4 ms·

Unfortunately doctors who voice doubts about anything governments say on vaccines tend to lose their license to practice, so actually, doctors are much less rel

Unfortunately doctors who voice doubts about anything governments say on vaccines tend to lose their license to practice, so actually, doctors are much less reliable on this than engineers would be. The latter don't have to worry about professional blacklisting. The CDC has proven completely unreliable on both vaccines and masks unfortunately. The mask studies they published are laughable and CDC vaccine stats conflate "unknown vaccine status" with "unvaccinated", which is obviously not valid. You can believe people at your local church if you wish, but, that does not change the facts on the ground.

lcall 5y ago
I think the CDC is made up largely of humans who have been doing their best with limited information that has increased over time. But importantly, those I cited originally (not including the CDC) are people we know well or personally, not just at our local church, who have earned our trust and that of others by their continued competence and behavior over time. They include medical people (at least 3-4 doctors and at least one nurse, now that I think more about it). They include local news reporting organizations made of people I have come to trust, who report what the hospitals and hospital association has been saying, based on their experiences, overcrowding, who gets sickest, etc, and their professional knowledge. Not just one source for this information, but multiple, trusted, known, and mutually-corroborating. Some who lost loved ones. All of this vastly more so than any typical flu season. Also my wife's father remembers well, what life was like before the polio vaccine and how everyone ("every mother's son" as he put it) wanted a vaccine to avoid that grief, once it became available. The engineer I mentioned, that I know fairly well, also said after his difficult illness, that it would have been worth it to get vaccinated, in retrospect. So maybe earlier I should have said "opposed" the vaccine instead of "opposes". I don't personally know of cases where doctors lost their licenses because of voicing doubts. For those that you mentioned as losing licenses, do you know them or the reporters personally, with a chain of trust starting from the original, clearly identified, observer? I see government as made of many humans, with varying degrees of trustworthiness and competence, and therefore there is the importance of careful vetting of sources, and corroboration across such trusted sources. I am curious as to your views on the 1) purpose of government. Also its 2) present nature. And 3) about the principles underlying the US Constitution, and 4) how to determine what sources to trust. Thanks for the discussion, and all best wishes to you. :)
- native_samples 5y ago
  Well, I'm sure the CDC is made up of humans ;) Are you using humans as a codeword for certain types of people? I see this sometimes used to imply people of a particular ideology, rather than literally meaning all humans but don't know if you mean that here. I understand that you trust the people around you. That's perfectly natural and expected. Unfortunately, in this very unusual case I fear it's leading you astray. Let's set aside whether the CDC are genuinely doing the best they can, and leave it at the fact that if this is their best, they need to be shut down. They have: • Withheld vast amounts of critical data from the public and distorted the rest (e.g. the way they like to aggregate "unknown vaccine status" with "unvaccinated"). • Published pseudo-scientific studies that don't prove what they're claimed to prove, e.g. studies that lack control groups. • Gone well well outside their legal boundaries e.g. with rent controls. • Appear to have a worse understanding of biology than ordinary journalists. Consider this video of the head of the CDC: https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/cdc-director-walensky-reveals-she/comments?s=r https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/cdc-director-walensky-re... "Nobody said waning, when when you know, oh this vaccine’s going to work. Oh well, maybe it’ll work - (laughs) it’ll wear off. Nobody said what if the next variant doesn’t, it doesn’t, it’s not as potent against the next variant." But this is absurd. I was telling my own parents at the end of 2020 that I was very skeptical about the chances of a vaccine because nobody has ever made a successful coronavirus vaccine before, not because it's inherently impossible but because the viruses mutate so quickly that it stops working almost immediately. This is exactly what ended up happening. As Berenson points out in the linked page, he correctly predicted in January 2021 that by the end of the year the virus would have mutated, effectiveness would have consequently disappeared, people would be given third doses and the side effect profile of three doses would be worse than two. All this has occurred. Yet, the head of the CDC was left astonished by all this, apparently because nobody at the CDC told her. What does that say about the best that the humans at the CDC are capable of? The CDC matters because unfortunately, in many realms - media and medical in particular - there is strong moral and legal pressure to simply parrot authority. Were the people really reporting their own experiences to you, or were they reporting what they felt sounded right? Often it's been the latter, even for people in trusted positions like hospitals. There are big penalties for anyone who doesn't: https://trialsitenews.com/doctors-sanctioned-for-speaking-out-against-official-covid-policies/ https://trialsitenews.com/doctors-sanctioned-for-speaking-ou... "Six U.S. doctors have had their licenses suspended and 18 more threatened as they are accused of spreading misinformation about COVID-19. The action comes amidst concern that their claims are generating mistrust in officially sanctioned health measures used to combat the pandemic." This sort of thing has been going on globally. If you knew you'd lose your job for speaking out, you'd rapidly find ways to rationalize to yourself why everything is peachy. "Also my wife's father remembers well, what life was like before the polio vaccine and how everyone ("every mother's son" as he put it) wanted a vaccine to avoid that grief, once it became available." Does he remember that the Polio vaccine caused 200,000 cases of Polio due to a manufacturing error, I wonder? It was the Polio vaccine that led directly to vaccine manufacturing being excluded from normal product safety/liability laws, because otherwise nobody would make them anymore. Honestly, before 2021 I never thought about vaccines. Having seen up close how this space operates, I find myself deeply unenthusiastic about them now. It's obvious that if anything goes wrong everyone in authority lies rather than admit having encouraged or forced something harmful/useless/both on millions of people. It's the scale factor that does it, I suspect. Vaccines always cause some bad side effects in some people, so to deploy them requires knowingly sacrificing some innocent healthy people "for the greater good". It's hard enough to make such a tradeoff in the best of times but especially when a disease is rare, or mild, or outright disappears, the moral issues become so grey or outright black that the only way to proceed is to engage in self delusion. The problem can be solved by only ever releasing neutral, honest data and not making recommendations or mandates, but public health officials don't think that way. They believe everyone is stupid, even though - as Walensky demonstrates - the standards of knowledge required to succeed in public health are very low indeed.

lcall 5y ago

I think the CDC is made up largely of humans who have been doing their best with limited information that has increased over time. But importantly, those I cited originally (not including the CDC) are people we know well or personally, not just at our local church, who have earned our trust and that of others by their continued competence and behavior over time. They include medical people (at least 3-4 doctors and at least one nurse, now that I think more about it). They include local news reporting organizations made of people I have come to trust, who report what the hospitals and hospital association has been saying, based on their experiences, overcrowding, who gets sickest, etc, and their professional knowledge. Not just one source for this information, but multiple, trusted, known, and mutually-corroborating. Some who lost loved ones. All of this vastly more so than any typical flu season. Also my wife's father remembers well, what life was like before the polio vaccine and how everyone ("every mother's son" as he put it) wanted a vaccine to avoid that grief, once it became available. The engineer I mentioned, that I know fairly well, also said after his difficult illness, that it would have been worth it to get vaccinated, in retrospect. So maybe earlier I should have said "opposed" the vaccine instead of "opposes". I don't personally know of cases where doctors lost their licenses because of voicing doubts. For those that you mentioned as losing licenses, do you know them or the reporters personally, with a chain of trust starting from the original, clearly identified, observer? I see government as made of many humans, with varying degrees of trustworthiness and competence, and therefore there is the importance of careful vetting of sources, and corroboration across such trusted sources. I am curious as to your views on the 1) purpose of government. Also its 2) present nature. And 3) about the principles underlying the US Constitution, and 4) how to determine what sources to trust. Thanks for the discussion, and all best wishes to you. :)

native_samples 5y ago
Well, I'm sure the CDC is made up of humans ;) Are you using humans as a codeword for certain types of people? I see this sometimes used to imply people of a particular ideology, rather than literally meaning all humans but don't know if you mean that here. I understand that you trust the people around you. That's perfectly natural and expected. Unfortunately, in this very unusual case I fear it's leading you astray. Let's set aside whether the CDC are genuinely doing the best they can, and leave it at the fact that if this is their best, they need to be shut down. They have: • Withheld vast amounts of critical data from the public and distorted the rest (e.g. the way they like to aggregate "unknown vaccine status" with "unvaccinated"). • Published pseudo-scientific studies that don't prove what they're claimed to prove, e.g. studies that lack control groups. • Gone well well outside their legal boundaries e.g. with rent controls. • Appear to have a worse understanding of biology than ordinary journalists. Consider this video of the head of the CDC: https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/cdc-director-walensky-reveals-she/comments?s=r https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/cdc-director-walensky-re... "Nobody said waning, when when you know, oh this vaccine’s going to work. Oh well, maybe it’ll work - (laughs) it’ll wear off. Nobody said what if the next variant doesn’t, it doesn’t, it’s not as potent against the next variant." But this is absurd. I was telling my own parents at the end of 2020 that I was very skeptical about the chances of a vaccine because nobody has ever made a successful coronavirus vaccine before, not because it's inherently impossible but because the viruses mutate so quickly that it stops working almost immediately. This is exactly what ended up happening. As Berenson points out in the linked page, he correctly predicted in January 2021 that by the end of the year the virus would have mutated, effectiveness would have consequently disappeared, people would be given third doses and the side effect profile of three doses would be worse than two. All this has occurred. Yet, the head of the CDC was left astonished by all this, apparently because nobody at the CDC told her. What does that say about the best that the humans at the CDC are capable of? The CDC matters because unfortunately, in many realms - media and medical in particular - there is strong moral and legal pressure to simply parrot authority. Were the people really reporting their own experiences to you, or were they reporting what they felt sounded right? Often it's been the latter, even for people in trusted positions like hospitals. There are big penalties for anyone who doesn't: https://trialsitenews.com/doctors-sanctioned-for-speaking-out-against-official-covid-policies/ https://trialsitenews.com/doctors-sanctioned-for-speaking-ou... "Six U.S. doctors have had their licenses suspended and 18 more threatened as they are accused of spreading misinformation about COVID-19. The action comes amidst concern that their claims are generating mistrust in officially sanctioned health measures used to combat the pandemic." This sort of thing has been going on globally. If you knew you'd lose your job for speaking out, you'd rapidly find ways to rationalize to yourself why everything is peachy. "Also my wife's father remembers well, what life was like before the polio vaccine and how everyone ("every mother's son" as he put it) wanted a vaccine to avoid that grief, once it became available." Does he remember that the Polio vaccine caused 200,000 cases of Polio due to a manufacturing error, I wonder? It was the Polio vaccine that led directly to vaccine manufacturing being excluded from normal product safety/liability laws, because otherwise nobody would make them anymore. Honestly, before 2021 I never thought about vaccines. Having seen up close how this space operates, I find myself deeply unenthusiastic about them now. It's obvious that if anything goes wrong everyone in authority lies rather than admit having encouraged or forced something harmful/useless/both on millions of people. It's the scale factor that does it, I suspect. Vaccines always cause some bad side effects in some people, so to deploy them requires knowingly sacrificing some innocent healthy people "for the greater good". It's hard enough to make such a tradeoff in the best of times but especially when a disease is rare, or mild, or outright disappears, the moral issues become so grey or outright black that the only way to proceed is to engage in self delusion. The problem can be solved by only ever releasing neutral, honest data and not making recommendations or mandates, but public health officials don't think that way. They believe everyone is stupid, even though - as Walensky demonstrates - the standards of knowledge required to succeed in public health are very low indeed.