12 ms·

No-one. Since doctors don't go to YouTube to find out what to do. Until there is solid evidence for a drug noone should be going to YouTube to decide what to do

No-one. Since doctors don't go to YouTube to find out what to do. Until there is solid evidence for a drug noone should be going to YouTube to decide what to do, expecially when we have many proven low risks vaccines.

e9 5y ago
Not true. A bunch of doctors went on YouTube about usefulness of hydroxychloroquine in their patients and got taken down by YouTube. Every person is unique and medications/supplements/food will work for some and not others. Best example is coffee. If you have gene that metabolizes caffeine fast then coffee is good for you and helps you because your body clears caffeine and reaps benefits of antioxidants in coffee. On the other hand if you don’t have that gene then caffeine lingers in your body and causes all sorts of damage and therefore drinking coffee is bad for you.
Heyso 5y ago
So much low risk, that pharmaceutical compagny made sure to have no liability if something bad happen.
- void_mint 5y ago
  All of your recent comments are anti-vax and covid conspiracy propaganda. Company also does not have a G. They are low risk, as has been proven over and over again.
  - guywhocodes 5y ago
    What is low risk tho? Russian roulette is technically low risk P<0.5 I've never before heard of people dying from vaccines so the usual safety bar for vaccines is obviously incredibly much higher than what we have here.
  - effie 5y ago
    > All of your recent comments are anti-vax and covid conspiracy propaganda. Please read this site terms of use. Post only substantive comments that contribute to discussion and avoid name-calling, and shallow dismissals.
    - void_mint 5y ago
      I have read them, and my comment was substantive. A person’s bias is important to call out, as was pointing out the obvious lie that was implying the vaccines aren’t low risk.
      - spadez 5y ago
        > obvious lie that was implying the vaccines aren’t low risk. If the brand new vaccines using a brand new technology are low risk, is really a matter of opinion. Basically it comes down to how much you trust the authorities and the how much you consider any given research or studies to be unbiased. (Particularly when the full data for the said studies remain unpublished) You can plainly see that both of these are variable between different people, even within similar schools of thoughts. So because someone does not share your opinion does not make them a liar. If that is the case any one saying the new vaccines are "safe and effective", should also be an obvious lie, because the long term safety studies are not done, which objectively makes it a lie.
        void_mint 5y ago
        > If the brand new vaccines using a brand new technology are low risk, is really a matter of opinion. Basically it comes down to how much you trust the authorities and the how much you consider any given research or studies to be unbiased. (Particularly when the full data for the said studies remain unpublished) That's the nice thing about science though. It's based on (readily available, well recorded) evidence. Deciding that an individual is smarter and/or doesn't believe in science (aka the entire anti vax movement) may be a matter of opinion, but the actual data and risks are not. > So because someone does not share your opinion does not make them a liar. No, the lying part does.
        spadez 5y ago
        Yes, you are right, it didn't make them a liar. And yes, today science is based on "trust" in scientists, which also makes it more like a religion. Sadly.

e9 5y ago

Not true. A bunch of doctors went on YouTube about usefulness of hydroxychloroquine in their patients and got taken down by YouTube. Every person is unique and medications/supplements/food will work for some and not others. Best example is coffee. If you have gene that metabolizes caffeine fast then coffee is good for you and helps you because your body clears caffeine and reaps benefits of antioxidants in coffee. On the other hand if you don’t have that gene then caffeine lingers in your body and causes all sorts of damage and therefore drinking coffee is bad for you.

Heyso 5y ago

So much low risk, that pharmaceutical compagny made sure to have no liability if something bad happen.

void_mint 5y ago
All of your recent comments are anti-vax and covid conspiracy propaganda. Company also does not have a G. They are low risk, as has been proven over and over again.
- guywhocodes 5y ago
  What is low risk tho? Russian roulette is technically low risk P<0.5 I've never before heard of people dying from vaccines so the usual safety bar for vaccines is obviously incredibly much higher than what we have here.
- effie 5y ago
  > All of your recent comments are anti-vax and covid conspiracy propaganda. Please read this site terms of use. Post only substantive comments that contribute to discussion and avoid name-calling, and shallow dismissals.
  - void_mint 5y ago
    I have read them, and my comment was substantive. A person’s bias is important to call out, as was pointing out the obvious lie that was implying the vaccines aren’t low risk.
    - spadez 5y ago
      > obvious lie that was implying the vaccines aren’t low risk. If the brand new vaccines using a brand new technology are low risk, is really a matter of opinion. Basically it comes down to how much you trust the authorities and the how much you consider any given research or studies to be unbiased. (Particularly when the full data for the said studies remain unpublished) You can plainly see that both of these are variable between different people, even within similar schools of thoughts. So because someone does not share your opinion does not make them a liar. If that is the case any one saying the new vaccines are "safe and effective", should also be an obvious lie, because the long term safety studies are not done, which objectively makes it a lie.
      - void_mint 5y ago
        > If the brand new vaccines using a brand new technology are low risk, is really a matter of opinion. Basically it comes down to how much you trust the authorities and the how much you consider any given research or studies to be unbiased. (Particularly when the full data for the said studies remain unpublished) That's the nice thing about science though. It's based on (readily available, well recorded) evidence. Deciding that an individual is smarter and/or doesn't believe in science (aka the entire anti vax movement) may be a matter of opinion, but the actual data and risks are not. > So because someone does not share your opinion does not make them a liar. No, the lying part does.
        spadez 5y ago
        Yes, you are right, it didn't make them a liar. And yes, today science is based on "trust" in scientists, which also makes it more like a religion. Sadly.