This thread was deleted by a volunteer moderator. I certainly don't want a thread this big deleted so I've restored. THat being said, this thread has served it's purpose. I've closed it to new posts.
We have a new 2024 vaccine thread here. New people don't need to try to wade through 20,000 posts to figure out what is going on.
Surface spread is incredibly rare. Unless you’re depositing a glob of high titer mucus onto a 4C surface which is then directly transferred into someone’s nose… sure anything is possible. But the entire exercise was the probabilistic determine the highest likelihood origin.
I appreciate the feedback. I agree that we will never know for sure because we approach the problem differently... follow the science vs follow the money.
Follow the science (FTS) generally, not always but generally, assumes that the science is correct; the scientists are altruistic; and no outside sources influence the conclusions of the data study.
Follow the money (FTM) generally, but not always, looks for conflicting opinions and when different opinions exists, FTM looks for bias in both sides to see if one side benefits significantly (in money, power, status, etc) from their position. If a potential money bias does not exist, FTM looks at the science. If a money bias potentially exists, FTM looks outside the science for answers.
The FTS considers irrelevant the CCP's world view, their likely research into weaponizing viruses, the proximity of WIV to the breakout, the oddities of the furin site in Sars-CoV-2, the destruction WIV's data, the deaths of scientists and journalists who spoke out, the refusal to allow 3rd parties to look at the wet market immediately after the event, the refusal to allow 3rd parties to interview scientists at WIV without an observer (to report what was said to the CCP), the EcoHealth connection to secretly continue gain of function research at WIV, Fauci's pressuring scientists early on to discredit the lab leak theory, and finally the fact that if China had been doing this illegally, China would technically be liable for millions of deaths and trillions of dollars of damage due to the pandemic.
FTS considers all that to be irrelevant. This scientists say xyz so xyz is the answer... everything else is just coincidental.
Follow the money considers this to be a crime scene where even the altruistic scientists are being pressured to agree with the CCP party line. Anyone who believes anything coming from the Chinese government or the scientists who fear for their families' lives if they disagree with the Chinese government to be 100% truthful is just naive.
In philosophy and rhetoric, the principle of charity or charitable interpretation requires interpreting a speaker's statements in the most rational way possible and, in the case of any argument, considering its best, stronges...
The key characteristic of science is that it is evidence based. Ergo, one's theory is as good as the evidence that supports it.
It's usually the safer bet to align with mainstream scientific experts because they are the most familiar with the body of evidence and have a reputational cost for misinterpreting or over-interpreting evidence. The greatest sin in science though is not being wrong, it is the failure to adapt one's view in the face of contrary evidence.
Nobody looking at the origins of covid is unaware that the Chinese have not been as transparent as one might hope. Nobody believes the evidence is as complete or as conclusive as one might hope. These facts certainly weigh in how one favors the various covid origin hypotheses.
Surface spread is incredibly rare. Unless you’re depositing a glob of high titer mucus onto a 4C surface which is then directly transferred into someone’s nose… sure anything is possible. But the entire exercise was the probabilistic determine the highest likelihood origin.
I appreciate the feedback. I agree that we will never know for sure because we approach the problem differently... follow the science vs follow the money.
Follow the science (FTS) generally, not always but generally, assumes that the science is correct; the scientists are altruistic; and no outside sources influence the conclusions of the data study.
Follow the money (FTM) generally, but not always, looks for conflicting opinions and when different opinions exists, FTM looks for bias in both sides to see if one side benefits significantly (in money, power, status, etc) from their position. If a potential money bias does not exist, FTM looks at the science. If a money bias potentially exists, FTM looks outside the science for answers.
The FTS considers irrelevant the CCP's world view, their likely research into weaponizing viruses, the proximity of WIV to the breakout, the oddities of the furin site in Sars-CoV-2, the destruction WIV's data, the deaths of scientists and journalists who spoke out, the refusal to allow 3rd parties to look at the wet market immediately after the event, the refusal to allow 3rd parties to interview scientists at WIV without an observer (to report what was said to the CCP), the EcoHealth connection to secretly continue gain of function research at WIV, Fauci's pressuring scientists early on to discredit the lab leak theory, and finally the fact that if China had been doing this illegally, China would technically be liable for millions of deaths and trillions of dollars of damage due to the pandemic.
FTS considers all that to be irrelevant. This scientists say xyz so xyz is the answer... everything else is just coincidental.
Follow the money considers this to be a crime scene where even the altruistic scientists are being pressured to agree with the CCP party line. Anyone who believes anything coming from the Chinese government or the scientists who fear for their families' lives if they disagree with the Chinese government to be 100% truthful is just naive.
China worked equally hard to cover up zoonotic evidence as well. They were invested in scrubbing all evidence as a zoonotic spillover in Wuhan is basically as bad for them - they were the ones holding the horribly unsanitary markets with exotic animals. Simply saying “an authoritarian regime did not make it easy to investigate their inner workings” is not really evidence one way or another.
So Harambe’s entire argument basically boils down to scientists weren’t good enough or smart enough to insert the furin cleavage site where it is. But we should trust them on a novel mRNA superantigen wrapped in a lipid nanoparticle that can disseminate the payload without specificity all over the body and with very few adverse consequences. Oh, and vitamin D is for grifters and low IQers, and that Fisky’s alleged two-step process is somehow actually a seven step process. Got it.
So Harambe’s entire argument basically boils down to scientists weren’t good enough or smart enough to insert the furin cleavage site where it is. But we should trust them on a novel mRNA superantigen wrapped in a lipid nanoparticle that can disseminate the payload without specificity all over the body and with very few adverse consequences. Oh, and vitamin D is for grifters and low IQers, and that Fisky’s alleged two-step process is somehow actually a seven step process. Got it.
Not at all what I said lol. I said the furin site is nothing like what a scientist would do. In fact absent extensive work on the end product it should not have even worked. It would look like nonsense had we not had a global effort to solve the structures of and do tons of genomics on COVID after it emerged.
This has nothing to do with vaccines. Pfizer scientists are vastly better funded and equipped than the WIV, for what it’s worth.
I’ve noticed your arguments are beginning to compact into terse, angry, unsubstantiated statements that run together. Please try and argue with rigor and patience lest you look like just an angry dogmatic.
So Harambe’s entire argument basically boils down to scientists weren’t good enough or smart enough to insert the furin cleavage site where it is. But we should trust them on a novel mRNA superantigen wrapped in a lipid nanoparticle that can disseminate the payload without specificity all over the body and with very few adverse consequences. Oh, and vitamin D is for grifters and low IQers, and that Fisky’s alleged two-step process is somehow actually a seven step process. Got it.
An antiviral doesn't as well for people who already have outstanding protection against severe disease from the vaccine. Further validation of the efficacy of the vaccines. Paxlovid has saved thousands of antivaxxer lives, regardless.
You are starting to flail a bit. Please actually read the links you post.
I’ve never seen someone so ghoulishly fascinated/aroused at deaths of their countrymen. Perhaps Goebbels is a comparison.
53 years old. Multi-vaxxed people who knew her must be consumed with fear and anxiety.
Imagine being so enthusiastic about the mRNA goop that you wear a costume to look like a vax syringe and dance for millions to see (a few million, if Colbert has that many viewers).
I’ve never seen someone so ghoulishly fascinated/aroused at deaths of their countrymen. Perhaps Goebbels is a comparison.
53 years old. Multi-vaxxed people who knew her must be consumed with fear and anxiety.
Imagine being so enthusiastic about the mRNA goop that you wear a costume to look like a vax syringe and dance for millions to see (a few million, if Colbert has that many viewers).
The irony is overshadowed by the tragedy.
The tragedy is 300k dead Americans you helped kill
53 years old. Multi-vaxxed people who knew her must be consumed with fear and anxiety.
Imagine being so enthusiastic about the mRNA goop that you wear a costume to look like a vax syringe and dance for millions to see (a few million, if Colbert has that many viewers).
The irony is overshadowed by the tragedy.
The tragedy is 300k dead Americans you helped kill
Most of the dead are those that tend to vote for Democrats. Red state totals are skewed by Democrat voters within those states and older populations within those states. Pretty sure nobody is taking health advice from anonymous posters on an internet chat room (and if they are, they really need to reevaluate their priorities in life). Unless DanM is a Democrat official with a significant platform who was encouraging those segments of the population to not take the “Trump Vaccine”, I wouldn’t say that he helped kill anybody.
Although older adults have been at the highest risk of becoming seriously ill and dying from COVID-19, many younger people have had their lives cut short by the illness. And, while much attention has been paid to the dispropo...
The tragedy is 300k dead Americans you helped kill
Most of the dead are those that tend to vote for Democrats. Red state totals are skewed by Democrat voters within those states and older populations within those states. Pretty sure nobody is taking health advice from anonymous posters on an internet chat room (and if they are, they really need to reevaluate their priorities in life). Unless DanM is a Democrat official with a significant platform who was encouraging those segments of the population to not take the “Trump Vaccine”, I wouldn’t say that he helped kill anybody.
An antiviral doesn't as well for people who already have outstanding protection against severe disease from the vaccine. Further validation of the efficacy of the vaccines. Paxlovid has saved thousands of antivaxxer lives, regardless.
You are starting to flail a bit. Please actually read the links you post.
The tragedy is 300k dead Americans you helped kill
Most of the dead are those that tend to vote for Democrats. Red state totals are skewed by Democrat voters within those states and older populations within those states. Pretty sure nobody is taking health advice from anonymous posters on an internet chat room (and if they are, they really need to reevaluate their priorities in life). Unless DanM is a Democrat official with a significant platform who was encouraging those segments of the population to not take the “Trump Vaccine”, I wouldn’t say that he helped kill anybody.
Incorrect. Since vaccines were available GOP-leaning counties have died at disproportionate rates. The Trump vaccine saves lives. Trump supporters decided to die to own the libs
Posting stats that include pre-vaccine times is very disingenuous. The disparity appears exclusively after vaccines were available.
This cross-sectional study examines the differences in excess death rates between Republican and Democratic voters in Florida and Ohio after the COVID-19 vaccine became available for all adults.
As Dr John Campbell debates the mystery of white clots in relation to the Covid vaccine, knowing what we already know about vaccine censorship, how do we ens...
