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.
I told you not to expect any humility from any of them. I beg of everyone else to actually listen to this last 7:30. Redfield is transparent and humble, talks about how the vaccines saved a lot of lives (they did) and how long Covid is real and prevalent, but how long vax is real and clinically very significant, how mRNA vaccines” are sub-optimal because we can neither control how much spike protein is made nor how long it is manufactured for in the body, why Novovax is a superior vax and hasn’t caused any long COVID, unlike the other mRNA vaccines, and how they were really only necessary for people 60, 65+.
You can continue to listen to someone like Harambro’s incessant narcissism, or you can actually listen to someone who has the chops and is telling you a different story. Think I’ll believe Redfield (and Birx).
What do you expect. His whole world, the sole reason for his existence on this forum, is crumbling around him.
Yes, 2021 is calling. The village wants its, well, villager back.
Time to start a “Pandemic of the Vaccinated” thread.
I told you not to expect any humility from any of them. I beg of everyone else to actually listen to this last 7:30. Redfield is transparent and humble, talks about how the vaccines saved a lot of lives (they did) and how long Covid is real and prevalent, but how long vax is real and clinically very significant, how mRNA vaccines” are sub-optimal because we can neither control how much spike protein is made nor how long it is manufactured for in the body, why Novovax is a superior vax and hasn’t caused any long COVID, unlike the other mRNA vaccines, and how they were really only necessary for people 60, 65+.
You can continue to listen to someone like Harambro’s incessant narcissism, or you can actually listen to someone who has the chops and is telling you a different story. Think I’ll believe Redfield (and Birx).
It’s funny that you will glaze “the experts” when they say what you want, but others… time to throw them in jail or something. Extremely telling. Extremely motivated reasoning.
The dude literally wrote this “unironically.” OMG.
I'm not seeing this interview online except for the transcript excerpts you seem to be cutting and pasting from the Epoch Times.
Also your userid was registered just a couple months ago, so it would be helpful if you could list the userid(s) you've posted under since "the beginning".
Yeah, sure, here you go. The cut and paste wasn’t Epoch Times by the way, but it doesn’t matter. Redfield comes in with about 6:30 to go, and the last 2:00 are especially fascinating, his criticism of the mRNA vaccines and their downstream consequences, long-vax from them, why Novavax is his preferred vaccine, and how mandates weren’t a good idea.
The issue I have with this, and popular journalism in general, is that Redfield expresses some views but we don't see the information which informs the view.
Cuomo's stated theme for the program is that we should allow space for opposing views without "cancelling" alternate viewpoints, which is fine as far as that goes. Good journalism, however, as well as good science needs to poke at the substance of viewpoints. We heard "what" Redfield believes but we don't hear "why" he believes it nor do we hear what he perceives to be the limitations of the basis for these beliefs.
In fairness, Cuomo's program appears to be infotainment and I'm trying to apply a higher standard of rigorous skepticism than is common to these sorts of programs.
I sincerely hope everyone who has participated in this thread will listen to this interview. This was the former director of the CDC. I would hope that any one of you might be able to say, well, in fact, we don’t have all the facts and show a little more humility. I won’t hold my breath. Video: m.youtube.com/watch?v=nwi-80d3SzY
Redfield clearly has relevant expertise so his opinion can not be dismissed out of hand, but, in this at least he seems to be in the minority of persons with similar relevant expertise. I'd be interested in seeing him lay out his argument in a more substantial manner, but absent that, I'd continue to favor more rigorously supported viewpoints.
I used to post as Sub-9 guy but, well, Harambe stole the handle, loll.
I was looking for a more substantial history, but if you don't think your posting history is worth owning, you're probably right.
I forgot red field left in Jan 2021. He’s just mad he doesn’t get credit for the vaccine rollout that saved millions of Americans.
Don’t worry, Rob, you oversaw OWS. You’re a hero in my eyes 🫡
I sincerely hope Redfield and his peers are reading what this character is writing about them.
Last 7:30 but especially last 2:00. First segment is good too about silencing and cancelling dissenters, because that’s exactly what stealing people’s handles is. Lol. Smh. Can’t make this stuff up.
Chris Cuomo hosts "CUOMO," a no-nonsense show featuring the day's most important news from all perspectives. "CUOMO" airs weeknights at 8 p.m./7C on NewsNation.
Yeah, sure, here you go. The cut and paste wasn’t Epoch Times by the way, but it doesn’t matter. Redfield comes in with about 6:30 to go, and the last 2:00 are especially fascinating, his criticism of the mRNA vaccines and their downstream consequences, long-vax from them, why Novavax is his preferred vaccine, and how mandates weren’t a good idea.
The issue I have with this, and popular journalism in general, is that Redfield expresses some views but we don't see the information which informs the view.
Cuomo's stated theme for the program is that we should allow space for opposing views without "cancelling" alternate viewpoints, which is fine as far as that goes. Good journalism, however, as well as good science needs to poke at the substance of viewpoints. We heard "what" Redfield believes but we don't hear "why" he believes it nor do we hear what he perceives to be the limitations of the basis for these beliefs.
In fairness, Cuomo's program appears to be infotainment and I'm trying to apply a higher standard of rigorous skepticism than is common to these sorts of programs.
I sincerely hope everyone who has participated in this thread will listen to this interview. This was the former director of the CDC. I would hope that any one of you might be able to say, well, in fact, we don’t have all the facts and show a little more humility. I won’t hold my breath. Video: m.youtube.com/watch?v=nwi-80d3SzY
Redfield clearly has relevant expertise so his opinion can not be dismissed out of hand, but, in this at least he seems to be in the minority of persons with similar relevant expertise. I'd be interested in seeing him lay out his argument in a more substantial manner, but absent that, I'd continue to favor more rigorously supported viewpoints.
I used to post as Sub-9 guy but, well, Harambe stole the handle, loll.
I was looking for a more substantial history, but if you don't think your posting history is worth owning, you're probably right.
To be clear, I've never 'stolen' a handle. I cannot speak for other pro-vax vigilantes on these boards. They may engage in more 'direct action' than myself (who sticks to rhetorical weapons)
Maybe they’re more knowledgeable on the subject than some random internet gorilla who has demonstrated he has very limited knowledge in this area. 🤔
But you keep being you, Mr. Irrelevant. I LOVE seeing you fumble around. 😂
I told you not to expect any humility from any of them. I beg of everyone else to actually listen to this last 7:30. Redfield is transparent and humble, talks about how the vaccines saved a lot of lives (they did) and how long Covid is real and prevalent, but how long vax is real and clinically very significant, how mRNA vaccines” are sub-optimal because we can neither control how much spike protein is made nor how long it is manufactured for in the body, why Novovax is a superior vax and hasn’t caused any long COVID, unlike the other mRNA vaccines, and how they were really only necessary for people 60, 65+.
You can continue to listen to someone like Harambro’s incessant narcissism, or you can actually listen to someone who has the chops and is telling you a different story. Think I’ll believe Redfield (and Birx).
I start talking about humility, and 2 days later you're talking about it.
Perhaps I would take you seriously if you weren't just parroting what I said with a few twists. Be creative!
Yeah, sure, here you go. The cut and paste wasn’t Epoch Times by the way, but it doesn’t matter. Redfield comes in with about 6:30 to go, and the last 2:00 are especially fascinating, his criticism of the mRNA vaccines and their downstream consequences, long-vax from them, why Novavax is his preferred vaccine, and how mandates weren’t a good idea.
The issue I have with this, and popular journalism in general, is that Redfield expresses some views but we don't see the information which informs the view.
Redfield clearly has relevant expertise so his opinion can not be dismissed out of hand, but, in this at least he seems to be in the minority of persons with similar relevant expertise. I'd be interested in seeing him lay out his argument in a more substantial manner, but absent that, I'd continue to favor more rigorously supported viewpoints.
Redfield was given like three minutes in total to express his views. How much robust, corroboration can he unveil in that amount of time other than a 50,000' view? Hopefully he'll come back on. I'm sure he's reluctant as he laid it out how dissenters were silenced.
The issue I have with this, and popular journalism in general, is that Redfield expresses some views but we don't see the information which informs the view.
Redfield was given like three minutes in total to express his views. How much robust, corroboration can he unveil in that amount of time other than a 50,000' view? Hopefully he'll come back on. I'm sure he's reluctant as he laid it out how dissenters were silenced.
One piece of corroborating evidence would have been nice. Is one too much to ask? Perhaps it is for antivaxxers.
It’s funny that you will glaze “the experts” when they say what you want, but others… time to throw them in jail or something. Extremely telling. Extremely motivated reasoning.
The dude literally wrote this “unironically.” OMG.
This Redfield interview seems to be the one that broke the gorilla’s back. His fumbling around trying to find his way is quite entertaining. 😂
The issue I have with this, and popular journalism in general, is that Redfield expresses some views but we don't see the information which informs the view.
Cuomo's stated theme for the program is that we should allow space for opposing views without "cancelling" alternate viewpoints, which is fine as far as that goes. Good journalism, however, as well as good science needs to poke at the substance of viewpoints. We heard "what" Redfield believes but we don't hear "why" he believes it nor do we hear what he perceives to be the limitations of the basis for these beliefs.
In fairness, Cuomo's program appears to be infotainment and I'm trying to apply a higher standard of rigorous skepticism than is common to these sorts of programs.
Redfield clearly has relevant expertise so his opinion can not be dismissed out of hand, but, in this at least he seems to be in the minority of persons with similar relevant expertise. I'd be interested in seeing him lay out his argument in a more substantial manner, but absent that, I'd continue to favor more rigorously supported viewpoints.
I was looking for a more substantial history, but if you don't think your posting history is worth owning, you're probably right.
To be clear, I've never 'stolen' a handle.
Good one. It’s almost as good as “I’ve never posted as 2600 bro” or “I haven’t cared about Covid for three years.” 😂
The issue I have with this, and popular journalism in general, is that Redfield expresses some views but we don't see the information which informs the view.
Redfield was given like three minutes in total to express his views. How much robust, corroboration can he unveil in that amount of time other than a 50,000' view? Hopefully he'll come back on. I'm sure he's reluctant as he laid it out how dissenters were silenced.
Three minutes that had thrown Harambro into a tizzy! 👍
Yes, 2021 is calling. The village wants its, well, villager back.
Time to start a “Pandemic of the Vaccinated” thread.
The best you can hope to do is riff of my genius. Why am I not surprised.
LOL genius? Like when "you and 2600bro" were gone for two weeks and then both posted within 2 minutes of each other? Or when you forgot to change handles and replied to yourself using the same handle? Genius? hahahahahaha
The issue I have with this, and popular journalism in general, is that Redfield expresses some views but we don't see the information which informs the view.
Redfield was given like three minutes in total to express his views. How much robust, corroboration can he unveil in that amount of time other than a 50,000' view? Hopefully he'll come back on. I'm sure he's reluctant as he laid it out how dissenters were silenced.
The point is that popular journalism is a lousy source for building a substantial argument. More popular journalism doesn't change that. In fact it gives persons prone to selection bias more room to cherry pick what they like.
No one is preventing Redfield from writing an extended essay on Substack at the very minimum and he has the pull to do a lot better than that even if it's short of a review article in Nature or some such journal. Unfortunately actual science is hard, doesn't generally pay all that well, and he's probably going to have a hard time supporting his argument absent data of which I'm unaware.
Redfield was given like three minutes in total to express his views. How much robust, corroboration can he unveil in that amount of time other than a 50,000' view? Hopefully he'll come back on. I'm sure he's reluctant as he laid it out how dissenters were silenced.
The point is that popular journalism is a lousy source for building a substantial argument. More popular journalism doesn't change that. In fact it gives persons prone to selection bias more room to cherry pick what they like.
No one is preventing Redfield from writing an extended essay on Substack at the very minimum and he has the pull to do a lot better than that even if it's short of a review article in Nature or some such journal. Unfortunately actual science is hard, doesn't generally pay all that well, and he's probably going to have a hard time supporting his argument absent data of which I'm unaware.
This is incredulous. Guy has his MD from a very credible institution, has worked at the highest levels of government science and research, and is a clinician to boot, and he’s literally giving you a summary of his clinical experience and his time as head of the CDC. But we should listen to you. Or, more significantly, Harambro. Lol.
I’m fine with Redfield providing more evidence for his views, but that doesn’t make his views incorrect or his clinical experience not valid. The CDC is quite political, and scientists are very fallible people. I’m guessing you have yet to read Osler’s Web. It’s a fascinating dive into the world of long Covid, err, CFS (same thing clinically).
So, I know someone literally stole Harambe’s registered handle and deployed it on here. Do I have “data” to back it up? No. Do I know it happened. Yes, absolutely. The question is how. He’s supposed to be the smartest guy here, a real men of genius. We salute him.
Redfield was given like three minutes in total to express his views. How much robust, corroboration can he unveil in that amount of time other than a 50,000' view? Hopefully he'll come back on. I'm sure he's reluctant as he laid it out how dissenters were silenced.
The point is that popular journalism is a lousy source for building a substantial argument. More popular journalism doesn't change that. In fact it gives persons prone to selection bias more room to cherry pick what they like.
No one is preventing Redfield from writing an extended essay on Substack at the very minimum and he has the pull to do a lot better than that even if it's short of a review article in Nature or some such journal. Unfortunately actual science is hard, doesn't generally pay all that well, and he's probably going to have a hard time supporting his argument absent data of which I'm unaware.
Unfortunately what makes money (clicks) is usually what's compelling to the under-informed (i.e. dramatized, cherry picked, grand claims, "secret knowledge")
So poorly backed drama is elevated above careful research and evidence... but still sucked up by those that have dogma to reinforce.
