5 ms·

I'm not necessarily a fan of RFK, I don't really know much about him to be honest. I'm just giving my view on why people might have voted for him. But thanks fo

I'm not necessarily a fan of RFK, I don't really know much about him to be honest. I'm just giving my view on why people might have voted for him. But thanks for your support for me sharing my views. That seems to have become challenging the last 5 years, I've noticed. I don't trust governments and big corporations in general. And I find it amazing how many people are so trustworthy about a new vaccine technology that hasn't been tested widely, globally organized by mayor governments and big corporations. And I've done a lot of research about it and I'm not convinced about the effectiveness of it. There are many studies with different results, that can be interpreted in many ways, could have been mangled with / cherry picked, has many parameters influencing it, etc. And I find it weird that there is so little attention to so many obvious improvements we can make in our health and environment. But we do have the money for LBQT+ projects in South Africa or something. And then if someone comes along who kind of questions it a little bit, he is condemned by a lot of people like he's some kind of psycho. If I put that all together in one equation, I get a big frown. Not a trustworthy feeling.

ethbr1 2y ago
The issue with discussion is that many people (see refurb in above thread) are doing so dishonestly. It's easy and cheap in terms of time to whatabout, while costly in terms of time to cite ones sources. Consequently, it's time-effective to troll via whataboutism, without any intention of having a substantive discussion. For example, > ... new vaccine technology that hasn't been tested widely... There are many studies with different results, that can be interpreted in many ways, could have been mangled with / cherry picked, has many parameters influencing it, etc. That's easy to say, in the same way I could say, 'All vaccines that are approved for mass US use go through rigorous safety studies and demonstrate negligible to no safety concerns at scale.' I've done a lot of research too. Given our contradictory opinions, only facts actually matter. Unfortunately, media-style driveby fact pulling has become the standard there as well. I.e. 'Look at this one study I found that supports my position.' With regards to the measles vaccine and similar widely deployed ones, it is scientifically defensible to say there haven't been issues at scale. (Because we would have seen them) And with regards to newer mRNA platforms, the irony is that they're conceptually safer than traditional vaccines, because we're skipping intermediate biological steps and directly creating the outcomes we want, rather than trusting our (incredibly complex) immune systems to get things right. Time will tell on long term results, but from a pathways perspective I'd take a newer mRNA vaccine over a newer live/attenuated vaccine any day of the week.
- monkeyfun 2y ago
  Your patience and clarity of speaking in an understanding and respectful way is truly impressive. If things are going to get any better, more people like you are needed. I'm certainly taking notes.
  - ethbr1 2y ago
    Nobody has a position without being passionate about what they believe. :) And we should all try to value each others' passion, whether or not we agree.
- gitaarik 2y ago
  Well, have you never ever heard about studies being funded for getting a certain results. So then you can't even trust the studies. Or do you believe this is not happening at all?

ethbr1 2y ago

The issue with discussion is that many people (see refurb in above thread) are doing so dishonestly. It's easy and cheap in terms of time to whatabout, while costly in terms of time to cite ones sources. Consequently, it's time-effective to troll via whataboutism, without any intention of having a substantive discussion. For example, > ... new vaccine technology that hasn't been tested widely... There are many studies with different results, that can be interpreted in many ways, could have been mangled with / cherry picked, has many parameters influencing it, etc. That's easy to say, in the same way I could say, 'All vaccines that are approved for mass US use go through rigorous safety studies and demonstrate negligible to no safety concerns at scale.' I've done a lot of research too. Given our contradictory opinions, only facts actually matter. Unfortunately, media-style driveby fact pulling has become the standard there as well. I.e. 'Look at this one study I found that supports my position.' With regards to the measles vaccine and similar widely deployed ones, it is scientifically defensible to say there haven't been issues at scale. (Because we would have seen them) And with regards to newer mRNA platforms, the irony is that they're conceptually safer than traditional vaccines, because we're skipping intermediate biological steps and directly creating the outcomes we want, rather than trusting our (incredibly complex) immune systems to get things right. Time will tell on long term results, but from a pathways perspective I'd take a newer mRNA vaccine over a newer live/attenuated vaccine any day of the week.

monkeyfun 2y ago
Your patience and clarity of speaking in an understanding and respectful way is truly impressive. If things are going to get any better, more people like you are needed. I'm certainly taking notes.
- ethbr1 2y ago
  Nobody has a position without being passionate about what they believe. :) And we should all try to value each others' passion, whether or not we agree.
gitaarik 2y ago
Well, have you never ever heard about studies being funded for getting a certain results. So then you can't even trust the studies. Or do you believe this is not happening at all?