NonSports Forum

Net54baseball.com
Welcome to Net54baseball.com. These forums are devoted to both Pre- and Post- war baseball cards and vintage memorabilia, as well as other sports. There is a separate section for Buying, Selling and Trading - the B/S/T area!! If you write anything concerning a person or company your full name needs to be in your post or obtainable from it. . Contact the moderator at leon@net54baseball.com should you have any questions or concerns. Enjoy!
Net54baseball.com
Net54baseball.com
T206s on Ebay
Pre-WWII Cards
Post WWII Cards
Vintage Memorabilia
Babe Ruth Cards
Ty Cobb Cards
Lou Gehrig Cards
Mickey Mantle Cards
Goudey Cards
Bowman Cards
T205s on Ebay
Tobacco "T" Cards
Caramel "E" Cards
Vintage Baseball Postcards
Football Cards on Ebay
Exhibit Cards
Strip Cards
Baking Cards
Sporting News
Playball Cards on Ebay

Go Back   Net54baseball.com Forums > Net54baseball Postwar Sportscard Forums > WaterCooler Talk- Off Topics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #601  
Old 06-06-2021, 06:24 AM
vintagetoppsguy's Avatar
vintagetoppsguy vintagetoppsguy is offline
D@v!d J@m3s
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 5,565
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by earlywynnfan View Post
Just to be clear, I say you APPEAR to say all medical journals are biased because...
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.
__________________
Bullionaire

Last edited by vintagetoppsguy; 06-06-2021 at 06:42 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #602  
Old 06-06-2021, 06:44 AM
vintagetoppsguy's Avatar
vintagetoppsguy vintagetoppsguy is offline
D@v!d J@m3s
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 5,565
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by irv View Post
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.
This
__________________
Bullionaire
Reply With Quote
  #603  
Old 06-06-2021, 06:56 AM
earlywynnfan's Avatar
earlywynnfan earlywynnfan is offline
Ke.n Su.lik
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,978
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by irv View Post
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.
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!"
Reply With Quote
  #604  
Old 06-06-2021, 06:59 AM
earlywynnfan's Avatar
earlywynnfan earlywynnfan is offline
Ke.n Su.lik
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,978
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy View Post
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.
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.
Reply With Quote
  #605  
Old 06-06-2021, 07:54 AM
irv's Avatar
irv irv is offline
D@le Irv*n
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Ontario, Canada.
Posts: 5,278
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by earlywynnfan View Post
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!"
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.
Reply With Quote
  #606  
Old 06-06-2021, 09:17 AM
Peter_Spaeth's Avatar
Peter_Spaeth Peter_Spaeth is offline
Peter Spaeth
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 21,874
Default

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.
__________________
My avatar is a sketch by my son who is an art school graduate. Some of his sketches and paintings are at
https://www.jamesspaethartwork.com/

He is available to do custom drawings in graphite, charcoal and other media. He also sells some of his works as note cards/greeting cards on Etsy under JamesSpaethArt.
Reply With Quote
  #607  
Old 06-06-2021, 02:54 PM
G1911 G1911 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 931
Default

Thank you, EarlyWynnFan. I very much miss the times when I could think my neighbor held some dumbass views, but they are still my friend and it's all love. I have generally disagreed with popular public narrative (right and left) my whole life, but it is only the last few years that the creeping politicization of everything seems to have made it difficult for people to brook dissent. I find this trend far more dangerous than any virus.


On the News issue, I do not mean in any way to speak for or answer for those in the thread I seem to generally agree with. The views I am arguing with are, I think, the public narrative, which I am not saying the posters in this thread that I disagree with subscribe too.


I don't think it the source so much as how one engages with it that matters. I've yet to see an unbiased source, I've yet to see one that even correctly separates actual, verifiable fact from narrative opinion. I don't watch the TV news anymore, no CNN, no MSNBC, no Fox. I do not read the newspapers. Though I am young, I do not have a Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat etc., more because of personal privacy concerns than to avoid propaganda (plus, I would get banned almost immediately anyways for wrong think). I am, of course, still heavily exposed to there narratives and content, in a country and society flush with propaganda, it is essentially impossible to avoid it on either end. I try to take a critical approach to the things I hear, I try not to believe or disbelieve a narrative unless 1) common sense tells me it is extremely unlikely right off the bat (think tabloid papers at the grocery store) or 2) I have an actual primary source to look into. I prefer to get my "news" from the source itself when this is practical; if I want to know about a bill, I read it (okay, skim read it, those things have so much crap). If I need to be aware of my states latest edict restricting constitutional liberties, I read it. Leaked documents, actual texts, statistics used properly (most, of course, are twisted by the presenter and do not actually mean what they claim), etc. This actually covers a majority of real events and things, most (not all) of the rest the news talks about is filler and spin; many many issues can simply be looked at in the source. Primary source + the application of some basic logic resolves a surprisingly high percentage of the "news".


News sources are generally pure narrative with little connection to reality, on both sides. As I've said before, I think broader narratives are by their very nature always untrue, the word simply does not organize itself around simple explanations of disparate events to be wrapped up with a pretty little ribbon and delivered for quick and easy consumption. My TV has told me to fear a great many things for my entire life, almost none of which represent any real risk statistically and are extremely unlikely happenings. This is not to say everything on them is untrue; because a side has an agenda and a bias does not mean what it says is false. I think this is key and something we struggle with as a society and people, the person and the idea are not the same. Disparaging the speaker does not disparage the idea. Sometimes it is actually true, the truth is not in the middle, one side is correct. They say it because it fits the agenda and narrative they have, but that doesn't change or alter what is and is not true.


I do not trust any appeal to authority, because it is not rational and is either emotional or is outsourcing thinking. I subscribe to the Aristotelian rather than the Platonic; emotions are not necessarily bad, but they should be recognized as seperate from the factual, and in the context of news should be avoided. Each has it's place, when seeking to know the truth about a public issue, that must be fact-based or I will not arrive at any truth; when the subject is a personal relationship, the emotional is a critical component. There is a place for each. Experts are frequently wrong about a great number of things, and often it is an issue where this can be shown. Just to use one example I personally know well, I have lost track of how many "experts" I have seen make absurdly false claims on the news about firearms (I do not mean laws, I mean the mechanical elements that can be sorted into proper true and false statements). This is so for almost everything under the sun. To attempt to document even a limited list of the number of times the government has completely lied would take thousands of pages. Any narrative that starts "Trust the...." I think is irrational. I want to see actual, primary evidence instead of some experts take. You can always find another expert to disagree with the expert being shown to you.


Another thing that I use to try and pull out what is and is not, or may be and may not be, true is to look at the order of events, and, if we must rely on experts, what was said by experts before it became a heavily politicized issue people lined up on. For example, in 2019 pretty much everyone agreed that surgical masks do not do much for flu-like diseases, Fauci, the CDC, numerous studies with controls, there was little debate here, they agreed. No new studies found the opposite, until after the public narrative flipped an immediate 180 in late March, 2020. There was no new discovery at this time, the government changed narratives and then studies were conducted (mostly without controls) that found the opposite of what they had before. New science to replace the old science happened after the narrative switch, not before.


I think people are generally very, very bad at being truthful. Which is not to say they are dishonest, many of us (I surely among them sometimes) genuinely believe what we are saying, even if what we are saying is false. People tend to either want to agree with the general opinion, or disagree, not on merits but because they tend to want to get along with the herd, or be a contrarian to it. This is why I don't see mass conspiracy on either end, simply people following their natural inclinations. People tend to find what they went out to find, you will almost always be able to twist enough evidence and leave out the rest to conclude what you sought to conclude. The detective who thinks he has his man will filter all evidence through this lens.


'Science' will find what it wants to find, just as people do. It has been put on a nearly religious pedestal now, a monolith (which it decidedly is not) to never be seriously questioned anymore (which ironically is the opposite of the scientific method). My generation is told to fear Global Warming, for my fathers it was an Ice Age that was going to soon come and end the world as we know it. The study of the history of science tells us it is often, even usually, wrong. But with every new discovery (hopefully, closer to truth than the last), it is said by many that this time it is entirely true, and that to question it this time is stupidity or conspiracy theorizing. I see no reasonable evidence to subscribe to this, and I think this heavily inaccurate popular view of science that is being heavily pushed by the media ("Trust the science" is a catchy slogan to consider dissent stupid, not a logical argument) is very detrimental to the advancement of science to a better understanding of issues (if we must believe the now is correct no matter what evidence there is that it is not, then it can not advance). This effect is magnified when money comes into the picture, people always find what is in the interest of those who paid for it and pay them. It doesn't take great corruption for this to happen, the simple natural bias we have to advance what we already thought and to do good for ourselves and those we identify with is entirely human and natural. This may or may not be the case for Covid specifically, but it is endemic in science and our institutions. The doctor who receives money from a drug manufacturer to speak about their products at events and is recruited by them for an FDA study on a new drug from that company, will 99 times out of 100 determine it is effective and safe. He does not have to be corrupt or sinister or in a conspiracy, he is simply human, interpreting evidence through his pre-existing ideas.


Finally, I think a key component of this 'if the public narrative is wrong, how do you know what you know?' is to apply what I consider common sense. As Voltaire wrote (I am paraphrasing off memory, I'm sure someone can correct me), "to know who rules over you, learn who you cannot criticize". Outlandish conspiracy theories are rarely censored in the west, do not need constant media campaigns against them. Whether it's the 90's theory that the Clintons were murdering missing children across Arkansas or the 00's theory that George Bush bombed the towers, these theories are occasionally mocked and generally ignored. I have never in my life seen such censorship as there is of anything even questioning the narrative of Covid. It is in many ways brilliantly done censorship, often outsourced by the state to the private realm. It is big tech removing posts and banning people, jobs firing people who do not go agree, neighbors shunning their neighbors and informing the state that they may be, god forbid, socializing with friends like its 2019. When a reasonable theory (is agreeing with controlled studies in 2019 really such an absurd proposition? Is using the CDC's own figures and math to calculate my risk really an insane theory?) is so heavily assaulted, by the state and the elements of the private realm profiting from the narrative, I find it hard to see it as a reason to dismiss these thoughts. Many of us are not even embracing any real full theory, I don't think the vaccine is a microchip trap, or even necessarily harmful. I am saying that I do not know if it is harmful or not because no long term studies have been done, its death toll is calculated in the complete opposite way that Covid's is making statistical comparison essentially impossible, and as a result I don't want to take it right now because I have almost 0 statistical risk from what it purports to protect against anyways. My position is essentially that of the moderate, "I do not know, the evidence is too fragmentary and incomplete", which is now apparently one heck of a hot take when everything is politicized and the narrative socially unquestionable.

I guess that's more than my 2 cents. Call it a nickel
Reply With Quote
  #608  
Old 06-06-2021, 04:11 PM
Peter_Spaeth's Avatar
Peter_Spaeth Peter_Spaeth is offline
Peter Spaeth
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 21,874
Default

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
__________________
My avatar is a sketch by my son who is an art school graduate. Some of his sketches and paintings are at
https://www.jamesspaethartwork.com/

He is available to do custom drawings in graphite, charcoal and other media. He also sells some of his works as note cards/greeting cards on Etsy under JamesSpaethArt.

Last edited by Peter_Spaeth; 06-06-2021 at 04:20 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #609  
Old 06-06-2021, 04:24 PM
Peter_Spaeth's Avatar
Peter_Spaeth Peter_Spaeth is offline
Peter Spaeth
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 21,874
Default

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/
__________________
My avatar is a sketch by my son who is an art school graduate. Some of his sketches and paintings are at
https://www.jamesspaethartwork.com/

He is available to do custom drawings in graphite, charcoal and other media. He also sells some of his works as note cards/greeting cards on Etsy under JamesSpaethArt.

Last edited by Peter_Spaeth; 06-06-2021 at 05:10 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #610  
Old 06-07-2021, 12:16 AM
G1911 G1911 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 931
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth View Post
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
Right up my alley here!
Reply With Quote
  #611  
Old 06-09-2021, 01:58 PM
steve B steve B is offline
Steve Birmingham
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: eastern Mass.
Posts: 6,772
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #612  
Old 06-09-2021, 02:09 PM
steve B steve B is offline
Steve Birmingham
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: eastern Mass.
Posts: 6,772
Default

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?

Last edited by steve B; 06-09-2021 at 02:09 PM. Reason: typo
Reply With Quote
  #613  
Old 06-09-2021, 04:16 PM
vintagetoppsguy's Avatar
vintagetoppsguy vintagetoppsguy is offline
D@v!d J@m3s
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 5,565
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by steve B View Post
Next you'll be on about how that...
No, next I'll tell you to go f*ck your fatass self.
__________________
Bullionaire
Reply With Quote
  #614  
Old 06-09-2021, 05:40 PM
Republicaninmass Republicaninmass is online now
T3d $h3rm@n
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 6,471
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by steve B View Post
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"
__________________
"Trolling Ebay right now" ©

NEED THE FOLLOWING 1952 topps

G TO VG-EX

(TONS TO TRADE, HIGHS LOWS, VARIATIONS, ERRORS)

317 gregg
322 jackson
328 borkowski
334 mizell
345 white
347 adcock
354 Hatfield
355 morgan
366 madison
375 merson
386 yuhas
399 frisley
403 miller
Reply With Quote
  #615  
Old 06-09-2021, 10:35 PM
Mark17's Avatar
Mark17 Mark17 is offline
M@rk S@tterstr0m
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 866
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by steve B View Post

Do you grade your own beef?
Of course not. It goes straight to PSA. I like to see if they notice it's been trimmed.
Reply With Quote
  #616  
Old 06-10-2021, 06:28 AM
irv's Avatar
irv irv is offline
D@le Irv*n
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Ontario, Canada.
Posts: 5,278
Default



https://youtu.be/l9EOc9SFCdg
Reply With Quote
  #617  
Old 06-10-2021, 07:37 AM
Leon's Avatar
Leon Leon is offline
Leon
peasant/forum owner
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: near Dallas
Posts: 30,215
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy View Post
No, next I'll tell you to go f*ck your fatass self.
Infraction given. Cut that kind of trash talk out. Not cool....thanks

.
__________________
Leon Luckey
Reply With Quote
  #618  
Old 06-10-2021, 07:38 AM
irv's Avatar
irv irv is offline
D@le Irv*n
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Ontario, Canada.
Posts: 5,278
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #619  
Old 06-10-2021, 08:14 AM
Peter_Spaeth's Avatar
Peter_Spaeth Peter_Spaeth is offline
Peter Spaeth
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 21,874
Default

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.
__________________
My avatar is a sketch by my son who is an art school graduate. Some of his sketches and paintings are at
https://www.jamesspaethartwork.com/

He is available to do custom drawings in graphite, charcoal and other media. He also sells some of his works as note cards/greeting cards on Etsy under JamesSpaethArt.

Last edited by Peter_Spaeth; 06-10-2021 at 08:29 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #620  
Old 06-10-2021, 08:25 AM
vintagetoppsguy's Avatar
vintagetoppsguy vintagetoppsguy is offline
D@v!d J@m3s
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 5,565
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leon View Post
Infraction given. Cut that kind of trash talk out. Not cool....thanks

.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by steve B View Post
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.
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.
__________________
Bullionaire
Reply With Quote
  #621  
Old 06-10-2021, 09:45 AM
irv's Avatar
irv irv is offline
D@le Irv*n
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Ontario, Canada.
Posts: 5,278
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth View Post
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.
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.

"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/
Reply With Quote
  #622  
Old 06-10-2021, 09:46 AM
Leon's Avatar
Leon Leon is offline
Leon
peasant/forum owner
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: near Dallas
Posts: 30,215
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy View Post
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.
If I catch wind of that, and it's unprovoked from here on out, you will be suspended or banned. Just let it go.

.
__________________
Leon Luckey
Reply With Quote
  #623  
Old 06-10-2021, 10:00 AM
Peter_Spaeth's Avatar
Peter_Spaeth Peter_Spaeth is offline
Peter Spaeth
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 21,874
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by irv View Post
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.

"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/
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.
__________________
My avatar is a sketch by my son who is an art school graduate. Some of his sketches and paintings are at
https://www.jamesspaethartwork.com/

He is available to do custom drawings in graphite, charcoal and other media. He also sells some of his works as note cards/greeting cards on Etsy under JamesSpaethArt.

Last edited by Peter_Spaeth; 06-10-2021 at 10:11 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #624  
Old 06-10-2021, 10:15 AM
vintagetoppsguy's Avatar
vintagetoppsguy vintagetoppsguy is offline
D@v!d J@m3s
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 5,565
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leon View Post
If I catch wind of that, and it's unprovoked from here on out, you will be suspended or banned. Just let it go.

.
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?
__________________
Bullionaire
Reply With Quote
  #625  
Old 06-10-2021, 03:50 PM
AustinMike's Avatar
AustinMike AustinMike is offline
Michael
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 479
Default

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by G1911 View Post
Another thing that I use to try and pull out what is and is not, or may be and may not be, true is to look at the order of events, and, if we must rely on experts, what was said by experts before it became a heavily politicized issue people lined up on. For example, in 2019 pretty much everyone agreed that surgical masks do not do much for flu-like diseases, Fauci, the CDC, numerous studies with controls, there was little debate here, they agreed. No new studies found the opposite, until after the public narrative flipped an immediate 180 in late March, 2020. There was no new discovery at this time, the government changed narratives and then studies were conducted (mostly without controls) that found the opposite of what they had before. New science to replace the old science happened after the narrative switch, not before.
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.”

Quote:
Originally Posted by G1911 View Post
My generation is told to fear Global Warming, for my fathers it was an Ice Age that was going to soon come and end the world as we know it.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by G1911 View Post
I have never in my life seen such censorship as there is of anything even questioning the narrative of Covid. It is in many ways brilliantly done censorship, often outsourced by the state to the private realm. It is big tech removing posts and banning people, jobs firing people who do not go agree, neighbors shunning their neighbors and informing the state that they may be, god forbid, socializing with friends like its 2019. When a reasonable theory (is agreeing with controlled studies in 2019 really such an absurd proposition? Is using the CDC's own figures and math to calculate my risk really an insane theory?) is so heavily assaulted, by the state and the elements of the private realm profiting from the narrative, I find it hard to see it as a reason to dismiss these thoughts.
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by G1911 View Post
I am saying that I do not know if it is harmful or not because no long term studies have been done, its death toll is calculated in the complete opposite way that Covid's is making statistical comparison essentially impossible, and as a result I don't want to take it right now because I have almost 0 statistical risk from what it purports to protect against anyways. My position is essentially that of the moderate, "I do not know, the evidence is too fragmentary and incomplete", which is now apparently one heck of a hot take when everything is politicized and the narrative socially unquestionable.
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.
__________________
M.!.c.h.@.3.L. . H.v.n.T
_____________________________
Don't believe everything you think
Reply With Quote
  #626  
Old 06-10-2021, 04:13 PM
Peter_Spaeth's Avatar
Peter_Spaeth Peter_Spaeth is offline
Peter Spaeth
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 21,874
Default

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.
__________________
My avatar is a sketch by my son who is an art school graduate. Some of his sketches and paintings are at
https://www.jamesspaethartwork.com/

He is available to do custom drawings in graphite, charcoal and other media. He also sells some of his works as note cards/greeting cards on Etsy under JamesSpaethArt.

Last edited by Peter_Spaeth; 06-10-2021 at 04:14 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #627  
Old 06-10-2021, 04:57 PM
irv's Avatar
irv irv is offline
D@le Irv*n
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Ontario, Canada.
Posts: 5,278
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth View Post
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.
You're right, Pete. I did exactly that. I was in a hurry/busy today and clearly should have first before posting.
Reply With Quote
  #628  
Old 06-10-2021, 05:03 PM
Peter_Spaeth's Avatar
Peter_Spaeth Peter_Spaeth is offline
Peter Spaeth
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 21,874
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by irv View Post
You're right, Pete. I did exactly that. I was in a hurry/busy today and clearly should have first before posting.
You should read that site more often my friend, it will set you straight on science!!
__________________
My avatar is a sketch by my son who is an art school graduate. Some of his sketches and paintings are at
https://www.jamesspaethartwork.com/

He is available to do custom drawings in graphite, charcoal and other media. He also sells some of his works as note cards/greeting cards on Etsy under JamesSpaethArt.
Reply With Quote
  #629  
Old 06-10-2021, 05:22 PM
AustinMike's Avatar
AustinMike AustinMike is offline
Michael
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 479
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth View Post
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.
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?
__________________
M.!.c.h.@.3.L. . H.v.n.T
_____________________________
Don't believe everything you think
Reply With Quote
  #630  
Old 06-10-2021, 05:27 PM
Republicaninmass Republicaninmass is online now
T3d $h3rm@n
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 6,471
Default

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
__________________
"Trolling Ebay right now" ©

NEED THE FOLLOWING 1952 topps

G TO VG-EX

(TONS TO TRADE, HIGHS LOWS, VARIATIONS, ERRORS)

317 gregg
322 jackson
328 borkowski
334 mizell
345 white
347 adcock
354 Hatfield
355 morgan
366 madison
375 merson
386 yuhas
399 frisley
403 miller
Reply With Quote
  #631  
Old 06-10-2021, 08:50 PM
G1911 G1911 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 931
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinMike View Post
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.

1 - I will just accept your version as if it is undoubtedly true. Still, what risk is there to vaccinated people? Everyone who wants a vaccine and has embraced the fear narrative, has one in the United States. The small chance their vaccine doesn't work (unless you believe it's a big chance, in which case it's a pretty pointless vaccine) x the small chance I am infected and contagious x the small chance that someone will suffer severe consequences = a real and present danger to you? Once again, recurring theme here, people are worrying about statistical possibilities that are absolutely tiny. How do you live life taking action against any risk of this tiny, tiny, tiny odds? There's limited value in repeating these circles, many 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), I and others are not. You may do as you see fit, I get to do as I see fit. Ain't freedom beautiful?


2- I'll again just assume you are 100% unconditionally correct, I don't feel like digging through the scholarship to find counter examples. Unless you are alleging that scientific consensus has never been wrong (a difficult position to take as it is constantly shifting), it makes absolutely no difference to what I am saying, it just removes the symmetry of a rhetorical example used.


3 - I don't 'consider' that censorship. It's not an opinion. The state telling a person or group what they cannot say, or that they cannot say it in certain settings is, definitionally, censorship. You seem to think censorship is a good thing. That's fine. I do not. I am against the censorship of speech. No if's, no and's, no but's. I don't support free speech only when I agree with the speaker. People say things that are factually incorrect or I think are stupid and even dangerous all the time. I do not think I, you, or the state should be able to remove the ability of others to agree or disagree, no matter what.

I hate smoking. I think it's stupid. I think people who make their living selling cancer sticks to addicts (who are in the end 100% responsible for their addiction and actions) are scum. I watched my grandfather die slowly of smoking-induced lung cancer. I have never touched a cigarette in my life. I do collect T cards. But my thoughts are merely my thoughts, and I am not so vain or self-important as to think that my thoughts should be the only thoughts allowed in the public sphere. My natural-born right to speech is the same natural-born right to speech that an executive for a cigarette company has.

One example for you is the censorship and banning by big tech of anyone who endorsed the theory that the virus escaped from a Chinese lab. Censorship that was ended within a day of Fauci changing his mind and saying it is quite possible, as the government now seems to be shifting to support of this theory the last couple weeks. Yesterdays dangerous misinformation, so dangerous it must be censored from the public sphere, is today's plausible and state-allowed, possibly endorsed, theory.

If you want the state and big corporations to censor whatever they consider misinformation, that view is your right. I think it is a terrible idea, a threat to freedom and the foundational values of the Republic, but I believe in free speech, no matter how much I disagree. The natural born right to say what you think protects even those who are against free speech itself. I'm sure that censorship of opposing ideas will only be used justly by the state and big tech, being the shining beacons of morality, fairness, and factual accuracy that they are.

4 - No. I will not wear a virtue signal because I am declining to be a test subject for an experimental vaccine. I do not have a duty to ignore my own thoughts and to replace them with yours. I do not have a duty to muzzle myself because you are scared of a statistically minuscule risk. I am not going to stay 6 feet away from my friends, wear a face shield or mask, or change my life in any way whatsoever over a tiny, tiny, tiny risk no greater than numerous risks all of us have ignored in our lives until now. This conversation was already had a couple weeks ago, and actually led to a pretty good open debate. My views are unchanged since then, I see limited possible value in doing it again with the exact same talking points on each side.
Reply With Quote
  #632  
Old 06-11-2021, 04:31 PM
AustinMike's Avatar
AustinMike AustinMike is offline
Michael
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 479
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by G1911 View Post
1 - I will just accept your version as if it is undoubtedly true. Still, what risk is there to vaccinated people? Everyone who wants a vaccine and has embraced the fear narrative, has one in the United States. The small chance their vaccine doesn't work (unless you believe it's a big chance, in which case it's a pretty pointless vaccine) x the small chance I am infected and contagious x the small chance that someone will suffer severe consequences = a real and present danger to you? Once again, recurring theme here, people are worrying about statistical possibilities that are absolutely tiny. How do you live life taking action against any risk of this tiny, tiny, tiny odds? There's limited value in repeating these circles, many 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), I and others are not. You may do as you see fit, I get to do as I see fit. Ain't freedom beautiful?
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by G1911 View Post
2- I'll again just assume you are 100% unconditionally correct, I don't feel like digging through the scholarship to find counter examples. Unless you are alleging that scientific consensus has never been wrong (a difficult position to take as it is constantly shifting), it makes absolutely no difference to what I am saying, it just removes the symmetry of a rhetorical example used.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by G1911 View Post
3 - I don't 'consider' that censorship. It's not an opinion. The state telling a person or group what they cannot say, or that they cannot say it in certain settings is, definitionally, censorship. You seem to think censorship is a good thing. That's fine. I do not. I am against the censorship of speech. No if's, no and's, no but's. I don't support free speech only when I agree with the speaker. People say things that are factually incorrect or I think are stupid and even dangerous all the time. I do not think I, you, or the state should be able to remove the ability of others to agree or disagree, no matter what.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by G1911 View Post
I hate smoking. I think it's stupid. I think people who make their living selling cancer sticks to addicts (who are in the end 100% responsible for their addiction and actions) are scum. I watched my grandfather die slowly of smoking-induced lung cancer. I have never touched a cigarette in my life. I do collect T cards. But my thoughts are merely my thoughts, and I am not so vain or self-important as to think that my thoughts should be the only thoughts allowed in the public sphere. My natural-born right to speech is the same natural-born right to speech that an executive for a cigarette company has.
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.”

Quote:
Originally Posted by G1911 View Post
One example for you is the censorship and banning by big tech of anyone who endorsed the theory that the virus escaped from a Chinese lab. Censorship that was ended within a day of Fauci changing his mind and saying it is quite possible, as the government now seems to be shifting to support of this theory the last couple weeks. Yesterdays dangerous misinformation, so dangerous it must be censored from the public sphere, is today's plausible and state-allowed, possibly endorsed, theory.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by G1911 View Post
If you want the state and big corporations to censor whatever they consider misinformation, that view is your right. I think it is a terrible idea, a threat to freedom and the foundational values of the Republic, but I believe in free speech, no matter how much I disagree. The natural born right to say what you think protects even those who are against free speech itself. I'm sure that censorship of opposing ideas will only be used justly by the state and big tech, being the shining beacons of morality, fairness, and factual accuracy that they are.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by G1911 View Post
4 - No. I will not wear a virtue signal because I am declining to be a test subject for an experimental vaccine. I do not have a duty to ignore my own thoughts and to replace them with yours. I do not have a duty to muzzle myself because you are scared of a statistically minuscule risk. I am not going to stay 6 feet away from my friends, wear a face shield or mask, or change my life in any way whatsoever over a tiny, tiny, tiny risk no greater than numerous risks all of us have ignored in our lives until now. This conversation was already had a couple weeks ago, and actually led to a pretty good open debate. My views are unchanged since then, I see limited possible value in doing it again with the exact same talking points on each side.
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.
__________________
M.!.c.h.@.3.L. . H.v.n.T
_____________________________
Don't believe everything you think
Reply With Quote
  #633  
Old 06-11-2021, 11:46 PM
G1911 G1911 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 931
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinMike View Post
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.
1 - People can get the vaccine without fear. I do not see, however, how one can get upset and demand others get it if they are not fearful. If there is nothing to fear, there is no reason to care what I or anyone else does.

I am able to conclude the fear has little critical analysis, because it completely ignores the incredibly long odds of the thesis. Here is what I actually said, which you completely ignored to accuse me of deflection: “The small chance their vaccine doesn't work (unless you believe it's a big chance, in which case it's a pretty pointless vaccine) x the small chance I am infected and contagious x the small chance that someone will suffer severe consequences = a real and present danger to you? Once again, recurring theme here, people are worrying about statistical possibilities that are absolutely tiny. How do you live life taking action against any risk of this tiny, tiny, tiny odds?” The narrative is built on exaggerating the threat that is absolutely tiny. I would love if anyone can show me reasonable evidence that 1) I am at any real risk for Covid (by the narrative, I have probably already had it without even noticing since it is extremely infectious and I have completely ignored the disease and continued to live my life for many months), or 2) that me not wearing a mask around vaxxers poses a real, viable danger to them. This is always where the direction is changed, because there is none to be found.


2 - You can “allow me to deflect” and thus “discuss why you got the vaccine”, but I didn’t ask and, not in a negative way, I just don’t care. I must have said a dozen times by now in this thread that I do not think it is any of my business what healthcare choices anyone else makes. I do not think other people should let me do the thinking for them. They should make their choice for themselves. If you are happy with yours, then good for you. But it’s none of my concern. I have 0 desire to force or pressure other people into making the choice I make. I only ask the same privilege, being able to make my own choice. Apparently “freedom for you, freedom for me” is a spicy take these days.


3 - As to the issue of scientific consensus, it’s because the thesis of the paragraph you were replying to is that today’s scientific consensus is yesterday’s outdated and wrong theory. I made no argument for or against the accuracy of today’s climate change theory whatsoever. You don’t seem to have read much, if anything, of what I have actually said.


4 - I’m glad we agree on fear narratives. I used climate change as an example of a narrative shift, though frankly I don’t know who precisely was pushing the narrative in the 70’s for the ice age, I have just encountered numerous mainstream press items on it from the period, it was the view being pushed in the public sphere. Perhaps it was a media narrative co-opting science. It’s mostly irrelevant to the rhetorical point; that science is often wrong and this new narrative of “trust the science” is absurd, and completely unscientific.

I’m not sure I see the point of your 3 follow-up hot political takes, but I do not hold the political viewpoints you seem to assume that I must because I disagree with your thoughts on freedom of speech and this panic. I’ll take the bait anyways. I have never feared a “invading migrant horde attacking us from the south”. As I live in a gun-banning state passing ever more restrictive laws outlawing large classes of firearms every few years, your second point is simply factually wrong where I am. Between banning the majority of handgun models on the market, huge chunks of available civilian shotguns, and semi-auto rifles with cosmetic features that look scary (the vast majority of all semi-auto rifle designs), elected officials have spent the last 20 years in California banning guns. Whether one agrees with this or not, the “buy them before they are banned” seems obviously supported by the facts in this jurisdiction, if one wants to own a specific type of firearm. I have never considered voting for “X” by which I assume you mean to say “Democrats” or a division of that party, to be “voting for socialism”. So I agree with you on 2 of these, and 3rd I must disagree on factual grounds, not on opinion of what should be or should not be done.


5 - I 100% stand by claim that “I have never in my life seen such censorship as there is of anything even questioning the narrative of Covid.” I don’t see how the censorship of cigarette commercials compares to the censorship of anyone who even has doubts about having this experimental vaccine injected into them. I am against censorship in all of its flavors. I do not think all are equal, or as widespread, or as intense as every other example. Certainly, I have not had persons so enraged by my views that people should be allowed to speak favorably of smoking (a practice I abhor) as I have my choice to not get this test vaccine at present and not participate in the public panic.


6 - Yes, the view that only one’s own views, or views they find to differ within the arbitrary range of allowability that they set, should be allowed in the public sphere is a view rooted in self-importance. It takes one heck of an ego to think that one is so fundamentally and absolutely correct that opposing ideas should not be allowed to be spoken and/or heard.


7 - If you don’t want big corporations or the state doing the censoring you have endorsed in the last two posts, then who do you think should be doing the censoring? Who will be enforcing it if not the platform owners or the state? The answer is obvious. Talk about strawmen…


8- I agree that taking pride in attacking strawmen is not beneficial to anyone.


9 - Yes, I do not believe it is just to censor speech, even speech I vehemently disagree with. I think the right to speech either is or is not, the presence of censorship means speech is no longer free. Yes, I see the first amendment as critical to the health and values of the Republic. Yes, I think that a people who lose the right to say what they think are no longer a free people, and it is incompatible with a republic.

But many will disagree with me. And that’s fine, I think it’s actually good. Never let another man do your thinking for you. If encountering someone who does not believe in censorship of anyone, including cigarette companies and their advertisements that could be viewed by children, makes you choose to smash your face through your keyboard, that is your right.

Last edited by G1911; 06-12-2021 at 12:34 AM.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
At least 14 Florida Marlins test + covid Snapolit1 Watercooler Talk- ALL sports talk 152 08-26-2020 01:23 AM
OK, today this COVID crap finally bummed me out some Exhibitman WaterCooler Talk- Off Topics 9 07-27-2020 09:12 AM
COVID-19 Sales Slowing Down? samosa4u Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions 26 06-29-2020 02:41 AM
Autographs and Covid theshleps Autograph Forum- Primarily Sports 3 04-11-2020 12:33 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:00 PM.


ebay GSB