4 ms·

Maybe so, but I've observed that attitude to be far more prevalent on the anti-vax side than the pro-science side. You don't really see people who advocate for

Maybe so, but I've observed that attitude to be far more prevalent on the anti-vax side than the pro-science side. You don't really see people who advocate for the vaccine calling anyone who disagrees "sheeple," "NPCs," etc., nor do they whine about downvotes or "being silenced," or misattribute moderation to first amendment violations.

AndrewBissell 5y ago
> You don't really see people who advocate for the vaccine calling anyone who disagrees "sheeple," "NPCs," etc No, the rough equivalents are "anti-vaxxer" or "crazy," there's even an "insane" right at the top of the Torvalds email. And they don't tend to complain about being silenced because that's a treatment they are often advocating for others and rarely if ever see applied to themselves.
mandmandam 5y ago
Not all vaccines are the same, so pro science and anti vaxx are not always opposed. I am pro science, but science doesn't claim that all vaccines are safe. And let's not forget that pharma co's have tried very hard to make vaccines mandatory, to the point of bribing academics and officials, forming unaccountable PR groups, and in the not so distant past they've done truly horrific and inhuman things. After the lab-leak theory has gained traction recently, after being told for a year by Lancet and politicians and academics that it was "impossible", I would have thought that the idea of there being some "pro-science" monolith would have lost ground.
- kaba0 5y ago
  > I am pro science, but science doesn't claim that all vaccines are safe Indeed. But science does claim that Pfizer, Moderna, etc COVID-vaccines are safe and you are un-scientific if you claim otherwise. They went through proper trials, and were accepted independently* by many countries. * not completely independently I’m sure, but my point is that even if you don’t trust your country at all, several other ones decided univocally that it is safe
  - ghoward 5y ago
    How can science claim they are safe when we haven't even had the chance to do tests for long-term effects yet?
    - kaba0 5y ago
      The vaccine’s matter is in your body for a day at most. The immune system is known for quite some time, and the immunization do happen. In what way could someone develop a side effect long after the vaccine? Of course medicine is data based, not necessarily about mechanisms, but at a point Occam’s razor has to apply. And either way, we would have seen by now any side effect since it has been injected into many millions for quite some time now.
      - ghoward 5y ago
        Long-term effects are just that: long-term. We can't know what long-term effects the vaccines have until they have been used for a long time, even if millions have had them.
  - jimmydorry 5y ago
    Claims != science. Any company is free to make any claim they want, and they can offer proof in the form of trials. These trials help us form opinions on the safety of a product, however, the long-term safety profile of novel innovations takes time to verify and trials can be manipulated in many subtle ways. The FDA and other bodies dictate what kind of testing and certification must happen before allowing the sale of such products. And in very rare cases will offer emergency approval that bypasses quite a lot of the trialing or cut short the standards that must be met. To claim any treatment is safe and that any skepticism prior to long-term trials is unscientific... flies in the face of all reason. Did we learn anything from: cigarrettes, Fen-Phen, Valdecoxib (Bextra), Pemoline (Cylert), Bromfenac (Duract), Levamisole (Ergamisol), Rofecoxib (Vioxx), Isotretinoin (Accutane), and many many more. All of these products were FDA approved, a feat these vaccines are yet to achieve.
  - mandmandam 5y ago
    If science believes they are proven safe so hard, then why did governments have to grant full legal indemnity to the pharma cos to get them?

AndrewBissell 5y ago

> You don't really see people who advocate for the vaccine calling anyone who disagrees "sheeple," "NPCs," etc No, the rough equivalents are "anti-vaxxer" or "crazy," there's even an "insane" right at the top of the Torvalds email. And they don't tend to complain about being silenced because that's a treatment they are often advocating for others and rarely if ever see applied to themselves.

mandmandam 5y ago

Not all vaccines are the same, so pro science and anti vaxx are not always opposed. I am pro science, but science doesn't claim that all vaccines are safe. And let's not forget that pharma co's have tried very hard to make vaccines mandatory, to the point of bribing academics and officials, forming unaccountable PR groups, and in the not so distant past they've done truly horrific and inhuman things. After the lab-leak theory has gained traction recently, after being told for a year by Lancet and politicians and academics that it was "impossible", I would have thought that the idea of there being some "pro-science" monolith would have lost ground.

kaba0 5y ago
> I am pro science, but science doesn't claim that all vaccines are safe Indeed. But science does claim that Pfizer, Moderna, etc COVID-vaccines are safe and you are un-scientific if you claim otherwise. They went through proper trials, and were accepted independently* by many countries. * not completely independently I’m sure, but my point is that even if you don’t trust your country at all, several other ones decided univocally that it is safe
- ghoward 5y ago
  How can science claim they are safe when we haven't even had the chance to do tests for long-term effects yet?
  - kaba0 5y ago
    The vaccine’s matter is in your body for a day at most. The immune system is known for quite some time, and the immunization do happen. In what way could someone develop a side effect long after the vaccine? Of course medicine is data based, not necessarily about mechanisms, but at a point Occam’s razor has to apply. And either way, we would have seen by now any side effect since it has been injected into many millions for quite some time now.
    - ghoward 5y ago
      Long-term effects are just that: long-term. We can't know what long-term effects the vaccines have until they have been used for a long time, even if millions have had them.
- jimmydorry 5y ago
  Claims != science. Any company is free to make any claim they want, and they can offer proof in the form of trials. These trials help us form opinions on the safety of a product, however, the long-term safety profile of novel innovations takes time to verify and trials can be manipulated in many subtle ways. The FDA and other bodies dictate what kind of testing and certification must happen before allowing the sale of such products. And in very rare cases will offer emergency approval that bypasses quite a lot of the trialing or cut short the standards that must be met. To claim any treatment is safe and that any skepticism prior to long-term trials is unscientific... flies in the face of all reason. Did we learn anything from: cigarrettes, Fen-Phen, Valdecoxib (Bextra), Pemoline (Cylert), Bromfenac (Duract), Levamisole (Ergamisol), Rofecoxib (Vioxx), Isotretinoin (Accutane), and many many more. All of these products were FDA approved, a feat these vaccines are yet to achieve.
- mandmandam 5y ago
  If science believes they are proven safe so hard, then why did governments have to grant full legal indemnity to the pharma cos to get them?