Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
The Kitchen Sink
Idaho doctor reports a ‘20 times increase’ of cancer in vaccinated patients
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="muichimotsu" data-source="post: 76244549" data-attributes="member: 149131"><p>Except that's thoroughly untrue, we've already developed mRNA vaccines for animals, but we also cannot make conclusions based on negative aspects from animal testing in regards to our responses, that's poor science, yet we continue to act like animal testing is the golden standard, when it's really more us just using figurative guinea pigs so that we don't cull our own population by hasty testing on human subjects</p><p></p><p>The demand is based on not overwhelming the hospital system, you seem to think it works the same as the UK, it doesn't, and I don't think you should speak as if you have even an iota of understanding when your healthcare context is decidedly different, yet still would be subject to that potential if we didn't get as many vaccinated as possible that have no legitimate medical exemptions because it is for the betterment of society. There is not an absolute right to be a willful contrarian in a civil society, some basic conformity in terms of requirements is expected unless you just selectively apply what rules you think apply arbitrarily</p><p></p><p>You realize people are not necessarily using those fallacies as much as you keep accusing them of doing so, right? Cherry picking is a fallacy too and fixating on what you can use to discredit an argument against you is not rational, it's confirmation bias of the highest order to reconcile cognitive dissonance that would otherwise come up. The argument made is not solely based on what you think it is, you have to demonstrate and have a dialogue to show that the argument is solely based on that and not a line of argumentation that isn't utilizing fallacious reasoning. </p><p></p><p>This is not "caution", don't dishonestly frame this like the technology is experimental, because it definitively is not, we've had studies on mRNA technology since the 90s, this is not something new except in the execution with regards to human immune systems. This is resistance and needless at that, it's hypervigilance and bordering on paranoia, none of which is rational when you grasp at straws and vague concerns about long term problems instead of recognizing that the current pandemic IS a problem and an immediate one that isn't going away because you selectively observe data to act like we're not in an epidemic surge. </p><p></p><p>But we're not acting as if the vaccines will just end this, but will aid in reducing hospitalizations and other negative outcomes that make the fearmongering you do for the vaccine seem like child's play, or at the very least equitable in nature. This is a novel coronavirus, the possibility that this new strain may die out is trickier to determine, but the "caution" is what made this happen in no small part, because we just kept letting it mutate needlessly because "This isn't so bad, it's just like the flu" and other misinformation that was spread over the last year</p><p></p><p>But this is a risk/benefit analysis that you seem to want to act like you have the only valid assessment and tolerance is not an absolute, so maybe don't strawman how an opposing position thinks because you want to frame yourself as more rational, which is more dishonesty and fallacious to boot</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="muichimotsu, post: 76244549, member: 149131"] Except that's thoroughly untrue, we've already developed mRNA vaccines for animals, but we also cannot make conclusions based on negative aspects from animal testing in regards to our responses, that's poor science, yet we continue to act like animal testing is the golden standard, when it's really more us just using figurative guinea pigs so that we don't cull our own population by hasty testing on human subjects The demand is based on not overwhelming the hospital system, you seem to think it works the same as the UK, it doesn't, and I don't think you should speak as if you have even an iota of understanding when your healthcare context is decidedly different, yet still would be subject to that potential if we didn't get as many vaccinated as possible that have no legitimate medical exemptions because it is for the betterment of society. There is not an absolute right to be a willful contrarian in a civil society, some basic conformity in terms of requirements is expected unless you just selectively apply what rules you think apply arbitrarily You realize people are not necessarily using those fallacies as much as you keep accusing them of doing so, right? Cherry picking is a fallacy too and fixating on what you can use to discredit an argument against you is not rational, it's confirmation bias of the highest order to reconcile cognitive dissonance that would otherwise come up. The argument made is not solely based on what you think it is, you have to demonstrate and have a dialogue to show that the argument is solely based on that and not a line of argumentation that isn't utilizing fallacious reasoning. This is not "caution", don't dishonestly frame this like the technology is experimental, because it definitively is not, we've had studies on mRNA technology since the 90s, this is not something new except in the execution with regards to human immune systems. This is resistance and needless at that, it's hypervigilance and bordering on paranoia, none of which is rational when you grasp at straws and vague concerns about long term problems instead of recognizing that the current pandemic IS a problem and an immediate one that isn't going away because you selectively observe data to act like we're not in an epidemic surge. But we're not acting as if the vaccines will just end this, but will aid in reducing hospitalizations and other negative outcomes that make the fearmongering you do for the vaccine seem like child's play, or at the very least equitable in nature. This is a novel coronavirus, the possibility that this new strain may die out is trickier to determine, but the "caution" is what made this happen in no small part, because we just kept letting it mutate needlessly because "This isn't so bad, it's just like the flu" and other misinformation that was spread over the last year But this is a risk/benefit analysis that you seem to want to act like you have the only valid assessment and tolerance is not an absolute, so maybe don't strawman how an opposing position thinks because you want to frame yourself as more rational, which is more dishonesty and fallacious to boot [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
The Kitchen Sink
Idaho doctor reports a ‘20 times increase’ of cancer in vaccinated patients
Top
Bottom