Of Freedom, Country and Vaccination

[dirkfansince1998]

The disagreement has to do with what I see as the limited way in which you, and many others evidently rely on almost exclusively to vet and validate your information.  I had a similar discussion including with @Jannemann2 back in the infamous Luka Tattoo thread on evolution etc.  I love real science.  I do hold a BS (CS) that includes minors in Physics and Math but I don't compare my credentials in a context like this as being particularly relevant.  I just make the point that I don't dismiss science.  Its clear to me that there is a form of scientific practice today that crosses over into belief and trust in people to the point where it is more like religion than it is really science. 

The way in which you decide that something is factual for example involves some methods which I also agree upon and use to test information such as various forms of publicly reported scientific researching and peer reviewed studies etc. yada.  
I just posted an example of relevant professionals against forced vaccinations based on their own scientific and medical research and conclusions at this point in time. 

I don´t even want to get into the natural immunity debate again. Great for people that already recovered but for whatever reason you rarely mention that one has to make it through the infection to get their.

The point is that you are not consistent. You are cherry picking the evidence that fits your narrative. I don´t disagree that natural immunity is to the best of our knowledge part of the scientific consensus. As far as the research goes people that had the virus show a robust immune response for at least 6-12 month (exact time frame is up for debate, maybe even longer but that´s the factual knowledge we have). 
But what about anecdotes and research that highlights cases of people that did not develop any antibodies after an infection. Is that enough to question the entire concept of natural immunity? Of course not. We have overwhelming evidence. It´s just another aspect. As I said. There will always be new discoveries and the research never stops. 100% clarity are nearly impossible to achieve.
If you would apply the same logic in case of other examples. For example treatment options or vaccine safety you would come to a different conclusion.

When the evidence isn´t supporting your narrative you are switching to anecdotes. Or question the integrity of the entire scientific process. Claims like suppression, manipulations (financial influence). The latter is the one consistent in all of your posts. The ultimate defense to justify everything and nothing. Obviously without any way to prove it.

You said for example that the Democratic representative from Detroit who reported anecdotally that HCQ treatment saved her life in a battle in  a COVID-19 should now be dismissed in terms of reference because WE know better now.  

Last year, very much during the pandemic outbreak frenzy I had several discussions with our local family doctor.  As I've shared before in this threat this has been very active and outspoken in regards to covid-19.  Last we talked maybe a few months ago now as I've said he is also very supportive of voluntary covid-19 vaccinations which I take into high consideration on my own evaluations since I respect his opinions as a working professional in the field.   

I wish you would consider these types of statements I've made earlier when you throw out your accusations like fake objectivity etc. etc. Just because I don't arrive at the same conclusions as you do @dirkfansince1998 and @Jannemann2 doesn't mean my objectivity is fake.   
In my view you fall into a large segment of modern western society etc. that has subscribed to a more limited view of what is valid science and what the valid ways are of testing your conclusions.  

Let me return to my anecdotal discussions with our local physician from last year before the existence of the vaccinations.  He shared something back then in our discussions which I find relevant here as it relates to anecdotal evidence vs. scientific lab studies.  

You certainly seem to know better in case of natural immunity. I guess for whatever reason the same logic cannot be applied to treatment options. There is a time and place for anecdotes. And they are getting consideration. But again. In case of HCQ we are past that stage. Those kind of anecdotes lead to research that tried to verify the anecdotal benefits of HCQ. And we aren´t talking about lab vs field scenarios. We are talking about multiple high quality clinical trials. All coming to the same conclusion. No evidence for any benefit as a treatment option for COVID.
I really don´t know how many more we need before we can put the topic to rest.

In the following abstract about your family doctor (not going to quote it, trying to keep this a little bit more organized). You list a number of reasons why the mentione anecdotes cannot be verified. Why anecdotes lead to more research. Not medical guidelines.
We cannot verify who received which treatment. It seems like he used multiple, maybe even a combination. Which one had a positive impact on the outcome?
Was he even seeing critical cases or was he only treating mild cases? A more likely scenario for a family doctor.
How many of his patients would have made a quick and full recovery without any treatment? Most likely the majority.
Patients received treatment. How do we account for a potential placebo?
Just to name a few problems.

I do not disagree that personal experience can be important. The local physician / family doctor knows more about his patients than any expert. Just like the patient himself has knowledge about himself, family history and other things that no doctor can have.
Those stories are important but they don´t justify the use of drugs (even low risk options like HCQ can lead to adverse reactions) that based on the evidence do not provide any benefit as a treatment option.
A good example for the benefit of those stories. Vaccine choice. For example. If a close family member suffered from an adverse reaction. Let´s say the first Moderna shot lead to a myocarditis case (cousin or brother). Maybe another brother/cousin should consider a different vaccine (not MRNA).

This is just part of the problem that can does occur when political and financial influences are applied  to official scientific inquiry. So yes when you say something like WE now know that HCQ or other treatments have no value in contrast to this very public report from one of many people who say that a drug like this did help them, even saved their life, I apply my own vetting process to my research. 

I do not dismiss anecdotal evidence quite as easily in the face of officially released studies. I do value dissenting views and studies when it is clear to me that certain narratives are being politically influenced. 

And we are back at it again. When it doesn´t fit the narrative it is politically or financially influenced. The dissenting views that you are promoting obviously aren´t. It is David vs Goliath. Pharma, government and "mainstream" media against a group of heros. The term and description of "mainstream" media that has been used in previous posts alone is showing me where you stand. I guess you aren´t refering to FOX + FOX News. They combine for the most viewers in the US. They certainly aren´t supressing the people you mentioned.
I guess it isn´t a problem to promote unproven treatments. But it certainly is a problem to question them. That´s mainstream. How dare they?
You complain that it is a political issue. And I agree. Some of it is about politics. But we obviously have different ideas about the political issues.

And that´s where I am using the term "fake objectivity". You clearly blame/distrust one side. But would obviously never admit. Instead we are playing this I see both sides but only argue in favor of one game.

We should have more appreciation for all of these doctors and scientists on all sides of the issue that are working hard on 

I thought that we cannot trust some of them because of political and financial influence. Again. You cannot make those claims and continue to both-side the issue.
And no we shouldn´t appreciate some of them. Mr. Cole for example hasn´t even done his own research. Hasn´t published his data. Hasn´t answered any of the questions from authors he is refering to.

Similarly on both sides of the issue which is unfortunately mislabeled as pro-vax/anti-vax, we have good scientific investigation into the long term vaccination effects. 
This is all very important and another reason the forced vaccinations movement is not only unethical in my view but also short-sighted. 

You are right. Not all are pro/anti vax. Some have different agendas. Some add real concerns.
But what about the ones that clearly are anti vax. Ignoring any evidence or anecdotes. That´s still an influential group. Lead by figures like Tenpenny or Kennedy Jr. They are against all vaccines. From Tetanus to MMR and now COVID vaccines.
Giant sample sizes. Longterm studies. It doesn´t matter.


And I don´t even want to get into the topic of religious exemptions. There are quite a few groups that are lobbying against the vaccine.

Naturally in the public with people getting sick and dying around us the long-term concerns are easily buried under the immediate fears.  Most of the public want a right now solution and are willing to kick all concerns over the long-term down the road with little concern.  This is one of the reasons most of public can be persuaded to support even forced vaccinations against their fellow citizens.  

Unfortunately, what is a helpful thing is being presented or perhaps misrepresented as a right now immediate cure to the pandemic, if only their unvaccinated neighbors would comply.

That´s not what is happening. And for someone that is valuing the opinions and freedom of the individual you have a very negative view of our society. It´s not the lack of information that lead to the decision to get vaccinated. I would argue that it is the direct opposite. We have rarely seen so much coverage of medical research. Rarely seen people show so much interest into a medical topic.
You are right. In an ideal world we want the best possible solution as quickly as possible. But people are aware that this isn´t an every day occurrence. By now they have learned that we are dealing with something completly new. The biggest pandemic in the modern era.
What a majority of people realized is that vaccines are the best option to protect themself. What they realized is that it is the best option to avoid another wave with 1000s of deaths every day.
And it is the best option (not the only one, it takes more) to get closer to the life that we had prior to the pandemic.