Neither side of the aisle solely claims skepticism of vaccinations, but historically the big disconnect between individual attitudes and the body of scientific vaccine data it has been mostly associated with the granola far left.
The libertarian right has been increasingly distrustful of science and expertise over the past few decades, most visibly manifest in the area of climate science, but became the majority body of vocal vaccine skepticism only during the covid era.
The body of facts shouldn't be political, but they are certainly politicized by both sides as they perceive to be advantageous.
One might hope that all sides could agree on a common body of facts as a basis for rational policy decisions, but people are better at rationalizing their preferred policy by emphasizing the subset of facts supporting that policy rather than letting the full body of evidence inform policy.
Had we never had scientists immediately denouncing the lab leak hypothesis as “conspiracy theory,” immediately denigrating and undermining anyone associated with the Great Barrington Declaration, destroying evidence and not complying with investigative requests, recommending Remdesivir AFTER the initial 7-8 day viral infection had run its course (Remdesivir destroys the kidneys and causes pulmonary edema, shocking), and stonewalling the former head of the CDC who not only was the biggest, early proponent of the lab leak but also the only infectious disease clinician and one who refuses to give the mRNA vaccine to his patients because of the sheer volume of post vax syndrome he’s witnessed, partisanship would’ve been relegated to the back burner.
”Scientists” on here were fomenting hatred and disgust and openly mocking conservatives, even, incorrectly per usual, predicting Trump would lose because Covid was only killing off unvaccinated redhats in swing states. Harambe chief among them.
Sorry, Monkeys, I believe you to be more genuine and interested in the truth than the rest, but when it comes to taking a novel fragment of mRNA packaged in a lipid nanoparticle that can literally deliver the payload anywhere in the body and containing a higher than FDA approved level of DNA contaminant (which we now know can integrate into the genome, mechanism unknown because it sure as heck isn’t integrase or reverse transcriptase), not to mention recipients have been shown in CELL by a Stanford study to still be producing spike protein some 60 days after “vaccination,” you have to welcome skepticism and dissent. You can not undermine individual medical autonomy and then proceed to ostracize skeptics and refusers, particularly those in very low risk profiles. But that’s exactly what happened. That’s exactly what your peers did here. And are still doing.
The tennis is merely a sideshow and another endless opportunity for Harambe to traffic in his usual narcissism, even if he’s wrong, which he is. But he’s wrong for the “right” reasons you see.
COVID did slaughter redhats (thanks for your help?). However the democrats were even more incompetent! Big surprise, lol.
I see we’ve bounced frantically to the recombination argument that you wisely dropped the last 4 times you’ve brought it up over the years. The integration, if any (which there really isn’t), is far more common under high viral load - I.e. unvaxxed covid. So if you’re scared of that (you shouldn’t be!), get vaccinated.
Thank you, as always, for laying out a steeling case for vaccination.
P.S. medical autonomy was never undermined. Private corps are perfectly allowed to make reasonable rules of employment. “Antivaxx gullible contrarian” is not a protected class, but maybe it will be under Trump!
What is the exact mechanism of THIS plasmid DNA integration and has it been proven? Non-homologous integration? Really? Has anyone shown this to be happening? Is anyone bothering to look?
Yep, Covid itself can be reverse transcribed. So? Is this novel for a virus? It’s been happening for eons. If this is the case, why do we keep giving vaccines supersensitizing to a specific antigen and “chasing variants,” which only makes recipients more vulnerable to Covid infection and potentiates more such events? So more DNA integration and more viral recombination events? Brilliant.
You don’t have “all the data,” because nobody is looking for all the data. And you cannot find what you are not looking for. Aka, why is natural immunity more effective than vaccine induced immunity and why are mostly recipients of multiple vaccination events the ones still getting infected? Because it’s actually happening.
Ultimately, it doesn’t matter. You, through your very overt and vocal ridicule and scorn undermined the public health effort. Also, interesting you failed to respond to anything in my first paragraph, because it isn’t drivel. Massive effort to denounce lab leak hypothesis, denigrate and prematurely undermine all the scientists and doctors affiliated w the Great Barrington Declaration, delete emails and engage in a cover up, alienate Redfield, and only allow the Remdesivir/vent protocol some two-three weeks into a Covid event. Sorry dude, these are your peers you are defending. You know how many people the Remdesivir/vent protocol killed before vaccines were available?
Can you show evidence for any of your theories. Biologically plausible hypotheses are a dime a dozen. There’s evidence of viral integration for many RNA viruses. There’s no evidence that vaccination makes you more susceptible to future variants. No evidence that only multiple vaccine recipients are the “only ones getting infected”
This is getting so boring. You have new claims (recycled from the past 3 years) weekly and when someone asks for evidence you change your claim. Notice you pivoted to lab leak by the end of your post.
Youre bad at this.
He probably won’t respond because he’s signing up for the bird flu vaccine trials after Redfield told him to.
This post was edited 10 seconds after it was posted.
Can you show evidence for any of your theories. Biologically plausible hypotheses are a dime a dozen. There’s evidence of viral integration for many RNA viruses. There’s no evidence that vaccination makes you more susceptible to future variants. No evidence that only multiple vaccine recipients are the “only ones getting infected”
This is getting so boring. You have new claims (recycled from the past 3 years) weekly and when someone asks for evidence you change your claim. Notice you pivoted to lab leak by the end of your post.
Youre bad at this.
He probably won’t respond because he’s signing up for the bird flu vaccine trials after Redfield told him to.
Oooohhh, burn. Ouchie.
If it’s a mRNA vaccine, you’re right, I will neither be signing up nor will Redfield, the most correct scientist in the bunch, be advocating it.
There’s nothing to respond to. Observational data is data, as you’ve attested to many times, immune imprinting and immune tolerance are real phenomena as you’re well aware with a cursory review of the research, and I brought up lab leak, GBD, blacklisting and destroying evidence, and giving a nephrotoxic antiviral after viral replication was complete (followed by deadly ventilator), again because 2600bore failed to respond to my first paragraph initially, which was strategic.
He probably won’t respond because he’s signing up for the bird flu vaccine trials after Redfield told him to.
Oooohhh, burn. Ouchie.
If it’s a mRNA vaccine, you’re right, I will neither be signing up nor will Redfield, the most correct scientist in the bunch, be advocating it.
There’s nothing to respond to. Observational data is data, as you’ve attested to many times, immune imprinting and immune tolerance are real phenomena as you’re well aware with a cursory review of the research, and I brought up lab leak, GBD, blacklisting and destroying evidence, and giving a nephrotoxic antiviral after viral replication was complete (followed by deadly ventilator), again because 2600bore failed to respond to my first paragraph initially, which was strategic.
This is, indeed, boring.
Redfield supports the COVID mRNA vaccines. Given the issues with rapidly generating bird flu vaccines in chicken eggs, he will support the current push for mRNA bird flu vaccines too.
He probably won’t respond because he’s signing up for the bird flu vaccine trials after Redfield told him to.
Oooohhh, burn. Ouchie.
If it’s a mRNA vaccine, you’re right, I will neither be signing up nor will Redfield, the most correct scientist in the bunch, be advocating it.
There’s nothing to respond to. Observational data is data, as you’ve attested to many times, immune imprinting and immune tolerance are real phenomena as you’re well aware with a cursory review of the research, and I brought up lab leak, GBD, blacklisting and destroying evidence, and giving a nephrotoxic antiviral after viral replication was complete (followed by deadly ventilator), again because 2600bore failed to respond to my first paragraph initially, which was strategic.
This is, indeed, boring.
Observational data supports that the Covid vaccine is safe and effective for all groups for which it was approved.
Do you mean your anecdotes where, at this point if we’ve kept track, all your close friends and family have died from the vaccine? 🤣
Neither side of the aisle solely claims skepticism of vaccinations, but historically the big disconnect between individual attitudes and the body of scientific vaccine data it has been mostly associated with the granola far left.
The libertarian right has been increasingly distrustful of science and expertise over the past few decades, most visibly manifest in the area of climate science, but became the majority body of vocal vaccine skepticism only during the covid era.
The body of facts shouldn't be political, but they are certainly politicized by both sides as they perceive to be advantageous.
One might hope that all sides could agree on a common body of facts as a basis for rational policy decisions, but people are better at rationalizing their preferred policy by emphasizing the subset of facts supporting that policy rather than letting the full body of evidence inform policy.
Had we never had scientists immediately denouncing the lab leak hypothesis as “conspiracy theory,” immediately denigrating and undermining anyone associated with the Great Barrington Declaration, destroying evidence and not complying with investigative requests, recommending Remdesivir AFTER the initial 7-8 day viral infection had run its course (Remdesivir destroys the kidneys and causes pulmonary edema, shocking), and stonewalling the former head of the CDC who not only was the biggest, early proponent of the lab leak but also the only infectious disease clinician and one who refuses to give the mRNA vaccine to his patients because of the sheer volume of post vax syndrome he’s witnessed, partisanship would’ve been relegated to the back burner.
”Scientists” on here were fomenting hatred and disgust and openly mocking conservatives, even, incorrectly per usual, predicting Trump would lose because Covid was only killing off unvaccinated redhats in swing states. Harambe chief among them.
Sorry, Monkeys, I believe you to be more genuine and interested in the truth than the rest, but when it comes to taking a novel fragment of mRNA packaged in a lipid nanoparticle that can literally deliver the payload anywhere in the body and containing a higher than FDA approved level of DNA contaminant (which we now know can integrate into the genome, mechanism unknown because it sure as heck isn’t integrase or reverse transcriptase), not to mention recipients have been shown in CELL by a Stanford study to still be producing spike protein some 60 days after “vaccination,” you have to welcome skepticism and dissent. You can not undermine individual medical autonomy and then proceed to ostracize skeptics and refusers, particularly those in very low risk profiles. But that’s exactly what happened. That’s exactly what your peers did here. And are still doing.
The tennis is merely a sideshow and another endless opportunity for Harambe to traffic in his usual narcissism, even if he’s wrong, which he is. But he’s wrong for the “right” reasons you see.
If your intention was to illustrate my point about political actors "rationalizing one's preferred policy by emphasizing the subset of facts supporting that policy rather than letting the full body of evidence inform policy" by providing a textbook example, then well done.
Had we never had scientists immediately denouncing the lab leak hypothesis as “conspiracy theory,” immediately denigrating and undermining anyone associated with the Great Barrington Declaration, destroying evidence and not complying with investigative requests, recommending Remdesivir AFTER the initial 7-8 day viral infection had run its course (Remdesivir destroys the kidneys and causes pulmonary edema, shocking), and stonewalling the former head of the CDC who not only was the biggest, early proponent of the lab leak but also the only infectious disease clinician and one who refuses to give the mRNA vaccine to his patients because of the sheer volume of post vax syndrome he’s witnessed, partisanship would’ve been relegated to the back burner.
”Scientists” on here were fomenting hatred and disgust and openly mocking conservatives, even, incorrectly per usual, predicting Trump would lose because Covid was only killing off unvaccinated redhats in swing states. Harambe chief among them.
Sorry, Monkeys, I believe you to be more genuine and interested in the truth than the rest, but when it comes to taking a novel fragment of mRNA packaged in a lipid nanoparticle that can literally deliver the payload anywhere in the body and containing a higher than FDA approved level of DNA contaminant (which we now know can integrate into the genome, mechanism unknown because it sure as heck isn’t integrase or reverse transcriptase), not to mention recipients have been shown in CELL by a Stanford study to still be producing spike protein some 60 days after “vaccination,” you have to welcome skepticism and dissent. You can not undermine individual medical autonomy and then proceed to ostracize skeptics and refusers, particularly those in very low risk profiles. But that’s exactly what happened. That’s exactly what your peers did here. And are still doing.
The tennis is merely a sideshow and another endless opportunity for Harambe to traffic in his usual narcissism, even if he’s wrong, which he is. But he’s wrong for the “right” reasons you see.
If your intention was to illustrate my point about political actors "rationalizing one's preferred policy by emphasizing the subset of facts supporting that policy rather than letting the full body of evidence inform policy" by providing a textbook example, then well done.
The very fact that dissent and counter dogmatic opinions from scientists and doctors were squashed immediately and forcefully, aided and abetted by the Establishment, was how it got politicized to begin with. That you can’t understand that clearly reveals you are complicit in what you alleged. Well done. 👏
If your intention was to illustrate my point about political actors "rationalizing one's preferred policy by emphasizing the subset of facts supporting that policy rather than letting the full body of evidence inform policy" by providing a textbook example, then well done.
The very fact that dissent and counter dogmatic opinions from scientists and doctors were squashed immediately and forcefully, aided and abetted by the Establishment, was how it got politicized to begin with. That you can’t understand that clearly reveals you are complicit in what you alleged. Well done. 👏
I could read the GBD day one. It was all over various conservative leaning news outlets. People became famous on the back of it.
Nothing was squashed.
People said “you’re wrong and dumb” but that’s not silencing. That’s disagreement.
Copypasta is the lowest form of argument unfortunately.
Sadly it’s all antivaxxers can resort to now.
Ha! Going to the mods to have the post removed that took away your manhood and has now defined your legacy.
I really struck a nerve.
My guess is the mods took issue with your rather adolescent prose. I suggest running it through chatGPT a few times to punch it up to high school level. Happy to give you some red ink as well.
The very fact that dissent and counter dogmatic opinions from scientists and doctors were squashed immediately and forcefully, aided and abetted by the Establishment, was how it got politicized to begin with. That you can’t understand that clearly reveals you are complicit in what you alleged. Well done. 👏
I could read the GBD day one. It was all over various conservative leaning news outlets. People became famous on the back of it.
Nothing was squashed.
People said “you’re wrong and dumb” but that’s not silencing. That’s disagreement.
Why do you think anyone cares what you could “read?” But, since you myopically focused on just GBD, this is for you, though I hope everyone will take the time to read it. The partisanship from the left (you) and Establishment was there from the very beginning, undermining Monkeys’ and your points. Collins, in particular, engineered the takedown of GBD and ostracization of its authors, but, certainly it wasnt limited to GBD. Lab leak, natural immunity, etc. Concerted effort to silence legitimate scientific dissent.
Ha! Going to the mods to have the post removed that took away your manhood and has now defined your legacy.
I really struck a nerve.
My guess is the mods took issue with your rather adolescent prose. I suggest running it through chatGPT a few times to punch it up to high school level. Happy to give you some red ink as well.
I obviously struck a nerve. It’s going to be a long ten years for you. :)
I could read the GBD day one. It was all over various conservative leaning news outlets. People became famous on the back of it.
Nothing was squashed.
People said “you’re wrong and dumb” but that’s not silencing. That’s disagreement.
Why do you think anyone cares what you could “read?” But, since you myopically focused on just GBD, this is for you, though I hope everyone will take the time to read it. The partisanship from the left (you) and Establishment was there from the very beginning, undermining Monkeys’ and your points. Collins, in particular, engineered the takedown of GBD and ostracization of its authors, but, certainly it wasnt limited to GBD. Lab leak, natural immunity, etc. Concerted effort to silence legitimate scientific dissent.
Engineered a takedown. Good lord you guys have thin skin. Yes, powerful people disagreed with the premise of the GBD (because it would have killed way more Americans).
Many powerful people also rightly assumed that if you wrote or signed the GBD, that you were not as smart as you thought you were (due to the glaring logical errors and misunderstanding of basic biology therein).
Same with natural immunity - provably less broad than vaccination and with substantially more random response magnitudes.
Let me let you in on the hard part of being a contrarian: people disagree with you and think you’re dumb! You’re entitled to communicate whatever poorly reasoned idea you want with disregard for the health and safety of your countrymen, but people are well within their rights to call you and your ideas dumb, wrong, and harmful.
Some of those people may even have more influence than you (for good reason). That is still not silencing! Facts simply do not care about your feelings. If you have the conviction that your belief is correct, you should stick to it despite any disagreement.
The fact that you’re more focused on the response of others to your arguments tells me this isn’t about being right. It’s about being seen as right. Vanity. There is no place for that in healthy debate.
My guess is the mods took issue with your rather adolescent prose. I suggest running it through chatGPT a few times to punch it up to high school level. Happy to give you some red ink as well.
I obviously struck a nerve. It’s going to be a long ten years for you. :)
Why do you think anyone cares what you could “read?” But, since you myopically focused on just GBD, this is for you, though I hope everyone will take the time to read it. The partisanship from the left (you) and Establishment was there from the very beginning, undermining Monkeys’ and your points. Collins, in particular, engineered the takedown of GBD and ostracization of its authors, but, certainly it wasnt limited to GBD. Lab leak, natural immunity, etc. Concerted effort to silence legitimate scientific dissent.
Engineered a takedown. Good lord you guys have thin skin. Yes, powerful people disagreed with the premise of the GBD (because it would have killed way more Americans).
Many powerful people also rightly assumed that if you wrote or signed the GBD, that you were not as smart as you thought you were (due to the glaring logical errors and misunderstanding of basic biology therein).
Same with natural immunity - provably less broad than vaccination and with substantially more random response magnitudes.
Let me let you in on the hard part of being a contrarian: people disagree with you and think you’re dumb! You’re entitled to communicate whatever poorly reasoned idea you want with disregard for the health and safety of your countrymen, but people are well within their rights to call you and your ideas dumb, wrong, and harmful.
Some of those people may even have more influence than you (for good reason). That is still not silencing! Facts simply do not care about your feelings. If you have the conviction that your belief is correct, you should stick to it despite any disagreement.
The fact that you’re more focused on the response of others to your arguments tells me this isn’t about being right. It’s about being seen as right. Vanity. There is no place for that in healthy debate.
Nope, it’s about not immediately ostracizing, silencing, censoring, and alienating, all of which happened from the get go. Emails were destroyed and the former head of the CDC was not allowed to participate in group calls because of his dissent. None of this “legitimate debate.” Liberals, like you, undermined public health policy through censorship and engineering the narrative and got Trump re-elected. Kudos.
People can decide for themselves instead of reading your incessant diarreah as the final word.
Engineered a takedown. Good lord you guys have thin skin. Yes, powerful people disagreed with the premise of the GBD (because it would have killed way more Americans).
Many powerful people also rightly assumed that if you wrote or signed the GBD, that you were not as smart as you thought you were (due to the glaring logical errors and misunderstanding of basic biology therein).
Same with natural immunity - provably less broad than vaccination and with substantially more random response magnitudes.
Let me let you in on the hard part of being a contrarian: people disagree with you and think you’re dumb! You’re entitled to communicate whatever poorly reasoned idea you want with disregard for the health and safety of your countrymen, but people are well within their rights to call you and your ideas dumb, wrong, and harmful.
Some of those people may even have more influence than you (for good reason). That is still not silencing! Facts simply do not care about your feelings. If you have the conviction that your belief is correct, you should stick to it despite any disagreement.
The fact that you’re more focused on the response of others to your arguments tells me this isn’t about being right. It’s about being seen as right. Vanity. There is no place for that in healthy debate.
Nope, it’s about not immediately ostracizing, silencing, censoring, and alienating, all of which happened from the get go. Emails were destroyed and the former head of the CDC was not allowed to participate in group calls because of his dissent. None of this “legitimate debate.” Liberals, like you, undermined public health policy through censorship and engineering the narrative and got Trump re-elected. Kudos.
People can decide for themselves instead of reading your incessant diarreah as the final word.
You seem to think there should be no professional repercussions for being openly wrong and dumb.
If my employees starts going off with an ill-supported contrarian view on a subject central to our line of work, I’m going to think less of them and take away responsibility.
You are correct there are professional consequence for public behavior that calls into question your competency.
Again, these are known risks of being contrarian. People who stridently believe in the importance of their views tend not to mind - they understand convincing will take time.
People who are contrarian for attention and clout are the ones -shocked- to realize people think less of low-evidence babbling.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.