4 ms·

Mate I'm not sure how to make this any clearer to you. Literally none of the examples you gave are in any way comparable to injecting a completely novel medical

Mate I'm not sure how to make this any clearer to you. Literally none of the examples you gave are in any way comparable to injecting a completely novel medical intervention both in mechanism and function for which zero long term data exists. You're doing the equivalent asking me to believe there's a population of unicorns underground plotting to wipe out humanity, so we should plan to combat them by building up specific unicorn destroying weapons, with no evidence they exist in the first place. "It's safe trust me" Sorry but no. All your examples have comparable or well studied technologies and preexisting science behind them. None of them have zero comparable long term data. HDTVs and VR are built on well understood technology, CBD oil, Impossible Burgers, Chocolate bars are built on well understood food chemistries. None of them come even close to the risks imparted by direct health intervention that has failed animal trials repeatedly. >You had no hypothesis, no argument and designed no experiment. I've literally explicitly stated it several times. If you choose to ignore it, that's a personal problem. >The moment you convince everyone that it’s smarter to wait for long-term data, you lose the ability to obtain that very data you want lol no you don't, you just do actual science and studies/trials while not fear mongering the population into authoritarian complacency over unstudied medical interventions that have not mitigated excess deaths at all.

awb 5y ago
> Literally none of the examples you gave are in any way comparable to injecting a completely novel medical intervention both in mechanism and function Exactly, and that's why I listed them. The 0 long-term data part and interaction with novel technology is so commonplace in everyday life, it isn't the core issue and IMO, it's a byproduct of some other concern. The core issue for many people is 0 long-term data + [something]. The [something] is interesting. Here you identify "novel medical intervention both in mechanism and function" as the [something]. That [something] can be researched online, debated, etc. My guess is that if you had 0 concern over how mRNA vaccines work (like you had 0 concern over cellphone radiation), you wouldn't still be waiting on long-term data. Using your earlier example, it's like saying "I have 0 concern that cellphones produce harmful radiation, but I still want to wait for long-term data before using this new technology because long-term data is the most important thing in my decision making process." No one does that. They focus on the radiation, because that's what matters, and once they're comfortable with that concrete, specific concern they make an informed decision. The 0 long-term data is a concern we overcome everyday without much hesitation. The fact that CBD oils have well understood food chemistries ignores the fact that their largely unregulated production process, quantity of application and internal/external application processes in combination with an infinite number of genetic or medical pre-conditions or other substances like over-the-counter drugs, alcohol, etc. could have an unstudied long-term effect. We have 0 long-term data on this and no one cares, because in the "0 long-term data + [something]" equation, if there's no [something], no one cares about the 0 long-term data part of the equation. > the risks imparted by direct health intervention that has failed animal trials repeatedly OK, now we're getting more detail. Now you can research and debate this more specific concern. > you just do actual science and studies/trials You could simulate it in the lab or animals all you want, but you need to study a large sample size of people over long periods of time to see any long-term effects in humans. That means in order for this "wait and see" philosophy to work for you, you need a large number of people to disagree with it. > not fear mongering the population into authoritarian complacency over unstudied medical interventions that have not mitigated excess deaths at all And more specific concerns. This is the heart of it IMO. Now you can have a conversation. When you refuse to have a conversation or make a decision until you have robust long-term data, you're creating an impossible hurdle that you yourself can't possibly adhere to consistently with every new technology, medicine or medical procedure.

awb 5y ago

> Literally none of the examples you gave are in any way comparable to injecting a completely novel medical intervention both in mechanism and function Exactly, and that's why I listed them. The 0 long-term data part and interaction with novel technology is so commonplace in everyday life, it isn't the core issue and IMO, it's a byproduct of some other concern. The core issue for many people is 0 long-term data + [something]. The [something] is interesting. Here you identify "novel medical intervention both in mechanism and function" as the [something]. That [something] can be researched online, debated, etc. My guess is that if you had 0 concern over how mRNA vaccines work (like you had 0 concern over cellphone radiation), you wouldn't still be waiting on long-term data. Using your earlier example, it's like saying "I have 0 concern that cellphones produce harmful radiation, but I still want to wait for long-term data before using this new technology because long-term data is the most important thing in my decision making process." No one does that. They focus on the radiation, because that's what matters, and once they're comfortable with that concrete, specific concern they make an informed decision. The 0 long-term data is a concern we overcome everyday without much hesitation. The fact that CBD oils have well understood food chemistries ignores the fact that their largely unregulated production process, quantity of application and internal/external application processes in combination with an infinite number of genetic or medical pre-conditions or other substances like over-the-counter drugs, alcohol, etc. could have an unstudied long-term effect. We have 0 long-term data on this and no one cares, because in the "0 long-term data + [something]" equation, if there's no [something], no one cares about the 0 long-term data part of the equation. > the risks imparted by direct health intervention that has failed animal trials repeatedly OK, now we're getting more detail. Now you can research and debate this more specific concern. > you just do actual science and studies/trials You could simulate it in the lab or animals all you want, but you need to study a large sample size of people over long periods of time to see any long-term effects in humans. That means in order for this "wait and see" philosophy to work for you, you need a large number of people to disagree with it. > not fear mongering the population into authoritarian complacency over unstudied medical interventions that have not mitigated excess deaths at all And more specific concerns. This is the heart of it IMO. Now you can have a conversation. When you refuse to have a conversation or make a decision until you have robust long-term data, you're creating an impossible hurdle that you yourself can't possibly adhere to consistently with every new technology, medicine or medical procedure.