3 ms·

For what it's worth I was with you up until your last sentence - I found the tone unnecessarily condescending. We don't need people to admit they were wrong -

For what it's worth I was with you up until your last sentence - I found the tone unnecessarily condescending. We don't need people to admit they were wrong - we need people to keep an open mind and understand that top researchers and institutions in the world are finding evidence that mRNA vaccines in their current form may be subtly working against us in complex ways [1]. I'm talking about second and third order evolutionary dynamics that are not explainable in terms of simple rhetoric. To support my statements, see these relevant peer-reviewed publications: [1] Risk of rapid evolutionary escape from biomedical interventions targeting SARS-CoV-2 spike protein (April 2021) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33909660/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33909660/ [2] Why does drug resistance readily evolve but vaccine resistance does not? (2017) https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rspb.2016.2562 https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rspb.2016... [3] Imperfect Vaccination Can Enhance the Transmission of Highly Virulent Pathogens (2015) https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1002198 https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371%2Fj... [4] The adaptive evolution of virulence: a review of theoretical predictions and empirical tests (2015) https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/30EC8AB1717BF7A173CF5E051DBB498F/S003118201500092Xa_hi.pdf/_div_class__title__The_adaptive_evolution_of_virulence__a_review_of_theoretical_predictions_and_empirical_tests__div_.pdf https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/c... [5] The phylogenomics of evolving virus virulence (2018) https://www.nature.com/articles/s41576-018-0055-5 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41576-018-0055-5 [6] Monitor for COVID-19 vaccine resistance evolution during clinical trials (Nov 2020) https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.3001000 https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/jou...

betwixthewires 5y ago
I don't think it was unnecessary at all. If you got into a conversation about vaccines or covid anywhere on this site in the last few weeks you were talked down to, brigaded, bullshitted and dogpiled. Those people absolutely need to admit they were wrong, at least to themselves, otherwise they're going to be the next group of irrational voices shilling irrational things against people who are trying to deduce facts using reason.
- Daishiman 5y ago
  The problem is you can't deduce things just using reason because immunology and epidemiology are branches of science that take a huge amount of dedication to understanding before you can make useful, falsifiable assertions that don't fall into begginer's errors due to ignorance. I am absolutely tired of armchair epidemiologists who think their opinion even counts. No, I don't care about your "reasoning", because if you're not a specialist in the topic you are missing out on such a gigantic set of knowledge on the subject that I need to have any interesting hypothesis checked out by a subject matter expert.
  - betwixthewires 5y ago
    You can deduce a lot from reasoning. For example, you can deduce that in an endemic disease, a vaccine without close to 100% efficacy and deployed in close to 100% of the population, all it will serve to do is exert selective pressure on the virus to avoid immune response. This deduction doesn't take an epidemiology specialist to come up with, was thoroughly mocked for the past few months and, now, with the delta variant, appears to be occurring. Looks like the "armchair epidemiologists" were right sticking to their reason against a wave of social pressure. You can use reason to deduce that cloth masks on the wall at the checkout line at the liquor store are mostly useless. You don't need to be an epidemiologist to understand the basic mechanisms by which pathogens spread and have a basic idea of how natural selection works. You dismissing everyone that disagrees with you on a topic is ego protection and nothing more, and, as we see with the delta variant, people like you are, to quote you guys the last few months, spreading misinformation that is costing lives.
    - Daishiman 5y ago
      > You can deduce a lot from reasoning. For example, you can deduce that in an endemic disease, a vaccine without close to 100% efficacy and deployed in close to 100% of the population, all it will serve to do is exert selective pressure on the virus to avoid immune response. "All it will do" BS. It will save and continue to save lives into the millions, if the fatality rates in India are anything to go by, while allowing for some semblance of normality for people who are not afraid of a risk profile similar to that of the flu when vaccinated. "It will exert selective pressure", yeah, no shit. You know what also exerts selective pressure? Washing your hands and having a functional immune system. Everything induces selective pressure because that's how evolution works. Since when has that been an argument against vaccination? > You can use reason to deduce that cloth masks on the wall at the checkout line at the liquor store are mostly useless. You don't need to be an epidemiologist to understand the basic mechanisms by which pathogens spread and have a basic idea of how natural selection works. This is absolute delirium. Mask wearing works (https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.16.21258817v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.16.21258817v...), (https://science.sciencemag.org/content/372/6549/1439 https://science.sciencemag.org/content/372/6549/1439), quoted as being "particularly effective", with several explanatory hypotheses as to why (https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2777695 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2777695). So, yeah, if you're going to claim that the armchair epidemiologists were right, you better show some damn validation instead of making up your own numbers. Tired of this bullshit.

betwixthewires 5y ago

I don't think it was unnecessary at all. If you got into a conversation about vaccines or covid anywhere on this site in the last few weeks you were talked down to, brigaded, bullshitted and dogpiled. Those people absolutely need to admit they were wrong, at least to themselves, otherwise they're going to be the next group of irrational voices shilling irrational things against people who are trying to deduce facts using reason.

Daishiman 5y ago
The problem is you can't deduce things just using reason because immunology and epidemiology are branches of science that take a huge amount of dedication to understanding before you can make useful, falsifiable assertions that don't fall into begginer's errors due to ignorance. I am absolutely tired of armchair epidemiologists who think their opinion even counts. No, I don't care about your "reasoning", because if you're not a specialist in the topic you are missing out on such a gigantic set of knowledge on the subject that I need to have any interesting hypothesis checked out by a subject matter expert.
- betwixthewires 5y ago
  You can deduce a lot from reasoning. For example, you can deduce that in an endemic disease, a vaccine without close to 100% efficacy and deployed in close to 100% of the population, all it will serve to do is exert selective pressure on the virus to avoid immune response. This deduction doesn't take an epidemiology specialist to come up with, was thoroughly mocked for the past few months and, now, with the delta variant, appears to be occurring. Looks like the "armchair epidemiologists" were right sticking to their reason against a wave of social pressure. You can use reason to deduce that cloth masks on the wall at the checkout line at the liquor store are mostly useless. You don't need to be an epidemiologist to understand the basic mechanisms by which pathogens spread and have a basic idea of how natural selection works. You dismissing everyone that disagrees with you on a topic is ego protection and nothing more, and, as we see with the delta variant, people like you are, to quote you guys the last few months, spreading misinformation that is costing lives.
  - Daishiman 5y ago
    > You can deduce a lot from reasoning. For example, you can deduce that in an endemic disease, a vaccine without close to 100% efficacy and deployed in close to 100% of the population, all it will serve to do is exert selective pressure on the virus to avoid immune response. "All it will do" BS. It will save and continue to save lives into the millions, if the fatality rates in India are anything to go by, while allowing for some semblance of normality for people who are not afraid of a risk profile similar to that of the flu when vaccinated. "It will exert selective pressure", yeah, no shit. You know what also exerts selective pressure? Washing your hands and having a functional immune system. Everything induces selective pressure because that's how evolution works. Since when has that been an argument against vaccination? > You can use reason to deduce that cloth masks on the wall at the checkout line at the liquor store are mostly useless. You don't need to be an epidemiologist to understand the basic mechanisms by which pathogens spread and have a basic idea of how natural selection works. This is absolute delirium. Mask wearing works (https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.16.21258817v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.16.21258817v...), (https://science.sciencemag.org/content/372/6549/1439 https://science.sciencemag.org/content/372/6549/1439), quoted as being "particularly effective", with several explanatory hypotheses as to why (https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2777695 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2777695). So, yeah, if you're going to claim that the armchair epidemiologists were right, you better show some damn validation instead of making up your own numbers. Tired of this bullshit.