3 ms·

> If you have actual medical data published in journals and peer reviewed, I'd be very happy to see it, and possibly even change my opinion if it's convincing.

> If you have actual medical data published in journals and peer reviewed, I'd be very happy to see it, and possibly even change my opinion if it's convincing. https://gist.github.com/stefantalpalaru/b630413da6889c79f795612c0f569b12 https://gist.github.com/stefantalpalaru/b630413da6889c79f795...

hanselot 3y ago
How quiet they become in the face of data. Why are none of these studies being discussed? Obviously because it doesn't fit the narrative. I will say it again, if you are still refusing to accept what is happening, you are most likely in the Denial stage. https://web.archive.org/web/20230327020816/https://www.washington.edu/counseling/2020/06/08/the-stages-of-grief-accepting-the-unacceptable/ https://web.archive.org/web/20230327020816/https://www.washi... sprinkled with a side of https://thedecisionlab.com/biases/the-sunk-cost-fallacy https://thedecisionlab.com/biases/the-sunk-cost-fallacy The worst part is, in my life I have never more wanted to be wrong, because the cost of being right is so high. The irony that I was involved in promoting awareness of this way back before anyone cared is not lost on me. Is it so hard to believe that a company with an incredibly large financial incentive to lie, did so? Is it so difficult to believe that these same companies use propaganda to shape discourse online? The same companies that are happy to promote the body positivity movement resulting in lifelong insulin dependency, yet somehow you refuse to believe that they would try to cash in on a global scale?
- snovv_crash 3y ago
  > How quiet they become in the face of data. Why are none of these studies being discussed? This level of discussion isn't constructive. (I was asleep, FYI, not everybody is in west coast US). The studies listed for the most part all came out after COVID was basically gone. Sure there is plenty that could have been done better in hindsight, but cherry picking a single study showing difficulties with lipids from 2010 "that they should have known about" when the alternative was authoritarian lockdowns is not a helpful position to take.
  - hanselot 3y ago
    Constructive discussion has been shut down by vote brigades since 2016 (yes, way before Covid was a thing). They first started prepping the narrative that anti-vaxxers are conspiracy theorists well before that by slowly increasing the rhetoric over the years. Have you ever tried arguing with frogs boiling in a pot full of Plato's Cave allegory? That's what this feels like every day for the past 3 years. The amount of self-censorship required to discuss anything now is so high, as nothing is allowed to be linked to the dreaded flu of 2019 - Influenza A and B (oh wait, we won't talk about those). Okay, so what can we talk about? How much anecdotal data do I need before I can Ship of Theseus my way to a conclusion? Since every person I know that has taken the shot have been sick frequently over the past 2 years, one of my dearest friends developing ovarian growths within weeks of taking it, another developing those rashes all over his legs (the same rash you could see on the VAERS reports in the early days). Okay, so anecdotal data is not trustworthy, sure, I will simply close my eyes to the people around and close to me, and allow their choices to let them become chronically ill? Fine, let me be that fucking heartless. So then the next question is, what about the fact that the VAERS database suddenly ballooned in size exponentially after 2020? It exploded exponentially in size. "Muh data is anecdotal because its not verified by my propagandists." DO YOU YET UNDERSTAND WHAT HAS BEEN GOING ON? I am serious when I ask: WHAT EVIDENCE DO YOU NEED TO SEE TO OPEN YOUR EYES? This is not me being irrational, or unhinged, this is me asking seriously. What information would make you believe that you are wrong? Is there any information that could lead you to that conclusion, or will you keep defending the sunken cost until the end? If Fauci himself authored a report saying the entire thing was a mistake, would you simply shift the goalposts again, from this being a 100% safe and effective at preventing transmission and fatality, to what, 36%? And lastly, if you really don't believe I am being genuine when I ask these things, how much are they paying you?
    - snovv_crash 3y ago
      Yeah, and I have a family member who died of COVID, a colleagues teenage child, and a friends parents both died of COVID. All were unvaccinated by choice "for health reasons" because that's what their bubble, much like you, believed in. I don't care what Fauci or any other authority figure says. I look at the data from actual science journals, taking the study design into account. Yes, there are side effects from the vaccines, but on the whole they are a wildly net-positive prophylactic, after a few things like nutrient deficiencies and antibiotics the most effective tool we have against disease.
snovv_crash 3y ago
This shows a bunch of side effects, which is really nice to talk about in hindsight, and from the comfortable position of knowing that the worst is behind us. When the morgues were overflowing and bodies were being put in freezer trucks we cared more about efficacy of the vaccine, and nothing here called the efficacy into question. Moreover, the majority of those are from 2021. How could decisions made about vaccines in early/mid 2020 even consider taking this information into account during the peak of the pandemic? It's like complaining that C wasn't designed with borrow detection and that therefore Dennis Ritchie was just trying to cash in with the CIA for introducing security holes for the next 50 years, after all look at all the money Bell was making.

hanselot 3y ago

How quiet they become in the face of data. Why are none of these studies being discussed? Obviously because it doesn't fit the narrative. I will say it again, if you are still refusing to accept what is happening, you are most likely in the Denial stage. https://web.archive.org/web/20230327020816/https://www.washington.edu/counseling/2020/06/08/the-stages-of-grief-accepting-the-unacceptable/ https://web.archive.org/web/20230327020816/https://www.washi... sprinkled with a side of https://thedecisionlab.com/biases/the-sunk-cost-fallacy https://thedecisionlab.com/biases/the-sunk-cost-fallacy The worst part is, in my life I have never more wanted to be wrong, because the cost of being right is so high. The irony that I was involved in promoting awareness of this way back before anyone cared is not lost on me. Is it so hard to believe that a company with an incredibly large financial incentive to lie, did so? Is it so difficult to believe that these same companies use propaganda to shape discourse online? The same companies that are happy to promote the body positivity movement resulting in lifelong insulin dependency, yet somehow you refuse to believe that they would try to cash in on a global scale?

snovv_crash 3y ago
> How quiet they become in the face of data. Why are none of these studies being discussed? This level of discussion isn't constructive. (I was asleep, FYI, not everybody is in west coast US). The studies listed for the most part all came out after COVID was basically gone. Sure there is plenty that could have been done better in hindsight, but cherry picking a single study showing difficulties with lipids from 2010 "that they should have known about" when the alternative was authoritarian lockdowns is not a helpful position to take.
- hanselot 3y ago
  Constructive discussion has been shut down by vote brigades since 2016 (yes, way before Covid was a thing). They first started prepping the narrative that anti-vaxxers are conspiracy theorists well before that by slowly increasing the rhetoric over the years. Have you ever tried arguing with frogs boiling in a pot full of Plato's Cave allegory? That's what this feels like every day for the past 3 years. The amount of self-censorship required to discuss anything now is so high, as nothing is allowed to be linked to the dreaded flu of 2019 - Influenza A and B (oh wait, we won't talk about those). Okay, so what can we talk about? How much anecdotal data do I need before I can Ship of Theseus my way to a conclusion? Since every person I know that has taken the shot have been sick frequently over the past 2 years, one of my dearest friends developing ovarian growths within weeks of taking it, another developing those rashes all over his legs (the same rash you could see on the VAERS reports in the early days). Okay, so anecdotal data is not trustworthy, sure, I will simply close my eyes to the people around and close to me, and allow their choices to let them become chronically ill? Fine, let me be that fucking heartless. So then the next question is, what about the fact that the VAERS database suddenly ballooned in size exponentially after 2020? It exploded exponentially in size. "Muh data is anecdotal because its not verified by my propagandists." DO YOU YET UNDERSTAND WHAT HAS BEEN GOING ON? I am serious when I ask: WHAT EVIDENCE DO YOU NEED TO SEE TO OPEN YOUR EYES? This is not me being irrational, or unhinged, this is me asking seriously. What information would make you believe that you are wrong? Is there any information that could lead you to that conclusion, or will you keep defending the sunken cost until the end? If Fauci himself authored a report saying the entire thing was a mistake, would you simply shift the goalposts again, from this being a 100% safe and effective at preventing transmission and fatality, to what, 36%? And lastly, if you really don't believe I am being genuine when I ask these things, how much are they paying you?
  - snovv_crash 3y ago
    Yeah, and I have a family member who died of COVID, a colleagues teenage child, and a friends parents both died of COVID. All were unvaccinated by choice "for health reasons" because that's what their bubble, much like you, believed in. I don't care what Fauci or any other authority figure says. I look at the data from actual science journals, taking the study design into account. Yes, there are side effects from the vaccines, but on the whole they are a wildly net-positive prophylactic, after a few things like nutrient deficiencies and antibiotics the most effective tool we have against disease.

snovv_crash 3y ago

This shows a bunch of side effects, which is really nice to talk about in hindsight, and from the comfortable position of knowing that the worst is behind us. When the morgues were overflowing and bodies were being put in freezer trucks we cared more about efficacy of the vaccine, and nothing here called the efficacy into question. Moreover, the majority of those are from 2021. How could decisions made about vaccines in early/mid 2020 even consider taking this information into account during the peak of the pandemic? It's like complaining that C wasn't designed with borrow detection and that therefore Dennis Ritchie was just trying to cash in with the CIA for introducing security holes for the next 50 years, after all look at all the money Bell was making.