5 ms·

> We're in the middle of a global pandemic and we're not allowed to discuss whether GoF research is too risky? We're not allowed to discuss the nuances of what

by mbesto 5y ago

> We're in the middle of a global pandemic and we're not allowed to discuss whether GoF research is too risky? We're not allowed to discuss the nuances of what a "lab leak" may really entail? When the polio vaccine first came out was the public (i.e. non medical personnel) allowed to discuss whether the use of inactivated virus was too risky? > Why should they trust the government, the CDC, the WHO and the like? What have they done to prove they are trustworthy at this point? To this point? Are you serious? Does someone seriously need to explain to you all of the viruses (far more deadly than COVID mind you) that have been eradicated by government organizations? > Shutting down open discussion around this topics will only make the situation worse, not better. You're missing the point. The people who are crying "why can't we discuss GoF research or the lab leak" are not engaging in the argument in good faith. I absolutely think we need to discuss this topics in a meaningful way, however when most of the actors who are bringing up these topics are trying to cry wolf then why should we take them seriously?

gruez 5y ago
>When the polio vaccine first came out was the public (i.e. non medical personnel) allowed to discuss whether the use of inactivated virus was too risky? They weren't? >You're missing the point. The people who are crying "why can't we discuss GoF research or the lab leak" are not engaging in the argument in good faith. I absolutely think we need to discuss this topics in a meaningful way, however when most of the actors who are bringing up these topics are trying to cry wolf then why should we take them seriously? Why would the good faith actors get punished for the actions of bad faith actors?
- mbesto 5y ago
  > They weren't? Happy for you to provide evidence that shows otherwise. > Why would the good faith actors get punished for the actions of bad faith actors? Would or should? They shouldn't get punished, but this precisely the point. Bad faith actors get far more attention than good ones. So this is already happening regardless of whether you want it to.
  - gruez 5y ago
    >Happy for you to provide evidence that shows otherwise. Just to confirm, are you claiming that the US government actively suppressed anti-vaccine views when the polio vaccine came out? >Would or should? sorry, should. >They shouldn't get punished, but this precisely the point. Bad faith actors get far more attention than good ones. So this is already happening regardless of whether you want it to. And what do you think about that? Specifically, good faith actors getting swept up by bad faith actors? Is that fine? Should we do something about it?
    - mbesto 5y ago
      > are you claiming that the US government actively suppressed anti-vaccine views when the polio vaccine came out? No, I'm not sure where you're getting this from? > Should we do something about it? Yes. This is a problem, but isn't that precisely what YT is doing..? They're banning bad faith actors here, no?
      - gruez 5y ago
        >No, I'm not sure where you're getting this from? Sounds like a misunderstanding then. Your initial comment was > > We're in the middle of a global pandemic and we're not allowed to discuss whether GoF research is too risky? We're not allowed to discuss the nuances of what a "lab leak" may really entail? >When the polio vaccine first came out was the public (i.e. non medical personnel) allowed to discuss whether the use of inactivated virus was too risky? The quoted poster seemed to be anti-censorship, so when you replied in opposition to that, it gave the impression that you thought there was actually censorship going on for polio vaccines. >but isn't that precisely what YT is doing..? They're banning bad faith actors here, no? They're banning everyone, bad/good faith actors alike. That's bad and should be stopped.
        mbesto 5y ago
        > They're banning everyone, bad/good faith actors alike. That's bad and should be stopped. Are you sure? From the article: (emphasis mine) > YouTube is taking down several video channels associated with high-profile anti-vaccine activists including Joseph Mercola and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who experts say are partially responsible for helping seed the skepticism that’s contributed to slowing vaccination rates across the country. > As part of a new set of policies aimed at cutting down on anti-vaccine content on the Google-owned site, YouTube will ban any videos that claim that commonly used vaccines approved by health authorities are ineffective or dangerous. The company previously blocked videos that made those claims about coronavirus vaccines, but not ones for other vaccines like those for measles or chickenpox. That sounds like to me they are discretionarily deciding who gets banned, no?
HonestOp001 5y ago
The CDC of the past is not the CDC of today. It never is the same, people come and go. The make up of the political structure has overwhelmed the program: 1. CDC director overrules recommendation of board (political reasoning alone). 2. Dr. Faucci admits he lied about the amount of people needed to be vaccinated. 3. Dr. Faucci admits they lied about the need for masks. Which if we look at the data it is messy and shows only a 20% efficacy. If we look at recommendations prior to this outbreak, the documents say not to bother with masks. Do not tell me it was for the greater good to lie, they lied. Which people were told to shut up and listen when we all questioned the lie. 4. The head of the CDC is having an emotional break down on TV when all metrics are trending good (1Q). Why was she having a break down when the public data shows something else. Could it be she had knowledge of something? The point is, agencies change, they adapt to the political masters. We have these three examples plus my fourth curiosity that point to the government agencies no longer being trustworthy in their guidance.
deelowe 5y ago
> When the polio vaccine first came out was the public (i.e. non medical personnel) allowed to discuss whether the use of inactivated virus was too risky? I would certainly have thought so. Are you referring to something specific or just sowing seeds of doubt? > To this point? Are you serious? Does someone seriously need to explain to you all of the viruses (far more deadly than COVID mind you) that have been eradicated by government organizations? To me? No. I can read the whitepapers myself and understand the risks I'm taking. I'm fully vaccinated btw. Regardless, you're sort of missing the point here. Shutting down dissenting views is authoritarianism and categorically not free speech. And, to be clear, it's not just "misinformation" that's being banned. There are legitimate issues with vaccines people should be informed of such as early warning signs of myocarditis that are also not allowed on YT. > The people who are crying "why can't we discuss GoF research or the lab leak" are not engaging in the argument in good faith. "They" are? Who is "they?" Are you claiming there's no point in discussing this? We still haven't sorted out where the virus originated and simply showing it is likely zootonic in origin isn't enough. Wuhan was doing active research on zootonic coronaviruses.
- mbesto 5y ago
  > I would certainly have thought so. Are you referring to something specific or just sowing seeds of doubt? No, I'm genuinely asking you. Do you know? > I can read the whitepapers myself and understand the risks I'm taking. Oh you can? Do you have a background in immunology? > Shutting down dissenting views is authoritarianism and categorically not free speech. > There are legitimate issues with vaccines people should be informed of such as early warning signs of myocarditis that are also not allowed on YT. That people are freely allowed to discuss with their doctors. Why on earth anyone expects to get medical advice from a for profit entertainment website is beyond me. > Are you claiming there's no point in discussing this? I literally wrote: > I absolutely think we need to discuss this topics in a meaningful way ...this is why we can't have nice things.
  - deelowe 5y ago
    > No, I'm genuinely asking you. Do you know? You're asking me to research something there's no evidence of? No, I'm not aware nor have I ever heard of this being a thing until now. > Oh you can? Do you have a background in immunology? No, but I took more than one statistics class in undergrad which is enough for me to make decisions I'm comfortable with. > That people are freely allowed to discuss with their doctors. Why on earth anyone expects to get medical advice from a for profit entertainment website is beyond me. Using your own point, doctors do not have a background in immunology. So I'm not allowed to read and interpret medical papers, but the same logic doesn't apply to a medical practitioner who has nearly zero formal education in medical research. Which is it? > I absolutely think we need to discuss this topics in a meaningful way I apologize for misinterpreting your comment, but in my defense, it's fairly confusing as to what point you're trying to make. On the one hand you say that you support "discussion of these topics in a meaningful way." On the other hand, you criticize me for desiring to read medical papers in an attempt to make informed decisions. You even go so far as to suggest I should blindly listen to my community college grad MP when it comes to medical advice. Which by the way, this is the same person that got me hooked on PPIs when I had GERD which is now causing joint issues and then tried to feed me opiates when I started experiencing said joint issues.
nradov 5y ago
In terms of human viruses, governments have only eradicated smallpox and almost polio. We will not be able to eradicate SARS-CoV-2 the same way. Unlike smallpox and polio there are animal hosts (most other mammal species can carry and transmit the virus) and the vaccines don't reliably prevent infection. So I encourage everyone to get vaccinated to protect themselves, but we need to face reality that the virus will never be eradicated.

by mbesto 5y ago

gruez 5y ago

>When the polio vaccine first came out was the public (i.e. non medical personnel) allowed to discuss whether the use of inactivated virus was too risky? They weren't? >You're missing the point. The people who are crying "why can't we discuss GoF research or the lab leak" are not engaging in the argument in good faith. I absolutely think we need to discuss this topics in a meaningful way, however when most of the actors who are bringing up these topics are trying to cry wolf then why should we take them seriously? Why would the good faith actors get punished for the actions of bad faith actors?

mbesto 5y ago
> They weren't? Happy for you to provide evidence that shows otherwise. > Why would the good faith actors get punished for the actions of bad faith actors? Would or should? They shouldn't get punished, but this precisely the point. Bad faith actors get far more attention than good ones. So this is already happening regardless of whether you want it to.
- gruez 5y ago
  >Happy for you to provide evidence that shows otherwise. Just to confirm, are you claiming that the US government actively suppressed anti-vaccine views when the polio vaccine came out? >Would or should? sorry, should. >They shouldn't get punished, but this precisely the point. Bad faith actors get far more attention than good ones. So this is already happening regardless of whether you want it to. And what do you think about that? Specifically, good faith actors getting swept up by bad faith actors? Is that fine? Should we do something about it?
  - mbesto 5y ago
    > are you claiming that the US government actively suppressed anti-vaccine views when the polio vaccine came out? No, I'm not sure where you're getting this from? > Should we do something about it? Yes. This is a problem, but isn't that precisely what YT is doing..? They're banning bad faith actors here, no?
    - gruez 5y ago
      >No, I'm not sure where you're getting this from? Sounds like a misunderstanding then. Your initial comment was > > We're in the middle of a global pandemic and we're not allowed to discuss whether GoF research is too risky? We're not allowed to discuss the nuances of what a "lab leak" may really entail? >When the polio vaccine first came out was the public (i.e. non medical personnel) allowed to discuss whether the use of inactivated virus was too risky? The quoted poster seemed to be anti-censorship, so when you replied in opposition to that, it gave the impression that you thought there was actually censorship going on for polio vaccines. >but isn't that precisely what YT is doing..? They're banning bad faith actors here, no? They're banning everyone, bad/good faith actors alike. That's bad and should be stopped.
      - mbesto 5y ago
        > They're banning everyone, bad/good faith actors alike. That's bad and should be stopped. Are you sure? From the article: (emphasis mine) > YouTube is taking down several video channels associated with high-profile anti-vaccine activists including Joseph Mercola and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who experts say are partially responsible for helping seed the skepticism that’s contributed to slowing vaccination rates across the country. > As part of a new set of policies aimed at cutting down on anti-vaccine content on the Google-owned site, YouTube will ban any videos that claim that commonly used vaccines approved by health authorities are ineffective or dangerous. The company previously blocked videos that made those claims about coronavirus vaccines, but not ones for other vaccines like those for measles or chickenpox. That sounds like to me they are discretionarily deciding who gets banned, no?

HonestOp001 5y ago

The CDC of the past is not the CDC of today. It never is the same, people come and go. The make up of the political structure has overwhelmed the program: 1. CDC director overrules recommendation of board (political reasoning alone). 2. Dr. Faucci admits he lied about the amount of people needed to be vaccinated. 3. Dr. Faucci admits they lied about the need for masks. Which if we look at the data it is messy and shows only a 20% efficacy. If we look at recommendations prior to this outbreak, the documents say not to bother with masks. Do not tell me it was for the greater good to lie, they lied. Which people were told to shut up and listen when we all questioned the lie. 4. The head of the CDC is having an emotional break down on TV when all metrics are trending good (1Q). Why was she having a break down when the public data shows something else. Could it be she had knowledge of something? The point is, agencies change, they adapt to the political masters. We have these three examples plus my fourth curiosity that point to the government agencies no longer being trustworthy in their guidance.

deelowe 5y ago

> When the polio vaccine first came out was the public (i.e. non medical personnel) allowed to discuss whether the use of inactivated virus was too risky? I would certainly have thought so. Are you referring to something specific or just sowing seeds of doubt? > To this point? Are you serious? Does someone seriously need to explain to you all of the viruses (far more deadly than COVID mind you) that have been eradicated by government organizations? To me? No. I can read the whitepapers myself and understand the risks I'm taking. I'm fully vaccinated btw. Regardless, you're sort of missing the point here. Shutting down dissenting views is authoritarianism and categorically not free speech. And, to be clear, it's not just "misinformation" that's being banned. There are legitimate issues with vaccines people should be informed of such as early warning signs of myocarditis that are also not allowed on YT. > The people who are crying "why can't we discuss GoF research or the lab leak" are not engaging in the argument in good faith. "They" are? Who is "they?" Are you claiming there's no point in discussing this? We still haven't sorted out where the virus originated and simply showing it is likely zootonic in origin isn't enough. Wuhan was doing active research on zootonic coronaviruses.

mbesto 5y ago
> I would certainly have thought so. Are you referring to something specific or just sowing seeds of doubt? No, I'm genuinely asking you. Do you know? > I can read the whitepapers myself and understand the risks I'm taking. Oh you can? Do you have a background in immunology? > Shutting down dissenting views is authoritarianism and categorically not free speech. > There are legitimate issues with vaccines people should be informed of such as early warning signs of myocarditis that are also not allowed on YT. That people are freely allowed to discuss with their doctors. Why on earth anyone expects to get medical advice from a for profit entertainment website is beyond me. > Are you claiming there's no point in discussing this? I literally wrote: > I absolutely think we need to discuss this topics in a meaningful way ...this is why we can't have nice things.
- deelowe 5y ago
  > No, I'm genuinely asking you. Do you know? You're asking me to research something there's no evidence of? No, I'm not aware nor have I ever heard of this being a thing until now. > Oh you can? Do you have a background in immunology? No, but I took more than one statistics class in undergrad which is enough for me to make decisions I'm comfortable with. > That people are freely allowed to discuss with their doctors. Why on earth anyone expects to get medical advice from a for profit entertainment website is beyond me. Using your own point, doctors do not have a background in immunology. So I'm not allowed to read and interpret medical papers, but the same logic doesn't apply to a medical practitioner who has nearly zero formal education in medical research. Which is it? > I absolutely think we need to discuss this topics in a meaningful way I apologize for misinterpreting your comment, but in my defense, it's fairly confusing as to what point you're trying to make. On the one hand you say that you support "discussion of these topics in a meaningful way." On the other hand, you criticize me for desiring to read medical papers in an attempt to make informed decisions. You even go so far as to suggest I should blindly listen to my community college grad MP when it comes to medical advice. Which by the way, this is the same person that got me hooked on PPIs when I had GERD which is now causing joint issues and then tried to feed me opiates when I started experiencing said joint issues.

nradov 5y ago

In terms of human viruses, governments have only eradicated smallpox and almost polio. We will not be able to eradicate SARS-CoV-2 the same way. Unlike smallpox and polio there are animal hosts (most other mammal species can carry and transmit the virus) and the vaccines don't reliably prevent infection. So I encourage everyone to get vaccinated to protect themselves, but we need to face reality that the virus will never be eradicated.