To make a stronger argument

Never in the history of this country has a vaccine been shoved down our throat or shoved up our ........... like that. There are several choices for where to shove a vaccine up. Feel free to choose.

Nobody was injected with syphilis. The study began in 1932 and included 399 black men who already had syphilis. The purpose of the study was to determine the full progression of the disease. In 1932, there was no known cure for syphilis. By 1947 penicillin became the recommended treatment. The subjects of the study were never given penicillin so that they could be cured. That is the disgusting, unethical aspect of the study. Not that the government knowingly injected unsuspecting citizens with syphilis. Anyone who thinks the government knowingly injected unsuspecting citizens with syphilis and uses it as an excuse not to get a shot "is a fucking moron."

I've never thought that about you.:eek::D

But seriously you posted this before, in 260.

vintagetoppsguy's Avatar
vintagetoppsguy vintagetoppsguy is online now
D@v!d J@m3s
Member


Join Date: Sep 2009

Location: Houston, TX

Posts: 5,537





Default




Quote:


Originally Posted by packs View Post

Can someone please answer my question about why you’re willing to risk all kinds of side effects for routine prescription medication but you’re not willing to risk them for the vaccine? I would love to know what makes the vaccine different from myriad other medications you’re willing to take that offer remote side effects you may encounter.

Ok, I'll bite. Because prescription medications require stringent testing and are REQUIRED
to meet FDA approval by FEDERAL LAW before going to market.

The vaccines are not.
__________________
Bullionaire

You seemed to be saying FDA approval counted for something. No?

Don't let facts get in the way of a rant. In any case, that was a completely different time, and is hardly a legitimate ground for concern 7 decades later IMO.

Nice copy and paste job because you're obviously not that intelligent to come up with that on your own. The study actually involved 600 black men, 399 who already had syphilis, 201 that did not. So if the purpose of the study was to "determine the full progression of the disease" why would they need 201 participants that didn't have it? That makes no sense. How can you study something in someone that doesn't exist? Here's the ironic part to your stupid post: You're getting your (mis)information from the same government that conducted this " disgusting, unethical...study" you fucking moron.

It was a control group you idiot. You're making an ass of yourself David. Probably the worst I've ever seen from you. You need a time out.

From Tuskegee.

Who Were the Participants

A total of 600 men were enrolled in the study. Of this group 399, who had syphilis were a part of the experimental group and 201 were control subjects. Most of the men were poor and illiterate sharecroppers from the county.

You're cherry-picking, Peter. Packs asked a very specific question and I gave a specific answer. My position has not changed, but you seem to be trying to change it for me. So, let's review again, because we already had to do it once in post 278.

Post 190 - I can't speak for everyone that declines the vaccine, but I think most of us are not antivaxxers. We're just not convinced that enough research and testing has gone into the vaccine to inject ourselves with it. I'm grateful for the previous administration's decision to start working on a vaccine immediately without delay (in January of last year), but it's just way too soon. It hasn't even been approved by the FDA yet. If within a couple of years or so it's determined there are no long term side effects, I'll probably get it myself.

Post 229 - Because it's new. I've said (and others have said too) once it's been around for a while and it's been determined there are no long term side effects, I'll more than likely get it.

Post 269 - Here's where I'm losing you, Peter, and I'm not sure why because you're smarter than that. There hasn't been enough testing on the vaccine to know all the possible side effects. I think most people that decline the vaccine aren't antivaxxers, they're just concerned with the lack of testing and not knowing long term side effects. As I've already mentioned (multiple times now), I'll probably get the vaccine in 2-3 years if there are no known side effects. And, if there are side effects, I'll weigh my options and decide if the benefits outweigh the risks.

You're trying to make something out of nothing. My position has been clear from the very beginning. But I'm sure we'll be having this discussion again and, once again, I'll refer to the same posts. :rolleyes:

Believe whatever you want. Yes, the government cares about your health first and foremost and would never lie to you. :rolleyes:

You're the one making the completely false and preposterous claim that the government injected men with syphillis. You obviously just got the facts wrong because you didn't read carefully, and now instead of just admitting that you're doubling down and clinging to the claim that it's true based on nothing more than general suspicion of the government? That's just awful. Better just to admit you made a mistake and move on.

OK thanks for clarifying. I understand your position, I think, though I'm still not sure how to reconcile it with willingness to take meds, if indeed you are, or eat GMO food, etc.

I'm not going to admit anything because I believe what I wrote. But I will reword Post #558 to suit your narrative of the events.

Let me just say this to sum up my position. Anybody that would trust a government to have concern over their health after that same government withheld medical treatment from its own citizens is a fu$$$$g moron.

Better? Feel all warm an fuzzy now?

I don't agree that Tuskegee is relevant today but that's an accurate statement of what happened back then.

:)

It's relevant today because its a reminder of what a government can do to its own citizens. You can believe what you want to about the events. Heck, some people don't believe the Holocaust happened.

Do you believe the Holocaust is relevant today?

Does taking Airborne count as medication? The most medication I take is probably a handful of excedrin....a year

At that broad level fair enough, and yes we should learn from history including Tuskegee, and yes we always need to be vigilant against the abuse of power. That said, I just think the times are SO dramatically different in terms of media coverage and scrutiny, racial sensibilities, access to information, and many other factors that it's a pretty remote chance the government is going to repeat an experiment calculated to harm its citizens, at least as long as we have a democracy. And I don't see any analogy between Tuskegee and the current vaccines, I don't think this government or the Trump/Biden administrations have had any bad intent.

Indeed, despite how it now seems to be politicized by some, it was President Trump who, once persuaded the vaccine was the way out of the pandemic, went all in and pushed vigorously for a rapid timeline and quick action on emergency approval. Had he been reelected one wonders if the discourse would be the same.

:(

If the government is giving away free vaccines for the health of the nation, then why aren't they giving out free insulin and chemo? :confused:

People can pay for that with the free money the government has been giving out.

They should be.

You are proven to have written misinformation. So, what do you do? You lash out. You attack the intelligence of the person who pointed out your misinformation even though they are right and you are wrong. You accuse them of a “copy and paste job” while doing the same. You attack a source of the correct information (ignoring the fact that there is more than one source with the correct information). You refuse to admit you are wrong because you believe what you wrote (meaning you think being delusional is better than being a liar or wrong).

You are a poster child of the biggest problem facing this country today.

Proven misinformation by who? The same government that kept it under wraps for years? What a joke! And where did I copy and paste? Show me.

And you are a poster child for "I trust 'science' and 'experts' because I lack the cognitive capacity to actually think critically for myself."

Same place I copied and pasted. Show us that.

No, I don't have the capacity to ignore reality and believe lies are true which is what you mean by "think critically for myself".

Loser.

Spot on, David.

Who else are you supposed to trust to oversee something like medicine? Every country has a federal agency that regulates medicine. It is not uniquely American. If there is no government oversight of medicine, who do you propose provides the oversight?

When something like a commom virus is labeled as "unprecedented ", and the experts claim they dont understand it, so they invoke the same response we did 1918, you have to start asking questions.

Bring on the roaring 2020's and we know what happened a decade later. History repeats itself

2 questions for you:

1) I can respect intelligent skepticism, and do not trust everything I read, either by media or government. However, so far you have stated that you don't trust what the government says about health, and you don't trust the science studies presented. You stated you think for yourself. My question is, where do you get the information you trust? You say you wait and see with your own eyes, but there's no possible way to monitor what's going on in the country, let alone the world, with your own eyes. So where do you get the information/data/opinions/anecdotes that you trust?

2) In my opinion, which seems to be a popular one, a big problem with America today is the lack of civil discourse. Too many people choosing "sides" on too many subjects, be it politics or religion or sports teams or vaccinations. Too many people focused on "winning" and "being right" and too few people willing to accept that there might be a valid other side. Too much shouting! My question is, since none of us has the God-like ability to see absolute truth, why does anyone willing to accept a belief that you don't agree with have to be a "f$$$$ing moron"??

Ken

Question 1) From sources with no vested interest.

Question 2) I didn't say anyone willing to accept a belief that I don't agree with is a f$$$$ing moron. My point is that anyone that would trust the government with their health is a f$$$ing moron. I gave one example, let me give another. Just look at the VA.

What sites?

Very few sites. I don't trust most sites. They usually have agendas. I get my information from people that have actual experiences.

You have sources in China? Cleveland? New York?
I'd love to have more unbiased information. Are these in person? I'm confused on how someone could get a worldview from locals. Do you live around a wide range of socioeconomic and cultural diversity?

Actually, yes, I do have a source in China. A lifelong friend of mine owns a furnitire manufacturing plant in China...moved over there 19 years ago. And I'm friends with a local card shop owner here in town that is from China. No sources in Cleveland, but I do have friends in NY. Thanks for asking.

Excellent! First-hand representation. I'm going to assume, however, that none of these people are your go-to on educated expertise on a covid vaccine.

So when you have very strong opinions about the government's ability to monitor health initiatives (and I'm not saying they are good at it in any way,) and you appear to feel that medical journals are all biased, where do you get the knowledge that you form your opinions from? And I'm not just talking this particular vaccine. Where do you get your facts about GMO food or flu shots or acupuncture or electromagnetic waves?

No, Dr. Fauci is. He's a credible source, wouldn't you say?
:rolleyes:

I never said medical journals were all biased. Throughout this entire thread multiple people have either twisted my words or put words in my mouth that I didn't say. So, this is where I end the conversation. You mentioned civil discourse earlier. Civil discourse ends where stupidly and making false accusations begins. But I will answer your last question. Gut instinct and some personal experience.

So if you're prescribed a drug with which you have no personal experience, you'll decide whether to take it based on your gut instinct?

I've given you two chances to tell us sources you respect and all you won't tell us any outside your personal experiences and your gut. PLEASE tell me some respectable medical journals, I'm begging you!!!

Just to be clear, I say you APPEAR to say all medical journals are biased because 1) you have denigrated so many links posted here and 2) you don't say medical journals are to be trusted when I ask you what sources you trust. If that's twisting your words, then I apologize.

Will you apologize to me for the unnecessary sarcasm with the Fauci statement? Or for calling some members"f$$$$ing morons? Or does civil discourse only count when you want it to?

I'm having a hard time here trying to have an intelligent conversation via a forum. So you made the comment about Fauci and put what I interpret is a snarky face. Please correct me if that isn't an eye roll emoji, I'm not well versed on emojis.

If that really is a sarcastic comment about Fauci, I am going to believe you are not a fan, which is fine. But to be in that position, I ask myself, how did you formulate that opinion? According to you (in the same post), you don't get information from biased sources; you said you feel most sites have bias and I agree with that statement. I would say most tv channels, too. So I asked what sources you trust, and you said your gut and personal experiences. So this must mean that either your gut tells you Fauci is no good (at most by seeing a photo, I assume, because you wouldn't be watching or surfing sites that discuss him because they would be biased,) OR, you have personal experience with him.

So: is your gut that intuitive? Or have you met Fauci?? Either way, that's pretty cool!!

Trying to have an intelligent conversation is, IMO, a huge mistake, and one I've made myself too many times LOL.

David's just being a contrarian as he always is. He isn't going to respond on your terms.

I don't blame David one bit as it is clear as it ever could be, that despite what has been presented throughout this thread from him, G1911, myself and others, it simply isn't good enough for you two.
It is futile to continue and despite what you are asking for, I don't think anyone on here should hold your hand and walk you through it just because you're incapable, or unwilling, to do that yourself.


The simple fact that these vaccines alone have been rushed through and are only approved for "emergency use only" should throw up a red flag and should make one question it and look further into it but my gut tells me because you probably watch CNN, MSNBC or read The New York Times, and trust your gov't, you think you are getting truthful, factual and unbiased news so you feel no need to look into things further.

For an attorney, you sure do have a reading comprehension problem. We've been through this, Peter. But you just want to be argumentative. Why would I be prescribed a drug? :confused:

I haven't been sick in 40+ years. I haven't taken a prescribed prescribed meditation in decades. Why would I be prescribed something?

Well, let me be clear too. You APPEAR to be a f*cking moron. I tried to avoid this, but you kept on.

Your original questions in post 587 were more just general questions. I answered them satisfactorily. Now you're narrowing your questions to be specifically medical related and twisting my words (but I still answered them). So, I can continue to play your game and let you continue to twist my words, or just tell you to f*ck off. I choose the latter. I told you where civil discourse ended. You've reached that point.

This

Wrong guy, Irv! Nowhere on this thread have I said people should get the vaccine. Nowhere! All I'm saying is, David is blasting people and calling them rude names (See post right above this one) because they follow the government's lead. I know David's side, I do get it, I am just asking how he got there. David (and others) blast much of the research presented as biased. (Again, you don't see me defending the research, do you?) My direct and polite question for David has repeatedly been: If you blast others for following biased information, what UNbiased information do you listen to? Please notice that all he will tell us is his gut and personal experience.

You, Irv, have presented many columns and research and such showing how you've come to your views. I may or may not agree with you, but I can see how you got there. Peter has presented columns and research, shown his side, and I can agree or not. David, well, he just insults those who don't think like him, but claims everyone else is "biased." I actually like to read views different from what I currently hold, that's the only way I can grow.

And FWIW, I think the last paragraph you posted started off quite spot-on, until you went making assumptions. I don't watch TV news of any kind. I read the NYT and the WSJ. I don't blindly trust the Gov't. So what do you make of me? Also, you say people who watch CNN and read the NYT don't think for themselves, do you also say the same to people who only watch Fox News and read the WSJ?? I have someone in my own family that will parrot Fox repeatedly, then tell me I don't have an open mind.

You brought up G1911, I would like to give him a shout out: I'm sure I wouldn't agree with him on every subject, but each post he made here was, IMHO, well-written and logical. No inflammatory language, just a great debate. The kind people used to have before shouting down an opponent and "winning" became the way. He appears to be the kind of guy to have a few beers with, argue non-stop, then walk away saying "That guy has some dumbass views, but I love him!"

You must be right about me, because I have repeatedly asked where you get your unbiased information. Politely and civilly. And yet, I still don't know the answer.

Well, I guess you don't see it, but, imo, your posts to David were very condescending, childish and uncalled for so I completely understand why he replied to you in the manner in which he did.

On pg6, David reveals what he did in the Army. Imo, and only my opinion, I assume David might know a thing or 2 about meds/vaccines and the like but unless they just randomly choose some individual who the Doc is going to be, I could be wrong?

As far as the news goes, I said "my gut tells me". which means it was a guess/an assumption so I apologize if it sounded like I meant you did a 100%.

Anyways, this thread is going nowhere anymore, if it ever was, so from this point on "I think" I will just avoid anymore interaction, as, like I said above, it is nothing more than just an exercise in futility and is becoming a waste of time.

Throughout this thread, all I've tried to do is show the other side of story, which, like I've said, isn't talked about near enough, imo, but because some don't like that, or think I am just a conspiracy theorist, a strawman arguer, or an anti-vaxxer, I guess they don't understand that nor ever will.

As I've said in this thread, I think both CNN and MSNBC are too agenda-driven. I do, however, trust for the most part a site called science based medicine which focuses on data analysis and is very very good at deconstructing bogus claims.

.

G-man, I don't endorse this article at all but I think you would like it.

https://journals.plos.org/plosmedici...l.pmed.0020124

Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
John P. A. Ioannidis

He has a similar piece a decade or so later.

https://journals.plos.org/plosmedici...l.pmed.1002049

BTW, Dr. Ioannidis published early in the pandemic basically arguing the dangers were overstated. Here's a fascinating piece on him from my favorite science website.

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/wha...ohn-ioannidis/

.

None of the people responsible for an unethical experiment 90 years ago are evens till alive.

Next you'll be on about how that darn Roosevelt won't let us own gold, or how those newfangled hydraulic shock absorbers are evil, or talkies and color movies stifle our imagination.

It's funny how some people are "oh, don't trust the government"
But the number of things they trust the government to regulate the safety of is huge.

Do you grade your own beef?
Decide what things will make your car safe to drive?
Or what can be in paint?
Or how many bug parts are allowed in a pound of each sort of vegetable?

Just where do you find the time?

No, next I'll tell you to go f*ck your fatass self.

Really Steve? So the slave owners, racists, and heros of the past should just be forgotten about or given a pass because they arent alive? I've heard some privileged talk in my day, but that really takes the cake.


Fyi the government is still alive and well which had conducted those experiments, as well as current ones. Unless you think they dont still conduct experiments.

I think you've been licking too many mk-ultra "stamps"

Of course not. It goes straight to PSA. I like to see if they notice it's been trimmed.

:mad:

https://youtu.be/l9EOc9SFCdg

Infraction given. Cut that kind of trash talk out. Not cool....thanks

.

Moderna and Pfizer are using lipid nanoparticles that contain polyethylene glycol (PEG)2 for this purpose. The mRNA is wrapped in lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) that carry it to your cells, and the LNPs are “PEGylated” — that is, chemically attached to PEG molecules to increase stability.

This experimental mRNA gene therapy and its lipid nanoparticle-based delivery system have never been approved for use in a vaccine or drug. This includes Pfizer’s and Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccines, which were only “authorized” for emergency use by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration — not “approved.”

Significant concerns have been raised over the technology, including the lipid nanoparticles, and Moderna actually abandoned it in 2017 after studies revealed a high rate of adverse effects

[T]here can be no assurance that our LNPs will not have undesired effects. Our LNPs could contribute, in whole or in part, to one or more of the following: immune reactions, infusion reactions, complement reactions, opsonation reactions, antibody reactions . . . or reactions to the PEG from some lipids or PEG otherwise associated with the LNP. Certain aspects of our investigational medicines may induce immune reactions from either the mRNA or the lipid as well as adverse reactions within liver pathways or degradation of the mRNA or the LNP, any of which could lead to significant adverse events in one or more of our clinical trials.

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/lip...o-antivaxxers/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24715289/

Superparamagnetic nanoparticle delivery of DNA vaccine
Fatin Nawwab Al-Deen 1, Cordelia Selomulya, Charles Ma, Ross L Coppel
Affiliations expand
PMID: 24715289

DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4939-0410-5_12
Abstract
The efficiency of delivery of DNA vaccines is often relatively low compared to protein vaccines. The use of superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles (SPIONs) to deliver genes via magnetofection shows promise in improving the efficiency of gene delivery both in vitro and in vivo. In particular, the duration for gene transfection especially for in vitro application can be significantly reduced by magnetofection compared to the time required to achieve high gene transfection with standard protocols. SPIONs that have been rendered stable in physiological conditions can be used as both therapeutic and diagnostic agents due to their unique magnetic characteristics. Valuable features of iron oxide nanoparticles in bioapplications include a tight control over their size distribution, magnetic properties of these particles, and the ability to carry particular biomolecules to specific targets. The internalization and half-life of the particles within the body depend upon the method of synthesis. Numerous synthesis methods have been used to produce magnetic nanoparticles for bioapplications with different sizes and surface charges. The most common method for synthesizing nanometer-sized magnetite Fe3O4 particles in solution is by chemical coprecipitation of iron salts. The coprecipitation method is an effective technique for preparing a stable aqueous dispersions of iron oxide nanoparticles. We describe the production of Fe3O4-based SPIONs with high magnetization values (70 emu/g) under 15 kOe of the applied magnetic field at room temperature, with 0.01 emu/g remanence via a coprecipitation method in the presence of trisodium citrate as a stabilizer. Naked SPIONs often lack sufficient stability, hydrophilicity, and the capacity to be functionalized. In order to overcome these limitations, polycationic polymer was anchored on the surface of freshly prepared SPIONs by a direct electrostatic attraction between the negatively charged SPIONs (due to the presence of carboxylic groups) and the positively charged polymer. Polyethylenimine was chosen to modify the surface of SPIONs to assist the delivery of plasmid DNA into mammalian cells due to the polymer's extensive buffering capacity through the "proton sponge" effect.

You should read the entire science based medicine piece you posted. It debunks the concern. The part in bold you posted is a quote from what Dr. Gorski goes on to debunk. Reminds me of younger lawyers who pull soundbites from cases based on Westlaw searches without actually reading the case.

Understood, Leon. I've tried to be done with this thread. Then, Bicycle Boy wants to pop back in and tell me what I'm supposedly going to say next.

I won't be so nice to him next time. The only difference is, it will come in the form of a PM so the rest of the board doesn't have to see it.

So, the opinion of a breast cancer surgeon, who has many other questionable opinions about medicine and the like, is to be taken as truthful, factual and therefore it's end of the story because he said so?
Just like some other response I heard sometime ago that the science is settled, you also believe this based on this one man's opinion?
Gotcha, Pete. :rolleyes:

"At the same time the academics admit, almost in a puzzled fashion, that these “anti-maskers” do their investigations in a very scientific manner. “Indeed,” the paper claims, “anti-maskers often reveal themselves to be more sophisticated in their understanding of how scientific knowledge is socially constructed than their ideological adversaries, who espouse naïve realism about the ‘objective’ truth of public health data.”

The MIT academics go on to admit that those opposed to masks are not afraid to get down and dirty in looking at statistics, nor are they afraid to increasingly question the media and government authorities, a trait MIT researchers call “a weaponization of critical thinking.” Even more surprising is the revelation that anti-maskers’ “approach to the pandemic is grounded in a more scientific rigor, not less.”

https://www.intellectualtakeout.org/...ally-rigorous/

If I catch wind of that, and it's unprovoked from here on out, you will be suspended or banned. Just let it go.

.

Nice deflection Dale. You didn't read the article and cut and pasted an excerpt thinking it supported your point of view. Instead of admitting it, you pivot to your favorite tactic, the straw man. Where did I ever say I took Dr. Gorski as gospel? My point was that the article doesn't support your point of view.

And funny how when you thought Dr. Gorski was supporting your point of view YOU had no issue quoting him despite that he was a breast cancer surgeon. LOL. In fact, you were quoting Joseph Mercola, an extremely controversial alternative medicine osteopath who makes a fortune selling supplements.

Leon,

I understand completely what you're saying. But when I haven't posted in this thread in 3 plus days and then he wants to chime in and (mis)quote me and tell me what I'm going to say next, that is provoked.

I'm letting it go. Will others?

I agree with quite a bit of what you wrote and I also disagree with quite a bit. The major issues are as follows:

First off, I agree - surgical masks and cloth masks do very little to help the wearer regarding viral transmission. That was the reasoning behind the original guidance of not having to wear masks. However, the mask guidance was not changed because people are now saying masks are a great way to protect the wearer. The mask guidance changed because wearing a mask can help reduce the distance the "breath" of a wearer will travel, thus reducing the risks to others from an infected person and reducing the spread of the infection. This is not new information. A couple of examples:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24229526/ Testing the efficacy of homemade masks: would they protect in an influenza pandemic? 2013 “Our findings suggest that a homemade mask should only be considered as a last resort to prevent droplet transmission from infected individuals, but it would be better than no protection.”

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22295066/ Facemasks, hand hygiene, and influenza among young adults: a randomized intervention trial, 2012 “Face masks and hand hygiene combined may reduce the rate of ILI and confirmed influenza in community settings. These non-pharmaceutical measures should be recommended in crowded settings at the start of an influenza pandemic.”

According to this article, it wasn't scientists scaring people about a coming ice age, it was the media:

https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age...termediate.htm

Of the 68 peer-reviewed climate studies from 1965-1979, 10% predicted cooling, 28% had no stance, and 62% predicted warming. Six times as many studies predicted warming versus cooling.

Regarding censorship, when was the last time you saw an ad for cigarettes on TV? Do you consider that censorship? Do you think commercials for cigarettes should be allowed on TV? Regarding the censorship related to big tech and covid, I am not on Facebook, Twitter, etc., so I really don't know specifically what was targeted. All I know is what I've read. What I read said that covid misinformation was targeted. I personally think it was a good move to remove misinformation while the country was trying to limit the spread of a contagious virus. Specifically, what information was removed that you do not feel was misinformation and was something the public should know?

I fully understand your rationale behind not wanting to get the vaccine. But with that choice comes responsibility. You need to try to minimize the chances of you infecting someone else in case you get it and are asymptomatic, i.e., wear a mask.

Federal law, signed in 1970 by President Nixon, prohibits TV ads for cigarettes with nicotine. My guess is the cigarette companies didn't mind at all, it saved them tons of money they would have had to spend to keep pace with the competition.

You're right, Pete. I did exactly that. I was in a hurry/busy today and clearly should have first before posting. :o

You should read that site more often my friend, it will set you straight on science!!:D

1970?!? That long ago? I was thinking it was late '70s. What about in magazines? I can't say that I recall seeing cigarette ads in magazines in a while either. Were they banned as well or am I just not looking at the "right" magazines?

Hand hygiene, who would have thought? I mean in 1918 they didnt understand that, but here in modern times, I guess we needed a wake up call

.

The point of my initial response was to show that your claim, “New science to replace the old science happened after the narrative switch, not before,” is not correct. Period.

Yet, you deflect and make more false claims. “Embraced the fear narrative.” Really? You don’t think people are capable of getting the vaccine without embracing the fear narrative? “(M)any in this thread are scared of very unlikely events (even using the statistics and figures from the pro-fear faction without any critical analysis but simply taking them at straight face value)?” Again, those in favor of the vaccine are in favor because they’re “scared?” We came to our conclusion “without any critical analysis?” And you know this how, exactly? Is it your Aristotelian thinking that enables you to make these judgements?

But, tell you what. I’ll allow you to deflect and I’ll discuss why I got the vaccine. There are two reasons that come readily to mind.

Reason 1. My wife and my father. Even though I’m 67, I’m in good health with no health issues. I’m not concerned about myself. My wife is a couple of years older than me, has asthma and high blood pressure. I got the shots for her. My dad is 91. Is three years removed from bladder cancer. Has high blood pressure and had a stroke 1-1/2 years ago. I got the shots for him.

Reason 2. To help stop mutations. As the virus continues to spread, it continues to mutate. As it continues to mutate, it increases the chances of it becoming even more deadly and more resistant to the vaccine. You may call that “the fear narrative,” I call it a potential reality. The sooner we can stop it, the better.

The point of my initial response was to show that your claim that people were told to fear a coming ice age did not apply to the scientists. Period.

But again, you deflect and ponder if I’m alleging scientific consensus has never been wrong. How in the world could that possibly follow from what I wrote?

I agree with you regarding the potential use of fear mongering to sell a particular point. It has been done many times and will probably continue to be practiced because it is so successful. However, I don’t agree that Climate Change is one of them. I happen to believe that man’s actions are causing the climate to change. Instead, I would use some of the following as examples of fear mongering: (a) an invading migrant horde attacking us from the south, (b) buy all the guns you can now because elected officials are coming after your guns, (c) voting for X is voting for socialism. Those appear to be very popular “fear narratives,” especially during election cycles.

The point of my initial response was to provide an example counter to your claim, “I have never in my life seen such censorship as there is of anything even questioning the narrative of Covid.” Basically, we agree, it is censorship. Yet even though we’ve had 50 years of cigarette ads being censored from reaching the public via TV, you don’t think that’s as bad as a few months of censoring false information from some social sites? Interesting.

“You seem to think censorship is a good thing.” I do in some limited instances. It depends upon the circumstances, primarily if lives are in danger.

Wow, anyone who agrees with the decision to restrict false information from social media is “vain or self-important.”

Anyone who agrees with the decision that people should be censored from screaming “FIRE!!” in a darkened theater is “vain or self-important.”

Anyone who agrees that during wartime, certain information should be censored to keep it out of the enemy’s hands is “vain or self-important.”

Anyone who agrees that cigarettes should not be peddled to people, including kids, on TV is “vain or self-important.”

As I said earlier, I’m not on social media so I don’t know everything that was censored. I’ll accept your premise that people who only claimed the virus escaped from a Chinese lab were censored. I’ll also accept your premise that that particular censorship ended the day after Fauci changed his mind. I do not think that the claim that the virus escaped from a Chinese lab kept/is keeping people from getting the vaccine. Therefore, I don’t think that particular piece of information/misinformation (whatever it turns out to be) should have been censored.

Again, you’re making gross assumptions in order to conjure up a strawman argument. I never said I “want the state and big corporations to censor whatever they consider misinformation.” Taking one single example and generalizing it to an all-encompassing view is cheap and lazy. Your arguments against something I never said are a complete waste of time.

Even though you see limited possible value in continuing the discussion, I see none. Trying to have a discussion with someone who takes pride in attacking strawmen is not beneficial to anyone. But, before I take my vain, self-important, scared, non-critical thinking self and walk away from this discussion with you, let me leave you with this.

In your mind, you envision a better country, better than what we have now. And in that country kids wake up on Saturday mornings to watch cartoons filled with commercials from cigarette companies extolling the virtues of smoking – smoking makes you better looking, it makes you smarter, it makes you live longer, it makes you stronger, etc. Because to do otherwise, is “a threat to freedom and the foundational values of the Republic.”

Now if you’ll excuse me, I need to get these damn keys off my forehead.

.

I got the 6 month booster shot today.:)

Hope things go well, I've heard of a few people getting some minor aches and pains afterwards but nothing too bad.

I actually came down with Covid, myself, despite being fully vaccinated. Knocked me on my ass for two weeks. Had the full range of symptoms. Thankfully everything came back, including smell and taste. Have some general fatigue, still, but it will eventually clear itself up, according to my doctor.

I'll be scheduling mine in a few months. I have a feeling this will turn into the new flu shot.

I felt tired/achy after the second shot the next day, so did the wife. She felt fine after her booster the next day.

I hope your fatigue goes away. My younger brother got it right away and still has fatigue and achy joints over a year later.

Oh no. Not the whole debate again.:eek:

I hope not but it was as fun to read.:D

Thankfully the fatigue issue has seem to gotten much better. On the whole I was very thankful that even though I got it, I did not spread it to anyone. There was a small window where I saw my parents and a few close friends where I could've given it to them. Especially my parents because they are older. If this fatigue was the worst of it, well that's okay in my book. Everyone else in my life has remained healthy, that's all that matters to me. I've been able to take longer walks again. Did a couple of miles earlier today, and I felt okay. Little by little it'll get better, thank you for the kind words.

Glad to hear you and the wife, feel okay. Hope you have a wonderful Thanksgiving.

Not if I can help it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk