.

Science based medicine. You might like it, they are fond of pointing out various logical fallacies in arguments made by advocates of some positions. They love deconstructing appeal to nature arguments, for example.

The problem with the US system is that we try to blend freedom of choice with absence of responsibility from the consequences of choices that go bad. This is true of pretty much every system we have, not just healthcare.

Best observation in this whole thread.

“Freedom makes a huge requirement of every human being. With freedom comes responsibility. For the person who is unwilling to grow up, the person who does not want to carry his own weight, this is a frightening prospect.”

-Eleanor Roosevelt

Does the meritocracy healthcare system apply to everyone equally? Professional sports careers will be short. Every football player knows the risks of the game. Broken legs will equal certain death and well earned I guess if they knew what could happen.

The problem with the "absence of responsibility" argument of course is that the vaccines didn't go through the normal trials and protocols. You can't blame someone for being cautious about the vaccines which thus far have only been authorized for emergency use and haven't been fully approved. The track record of the lawsuit-ridden pharmaceutical industry is also a concern, given their history of often approving the drug first, and asking questions later.

Further, denying somebody care if they didn't get a colonoscopy is an arrogant and socioeconomically myopic thing to say. Many people simply CAN'T AFFORD health insurance. And they're not driving around in gold Cadillacs. Millions of people lost their jobs and their health insurance due to the pandemic. And there were already millions who didn't have health insurance before it - who were working full time, often at more than one job.

The vaccines might be the greatest thing since sliced bread. But for the time being, I understand and respect people not wanting to get one. I also understand and respect people willing to get one. It's a personal decision at this point.

If we are the owners of our bodies then yes. If the government owns our bodies then no. Simple as that.

With all due respect the "...can't afford health insurance" argument doesn't hold water any more.

I can only speak for myself, but as a self-employed/independent contractor I couldn't afford health insurance until the ACA (aka ObamaCare) came along. The ACA has literally been a life saver and my premiums have gone up and down as my income has fluctuated wildly, but was always affordable with a manageable deductible and was never tied to any particular work or job I did.

Anyone who doesn't have a job or health insurance at the moment can probably get nearly fully subsidized health insurance until their situation changes. For example my premium was dropped to $1/month when I was fully unemployed for a bit.

If anything, this is an example of why we shouldn't have to tie health insurance to jobs.

There are all too many instances of people who have healthcare who can't afford their medicines and treatments, and copays. So even if you have healthcare, it doesn't guarantee adequate coverage.

I'm glad the ACA worked for you. But as you said, you are speaking for yourself. Your situation is not everybody's.

I often find the issues with these discussions is that people on the board don’t know many other people who aren’t like themselves socioeconomically. There is this assumption everyone is on equal footing. If you think the issue with healthcare is that too many people get it, try talking to someone who doesn’t have it. If you think healthcare is so cheap it’s crazy not to have it, talk to someone who doesn’t qualify like you do. That’s the only way to understand the lives of others.

But that's the point of the ACA. Just about everybody can qualify. I have a very good friend who would qualify for a $1/mo subsidized plan, but he chooses to go uninsured because he's been indoctrinated to believe ObamaCare = bad.

There are still 12 states who did not expand their coverage.

The vaccine for Covid is free. Not sure what the general debate about health care has to do with it.

The vaccines are free, and the tests are free. But for many people who had covid and were in the hospital, they are facing absolute financial ruin.

And in most of the states which did not expand, adults without children are ineligible.

Also, the tests are free.


Who's really paying for them?

Dont underestimate a man's intentions when profit is at stake.

AstraZeneca, as most likely know, has been banned in many countries throughout the world then deemed safe then back to being banned again, including my country, Canada.
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada...ses-specialist

Yesterday, as a whole bunch were set to expire tomorrow, May 31st, have now been given the OK by our Federal Liberal gov't to be used for another month past the expiry date!:eek:
https://globalnews.ca/news/7904824/h...iration-dates/

Does it really surprise anyone now who doesn't understand the hesitancy of some to get the vaccines when, since the very beginning, there has been nothing but a bunch of flip flopping back and forth with information on the whole pandemic schmazel, and even to this day, well into year 2, it is still continuing??

There was a time in March when the vaccine was banned in all these countries simultaneously:

Sweden
Germany
France
Denmark
Norway
Iceland
Bulgaria
Ireland
Netherlands
Italy
Spain
Cyprus
Indonesia
Portugal
Latvia
Slovenia
Luxembourg
Tialand
The Democratic Republic of Congo

I don't know which countries (if any) have since resumed use. Nothing to see here though. Keep moving along...

I'm not sure either, Dave, but I do know when some have been approved if you're between the age of 40 and 60 it is OK to use, but then it gets changed again to if you're 55 or younger, it is not it is not to be used, it sure doesn't reek like they know very much about it nor the possible harm it can do!

The thing is, which I have never found out, is why is it only safe if you are a certain age or between a certain age?? Why is there no explanation from the "trust the science" "trust the studies" or other supposed experts crowd????
https://www.reuters.com/business/hea...ed-2021-04-20/
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/143445...s-blood-clots/
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-56744474

"The road keeps getting bumpier for a vaccine that most researchers say is safe and effective and has huge potential to protect large swathes of the world’s population. Less than a day after the University of Oxford and the pharmaceutical firm AstraZeneca reported positive early results from the largest trial so far of their COVID-19 vaccine, officials at a US government agency overseeing the trial questioned claims about the vaccine’s efficacy"

"Lingering questions over the latest trial are “a real mess”, he adds"

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00785-7

"Dr. Peter McCullough discusses the dangers of the novel COVID vaccine and it's roll out. This is a product that had minimal testing but is being pushed on the masses. Must we all get the shot for things to "go back to normal"?
https://rumble.com/vhp8e1-massive-wo...d-vaccine.html

A few things in this thread are not true or contested. For example there is no Tialand (presumably with a capitol of Bang Cock).

Otherwise the information rolled out in this thread is twisted and turned by political agendas and a lack of factual evidence but with evolving ever changing interpretations of data. In our age of disappearing gender identity, I would assert that with his spins and flips, our leader Dr. Fauci would have easily defeated Dorothy Hamill in the 1976 Olympics, and should be remembered for his Gold Medal.

But, alas, I have no photographic evidence of Fauci on ice skates.

Just to add to the mix of hogwash, I was shown a video yesterday of a portly woman in a green dress who claimed that everyone over 70 who had been vaccinated would be dead in three years. I hope to disprove her claim of which I disapprove.

I've never seen more confirmation bias in my life than in the discourse on the virus and the vaccines, and I am not pretending I am (pardon the pun) immune to it. But the way people gravitate towards the people and other sources that support their pre-existing agendas/politics/attitudes is quite clear. Maybe it's always the way I don't know. Who among us can honestly say he has been truly agnostic in evaluating all the information available?

His flip flopping would rival Nadia Comaneci

I have. From the very beginning, when some politicians said the virus didn't originate from the lab that had been studying (developing) viruses just a few miles from the first victims, I knew there would be a massive cover-up going on with all aspects of the killer virus. It could've been considered a preemptive strike and act of war by China, IMO. But, timed as it was, with our country in a divisive election cycle, China never faced, and never will face, the consequences they deserve for creating and unleashing this thing on the world.

So I took it all with healthy cynicism. When it came to deciding what to do, I looked at the danger posed by the virus, I considered the ethics and expertise of our drug industry, and decided to trust Moderna or Johnson & Johnson. So I got the shot. Politics had zero to do with it.

To sum it up, when I realized I was being lied to, I tuned the noise out. I made my decision based on the reality of the virus, my relative vulnerability, and my confidence in our (mostly) free market drug companies.

Beware the Ides of March, and portly women in green dresses predicting the future...

+infinity

.

Yeah, the problem is all of the major actors involved in getting information to the public -- on whom one had to rely unless you could somehow get your hands on the primary material -- had and have a bias or agenda resulting in spin. President Trump wanted, among other things and I mostly won't go there, to downplay things (for different possible motives). Drs. Fauci and Birx were walking a tightrope trying (I think) to be relatively truthful but at the same time not going too far to anger President Trump. President Biden wanted to get elected. CNN and MSNBC just wanted to make the Trump administration look bad. Fox News wanted the reverse. The WHO did not want to alienate China. China of course would do anything to hide its negligence (or worse, if they are guilty of worse.) The CDC, God only knows. And so on. When the truth is filtered through bias and agenda, you get a freaking mess.

Incidentally, as to the constitutional point, I don't think we actually got to an appellate decision on First Amendment issues other than freedom of religion, but courts typically go pretty far to uphold so-called "time, place and manner" restrictions on what superficially are absolute First Amendment rights such as speech and assembly. It's a fascinating area of the law, for sure. But the bottom line is that our rights are not nearly as absolute as the Bill of Rights reads ("Congress shall make NO law ……").

In that regard, I believe a few lower courts denied requests for injunctions against some of the COVID-19 regulations but haven't studied that. If it ever got to the Supreme Court, I would think the current iteration of the Court would be very concerned with individual liberties, but that's just informed speculation.

Vaccine
 

Putting all of the political bullshit aside - I live in a small city of 3000 people. Yesterday, one of our firefighters died after a short battle with Covid. He was healthy, fit, and 30 years old.

Be careful. Wear a mask. Avoid crowds. Protect yourself.

Death
 

After talking to his family today, I learned that he didn't believe in wearing a mask. Even though, as a firefighter, he could have received a vaccine during the initial wave of vaccinations, but he refused to get one.

This mask/vaccine controversy reminds me of when I was in Viet Nam. We were issued flak vests, which were hot and very heavy. Many of the soldiers left them behind. When the mortar shells started exploding around us, those of us who were wearing our vests were thanking God that we wore our vests, while those who didn't wear their vest were probably begging God to keep them alive, while thinking - "why in the hell didn't I wear my flak jacket?" More than a few soldiers were wounded or died because they weren't wearing their flak vests.

The mask/vaccine issue is the same thing, except it is much easier to don a mask or receive a vaccine than it is wear a flak jacket while trudging through a hot, humid jungle. I wonder how many people who were in intensive care wards with a respirator tube shoved down their throat were wondering - "why in the hell didn't I just put on my mask?"

.

Another great post, G1911.

I still truly wonder what is going on and why these vaccines are being pushed so hard on people?

Yesterday, I posted some links to stories about some who have gotten ill and were hospitalized after receiving the shots on Face Book and almost immediately I received notice from FB that they didn't meet community standards??
What could possibly be their "community standards" when factual and truthful links/stories from well known media sources are not allowed?

Also, during the recent hockey games and being bombarded with vaccine commercials every 5-10 minutes trying to convince and brainwash everyone into getting the vaccines, alluding to if you don't, life, as we once knew it, will never return to normal unless you do, why is their never any mention of the possible side affects like have already been mentioned in this thread?

If you watch other advertisements regarding other medications, the list of possible side affects and/or possible issues they mention is through the roof!
I believe the listing/the mentioning of possible side affects is a requirement by law but yet there is nothing, zero mention of any with these vaccines? :confused:

I don't think anyone has said that you have to live a perfect life or that you have to approach something else differently because you've decided to wear a mask. Wearing a mask is still required in many public situations where I live. It is a sign of respect to the people around you. It is not a symbol that you are a saint.

Mmm
 

I sure hope that everyone demanding that healthy 30 year olds change their life is following their own advice and changing their lifestyle over all of the things they have a .0005% projected risk of dying from. Because wow, it's a lot of things for them to keep track of, much less act upon. There's really nothing else to say in this thread, people will feed off the public hysteria and anecdote, or take a look at the numbers and do some basic risk analysis. Neither side is really going to budge at this point.[/QUOTE]

Yes, it is a huge, horrible life changing event to put on that mask. How can people possibly be free and live their life when they are wearing a mask? What a horrible thing to have to endure.

Name
 

Why don't you have your name in your post? What are you afraid of?

If the person in post #514 doesn’t have to give their name then the person in post #512 certainly doesn’t have to give their name. Cliff Bowman.

+1

Forget the mask mandates.

A compulsory chastity belt mandate will do the trick.;)

Seems to be a lot of that going on lately. Even the left leaning news is now changing their tune. :rolleyes:

"The NIH knew the effectiveness of this drug and its relatives back in 2005 when it comes to Coronavirus'! SARS COV1 (what we know as causing SARS) and SARS COV2 (what we know as the virus that causes COVID 19) are almost 85% genetically the same. They had a drug that had decades of safe use treating other illness' and they refused to use it for political and monetary reasons"
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16115318/

"Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread
Martin J Vincent 1, Eric Bergeron, Suzanne Benjannet, Bobbie R Erickson, Pierre E Rollin, Thomas G Ksiazek, Nabil G Seidah, Stuart T Nichol
Affiliations expand
PMID: 16115318

PMCID: PMC1232869

DOI: 10.1186/1743-422X-2-69
Free PMC article
Abstract
Background: Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) is caused by a newly discovered coronavirus (SARS-CoV). No effective prophylactic or post-exposure therapy is currently available.

Results: We report, however, that chloroquine has strong antiviral effects on SARS-CoV infection of primate cells. These inhibitory effects are observed when the cells are treated with the drug either before or after exposure to the virus, suggesting both prophylactic and therapeutic advantage. In addition to the well-known functions of chloroquine such as elevations of endosomal pH, the drug appears to interfere with terminal glycosylation of the cellular receptor, angiotensin-converting enzyme 2. This may negatively influence the virus-receptor binding and abrogate the infection, with further ramifications by the elevation of vesicular pH, resulting in the inhibition of infection and spread of SARS CoV at clinically admissible concentrations.

Conclusion: Chloroquine is effective in preventing the spread of SARS CoV in cell culture. Favorable inhibition of virus spread was observed when the cells were either treated with chloroquine prior to or after SARS CoV infection. In addition, the indirect immunofluorescence assay described herein represents a simple and rapid method for screening SARS-CoV antiviral compounds"


Isn't the media wonderful. :(

"Jon Karl says aloud the obvious TRUTH about the BIASED media. They denied Covid FACTS to remain ANTI-TRUMP"

https://therightscoop.com/jon-karl-s...in-anti-trump/

"Emails show Dr. Fauci was WORRIED that NIH might have ties to Coronavirus spread in China last year"
https://therightscoop.com/emails-sho...ina-last-year/

https://twitter.com/IngrahamAngle/st...03904%3Fs%3D21

Seems like a lot of unwelcomed heat is on Fauci lately. Hmm, I wonder why things are improving so fast? ;)

"They."

Why don't you link to the dozens of articles and studies that concluded it wasn't a safe or effective treatment?

https://medcitynews.com/2020/08/why-...-for-covid-19/

Why hydroxychloroquine’s appeal endures despite evidence it doesn’t work for Covid-19

The drug has consistently failed to show a benefit when tested in randomized, controlled clinical trials. Social science may explain why laypeople and doctors alike continue clinging to it.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020...event-covid-19
https://www.statnews.com/2020/07/16/...xychloroquine/

I could go on and on and on posting links.

The pandemic is bad enough without all the conspiracy crap piled on top of it.

I don't think a name is required for what is said in those 2-3 posts. But we can debate it if we want to.
That said everyone should be careful of the name rule at the top of every page. I look for statements directed at folks or companies, not general statements, in applying the rule.
I do wish everyone had their name next to their posts but it's not mandatory unless they don't follow that rule. Anyone can always pm about this stuff and I will take a look. Also, posts can be edited out by their creator in order not to have to put their names out there. That is always an option. Thanks for everyone's compliance to the most important rule on this forum.

.

So the stuff you posted is real and factual but the stuff I post is "conspiracy crap" therefore I'm a conspiracist?
You're a lawyer, aren't you, Pete? Is that how you solve cases or come to conclusions? Just debunk the stuff that doesn't fit with your ideology nor fit your agenda and choose the ones that do?

Tell me, did you fact check any of these names from my post?
Martin J Vincent 1, Eric Bergeron, Suzanne Benjannet, Bobbie R Erickson, Pierre E Rollin, Thomas G Ksiazek, Nabil G Seidah, Stuart T Nichol.

If so, do they look like conspiracy theorists to you who don't know what their talking about?

Tell me, Peter, do you think there is more money to be made with the use of hydroxychloroquine that has been around and safely used for 80 or so odd years or in these new, never used before, non approved, except for emergency use, vaccines?

Yeah, I know, just another conspiracy theory, right?

Hydroxychloroquine is Widely Used Around the Globe

"Death rates in countries that rely on hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) for the treatment of Covid-19 appear to be dramatically lower than death rates in countries that discourage the use of the drug"
https://fcpp.org/2020/11/08/hydroxyc...und-the-globe/

So what do you think was the motivation of the doctor who claims to have successfully treated 350+ patients at the time? I'm sure that number has grown greatly over the last year, but I'm only going by your year old article. Financial motivation? Seeking attention? Just likes spreading false information? And what about the many, many, many other doctors who've come forward since the publishing of your year old article who also claim to have successfully treated Covid patients with hydroxychloroquine?

Medcity news.. Sounds legit. :D

"Founded by veteran journalists with both health carereporting and online editorial experience, MedCity News is poised to build an innovative new-media enterprise capable of taking advantage of these converging forces while building a profitable national business and brand"
https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/medcity-news

I couldn't even find anything credible for AAS Science? What is that exactly?

And I found this about Stat news. Surprise surprise. :rolleyes:
"These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes"

Read the randomized controlled trials. Don't shoot the messenger. Plenty of shit seems to work until it's subjected to real trials. People used to swear by bloodletting. People swear by all sorts of bogus treatments. When you run a real trial they don't hold up. That's how science goes. Anecdotes don't prove much, even lots of them. The plural of anecdote is not data. There are lots of good explanations of this online. You need to control for placebo effects, regression to the mean, other confounding factors, etc.


Who exactly is the "they" who have suppressed this treatment, Dale? And how exactly did "they" go about it? Conspiracy theory. If you want to debate the science and take issue with the trials, fine. But don't throw this conspiracy junk at us.

You're kidding again, right, Peter? You think there was no political nor their funded media interference with its use after Trump began touting it?

"Politics prevented thorough trial
There was every reason to be excited. The drug is incredibly cheap, a generic version is less than 50 cents per pill, and it has been around for more than 65 years. It has been well tolerated by millions as a treatment for various forms of arthritis and as a preventative against malaria.

"But then the bad news began to pour in. With President Donald Trump championing the drug this spring, it became a third rail political issue"

"The political fallout interfered with the science"

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...mn/5397728002/

Anti-Trump Democrats lie about hydroxychloroquine
https://www.galvnews.com/opinion/let...9ad12f900.html

Trump’s use of unproven drug to ward off covid-19 prompts concerns, ridicule. It’s not for the ‘morbidly obese,’ says Pelosi.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...e-coronavirus/

Do you recall govn'r Whitmer threatening to fire any doctor that prescribed it, then some months later did a 180?
"Gov. Gretchen Whitmer drew fire from some on the right after the Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA) sent a letter last week threatening "administrative action" against doctors who prescribed two experimental drugs that could potentially help coronavirus patients"
https://www.metrotimes.com/news-hits...nd-chloroquine

Need more, Pete, or are these enough conspiracy articles for tonight?

I don't care about the left wing noise any more than the right wing noise. It's all BS if you ask me. I care about the studies. Read the studies. Again, many drugs, treatments, etc. appear at first blush to work, but don't hold up to controlled trials. As best I can tell, the controlled trials do not support the safety or efficacy of this drug for this disease. In fact some suggested it made things worse.

And you keep ducking the question Dale. Who is "they"? Don't tee up another straw man, tell me who "they" is.

You're being obtuse and becoming insufferable, Peter. If I didn't know any better, I'd think you're just looking forward to using the words conspiracy theorist and strawman any chance you get.

You can't answer the question can you? And how many of the studies have you read? I am SURE you know better than the scientists who conducted them. Oh wait, "they" must have paid off those scientists.

This is what I was looking for, the 2021 meta analysis of the trials.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7885725/


Despite all the controversy about HCQ and CQ use for COVID-19 treatment, this meta-analysis did not show any better outcomes in patients using HCQ or CQ when compared to the control group. The results showed no statistical significance in the treatment with HCQ or CQ in achieving virological cure and faster clinical recovery.


Conclusion.

These results suggest that the use of HCQ or CQ is not associated with decreased viral load, faster clinical recovery, improved survival, decreased need for mechanical ventilation, and decreased hospitalization time for patients with COVID-19. However, it suggests that the use of HCQ or CQ can be associated with an increased risk of adverse effects.

Obtuse indeed.

Another meta analysis.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22446-z

We found that treatment with hydroxychloroquine is associated with increased mortality in COVID-19 patients, and there is no benefit of chloroquine.

We Are They

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=goVL5d...ature=youtu.be

Yes, indeed.

What are conspiracy theories? Why do they flourish?

1. What are they?
The belief that certain events or situations are secretly manipulated behind the scenes by powerful forces with negative intent.

2. Conspiracy theories have these 6 things in common
1. An alleged, secret plot.

2. A group of conspirators.

3. ‘Evidence’ that seems to support the conspiracy theory.

4. They falsely suggest that nothing happens by accident and that there are no coincidences; nothing is as it appears and everything is connected.

5. They divide the world into good or bad.

6. They scapegoat people and groups.

3. Why do they flourish?
They often appear as a logical explanation of events or situations which are difficult to understand and bring a false sense of control and agency. This need for clarity is heightened in times of uncertainty like the COVID-19 pandemic.

4. How do they take root?
Conspiracy theories often start as a suspicion. They ask who is benefiting from the event or situation and thus identify the conspirators. Any ‘evidence’ is then forced to fit the theory.

Once they have taken root, conspiracy theories can grow quickly. They are hard to refute because any person who tries is seen as being part of the conspiracy.

5. People spread conspiracy theories for different reasons:
Most believe they are true. Others deliberately want to provoke, manipulate or target people for political or financial reasons. Beware: They can come from many sources e.g. internet, friends, relatives.

Click on the link Peter, you'll have a good laugh.

I did. :)

They is a four letter word. Period.
 

Saying they suggests the they agree with each other, but in no way precludes another they who disagree with the first they.

Have they (either one) ever been wrong? Both theys would maintain their assertion and suggest that only the other theys are incorrect.

In fact a third group, also a they, could easily contend that both the first two theys are incorrect.

Knowing the size of a they would help. If your they consists of only 4 people, their opinion may be regarded as an anecdote. If your they has a population (better known as “pop” in the hobby,) of 100, it could be several things, a grass roots movement, a conspiracy theory, or even a prescient group of educated individuals who interpret the given data correctly. The latter they however are as equally likely to be persecuted as the conspiracy theorists or a grass roots movement.

If you add sheeple to any they, they do not improve the odds of the given they’s validity. They merely increase the “pop” of their group. Sheeple, however, are not homogenous, nor are they immutable. Politics, simplistically, is a contest of mutating sheeple to increase their “pop”. Sheeple, who think they are making wise decisions by joining a ideological they, are generally not as wise as they think they are. In fact, I would maintain that most sheeple are inclined to agree with sheeple who share some unrelated characteristic with which they identify such as gender, skin color, country of origin, R or D, or ancestry.

A they will often associate another unrelated dispised entity with a belief with which they disagree. The two may be totally unrelated, but guilt by false association can be powerful propaganda.

The bifurcation of the news is a deterrent to common ground. Both theys are competing for sheeple that don’t even know what they are talking about. Ultimately many sheeple throwup their hands in dispair.

A they, any they, can plead for unity as a popular mantra, but since both theys are working from a different set of facts, unity becomes a pipe dream. Both sides, in the name of unity, eschew the other sides “fake news” (if you will) and define unity as “my way or the highway”.

If you are wearing a mask, take it off and reread the post.

If you aren’t wearing a mask, try reading this with a mask on.

If it sounds like meaningless gibberish both ways, I think I have made my point.

I am we and you are we and they are we and we are all together.

They are who we thought they were. And we let 'em off the hook!

I already did Peter, but I can't see for you if you're too blind to see for yourself.

Great links, again. Those sure prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that everything you said is 100% factual and true.
Have anymore of these links that are easily debunked?

"Is the NCBI reliable?
That question cannot be answered in general. The databases at the NCBI/DDBJ/EMBL will definitely contain errors as the data comes from various sources and most of the databases are only marginally curated. But that holds true for all big databases without manual curation (and even those are not flawless).


"Wolfgang Rumpf
Nationwide Children's Hospital
Christian is correct. The databases are in large part uncurated - while some metadata will be screened and corrected (e.g. keywords etc.), the sequences itself are definitely not - validation would require far too much time/effort/expenditure. Thus the databases rely on the submitter's information - and subsequent experimental validation if and when it happens"

Wasn't it also you that said these vaccines weren't being pushed on anyone?
Sure hope you haven't got your vaccine yet? I'd hate to see you miss out on any of these things being offered.

"‘Get a shot and have a beer’: Biden touts free brew, pro sports tickets and child care"

https://missouriindependent.com/2021...oost-vaccines/

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...ombat-n1268048
https://www.latimes.com/california/s...id-19-vaccines

Moderna just applied for FDA approval. If it is fully approved by the FDA are you still worried about it?

I'm not at all a fan of Biden's approach, by the way. I find it offensive and wrong.

And Dale, I missed it. Do me a favor and identify for me all the actors who have conspired to deny sick people effective treatment.

The United States Public Health Service (PHS) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) approved the Tuskegee Experiments. So what does an approval have to do with anything? :confused:

Well earlier people had said the reason they are wary of the vaccine was because it was authorized but not approved. Has that changed now?

Also, I don't really understand the Tuskegee reference. All medications face FDA approval so if you discount their approval but also won't take medications that are not FDA approved, what are you left with?

Then let me explain it to you. If the government (CDC) would knowingly inject unsuspecting citizens with Syphilis, why wouldn't they do the same (with Syphilis or anything else) today? What has changed?

Can you explain how that relates to my question? If that is your perspective on medicine then you could never go to the hospital or seek medical treatment of any kind.

I thought from YOUR prior posts your objection was that the vaccines weren't approved yet. You kept banging that point home.

Can you point me to the post? I may have pointed out that the vaccines weren't FDA approved, but I thought I've made it clear that my reason for not getting the vaccine is there is not enough testing and the long term side effects aren't fully known.

I did explain it to you. But I can't understand it for you.

Others got it though.

If I understand you correctly you're saying all medicine should be met with skepticism and not taken until you perform some kind of analysis to rule out some kind of interference. Is that correct? I guess I should clarify that when I say you I don't mean the royal you. I mean the individual being prescribed the medication.

If that's how you operate I'm just looking to understand your perspective. Not looking to change your mind. But I'm not sure that's what you're saying either.

Then what was your point in bringing it up in the first place? I understood you, and I could have been wrong, to be drawing an equivalence between FDA approval and more assurance of safety.

But based on your recent post, if you were prescribed an FDA approved medication, would you then go look up how long it's been on the market and precisely what is known about long term effects before taking it?

It may be better if the pharmaceutical industry would take this type of approach instead of attempting to create one-size-fits-all type solutions. It would certainly cut down on the recalls and lawsuits that seem to happen constantly. How many commercials do you see on TV that list off tons of terrible side effect or how about commercials from law firms trying to get people to join a class action lawsuit against some sort of medication?

Covid effects everyone differently and so do the vaccines. With the example of HCQ, it is clear it does not work for everyone but it does work for some people. Just because it doesn't work for everyone doesn't mean that it should not be used for anyone. Those who it can work for should be allowed to get it if they want it and they should be allowed to talk about it in public.

I too wish there was more scrutiny in the pharmaceutical industry but I'm not sure that's the role of the person being prescribed the medication. The FDA is supposed to be doing that and while the FDA has frequently changed its mind about what's safe and what isn't anymore, I don't know what you're supposed to do as a person needing medication if you believe that all medication might be tainted.

That's not what I'm saying. You're just making stuff up and being your usual self. Where do you get "all medicine should be met with skepticism?" Where was that even alluded to? We're talking about a vaccine...a vaccine that is being pushed really hard by our government for a disease with a very high survival rate. That just doesn't make sense to me. Never in the history of this country has a vaccine been shoved down our throat like that. My point I'm trying to make (and obviously you can't grasp it) is that why would you take something the government is trying to push that hard?

Do you have the intelligence to answer my Tuskegee Experiments question or am I wasting my time?

I used to think you were a pretty smart guy. You've proven me wrong.

I guess I'm making an inference as a result of your post in relation to my question about possible FDA approval. When I mentioned the potential for the vaccine to be fully approved, you responded by saying that the government approved injecting people with Syphilis why wouldn't they be doing the same thing now. But the FDA approves all medication, not just the vaccine. So I took your point to be broad.

It was broad in the sense that I don't care about an FDA (or any other government agency) approval. I don't care if it has Trump's endorsement. I don't care if my momma recommends it. An approval is worthless to me. I don't consume things based on someone else's approval. I'm going to do what I think is best for me. My stance on the vaccine has been very clear from the beginning. I'm going to hang tight at the moment and wait and see if there are any long term side effects. Peter's dementia failed to grasp that even though I told him that multiple times and even referred to the specific post. Maybe you'll get it. I don't know?