4 ms·

A creepy and arrogant suggestion that's actually a sterling example of the main problem over on the non-"conspiracy theory" side: the assumption that they are c

A creepy and arrogant suggestion that's actually a sterling example of the main problem over on the non-"conspiracy theory" side: the assumption that they are correct combined with a complete unwillingness to talk about specific topics and specific objectively existing artifacts. Pretending to be nice and reasonable as a cover for intellectual dishonesty and ignorance of the arguments on the other side. Have you read Peter Duesberg's "Inventing the AIDS Virus?" No? It'll take you 10s to find the PDF. Engage with that, and then we'll have something to talk about. Don't just look down your nose like I'm crazy while refusing to listen.

historia_novae 5y ago
[flagged]
- asimpletune 5y ago
  > pushing a drug that was obviously not working What do you mean by not working? It seems that the two choices are a.) getting covid and building some immunity or b.) getting a covid vaccine and getting some immunity, in the end a and b both provide some immunity. To me the downsides of a are clear, but I'd be interested in hearing why you think there are no upsides to b. > remember the lab leak hypothesis? I'm not expert but I think the most recent thing I heard about the origins of COVID is that is some natural origin is back on the table as the most likely scenario. > definition of vaccine was modified to fit that new drug Please tell me if I'm mistaking what you mean, but I don't think the definition of a vaccine was modified? Instead I think the public had a working lay definition, based on the success of previous vaccination efforts. I think the definition was always something like a medicine that enhances immunity against a disease. > The whole thing is sickening. This I agree with, but for me it's been more that people start with conclusions, work backwards to find evidence, and then call it research.
  - rascul 5y ago
    > > definition of vaccine was modified to fit that new drug > Please tell me if I'm mistaking what you mean, but I don't think the definition of a vaccine was modified? Instead I think the public had a working lay definition, based on the success of previous vaccination efforts. I think the definition was always something like a medicine that enhances immunity against a disease. The CDC did modify their definitions of "vaccine" and "vaccination" on their web site, and some people have taken that to mean various things. I think it was changed early May, 2021. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.htm https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.htm https://web.archive.org/web/20210412182439/https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.htm https://web.archive.org/web/20210412182439/https://www.cdc.g...
    - asimpletune 5y ago
      Thanks for the links! Original definition: > Vaccine: A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but can also be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose. Current definition: > Vaccine: A preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but some can be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.
      - xaedes 5y ago
        That new definition sounds pretty broad. Does that make vitamin C a vaccine? I think it also stimulates the body's immune response against diseases.
        asimpletune 5y ago
        > Does that make vitamin C a vaccine? I would say no, since vitamin c doesn’t enhance the body’s immune system against a specific disease. And the new definition seems to be about the same as the old one, to me at least. The only material difference was the removal of “protecting” (I don’t have the specific wording in front of me) While I can’t attest to what exactly their intent in that deletion was, I can imagine it may have been to remove the temptation to make bad faith interpretations of what “protection” is meant in this context. Clearly though the original context was that vaccines protect us in the same was we mean when we say car seatbelts protect against accidents.
- myko 5y ago
  > people arrogantly pushing a drug that was obviously not working on the sole basis they believed it to be the correct thing to do This is false, 100% false. The vaccines are safe and effective and saved literally millions of lives. It's disappointing to see this viewpoint here, in this context, and it shows just how terrible the problem with conspiracy theories is. Smart folks are just as easily misled, even when obvious facts are presented to them. For folks who are not convinced but are convincible please read about covid vaccine effectiveness: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/effectiveness/work.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/effective...
  - WaxedChewbacca 5y ago
    [dead]

historia_novae 5y ago

[flagged]

asimpletune 5y ago
> pushing a drug that was obviously not working What do you mean by not working? It seems that the two choices are a.) getting covid and building some immunity or b.) getting a covid vaccine and getting some immunity, in the end a and b both provide some immunity. To me the downsides of a are clear, but I'd be interested in hearing why you think there are no upsides to b. > remember the lab leak hypothesis? I'm not expert but I think the most recent thing I heard about the origins of COVID is that is some natural origin is back on the table as the most likely scenario. > definition of vaccine was modified to fit that new drug Please tell me if I'm mistaking what you mean, but I don't think the definition of a vaccine was modified? Instead I think the public had a working lay definition, based on the success of previous vaccination efforts. I think the definition was always something like a medicine that enhances immunity against a disease. > The whole thing is sickening. This I agree with, but for me it's been more that people start with conclusions, work backwards to find evidence, and then call it research.
- rascul 5y ago
  > > definition of vaccine was modified to fit that new drug > Please tell me if I'm mistaking what you mean, but I don't think the definition of a vaccine was modified? Instead I think the public had a working lay definition, based on the success of previous vaccination efforts. I think the definition was always something like a medicine that enhances immunity against a disease. The CDC did modify their definitions of "vaccine" and "vaccination" on their web site, and some people have taken that to mean various things. I think it was changed early May, 2021. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.htm https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.htm https://web.archive.org/web/20210412182439/https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.htm https://web.archive.org/web/20210412182439/https://www.cdc.g...
  - asimpletune 5y ago
    Thanks for the links! Original definition: > Vaccine: A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but can also be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose. Current definition: > Vaccine: A preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but some can be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.
    - xaedes 5y ago
      That new definition sounds pretty broad. Does that make vitamin C a vaccine? I think it also stimulates the body's immune response against diseases.
      - asimpletune 5y ago
        > Does that make vitamin C a vaccine? I would say no, since vitamin c doesn’t enhance the body’s immune system against a specific disease. And the new definition seems to be about the same as the old one, to me at least. The only material difference was the removal of “protecting” (I don’t have the specific wording in front of me) While I can’t attest to what exactly their intent in that deletion was, I can imagine it may have been to remove the temptation to make bad faith interpretations of what “protection” is meant in this context. Clearly though the original context was that vaccines protect us in the same was we mean when we say car seatbelts protect against accidents.
myko 5y ago
> people arrogantly pushing a drug that was obviously not working on the sole basis they believed it to be the correct thing to do This is false, 100% false. The vaccines are safe and effective and saved literally millions of lives. It's disappointing to see this viewpoint here, in this context, and it shows just how terrible the problem with conspiracy theories is. Smart folks are just as easily misled, even when obvious facts are presented to them. For folks who are not convinced but are convincible please read about covid vaccine effectiveness: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/effectiveness/work.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/effective...
- WaxedChewbacca 5y ago
  [dead]