3 ms·

>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

>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). On the one hand you say anti-vaxers are not cancelled but on the other hand you refer to them as full of shit. In spite of so many of their claims about the vaccine having been proven correct: it doesn't prevent transmission, it doesn't prevent severe covid or death, and for some age groups the risks outweigh the benefits: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4206070 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4206070.

lovich 4y ago
He didn’t say they weren’t cancelled, he said that their claim that you can’t have any disagreements with the party line or you get cancelled. Anti vaxxers tend to not discuss nuanced details and instead come out with unsubstantiated claims like “vaccines cause autism” which is going to get most people to stop listening to them
- logicchains 4y ago
  >Anti vaxxers tend to not discuss nuanced details and instead come out with unsubstantiated claims like “vaccines cause autism” which is going to get most people to stop listening to them Have you actually read any of the publications by prominent anti-vax scientists? For instance, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359989585_Innate_immune_suppression_by_SARS-CoV-2_mRNA_vaccinations_The_role_of_G-quadruplexes_exosomes_and_MicroRNAs https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359989585_Innate_im... is hardly lacking in nuanced details or full of unsubstantiated claims, nor is https://www.voiceforscienceandsolidarity.org/scientific-blog/c-19-mass-vaccination-triggers-a-chain-reaction-of-new-pandemics-and-epidemics https://www.voiceforscienceandsolidarity.org/scientific-blog... .
  - lovich 4y ago
    I’m finding it difficult to summon the energy to read through these fully when the abstract of the first link has a political dog whistle[1] in the abstract before it gets to any actual hypothesis or claims. Finishing the abstract I see they end it with this sentence[2], implying this isn’t even original research? Is this actual research or a statistical analysis of the VAERS database? This second link is even worse, it’s a blogpost with a a short paper riddled with citations linking to other blogposts from the same site making wild claims about how the vaccine actually makes things worse. I started on section 1 after his synopsis and he just points to a diagram included in his paper and then trots out the debunked anti vaxxer claim of > vaccinees are now increasingly becoming asymptomatic shedders of SC-2. There is no data or citation supporting that beyond his diagram. He just makes a claim and then starts making logical leaps off that claim. This is the kind of “evidence” that makes everyone groan and roll their eyes when people claim that the anti vaxxers actually have proof and no one’s paying attention to them because it’s a conspiracy or doesn’t toe the party line. I am legitimately upset that I gave you the benefit of the doubt and wasted my time reading through these just to find out that your claims are as weakly supported as I had assumed. [1]the sentence below, anti vaxxers commonly bring up lack of precedent as a reason the vaccines can’t possibly work > The utilization of mRNA vaccines in the context of infectious disease has no precedent. [2] > We show evidence from the VAERS database supporting our hypothesis.
- switch007 4y ago
  There’s plenty of nuance you just want don’t want to see it because anyone not 110% in favour = bad :)
  - lovich 4y ago
    Please illuminate us then. Dang doesn’t ban people for anti vaxx claims on this board so you should have nothing to fear
archagon 4y ago
> it doesn't prevent severe covid or death Yes, it does…?

lovich 4y ago

He didn’t say they weren’t cancelled, he said that their claim that you can’t have any disagreements with the party line or you get cancelled. Anti vaxxers tend to not discuss nuanced details and instead come out with unsubstantiated claims like “vaccines cause autism” which is going to get most people to stop listening to them

logicchains 4y ago
>Anti vaxxers tend to not discuss nuanced details and instead come out with unsubstantiated claims like “vaccines cause autism” which is going to get most people to stop listening to them Have you actually read any of the publications by prominent anti-vax scientists? For instance, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359989585_Innate_immune_suppression_by_SARS-CoV-2_mRNA_vaccinations_The_role_of_G-quadruplexes_exosomes_and_MicroRNAs https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359989585_Innate_im... is hardly lacking in nuanced details or full of unsubstantiated claims, nor is https://www.voiceforscienceandsolidarity.org/scientific-blog/c-19-mass-vaccination-triggers-a-chain-reaction-of-new-pandemics-and-epidemics https://www.voiceforscienceandsolidarity.org/scientific-blog... .
- lovich 4y ago
  I’m finding it difficult to summon the energy to read through these fully when the abstract of the first link has a political dog whistle[1] in the abstract before it gets to any actual hypothesis or claims. Finishing the abstract I see they end it with this sentence[2], implying this isn’t even original research? Is this actual research or a statistical analysis of the VAERS database? This second link is even worse, it’s a blogpost with a a short paper riddled with citations linking to other blogposts from the same site making wild claims about how the vaccine actually makes things worse. I started on section 1 after his synopsis and he just points to a diagram included in his paper and then trots out the debunked anti vaxxer claim of > vaccinees are now increasingly becoming asymptomatic shedders of SC-2. There is no data or citation supporting that beyond his diagram. He just makes a claim and then starts making logical leaps off that claim. This is the kind of “evidence” that makes everyone groan and roll their eyes when people claim that the anti vaxxers actually have proof and no one’s paying attention to them because it’s a conspiracy or doesn’t toe the party line. I am legitimately upset that I gave you the benefit of the doubt and wasted my time reading through these just to find out that your claims are as weakly supported as I had assumed. [1]the sentence below, anti vaxxers commonly bring up lack of precedent as a reason the vaccines can’t possibly work > The utilization of mRNA vaccines in the context of infectious disease has no precedent. [2] > We show evidence from the VAERS database supporting our hypothesis.
switch007 4y ago
There’s plenty of nuance you just want don’t want to see it because anyone not 110% in favour = bad :)
- lovich 4y ago
  Please illuminate us then. Dang doesn’t ban people for anti vaxx claims on this board so you should have nothing to fear

archagon 4y ago

> it doesn't prevent severe covid or death Yes, it does…?