- Posts
- 358
- Likes
- 608
Pianotuna
·It's probably easier to listen in iTunes though...
Vaccinated roll-call
Locked
- Posts
- 8,152
- Likes
- 28,762
Tony C.
··Ωf Jury memberThe “straw man” in your argument is you claim everything is “fact”.
My opinion is that no one knows enough facts about this disease to be able to make anything more than an educated guess. This includes doctors who specialize in epidemiology, because this is something they haven’t seen before either. Their guesses are likely more educated than mine, but even the doctors have a lack of consensus about how to manage this pandemic.
Guesses (even very educated ones) are not facts and shouldn’t be presented as such.
This is somewhat misguided. If there is something that I have claimed to be a fact that you are able to rebut, then please do so. Dismissing what I have claimed in such a broad manner isn't useful at all, nor compelling, absent specific examples.
The facts that I asserted, along with the resulting conclusion, are quoted below. To have been completely clear, I should have qualified the first with "outside of clinical trials", but that is a technicality that doesn't change the essential point in any meaningful way.
- mRNA vaccines have never been used on humans previously
- even normal vaccines typically undergo many years of safety studies before being approved, yet these were rushed into use in ~one year
- Pharmaceutical companies such as Pfizer stand to make enormous amounts of money from the vaccines
- these companies have been explicitly clear that they cannot be held legally responsible for any problems with the vaccines that may arise
- Governments are desperate to control the virus, and (especially in the U.S.) were/are under heavy lobbying pressure to employ the vaccines
To arrive at the conclusion that there are unknown medium and long term risks involved in using mRNA vaccines is simple, unassailable logic, based on facts.
Now, how people respond to those facts and conclusion obviously differs. Most are quite willing to be optimistic, and accept those type of vaccines, while others are not. There are vaccines based on technologies that have proven to be relatively safe over long periods of time, but unfortunately, due to politics and money, they are often unavailable to those who may be uncomfortable with the mRNA options.
While I would agree that everyone including the experts are, at least to some extent, making educated guesses about the future, the main theme(s) of my posts are not inconsistent with that. Please provide an example of where I posted a "guess" as a fact, as I am not aware of a single one.
Finally, the doctor whose post I quoted is actually not politically biased, at least as far as I can detect, as he was simply responding to the trope that a certain group was largely responsible for the push-back against vaccines. He was building context through his experience, which is on the front lines. But that is a trivial part of what he provides to readers, as he has been reporting his findings, and those of colleagues on the ground, with regard to how the virus is behaving in patients. He never claims to have final answers, and frequently qualifies his contributions by pointing out that they are small samples, etc. In fact, as a veteran of the AIDS crisis, he is particularly well-qualified to offer insights into what is happening with COVID.
Edited:
- Posts
- 7,219
- Likes
- 23,404
M'Bob
·What’s great about getting older is that the issue of “long-term effects” becomes mostly irrelevant…
- Posts
- 7,219
- Likes
- 23,404
M'Bob
·What’s great about getting older is that the issue of “long-term effects” becomes mostly irrelevant…
To wit: I have to laugh when I hear middle-aged people say, “Well, we don’t know the long-term effects.” Except we do know the long-term effects of a shirty diet, alcohol consumption, and physical inactivity, but that doesn’t stop you, does it?
- Posts
- 7,219
- Likes
- 23,404
M'Bob
·And my last comment (yeah, right…)
Politics aside, I’m in health care, and if people knew intimately what a profoundly unpleasurable experience it is, and to have ANY chance of going on a respirator, they would be RUNNING to get jabbed…
Politics aside, I’m in health care, and if people knew intimately what a profoundly unpleasurable experience it is, and to have ANY chance of going on a respirator, they would be RUNNING to get jabbed…
- Posts
- 13,762
- Likes
- 53,692
Larry S
··Color Commentator for the Hyperbole.To wit: I have to laugh when I hear middle-aged people say, “Well, we don’t know the long-term effects.” Except we do know the long-term effects of a shirty diet, alcohol consumption, and physical inactivity, but that doesn’t stop you, does it?
- Posts
- 415
- Likes
- 1,089
mrbreen
·Exactly! PS … My younger neighbor is a long hauler at this point. Got it from his middle school and grade school kids back in late Jan. Hospitalized because he’s a heart patient. He’s been dragging his ass ever since. He keeps fit, doesn’t drink or smoke. Long term effects of Covid … pretty dammed clear.
And I'm sympathetic to some extent of skepticism of big pharma, their lobbying ties, and their pecuniary motivations. One need look no further to the ongoing opioid epidemic in the US, a crisis that was almost entirely manufactured by this industry. I don't see the same parallels in mRNA technology, but it's going to get rough out there in this debate especially as 1) The FDA just approved booster shots (full disclosure, I just got one). And 2) Vaccination requirements become more prevalent/ubiquitous.
- Posts
- 8,152
- Likes
- 28,762
Tony C.
··Ωf Jury memberI don't see the same parallels in mRNA technology, but it's going to get rough out there in this debate...
As I touched on above, one of the saddest parts of this issue is that for reasons relating to money and politics, there is/was only one non-mRNA vaccine authorized for use in the U.S., Johnson & Johnson’s Janssen. Due to safety concerns over blood clots, there was a "pause" of its use, but even if it is available again, there was obvious damage done to its reputation.
At the same time, while there are conflicting opinions, Russia's Sputnik V vaccine appears to be safe (it has been approved for use in 69 countries, and has been compiling a good record re: side effects in Argentina, etc.), and there are claims of it being quite effective against the Delta variant. Yet largely for political reasons, there is little chance that it will ever be employed in the U.S., and perhaps some European countries, as well.
There have been production problems, but those could be resolved if the vaccine were to also be produced more robustly outside of Russia.
Edited:
- Posts
- 2,219
- Likes
- 4,954
ChrisN
·I don't wish to be unkind to anyone but, if you really think you understand the science behind any of these vaccines, then you are deluding yourself. The reality is that those of us who are in a science field spend many years to achieve a level of knowledge and then expand on this over decades of experience.
By all means, read what you will and try to draw your own conclusions. If you find you agree with those who know what they are talking about, then fine. Expand that by discovering how the vaccine may affect you in your own situation (medication, weight, fitness, age etc) and that's good as well if you have a trusted and peer reviewed source.
If you find that you are disagreeing with scientists of knowledge and experience, then you haven't understood the topic - there is no alternative, sorry. I know this is harsh but, it's true. In all seriousness, you wouldn't last five minutes in a proper discussion with the leaders (or even junior players) in the field. Science is very complex and you won't understand it through a few blogs or some anecdotal evidence.
I keep saying that the best advice is to follow that given by those of us trained and experienced in any scientific field. You may not agree but, that's because you just can't understand - not because you are stupid but simply because you don't have the training and experience. If you feel that you don't trust such people, then that's fine for me, as I really don't care. Don't take any vaccine if you are concerned because as far as I am concerned, there are not sufficient numbers (in UK at least) to make any difference. Note, other people may have a different opinion.
In the very simplest sense and bringing this to a watch forum level, do you think that you understand the inner workings of a watch? If not (bearing in mind that is relatively trivial) then why think you can understand the issues of complex vaccines? Who here (not Al, Jim and Ashton, as examples) could even understand the difference in the allowable end shake (float) on a watch wheel vs a car wheel?
Whatever people decide, my best wishes to all and I hope we can soon get back to a life that is the same as before March 2020. I'm wearing a 1950s Omega bumper and have just enjoyed a pleasant evening in the pub talking to friends over a few beers - life is slowly returning to normal in UK and long may it continue to improve.
Best wishes, Chris
By all means, read what you will and try to draw your own conclusions. If you find you agree with those who know what they are talking about, then fine. Expand that by discovering how the vaccine may affect you in your own situation (medication, weight, fitness, age etc) and that's good as well if you have a trusted and peer reviewed source.
If you find that you are disagreeing with scientists of knowledge and experience, then you haven't understood the topic - there is no alternative, sorry. I know this is harsh but, it's true. In all seriousness, you wouldn't last five minutes in a proper discussion with the leaders (or even junior players) in the field. Science is very complex and you won't understand it through a few blogs or some anecdotal evidence.
I keep saying that the best advice is to follow that given by those of us trained and experienced in any scientific field. You may not agree but, that's because you just can't understand - not because you are stupid but simply because you don't have the training and experience. If you feel that you don't trust such people, then that's fine for me, as I really don't care. Don't take any vaccine if you are concerned because as far as I am concerned, there are not sufficient numbers (in UK at least) to make any difference. Note, other people may have a different opinion.
In the very simplest sense and bringing this to a watch forum level, do you think that you understand the inner workings of a watch? If not (bearing in mind that is relatively trivial) then why think you can understand the issues of complex vaccines? Who here (not Al, Jim and Ashton, as examples) could even understand the difference in the allowable end shake (float) on a watch wheel vs a car wheel?
Whatever people decide, my best wishes to all and I hope we can soon get back to a life that is the same as before March 2020. I'm wearing a 1950s Omega bumper and have just enjoyed a pleasant evening in the pub talking to friends over a few beers - life is slowly returning to normal in UK and long may it continue to improve.
Best wishes, Chris
- Posts
- 8,152
- Likes
- 28,762
Tony C.
··Ωf Jury memberI don't wish to be unkind to anyone but, if you really think you understand the science behind any of these vaccines, then you are deluding yourself.
I'm not sure where you got that impression. One needn't know any of the actual science in order to point out that no one can predict the long-terms effects of the mRNA vaccines. Whether that should be of concern to people can be debated, but it remains a potentially important fact that anyone can easily understand. Similarly, one needn't know any deep science in order to gain at least a basic understanding of the differences between mRNA, Viral vector, and inactivated vaccines. And as all three have been approved by various authorities around the world for use in the fight against COVID, such an understanding could lead to a more informed decision about which to choose.
If you find that you are disagreeing with scientists of knowledge and experience, then you haven't understood the topic - there is no alternative, sorry.
Again, I'm unclear as to where you might have gotten that impression. As you surely know, not all scientists of knowledge and experience agree on the various issues being discussed. My personal conclusions, such as they are given the fluidity of the situation, are based on the understanding of some experts, and are at odds with others.
Obviously no layperson has the training and experience to understand the complex science behind vaccines, but to suggest that one should necessarily assume that the consensus of the experts who do is correct, strikes me as being a rather dubious position to take.
Edited:
- Posts
- 4,704
- Likes
- 17,825
Omegafanman
·On a positive the modern vaccines are a very different proposition / composition to the Swine Flu vaccine from 2009/10 and lessons have been learned from that I am sure, So the public health benefits given the current situation for vaccines to those at risk still outweighs any possible (very very low risk) based on consensus research as mentioned many times here. Also recently payouts have been agreed for those impacted / the issues has been accepted (notes below) Science has gone wrong in the past (general statement) so vaccinating the very young given the current risk profile remains a concern for me.... Of course the needs for ongoing boosters and rapid reactions to variants is also a consideration in terms of ongoing evolving therapies. Lastly the drop in general immunity might be an issue. I have a fully vaccinated relative who has gone on holiday (I am not rushing anywhere) and they are now down with pneumonia in a situation / location with limited healthcare. Winter will be a test point for the UK made worse by a huge NHS backlog and the fact that for many years beds have been cut (as the death rate was dropping for years due to demographics) but in 2004 the ONS predicated there would be a return to the mean death rate.Covid has brought that forward in the UK and we are now back at the original mean run rate which is beyond NHS capacity now. Of course without the protective measures things could have exceeded the mean.
In the case of the H1N1 swine flu epidemic in 2009/10, vaccination with GlaxoSmithKline’s Pandemrix was followed by a significant increase in the incidence of narcolepsy. In the UK, it is estimated that this particular vaccine increased the risk of narcolepsy onset 14-fold in children and 4-fold in adults, a finding broadly mirrored in other countries that used Pandemrix. Subsequent research strongly suggests that it was the formulation of the H1N1 viral nucleoprotein used in Pandemrix (rather than the AS03 adjuvant) that likely triggered an autoimmune assault on hypocretin/orexin-producing cells in some individuals with a genetic vulnerability to developing narcolepsy.
The SARS-CoV-2 virus, the pathogen responsible for COVID-19, is a coronavirus and not an influenza virus. Most of the vaccines in development against SARS-CoV-2, including the three vaccines currently licensed for use in the UK, work by stimulating the immune system to produce antibodies specific to the CoV-2 spike protein. As the CoV-2 spike protein has a completely different structure to the H1N1 nucleoprotein used in the Pandemrix vaccine, there is no scientific reason why any of the COVID vaccines currently licensed (Pfizer, Oxford/AstraZeneca and Moderna) should trigger an autoimmune attack on the hypocretin/orexin-producing cells in the brain as occurred with Pandemrix.
In the case of the H1N1 swine flu epidemic in 2009/10, vaccination with GlaxoSmithKline’s Pandemrix was followed by a significant increase in the incidence of narcolepsy. In the UK, it is estimated that this particular vaccine increased the risk of narcolepsy onset 14-fold in children and 4-fold in adults, a finding broadly mirrored in other countries that used Pandemrix. Subsequent research strongly suggests that it was the formulation of the H1N1 viral nucleoprotein used in Pandemrix (rather than the AS03 adjuvant) that likely triggered an autoimmune assault on hypocretin/orexin-producing cells in some individuals with a genetic vulnerability to developing narcolepsy.
The SARS-CoV-2 virus, the pathogen responsible for COVID-19, is a coronavirus and not an influenza virus. Most of the vaccines in development against SARS-CoV-2, including the three vaccines currently licensed for use in the UK, work by stimulating the immune system to produce antibodies specific to the CoV-2 spike protein. As the CoV-2 spike protein has a completely different structure to the H1N1 nucleoprotein used in the Pandemrix vaccine, there is no scientific reason why any of the COVID vaccines currently licensed (Pfizer, Oxford/AstraZeneca and Moderna) should trigger an autoimmune attack on the hypocretin/orexin-producing cells in the brain as occurred with Pandemrix.
- Posts
- 2,219
- Likes
- 4,954
ChrisN
·Hi Tony
I see that you have invested a lot of time in this. There are usually people who disagree with any scientific concept and if you look hard enough, you will find them. Once you find one like that, you end up in an echo chamber and everything reinforces the initial opinion. This is one issue with unstructured learning.
When you get 100 scientists (or engineers, watchmakers, guitarists etc) together, you will find that a few rise to the top and those are the ones to listen to. Not everyone is equal and this is normal in life. Those ones, at the top of their game, usually occupy the senior positions in their field. Some people below them may not agree with their findings but, it doesn't matter as soon, those below are not seeing all the data and not mixing with people who move science forward so their grasp of the situation is not as complete as they think.
I think your big concern is the long term effects of mRNA vaccines. Where does this concern come from? Is it from those top scientists or from someone below them who doesn't have access to the full set of data? It will be the latter, unless you decided one day that this would be a concern and that's unlikely.
We all know that new technology moves rapidly and I don't recollect such outcry when we started to replace metal with CFRP for flight safety critical structure in aircraft (for example). The authorities and those at the top of the business were concerned but did everything they could to cover all eventualities - I know this as I was there. I believe this to be true for the different vaccine types as well.
My advice is to listen to those at the top. In England, that is Chris Whitty and Patrick Vallance. That is hardly a dubious position especially for those without the training and experience in the field.
If you prefer to listen to a few lower level people from the internet, then it's your choice. Like I said before, I'm not concerned and I wish you well in whatever you do. Let's hope we all get back to some normal life soon. I doubt I can contribute anything more to this thread as I am just repeating myself.
Best wishes, Chris
I see that you have invested a lot of time in this. There are usually people who disagree with any scientific concept and if you look hard enough, you will find them. Once you find one like that, you end up in an echo chamber and everything reinforces the initial opinion. This is one issue with unstructured learning.
When you get 100 scientists (or engineers, watchmakers, guitarists etc) together, you will find that a few rise to the top and those are the ones to listen to. Not everyone is equal and this is normal in life. Those ones, at the top of their game, usually occupy the senior positions in their field. Some people below them may not agree with their findings but, it doesn't matter as soon, those below are not seeing all the data and not mixing with people who move science forward so their grasp of the situation is not as complete as they think.
I think your big concern is the long term effects of mRNA vaccines. Where does this concern come from? Is it from those top scientists or from someone below them who doesn't have access to the full set of data? It will be the latter, unless you decided one day that this would be a concern and that's unlikely.
We all know that new technology moves rapidly and I don't recollect such outcry when we started to replace metal with CFRP for flight safety critical structure in aircraft (for example). The authorities and those at the top of the business were concerned but did everything they could to cover all eventualities - I know this as I was there. I believe this to be true for the different vaccine types as well.
My advice is to listen to those at the top. In England, that is Chris Whitty and Patrick Vallance. That is hardly a dubious position especially for those without the training and experience in the field.
If you prefer to listen to a few lower level people from the internet, then it's your choice. Like I said before, I'm not concerned and I wish you well in whatever you do. Let's hope we all get back to some normal life soon. I doubt I can contribute anything more to this thread as I am just repeating myself.
Best wishes, Chris
- Posts
- 4,704
- Likes
- 17,825
Omegafanman
·Hi Tony
I see that you have invested a lot of time in this. There are usually people who disagree with any scientific concept and if you look hard enough, you will find them. Once you find one like that, you end up in an echo chamber and everything reinforces the initial opinion. This is one issue with unstructured learning.
When you get 100 scientists (or engineers, watchmakers, guitarists etc) together, you will find that a few rise to the top and those are the ones to listen to. Not everyone is equal and this is normal in life. Those ones, at the top of their game, usually occupy the senior positions in their field. Some people below them may not agree with their findings but, it doesn't matter as soon, those below are not seeing all the data and not mixing with people who move science forward so their grasp of the situation is not as complete as they think.
I think your big concern is the long term effects of mRNA vaccines. Where does this concern come from? Is it from those top scientists or from someone below them who doesn't have access to the full set of data? It will be the latter, unless you decided one day that this would be a concern and that's unlikely.
We all know that new technology moves rapidly and I don't recollect such outcry when we started to replace metal with CFRP for flight safety critical structure in aircraft (for example). The authorities and those at the top of the business were concerned but did everything they could to cover all eventualities - I know this as I was there. I believe this to be true for the different vaccine types as well.
My advice is to listen to those at the top. In England, that is Chris Whitty and Patrick Vallance. That is hardly a dubious position especially for those without the training and experience in the field.
If you prefer to listen to a few lower level people from the internet, then it's your choice. Like I said before, I'm not concerned and I wish you well in whatever you do. Let's hope we all get back to some normal life soon. I doubt I can contribute anything more to this thread as I am just repeating myself.
Best wishes, Chris
You have made some very strong a gently worded points in your posts Chris which is much needed on an emotive topic. The job of the top people is to convince all the people. I prefer more carrot than stick. I know that is frustrating at times but otherwise we risk an intellectual divide in which the wealthier and better educated exclude people’s views which ultimately questions those people’s ability to participate in the democratic process. People do have mistrust these days. Using aircraft as an example the systemic issues around the Boeing 737 cost hundreds of lives and shone a light on the cosy relationship / collusion they had developed with the FAA. Systems and governing bodies in the most safety critical industry were found badly wanting and that flagship plane was grounded twice over two or three years. Joe public are simple creatures / and yes we ask simple questions ,,,,Often more than once :0). This is good to keep everyone on there toes to push for the best well explained outcome. Politicians should try to take people with them / not force them along and dismiss them as ignorant and lacking the ability to make sensible judgements (dismissed as being rock dwellers). The politicians also seem to have Teflon shoulders when it goes wrong (in fact I think we all have some Teflon in us these days / a wonder chemical which killed a few people).
Anyway I suspect in the next few weeks there will be more developments on the UK vaccine programme. I struggle to make sense of the new rules in terms of risk reduction profile. It just looks more like a mandate to force vaccine uptake rather than reduce risk....why does being under 18 mean you do not need to isolate .... high risk group for a party back in my day......and as yet not vaccinated.
From Monday 16 August in the UK people who are double jabbed or aged under 18 will no longer be legally required to self-isolate if they are identified as a close contact of a positive COVID-19 case. The change was announced last month, as part of step 4 of the government’s COVID-19 roadmap. With 75% of people having received both doses of the vaccine, the majority of adults will no longer need to self-isolate if they are contacts.
- Posts
- 8,152
- Likes
- 28,762
Tony C.
··Ωf Jury memberWhen you get 100 scientists (or engineers, watchmakers, guitarists etc) together, you will find that a few rise to the top and those are the ones to listen to. Not everyone is equal and this is normal in life. Those ones, at the top of their game, usually occupy the senior positions in their field. Some people below them may not agree with their findings but, it doesn't matter as soon, those below are not seeing all the data and not mixing with people who move science forward so their grasp of the situation is not as complete as they think.
Thanks Chris. I find the above claim to be remarkable, and especially given that you are so comfortable broadening your claim beyond the field of science. I say that because over the past 50 years, or ~20, if your prefer, the world has experienced precisely the opposite of your claim as it pertains to major military and economic decisions, two profoundly important and impactful aspects of society.
I shouldn't need to point out that with respect to the Iraq war, and it is just one example, virtually every expert that had risen to the top was in lockstep about the wisdom of the war. In fact, one would be hard-pressed to find a more pungent example of a disastrous, historical echo chamber than what occurred prior to the invasion.
At the very same time, the ones who you disparagingly and breezily dismiss, were, in that instance, and in large part, the ones who were proven to have been correct.
I won't go into any detail about economics, but anyone paying the slightest bit of attention understands that neoliberal economics has largely been a disaster for a very high percentage of the populations of countries in which it has been practiced. And, once again, many of the criticisms of the dissenters have been proven to have been accurate.
Viewing through the lens of both of those tremendously important cases, and there are certainly others, the principal foundation of your criticisms is revealed to be unsound.
To avoid yet another misunderstanding, I am certainly not arguing that the consensus of expert opinions is typically dubious, nor that they should always be treated with suspicion. But given the various important moving parts in the unfolding COVID saga, the sordid histories of at least some of the Big Pharma companies, the corruption of governments and nexus between them and large corporations, the inconsistencies in public claims and recommendations emanating from the very experts who you hold in such high regard, etc., I find it very surprising that you would be so sanguine.
I think your big concern is the long term effects of mRNA vaccines. Where does this concern come from? Is it from those top scientists or from someone below them who doesn't have access to the full set of data? It will be the latter, unless you decided one day that this would be a concern and that's unlikely.
Please provide an excerpt, or link to a "top scientist" who has claimed that the long-term effects of mRNA vaccines are known.
These vaccines are being used under various forms of "emergency use authorizations", and one of, if not the primary reason for that, is that the long-term effects are unknown. The rush to manufacture, preventing broader, and much longer trials, insured that there would be uncertainties. Why else would Pfizer have insisted that they cannot not be held legally culpable should there be adverse, long-term effects?
We all know that new technology moves rapidly and I don't recollect such outcry when we started to replace metal with CFRP for flight safety critical structure in aircraft (for example). The authorities and those at the top of the business were concerned but did everything they could to cover all eventualities - I know this as I was there. I believe this to be true for the different vaccine types as well.
The above is a false equivalency. Those structural replacements weren't rushed into service under an "emergency use authorization", so their safety must have been tested to degrees that range well beyond what has taken place with these vaccines. They must have been authorized by the FAA, and equivalent safety organizations. Furthermore, no individuals were compelled to fly on airplanes employing new materials, were they?
I understand that the long-term safety of CFRP may have been unknown, but surely it would have been possible to stress the new materials in ways that would provide a high level of confidence, and that's quite different from what is unfolding with the vaccines.
Edited:
- Posts
- 2,809
- Likes
- 14,884
The Father
·Just a small unscientific study I conducted. Crossed paths with dozens and dozens of people in the last couple days. Unexplainably conversation has turn to COVID, masks, and vaccines.
Anyway the majority have opted not to get vaccinated. The vast majority are college graduates and reasonable people. Reasoning always circles back to unknown long term effects. I tried to pry out the real reason for hesitation was based on FOX news and suspect websites. But alas no luck. Most are from fly over states so that could explain the reasoning. They are obviously not sophisticated enough to have sound reasoning.
Anyway the majority have opted not to get vaccinated. The vast majority are college graduates and reasonable people. Reasoning always circles back to unknown long term effects. I tried to pry out the real reason for hesitation was based on FOX news and suspect websites. But alas no luck. Most are from fly over states so that could explain the reasoning. They are obviously not sophisticated enough to have sound reasoning.
- Posts
- 2,219
- Likes
- 4,954
ChrisN
·All very interesting and it certainly seems that strong opinions are held by people without any knowledge of this field and that's your choice. I'll stop following this thread as no-one will be able to change anyone else's mind. It's almost impossible to convince anyone of anything with little posts and it will just go back and forth without an end and my life is too busy to continue. This comment sums up my feelings best:
Good luck, Chris
Like I said before, I'm not concerned and I wish you well in whatever you do.
Good luck, Chris
- Posts
- 8,152
- Likes
- 28,762
Tony C.
··Ωf Jury memberAll very interesting and it certainly seems that strong opinions are held by people without any knowledge of this field and that's your choice. I'll stop following this thread as no-one will be able to change anyone else's mind
Actually, you could possibly change my mind by specifically addressing the numerous facts that I have presented. But you haven't.
It seems that you believe that there is little, if any reason, to worry about the long-term effects of mRNA vaccines, yet instead of explaining why, beyond an implied rubber stamp of the experts' consensus, you questioned whether they actually are unknown, then failed to name a single, supporting source when challenged.
You suggest that following the consensus of the experts in any field should be done without critical thought, and that those who lack deep knowledge of a complex subject are, by definition, unable to make informed decisions. Both are clearly untenable positions, in my view, and I'm quite certain that countless millions more would agree.
Good luck to you,
Tony
- Posts
- 29,880
- Likes
- 77,289
- Posts
- 3,994
- Likes
- 6,838
Vercingetorix
··Spam RiskTwo jabs of the Pfizer and a new 5G iPad. I have eaten food, drunk water, and breathed the air. I am a deadman, it’s only a matter of time.
- Posts
- 8,152
- Likes
- 28,762
Tony C.
··Ωf Jury memberSo you would let someone on a watch forum influence your decision to get vaccinated or not?
My decisions about whether or not to be vaccinated, and if so, with which type of vaccine, would invariably derive from many sources. It is certainly conceivable that a contributor producing compelling, well-sourced information on any type of forum could become a part of that group.
Just follow the advice of the experts' consensus, as the intricacies of the topic are beyond your reach, however, is not an argument that I find to be remotely compelling.
Similar threads
- Posts
- 12
- Views
- 4K
- Posts
- 36
- Views
- 6K
