They Finally Just Out and Said It....

bekkilyn said:

I think you're expecting far too much from people. People in general are not very self-reflective, and especially in more "extroverted" countries such as the U.S. Yet it's still possible that people can have enough understanding about an issue to make choices that work reasonably well enough for them. The BEST choice might be (and I'm making this up) that everyone should wear a mask at all times starting at age 2, but is that a reasonable choice knowing full well that most 2 year olds are absolutely not going to comply and parents aren't going to try to enforce it because they have enough data on their 2 year old to know that it would be stupid?

Click to expand...

I feel like neither of us are really saying anything new so I'll just bow.
Best o luck.

Sparagmos said:

LOL, you mean Ben "get vaccinated" Goldacre? This guy?

View attachment 307517

He studies vaccines at Oxford and is totally pro-vaccination. So do you trust him or not?

Click to expand...

I'm not obliged to believe everything that one person says. I can accept that Ben Goldacre wrote a good book on the fraud that is Big Pharma, but has been misled on covid vaccines. Similarly, I can accept that conventional vaccines are a good thing for society, while also recognising that covid vaccines are different, novel, and require caution.

I don't know why you are saying this. In my experience there certainly are people who think that you have to 100% agree or 100% disagree with absolutely everything that someone says. But in my opinion that's a peculiar, unthinking, illogical approach. And that kind of thinking does often appear to be popular on the left of the political spectrum.

sfs said:

2) Read the primary literature -- the peer-reviewed studies

Click to expand...

I did exactly that. I read the peer-reviewed literature that you previously posted in support of vaccine efficiency, and it turned out to contain some of the worst conflicts of interest I've ever seen. From another thread:

JustSomeBloke said:

There are a total of 15 authors. And of those 15 authors:
Seven work at the Ministry of Health in Israel
Eight work for Pfizer

Click to expand...

JustSomeBloke said:

So approximately half work for an Israeli government agency responsible for encouraging people to receive vaccinations, and the other half are pharmaceuticals employees.

Click to expand...

JustSomeBloke said:

Role of the funding source
The Israel MoH and Pfizer separately provided in-kind support to this study. No funding was exchanged between the Israel MoH and Pfizer. MoH and Pfizer were involved in the study design and writing of the report, and approved the decision to submit for publication.

Click to expand...

JustSomeBloke said:

Declaration of interests
FJA, JMM, FK, GM, KP, JS, DLS, and LJ hold stock and stock options in Pfizer. All other authors declare no competing interests.

Click to expand...

Furthermore, we know from the Project Veritas investigations, that Pfizer scientists have admitted on a concealed camera to all manner of things that do not support mass vaccination and vaccine mandates.

sfs said:

the preprints (particularly important during this pandemic)

Click to expand...

When I have posted vaccine-sceptic pre-prints on this forum, the pro-vaxxers typically start whingeing that 'it's not peer reviewed'.

sfs said:

the government reports

Click to expand...

This is a joke, right? You want me to ask Mr Fox for a report on the number and welfare of the chickens in the henhouse?

sfs said:

and also the criticism of those studies by those in the field

Click to expand...

Those in the field who don't agree almost never appear on the MSM, and many have been banned on social media. The result is that most of the public never hear about their views.

bekkilyn said:

I remember there was a law that had been gotten rid of a while back that I can't remember the name of offhand that seemed to be the start of the increasing "news as entertainment" trend.

Click to expand...

The fairness doctrine of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, was a policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was honest, equitable, and balanced. In 1987, the FCC abolished the Fairness Doctrine

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine

I guess Regan did it.

duplicate

JustSomeBloke said:

I did exactly that. I read the peer-reviewed literature that you previously posted in support of vaccine efficiency, and it turned out to contain some of the worst conflicts of interest I've ever seen. From another thread:

Click to expand...

That you think that working for the Israeli Ministry of Health constitutes a conflict of interest is nuts.

JustSomeBloke said:

This is a joke, right? You want me to ask Mr Fox for a report on the number and welfare of the chickens in the henhouse?

Click to expand...

No, it's not a joke. Public health officials, who are the people who produce these reports, are not part of a vast, world-wide conspiracy to fake data about COVID-19.

JustSomeBloke said:

Furthermore, we know from the Project Veritas investigations, that Pfizer scientists have admitted on a concealed camera to all manner of things that do not support mass vaccination and vaccine mandates.

Click to expand...

You don't believe government scientists, but you believe Project Veritas? Seriously? Their track record of creating misleading videos is pretty much unblemished.

We have nothing to discuss -- we don't live in the same universe.

JustSomeBloke said:

I'm not obliged to believe everything that one person says. I can accept that Ben Goldacre wrote a good book on the fraud that is Big Pharma, but has been misled on covid vaccines. Similarly, I can accept that conventional vaccines are a good thing for society, while also recognising that covid vaccines are different, novel, and require caution.

I don't know why you are saying this. In my experience there certainly are people who think that you have to 100% agree or 100% disagree with absolutely everything that someone says. But in my opinion that's a peculiar, unthinking, illogical approach. And that kind of thinking does often appear to be popular on the left of the political spectrum.

Click to expand...

This concept of strict 100% is probably what is most disturbing about this discussion, and when it comes to the phrase "do your own research" you must either go into the laboratory yourself and perform all of the experiments while at the same time allowing no other resources besides peer reviewed articles OR you must just throw your hands up in the air in learned helplessness that it's all just too hard for your silly little scatterbrain to figure out and then you have no other option but to blindly follow the mandates of whatever or whomever has been set before you (by who though? Sorry, forgot I wasn't supposed to question....) as the expert.

There is no in-between and therefore no need for any public opinion and so therefore it is perfectly fine for all the large social media sites and news outlets to censor whatever doesn't correspond with the "approved" message and that's regardless of whether there are any conflicts of interest with government, big business, or big pharma, disagreements between scientists, doctors, other experts in the fields, etc.

Most people now are pretty much doing what they want now anyway and going about their normal lives, vaccinated or otherwise, and we already know that there is not going to be any "herd immunity" and that COVID-19 will be endemic, so I don't really see why we need to care what other people are doing or whether or not they are doing research that requires our approval in the first place.

sfs said:

That you think that working for the Israeli Ministry of Health constitutes a conflict of interest is nuts.

Click to expand...

Why is it 'nuts' to question the government and their agencies? Do you think governments and their agencies are always truthful, and never become corrupted?

Haven't you learned anything from history? You don't even have to go back very far. What did you think after Iraq was invaded, and the Weapons of Mass Destruction could not be found?

sfs said:

No, it's not a joke. Public health officials, who are the people who produce these reports, are not part of a vast, world-wide conspiracy to fake data about COVID-19.

Click to expand...

There are numerous issues with UK government health agency data, and the way it is interpreted and presented to the public. Here are a few examples:
1. The classification of people as 'unvaccinated' for several weeks after they received a vaccination.
2. The manipulation of covid tests by using the PCR test for a purpose it was never intended for, and at an extremely high number of cycles.
3. The use of midazolam to euthanase covid-infected elderly people.

The reality is that you have a massive blind spot for anything that doesn't fit your beliefs.

sfs said:

You don't believe government scientists, but you believe Project Veritas? Seriously? Their track record of creating misleading videos is pretty much unblemished.

Click to expand...

What part of the Project Veritas investigation is incorrect? They used covert video recording, so it's rather difficult to deny, unless you can prove that the people in the video were just actors, and weren't really Pfizer scientists.

sfs said:

We have nothing to discuss -- we don't live in the same universe.

Click to expand...

LOL! I bet you wish all those vaccine sceptics, who continually burst your pro-vaxx bubble, would just shut up and go away.

JustSomeBloke said:

I don't know why you are saying this. In my experience there certainly are people who think that you have to 100% agree or 100% disagree with absolutely everything that someone says. But in my opinion that's a peculiar, unthinking, illogical approach. And that kind of thinking does often appear to be popular on the left of the political spectrum.

Click to expand...

As someone on the left side of the political spectrum I wonder if you could provide some examples of people that left sided people, apparently, never question.

Because that sounds like a bunch of horse hockey to me. I don't think that behavioural trait is any more common on the right or left.

So I can keep track

Vaccine Skeptics:

Unacceptable Sources:
Government Scientists
University Scientists
Virologists paid by the state, universities, or ANY private entity
Doctors paid by the state, universities, or ANY private entity
Researchers paid by the state, universities, or ANY private entity

Acceptable Sources:
Scientists who are skeptical of vaccines


Am I missing ANYTHING at all here?



Because unfortunately, the whole "Vaccine skeptic" position involves a LOT of "negatives" and insinuations. Almost nothing solid and meaningful but a LOT of "isn't it interesting"s

JustSomeBloke said:

3. The use of midazolam to euthanase covid-infected elderly people

Click to expand...

That's harsh. EUthanasia won't fly in the USA. You can unplug someone on life support but sometimes even those cases go to court. So yeah, a medical system that puts people to death I wouldn't trust either.

rambot said:

So I can keep track

Vaccine Skeptics:

Unacceptable Sources:
Government Scientists
University Scientists
Virologists paid by the state, universities, or ANY private entity
Doctors paid by the state, universities, or ANY private entity
Researchers paid by the state, universities, or ANY private entity

Acceptable Sources:
Scientists who are skeptical of vaccines


Am I missing ANYTHING at all here?



Because unfortunately, the whole "Vaccine skeptic" position involves a LOT of "negatives" and insinuations. Almost nothing solid and meaningful but a LOT of "isn't it interesting"s

Click to expand...

I've never seen it put so succinctly.

rambot said:

So I can keep track

Vaccine Skeptics:

Unacceptable Sources:
Government Scientists
University Scientists
Virologists paid by the state, universities, or ANY private entity
Doctors paid by the state, universities, or ANY private entity
Researchers paid by the state, universities, or ANY private entity

Acceptable Sources:
Scientists who are skeptical of vaccines


Am I missing ANYTHING at all here?

Because unfortunately, the whole "Vaccine skeptic" position involves a LOT of "negatives" and insinuations. Almost nothing solid and meaningful but a LOT of "isn't it interesting"s

Click to expand...

Just to be fair because why not?

Anti-"Vaccine Skeptics":

Fully trust:
Government Scientists
University Scientists
Virologists paid by the state, universities, or ANY private entity
Doctors paid by the state, universities, or ANY private entity
Researchers paid by the state, universities, or ANY private entity

Never trust:
Scientists who are skeptical of vaccines

JustSomeBloke said:

There are numerous issues with UK government health agency data, and the way it is interpreted and presented to the public. Here are a few examples:
1. The classification of people as 'unvaccinated' for several weeks after they received a vaccination.

Click to expand...

That's normal, your body needs time to react to the vaccination and build up its immune response.

3. The use of midazolam to euthanase covid-infected elderly people.

Click to expand...

And this is just a conspiracy theory.

Nithavela said:

That's normal, your body needs time to react to the vaccination and build up its immune response.

Click to expand...

You are quite right. But that doesn't mean that they should be classified as unvaccinated. Instead, a third category should be created, so that we can clearly see what is happening to people who were recently vaccinated.

The fact that 36,000 people in England and Scotland died less than 28 days after vaccination shows why it is important to create an appropriate classification, and properly investigate those post-vaccination deaths.

Nithavela said:

And this is just a conspiracy theory.

Click to expand...

Hmmm. So midazolam use rocketed by over 100%, and you insultingly claim it's a 'conspiracy theory'.

Please do the most basic research in future, before casually dismissing the premature deaths of tens of thousands of elderly people as a 'conspiracy theory'.

bekkilyn said:

Just to be fair because why not?

Anti-"Vaccine Skeptics":

Fully trust:
Government Scientists
University Scientists
Virologists paid by the state, universities, or ANY private entity
Doctors paid by the state, universities, or ANY private entity
Researchers paid by the state, universities, or ANY private entity

Never trust:
Scientists who are skeptical of vaccines

Click to expand...

To answer your question, I'd say "because it's terribly incorrect."

Besides, it looks more like this:
FULLY TRUST:
Peer Reviewed Science that the Science establishment has vetted and considers strong.

NEVER TRUST:
Outliers as evidence and proof.

The PERSON doing the work is irrelevant. The QUALITY of the work as dictated BY PEOPLE WHO KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT, is the ONLY thing I'm looking at.



In the meantime, I would note you didn't help me understand your position better.

rambot said:

But that's not true.


It looks more like this:

FULLY TRUST:
Peer Reviewed Science that the Science establishment has vetted and considers strong.

NEVER TRUST:
Outliers as evidence and proof.

In the meantime, I would note you didn't help me understand your position better.

Click to expand...

This "revised" list isn't any less problematic.

And you had "bowed out" of our discussion, so I didn't feel the need to keep going on it!

JustSomeBloke said:

If you are on the Left, and don't recognise that behaviour amongst your own, then you need to look a little closer at what is really going on. Nicki Minaj provided an example of the type of lockstep, 100% disagreement/agreement behaviour that the liberal left demand.

Click to expand...

Yes, I don't pay attention to everyone's behaviour, you are correct in that assessment. Nikki Minaj isn't a human being I would bring up or a conversation topic I would respond to in ANY way. "The left" also really couldn't care too much about minaj...at least most of the "the left" that I know.

if you properly examine what is going on, you'll discover that the liberal left doesn't allow anyone to agree with certain people. Apparently some people are so awful, that 100% condemnation for everything they say and do is the only acceptable response. For example, Nicki Minaj's 'crime' was to agree with something Tucker Carlson said.

Click to expand...

That's so weird because the two times Trump did something I agreed with AND shared it on here, "the left" didn't hop on my and crucify me. I didn't get cancelled or condemned. As a sidebar, I would strongly recommend you drop the "Nikki Minaj" line of thinking. Because who cares about her. Very very very few people. And to think that you are mischaracterizing a whole political wing because of it is just a bit....actually, expected maybe.

We saw exactly the same with Trump. It was both ridiculous and amusing to watch the liberals performing mental gymnastics to condemn anything and everything that Trump said and did.

Click to expand...

Trump did so many things worth condemnation it was kinda hard to keep them separate.
What was depressing was watching the ethics of right wingers become absolutely meaningless as they constantly tried to excuse the sheer lunacy of the man.

And I'm sorry, but I'm not posting the direct link to Nicki's tweets. Although her tweets are highly amusing, her choice of language is somewhat fruity at times.

Click to expand...

Good. At least we don't have to suffer through that.

bekkilyn said:

This "revised" list isn't any less problematic.

And you had "bowed out" of our discussion, so I didn't feel the need to keep going on it!

Click to expand...

My comment was put out generally and I'd hoped someone would have directly helped me understand what EXACTLY the "skeptics" rubric is.

And as I mentioned, I don't really think you guys seem to have one much past what I outlined above.

I'm not wanting commentary on MY list; I am wanting to understand your position better. That said, I certainly recognize it is easier to comment on, and far less incriminating to focus on my list. To understand your position better, I need to understand the underpinnings of your position; ie. I need to understand what is your rubric for figuring out what is good evidence.