4 ms·

I love how people attack the character of anyone who says anything even remotely against the pharmaceutical industry and their narratives. They like to find som

I love how people attack the character of anyone who says anything even remotely against the pharmaceutical industry and their narratives. They like to find some sort of evidence that they are one of those "anti-vaxxers" and think that discredits them. Now they don't have to debate anything. How about you argue with the points made in the article? Do you disagree with anything in the article? Is their dreaded "misinformation" in it. If so point it out and ideally provide some evidence. I am pro transparency especially when it comes to a global pandemic. I've always been that way. I'm not going to change my opinion because some other person has the same opinion. I don't give a rats ass who wrote the article. It could have been Santa Claus. I like to read articles and do my own research and form my own opinions. People like you who want to try to discredit people so you can silence debate are the biggest problem in this pandemic. Oh, and you know who else got AIDS and HIV completely wrong? Dr. Fauci.

ceejayoz 5y ago
> Do you disagree with anything in the article? Absolutely, yes. I believe there to be an acute public health interest in not letting antivax nuts run wild on raw data like they do with VAERS, despite clear disclaimers not to do so. Additionally, as a participant in a couple of trials, I see a significant benefit to careful review before the release of data that might inadvertently reveal my identity, conditions, medical history, etc.
- choward 5y ago
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    I believe patients have a right to privacy that deserves careful protection.
    - choward 5y ago
      - ceejayoz 5y ago
        That describes a wide variety of proposals. I unequivocally support it for healthcare workers.
        choward 5y ago
        ceejayoz 5y ago
        As a patient, I’d hope my healthcare worker is interested in both my privacy and not giving me communicable diseases. Most real world scenarios involve rights that may conflict at times, like the right to free speech running into libel. As a society, we wind up having to decide how to resolve those conflicts.
      - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
        We started down this thread with you asking people to argue with the points of the article, not with who the author was. Now here you are, asking ceejayoz loaded question after loaded question. You sure look like you're trying to find some reason to dismiss what he says. That's not cool, especially since you started us down the "discuss the actual points" path.
        choward 5y ago
        How are the questions loaded? They are relevant in making my point. In order to have debate you need information. If there's no transparency debate becomes pointless. The debate just comes from to who you trust and not real data. ceejayoz said they're pro medical privacy but thinks that people should have to let people know if they're vaccinated. It makes no sense. They also want people to be fired from their jobs for not taking a vaccine whose data isn't being released. In summary I find it hypocritical to be against vaccine transparency but for mandates. It's also hypocritical to be for medical privacy but be for vaccine mandates.
  - brandmeyer 5y ago
    There's no point in aiding someone whose interest lies in flinging monkey poo instead of actually having a good-faith debate.
  - TameAntelope 5y ago
    "Yes." is a full sentence, which I'd use here if it weren't so glib and frowned upon on HN. Privacy matters, you don't just get to look at people's health data for free or without caveats and conditions, namely their consent.
- ALittleLight 5y ago
  Ahh, trust in institutions through obscurity.
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    Trust in institutions through difficulty of a global cover-up requiring the cooperation of nearly two hundred countries across nearly ten billion doses administered? Sure.
    - Amezarak 5y ago
      There's no need at all for some kind of organized conspiracy, just the typical shoddy work covered for by similarly interested parties. I am not saying that's what happened in this case, but it's not exactly rare. The life sciences are absolutely rife with bad work - even notorious Covid research, for example, many of the computer-model based research, which was only exposed because regular everyday computer programmers looked at it after it was published - and often their criticisms led to coverups and denial! Conspiracy theorists usually do go nuts with this stuff, but usually there's no need for an organized "conspiracy" when class or professional interests are at stake. For example, that's one very clearly stated reason why US government officials running scientific agencies shut down scientific discussion of the lab leak theory, and why most scientists went along with it: because of the risk that the public backlash might harm their funding - the same sort of backlash that led to restrictions on gain-of-function research in the first place, that they ended up working around. > ‘I share your view that a swift convening of experts in a confidence inspiring framework (WHO seems really the only option) is needed, or the voices of conspiracy will quickly dominate, doing great potential harm to science and international harmony…’” People quite naturally and regularly act in a way that appears coordinated without any actual coordination.
readingnonsense 5y ago
kevin_b_er 5y ago
When they're known for spreading lies about communicable diseases, why shouldn't there be suspicion?

ceejayoz 5y ago

> Do you disagree with anything in the article? Absolutely, yes. I believe there to be an acute public health interest in not letting antivax nuts run wild on raw data like they do with VAERS, despite clear disclaimers not to do so. Additionally, as a participant in a couple of trials, I see a significant benefit to careful review before the release of data that might inadvertently reveal my identity, conditions, medical history, etc.

choward 5y ago
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  I believe patients have a right to privacy that deserves careful protection.
  - choward 5y ago
    - ceejayoz 5y ago
      That describes a wide variety of proposals. I unequivocally support it for healthcare workers.
      - choward 5y ago
        ceejayoz 5y ago
        As a patient, I’d hope my healthcare worker is interested in both my privacy and not giving me communicable diseases. Most real world scenarios involve rights that may conflict at times, like the right to free speech running into libel. As a society, we wind up having to decide how to resolve those conflicts.
    - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
      We started down this thread with you asking people to argue with the points of the article, not with who the author was. Now here you are, asking ceejayoz loaded question after loaded question. You sure look like you're trying to find some reason to dismiss what he says. That's not cool, especially since you started us down the "discuss the actual points" path.
      - choward 5y ago
        How are the questions loaded? They are relevant in making my point. In order to have debate you need information. If there's no transparency debate becomes pointless. The debate just comes from to who you trust and not real data. ceejayoz said they're pro medical privacy but thinks that people should have to let people know if they're vaccinated. It makes no sense. They also want people to be fired from their jobs for not taking a vaccine whose data isn't being released. In summary I find it hypocritical to be against vaccine transparency but for mandates. It's also hypocritical to be for medical privacy but be for vaccine mandates.
- brandmeyer 5y ago
  There's no point in aiding someone whose interest lies in flinging monkey poo instead of actually having a good-faith debate.
- TameAntelope 5y ago
  "Yes." is a full sentence, which I'd use here if it weren't so glib and frowned upon on HN. Privacy matters, you don't just get to look at people's health data for free or without caveats and conditions, namely their consent.
ALittleLight 5y ago
Ahh, trust in institutions through obscurity.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  Trust in institutions through difficulty of a global cover-up requiring the cooperation of nearly two hundred countries across nearly ten billion doses administered? Sure.
  - Amezarak 5y ago
    There's no need at all for some kind of organized conspiracy, just the typical shoddy work covered for by similarly interested parties. I am not saying that's what happened in this case, but it's not exactly rare. The life sciences are absolutely rife with bad work - even notorious Covid research, for example, many of the computer-model based research, which was only exposed because regular everyday computer programmers looked at it after it was published - and often their criticisms led to coverups and denial! Conspiracy theorists usually do go nuts with this stuff, but usually there's no need for an organized "conspiracy" when class or professional interests are at stake. For example, that's one very clearly stated reason why US government officials running scientific agencies shut down scientific discussion of the lab leak theory, and why most scientists went along with it: because of the risk that the public backlash might harm their funding - the same sort of backlash that led to restrictions on gain-of-function research in the first place, that they ended up working around. > ‘I share your view that a swift convening of experts in a confidence inspiring framework (WHO seems really the only option) is needed, or the voices of conspiracy will quickly dominate, doing great potential harm to science and international harmony…’” People quite naturally and regularly act in a way that appears coordinated without any actual coordination.

readingnonsense 5y ago

kevin_b_er 5y ago

When they're known for spreading lies about communicable diseases, why shouldn't there be suspicion?