4 ms·

You are not being honest, but you are trying to your best to undermine the idea of honesty. Every vaccine safety study was questioned and examined, thoroughly.

You are not being honest, but you are trying to your best to undermine the idea of honesty. Every vaccine safety study was questioned and examined, thoroughly. Introducing this idea of "mocked and ostracized," is a rhetorical tactic to try to establish the idea of some sort of mistreated people that other mistreated people can identify with. It's not based in truth of how the scientific community worked. If there's "mocking and ostracization" then it's in some sort of other social space, not in the evaluation of the vaccine safety studies. And by trying to conflate these two areas, you are trying to undermine the very idea of truth seeking, and replace it with this weird vibes-based in-group/out-group emotionally-based judgements. We need to pivot to rationality, and away from in-group/out-group analysis. Let's evaluate claims on their merits, not based on who is making them.

BriggyDwiggs42 11mo ago
> Introducing this idea of "mocked and ostracized," is a rhetorical tactic to try to establish the idea of some sort of mistreated people that other mistreated people can identify with. It's not based in truth of how the scientific community worked. If there's "mocking and ostracization" then it's in some sort of other social space, not in the evaluation of the vaccine safety studies. And by trying to conflate these two areas, you are trying to undermine the very idea of truth seeking, and replace it with this weird vibes-based in-group/out-group emotionally-based judgements. Well put
- ryandrake 11mo ago
  Religious groups often employ the same rhetoric: Pretend to be victims, mocked and ostracized, which pulls at the heartstrings of people who themselves are (or believe they are) mocked and ostracized. Some of the largest and most powerful organized religions in the world have this exact kind of persecution complex at the heart of their scripture and sermons.
  - BriggyDwiggs42 11mo ago
    Yup. I’m not sure who downvoted me but I meant my comment as a genuine compliment.
CWuestefeld 11mo ago
> It's not based in truth of how the scientific community worked. If there's "mocking and ostracization" then it's in some sort of other social space, not in the evaluation of the vaccine safety studies. You seem to be doing just what the OP is complaining about. You've set up the scientific establishment as some sort of priesthood, which the great unwashed masses should not question. That's not how science should work, at least in a functional system. If only insiders have the privilege of asking "why?", then we'll be forever trapped in orthodoxy, or worse, trapped in authoritarianism. Unfortunately, the insurance policy against that trap - that annoying people will keep asking "why?" - itself has a steep price, sometimes almost turning into a heckler's veto. It's a tough problem.
- epistasis 11mo ago
  > You've set up the scientific establishment as some sort of priesthood, which the great unwashed masses should not question. No, I absolutely have not. I'm representing what actually happened, in practice. The vaccines studies were heavily examined and critiqued inside the scientific community, and scientists found that they established safety. Trying to come back and say "that's too perfect, you're trying to establish them as a priesthood" is exactly the opposite of what I'm trying to do. All the critique is out there in the open, available to look for anybody who wants to. However, people prefer to be spoonfed stuff in YouTube videos, prefer to imagine a conspiracy oppressing them. You are spreading an image of the scientific community that is simply untrue and easy to disprove just by looking at what actually happened.
  - CWuestefeld 11mo ago
    > The vaccines studies were heavily examined and critiqued inside the scientific community, and scientists found that they established safety. See, that's my whole point: "examined and critiqued inside the scientific community". If you didn't want the rest of society to accept "the rest of the scientific community" as a separate, privileged authority, then why did you even make this part of your reply?
    - 11mo ago
honestymonop 11mo ago
One perspective is that the quality and issues of vaccines can vary. Some have more side-effects than others, and some have more issues than others. Like one specific polio-vaccine that very rarely can mutate into a contagious variant [0]. Or one vaccine for chickens that had some rather serious overall issues [1]. Or that some of the Covid-19 vaccines, hastily developed, were rejected by some countries, while other Covid-19 vaccines were accepted by those same countries. And vaccines demand a huge amount of trust. Vaccines can be abused in lots of ways by governments, organizations and individuals [2]. This is extra unfortunate, considering the huge potential benefits of some variants of vaccines. Vaccines also require trust in competence and public control [3]. For urgency reasons, standards and checking of vaccines were lowered during the Covid-19 pandemic. Vaccines are also often administered to healthy individuals, not merely sick individuals. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polio_vaccine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polio_vaccine [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marek%27s_disease https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marek%27s_disease > Because vaccination does not prevent infection with the virus, Marek's is still transmissible from vaccinated flocks to other birds, including the wild bird population. The first Marek's disease vaccine was introduced in 1970. The disease would cause mild paralysis, with the only identifiable lesions being in neural tissue. Mortality of chickens infected with Marek's disease was quite low. Current strains of Marek virus, decades after the first vaccine was introduced, cause lymphoma formation throughout the chicken's body and mortality rates have reached 100% in unvaccinated chickens. The Marek's disease vaccine is a "leaky vaccine", which means that only the symptoms of the disease are prevented.[12] Infection of the host and the transmission of the virus are not inhibited by the vaccine. This contrasts with most other vaccines, where infection of the host is prevented. [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polio_vaccine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polio_vaccine > The fact that the CIA organized a fake vaccination program in 2011 to help find Osama bin Laden is an additional cause of distrust.[120] [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cutter_Laboratories#Cutter_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cutter_Laboratories#Cutter_inc...
honestymonop 11mo ago
A lot of vaccine companies also made a lot of money from Covid-19, even when some of the vaccines were later judged shoddy or outlawed by some countries.
zjsishsb 11mo ago
> Let's evaluate claims on their merits, not based on who is making them. The average person doesn’t have the time or intellect to do this. This isn’t a realistic way for society to function. Trust is the most important thing for a public institution, and ours failed spectacularly there. Claiming the vaccine had a 99% efficacy, flip flopping on masks, etc. Massive hubris that should have been handled with a “here’s the best we know, but our confidence isn’t high enough to make definitive statements yet”. Trust is a necessity. Without that there is no debating merits.

BriggyDwiggs42 11mo ago

> Introducing this idea of "mocked and ostracized," is a rhetorical tactic to try to establish the idea of some sort of mistreated people that other mistreated people can identify with. It's not based in truth of how the scientific community worked. If there's "mocking and ostracization" then it's in some sort of other social space, not in the evaluation of the vaccine safety studies. And by trying to conflate these two areas, you are trying to undermine the very idea of truth seeking, and replace it with this weird vibes-based in-group/out-group emotionally-based judgements. Well put

ryandrake 11mo ago
Religious groups often employ the same rhetoric: Pretend to be victims, mocked and ostracized, which pulls at the heartstrings of people who themselves are (or believe they are) mocked and ostracized. Some of the largest and most powerful organized religions in the world have this exact kind of persecution complex at the heart of their scripture and sermons.
- BriggyDwiggs42 11mo ago
  Yup. I’m not sure who downvoted me but I meant my comment as a genuine compliment.

CWuestefeld 11mo ago

> It's not based in truth of how the scientific community worked. If there's "mocking and ostracization" then it's in some sort of other social space, not in the evaluation of the vaccine safety studies. You seem to be doing just what the OP is complaining about. You've set up the scientific establishment as some sort of priesthood, which the great unwashed masses should not question. That's not how science should work, at least in a functional system. If only insiders have the privilege of asking "why?", then we'll be forever trapped in orthodoxy, or worse, trapped in authoritarianism. Unfortunately, the insurance policy against that trap - that annoying people will keep asking "why?" - itself has a steep price, sometimes almost turning into a heckler's veto. It's a tough problem.

epistasis 11mo ago
> You've set up the scientific establishment as some sort of priesthood, which the great unwashed masses should not question. No, I absolutely have not. I'm representing what actually happened, in practice. The vaccines studies were heavily examined and critiqued inside the scientific community, and scientists found that they established safety. Trying to come back and say "that's too perfect, you're trying to establish them as a priesthood" is exactly the opposite of what I'm trying to do. All the critique is out there in the open, available to look for anybody who wants to. However, people prefer to be spoonfed stuff in YouTube videos, prefer to imagine a conspiracy oppressing them. You are spreading an image of the scientific community that is simply untrue and easy to disprove just by looking at what actually happened.
- CWuestefeld 11mo ago
  > The vaccines studies were heavily examined and critiqued inside the scientific community, and scientists found that they established safety. See, that's my whole point: "examined and critiqued inside the scientific community". If you didn't want the rest of society to accept "the rest of the scientific community" as a separate, privileged authority, then why did you even make this part of your reply?
  - 11mo ago

honestymonop 11mo ago

One perspective is that the quality and issues of vaccines can vary. Some have more side-effects than others, and some have more issues than others. Like one specific polio-vaccine that very rarely can mutate into a contagious variant [0]. Or one vaccine for chickens that had some rather serious overall issues [1]. Or that some of the Covid-19 vaccines, hastily developed, were rejected by some countries, while other Covid-19 vaccines were accepted by those same countries. And vaccines demand a huge amount of trust. Vaccines can be abused in lots of ways by governments, organizations and individuals [2]. This is extra unfortunate, considering the huge potential benefits of some variants of vaccines. Vaccines also require trust in competence and public control [3]. For urgency reasons, standards and checking of vaccines were lowered during the Covid-19 pandemic. Vaccines are also often administered to healthy individuals, not merely sick individuals. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polio_vaccine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polio_vaccine [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marek%27s_disease https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marek%27s_disease > Because vaccination does not prevent infection with the virus, Marek's is still transmissible from vaccinated flocks to other birds, including the wild bird population. The first Marek's disease vaccine was introduced in 1970. The disease would cause mild paralysis, with the only identifiable lesions being in neural tissue. Mortality of chickens infected with Marek's disease was quite low. Current strains of Marek virus, decades after the first vaccine was introduced, cause lymphoma formation throughout the chicken's body and mortality rates have reached 100% in unvaccinated chickens. The Marek's disease vaccine is a "leaky vaccine", which means that only the symptoms of the disease are prevented.[12] Infection of the host and the transmission of the virus are not inhibited by the vaccine. This contrasts with most other vaccines, where infection of the host is prevented. [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polio_vaccine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polio_vaccine > The fact that the CIA organized a fake vaccination program in 2011 to help find Osama bin Laden is an additional cause of distrust.[120] [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cutter_Laboratories#Cutter_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cutter_Laboratories#Cutter_inc...

honestymonop 11mo ago

A lot of vaccine companies also made a lot of money from Covid-19, even when some of the vaccines were later judged shoddy or outlawed by some countries.

zjsishsb 11mo ago

> Let's evaluate claims on their merits, not based on who is making them. The average person doesn’t have the time or intellect to do this. This isn’t a realistic way for society to function. Trust is the most important thing for a public institution, and ours failed spectacularly there. Claiming the vaccine had a 99% efficacy, flip flopping on masks, etc. Massive hubris that should have been handled with a “here’s the best we know, but our confidence isn’t high enough to make definitive statements yet”. Trust is a necessity. Without that there is no debating merits.