This is my last word on the topic.
— Olivier5

And yet... — Isaac

It was on a different topic.

It was on a different topic. — Olivier5

Yeah, right. A completely different topic, me thinking the pharmaceutical companies are untrustworthy to a story about how people thought a foriegn company's new technology was untrustworthy. Like chalk and cheese, I'm amazed you even managed the segue. Have you considered a job in news anchoring?

You becoming clinically insane is one topic which I won't touch anymore as it is personal.

The history of Maggi and the French antisemites is about something else: about how people can get very suspicious of new technology coming from abroad, and about how some economic interests threatened by such development may fight back by spreading disinformation in the press, often the nationalistic press. IOW it is about economic chauvinism as a factor of systematic disinformation.

E.g. climate deniers have been funded by Big Oil to misinform people systematically, though mainly in the US. Remember how the 'Kyoto protocol' was mocked and trashed, thanks in part to its very label as a foreign (non US) accord? The same is happening now with the Paris accord. If Americans were ever to commit to any climate change mitigation plan, it would need to be labelled the "Huston Texas Plan", or the "Salt Lake City Accord", or the "Star-and-Stripe Agreement". Baring that, FAUX News is certain to shoot it down.

What I wonder is this: Who profits or hopes to profit from vaccine hesitancy, and would they be behind some of the misinformation currently being spread about vaccines?

You becoming clinically insane is one topic which I won't touch anymore as it is personal. — Olivier5

I appreciate that. As I'm sure you'll understand, the revelations about my descent into madness are still quite raw for me, I'm welling up just thinking about it...we're all very upset here...

the question I am asking now is: Who profits or hopes to profit from vaccine hesitancy, and are they behind some of the misinformation currently being spread about vaccines? — Olivier5

That's hilarious. There's an existing industry who've netted more than $72bn (£52bn) in sales for this year alone, in deals for supplying follow-up shots and also the initial two doses for those being inoculated for the first time in less wealthy countries and you're frantically searching around for who might profit from vaccine hesitancy?

No doubt it's some clandestine organisation with secret ties to Trump. I'm thinking the lizardmen must be in on it. Now if only there were anyone who might profit from vaccine enthusiasm that would complete the picture...but no, no one comes to mind...

you're frantically searching around for who might profit from vaccine hesitancy? — Isaac

Not frantically, no. It's just a question I am playing with. Cui bono?

Not frantically, no. It's just a question I am playing with. Qui bono? — Olivier5

So with pro-vaccine sentiment it's a sign of mental illness to ask who benefits, with vaccine hesitancy it's just a sensible question.

What if you can't find any? Does that change anything? It seems like such a disingenuous enquiry. If you find something you'll say "there, told you so, that's why they're doing it", if you don't you'll just be left muttering "they'll be something I'm sure... somewhere....". You've already made up your mind that it's impossible for anyone to be vaccine hesitant as a result of having intelligently weighed the evidence and just reaching a different conclusion to you. So what's the point of all this faux 'investigation' charade? Do you really think anyone's fooled by it?

You've already made up your mind that it's impossible for anyone to be vaccine hesitant as a result of having intelligently weighed the evidence and just reaching a different conclusion to you. — Isaac

Not at all. It's just a matter of what people value in life.

You for instance think that the risk you are taking by not being vaccinated is quite small -- perhaps you don't mix up with others a lot; perhaps you are in good health and not overweight -- and that giving money to pharmaceuticals is a much larger risk. You would rather catch COVID and get sick for a week than use the protection of a vaccine, because you see the latter involving the risk of profiting an evil pharmaceutical company.

I wouldn't call it rational, but it's not totally stupid either. You just hate big pharma enough for it to tip the risk calculation.

It seems like such a disingenuous enquiry. — Isaac

Looking for cui bono is precisely what you do, though. Ergo you are being disingenuous, by your own account...

even if they exclusively chose vaccinations -- it's still legitimate
— Xtrix

Just a repeat of the original claim. No counter argument, no contrary evidence, nothing. You claim it's legitimate, I give reasons why it's not, you just repeat that it's legitimate. Why? Well, because you said so. What more reason could possibly be required than that, eh? — Isaac

No, if you continue reading I give plenty of reasons why.

I raise the idea that evidence is not overwhelming but appears so because of a bias in study design, funding, media reporting and government influence - all backed up previously with actual cited evidence — Isaac

I see no cited evidence. Whatever you've posted before, I have no idea.

It's not by vote. It's by overwhelming evidence.
— Xtrix

That's the same thing. — Isaac

No, it isn't.

Eight studies concluding one thing, two studies concluding another. All ten studies meeting the minimum threshold for acceptable science.

My claim is that all ten are equally legitimate because they've all met the threshold for acceptable science.

Your claim is that the two are unacceptable because fewer people support them. A popularity contest. — Isaac

I haven't once claimed that.

What I claim -- and forgive me for "repeating" myself, but I have to do so often with you -- is that it's the overwhelming evidence that determines what to do, not votes or popularity contests.

My 'line' is...

1. I can support my view with citations from bone fide experts in the appropriate field who have no discoverable conflict of interest or evidence of previous bias. — Isaac

You haven't done so with me. Where are these citations? And what are they regarding, exactly?

Now prove your point by doing the same for the view that climate change isn't real, or that the earth was made by God 6000 years ago, or that the holocaust didn't happen, or that the earth is flat... — Isaac

They all claim exactly what you're claiming. They also cite "bone fide experts," etc.

If my view is just like those others, you should be able to prove it. — Isaac

I didn't say "exactly like," I said you're on the way.

All the hot air you've blown has nothing to do with the fact -- the overwhelming evidence -- that shows the vaccines are safe, effective, and slow the spread to the virus. If you have "citations" from credible sources suggesting otherwise, I'm happy to take a look. But that's all that is relevant here -- not that Big Pharma has too much power or other truisms. If you can show Big Pharma is faking the data, or that there's institutional pressures that biases the results, by all means do so. But again, that's a very big claim, and until you show it it's nothing more than conspiracy theory. When you have nearly 7 billion doses given around the world, I think the jury is in on this one.

I've seen no evidence so far to suggest that vaccines aren't safe or effective, and I believe you even conceded that beforehand. So once again, are you arguing against this or not? Because if you're not, then your stance about vaccine mandates are completely absurd -- and it was precisely this that was being discussed when you once again interjected.

No, if you continue reading I give plenty of reasons why. — Xtrix

I read your whole post, you don't even mention the matter again, let alone give reasons why restricting the choice of preventative measure is 'legitimate'.

I see no cited evidence. Whatever you've posted before, I have no idea. — Xtrix

Then follow the conversation. I'm not going to conduct six different conversations all saying the same thing to six different people. The beauty of a forum is that we can have multiple-way conversations, if you're going to just ignore anything else being said then I'm afraid you're just going to miss out on half the conversation.

the overwhelming evidence that determines what to do, not votes or popularity contests. — Xtrix

How does evidence determine what do to do? Evidence, to me, is a stack of studies with statistically significant correlations between variables. How can they be either overwhelming or prescriptive? Scientists develop theories and determine whether those studies support or contradict those theories. So again, if eight scientists, having read all the studies, think theory X is valid and two think theory Y is valid, then how is it anything other than a popularity contest to say X is the only valid theory because it has most votes? Evidence doesn't tell you stuff on its own. We have to have a theory, which has to make testable predictions, which then either are confirmed or not by the statistical outcome of the study. If there are competing theories, it's either because different scientists have different theories and neither are dis-confirmed, or because different scientists have different opinions about whether a study dis-confirms a theory or not. This idea you have that overwhelming evidence just speaks to us somehow, is nonsense.

They all claim exactly what you're claiming. They also cite "bone fide experts," etc. — Xtrix

They absolutely do not, hence my request that you back up this assertion with evidence. Your consistent failure to do so just incriminates you further. Cite the bone fide expert with no history of bias or discoverable conflict of interest who claims the holocaust never happened or that the earth is flat. If you can't cite one then you're clearly just making this up.

I've seen no evidence so far to suggest that vaccines aren't safe or effective, and I believe you even conceded that beforehand. So once again, are you arguing against this or not? Because if you're not, then your stance about vaccine mandates are completely absurd -- and it was precisely this that was being discussed when you once again interjected. — Xtrix

Safe and effective are not binomial states. Things are safe enough, effective enough, depending on that which they are pitted against. The vaccine is safe and effective enough to be used in those at medium-high risk, it is not safe and effective enough to be used on those at very low risk. This is not even a particularly controversial view, it's the opinion of the UK's vaccine advisors, for example who have withheld support for child vaccinations for exactly that reason. In addition, I also believe that the proven track record of deceit on the part of the pharmaceutical companies shifts that balance further toward the higher risk groups only. A universal vaccine mandate is therefore completely unjustified.

As for the rest, I'm not going round in these ridiculous circles. The Covid threads are several hundred pages long, I've written hundreds of posts and I'd wager every fouth or fifth one contains a citation. If you're not interested enough to follow the whole thread then I've certainly no incentive to have the entire conversation with you personally, just follow the conversation as whole.

You for instance think that the risk you are taking by not being vaccinated is quite small -- perhaps you don't mix up with others a lot; perhaps you are in good health and not overweight -- and that giving money to pharmaceuticals is a much larger risk. You would rather catch COVID and get sick for a week than use the protection of a vaccine, because you see the latter involving the risk of profiting an evil pharmaceutical company.

I wouldn't call it rational, but it's not totally stupid either. You just hate big pharma enough for it to tip the risk calculation. — Olivier5

That's it.

I can understand your motivations without necessarily sharing them. It's not that hard.

A Flat Earth?

A physicist who built a model of one flat-earth description so you can see for yourself why it doesn't work: Try it.

The article points out the inconsistencies between what you will see in the model and what you will see if you look up.

Might be of use to some.

I see no cited evidence. Whatever you've posted before, I have no idea.
— Xtrix

Then follow the conversation. I'm not going to conduct six different conversations all saying the same thing to six different people. — Isaac

Then don’t complain about it. You said you cited evidence— you didn’t. I’m not going up follow conversations I’m not involved in. Next time, don’t interject yourself in others’ conversations.

Evidence, to me, is a stack of studies with statistically significant correlations between variables. — Isaac

You truly have a superficial understanding of science I’m afraid.

This idea you have that overwhelming evidence just speaks to us somehow, is nonsense. — Isaac

“Speaks to us somehow”?

It’s fun watching you try to squirm your way out of this.

That vaccines are safe and effective is supported by overwhelming evidence. That climate change is real — overwhelming evidence. That’s why we “believe” these things. Not because of “votes.”

They all claim exactly what you're claiming. They also cite "bone fide experts," etc.
— Xtrix

They absolutely do not, hence my request that you back up this assertion with evidence. Your consistent failure to do so just incriminates you further. Cite the bone fide expert with no history of bias or discoverable conflict of interest who claims the holocaust never happened or that the earth is flat. If you can't cite one then you're clearly just making this up. — Isaac

I have— in other conversations. You’ll have to follow them. I can’t conduct six different conversations saying the same thing, after all.

Things are safe enough, effective enough, depending on that which they are pitted against. — Isaac

No. The vaccines are safe and effective, as has been demonstrated over and over again. That’s science. That’s mathematics.

Not “safe enough,” or any other home-brewed bullshit you now need to invent to save face in your quest to justify a nonsense conspiracy theory. They’re safe.

But please continue.

You’re truly an intellectual fraud.

Not “safe enough,” or any other home-brewed bullshit you now need to invent to save face in your quest to justify a nonsense conspiracy theory. They’re safe. — Xtrix

Of course the vaccines are safe and effective.
The problem is that vaccines are dangerous

Of course the vaccines are safe and effective.
The problem is that vaccines are dangerous — Yohan

Safe, effective, and dangerous.

Very sensible, as always.

The vaccines are safe and effective, as has been demonstrated over and over again. That’s science. That’s mathematics. — Xtrix

The science is pretty unanimous about the fact that for healthy, young people below 35, the chance of getting seriously ill from a covid infection is much smaller than the chance of experiencing serious adverse effects from a vaccination. This is why countries still governed with a shred of sense, like Denmark and Norway, have stopped advertising vaccination for these demographics.

So why do you so readily wish to expose others to these risks? Is it a blind trust in authority? A subconscious urge to power perhaps?

Can't help but see parallels between the arguments put forward by you and those of anti-abortionists.

If vaccine safety and efficacy meant that vaccines weren't dangerous, then I should think everyone would be on board with them. But I am not hearing anyone claim vaccines aren't dangerous.

Safe, effective, and dangerous.

Very sensible, as always. — Xtrix

No @Yohan is spot on. It's exactly the question the medical ethicists are asking.

The question remains of how safe is safe enough to warrant mandatory vaccination. It is vanishingly unlikely that there will be absolutely no risk of harm from any biomedical intervention, and the disease itself has dramatically different risk profiles in different groups of the population. In an ideal world, the vaccine would be proven to be 100% safe. But there will likely be some risk remaining. Any mandatory vaccination programme would therefore need to make a value judgement about what level of safety and what level of certainty are safe and certain enough. Of course, it would need to be very high, but a 0% risk option is very unlikely. — Professor Julian Savulescu in the BMJ

The science is pretty unanimous about the fact that for healthy, young people below 35, the chance of getting seriously ill from a covid infection is much smaller than the chance of experiencing serious adverse effects from a vaccination. — Tzeentch

No. This isn't true. But even if it were true, as usual it excludes the point about slowing the spread -- which the vaccine also does.

"Seriously ill" and "serious adverse effects" are meaningless until explained. Feel free to cite credible sources.

If vaccine safety and efficacy meant that vaccines weren't dangerous, then I should think everyone would be on board with them. But I am not hearing anyone claim vaccines aren't dangerous. — Yohan

Everyone is on board with them. This is why experts are overwhelming advocating vaccinations. Precisely because they're safe and effective.

If something is safe, it doesn't mean risk-free. Planes are safe, but they crash occasionally. Does that mean planes are "dangerous"? If you want to play word games, sure. In that case: everything is dangerous.

Maybe this needs pointing out: an activity cannot be safe and dangerous at the same time. If you want to create your own semantic universe (which is usually necessary for anti-vaxxers and other deluded individuals) to justify your position, feel free. Excuse me while I laugh, however.

No Yohan is spot on. It's exactly the question the medical ethicists are asking. — Isaac

:lol:

It is vanishingly unlikely that there will be absolutely no risk of harm from any biomedical intervention — Professor Julian Savulescu in the BMJ

No kidding. Notice this person doesn't ONCE say that vaccines are "dangerous." They're not: they're safe and effective. Safe does not = "absolutely no risk of harm." Dangerous does not = "0.000015% chance of harm."

I think the real question is why I even bother with this nonsense...

the real question is why I even bother with this nonsense... — Xtrix

Good question.

I engaged with 9/11 truthers once.

Edit: not to say you shouldn't speak out when you have the energy to do so. I found you did very well so far.

Everyone is on board with them. — Xtrix

Everyone enough. Not everyone.

With limited exceptions involving religious objectors, judges have overwhelmingly upheld orders in numerous states that require health workers, public employees, state university students and government contractors to be fully vaccinated against Covid-19 as a condition of employment. These rulings have allowed states to fire workers who refuse immunization.

"Vaccine Mandates Are Surviving Nearly All Legal Challenges"

https://apple.news/AZEFfw-igSJ23VzV_69gwFw

What a shocker.

Too bad some of our patrons here weren’t asked to testify.

Trial announced for 'first-of-its-kind' vaccine to prevent breast cancer (Oct 27, 2021)

Genuine medical progress, a great scientific achievement, if it pans out.

What will the anti-vaxxers say, though?

The universe was created. Who says this didn't happen 6000 years ago? If they think this is what happened... — MikeBlender

I think you are very right here. It's what one perceives that counts. It's not my idea of reality (creation 6000 years ago), but you can always tell me that it is my idea that I have about this matter.

Genuine medical progress, a great scientific achievement, if it pans out. — jorndoe

Genuine medical progress: 6000 people born with grave birth defects, due to a mix-up between a left-handed molecule and a right-handed one.

Genuine medical progress: 4000 people die unnecessarily each year in hospitals.

Genuine medical progress: millions of animals die every year, in the name of science.

Genuine medical progress: just a propaganda slogan. If it pans out.

Is it even worth it to engage with these people? — Xtrix

I try not to attack anyone's identity because the ensuing debate inevitably turns personal.

, you don't think breast cancer prevention is cool...? :brow: How odd. It'd be a great accomplishment, Nobel material. Know/knew anyone with breast cancer?


_{• Breast Cancer Prognosis: Survival Rates by Stage, Age, and Race
• Breast Cancer Statistics
• Breast Cancer: Statistics}

you don't think breast cancer prevention is cool...? :brow: How odd. It'd be a great accomplishment, Nobel material. Know/knew anyone with breast cancer? — jorndoe

Where did I say I didn't. You imply this from reading my words. As a matter of fact, my mum needs a lower-back operation to relieve her from her pain. Somehow, a lot of people have a lower back thing. Curiously, as the work has become much lighter these days. They should send the colonists home! They occupy almost all beds and get only some extra oxygen A huge amount of technical stuff surrounds them. Mostly unnecessary. Just relocate them to their beds at home and give them an oxygen supply! And my mother can be treated next week.

I merely pointed at the failures of the scientific approach. Opposite to the successes.. Mostly these are not mentioned in propaganda.

Misinformed horse uses COVID-19 vaccine to treat worm infestation (Oct 28, 2021)