Of Freedom, Country and Vaccination

[Dahlsim]

I am keeping it short. There is. You still haven´t figured out what scientific consensus means. Doesn´t mean that all people have to agree. Detailed explanation is in an earlier post.
... 

So where you either don't understand my basic premise or we disagree or both is here, my point repeatedly has been is that there is enough smoke to indicate fire somewhere.  
Put another way the variety and quantity of references I've posted demonstrate that there is significant disagreement and contradiction and concerns of varying degrees from a variety of sources including medical professionals, scientists, and citizens from every walk of life. 

Again, to restate my point, one reason that many others like myself are virulently anti-forced vaccine but not anti-vaccine is because there is evidence that support the vaccine both helping many people and hurting many people. Is that stated simply enough to make my point clear?  

You, and those of your mindset almost seem to be arguing that the people being helped outweigh the numbers being hurt to such a degree as to be so inconsequential that is acceptable to force the vaccine on some groups even though some number of them and their are being harmed, some very seriously harmed.  

Stay with me on this please @"dirkfansince1998"  @"Jannemann2" and all of you who seem to take this perspective.  If you're going to continue to trumpet the relativity argument, that the vaccine good so far outweighs the bad as to justify forced injections, then it is at the bare minimum incumbent upon YOU to prove your minimal damage argument. 

I already answered this point earlier. You simply don´t know what he is talking about. No suprise. That has been the story of the last couple of weeks when it comes to your own sources. He is referring to the stage III clinical trial. He is actually telling you what I have been trying to tell you for weeks. RCT are the highest standard of drug testing.

Wrong again. You're losing track here.  We've posted a lot here.  I'm well aware of the context and limits under which the Professor was speaking.  I pointed out that he is both vaccinated and a supporter of the vaccine didn't I?  Don't you grasp that I'm simply referencing someone that speaks the (limited) language of evidence that you understand and put your faith in?   I'm giving you someone that speaks your language, not because I don't understand your language but because you don't understand mine. 

Do I even have to mention your own contradictions. The one person that constantly questions RCT and prefers to talk about anecdotes suddenly agrees that they are the gold standard of drug testing. Amazing.

Sigh.    Why is this so hard for you to grasp?   B-O-T-H. Put it another way, All-of-the-Above.  
I've explained extensively why the forms of evidence I consider are more wide than the narrow subset you've been trained to consider valid and authoritative. I won't rehash those explanations.  

You accuse me of being inconsistent when in fact I have offered a variety of sources and forms of evidence to make the case that there are valid problems and concerns with this vaccination. Suppression and politicly driven corruption of science is one of those valid problem.  
You bury your head in the sand at any form of evidence, including personal testimony, so I also add the limited evidential sources you seem to have faith in, RCT. 

Then you accuse me of contradiction. Its absurd.  I never shot down RCT, scientific method or peer-review etc.  You hear what you want to hear.  I explicitly said I support those sources of evidence, have science educational background and include those methods in my own research and analysis.  

All of the above. B-o-t-h.  Its not a contradiction and its not inconsistent to consider broader sources of evidence such both formal science and anecdotal evidence, eyewitness testimony reports of suppressed studies and the possibility of missing and incomplete data etc. etc. etc.  

Apply scientific methods and critical thinking and you will now. It´s pretty easy. I won´t explain scientific consensus and method again. Quick tip any so called evidence that relies on a premised conspiracy isn´t exactly reliable. Same for content that relies on multiple ad hoc hypothesis to prevent falsification. In this case debunking.

You're sadly boxed in on what you've been clearly trained to accept, that's why I choose to reference forms of evidence and sources that at least come close to your mindset and frame of reference and don't repeat other sources that I know go in one ear and out the other for you, as the old saying goes. 

I'll go back to a examples briefly just to be clear, again.  Remember I told you that early in the pandemic, very early, I had extensive personal discussions with with our own family doctor.  He is quite above average on this topic, even has a radio program and very active Facebook page that has been all over the covid-19 pandemic etc.  

I told you that he also has been supportive of the vaccines in general.  At the same time he also supports HCQ as an effective treatment.  He explained why he reads the studies and labs but also doesn't subscribe to them religiously as it appears you do.  He talks about how doctors in the field himself see literally thousands of patients per month and have their own data inputs in addition to the academic and formal labs, studies and trials.    
I explained to you how the politicization of HCQ forced him either abandon using a treatment that he himself could observe to be working for many patients or get legal cover to continue using it along with other treatments.  He had his lawyers draft a waiver for patients to sign and has continued to offer it where he deems appropriate such as early onset of Covid.  He's had great success with it and other treatments. 

There are news stories, publicly accessible all over the internet showing many, many doctors and medical professionals in the field with the same or similar stories regarding HCQ and other treatments. 

In your narrow world, once an official study came out that should have been the end of it.  Your faith is absolute.  I could sit here and debate with you about those studies and where they might be missing something, just maybe, but what would be the point?  Its extremely time consuming, even more than this loooong post, and your mind would remain as close as it is now.   

So I simply gave you one reference to one very public figure that said her life was saved by what you call misinformation.  Try to grasp this, she said it.  That's a fact, whether you or I believe it or not, its or her story.  You suggest it irresponsible to tell her story?  You see Trump red and get emotionally hot just because his name was somehow linked to it?   Many others, including Doctors claim to get effective results but for you they should be forced into silence. 
Then you call all your views objective science?  Its almost laughable except that its laced with tragic implications. 

So this is why I try to mostly limit responses to you, to the domain you trust in.  Its unfortunate but that's the best we can do to communicate when people subscribe religiously to the methodologies you wash, rinse and repeat so often. 
 

But we also have to remember. This wasn´t a normal situation. We are talking about a global pandemic.

Right, which as the professor says required some relaxed standards and rushed processes.  All the more reason people such as yourself should be even less inclined to force inject your fellow human beings knowing the circumstances.  You should know better, given the circumstances.  Let people incur the risks for themselves based on their own choices, especially since the margin of error is wider. 

This is also another reason more consideration should be given to hands on experience, personal eyewitness data inputs and anecdotal evidence.  We haven't had enough time and opportunity to be as accurate and confident with results as you so confidently assert over and over.  
Its a form of intellectual arrogance.  You know the process is rushed, you know some people are helped while others are harmed and you should know that the exact percentages of the hurt/harm is not reliably measured at this point, shouldn't you?  

The many references and posts I've offered either strongly suggest or outright assert that your data inputs from the sources you continually, religiously reference and the methods and processes have not been and are not rock solid accurate or free from manipulation and suppression.  

Many people I've referenced have told you their experiences of deliberate suppression when they have tried to submit their cases, their inputs, their studies.   It appears you are comfortable to either call them all liars or 
assume their numbers are inconsequential. 

I've shared concerns and evidence that those who are crying out, literally crying, posting and creating website, forums, dissenting studies, reaching out to their government representation, even traveling across country to publicly tell their stories. 

I do consider all sources, otherwise if I only considered the dissenting references I shared, I would indeed be anti-vax.  I'm not because there is plenty of data and evidence as you and others have shared that indicates lives are being saved and helped.  There are lives being hurt too.  I don't accept that any numbers being given 
as to what that magnitude and percentage is, are reliable.  

If you listen to the forums and the many, many sources I've given, video, studies, etc. etc. there is plenty of reason for healthy skepticism on the numbers both of deaths of vax/unvax and of general harm/hurt of vax/unvax in general. 

I really respect the clear effort you put in to make your point @"dirkfansince1998", I just very much disagree with some of the blanket assertions and confident percentages you draw your conclusions on, and I've taken considerable time also to make it clear why I disagree and many, many others disagree as well. 
There are two sides this story. 

I summarize again that the idea of forcing injections on the basis of a vaccine with this many valid concerns and objections outstanding, is both irresponsible and morally repugnant.  It is being done, no matter what we argue here.  The ship sailed long ago and I think its fair to say a significant % of those that are vaccinated did so under coercion and threat of their livelihood.  Some unfortunately have been harmed even to the point of death.  

Please note also that VAERS is only one source of data on adverse effects and it is only referenced so often because its a RARE source where the government at least addresses the issues somewhat and its really a half hearted attempt at best toward public disclosure.  Again, watch the video with Senator Johnson and vaccine harmed, they go into much more detail regarding scientific data suppression on the numbers and have many more sources. 

Yes, I can accept that many avoided Covid or a more severe encounter with it but do we know the real numbers that would have overcome Covid anyway via their God-given   natural immune system?   Do we know how many are harmed or will be harmed by the vaccines? 
I'm not even speculating about long term effects here, this is all right now verifiable harm.  

I'm saying that answer is no, we don't know reliably.  There is evidence to say in a general numbers game, the vaccinations are more helpful than harmful, even though there are some that question even that.   It was also said though that if an adverse reaction happens to you and your family, that number becomes 100% harmful.   
If you could reliably say exactly who will have one of those life changing adverse reactions then ok, at least you could people fears and concerns may not be rational.  Can science reliably say who will have an adverse reaction?  

I gave the link earlier to No More Silence, which I reference again at the end of this post. Did you even click it? Glance at it?  There are young healthy people there.  People that say repeatedly they believed people like you exclusively when they were vaccinated and now they are harmed severely or they are dead their loved ones are left telling the story, many telling it in tears just like those suffering from Covid deaths. 

How can you blow off all of these sources, stories and lives and support force and coercion all the while telling yourself that you somehow hold the moral high ground?  
How do you do that and justify taking away people's individual liberties and choices with a straight face?    
Is it all based on the numbers you trust, or is there a one-sidedness to your morality? 


Many have said clearly their voices and statistical inputs are being suppressed deliberately.  
I've pointed to others offering evidence that the data being reported is not highly reliable so continuing to pretend or though is just my voice is head-to-sand burying.  

Bottom line remains, the forced and coerced vaccination policies are both unethical, immoral and scientifically unjustifiable. 

https://nomoresilence.world 

No More Silence
We are a fast-growing group who have been affected in many different ways by the Covid-19 Vaccine implementation. We are NOT anti-vax and we are NOT conspiracy theorists. 
In fact, all the victims represented within this platform took the Vaccine thinking they were doing the right thing within the fight against Covid-19. We are however pro informed-choice, pro consent, pro science and strongly anti-coercion. 
We also wish to bring into question the reasoning and strategy behind the inordinate levels of censorship surrounding ANY factually correct negative Covid-19 Vaccine news, especially within the mainstream media and social media platforms.
We Want To Be Heard!