

My default assumption is that epidemiologists in general are in a better position than you are to make policy recommendations. Why is this? I don’t doubt your knowledge in empirical methodology. But epidemiology also involves also sociological and political kmowledge. The ability to Interpret research studies is only part of what is needed to make policy recommendations.
As science is consensus based , so too is policy recommendation.. Epidemiologists are polled all the time concerning thes things. I want to know what sorts of consensus there may or may not be be concerning such questions as the value of universal vaccination. Partly this is because I don’t have the time to read every study , and partly because I appreciate that there are other considerations besides the conclusiveness and validity of study results , considerations which can allow for reasonable recommendations even in the absence of definitive conclusions.

Maybe you could point me in the direction of links to statements by epidemiologists who recommend against policies advocating or requiring vaccination of young people.

The point was that on your argument, rights are based on wants. The one who wants has a right to have, and the duty of others is not to obstruct individual rights. So I say I want to do something to your porch, and you're non-responsive. Not very clever or alert on your part. Or maybe you're clever enough to avoid an argument you cannot win. Saving you he trouble of trying to defend your indefensible claims. Any which-a-way around, you're not worth, or worthy of, engaging.

To those continuing to fight against the vaccines:

Your questions and demands for evidence will always outweigh whatever can be given, and will shift once the answer or evidence has been given. It's like whack-a-mole. That's why I encourage others not to get into the weeds, but to always keep in mind the bigger picture. It's not driven by good-faith assessment of the data -- it's picking and choosing data. It's the same tactic that Creationists use: poke as many holes as you can, identify apparent contradictions, mis-quote, tell half-truths, etc. When all else fails, shift to an entirely different question.

What this all comes down to, ultimately, is the fact that this issue has been politicized. Like the issue of climate change, because it's been politicized there are all kinds of laymen, especially online, making claims about the sun, about natural variation, about climate scientists, etc. You see them on YouTube, on Facebook, on Twitter. But they're all repeating things they've heard from their sources, and their sources happen to be completely and demonstrably wrong, and their arguments don't hold any water when analyzed in detail.

The anti-vax crowd (forgive the label) are doing exactly the same thing. It's a mistake -- simple as that.

If you're afraid to take the shot and want to find reasons for not taking it, even after 9 months and 6 billion doses given, and after every major medical organization in the world recommends vaccination, then you'll certainly find reasons.

If you're already convinced the medical establishment is untrustworthy, and that overwhelming scientific and medical consensus and advice can be ignored, then you'll find reasons for believing that -- and no amount of debate will change your mind, especially on the Internet.

The question is: why so afraid of vaccines in the first place? And why so distrustful of medicine and science?

It seems to me it's a selective skepticism.

There's really no point looking up statistics or reports or articles or citing experts -- none of it will be good enough, none of it will matter. Once someone has taken it as part of their identity, arguing the matter is like arguing someone out of religion. It's a fool's errand, as tempting as it is (after all, most claims are pretty easy to refute).

What we should be discussing is why these people are showing up to begin with. It's the same question we should be asking about Trump voters, it's the same question we should be asking about climate deniers.

This doesn't come from nowhere. They don't realize it themselves, because they're stuck in the middle of it, but in my view it's simply being manipulated by misinformation, exacerbated by social media.

The country is now being completely run by the pharmaceuticals industry and they have the greatest marketing pitch ever devised: If you don't do as we command you will DIE! Totalitarianism in it's purest form, but instead of a gun they use psychological manipulation of the mind. — MondoR

So you're just deliberately being provocative, right? I thought for a minute that was the case, and this was satire -- but you've now gone on several posts with this kind of thing. Is this what you really believe?



Thank you for effort, and the references.

Now that one has been mentioned. But I see no mention in the article of the issues raised (at least by me)

The studies don't address transmission, as I mentioned above. They don't address viral loads in the nasal mucosa, they don't address viral load in asymptomatic cases, they don't address behavioural changes in vaccinated people, they don't address different responses in the full range of cohorts.
— Isaac — Isaac

Except me, right after it was posted. The fact that you ignore things you don't like doesn't mean they haven't been addressed.

Maybe you could point me in the direction of links to statements by epidemiologists who recommend against policies advocating or requiring vaccination of young people. — Joshs

Or recommendations against vaccinations.

Remember, importantly, that despite all these citations about side effects, death, ineffectiveness (the Israel study being the one used over and over again), and lack of knowledge -- all of experts end up recommending vaccinations, stressing their importance. This should tell you something.

It should also tell you something that after 6 billion shots have been given, 170 million people in the United States alone, and 9 months having passed, full FDA approval, and numerous studies -- the vaccines have been shown to be safe, effective, and help slow the spread of the virus. This is something that's been tested for safety more than anything else in memory.

The "skeptics" persist. Fine -- we always need them too. But it's getting harder and harder to argue this position. It's getting absurd, quite frankly. Some of the claims, like by Mondo (If he's being serious), are just ludicrous and embarrassing.

The choice is simple: take the vaccine, which is safe, effective, and helps slow the spread. Not just for yourself, but for the community at large -- so we can get out of this pandemic.

Or: don't take the vaccine, and have the decency to isolate yourself as much as possible so as not to potentially infect others. If you do this, I have no issue with you at all, despite believing that you're wrong (unless you have legitimate reason, like an allergy or something to that effect).

That's the choice, at this point. Rightfully so.

We are dependent on community in far more than merely a "symbolic manner". A democratic state is the result of the choices of the community. The democratic notion of support for individual rights has to be balanced against the harms that individuals exercising their freedoms do to others and to the community as a whole.

You're indulging in all or nothing thinking if you believe that the state serves only corporate interests. The state may be more beholden to corporate interests than it should be; obviously the state is never perfect and where there are human beings there will inevitably be some degree of corruption.

Your second paragraph as I read it is alarmist nonsense; you can do better than indulging in that. The question is: if you see injustices and corruption in your community, in your state, and they really bother you, then what are you doing to try to help the situation? Whining about it and petulantly refusing to do a simple thing which carries little risk to yourself will only make the situation worse. So are you happy to become part of the problem?

o you're just deliberately being provocative, right? — Xtrix

As opposed to the infantile title of this thread?

Let's it, you are nothing more than a propaganda mouthpiece for the pharmaceutical industry who will milk your fears and the fears of all others who live in dread of viruses. The pharmaceutical industry has done a great job of brainwashing the lemmings of the world.

You believe the vaccination is safe.Because the pharmaceutical industry said so? rofl. As far as being effective, get ready for a life time of boosters. I'm sure they are equally safe. Nothing ever is better than natural immunity. The innate intelligence of life. Just don't eat Kentucky Fried Chicken or pop immunosuppressant drugs in your body. That might really help.

all of experts end up recommending vaccinations, stressing their importance. This should tell you something. — Xtrix

NO, no, no... the experts are just toeing the line because they're all afraid of losing their jobs or their research grants. :wink: :roll: