Of Freedom, Country and Vaccination

[dirkfansince1998]

@dirkfansince1998 do you even realize when you are descending and resorting to Ad Hominem?  I defined it earlier so I assume you understand the point.  Is it your desire to be rude or condescending, I'm curious.  

I don't think I've ever called you a hypocrite for example.  The problem with such debate tactics is that even if you are a hypocrite, that wouldn't necessarily invalidate every or any point that you make.  Get it?  
How for example do you possess the ability to read my intentions and motivations so well that you can confidently say I have no real interest in acquiring knowledge?  

I'm really just trying to get you to look in the mirror a bit my friend.  

I read and listened to all the stuff that you claim not to know about even though you posted it. That´s why I am questioning your intentions. If this was all about knowledge you should have done that yourself. And I absolutely changed my tone because I am angry. Not to mention that it takes two to get to the point where we are right now.  I don´t think you are trying to argue in good faith. You are cherry picking whatever you want.

I noticed a direct tonal nastiness came into your diatribes after I cited the Democratic state representative several pages back that stated in own words that her life was saved by HCQ.  She credited Trump for at least bringing it up but you're showing signs of being one of those people that turn completely   at the mention of Trumps name.   You completely ignore the fact that I didn't make the reference to promote Trump or Republicans or any such political point.  My point was that the woman felt her life was saved whether the studies have proven that to be impossible in your eyes or not.  For her, it was anecdotal and it was life saving.  That stands as a statement of fact, even if she was given a placebo, perhaps her faith in it cured her    but the fact that it happened stands without need for further interpretation.  
Seriously, this issue has been tied to politics so its impossible to completely ignore it but I try to stick to the point I'm making. 
You seriously seem to struggle with concept or you have no desire to tamp the politics down, which is it? 

For all I care we could call it the "Trump is great vaccine". I am not happy about the exact same thing you are posting in this thread. Claims that have been debunked. Don´t care about the source. Promoting unproven treatments or in this case treatments that aren´t working is dangerous. And it gets more dangerous if the one that is doing has a large social platform to do it. In this case we are talking about the largest possible stage. Misinformation from the president himself. Cannot get much worse. How many people demanded HCQ because of his words? Or refused other treatments? How many of them died? That´s my problem with Trump´s comments on HCQ.

If you think that her believing in it makes it a fact I really don´t know what to tell you. I guess we just hand out random drugs and if the person recovers they get approved. Who cares if they actually work.
For all we know she would have recovered without any treatment. She described a mild case.

I wasn´t the one that made this about politics. The whole point is that your entire argument is based on politics. Outside of the larger than life story about bias, suppression and government influence there really isn´t anything that supports whatever case you are trying to make. Tell me who do you mean when you talk about the mentioned points. Certain agencies, parties, the government. It´s not me that brought political tribalism into this. Not me that is constantly attacking the credibility of "mainstream" media (is this supposed to be a slur?).

Not to mention that you forgot the most important part of your argument. The one thing where the scientific consensus is acceptable. Natural immunity or to highlight what this is really about "god given" natural immunity.

Of course we all come in with ideas and positions but we can also be open minded during debate right?  I stated my agenda repeatedly from the beginning. 

1) Against forced vaccinations. 
2) I post mostly references and information on the side that I consider is having their information suppressed and attacked because

A) The dominant narrative already has plenty of visibility, resources and the most powerful people in the world driving it.   Digging up the dissent provides some balance to the information under consideration.  

And you really don´t see any problems with the reliability of the mentioned article or the used methods? As mentioned it fits a certain point of view it´s good. Rest doesn´t matter. Who cares about the content. Please take another look at it and tell me why a person like me with in your opinion a more narrow view might have some concerns about it or to be honest thinks that the entire article is complete nonsense.

And with point 2) you are already showing a clear bias. You picked a side based on your own views. In this case probably political. That´s the whole point I am trying to make. You think that one side is dominating the discussion. Others think that based on the scientific evidence we are we are seeing a clear disbalance in reporting to the other side. All I can say is. Take a look outside your bubble. The political landscape is divided. The media landscape is divided. Doesn´t meant that all sides of the discussion aren´t represented.

And to come back to this thread. I just don´t think what you are doing is helping either side. We spent hours talking about thinks like fertility or cancer because of some of the things that were posted. Could have spent the time talking about real adverse reactions like myocarditis or blood clots. Critical thinking includes more than just questioning the mainstream. No one is against scepticism. It´s important to challenge existing beliefs and even the scientific consensus. Problem starts when the same standard isn´t applied to other sources.
And no claiming that you didn´t know about it even though you posted it yourself isn´t getting you out of that contradiction.

A many people in those videos from all walks of life are providing evidence that you are wrong on that point. 

I mean I can literally look at the vaccine information page of every single state or existing health agencies and get information on adverse reactions.

And it really isn´t changing my opinion. The point that other health experts and agencies are making as well. Adverse reactions happen. It´s tragic but they are rare. I absolutely think that affected need more help but that´s more about the broken health care system.  If Ron Johnson wants to make it his job to make sure that those people aren´t forgotten I am all for it.
I only watched the short segment but I think I watched something similar at some point in the last couple of weeks. Basically the same setup. Ron Johnson and people that suffered from adverse reactions.
Again. I absolutely think that those stories need to be heard but I am also pretty confident that they are heard. Otherwise we wouldn´t have seen some of the adjustments in vaccine recommendations. We even saw a halted vaccine program because of adverse reactions. People are watching and listening.
We just have to go into detail again. There are severe adverse reactions. By now we have mentioned them so many times that I probably don´t need to repeat all of them. They are extremly rare. And there are initial vaccine reactions. The typical flu/feeling under the weather like symptoms in the following days.
One is more likely to get underreported than the other.

And the last part. We need to stop talking about vaccine reactions as a whole. One vaccine is not like the other. Not a women below 50. No need to be afraid of blood clots after a J&J or in other countries AstraZenica vaccine. Or the most recent example of some countries in europe halting the Moderna vaccine for young men. The Pfizer vaccine offers similar efficacy with a lower risk to suffer from myocarditis or pericarditis.

People need to be aware of the benefit the vaccine provides compared to those risks. Personally (Danger. Anecdote incoming) I tend to that with comparisations to other common drugs/treatments. For example some contraceptive pills compared to J&J when it comes to blood clots. I think people struggle to grasp the concept of 1-10:100000 or even 1-10:1000000 concepts. And it really helps to give them a baseline.
Going back to the birth control pill example many women are taking drugs with a 10:10000 risk for thrombosis. So far the CDC confirmed 50 TTS cases among 15.7m vaccinated. That´s somewhere in the 3 per million range. Even if you want to account for potentially missed cases. Double, triple or even add 10x more. Still not close to the thrombosis risk of some birth control pills.
It really helps to make people understand that severe adverse reactions are extremly rare.

Is it because someone appears from the wrong political party for you?  I'm purple really so I don't relate to that sort of don't listen to the bad guys approach to "science".    

You are making this extremly easy for yourself. Cannot be bothered to watch his one links or just doesn´t want to to talk about the content. Tell me what the real issue is. Asks me to watch a four hour long video. I watched the shorter clip you provided.

By the way I can openly talk about my political opinion. I am probably more left leaning than the majority of the democratic party. Would be great if you could do the same. But I already called it out multiple times. If you think of yourself as a neutral/bipartisan person. Feel free to do it. Because your posts are anything but. It´s hilarious that you are even coming up with this. Because this issue isn´t even about my political views (maybe my stance on mandates). As of now I am not even living in the US.
I wasn´t happy when the Dems questioned the vaccine safety because Trump supposingly rushed the development. I wasn´t happy when they celebrated a premature victory earlier this year. I am even less happy about the current GOP trying to spread misinformation about COVID, vaccines and treatments.
To sum it up. I am not a fan of the majority of political leaders in this country.

For me it is about the best possible way to limit the damage and "end" (it´s not going to be back to normal) the pandemic. And for the most part that is about the science behind the virus, the vaccine and treatment options. Also includes even less popular policies like masks or even lockdowns.
Right now the vaccine is by far the best and safest option in the fight against COVID. I just provided the recently released data for Texas. To quote you. That looks like a slam dunk.
I am open for all other ideas and options. Including other treatment options (not debunked stuff like HCQ). Early treatment with monoclonal antibodies is a good option. But not available for all people.
Maybe another off-label drug provides a benefit. Maybe the newly developed drugs will make the difference. Trial data certainly looks good but they are working with the best case scenario. Early treatment at the first sight of infection/symptoms. That´s not a real world scenario.

Outweighs the risk for who exactly?  For an 80 year old?  For a 5 year old?  For a healthy 25 year old the same as for an immuno-compromised 68 year old?  What exactly is the vaccination risk for each of these groups to compare with?  Who exactly did you do this calculation for Mr. scientific method. 

The point is that there is more than one side to the story on the vaccinations.  Risks are different for different people.  Each person and family should be free to analyze all sides and make their own decision, not to have life and death decisions forced on them, especially with a vaccination that has so many question marks pending around it.

At least for the majority of people over 12. And to a lesser degree for children aged 5-11. Individual benefit for them is not nearly as big. if I could prevent it from popping up (I like the qoute system but that can be really annoying) I would add the link but the data is easy to find on CDC, NHS or similar websites.

Common sense. I thought that me mentioning the need to look at individual risk factors in numerous previous posts was enough. Is anyone here arguing that people with medical issues that lead to a high risk fo adverse reactions should get the vaccine? Haven´t seen it. Plenty of reasons (for example certain pre existing conditions, diseases, allergies) not to take it but we are talking about a small part of the population.

And we absolutely should consider the adverse reactions. That´s why many countries. Including the US (even though they tend to be a bit slow) are adjusting the recommendations for certain age groups or genders. And to make this clear not because they are halting the entire vaccine roll out. No. Simply would be unethical to give a person a jab with a higher risk of severe adverse reactions when a better option is available. That´s the luxury situation we have. Multiple vaccines. That can help because to quote you again it is not a one size fits all.
I expect the situation to get even better in the coming year. Some countries have already approved the first inactivated vaccine. We will probably see something similar in the US as well.


At the end of this my overall question is still unanswered. How is misinformation helping those persons and families to make the right decision for themself. Are you sure that your approach is really the right way to adress those concerns. Picking anything that can be considered critical and just posting it. True or not.
As mentioned. Wouldn´t it be better to talk about real concerns instead of wasting time on random claims about cancer, fertility or unknown longterm risks that would be a novelty in the history of vaccines.

That´s at least what the majority of scientists and medical workers around the globe are trying to do. They aren´t part of a big conspiracy. They simply don´t have time for outlandish claims and conspiracy talk.
And yes I am calling it a conspiracy. And it is nothing new. Same process for every single vaccine in history. Same methods. When the evidence is overwhelming the only available option to keep the thought construct alife is to add to it. Research isn´t providing the prefered results. It´s obviously manipulated.
People that used VAERS events to fabricate some kind of correlation between MMR vaccines and autism are doing it again. This time it is cancer caused by mRNA vaccines. Adverse reactions are rare. That cannot be the case. Here are a few people from all over the country (330m) that suffered from severe adverse reactions.

Rinse and repeat. Times are changing. Anti vax arguments aren´t. Only difference is that the modern era with social media platforms makes it easier to spread those talking points.