4 ms·

> 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 wo

> 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.
  - mbesto 5y ago
    > 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. The two aren't mutually exclusive. I'm trying to say we ought to have a meaningful discussion about these topics and bad actors are making it worse to do so. People who simply take those talking points ("makes you think huh?") and regurgitate them and THEN say "why can't we discuss this" don't faithfully want discussions, they want EYEBALLS (read -> $$). I can't tell if this you're viewpoint, but you sure are sharing a lot of the same characteristics of these people ("I can research everything myself damnit!") You absolutely should have the right to read white papers AND also trust that the government entity that interprets such articles has your best interest in mind. But you're insinuating that we should simply just have research/white papers and leave it to the general populace to interpret whatever they want. That is, IMHO, more dangerous than the alternative, especially when it comes to vaccinations where there is a near binary effect in place (you either get herd immunity or you don't, everything in between is potentially worse).

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.
- mbesto 5y ago
  > 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. The two aren't mutually exclusive. I'm trying to say we ought to have a meaningful discussion about these topics and bad actors are making it worse to do so. People who simply take those talking points ("makes you think huh?") and regurgitate them and THEN say "why can't we discuss this" don't faithfully want discussions, they want EYEBALLS (read -> $$). I can't tell if this you're viewpoint, but you sure are sharing a lot of the same characteristics of these people ("I can research everything myself damnit!") You absolutely should have the right to read white papers AND also trust that the government entity that interprets such articles has your best interest in mind. But you're insinuating that we should simply just have research/white papers and leave it to the general populace to interpret whatever they want. That is, IMHO, more dangerous than the alternative, especially when it comes to vaccinations where there is a near binary effect in place (you either get herd immunity or you don't, everything in between is potentially worse).