94chem said:

---

amercer said:

---

94chem said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Another Doug said:

---

redcrayon said:

---

Another Doug said:

---

Does this mean the FDA is no longer part of whatever conspiracy?


Also, do we get an all caps alert that they did approve a 3rd shot for immunocompromised people and people >65?

---

You can create an all-caps alert if you'd like.

Like it or not, it's remarkable that the FDA did not approve boosters for everyone. Did you listen to the vote?

---

I don't need to listen to the fda to know that the bureaucracy exists for a reason and their decisions are deliberate in nature and usually do a good job of balancing risk vs reward. I also know that they might change their mind at some point. I just have no idea why not recommending a 3rd shot is huge news to crowd that won't get the first.

---

Seriously? Because it gives weight to their opinions on the low efficacy of these vaccines.

Pretty obvious news.

---

When it's really doing exactly the opposite.

---

It's astounding and sad. A panel of experts said that the vaccines work so well that people don't need boosters, and some people manage to read that as "the vaccines don't work well"

---

I've read several books on N Korea, several on Rwanda. I'm not a historian, but I never can quite put my finger on the tipping point for these vast episodes of tragic human psychology. These disasters don't happen without compliance from otherwise bright, thinking people. Just...so...bizarre.

---

traxter said:

---

Beat40 said:

---

Gordo14 said:

---

amercer said:

---

94chem said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Another Doug said:

---

redcrayon said:

---

Another Doug said:

---

Does this mean the FDA is no longer part of whatever conspiracy?


Also, do we get an all caps alert that they did approve a 3rd shot for immunocompromised people and people >65?

---

You can create an all-caps alert if you'd like.

Like it or not, it's remarkable that the FDA did not approve boosters for everyone. Did you listen to the vote?

---

I don't need to listen to the fda to know that the bureaucracy exists for a reason and their decisions are deliberate in nature and usually do a good job of balancing risk vs reward. I also know that they might change their mind at some point. I just have no idea why not recommending a 3rd shot is huge news to crowd that won't get the first.

---

Seriously? Because it gives weight to their opinions on the low efficacy of these vaccines.

Pretty obvious news.

---

When it's really doing exactly the opposite.

---

It's astounding and sad. A panel of experts said that the vaccines work so well that people don't need boosters, and some people manage to read that as "the vaccines don't work well"

---

When your FDA is propping up big pharma conspiracy theories fail - ignore all evidence and make up your own bull**** conclusions. Pretty much par for the course for F16 posters.

---

Just ignore the conspiracy stuff. That's easy to do.

The bigger issue is when people have legitimate dissent, are called (implied to be) unintelligent because they "don't trust the experts", and then their dissent turns out to be validated and actually the recommendation, but then those who were calling them crazy continue to call them crazy or lump them with the conspiracy nuts for pointing out their dissent was founded…well, it makes it very hard to get to the truth.

I said it in another post, how about we focus on questioning things in a healthy way for the purpose of truth seeking, which ultimately benefits the entire community.

---

I agree. But along that same vein, individuals who went along with recommendations were automatically labelled as sheep and it was implied that they have no critical thinking capacity.

The problem with the legitimate dissent is that some of it is just by random people throwing out random completely unfounded dissent. If I were to say the COVID vaccine caused people to grow a tail, I'd be called a whack job by most because it has no basis and I have no proof. If by some strange coincidence some kid develops a tail after taking the vaccine, some people would hail me as a genius, when in reality I was just lucky.

Likewise with many out there, you throw out enough baseless claims, and eventually one is correct, then everyone forgets the wrong ones and you're suddenly a genius. In the scientific world you need to come up with a hypothesis and then prove that hypothesis. If you try to prove it, and you're wrong, then that's totally fine and it still advances science because we know now that's not a possibility. If you're right, then now you have to go under peer review and it has to be reproduced.

When data exists, we should make decisions based on best available data. When data doesn't exist, we need to make decisions based on foundational principles from what we know before. Another problem is that from the very beginning there were antiestabllishment groups that have essentially vowed to be obstructionist and go against everything Fauci or others said. Time and time again they continually downplayed the evolution of this pandemic and its severity. If they somehow got lucky, and this proved to be a nothingburger, they would have been lauded for their foresight. Yet few people are being called out for the damage they likely did in leading anti-vaccine, or conspiracy theory movements, that have hindered our ability to fight this.

---

TheMasterplan said:

---

traxter said:

---

Beat40 said:

---

Gordo14 said:

---

amercer said:

---

94chem said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Another Doug said:

---

redcrayon said:

---

Another Doug said:

---

Does this mean the FDA is no longer part of whatever conspiracy?


Also, do we get an all caps alert that they did approve a 3rd shot for immunocompromised people and people >65?

---

You can create an all-caps alert if you'd like.

Like it or not, it's remarkable that the FDA did not approve boosters for everyone. Did you listen to the vote?

---

I don't need to listen to the fda to know that the bureaucracy exists for a reason and their decisions are deliberate in nature and usually do a good job of balancing risk vs reward. I also know that they might change their mind at some point. I just have no idea why not recommending a 3rd shot is huge news to crowd that won't get the first.

---

Seriously? Because it gives weight to their opinions on the low efficacy of these vaccines.

Pretty obvious news.

---

When it's really doing exactly the opposite.

---

It's astounding and sad. A panel of experts said that the vaccines work so well that people don't need boosters, and some people manage to read that as "the vaccines don't work well"

---

When your FDA is propping up big pharma conspiracy theories fail - ignore all evidence and make up your own bull**** conclusions. Pretty much par for the course for F16 posters.

---

Just ignore the conspiracy stuff. That's easy to do.

The bigger issue is when people have legitimate dissent, are called (implied to be) unintelligent because they "don't trust the experts", and then their dissent turns out to be validated and actually the recommendation, but then those who were calling them crazy continue to call them crazy or lump them with the conspiracy nuts for pointing out their dissent was founded…well, it makes it very hard to get to the truth.

I said it in another post, how about we focus on questioning things in a healthy way for the purpose of truth seeking, which ultimately benefits the entire community.

---

I agree. But along that same vein, individuals who went along with recommendations were automatically labelled as sheep and it was implied that they have no critical thinking capacity.

The problem with the legitimate dissent is that some of it is just by random people throwing out random completely unfounded dissent. If I were to say the COVID vaccine caused people to grow a tail, I'd be called a whack job by most because it has no basis and I have no proof. If by some strange coincidence some kid develops a tail after taking the vaccine, some people would hail me as a genius, when in reality I was just lucky.

Likewise with many out there, you throw out enough baseless claims, and eventually one is correct, then everyone forgets the wrong ones and you're suddenly a genius. In the scientific world you need to come up with a hypothesis and then prove that hypothesis. If you try to prove it, and you're wrong, then that's totally fine and it still advances science because we know now that's not a possibility. If you're right, then now you have to go under peer review and it has to be reproduced.

When data exists, we should make decisions based on best available data. When data doesn't exist, we need to make decisions based on foundational principles from what we know before. Another problem is that from the very beginning there were antiestabllishment groups that have essentially vowed to be obstructionist and go against everything Fauci or others said. Time and time again they continually downplayed the evolution of this pandemic and its severity. If they somehow got lucky, and this proved to be a nothingburger, they would have been lauded for their foresight. Yet few people are being called out for the damage they likely did in leading anti-vaccine, or conspiracy theory movements, that have hindered our ability to fight this.

---

The biggest problem is Fauci and others (usually academics) are completely insulated by their own decisions. They are only looking at COVID-19 through a singular lens and will be paid by taxpayers regardless.

They have no skin in the game and are deeply rooted and protected by a bloated bureaucracy with no tools to be made accountable very well. All of that should be considered when judging their recommendations.

---

traxter said:

---

TheMasterplan said:

---

traxter said:

---

Beat40 said:

---

Gordo14 said:

---

amercer said:

---

94chem said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Another Doug said:

---

redcrayon said:

---

Another Doug said:

---

Does this mean the FDA is no longer part of whatever conspiracy?


Also, do we get an all caps alert that they did approve a 3rd shot for immunocompromised people and people >65?

---

You can create an all-caps alert if you'd like.

Like it or not, it's remarkable that the FDA did not approve boosters for everyone. Did you listen to the vote?

---

I don't need to listen to the fda to know that the bureaucracy exists for a reason and their decisions are deliberate in nature and usually do a good job of balancing risk vs reward. I also know that they might change their mind at some point. I just have no idea why not recommending a 3rd shot is huge news to crowd that won't get the first.

---

Seriously? Because it gives weight to their opinions on the low efficacy of these vaccines.

Pretty obvious news.

---

When it's really doing exactly the opposite.

---

It's astounding and sad. A panel of experts said that the vaccines work so well that people don't need boosters, and some people manage to read that as "the vaccines don't work well"

---

When your FDA is propping up big pharma conspiracy theories fail - ignore all evidence and make up your own bull**** conclusions. Pretty much par for the course for F16 posters.

---

Just ignore the conspiracy stuff. That's easy to do.

The bigger issue is when people have legitimate dissent, are called (implied to be) unintelligent because they "don't trust the experts", and then their dissent turns out to be validated and actually the recommendation, but then those who were calling them crazy continue to call them crazy or lump them with the conspiracy nuts for pointing out their dissent was founded…well, it makes it very hard to get to the truth.

I said it in another post, how about we focus on questioning things in a healthy way for the purpose of truth seeking, which ultimately benefits the entire community.

---

I agree. But along that same vein, individuals who went along with recommendations were automatically labelled as sheep and it was implied that they have no critical thinking capacity.

The problem with the legitimate dissent is that some of it is just by random people throwing out random completely unfounded dissent. If I were to say the COVID vaccine caused people to grow a tail, I'd be called a whack job by most because it has no basis and I have no proof. If by some strange coincidence some kid develops a tail after taking the vaccine, some people would hail me as a genius, when in reality I was just lucky.

Likewise with many out there, you throw out enough baseless claims, and eventually one is correct, then everyone forgets the wrong ones and you're suddenly a genius. In the scientific world you need to come up with a hypothesis and then prove that hypothesis. If you try to prove it, and you're wrong, then that's totally fine and it still advances science because we know now that's not a possibility. If you're right, then now you have to go under peer review and it has to be reproduced.

When data exists, we should make decisions based on best available data. When data doesn't exist, we need to make decisions based on foundational principles from what we know before. Another problem is that from the very beginning there were antiestabllishment groups that have essentially vowed to be obstructionist and go against everything Fauci or others said. Time and time again they continually downplayed the evolution of this pandemic and its severity. If they somehow got lucky, and this proved to be a nothingburger, they would have been lauded for their foresight. Yet few people are being called out for the damage they likely did in leading anti-vaccine, or conspiracy theory movements, that have hindered our ability to fight this.

---

The biggest problem is Fauci and others (usually academics) are completely insulated by their own decisions. They are only looking at COVID-19 through a singular lens and will be paid by taxpayers regardless.

They have no skin in the game and are deeply rooted and protected by a bloated bureaucracy with no tools to be made accountable very well. All of that should be considered when judging their recommendations.

---

That's fine if you believe that. I don't think I said anything to the contrary. Academic or not, produce data to back up your claim. If data doesn't exist, come up with a reasonable hypothesis based on past data. Don't start throwing out random claims in the hopes one sticks and you're seen as a savant.

In other words, if injecting bleach somehow actually treated COVID, should the person who suggested it be treated as a genius, or as a lucky guy?

---

Quote:

---

Yet few people are being called out for the damage they likely did in leading anti-vaccine, or conspiracy theory movements, that have hindered our ability to fight this.

---

TheMasterplan said:

---

Quote:

---

Yet few people are being called out for the damage they likely did in leading anti-vaccine, or conspiracy theory movements, that have hindered our ability to fight this.

---

As for this comment, I don't know how you can believe this as the government, twitter, facebook, instagram and the MSM has done all it can to drown out any dissenting voices to the main narrative. They've done their own kind of misinformation as well.

---