Of Freedom, Country and Vaccination

[dirkfansince1998]

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

I guess the friendly discussion is coming to an end.
Not sure what I did. Just pointed out that a different believe system leads to different opinons.. For some reason you are quick to dismiss available data and studies. Prefer to focus on anecdotes. Fine with me. To each their own.
What I don´t buy is the fake neutrality. You have argued from a completly one sided position. I already voiced my concerns about that in an earlier post. There is nothing balanced about your posts.

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? 

Where did I say that. I did say that I cannot take you seriously because of the names you linked (I think it was vaccine.daystar). You are the one that is complaining about political agendas. I agree they are a problem. You aren´t trusting the pharma industry or the government. I can understand why. So political bias is a problem for you.
Well sorry that I cannot take the claim serious when you go one to list the who is who of right wing doctors and media stars. Don´t they have an agenda as well. I think the attack on the capitol was a pretty big thing. Should we at least question the motives of doctors that participated?
Should we question the motives of physicians that are running online shops for these so called wonder drugs?

I'm not going to start listing them all because I'm really not anti-vaccination here.  I don't doubt the vaccination is 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. 

This final data you are waiting for is never going to come. There will always be new research. Potentially new discoveries. The relevant data is in but for some reason you are covering your eyes.

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?   

What. That´s exactly the point I just made. You are the one that is talking about suppression and under reporting. Even mentioning manipulated research. Point is that this take is your opinion. Nothing else. I just made the point that another person with a different focus could come to a different conclusion.
Not sure how the mentioned (I love the phrase "top". Wonder who came up with that) doctors matter in this case. What if I put them next to 10000s of doctors with a different opinion. What if media outlet x/y/z chooses to give the 160 doctors 80% of coverage and only 20% to the 100000. Next one is doing the opposite. 1% for the 160 / 99% for the 10000.
That´s why I don´t get the whole suppression talk. CNN will have a different focus than FOX. Are pro vaccine scientists suppressed because OAN isn´t inviting them? We have a divided media landsacpe. But that´s not suppression.

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. 

Not sure where that is coming from. I guess it goes along with your complaints about suppression.

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? 

Absolutely not. But once again. Complaining about political agendas. No problem when a president promotes unproven medical treatments. Something isn´t adding up. We could try to move on but that´s not possible because the topic is about politics. By now we have pretty strong evidence that HCQ offers no benefits for COVID treatment. Doesn´t stop people from using it. Doesn´t stop people from promoting it. Please explain why.
I have a big problem with promotion for treatments that aren´t helping people.
And in this case I have problems with the conclusion you are trying to make. You are acting like the research hasn´t been done. In case of HCQ we are past anecdotes. We have enough data to make the call. So we can put the anecdote where it belongs. She recovered. That´s great. It is very unlikely that HCQ played any role in her recovery.
No further need to promote it. That obviously won´t stop your favorit doctors from doing it anyway as long as there is money to be made. Maybe share some anecdotes about people that were scammed by organizations like the AFLD or FLCCC.

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 

Sorry to tell you that I have a different interpretation of this. But it is nice to see that they agree with me. Some FACTS are established. As mentioned. The research doesn´t stop. We will continue to make new discoveries. Sometimes get contradicting results. Not to mention that the virus mutates. The Delta variant did not exist when Pfizer and Moderna developed the first vaccines.
Good thing about the mentioned example. We can track cases. Especially clinical breakthrough cases. And we can compare them to the amount of unvaccinated cases. That´s what the CDC did in the last couple of month to get a better picture. Data was published a few days ago. I posted the link a few days ago. I just realized that the article is nearly two month old. Meaning that the scientific approach once again did what it is supposed to do.
Two month ago we had questions and contradicting information on breakthrough cases. Now we are getting more and more results and information. More clarity when it comes to the amount and severity of breakthrough cases.

I never claimed that anecdotes have no value. Without them scientists wouldn´t even know what to look for. But once we have established facts or at least strong evidence we don´t need to rely on them any longer (see HCQ). That seems to be the point where we disagree. I already mentioned this in one of my first posts in this thread. If we cannot accept certain things as facts. Everything is just an opinion. The sky is yellow. The earth is flat.

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? 

Not really sure how this is connected to peer reviews. Most studies we are seeing right now are early prints. I guess you are talking about the scientific discourse. First of all. You are absolutely right. It isn´t without fault. Mistakes are made. Even fraud.
But it is still a great system to remove bias. We aren´t listening to one interest group. We are listening to people from different countries, cultures, political systems, rich/poor.
Once again. This is coming down to the does a scientific consensus exist...Do facts exist debate. You will always find people that disagree. Be it the shape of the earth, climate change or COVID. And they are free to make their case. But they actually have to make a case. More than just claims. In case of our recent example it means that Dr. Cole needs to publish his cancer data. Show us evidence. As long as he isn´t doing that he cannot even be considered a part of the scientific process.

the governments own Vaccinations Adverse Event Reporting site? 

And that´s what I don´t get. No one is ignoring reports of adverse effects. I was the first one that mentioned the myocarditis/pericarditis example. The system worked. Anecdotes turned into VAERS (or similar systems from other countries) events and researchers connected the anecdotes. That´s why systems like VAERS exist. They are meant to overreport (sometimes they don´t do because the data isn´t inserted). The majority of events that are listed aren´t related to the vaccine but they are reported anyway.

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 the fact checkers.  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.

Of course not. As mentioned. No system is perfect. But...and we really are back to the begnning of the entire thread...
No one is preventing the mentioned scientists from participating in the discourse. And we are hearing both sides. Some of the physicians you mentioned made their case in front of the authorities. They had the opportunity. They could also use the waste income of their organizations to found research. Again. No one is preventing them from doing that.

To repeat myself. Where do you draw the line? Hate speech, potentially harmful information, criminal acts (in this case scam)?
Can we accept the fact that people shouldn´t inject bleach? Can we do something about it when social media content is promoting it?
What about HCQ? How many additional high quality studies do we need or can we finally put the topic to rest.
Or to come back to the cancer/immune diseases claim. Is it okay to highlight the take as long as no one is providing prove or publishing anything.