Will you get vaccinated against COVID once it's available?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

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?

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

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

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.

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?

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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?

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

[vintagetoppsguy]

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 knowingly injected unsuspecting citizens with Syphilis is a fucking moron.

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

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 knowingly injected unsuspecting citizens with Syphilis is a fucking moron.

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."

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by AustinMike

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."

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.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by AustinMike

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."

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.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

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 knowingly injected unsuspecting citizens with Syphilis is a fucking moron.

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.

[steve B]

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?

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by steve B

Next you'll be on about how that...

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

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by steve B

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

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"

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

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

I've never thought that about you.

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?

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

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.

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.