Zobel said:

---

i'm not sure i agree. right now on the internet you can find darn near any opinion you want. we have something very close to an open information society. this can be overwhelming but the answer isn't to slip into a kind of informational solipsism.

you can still know things, and learn things, and have confidence in things...it just takes work. you don't need to be 100% certain of something to have some confidence in it.

a really useful practice is to develop and calibrate your confidence. you can do an exercise with a tool like this:
http://confidence.success-equation.com/

when someone says to me, does the risk of vaccines for young people outweigh the benefit, i would say my confidence of that is around 60%. for the average adult I say it's around 90%. for the elderly its probably 99%. for three or more shots for kids i say it doesn't with 60% confidence. it's much more productive than the black and white approach.

---

sure, this sounds reasonable, but you are talking to people who still bristle at the fact that they were vilified and canceled, and in some cases lost their livelihoods because they didn't want to take the Covid vaccine. They are now learning then that much of what they were concerned about have turned out to be valid concerns. They (we) are angry at being lied to.

We saw the same people who said they didn't trust the vaccine because Trump promoted it turn around and mandate the vaccine once the Federal Administration changed. Then we're told that it isn't political. Don't piss on my leg and tell me its raining.

if being mad about politicans doing stupid things was license to throw any and all rational thought out the window we'd never be able to do anything.

the real problem is the mandate. people finding out that "much of what they were concerned about have turned out to be valid concerns" is mostly confirmation bias.

Quote:

---

We saw the same people who said they didn't trust the vaccine because Trump promoted it turn around and mandate the vaccine once the Federal Administration changed. Then we're told that it isn't political. Don't piss on my leg and tell me its raining.

---

so the answer to seeing people act in this irrational and stupid way is to do it ourselves?

Why is not getting vaxed irrational?

having your opinion on the safety of a vaccine be influenced by politicians is irrational. that's just as true for liberals who said they wouldn't take "Trump's vaccine" and did a 180 as people who say the vaccine is bad because the government lied about x y z or attempted to mandate it.

Dad-O-Lot said:

---

If these vaccines really did what they were originally intended to do; and if Covid infections were as deadly as initially advertised, there would be no need to try to "convince" people to be vaccinated. There would be no need to issue "mandates".

Frankly, I don't understand why you seem to be so passionately opposed to people thinking and making decisions for themselves regarding this vaccine. Is there a profit motive in it for you?

---

Won't be answered. For some reason this bit of logic bolded above gets constantly ignored by the covid board type.

i don't think there's anything wrong with skepticism or anything irrational about it. the issue i have is people conflating the politics as reason to not take vaccines.

a challenge here is your reasons to be skeptical are subject to selection bias. there are also reasons for confidence that you did not list. there's nothing wrong with presenting the questions. what's irrational is stopping there. there are answers to each, which you may accept or not.

a vaccine that is released in about a tenth of the time normally required to release a new vaccine.
this is partially true. but most vaccines only get 6 months of safety follow-up. the rest of the time is spent in FDA paperwork. in the case of these vaccines they did the same safety follow-up (6 months) but used a ~10x larger test group, and then fast-tracked the paperwork.
reason for confidence: there was a much larger than normal clinical trial done and the safety was much more closely monitored by the FDA during the EUA period than for any other vaccine

the technology of this vaccine is new.
kinda. it's 25+ years old. here's an article that shows why it was able to be done quickly. it's a good read on background research.
reason for confidence: there were decades of research and ongoing clinical trials. the only thing that was significantly new was the actual encoding of the spike protein; previous spike protein work was done for other outbreaks already.

this new vaccine technology had horrible results in animal testing and had to be ended prematurely.
this is kind of true. ten years ago a trial with mice had a problem, but it isn't the same technology as these vaccines. animal trials were conduced for these vaccines. the difference was in the interest of time they did the initial animal trials in parallel with human trials. for example, here's the study from pfizer on primates.
reason for confidence. there was a ton of dosing and distribution studies done in animals for other diseases using the same technology and delivery platform but different mrna sequence, so scientists had a huge head start and a lot of confidence in dosing, delivery, and safety

a much higher quantity of "breakthrough" cases than you typically hear of for vaccines.
this is kind of hard to answer because i don't know what you typically hear about for vaccines. the covid shots are better than flu shots - those vary between 60% and 10% effective year to year.
reason for confidence: covid vaccines work better than flu vaccines (pretty dang low bar, to be honest - ha!)

will grow as we hear and read of various studies and anecdotes about possible side effects of the vaccine, coupled with changing reports of vaccine efficacy continuing to drop.
this is where you have to be skeptical both ways. you should be just as skeptical about the negative and positive.
reason for confidence: there have been a metric crap ton of studies out there that have been made free to the public to read, and the studies showing that the vaccines are safe provide an overwhelming backdrop of evidence against the studies and anecdotes that don't.

Quote:

---

If these vaccines really did what they were originally intended to do; and if Covid infections were as deadly as initially advertised, there would be no need to try to "convince" people to be vaccinated. There would be no need to issue "mandates".

---

are you kidding? most people don't get flu shots. 10% of people dont give their kids the MMR vaccine. 20% don't get pertussis for their kids. 80% of adults aren't current on pertussis vaccines. that being said - the mandates were wrong, and the method they attempted to use to mandate them through the OSHA general duty clause was particularly egregious. i completely i agree with you there.

Quote:

---

Frankly, I don't understand why you seem to be so passionately opposed to people thinking and making decisions for themselves regarding this vaccine. Is there a profit motive in it for you?

---

if you can find a single place where i've expressed any opposition to people thinking for themselves or making decisions please quote it.

sharing information is the exact opposite of what you're describing. i'm encouraging you to read studies. it is 100% the same as the people who post tweets about vaccine danger. open discourse must include dissenting opinions. otherwise you're not looking for thought or decision making but a groupthink echo chamber.

the behavior that is passionately opposed to people thinking and making decisions for themselves is the constant insults and accusations. why are y'all so afraid of an open discussion about vaccine safety where research is shared?

see what i mean? weak.

Rapier108 said:

---

The above post is brought to us by someone who knows what they're talking about and i can't refute it so I'll just name call

---

Rationality Test Take 1

• Travel bans won't work and are racist.
• It won't come here.
• Two weeks will flatten the curve.
• Don't take the vaccine.
• Masks wont help.
• Stay 6' apart.

Rationality Test Take 2

• Travel bans work but lets keep some open like borders and subways.
• Its here we need an additional two weeks.
• Wear a mask.
• Stay 6' apart even though sneezes can travel 200'.
• Still no advice on getting fit, taking Vit C, or Vit D.
• Ivermectin is for horses and is dangerous to humans.
• The Vaccines are the only treatment and they are safe, free, and effective.
• Lets only load every 3rd chair lift, require masks on 4000 open skiable acres, but allow inside dining mask free on the mountain.
• Lets unblind the vax research.
• Lets mandate shots on kids even though no risk.
• Shut down any dissent from any medical person even if they have alt treatments.
• Let build field hospitals and morgues the dead are piling in.
• George F is the only person diagnosed with covid who did not die from covid.

Rationality Test Take 3

• 2 shots isn't enough.
• Vax was never meant to prevent transmission or death.
• Myocarditis from shot is mild and worth the risk.
• We need 75 years to show the vax data.
• The number of jabs your supposed to get is N+1; N=current # you have had.
• Lets tear down the field hospitals and morgues.
• Myocarditis is coming from covid not the covid shot.
• A hurricane is coming the best way to protect yourself is to get the jab.
• Winter of death is coming.

Rationality Test Take 4

• Defending/disproving the covid response with such intensity one can only assume its being reimbursed.
• If I care about my livelihood or question the jab its only political and I am a "conspiraloon" even though all of the above has happened.
• Jimbo will give up play calling.

IRRATIONAL is not questioning EVERYTHING even if only half the **** listed above is true. Nothing political about that.

A 27 year old vaccine advocate just died. Just think how much worse it would have been if he wouldn't have been vaccinated.

https://www.chch.com/st-catharines-social-justice-advocate-dies-suddenly-on-dec-31/

This is from Feb 2022. It focuses on the 40% increase (i.e. statistically "once in 200 year flood") in mortality in the US in the second half of 2021.

https://rumble.com/v1a88ic-former-blackrock-portfolio-manager-exposes-pfizer-fraud-edward-dowd.html

lobopride said:

---

A 27 year old vaccine advocate just died. Just think how much worse it would have been if he wouldn't have been vaccinated.

https://www.chch.com/st-catharines-social-justice-advocate-dies-suddenly-on-dec-31/

---

This is exactly the kind of stuff that removes all credibility of anyone "just asking questions". Even the article says it was a "tragic accident." There is literally no reason to tie this to a vaccine. It's the exact same as what happened on the other side with people on the left attributing every death to Covid even when the person had a heart attack or got in a car accident.

First, I'm really sorry to hear about your cousin and brother. That is horrible and Im sorry y'all had to go through that.

I don't think it is unreasonable for you to look at your experience and be concerned.

The challenge for us is to be able to aggregate additional information beyond direct personal experience. That's the whole purpose of science - to be able to make predictions, good predictions, across large ranges of events. Larger than our personal range of experience would allow.

The earth is flat, most of the time.

Help_needed said:

---

Why is not getting vaxed irrational?

---

I would perma block Zobel.. the guy makes zero sense and he's a troll to this site .. most of us have started perma blocking him….

lobopride said:

---

A 27 year old vaccine advocate just died. Just think how much worse it would have been if he wouldn't have been vaccinated.

https://www.chch.com/st-catharines-social-justice-advocate-dies-suddenly-on-dec-31/

---

These people are crazy.. the vaccines are killing people left and Right yet people are taking them for a 99.99 survival virus…. It's right out in the open now what's going on.

45 % increases in deaths in 2021 across the globe? What has changed. Some of the Dr groups are finally on to all this along with "some" of the insurance companies .. this is all getting flushed out eventually by the right people .. starting with Drs , research groups, and insurance companies paying out death benefits

Zobel said:

---

having your opinion on the safety of a vaccine be influenced by politicians is irrational. that's just as true for liberals who said they wouldn't take "Trump's vaccine" and did a 180 as people who say the vaccine is bad because the government lied about x y z or attempted to mandate it.

---

But what if the person isn't an unhealthy loser and instead chooses not to take it? Many people don't take the flu shot or covid shot because it doesn't worry them.

I realize many on the left Wanted the mandate and love tyranny but it's not there anymore much to the disappointment of some of the vaxaholics that used to post here.

Is that a rhetorical question? That's great. If you don't want to take a shot, don't.

Zobel said:

---

i don't think there's anything wrong with skepticism or anything irrational about it. the issue i have is people conflating the politics as reason to not take vaccines.

a challenge here is your reasons to be skeptical are subject to selection bias. there are also reasons for confidence that you did not list. there's nothing wrong with presenting the questions. what's irrational is stopping there. there are answers to each, which you may accept or not.

a vaccine that is released in about a tenth of the time normally required to release a new vaccine.
this is partially true. but most vaccines only get 6 months of safety follow-up. the rest of the time is spent in FDA paperwork. in the case of these vaccines they did the same safety follow-up (6 months) but used a ~10x larger test group, and then fast-tracked the paperwork.
reason for confidence: there was a much larger than normal clinical trial done and the safety was much more closely monitored by the FDA during the EUA period than for any other vaccine

---

Yes, I have heard and read this and do not completely believe it. I do not have enough trust in the integrity of these pharmaceutical companies to believe that there were no shortcuts taken. I also know that a 6 month "study" of 10,000 people is not the same as a 5 year study of 2000 people. I remember the atmosphere of the time period between February 2020 and March 2021. There was so much fear and anxiety about this new virus that people were willing to accept shortcuts and risk in order to get something, anything in place for a vaccine. I didn't buy into the fear-mongering, but it was there and it was widespread. Anyone who is not even a little incredulous about how this came through has much more faith in these companies and the people getting rich off of them than I do.

Quote:

---

the technology of this vaccine is new.
kinda. it's 25+ years old. here's an article that shows why it was able to be done quickly. it's a good read on background research.
reason for confidence: there were decades of research and ongoing clinical trials. the only thing that was significantly new was the actual encoding of the spike protein; previous spike protein work was done for other outbreaks already.

this new vaccine technology had horrible results in animal testing and had to be ended prematurely.
this is kind of true. ten years ago a trial with mice had a problem, but it isn't the same technology as these vaccines. animal trials were conduced for these vaccines. the difference was in the interest of time they did the initial animal trials in parallel with human trials. for example, here's the study from pfizer on primates.
reason for confidence. there was a ton of dosing and distribution studies done in animals for other diseases using the same technology and delivery platform but different mrna sequence, so scientists had a huge head start and a lot of confidence in dosing, delivery, and safety

---

This reeks a little of double-speak to me. "It was 25 years old", "it was new and different"
"Decades of research" means nothing in itself. You can "research" for decades and still be no closer to having something useful. You may have just learned more things that don't work. That it all "came together" at precisely this right time in history is too coincidental for me. I can easily see thoughts such as, "well, it may still have these issues, but it's the best we've got and we need something now".
When the vaccine manufacturers have zero liability for any negative consequences for their product, I understand human nature enough to realize that corners will be cut and risks accepted that would not have been otherwise. Couple that with the realization that the virus in question is not as virulent as initially advertised, and with the fact that there has been practically no letup in the promotion of the vaccine for everyone, including children who are at practically zero risk, and my trust falls even further.

Quote:

---

a much higher quantity of "breakthrough" cases than you typically hear of for vaccines.
this is kind of hard to answer because i don't know what you typically hear about for vaccines. the covid shots are better than flu shots - those vary between 60% and 10% effective year to year.
reason for confidence: covid vaccines work better than flu vaccines (pretty dang low bar, to be honest - ha!)

---

I predicted over a year ago that people would try to compare the multiple boosters of the Covid vaccine to the flu shot. That is trying to play on people's ignorance. The flu shot is a new guesstimate each year of what will be the most prominent strain of flu virus in the upcoming season. It's not quite a crap shoot, but close. I realize that in many ways they are building this race car as it's racing, but the Covid vaccine was not advertised or promoted as a vaccine for this year's, or the latest, or most prominent Covid strain. The Covid vaccine was initially advertised as a two shot dose. We were told that once you get the second dose, you would not get Covid. Then when we started learning of many people getting Covid after the second dose, we were told that they weren't symptomatic, or the symptoms were greatly reduced. When we learned of people actually dying of Covid after their second dose, then the goalposts were moved again. It was during this time that the CDC revised their definition of "vaccine" from "provides immunity", to "increases immunity". A subtle but important distinction.
All of this tells me that at best we are just still learning about the efficacy of the vaccine; the "studies" are ongoing, it's just that the entire general public is now part of the "study". I choose to remain in the control group.

Quote:

---

will grow as we hear and read of various studies and anecdotes about possible side effects of the vaccine, coupled with changing reports of vaccine efficacy continuing to drop.
this is where you have to be skeptical both ways. you should be just as skeptical about the negative and positive.
reason for confidence: there have been a metric crap ton of studies out there that have been made free to the public to read, and the studies showing that the vaccines are safe provide an overwhelming backdrop of evidence against the studies and anecdotes that don't.

---

I am skeptical because I am aware of the pressure to minimize any studies which are negative about the vaccines and highlight any that are positive about the vaccine. The industry has shown their ass so badly that there is no organization that I can just trust implicitly. So yes, I have some internal biases that will affect how much credence I give to any particular study. If there were any mea culpas from any of the organizations that have clearly been proven wrong in their earlier statements, then I might start to give that organization more credence. All I see from the mainstream "experts" is doubling down and goalpost moving. Never an acknowledgment that many of the people and organizations who noted issues early turned out to be correct.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

If these vaccines really did what they were originally intended to do; and if Covid infections were as deadly as initially advertised, there would be no need to try to "convince" people to be vaccinated. There would be no need to issue "mandates".

---

are you kidding? most people don't get flu shots. 10% of people dont give their kids the MMR vaccine. 20% don't get pertussis for their kids. 80% of adults aren't current on pertussis vaccines. that being said - the mandates were wrong, and the method they attempted to use to mandate them through the OSHA general duty clause was particularly egregious. i completely i agree with you there.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Frankly, I don't understand why you seem to be so passionately opposed to people thinking and making decisions for themselves regarding this vaccine. Is there a profit motive in it for you?

---

if you can find a single place where i've expressed any opposition to people thinking for themselves or making decisions please quote it.

sharing information is the exact opposite of what you're describing. i'm encouraging you to read studies. it is 100% the same as the people who post tweets about vaccine danger. open discourse must include dissenting opinions. otherwise you're not looking for thought or decision making but a groupthink echo chamber.

the behavior that is passionately opposed to people thinking and making decisions for themselves is the constant insults and accusations. why are y'all so afraid of an open discussion about vaccine safety where research is shared?

---

---

Calling people "ignorant" when they express concerns about the safety and efficacy of the vaccine is exactly what I'm talking about. "You just haven't read enough of the studies I'm reading, here have another one", is arrogant. You don't even acknowledge that there are any issues or concerns. That causes you to lose any credibility no matter how many studies you link or quote.

Zobel said:

---

First, I'm really sorry to hear about your cousin and brother. That is horrible and Im sorry y'all had to go through that.

I don't think it is unreasonable for you to look at your experience and be concerned.

The challenge for us is to be able to aggregate additional information beyond direct personal experience. That's the whole purpose of science - to be able to make predictions, good predictions, across large ranges of events. Larger than our personal range of experience would allow.

The earth is flat, most of the time.

---

I think some people are skeptical of the "science" because the "science" got so much wrong with regard to Covid, its origin, effects, and prevention. They are now being told not to believe their lying eyes and that rightly makes them even more skeptical.

They also originally got the vaccine wrong but they moved the goalpost so now all is good.

you left out:

"clearly you are a murderer if you don't get the vaccine, because even though I have the vaccine you will kill me with your non-vaccine status"

"every american can be fired from their government jobs if they don't get the vaccine because it will kill so many people!"

"we need to allow millions of untested and unvaccinated illegal aliens into our country!"

LMCane said:

---

you left out:

"clearly you are a murderer if you don't get the vaccine, because even though I have the vaccine you will kill me with your non-vaccine status"

"every american can be fired from their government jobs if they don't get the vaccine because it will kill so many people!"

"we need to allow millions of untested and unvaccinated illegal aliens into our country!"

---

"It's perfectly rational to insist a person show proof of vaccination status before allowing them in a grocery store, but this isn't forcing people to be vaccinated. They have the option to not get the jab and not be allowed to buy food."

Just another note about studies related to Covid and the Covid vaccine.

I get the impression that no one is trying to get to the "truth", they are all just trying to prove their a priori position.

LMCane said:

---

you left out:

"we need to allow millions of untested and unvaccinated illegal aliens into our country!"

---

This is when everybody's BS detector should have been pinging off the charts yet we still have a handful of vax simps in 2023 that will argue all day, every day. Super weird.

The issue is the average vaccine study was 3000 people and six months of safety follow up, not 2000 and 5 years.

I didn't suggest that decades of research in and of itself was evidence of safety. There were ongoing trials and research that was directly applicable. For example the dosing, how to administer, the exact formulation of the lipid nanoparticles, all we're done. They'd even figured out a way to modify the rna code to keep the spike protein from collapsing back in 2017 for sars 1 and mers.
https://berthub.eu/articles/posts/reverse-engineering-source-code-of-the-biontech-pfizer-vaccine/

The only thing that changed was the specific spike sequence. There was very little "new". You say convenient? I'm a man of faith. I believe the fact that all of this knowledge and experience was here, ready, saved millions of lives around the world.

You're back to the "how it was advertised" criticism. Can't speak to that. I don't think anyone really knew how well it would work. There was lots of scientific speculation about how well it would provide protection with mutation. We don't even really understand how natural immunity works with other corona viruses.

I don't think I've called anyone ignorant here. Sharing information isn't arrogant, especially when the questions being asked have been answered in the literature. Or when what's being asserted doesn't align with the available information. More information is always better. At any rate there's nothing wrong with ignorance. I'm ignorant about a lot of things. The good news is it is treatable and it just takes some effort. Reading more, learning more, is something everyone should do together. Versus shouting down dissenting opinions and saying I'm arrogant or shill or a troll. It's no better than liberal cancel culture - the only thing "wrong" is that i disagree with the prevailing opinion here. You've low-key insulted me a couple of times in this conversation. Why's that?

It's a discussion and I don't think it's reasonable for you to expect me to argue all sides. You certainly don't. You haven't even acknowledged that there are many reasons for confidence. Doesn't that bring your credibility into question?

Dad-O-Lot said:

---

Zobel said:

---

i don't think there's anything wrong with skepticism or anything irrational about it. the issue i have is people conflating the politics as reason to not take vaccines.

a challenge here is your reasons to be skeptical are subject to selection bias. there are also reasons for confidence that you did not list. there's nothing wrong with presenting the questions. what's irrational is stopping there. there are answers to each, which you may accept or not.

a vaccine that is released in about a tenth of the time normally required to release a new vaccine.
this is partially true. but most vaccines only get 6 months of safety follow-up. the rest of the time is spent in FDA paperwork. in the case of these vaccines they did the same safety follow-up (6 months) but used a ~10x larger test group, and then fast-tracked the paperwork.
reason for confidence: there was a much larger than normal clinical trial done and the safety was much more closely monitored by the FDA during the EUA period than for any other vaccine

---

Yes, I have heard and read this and do not completely believe it. I do not have enough trust in the integrity of these pharmaceutical companies to believe that there were no shortcuts taken. I also know that a 6 month "study" of 10,000 people is not the same as a 5 year study of 2000 people. I remember the atmosphere of the time period between February 2020 and March 2021. There was so much fear and anxiety about this new virus that people were willing to accept shortcuts and risk in order to get something, anything in place for a vaccine. I didn't buy into the fear-mongering, but it was there and it was widespread. Anyone who is not even a little incredulous about how this came through has much more faith in these companies and the people getting rich off of them than I do.

Quote:

---

the technology of this vaccine is new.
kinda. it's 25+ years old. here's an article that shows why it was able to be done quickly. it's a good read on background research.
reason for confidence: there were decades of research and ongoing clinical trials. the only thing that was significantly new was the actual encoding of the spike protein; previous spike protein work was done for other outbreaks already.

this new vaccine technology had horrible results in animal testing and had to be ended prematurely.
this is kind of true. ten years ago a trial with mice had a problem, but it isn't the same technology as these vaccines. animal trials were conduced for these vaccines. the difference was in the interest of time they did the initial animal trials in parallel with human trials. for example, here's the study from pfizer on primates.
reason for confidence. there was a ton of dosing and distribution studies done in animals for other diseases using the same technology and delivery platform but different mrna sequence, so scientists had a huge head start and a lot of confidence in dosing, delivery, and safety

---

This reeks a little of double-speak to me. "It was 25 years old", "it was new and different"
"Decades of research" means nothing in itself. You can "research" for decades and still be no closer to having something useful. You may have just learned more things that don't work. That it all "came together" at precisely this right time in history is too coincidental for me. I can easily see thoughts such as, "well, it may still have these issues, but it's the best we've got and we need something now".
When the vaccine manufacturers have zero liability for any negative consequences for their product, I understand human nature enough to realize that corners will be cut and risks accepted that would not have been otherwise. Couple that with the realization that the virus in question is not as virulent as initially advertised, and with the fact that there has been practically no letup in the promotion of the vaccine for everyone, including children who are at practically zero risk, and my trust falls even further.

Quote:

---

a much higher quantity of "breakthrough" cases than you typically hear of for vaccines.
this is kind of hard to answer because i don't know what you typically hear about for vaccines. the covid shots are better than flu shots - those vary between 60% and 10% effective year to year.
reason for confidence: covid vaccines work better than flu vaccines (pretty dang low bar, to be honest - ha!)

---

I predicted over a year ago that people would try to compare the multiple boosters of the Covid vaccine to the flu shot. That is trying to play on people's ignorance. The flu shot is a new guesstimate each year of what will be the most prominent strain of flu virus in the upcoming season. It's not quite a crap shoot, but close. I realize that in many ways they are building this race car as it's racing, but the Covid vaccine was not advertised or promoted as a vaccine for this year's, or the latest, or most prominent Covid strain. The Covid vaccine was initially advertised as a two shot dose. We were told that once you get the second dose, you would not get Covid. Then when we started learning of many people getting Covid after the second dose, we were told that they weren't symptomatic, or the symptoms were greatly reduced. When we learned of people actually dying of Covid after their second dose, then the goalposts were moved again. It was during this time that the CDC revised their definition of "vaccine" from "provides immunity", to "increases immunity". A subtle but important distinction.
All of this tells me that at best we are just still learning about the efficacy of the vaccine; the "studies" are ongoing, it's just that the entire general public is now part of the "study". I choose to remain in the control group.

Quote:

---

will grow as we hear and read of various studies and anecdotes about possible side effects of the vaccine, coupled with changing reports of vaccine efficacy continuing to drop.
this is where you have to be skeptical both ways. you should be just as skeptical about the negative and positive.
reason for confidence: there have been a metric crap ton of studies out there that have been made free to the public to read, and the studies showing that the vaccines are safe provide an overwhelming backdrop of evidence against the studies and anecdotes that don't.

---

I am skeptical because I am aware of the pressure to minimize any studies which are negative about the vaccines and highlight any that are positive about the vaccine. The industry has shown their ass so badly that there is no organization that I can just trust implicitly. So yes, I have some internal biases that will affect how much credence I give to any particular study. If there were any mea culpas from any of the organizations that have clearly been proven wrong in their earlier statements, then I might start to give that organization more credence. All I see from the mainstream "experts" is doubling down and goalpost moving. Never an acknowledgment that many of the people and organizations who noted issues early turned out to be correct.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

If these vaccines really did what they were originally intended to do; and if Covid infections were as deadly as initially advertised, there would be no need to try to "convince" people to be vaccinated. There would be no need to issue "mandates".

---

are you kidding? most people don't get flu shots. 10% of people dont give their kids the MMR vaccine. 20% don't get pertussis for their kids. 80% of adults aren't current on pertussis vaccines. that being said - the mandates were wrong, and the method they attempted to use to mandate them through the OSHA general duty clause was particularly egregious. i completely i agree with you there.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Frankly, I don't understand why you seem to be so passionately opposed to people thinking and making decisions for themselves regarding this vaccine. Is there a profit motive in it for you?

---

if you can find a single place where i've expressed any opposition to people thinking for themselves or making decisions please quote it.

sharing information is the exact opposite of what you're describing. i'm encouraging you to read studies. it is 100% the same as the people who post tweets about vaccine danger. open discourse must include dissenting opinions. otherwise you're not looking for thought or decision making but a groupthink echo chamber.

the behavior that is passionately opposed to people thinking and making decisions for themselves is the constant insults and accusations. why are y'all so afraid of an open discussion about vaccine safety where research is shared?

---

---

Calling people "ignorant" when they express concerns about the safety and efficacy of the vaccine is exactly what I'm talking about. "You just haven't read enough of the studies I'm reading, here have another one", is arrogant. You don't even acknowledge that there are any issues or concerns. That causes you to lose any credibility no matter how many studies you link or quote.

---

Well said.

Dad-O-Lot said:

---

Just another note about studies related to Covid and the Covid vaccine.

I get the impression that no one is trying to get to the "truth", they are all just trying to prove their a priori position.

---

I don't think that applies to me. it is a personal goal of mine to actively not do this. Not just on this topic but any. You should read the book "scout mindset" - I linked a review of it earlier. Short read, good book. Having a truth seeking mindset makes us make better decisions.

Natural immunity was always the best answer for something that wasn't that deadly to the majority of society. Instead, I still get constant commercials for shooting my kids up with this.

Sorry. The onslaught of bull**** marketing at kids gives me plenty of reason to disregard the government and big pharma. We've had Covid twice and both times it was nothing to us. There is no rationale for me to inject more risk into my family blood lines.

Zobel said:

---

You're back to the "how it was advertised" criticism. Can't speak to that. I don't think anyone really knew how well it would work. There was lots of scientific speculation about how well it would provide protection with mutation. We don't even really understand how natural immunity works with other corona viruses.

---

We were told that it would work; that if we took the vaccine that we would not get Covid. The goalposts were then promptly put on wheels and moved every time data came out that showed that it didn't work.

There was no admission that "we think this will work, but we don't even understand how natural immunity works with other Corona Viruses"

For decades we have looked for a cure for the "common cold", but now we think we have one for an uncommon cold. Nope, I don't buy it.

Quote:

---

I don't think I've called anyone ignorant here. Sharing information isn't arrogant, especially when the questions being asked have been answered in the literature. Or when what's being asserted doesn't align with the available information. More information is always better. At any rate there's nothing wrong with ignorance. I'm ignorant about a lot of things. The good news is it is treatable and it just takes some effort. Reading more, learning more, is something everyone should do together. Versus shouting down dissenting opinions and saying I'm arrogant or shill or a troll. It's no better than liberal cancel culture - the only thing "wrong" is that i disagree with the prevailing opinion here. You've low-key insulted me a couple of times in this conversation. Why's that?

It's a discussion and I don't think it's reasonable for you to expect me to argue all sides. You certainly don't. You haven't even acknowledged that there are many reasons for confidence. Doesn't that bring your credibility into question?

---

You didn't call a specific person ignorant, but you said those who question the efficacy and safety of the covid vaccine are ignorant.

I acknowledge that I see no reason for confidence. If I trusted the sources, I might, but I do not trust any of the sources which have expressed confidence in the efficacy and safety of the Covid vaccines.

I am not worried about my "credibility". I am not trying to prove or disprove anything. Just pointing out some of the evidence that calls into question the credibility of the political and pharmaceutical establishment which tried to "force" me and everyone else to take a vaccine that we are still trying to figure out whether and when it works to prevent catching a moving target virus.

You don't seem to acknowledge any of this recent history that should call the credibility of the medical and political establishment into question.

Revising the definition of vaccine.

Ignoring, or actively preventing any studies of prophylactic treatments other than a vaccine.

Trying to prevent the release of data for 75 years

Constant moving of the goalposts regarding what it means for the vaccine to "work"

To say nothing of the attempts to force people who didn't want it to take the vaccine.

Zobel said:

---

The challenge for us is to be able to aggregate additional information beyond direct personal experience. That's the whole purpose of science - to be able to make predictions, good predictions, across large ranges of events. Larger than our personal range of experience would allow.

---

Ok cool. I'm pro-science. Go science!

But n this case, what's the upside to being vaxxed given current realities?

Of course all medications involve some risk. The question then becomes whether the risk:reward ratio is overwhelmingly favorable.

Removing my own anecdotal experience, albeit pretty grim… I think the first basic question one should ask is: does the vaccine even WORK in the first place? Maybe it does/has for some people, but overall, the available evidence clearly indicates it doesn't work very well, and that's being generous. It's the least effective vaccine I've ever seen. If it doesn't prevent transmission or infection, what's the point?

The second question one should ask is: is the disease it's attempting to prevent severe enough to offset the known risks of the vaccine? For most people without preexisting severe health problems and even among those who do, Covid isn't a huge deal. You're sick for a week and then you get over it. For some people with weakened immune systems, Covid is life-threatening, but that also applies to a host of other viruses. Ok, so that leads back to the original salient question: does the vaccine even work?

If the vaccine really worked as advertised, then I could at least understand your insistence that "additional information beyond direct personal experience" yields something compelling that we should look at.

At best, maybe the vaccine has been benign for most people…that we know of so far. A benign medication isn't a medication.

So again, what's the upside?

It seems to me the juice isn't worth the squeeze.

I also find it interesting that we no longer hear the term "herd immunity" with regard to Covid.

I wonder why?

When we were being told that we had to promote this vaccine so we could reach "herd immunity", there was no inclusion of natural immunity in the target percentage calculations. We were told it was because we had no information on how long natural immunity lasted. It was at least implied that the immunity provided by the vaccine was superior to natural immunity. I have still not seen any of the medical or political establishment recognize the value of natural immunity. I'll admit that I haven't been searching diligently for such an admission, but I haven't recognized anything in my normal internet perusing.

The percentage of people who needed to get vaccinated to reach "herd immunity" kept increasing. Then it changed to percentage "fully immunized". Then the definition of "fully immunized" started changing with each new booster that came out.

Have the powers that be finally conceded that there is no percentage of "fully" vaccinated populace that will eliminate this virus?

Quote:

---

You're back to the "how it was advertised" criticism. Can't speak to that. I don't think anyone really knew how well it would work. There was lots of scientific speculation about how well it would provide protection with mutation. We don't even really understand how natural immunity works with other corona viruses.

---

Zobel is following the pattern for excusing policy failure that Thomas Sowell laid out in his 1996 book, "Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy".

Quote:

---

PATTERNS OF FAILURE A very distinct pattern has emerged repeatedly when policies favored by the anointed turn out to fail. This pattern typically has four stages:

STAGE 1. THE "CRISIS": Some situation exists, whose negative aspects the anointed propose to eliminate. Such a situation is routinely characterized as a "crisis," even though all human situations have negative aspects, and even though evidence is seldom asked or given to show how the situation at hand is either uniquely bad or threatening to get worse. Sometimes the situation described as a "crisis" has in fact already been getting better for years.

STAGE 2. THE "SOLUTION": Policies to end the "crisis" are advocated by the anointed, who say that these policies will lead to beneficial result A. Critics say that these policies will lead to detrimental result Z. The anointed dismiss these latter claims as absurd and "simplistic," if not dishonest.

STAGE 3. THE RESULTS: The policies are instituted and lead to detrimental result Z.

STAGE 4. THE RESPONSE: Those who attribute detrimental result Z to the policies instituted are dismissed as "simplistic" for ignoring the "complexities" involved, as "many factors" went into determining the outcome. The burden of proof is put on the critics to demonstrate to a certainty that these policies alone were the only possible cause of the worsening that occurred. No burden of proof whatever is put on those who had so confidently predicted improvement. Indeed, it is often asserted that things would have been even worse, were it not for the wonderful programs that mitigated the inevitable damage from other factors.

Sowell, Thomas. The Vision Of The Annointed (p. 8). Basic Books. Kindle Edition.

---

Quote:

---

Factual evidence and logical arguments are often not merely lacking but ignored in many discussions by those with the vision of the anointed. Much that is said by the anointed in the outward form of an argument turns out not to be arguments at all. Often the logical structure of an argument is replaced by preemptive rhetoric or, where an argument is made, its validity remains unchecked against any evidence, even when such evidence is abundant. Evidence is often particularly abundant when it comes to statements about history, yet the anointed have repeatedly been as demonstrably wrong about the past as about the present or the futureand as supremely confident.

TEFLON PROPHETS

One of the more remarkable feats of those with the vision of the anointed has been the maintenance of their reputations in the face of repeated predictions that proved to be wrong by miles. Examples are all too abundant. A few of the more obviously false but teflon prophets include such individuals as John Kenneth Galbraith and Paul Ehrlich, and such institutional prophets as the Club of Rome and Worldwatch Institute. In each case, the utter certainty of their predictions has been matched by the utter failure of the real world to cooperateand by the utter invulnerability of their reputations.

Sowell, Thomas. The Vision Of The Annointed (pp. 64-65). Basic Books. Kindle Edition.

---

The Anointed are "often wrong but never in doubt" as they persist in telling we of the benighted masses what is good for us.