NO, no, no... the experts are just toeing the line because they're afraid of losing their jobs or their research grants — Janus

And getting permanently ostracized. There are lots of experts that see whole thing dangerous experiment, but they are quickly silenced, so that the pharmaceuticals get the "consensus" and MONEY they are seeking.

First biomedical scientists make the virus and then the Pharmaceuticals profit from it. Same with computer viruses. I love them symmetry of life.

Anyway, soon there will be much safer, early drug treatment for this virus (I used my own natural treatment), and this current hysteria will be over. However, I am sure it will happen again in a different form. It's just too profitable scaring the crap out of people, for Big Pharma to ignore.

:rofl: Apparently you are stupid, gullible, confirmation-biased or paranoid enough to think I was serious.

Apparently you are stupid, gullible, confirmation-biased or paranoid enough to think I was serious. — Janus

It doesn't matter whether you are serious. I am. What's going on in the world is just a giant certain of the Salem Witch Trials, where mass hysteria, created by Big Pharma and the financial community, has destroyed all semblance of Life as it was one enjoyed. The Walking Dead have taken over.

:rofl:

So I say I want to do something to your porch, and you're non-responsive. Not very clever or alert on your part. Or maybe you're clever enough to avoid an argument you cannot win. Saving you he trouble of trying to defend your indefensible claims. Any which-a-way around, you're not worth, or worthy of, engaging. — tim wood

I like when points are made clearly and directly, I respond much better. Thank you for that, and please excuse me for stringing you along with my bullshit, but that porch analogy deserved it in my opinion.

The point was that on your argument, rights are based on wants. The one who wants has a right to have, and the duty of others is not to obstruct individual rights.

You should have included this with your porch comment. Now I will give you a real answer:

That is not my argument. Rights are not based on wants. One can want all sorts of rights, but want is not the basis for the existence of rights. I hold to the traditional US definition, that rights are self-evident and inherent to the individual, they are also inalienable, meaning that no power in existence can contradict any right established in the constitution (at least on paper, unfortunately, in reality it happens all the time).

Obviously, covid is not mentioned in the US constitution, so no specific right has been established concerning covid, but that also means that there is no constitutional law regarding covid vaccines (nor vaccination in general for that matter). So, as per tradition, until the specifics are officially defined, this leaves it all up to interpretation.

I find it quite simple to extrapolate from preexisting constitutional rights, the right of the individual to choose for himself: whether to accept or reject the covid vaccine. I think you will find it to be quite a difficult contrivance to interpret the constitution in such a way so as to use it as an argument for the necessity of universal vaccination. But if you can, I would love to hear it.

And as to your porch analogy. Inherent to the right of the individual to choose for oneself is something called accountability. When an individual chooses, it is very easy to place direct credit/blame on the one who chose, and with credit/blame is what we know as consequence. In your porch analogy, you might have to face the consequence of my old lady blasting an unknown intruder with her shotgun while your dick is in the mailbox. On the other hand, I respect and support the right of the individual to accept or decline the covid vax. As such, I will have to face the consequences (for my opinion, i suppose) . . . whatever the consequences might be, we have no clue at this point, it is all speculation.

I think it is important to keep in mind that it was biomedical science that created this virus, and with Facci's support, continues to create new function gained viruses. It is also technology that is allowing there exponential destruction of our climate and the earth that gives us life. If you are looking for an ounce of sanity, you will not find it in the within the "science industry".

Throughout history fear in the form of mass hysteria has been the foundation of control and wealth. Fear of viruses in people is just the latest and most catastrophic version of this age old device.

I hold to the traditional US definition, that rights are self-evident and inherent to the individual, they are also inalienable, meaning that no power in existence can contradict any right established in the constitution — urelMerkwurdichliebe

A more than fair reply, but perhaps here is the problem, or the sign of it. The unalienable rights are not in the Constitution but in the Declaration:
"they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,..."
The idea being that to secure these, the others are alienated to government. Nor are any beyond the three absolute. If you have the patience, this is covered with humor and erudition here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCxaDwOCXD8&t=253s
Souter starts speaking at four minutes. There are high points; best you encounter them as they occur. All of it worth the candle

I think it is important to keep in mind that it was biomedical science that created this virus, and with Facci's support, continues to create new function gained viruses. It is also technology that is allowing there exponential destruction of our climate and the earth that gives us life. If you are looking for an ounce of sanity, you will not find it in the within the "science industry". — MondoR

Whack-doodle nonsense. More accurately, insanity. A sign of it is so many lies and inaccuracies in such small compass.

Whack-doodle nonsense. More accurately, insanity. A sign of it is so many lies and inaccuracies in such small compass — tim wood

Let's not forget that it was biomedical science that created this catastrophie. Something that is often omitted from discussion.

We are dependent on community in far more than merely a "symbolic manner". A democratic state is the result of the choices of the community. The democratic notion of support for individual rights has to be balanced against the harms that individuals exercising their freedoms do to others and to the community as a whole. — Janus

I would say a democratic state is the result of the choices of many communities. Nevertheless, the pertinent question is: how do we determine and measure the potential "harms" that the individual is capable of? With Covid, this is highly open to debate, as is evident on TPF.

You're indulging in all or nothing thinking if you believe that the state serves only corporate interests. The state may be more beholden to corporate interests than it should be; obviously the state is never perfect and where there are human beings there will inevitably be some degree of corruption.

Forgive my absolutist rhetoric, I can agree that the state does not serve only corporate interests. However, we are far beyond "some degree of corruption". It is no secret that there are high levels of corruption in the US government, and it is well documented. And in many critical areas, it forsakes the individual in favor of corporations. Issues like polution, wealth disparity and opiod addiction can be directly tied to the relation between corporations and government.

Thus, I have developed a very cynical attitude towards the state. Not all of it, but much of it. And at this point, I would rather fool myself and be wrong, than let the state deceive me into error yet again. How can you blame me?

Your second paragraph as I read it is alarmist nonsense; you can do better than indulging in that. The question is: if you see injustices and corruption in your community, in your state, and they really bother you, then what are you doing to try to help the situation? Whining about it and petulantly refusing to do a simple thing which carries little risk to yourself will only make the situation worse. So are you happy to become part of the problem?

You are right, I can do better.

For me covid is a minor problem with neglible risk, so I have no problem contributing to that problem. As I see it, there are much greater problems that carry substantial to severe risk. If I were to put forth any effort toward resolving socio-political problems, instead of simply whining about it on tpf, I would focus on those. One example is the the alliance between corporations and politicians. Have you ever heard of citizens united?

I'll check it out and respond. Thanks

o you're just deliberately being provocative, right?
— Xtrix

As opposed to the infantile title of this thread? — MondoR

I wasn't deliberately being provocative with the title of this thread. I consider those mentioned completely wrong.

Nothing ever is better than natural immunity. The innate intelligence of life. — MondoR

Those who prefer to get infected and take their chances with natural immunity are welcome to do so -- provided they don't infect others in the meantime.

Those who prefer to get infected and take their chances with natural immunity are welcome to do so -- provided they don't infect others in the meantime. — Xtrix

Ditto for those who've been vaccinated. In Israel, the most vaccinated country in the world, more vaccinated people became infected than vaccinated, and total infections were higher after vaccination than before. No difference in the amount of virus in a vaccinated and unvaccinated person. Now The crazies have to use threats to force people to participate in this dangerous experiment. The myth of vaccinations decimated in less than 6 months, and people still believe the gods of politics and medicine. What a joke. I'm going to take the Father of Covid's advice? I don't think so.

In Israel, the most vaccinated country in the world, more vaccinated people became infected than vaccinated, — MondoR

But not in the US, or UK. In the US, infections, hospitalizations and deaths are overwhelmingly among the unvaccinated.

And breakthrough infections, when they do occur, are less severe than in those who are vaccinated.

So you can continue harping about the Israeli study, but even if we accept it all as true, it’s still an outlier and still does not recommend against vaccinations.

But not in the US, or UK. In the US, infections, hospitalizations and deaths are overwhelmingly among the unvaccinated — Xtrix

Yeah, humans are different in the U.S. and Israel. Gullibility of the brainwashed. Like masks prevented the flu virus last season but somehow Covid went wild. Vaccinated people carry just as much virus as unvaccinated, and since their symptoms are milder they are much more likely to infect others. Vaccinated people are a menace to society carrying all that virus and spreading it because they have been brainwashed to believe they are virus free. The "educated" class. Education=Thoroughly brainwashed in college by approved industry courses. Trust politicians. Trust biomedicine.

But not in the US, or UK. In the US, infections, hospitalizations and deaths are overwhelmingly among the unvaccinated
— Xtrix

Yeah, humans are different in the U.S. and Israel. Gullibility of the brainwashed. — MondoR

These are simple facts. You can look them up yourself. If we accept the Israeli data, as we should, we should accept the data of the rest of the world as well, including the US.

We find that the unvaccinated are being hospitalized and dying at much higher rates. I’m sorry if that doesn’t conform to what you’d like to believe.

My default assumption is that epidemiologists in general are in a better position than you are to make policy recommendations. — Joshs

Probably, but policy recommendations are made by public health authorities. Epidemiologists advise them. As I said on the other thread, public policy is a tool to accomplish government objectives. It is not, as should not be treated as, a statement of scientific consensus.

The ability to Interpret research studies is only part of what is needed to make policy recommendations. — Joshs

Yes, I totally agree and I wouldn't want there to be any confusion between what I'm arguing here and what might be good public policy. As I've said before, I'm sure vaccination is a good and necessary public policy, I just don't think that translates to a moral requirement to adhere to it.

I want to know what sorts of consensus there may or may not be be concerning such questions as the value of universal vaccination. Partly this is because I don’t have the time to read every study , and partly because I appreciate that there are other considerations besides the conclusiveness and validity of study results , considerations which can allow for reasonable recommendations even in the absence of definitive conclusions. — Joshs

Yes, but why 'consensus'? You're an academic right? We don't all patiently check everybody else's work for errors. Especially not over the sorts of timescales involved here. Consensus is far more determined by the popularity of key starting assumptions than by the result of some mass error-checking exercise. I can definitely see the sense in trusting someone else to check through papers for you, we rarely have time to do so personally, but consensus adds little to nothing.

Maybe you could point me in the direction of links to statements by epidemiologists who recommend against policies advocating or requiring vaccination of young people. — Joshs

Sure.

This is Wesley Pegden questioning the ACIP presentation - https://medium.com/@wpegden/weighing-myocarditis-cases-acip-failed-to-balance-the-harms-vs-benefits-of-2nd-doses-d7d6b3df7cfb

And Here including Stefan Baral - https://medium.com/@wpegden/covid-19-vaccines-in-children-6cdff15b2415

Carl Henegan - https://jme.bmj.com/content/47/8/565

Pete Doshi - https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/07/13/covid-19-vaccines-for-children-hypothetical-benefits-to-adults-do-not-outweigh-risks-to-children/

Ruediger von Kries -

Given uncertainty over risks I cannot foresee for now that there will be a recommendation for general vaccinations" in children, he said, adding that while the vaccine was shown to be effective, "practically nothing" was yet known over any long-term adverse effects in adolescents.

Vinay Prasad - https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19vaccine/91972

Ruchi Sinha -

Vaccine escape is inevitable and I think that it adds to the argument not to have a blanket rollout of the vaccine to children aged 12-15 because I think that will minimise that. We should offer it to vulnerable children. But I don’t think that currently, the way it stands, that vaccine rollout to all of them is the way forward.

Daniel Hungerford -

Decisions on which vaccines to purchase and which groups to target must be based on the highest quality analyses of vaccines in action, fully contextualised according to place and population and accounting for all relevant biases.

Nitpicking, eh? Well, I was using "constitution" liberally. I'll try to be more precise in the future.

Concerning the video, nice speech. Best quote, when Souter says: "the constitution is the embodiment of the desire of the American people [...] to have things both ways."

He goes on to refute the notion that all constitutional law lies within the constitution in advance and merely requires a fair reading by a judge to settle conflicting matters of constitutional fact. He mentions how the constitution must be viewed as a whole to be interpreted correctly, or in his words: "[...] to understand the meaning of those [constitutional] facts for living people").

Makes sense, and supports what I was saying: (fair reading was never the case here), it is far easier to interpret the constitution as supporting the right of the individual to choose for himself whether to accept or decline the covid vaccine. I would be interested to hear an interpretation of constitutional fact that supports mandatory universal vaccination. The only thing I can think of, is if Covid can be convincingly presented as an imminent threat to national security, like islamic terrorism.

YouTube to remove misinformation videos about all vaccines (Sep 29, 2021)

Elsewhere, someone posted a flurry of anti-whatever stuff, including this sample ...

Epidemic of heart attacks: Graphene Oxide and EMFs (rumble·com; Sep 20, 2021)
... which fronts ...
Epidemic of heart attacks: Graphene Oxide and EMFs (orwell·city; Sep 20, 2021)
... which refers to some elusive "biostatistician and researcher Ricardo Delgado" character. It goes on to tell a story about a magnetic compound in vaccines on which cell towers have a deadly effect, and an epidemic of such deaths no less. Whereas the Spanish news article (laprovincia·es) likely is true about a bicyclist having died from a heart attack, nothing else checks out. No independent verification, no corroboration, including other news articles, definitely no such epidemic, nothing. It all strands on elusive characters, creative story-telling, grand conspiracy theories, ...

Can Vaccines Make Our Body Magnetic? (Jun 11, 2021)
Fact Check-COVID-19 vaccines do not contain graphene oxide (Jul 23, 2021)
Graphene: 'Miracle material' singled out for Covid conspiracies (Oct 1, 2021)

When I called the poster out on it, they had nothing either (apart from the usual bullshit, personal attacks, hand-waving, all that, some of which we've seen here as well). Regardless, that was just one rumble·com page now anti-informing people out there. That's all it takes apparently.

So, maybe YouTube's move is for the better.

maybe YouTube's move is for the better. — jorndoe

So again. Why the hell are you re-posting it all here?

, the joy of watching your responses, being so anti-vax an'all. ;)

By the way, I typically argue for free speech, and the usual suppression accusations against YouTube are bound to come up. The sort of thing that may have led to sites like rumble·com.

Glad you watched the speech.

Nitpicking, eh? — Merkwurdichliebe

Well, no. The Constitution announces itself as the supreme law of the land (Article 6). The Declaration, while informing law, is itself no law at all. As to any "right" to refuse vaccination, I would hold your rights to end not at my nose, but within a defined distance of my nose. I think a pandemic puts you close enough to extinguish for the time that right even if not close at all. And nothing new here. Children, for example, have to be vaccinated to go to school, and they have to go to school.

You supposedly have three rights absolute. The rest granted under the Constitution - the rules. That can be withdrawn. Any claim, then, of right absolute in any sense beyond those three is just plain ignorant and wrong, or vicious. As a conditional right under the Constitution, one gets to look at and argue conditions. The common sense of the matter is that in a pandemic, sickness itself is a threat to the general welfare. And to preserve the general welfare, a constitutional duty, some imposition may be necessary. Thus masks, distancing, quarantine, vaccination - all reasonable, none new or novel. And folks who claim a "right" of refusal just ignorant, stupid, and themselves a threat to the general welfare, a threat realized repeatedly in large gatherings.

If then you have an argument to make, make it under the Constitution, not apart from it. And the general welfare part is going to be hard to get around.

And the general welfare part is going to be hard to get around. — tim wood

The bill of rights will also be hard to get around. Even if those rights are conditional, they are still constitutional facts that cannot be ignored. As Souter said, the constitution has to be viewed as a whole to be interpreted correctly.

The bill of rights will also be hard to get around. — Merkwurdichliebe

As it should be.

Even if those rights are conditional, they are still constitutional facts that cannot be ignored. As Souter said, the constitution has to be viewed as a whole to be interpreted. correctly.

Is there an argument here you're making? As to "correct" interpretation, I think his point was that "correct" is in part determined by surrounding realities, correct then not correct now.

Is there an argument here you're making? As to "correct" interpretation, I think his point was that "correct" is in part determined by surrounding realities, correct then not correct now. — tim wood

Yes, that the constitution supports the right of the individual to choose for himself whether or not to accept or decline the vaccine.

Who is the final say on how reality is judged? Your reality is based in the fear of a disease with indeterminate risk, involving a fascist imposition over others. My reality is based on the potential rights of individuals and the assent to the consequences of individuals choosing for themselves. I say your reality is mistaken and not correct, it is an error of perception and quite irrational.

This is Wesley Pegden questioning the ACIP presentation - https://medium.com/@wpegden/weighing-myocarditis-cases-acip-failed-to-balance-the-harms-vs-benefits-of-2nd-doses-d7d6b3df7cfb — Isaac

Apparently , Dr Pegden is something of a professional
contrarian. Here’s a rebuttal to Dr Pegden’s article( Baral and Prasad were co-authors)

To summarize, the article by Drs. Pegden et al. does not mention that:

482-582 children have died of COVID-19 in the US.
A non-trivial percentage of children who contract COVID-19 will need to be hospitalized.
One-third of hospitalized children require ICU level, care and 6% require invasive mechanical ventilation.
Over half of children hospitalized with COVID-19 had no underlying health condition.
19% of American children are obese and therefore “high-risk.”
COVID-19 may cause long-term complications in children.
Tens of thousands of children have lost a parent due to COVID-19.
Millions of teenagers older than 16-years have been safely vaccinated so far.
A highly successful trial of the COVID-19 vaccine has been completed in adolescents. (Another successful trial has also been completed, with preliminary data just released).
Further vaccine trials (and presumed approvals) are proceeding in a purposeful, stepwise fashion by age.
An EUA for a COVID-19 vaccine requires a two-month waiting period and data “from at least one well-designed Phase 3 clinical trial that demonstrates the vaccine’s safety and efficacy in a clear and compelling manner.”
Vaccine side-effects almost never emerge after two months.
The core difference between an EUA and full FDA-approval is four additional months of observation after already-completed trials.
Vaccine rates in the US are unlikely to be high enough to achieve herd immunity, especially in certain regions.

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/covid-19-vaccine-children-under-an-emergency-use-authorization/

general are in a better position than you are to make policy recommendations.
— Joshs

policy recommendations are made by public health authorities. Epidemiologists advise them. As I said on the other thread, public policy is a tool to accomplish government objectives. It is not, as should not be treated as, a statement of scientific consensus. — Isaac

Yes, my interest is in consensus of epidemiological advice to policy makers.

why 'consensus'? You're an academic right? We don't all patiently check everybody else's work for errors. Especially not over the sorts of timescales involved here. Consensus is far more determined by the popularity of key starting assumptions than by the result of some mass error-checking exercise.

I can definitely see the sense in trusting someone else to check through papers for you, we rarely have time to do so personally, but consensus adds little to nothing. — Isaac

You make it sound like the arrival by scientists
at risk-reward profiles for therapeutic interventions is merely a matter of error checking. It has never been that, nor will it ever be. How one weighs the import of the various factors involved in such determinations is filtered though pre-existing assumptions. Error checking alone is unlikely to convince Pegden et al to change their minds about child vaccination. If I’m not going to be reading through every research paper that comes along , I want to hitch my wagon to the most popular starting assumptions.(note that those popular starting assumptions are not impervious to evidence. On the contrary, they are necessary to give order and meaning to the evidence. Furthermore , this assumptions have continually shifted as new data emerges).
The most popular starting assumption ( dominant paradigm) earns its stripes by offering a particularly useful way of interpreting empirical phenomena.

Scientific naysayers, conspiracy buffs, climate change deniers can’t be shown the ‘error’ of their ways by error checking. They have to be able to join a different normative community from the one that informs their views.

Who is the final say on how reality is judged? — Merkwurdichliebe

700,000 fucking dead people in the US. Is that real enough for you?!

Yes, that the constitution supports the right of the individual to choose for himself whether or not to accept or decline the vaccine. — Merkwurdichliebe

I don’t think anyone, anywhere, is arguing in favor of forced vaccinations.

You have the right to smoke as well — no one is forcing that on you. But when what you do or don’t do has an effect on other people, things get complicated. We have all kinds of laws in place for these things— including smoking bans. If you go into most restaurants, if you want to smoke you’ll have a designated area outside. That’s an infringement on rights, but a legitimate one in my view — as it is in most people’s eyes, because we have all come to agree that the jury is in on second hand smoking and cancer.

The same goes for vaccines. You don’t want to take them? Fine— no problem. Your choice. You want to smoke? Fine— no problem. I may not do it myself, but I would never stop you from doing so using physical force.

You see where I’m going with this I think.

The issue then becomes “they’re essentially forcing people by threatening their jobs.” Yes. Many think this is illegitimate, I don’t. But either way, do employers have the legal right to do so?

Yes, they do. In most cases that’s unfortunate— like telling people what to wear and when to eat. I think corporations have too much power in general.

What’s strange, however, is that it has been mostly conservatives arguing in favor of employers’ rights over the decades. “If you don’t like it, go elsewhere,” is the common refrain given to employees. They’re also been deliberately destroying unions for decades. But now that they’re getting a taste of something they don’t like — suddenly they turn into Eugene Debbs.

It’s hypocrisy.

It’s not a matter of whether you agree with a policy or not — it’s whether we allow corporations to control us in this way, where the workers have no input over major decisions— not just vaccines, but also profit distribution, wages, automation, outsourcing, layoffs, etc. The whole system seems out of whack — especially without union representation or some other form of input from workers.

But that’s how it is, and it’s completely legal. This happens to be a policy I agree with— I think it is as legislate as banning smoking, but the underlying issue is still relevant: corporations have too much power and too little worker representation.

The same goes for censorship and free speech on social media platforms. Is it legal? Yes.

They’re private tyrannies, so they can do what they want — and the people crying the loudest right now helped them get there.

Consensus is far more determined by the popularity of key starting assumptions than by the result of some mass error-checking exercise. — Isaac

That’s not how consensus is reached.

Overwhelming consensus, given the scientific process, is pretty rare. When it is reached, a layman can be far more confident of the results than not. This should be easy.

What’s happening in your case is that you’re taking the minority view and want to justify this as the correct choice— as a layman.

But it’s as ridiculous an argument as when climate change deniers go with Roy Spencer over the IPCC. They’ll argue until they’re blue in the face about how science is often wrong, consensus means nothing, it’s an establishment conspiracy, it’s groupthink, etc. I take them about as seriously as I take you.

Others should do likewise. This is a waste of time.

700,000 fucking dead people in the US. Is that real enough for you?! — tim wood

We all know about the inflated statistics concerning covid fatalities, don't be naive. Plus, dead people don't have a say.