5 ms·

> I really wish all the anti-vaxxer types would just listen to TWiV. We call it science the process/method, rather than science the religion. > The hosts and

> I really wish all the anti-vaxxer types would just listen to TWiV. We call it science the process/method, rather than science the religion. > The hosts and guests both openly and candidly talk about some of the disagreements they have with the prevailing public health guidelines while at the same time give so much detail and depth into virology and immunology so as to show how full of shit the big anti-vax misinformation peddlers are. I'll keep that in mind next time I am censored. > So many anti-vaxxers say you can't have any disagreements with the party line or you get cancelled and then these prominent experts at the top of their fields do it every week on TWiV and don't get cancelled (because they aren't full of shit). Profanity aside, it sounds like you are touting controlled opposition, or, Establishment figures critiquing establishment positions.

fzeroracer 4y ago
How do we know you're not 'controlled opposition'? If you want to make the argument that the people in question are establishment figures, then doesn't the same argument fly for you as well? How do we know you're not some agent of some other establishment pushing their own agenda other than 'trust me I'm a real person'? This line of debate leads nowhere other than a dead end where each side is convinced that the other is a spy. And considering your post history, I don't know if there's a reason to lend you much credence at all.
- OrvalWintermute 4y ago
  The proper medical response, and ethical one, is pretty simple. To any medical intevention there is risk. A chance of adverse events. A chance it won't work. Side effects. Your physician should make you aware of these potential issues, making you aware of them, before treating you. We call it informed consent. The ethical angle is a little more complex. Considering above, but also, knowing the statistics around fatality rates of various conditions, and the adverse events that go along with the interventions. Some cases it means they should, or shouldn't be treated. Also, you have to consider a patient's personal beliefs, religion, etc. Running roughshod over patient beliefs is considered unethical. Each person should make their own decisions based on knowing their health, and consulting with a competent medical professional that understands all of above. There are simple calculators that exist for fatality rates around covid depending on age, weight, mordibities, etc. Thank JHU. Which I do, thanks mostly to my wife that is a dual board certified surgeon. > This line of debate leads nowhere other than a dead end where each side is convinced that the other is a spy. And considering your post history, I don't know if there's a reason to lend you much credence at all Either I am a liar, well-informed, or quite crazy. Take your pick. I'd just like to think that I married well
  - elcritch 4y ago
    Not to mention trying to "force" the issue often isn't effective. There was a study on HN a while back showing higher rates of vaccination of newborns when the expectant mothers were given information on vaccines and their effectiveness months before and asked to consider them. It's almost like most people can be reasonable if given the opportunity and proper information. People are also surprisingly good at picking up on BS, even if they then misattribute the source or reasoning.
simonh 4y ago
> I'll keep that in mind next time I am censored. When were you censored? I mean actually censored. Bearing in mind that being ignored, or the owners of publishing systems choosing not to cooperate with you in propagating your opinions on platforms they own or operate, is editorialising and not censorship.
- uwagar 4y ago
  - simonh 4y ago
    There’s plenty of evidence for a strong correlation between some opinions and mortality rates. There are probably in the region of 135,000 or more dead Americans who would probably be alive today if they’d not been persuaded to hold a particular opinion. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.02.10.22270823v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.02.10.22270823v...
    - concordDance 4y ago
      Censoring anyone saying ageing is natural or not a disease or arguing against funding an anti-aging project would probably have an even bigger impact, but still seems like a bad idea.
      - simonh 4y ago
        It’s possible to imagine all sorts of problems we don’t actually have.

fzeroracer 4y ago

How do we know you're not 'controlled opposition'? If you want to make the argument that the people in question are establishment figures, then doesn't the same argument fly for you as well? How do we know you're not some agent of some other establishment pushing their own agenda other than 'trust me I'm a real person'? This line of debate leads nowhere other than a dead end where each side is convinced that the other is a spy. And considering your post history, I don't know if there's a reason to lend you much credence at all.

OrvalWintermute 4y ago
The proper medical response, and ethical one, is pretty simple. To any medical intevention there is risk. A chance of adverse events. A chance it won't work. Side effects. Your physician should make you aware of these potential issues, making you aware of them, before treating you. We call it informed consent. The ethical angle is a little more complex. Considering above, but also, knowing the statistics around fatality rates of various conditions, and the adverse events that go along with the interventions. Some cases it means they should, or shouldn't be treated. Also, you have to consider a patient's personal beliefs, religion, etc. Running roughshod over patient beliefs is considered unethical. Each person should make their own decisions based on knowing their health, and consulting with a competent medical professional that understands all of above. There are simple calculators that exist for fatality rates around covid depending on age, weight, mordibities, etc. Thank JHU. Which I do, thanks mostly to my wife that is a dual board certified surgeon. > This line of debate leads nowhere other than a dead end where each side is convinced that the other is a spy. And considering your post history, I don't know if there's a reason to lend you much credence at all Either I am a liar, well-informed, or quite crazy. Take your pick. I'd just like to think that I married well
- elcritch 4y ago
  Not to mention trying to "force" the issue often isn't effective. There was a study on HN a while back showing higher rates of vaccination of newborns when the expectant mothers were given information on vaccines and their effectiveness months before and asked to consider them. It's almost like most people can be reasonable if given the opportunity and proper information. People are also surprisingly good at picking up on BS, even if they then misattribute the source or reasoning.

simonh 4y ago

> I'll keep that in mind next time I am censored. When were you censored? I mean actually censored. Bearing in mind that being ignored, or the owners of publishing systems choosing not to cooperate with you in propagating your opinions on platforms they own or operate, is editorialising and not censorship.

uwagar 4y ago
- simonh 4y ago
  There’s plenty of evidence for a strong correlation between some opinions and mortality rates. There are probably in the region of 135,000 or more dead Americans who would probably be alive today if they’d not been persuaded to hold a particular opinion. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.02.10.22270823v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.02.10.22270823v...
  - concordDance 4y ago
    Censoring anyone saying ageing is natural or not a disease or arguing against funding an anti-aging project would probably have an even bigger impact, but still seems like a bad idea.
    - simonh 4y ago
      It’s possible to imagine all sorts of problems we don’t actually have.