COVID-19 Vaccines Unsafe For Use In Humans

[variant]

When did so many people decide that they needed to be as uninformed as Donald Trump ?

They have found their golden calf, and ironically are calling others idolaters.

 

[Pommer]

_​

I will add that science has become (for several years now 60+, nothing really new) an arm of the government. It is just not a open arm, kind of working in the background.

Would it not be prudent and wise to have people who devote their entire lives to the pursuit of knowledge having some input into how we choose to govern ourselves?

In other words: “Is this a complaint or an observation?”

 

[Pommer]

They have found their golden calf, and ironically are calling others idolaters.

They know it in their hearts that Donald J Trump (AMERICAN!), is a good honest and True Patriot, because if he isn’t then they got fooled, and they’ll never admit that!

 

[FireDragon76]

There's more autoimmune stimulating capabilities for the average person in wheat or corn that there is in an MRNA vaccine. And I don't see widespread alarm about the wide usage of those ingredients.

 

[d taylor]

Would it not be prudent and wise to have people who devote their entire lives to the pursuit of knowledge having some input into how we choose to govern ourselves?

In other words: “Is this a complaint or an observation?”

Well since you are not a believer, our view of the future and government's (not just america) role in that future. Just do not see the role of government as the same. I am guessing you see government as working toward a better life for all, where as i do not.

I will add that also, many people who identify as christian, also may see government as a positive force. So in may ways it is not just an unbeliever and christian divided line. Christianity has become so varied and broken. It has long ago been divided or fractured to not be of a like minded group, but that has been predicted in the Bible.

As the Bible states many will be deceived and even fall away.

Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons.

 

[Arcangl86]

Speaking of logical fallacies, what's the one where a post ignores what was actually posted in response and instead makes vague assertions that they're being personally attacked by those factual corrections?

I know this one! That's the fallacy fallacy!

 

[sfs]

Ummm, no kidding. 600,000 Americans have died from Covid. How many have died from the vaccine? Probably so few, they could fit in my apartment.

Probably fewer than have died driving to and from the vaccination site.

 

[A_Thinker]

"A" isn't the same as "the." How is it then that it's the only scientific perspective, as any who disagree are blacklisted, censored, or their expertise ignored/rejectes - rather than free discussion.

Fauci is the director of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the chief medical advisor to the president.

From Wiki ...

"As a physician with the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Fauci has served the American public health sector in various capacities for more than 50 years, and has acted as an advisor to every U.S. president since Ronald Reagan. He became director of the NIAID in 1984 and has made contributions to HIV/AIDS research and other immunodeficiency diseases, both as a research scientist and as the head of the NIAID. From 1983 to 2002, Fauci was one of the world's most frequently-cited scientists across all scientific journals. In 2008, President George W. Bush awarded Fauci the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian award in the United States, for his work on the AIDS relief program PEPFAR."

Other medical opinions are not necessarily discounted, though their reputation may not be as compelling as Fauci's. Of course, you may choose to believe whomever you wish.

Every American citizen and organization had to, at some point, CHOOSE whom they would listen to regarding the pandemic, ... and the majority of the American public and medical profession ... were good with Fauci taking the lead ...

 

[A_Thinker]

Value judgements which are inherently of a dogmatic religious nature.

I studied epidemiology at John Hopkins and I choose not to follow anyone who makes a moral issue out of pandemic response.

I don't think that Fauci made it a moral issue. I think that Trump made it a moral issue, that somehow being conscientious about averting and overcoming a life-threatening pandemic was a insult to our liberty.

 

[JustSomeBloke]

No they do not.

In post #22, sesquiterpene used the word 'crackpot'. That is a slur and ad-hominem. Sesquiterpene also attempted a hatchet job on Tess Lawrie's career, publications, and reputation.

Furthermore, sesquiterpene criticised a journal, which is a genetic logical fallacy. And it's worth mentioning that the fact that researchers felt compelled to set up a journal to get their work published, says more about how politicised some of the more prestigious and long-established journals have become, than whether their work was deserving of peer-review and publication. If you want an example of how even the most prestigious, long-established journals can become politicised, then look no further than what happened at The Lancet.

Now one of the original lab leak deniers calls for a 'thorough investigation' into Covid's origin as he admits 'a lot of disturbing information' has surfaced since he signed Lancet letter denouncing theory

At a rough guess, I'd say that what happened was that when President Donald Trump said that the covid virus may have come from a laboratory, the Trump-haters couldn't control themselves, and felt the need to try and discredit Trump by saying the exact opposite.

You guys (anti-vaxxers) use this misleading strategy all the time. The genetic fallacy objection would indeed apply if you had offered your own evidence-based argument. But you did not - you appealed to an "expert".

Are you sure you want to go down this road? Looking at Tess Lawrie's experience of evaluating healthcare options, I don't think she is any less qualified than any of the 'experts' appointed by the UK government. The only difference is that UK government 'experts' get given a very large and almost totally uncritical platform by the UK government and the MSM.

Who are pro-vaxxers appealing to, if not the 'experts' appointed by the UK government?

In that context, it is perfectly fair game to question the qualifications of the expert.

I previously invited sesquiterpene to elaborate on why they think Tess Lawrie is unqualified:

Another area you may like to consider for debate is that Tess Lawrie appears to have carried out a lot of research evaluating medical treatments. If you feel that her experience evaluating the suitability and effectiveness of healthcare treatments is unhelpful in evaluating covid healthcare, it would probably be a good idea to explain why you think that way, preferably without resorting to any logical fallacies.

So far they haven't responded. But maybe they are busy.

There's more autoimmune stimulating capabilities for the average person in wheat or corn that there is in an MRNA vaccine. And I don't see widespread alarm about the wide usage of those ingredients.

Perhaps it's because:
1. Humans have been eating grains and dairy for thousands of years.
2. Nobody is being coerced to consume gluten and lactose.

I know this one! That's the fallacy fallacy!

Indeed. However, I did invite sesquiterpene to justify their criticism, as per my quoted post below:

If you would like to try again, I suggest that a good start would be to address the issue that the Yellow Card adverse effects seem to match up with the potential pathologies described in the research paper. From Tess Lawrie's letter to the MHRA:

The nature and variety of ADRs reported to the Yellow Card System are consistent with the potential pathologies described in this paper and supported by other recent scientific papers on vaccine-induced harms, which are mediated through the vaccine spike protein product(2,3).

Another area you may like to consider for debate is that Tess Lawrie appears to have carried out a lot of research evaluating medical treatments. If you feel that her experience evaluating the suitability and effectiveness of healthcare treatments is unhelpful in evaluating covid healthcare, it would probably be a good idea to explain why you think that way, preferably without resorting to any logical fallacies.

Perhaps now would also be a good time to remind people that science isn't done by consensus, and when alternative opinions get shut down, it's often because science has become politicised. And as someone who has published my work in the scientific literature, I cringe whenever I hear a politician saying that they're 'following the science', because there is no such thing as 'the science'. When they say they are 'following the science', it usually means that they've decided what they want to do politically, and then searched for a scientist who will say what they to hear. If you want to see an example of what happens when politics clashes with science, look no further than Professor David Nutt.

Government drug adviser David Nutt sacked
Professor David Nutt asked to resign after his claims that ecstasy and LSD were less dangerous than alcohol

 

[expos4ever]

In post #22, sesquiterpene used the word 'crackpot'. That is a slur and ad-hominem. Sesquiterpene also attempted a hatchet job on Tess Lawrie's career, publications, and reputation.

The term "crackpot" is an appropriate term in some settings. And this may well be one of them.

You guys cannot post material from extremely questionable sources and expect immunity from being challenged on the mental competence of the source.

 

[expos4ever]

Furthermore, sesquiterpene criticised a journal, which is a genetic logical fallacy.

No, it is not!

The genetic fallacy objection would indeed apply if you had offered your own evidence-based argument. But you did not - you appealed to an "expert".

In that context, it is perfectly fair game to question the qualifications of the expert or, the journal.

 

[expos4ever]

Are you sure you want to go down this road? Looking at Tess Lawrie's experience of evaluating healthcare options, I don't think she is any less qualified than any of the 'experts' appointed by the UK government.

I am more than happy to go down this road. From Healthfeedback:

The Claim (from Tess Lawrie): The MHRA now has more than enough evidence on the Yellow Card system to declare the COVID-19 vaccines unsafe for use in humans.

The Verdict: Misleading.

Who are the people who claim Tess Lawrie's claim is misleading?

Each of the reviewers contributing to our analyses holds a Ph.D. and has recently published articles in top-tier peer-reviewed science journals.

The very organization that runs the Yellow Card system that Tess Lawrie cites states:

“The nature of Yellow Card reporting means that reported events are not always proven side effects. Some events may have happened anyway, regardless of vaccination. This is particularly the case when millions of people are vaccinated, and especially when most vaccines are being given to the most elderly people and people who have underlying illness.”

 

[expos4ever]

Government drug adviser David Nutt sacked

Come on, man. Dr. David Nutt sacked?

 

[expos4ever]

Perhaps now would also be a good time to remind people that science isn't done by consensus, and when alternative opinions get shut down, it's often because science has become politicised. And as someone who has published my work in the scientific literature, I cringe whenever I hear a politician saying that they're 'following the science', because there is no such thing as 'the science'. When they say they are 'following the science', it usually means that they've decided what they want to do politically, and then searched for a scientist who will say what they to hear.

This is a vague, unsupported statement. Are you saying that there is some politicization in science? Well of course there is. But you are implying that science gets politicized to the point that it cannot be trusted.

Well, where is your evidence? What evidence of such politicization can you offer other than some anecdotes?

 

[Bobber]

Every American citizen and organization had to, at some point, CHOOSE whom they would listen to regarding the pandemic, ... and the majority of the American public and medical profession ... were good with Fauci taking the lead ...

So the 10,000 dollar question. What if they were wrong?

 

[expos4ever]

So the 10,000 dollar question. What if they were wrong?

If they are wrong they are wrong, what is your point?

It seems as though you are implying that we should not listen to qualified experts because "they could be wrong"? Who lives like that? And for how long?

 

[FireDragon76]

So far they haven't responded. But maybe they are busy.


Perhaps it's because:
1. Humans have been eating grains and dairy for thousands of years.
2. Nobody is being coerced to consume gluten and lactose.

People used lead and mercury as medicine for thousands of years, that doesn't make them safe, either.

Try honestly talking to somebody with Celiac how easy it is to avoid gluten, and I think you wouldn't be so dismissive of my objection.

The fact is that only a tiny percentage of the population could have any serious reaction to the vaccine. It is wrong to cast doubt on the overall safety of vaccines that have already saved lives.

 

[A_Thinker]

So the 10,000 dollar question. What if they were wrong?

Yesterday, in Indiana, we had one reported death from COVID.

That's come down from a high of almost 200 COVID deaths per day.

It doesn't appear that they were wrong ...

 

[JustSomeBloke]

The term "crackpot" is an appropriate term in some settings. And this may well be one of them.

You guys cannot post material from extremely questionable sources and expect immunity from being challenged on the mental competence of the source.

I already explained why the scientific process, peer-review process, and publication process is not always entirely scientific and honest, and why it might be necessary to setup a journal to enable an alternative perspective to be published. And I gave examples of when politics has clashed with science. I also have experience of publishing my own research in the peer reviewed scientific literature, so I know quite a lot about how the system is supposed to work.

No, it is not!

The genetic fallacy objection would indeed apply if you had offered your own evidence-based argument. But you did not - you appealed to an "expert".

In that context, it is perfectly fair game to question the qualifications of the expert or, the journal.

I don't think you understand what a genetic logical fallacy is. You are dismissing evidence because it comes from a particular source (author and journal). That is a genetic logical fallacy.

I am more than happy to go down this road. From Healthfeedback:

The Claim (from Tess Lawrie): The MHRA now has more than enough evidence on the Yellow Card system to declare the COVID-19 vaccines unsafe for use in humans.

The Verdict: Misleading.

Who are the people who claim Tess Lawrie's claim is misleading?

Each of the reviewers contributing to our analyses holds a Ph.D. and has recently published articles in top-tier peer-reviewed science journals.

The very organization that runs the Yellow Card system that Tess Lawrie cites states:

“The nature of Yellow Card reporting means that reported events are not always proven side effects. Some events may have happened anyway, regardless of vaccination. This is particularly the case when millions of people are vaccinated, and especially when most vaccines are being given to the most elderly people and people who have underlying illness.”

If that's your response, I can only assume that you never even read the first post, in which it is clearly stated in the first line that Tess Lawrie holds a PhD, and further down, that she has numerous highly cited publications.

Come on, man. Dr. David Nutt sacked?

This is a vague, unsupported statement. Are you saying that there is some politicization in science? Well of course there is. But you are implying that science gets politicized to the point that it cannot be trusted.

Well, where is your evidence? What evidence of such politicization can you offer other than some anecdotes?

I already gave two examples of science being politicised (example 1, example 2). The first example you ignored, the second example you tried to make a silly joke about the professor's name.

It's also worth noting that the group of scientists who are responsible for advising the UK government, are refusing to make any recommendations as to whether children should be vaccinated. Evidently the scientists do not want to be left carrying the can if a single healthy child dies after following their recommendations. So they are forcing the government to make a political decision on this.

Anyway, judging by your previous responses, I very much doubt that any evidence would ever change your mind, so I'm done now, Goodbye.