51–60 of 111 posts
It's amazing how the avalanche of knowledge offered by the internet does nothing to counter even the tiniest seed of doubt planted in these people's minds. Undoing the brainwashing is going to be one of the major challenges of our time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I am not defending the following claim, but among other claims is one that states a popularly cited measles outbreak occurred with 95% of the people catching having been immunized. The claim is that the immunizations are no longer effective One of the key aspects of science is presenting data and methodology to support a claim - this enables reproducibility. If we don't have these pieces of information, we're essen…
> One of the key aspects of science is presenting data and methodology to support a claim - this enables reproducibility. > If we don't have these pieces of information, we're essentially back in the realm of religion: believing statements without evidence. You have, for whatever reason, grabbed a single sentence and addressed it as if it has no relation to other paragraphs. Why?
I mean, I get the point that name-calling doesn't help, but we can't just accept statements that contradict established scientific opinion without any strong evidence, otherwise there is no means to progressing as a society.
Opinion: Forcing someone else to take a vaccine, if they don't want to, or forcing someone else NOT to take a vaccine, if they do -- is no different than forcing a woman to take an abortion if she doesn't want it, or forcing a woman NOT to take an abortion, if she does want it. It's no different than forcing a man to join the Military if he doesn't want to join, or forcing the man NOT to join the Military, if he does…
Most people are fascists at heart, more than willing to control your body over their own fears and stupidities. We each get to choose what to do with our bodies so long as we are not intentionally causing harm to others. Most people won't accept this, thus we shall both be downvoted to oblivion by the ignorant and oppressive.
Hence, it is reasonable to outlaw being unvaccinated and going out of the house.
Vaccines are an absolutely revolutionary technology. That said, mixing profit with essential medical technology is a recipe for failure. The first way to make something more profitable is to cut costs. What corners do these corps cut to up their margins? And how does that decrease health outcomes for some percent of the population? The bottom-line is that no for-profit corp can be trusted with your health. Vaccines m…
These are all essentials too, that are far less regulated than drug production, and with equal chance for harm or death.
And there are plenty of "farmer-bro" libertarians out there, including in your local organic farmers market, out there just to seek profit and ask you to get rid of the minimal regulations on them and to go back to a system of just trusting your farmer and the transaction (back in the 2000s Michael Pollan's book profiled one guy of that sort).
The people who are producing vaccines don't typically make tons of profit on them. Most are cheap, ubiquitous, except for some new ones that took a long time to develop. They are not huge money makers, and neither are organic beets, but they are business none the less so people make them.
> But people who trust for-profit corps with their health are stupid marks.
Are you a stupid mark for trusting Whole Foods. A huge for-profit company, for not making them sick?
Are you a stupid mark for trusting the regulatory system that ensures safety?
There's so much basic wrongness going on here that shows that you have just bought anti-vaxxer nonsense, hook like and sinker. How much good and how much harm has happened because you, as a "stupid mark," trusted for-profit healthcare companies with MMR? Why that one and not others? Too mcubprofit in other vaccines? Too much "risk"?
You say that you are not an anti-vaxxer yet you perpetuate exactly the same flawed lies that they tell themselves in order to justify endangering their own children and others' health. It's a weird contradiction.
(And for the record, I'm anti-libertarian, but I will still buy from the farmers market, not because I accept their ideology, or because I want to give them profits, but because I trust the rest of the system. I can transact with someone without adopting their ideology.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not about the vaccines. It's about control. If the ppl are vaccinated, those ppl should be safe, and in theory those unvaccinated masses dying off from X illness increases the overall fitness of the population. However, it's not at all about that. This is about forcing those who may not think or believe the same to not only acquiesce, but to actively proclaim they are science deniers and that another group is in…
It is not control, it is the anti-vaxxers freeloading on the herd immunity maintained by the smart people and deliberately endangering the people with genuine medical conditions that prevent vaccination & so literally depend on the herd immunity to live We are not on the Lewis & Clark expedition, we live in a highly complex society, which requires serious maintenance.
How safe do you find those opioids now? What were they saying in front of the congressional committee? What were their sales reps saying? What were their privately-funded goal-seeking researchers saying?
Medical science and profit should not be mixed. I mean, look at this mess here in America.
Vaccines are an absolutely revolutionary technology. That said, mixing profit with essential medical technology is a recipe for failure. The first way to make something more profitable is to cut costs. What corners do these corps cut to up their margins? And how does that decrease health outcomes for some percent of the population? The bottom-line is that no for-profit corp can be trusted with your health. Vaccines m…
Do you still buy food from for-profit farmers? Clothes? Housing? These are all essentials too, that are far less regulated than drug production, and with equal chance for harm or death. And there are plenty of "farmer-bro" libertarians out there, including in your local organic farmers market, out there just to seek profit and ask you to get rid of the minimal regulations on them and to go back to a system of just tr…
You have not done your research.
>> Are you a stupid mark for trusting the regulatory system that ensures safety?
Why do you assume I trust them? I damn sure didn't say it.
In theory gov't would regulate pharma corps. How's that working out for the opioids?
You should read Dunning & Kruger, you're not in the group you think you are, and I know which group you're in.
Then you should read my post again, this time for comprehension.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>A future Constitution will explicitly support the right to be medicated/vaccinated if one wishes to be, while conversely supporting the right NOT to be medicated/vaccinated, if one does not. No it won't because the Constitution is not, nor should it ever be, a suicide pact.
No piece of paper is, or ever should be used as a suicide pact, I agree. But please clearly explain to me why you think the Constitution is in your words, a "suicide pact".
That's not what I said, and clearly not a reasonable conclusion one could reach from having read my comment with an awareness of the context in which it occurred. Which is odd, because I literally quoted the necessary context from your comment to make the meaning obvious.
I was referring to your mention of "a future constitution explicitly support(ing) the right to be medicated/vaccinated if one wishes to be, while conversely supporting the right NOT to be medicated/vaccinated, if one does not."
That Constitution would be a suicide pact, because it would render the purpose of the entire science of epidemiology and any efforts to maintain herd immunity and control the spread of pandemics through mandatory vaccination moot. The Constitution we currently have is not a suicide pact, at least in that regard (I have my doubts about it in regards to the Second Amendment but that's a whole other conversation) because it does not contain such a clause.
I hope that I have explained my position sufficiently.
1) Establish a false dichotomy ("All vaccines are good, all vaccines are bad")
2) Come up with a pithy slur for the other side ("Antivaxx")
3) Emphasize the looniest people on the other side, ignore and hide the reasonable people on the other side.
4) Use this slur to browbeat moderates, the skeptical, the unsure and the open minded into silence.
It's very effective.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
every expert I've seen talking about it agrees that we need to first vaccinate at-risk populations because there will be a shortage of vaccines. I'm not sure what kind of viewpoint vaccine skeptics add to this debate. also, tangentially, I think that blanket distrust of authorities is just as irrational as blanket trust. it should really depend on the situation which is why it's by no means cognitive dissonance to tr…
Trusting authority in some cases and not others is not cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance comes from encountering something that goes against your confirmation bias, and runs the risk of knee jerk reactions. Example of knee jerk reaction: the GP's example of the article (and possibly you) conflating a doctor who says "maybe we should slow down" with anti-vaxxers.
It doesn't really change the fact that both have no real evidence to provide for their claims and are promoting practices that, if not well-supported, are clearly dangerous.
But more importantly, Bob Sears's opinion on e.g. measles doesn't even matter because we're talking about covid19 right now and there is no vaccine yet, so there is no way to "slow down". By contrast, what he does offer in the context of this new disease are recommendations such as "boosting your immune system" which are patently laughable, see: https://www.health.harvard.edu/healthy-eating/what-can-you-d...
edit: I'll have to correct myself, Bob Sears didn't say that (at least not in this context), his cohost did. I do assume we'd know if he disagreed though.
Vaccines are an absolutely revolutionary technology. That said, mixing profit with essential medical technology is a recipe for failure. The first way to make something more profitable is to cut costs. What corners do these corps cut to up their margins? And how does that decrease health outcomes for some percent of the population? The bottom-line is that no for-profit corp can be trusted with your health. Vaccines m…
> The bottom-line is that no for-profit corp can be trusted with your health. You've reached this so-called "bottom line" very quickly without providing actual evidence to support your statement.
Or, perhaps "cancer-causing agents in prescription drugs" (caused by not testing their processes for unwanted by-products making their way into the medicines).
Or, that airbag manufacturer or the car manufacturers who don't provide a safety feature because the bean counters declare that so long as there are less than ten successful lawsuits, the profit will be more if they leave it out, no matter how many people die in the process. Google "Goodyear RV tires".
Or the disaster in Bhopal India.
What about these piles of mercury-laden coal ash piled next to our river because of the coal-burning plant next to it?
And you think the pesticide producers are not cherry-picking their researchers to goal-seek?
Now, do your research.