Of Freedom, Country and Vaccination

[Dahlsim]

That´s telling me more about your believe system than anything COVID related

You're going right back to directing your attacks at people instead of staying focused on the issue.  

Ad hominem
a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

Now its time to take swipes at me and my belief system?  You can't take me seriously because you think you know what my belief system is?  Seriously?    Can we avoid making this about me, or about some politician etc.   I really haven't made about you have I @"dirkfansince1998" or whatever your belief system or motives are, have I? 

Notice that by going Ad hominem in your reply you didn't really have anything to say about the woman's life being saved?  State Rep. Karen Whitsett is a Democrat by the way, not a Trump supporter if that matters to you for some reason.   My point is was not politically driven which I guess you implied. 

I didn't see a comment really about the loss of a great American leader in Colin Powell, the possibility of any link to cancer which was the point under discussion.   No thoughts one way or the other I guess.  
I could have listed a lot more anecdotes long ago, I haven't up until this point but really there are lots of stories right in front of this and many of them have been vaccinated famous people, sports, politicians, entertainment.   

I'm not going to start listing them all because I'm really not anti-vaccination here.  I don't doubt the vaccinations are saving many lives from more severe COVID effects which is great, but let's not cover our eyes or force a vaccination on people where all the data is not yet in.  

The point is until the data is all in on how effective is, the anecdotes are part of what we have and we can all see.  They may not mean what we think, but they also start adding up and may well mean something.   
 
Are you seeing red because a certain politicians name was referenced?   The only reason Trump's name is mentioned for example is because the woman who feels that the HCQ saved her life mentioned him.   Do you have a problem with her saying the drug saved her life?  Do you have a problem with her mentioning Trump or do you just have a problem with me even sharing the story? 

Should we now pretend as though her story never happened or is it somehow harmful in your mind to even mention or reference it?   Sigh.   

We are seeing an overreporting of COVID vaccine criticism.

If the market for expression is truly free then the public on the whole, professional and civilian determine what reporting is done.  So who is to say what is overreporting unless there is some sort of centralized control of what is spread and shared across the society.   

How is it overreporting if 57 top doctors put out public statement of concern over adverse effects as I referenced earlier and they sign their names to it? 
 
How is it overreporting if a highly experienced scientist with years of experience at a major vaccination manufacturer like Pfizer forms an association with over 160 other doctors, scientists and researchers from around the world to voice their concerns over something like forced vaccinations, safety and efficacy?   
https://doctors4covidethics.org   

Is centralized control of expression from some designated smartest people really what you want, because its sits directly in opposition to the entire free press principal and much more in line with various oppressive forms of government over the course of history. 

And I disagree with this approach. Free discussion can be used as an excuse to make all kind of claims. Spread outright lies and misinformation. The example is terrible. Admitting that it has no scientific value or any form of evidence to back it up doesn´t change that.

I think you completely missed the wisdom and understanding of an earlier statement I referenced. 
Pay attention to what is said here regarding peer-review and tell me if it makes any sense to you. 
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/the-vaccinated-are-worried-and-scientists-don-t-have-answers/ar-AANzgN7 

Anecdotes tell us what the data can’t: Vaccinated people appear to be getting the coronavirus at a surprisingly high rate. But exactly how often isn’t clear, nor is it certain how likely they are to spread the virus to others. 

Though it is evident vaccination still provides powerful protection against the virus, there’s growing concern that vaccinated people may be more vulnerable to serious illness than previously thought.

Get it?  People's real stories are not valueless.  As the piece above says, Anecdotes sometimes tell us what the data can't.  Sometimes the data is not all there yet, or worst yet the data is being manipulated.  

Yes placing the stories under scientific testing as soon as possible and as completely possible is definitely desirable, but when people report they are sick after taking something it is not without value.  When they report that they took something and immediately got better that is also not without value until all the studies and peer review come in.   It means something.  

Ignoring every report of an adverse effect or possible adverse effect until the smart people tell you what it means is an overreliance on systems like peer review which are great systems but have their own vulnerabilities.  At the end of the day, its still people were are listening to and people's data and interpretations of the data we trusting. 

You realize at that if you reject certain data without your own careful consideration, because of who it came from for example, at that point you are running the risk of relying more on faith in who you choose to listen to and just calling it science.  
You yourself cannot vet the vetter, fact check the fact checker or verify that all the input data going into the statistics you regurgitate are complete or accurate.   Do you even think about that? 

I am sorry that I cannot take you serious when you refer to the mentioned names as well credentialed doctors. You found reasons to question other scientists because of a poitical driven agenda.

What mentioned names?  

• The 57 top doctors referenced?  
  
• The 160 + doctors, scientists and researchers referenced?  
  
• Dr. Michael Yeadon, former VP and chief scientist of Pfizer?  
  

Are you talking about one of the many doctors and scientists or affected citizens appearing on vaccinations.daystar.com or my references to https://vaers.hhs.gov the governments own Vaccinations Adverse Event Reporting site? 

What exactly and who exactly are you talking about with this political driven agenda or questionable credentials?  All of them?    

Free discussion can be used as an excuse to make all kind of claims. Spread outright lies and misinformation.

This is true, no denying that.  Are we saying though that there is some centralized authority we can rely on now that is free of outright lies and misinformation?   Like who?  The government perhaps with its perfect record of pure integrity and honesty? 

How about letting other medical professionals, scientists, doctors and researchers speak and publish freely so they can fact check the fact checkers who in turn fact check them.  They are in the field.  Let's hear both sides.  That's the beauty of real free speech, freedom of the press and free expression in a society, it fact checks itself if not suppressed by political power and financial influences.