4 ms·

Because vaccines are a heavily deployed technology that have saved countless lives. Lead, asbestos, DDT, sugars cannot claim to have helped human health. I don

Because vaccines are a heavily deployed technology that have saved countless lives. Lead, asbestos, DDT, sugars cannot claim to have helped human health. I don’t say this just to be snarky, but many of us are grateful for this medical miracle, and are more likely to forgive those scientists and not be happy with anyone working on tobacco.

pseudoscienfist 1y ago
Yes, it's clear scientists developing vaccines have done more positive in the world than those developing tobacco products. That's not the question I asked though.
- softwaredoug 1y ago
  My answer is the prior for “is this science harmful” is strongly “no” in vaccine case and needs a lot of evidence to move away from that prior. The opposite is true of tobacco etc.
  - pseudoscienfist 1y ago
    I think we agree that vaccines are a net benefit to humanity and the world. That doesn't mean there aren't dangers to vaccines, or that they could be made safer, or, that the pharmaceutical industry is complicit in masking the dangers.
    - mccoyb 1y ago
      Share some references, friendo. Claims require evidence.
      - pseudoscienflst 1y ago
        [flagged]
        softwaredoug 1y ago
        I’m not sure anything the FDA is doing past Jan 2025 can be trusted as a reliable form of evidence.
        nomolimit 1y ago
        > In a post-approval U.S. studyExternal Link Disclaimer funded and co-authored by FDA and published in September 2024 It's important to not commit genetic fallacies, especially when they're not in support of your argument.
        wat10000 1y ago
        “RFK Jr. requires warning labels” is not evidence of danger.
        keepgettingban 1y ago
        From TFA: > a post-approval U.S. studyExternal Link Disclaimer funded and co-authored by FDA and published in September 2024 So we believe it now because it was done under Biden's admin? It's best not to make arguments from genetic fallacy when they don't actually support your claim.
        wat10000 1y ago
        The study was under Biden. The warning requirement is under RFK Jr. I maintain my point.
        keepgettingban 1y ago
        To be crystal clear - the finding under Biden was that there are non-negligible risks of myocarditis after receiving the vaccine. This exact fact was downplayed by both Pfizer and Moderna during Operation Warp Speed (oh no, that was under Trump so can we trust it?). A genuine desire to understand reality would lead you to examine this incongruence.
    - softwaredoug 1y ago
      Oh sure I just don’t trust RFK Jr to be the person to tell us about vaccine safety. I’d personally need some pretty convincing evidence to change my mind. For example he holds on to long debunked claims about vaccines and autism that have been repeatedly studied and refuted.
- gellybeans 1y ago
  If it's so clear, then your implication is strange. Can you not imply the answer you're looking for from this clarity? It's clear that you want an answer to a leading question instead of the truth.

pseudoscienfist 1y ago

Yes, it's clear scientists developing vaccines have done more positive in the world than those developing tobacco products. That's not the question I asked though.

softwaredoug 1y ago
My answer is the prior for “is this science harmful” is strongly “no” in vaccine case and needs a lot of evidence to move away from that prior. The opposite is true of tobacco etc.
- pseudoscienfist 1y ago
  I think we agree that vaccines are a net benefit to humanity and the world. That doesn't mean there aren't dangers to vaccines, or that they could be made safer, or, that the pharmaceutical industry is complicit in masking the dangers.
  - mccoyb 1y ago
    Share some references, friendo. Claims require evidence.
    - pseudoscienflst 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - softwaredoug 1y ago
        I’m not sure anything the FDA is doing past Jan 2025 can be trusted as a reliable form of evidence.
        nomolimit 1y ago
        > In a post-approval U.S. studyExternal Link Disclaimer funded and co-authored by FDA and published in September 2024 It's important to not commit genetic fallacies, especially when they're not in support of your argument.
      - wat10000 1y ago
        “RFK Jr. requires warning labels” is not evidence of danger.
        keepgettingban 1y ago
        From TFA: > a post-approval U.S. studyExternal Link Disclaimer funded and co-authored by FDA and published in September 2024 So we believe it now because it was done under Biden's admin? It's best not to make arguments from genetic fallacy when they don't actually support your claim.
        wat10000 1y ago
        The study was under Biden. The warning requirement is under RFK Jr. I maintain my point.
        keepgettingban 1y ago
        To be crystal clear - the finding under Biden was that there are non-negligible risks of myocarditis after receiving the vaccine. This exact fact was downplayed by both Pfizer and Moderna during Operation Warp Speed (oh no, that was under Trump so can we trust it?). A genuine desire to understand reality would lead you to examine this incongruence.
  - softwaredoug 1y ago
    Oh sure I just don’t trust RFK Jr to be the person to tell us about vaccine safety. I’d personally need some pretty convincing evidence to change my mind. For example he holds on to long debunked claims about vaccines and autism that have been repeatedly studied and refuted.
gellybeans 1y ago
If it's so clear, then your implication is strange. Can you not imply the answer you're looking for from this clarity? It's clear that you want an answer to a leading question instead of the truth.