4 ms·

You face resistance for an inflammatory and incorrect framing, not for talking about vaccine safety. Everybody was talking about the safety of vaccines, which i

You face resistance for an inflammatory and incorrect framing, not for talking about vaccine safety. Everybody was talking about the safety of vaccines, which is why many governments moved away from this vaccine in favor of others. To complain about downvotes you should realize that people are reading your entire comment, not just the bland non-controversial parts. Playing a fake victim might be good for your feelings but it's bad for examining the truth.

wtewoman 9mo ago
[flagged]
deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]
normalaccess 9mo ago
"Everybody was talking about the safety of vaccines" Every platform on earth Shadow Banned and blocked people if you said anything other than "Safe and Effective"... Real conversation was shut down on a nation state level. Not exactly a scientific or logical way to discuss experimental injectable therapeutics.
- epistasis 9mo ago
  > Every platform on earth Shadow Banned and blocked people if you said anything other than "Safe and Effective"... Absolutely false. Safety of this vaccine was talked about all over. I did it, and I was never shadow banned. Somehow there was enough discussion of this specific vaccine to enable a recall, even! Search the news and it was all over at the time, found a ton of articles just now with a web search. There's so much documentary evidence to directly contradict your very weird claims. If you were shadowbanned, it was either a very rare occurrence, or perhaps you were talking about something else?
  - razingeden 9mo ago
    Well good for you. I’m still permanently banned from Xitter just for explaining what GoF even is. Im sure it has nothing to do with Allison Fauci being a Twitter systems engineer at the time. Selective enforcement doesn’t mean it didn’t happen just because you’re still online.
    - epistasis 9mo ago
      Look, I know we're supposed to "believe women" and all, but in my personal experience every time I have followed up on the "They're censoring me for my views" thread it has not resulted in a conservative person being censored for tax policy and advocating for limited government, but instead, "you know the views" that amount to harassment. I admit I could be wrong, but my Bayesian prior from past data is pretty strong. So I'm hesitant to believe without evidence. I understand if others have a very different prior, but I can't deny my past experience. In the past I've hesitated to even get involved with these discussions because they all seemed far too low signal to noise, and in fact lead to huge amounts of dangerous toxicity, but in these dangerous times I think it's important to interact more even if it's very unpleasant. I already got my first-ever "kill yourself" response to what was an extremely restrained comment response. We all see what goes on these discussions, we all see the common mischaracterizations, so if you want to overturn what people have seen in the past it's going to take documented evidence, I think.
      - Aeglaecia 9mo ago
        this very thread is flagged, a simple link to science dot org. this directly supports the previous commenter who mentioned that these discussions are censored en masse. im happy to keep discussing and bridge the gap between our perspectives. please understand that you came straight out the gate swinging with personal accusations in response to a hypothetical comparison, then in a later comment you engaged in the same behaviour that you accused me of, which is to say victimising yourself (by downplaying your actions and bringing up rude words others said to you). its my biased perspective, but those two in tandem make it seem like you have bad faith in the argument.
        9mo ago
Aeglaecia 9mo ago
ill acknowledge your attacks on my verbal expression. now do you have a rebuttal to the idea that conscription and forced vaccine mandates are comparable ? because all the mrna vaccines have fucked up side effects, moving from one to another isn't a perfect solution. regardless - ive put an idea forth for discussion, what makes you think that accusing me of playing victim is a valid method of discussing things in a productive and non inflammatory way? it seems like youre intentionally trying to bait your opponent, like the engagement bots on reddit.
- lelandbatey 9mo ago
  There's no need to rebutt such a claim, as it's extremely broadly false. The stated level of danger is not comparable, the expectation on effort or time is completely different, the broad negative outcomes of being drafted vs the positive outcomes of a vaccine, none of those are comparable. It would be like saying "rebuke my claim that being drafted is comparable to being asked not to listen to loud music on the bus."
  - Aeglaecia 9mo ago
    your comment is basically "no" which isn't a great foot hold from which to form rebuttals , i feel like id have to drink different flavors of kool aid to respond adequately , eg if one prioritized national interests over some elderly dying then your point of broad negative vs broad positive outcomes is invalid
    - rstuart4133 9mo ago
      He's correct, even so. Odds of dying from the AstraZeneca vaccine is about 1 in 50,000, or about 0.002% [0] for people over 60. In the USA there were 434,779 excess deaths [1] in the over 60 age group of 55M people, implying about 0.008% were killed by COVID. So taking AstraZeneca was the lower risk option, in the USA anyway. In countries like Australia that largely managed to suppress COVID through quarantine and mass vaccination (using other vaccines), perhaps it wasn't the best option, and indeed Australia did opt to wait once the risks became evident. If you were in Peru or Mexico (both did a very bad job of managing COVID), if you were over 60 you would be mad not to have got the AstraZeneca jab if it was the only one on offer. [0] https://www.health.gov.au/our-work/covid-19-vaccines/advice-for-providers/clinical-guidance/tts?language=en https://www.health.gov.au/our-work/covid-19-vaccines/advice-... [1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9304075/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9304075/

wtewoman 9mo ago

[flagged]

deleted 9mo ago

[deleted]

normalaccess 9mo ago

"Everybody was talking about the safety of vaccines" Every platform on earth Shadow Banned and blocked people if you said anything other than "Safe and Effective"... Real conversation was shut down on a nation state level. Not exactly a scientific or logical way to discuss experimental injectable therapeutics.

epistasis 9mo ago
> Every platform on earth Shadow Banned and blocked people if you said anything other than "Safe and Effective"... Absolutely false. Safety of this vaccine was talked about all over. I did it, and I was never shadow banned. Somehow there was enough discussion of this specific vaccine to enable a recall, even! Search the news and it was all over at the time, found a ton of articles just now with a web search. There's so much documentary evidence to directly contradict your very weird claims. If you were shadowbanned, it was either a very rare occurrence, or perhaps you were talking about something else?
- razingeden 9mo ago
  Well good for you. I’m still permanently banned from Xitter just for explaining what GoF even is. Im sure it has nothing to do with Allison Fauci being a Twitter systems engineer at the time. Selective enforcement doesn’t mean it didn’t happen just because you’re still online.
  - epistasis 9mo ago
    Look, I know we're supposed to "believe women" and all, but in my personal experience every time I have followed up on the "They're censoring me for my views" thread it has not resulted in a conservative person being censored for tax policy and advocating for limited government, but instead, "you know the views" that amount to harassment. I admit I could be wrong, but my Bayesian prior from past data is pretty strong. So I'm hesitant to believe without evidence. I understand if others have a very different prior, but I can't deny my past experience. In the past I've hesitated to even get involved with these discussions because they all seemed far too low signal to noise, and in fact lead to huge amounts of dangerous toxicity, but in these dangerous times I think it's important to interact more even if it's very unpleasant. I already got my first-ever "kill yourself" response to what was an extremely restrained comment response. We all see what goes on these discussions, we all see the common mischaracterizations, so if you want to overturn what people have seen in the past it's going to take documented evidence, I think.
    - Aeglaecia 9mo ago
      this very thread is flagged, a simple link to science dot org. this directly supports the previous commenter who mentioned that these discussions are censored en masse. im happy to keep discussing and bridge the gap between our perspectives. please understand that you came straight out the gate swinging with personal accusations in response to a hypothetical comparison, then in a later comment you engaged in the same behaviour that you accused me of, which is to say victimising yourself (by downplaying your actions and bringing up rude words others said to you). its my biased perspective, but those two in tandem make it seem like you have bad faith in the argument.
      - 9mo ago

Aeglaecia 9mo ago

ill acknowledge your attacks on my verbal expression. now do you have a rebuttal to the idea that conscription and forced vaccine mandates are comparable ? because all the mrna vaccines have fucked up side effects, moving from one to another isn't a perfect solution. regardless - ive put an idea forth for discussion, what makes you think that accusing me of playing victim is a valid method of discussing things in a productive and non inflammatory way? it seems like youre intentionally trying to bait your opponent, like the engagement bots on reddit.

lelandbatey 9mo ago
There's no need to rebutt such a claim, as it's extremely broadly false. The stated level of danger is not comparable, the expectation on effort or time is completely different, the broad negative outcomes of being drafted vs the positive outcomes of a vaccine, none of those are comparable. It would be like saying "rebuke my claim that being drafted is comparable to being asked not to listen to loud music on the bus."
- Aeglaecia 9mo ago
  your comment is basically "no" which isn't a great foot hold from which to form rebuttals , i feel like id have to drink different flavors of kool aid to respond adequately , eg if one prioritized national interests over some elderly dying then your point of broad negative vs broad positive outcomes is invalid
  - rstuart4133 9mo ago
    He's correct, even so. Odds of dying from the AstraZeneca vaccine is about 1 in 50,000, or about 0.002% [0] for people over 60. In the USA there were 434,779 excess deaths [1] in the over 60 age group of 55M people, implying about 0.008% were killed by COVID. So taking AstraZeneca was the lower risk option, in the USA anyway. In countries like Australia that largely managed to suppress COVID through quarantine and mass vaccination (using other vaccines), perhaps it wasn't the best option, and indeed Australia did opt to wait once the risks became evident. If you were in Peru or Mexico (both did a very bad job of managing COVID), if you were over 60 you would be mad not to have got the AstraZeneca jab if it was the only one on offer. [0] https://www.health.gov.au/our-work/covid-19-vaccines/advice-for-providers/clinical-guidance/tts?language=en https://www.health.gov.au/our-work/covid-19-vaccines/advice-... [1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9304075/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9304075/