I did explain it to you. But I can't understand it for you.

Others got it though.

If I understand you correctly you're saying all medicine should be met with skepticism and not taken until you perform some kind of analysis to rule out some kind of interference. Is that correct? I guess I should clarify that when I say you I don't mean the royal you. I mean the individual being prescribed the medication.

If that's how you operate I'm just looking to understand your perspective. Not looking to change your mind. But I'm not sure that's what you're saying either.

Then what was your point in bringing it up in the first place? I understood you, and I could have been wrong, to be drawing an equivalence between FDA approval and more assurance of safety.

But based on your recent post, if you were prescribed an FDA approved medication, would you then go look up how long it's been on the market and precisely what is known about long term effects before taking it?

It may be better if the pharmaceutical industry would take this type of approach instead of attempting to create one-size-fits-all type solutions. It would certainly cut down on the recalls and lawsuits that seem to happen constantly. How many commercials do you see on TV that list off tons of terrible side effect or how about commercials from law firms trying to get people to join a class action lawsuit against some sort of medication?

Covid effects everyone differently and so do the vaccines. With the example of HCQ, it is clear it does not work for everyone but it does work for some people. Just because it doesn't work for everyone doesn't mean that it should not be used for anyone. Those who it can work for should be allowed to get it if they want it and they should be allowed to talk about it in public.

I too wish there was more scrutiny in the pharmaceutical industry but I'm not sure that's the role of the person being prescribed the medication. The FDA is supposed to be doing that and while the FDA has frequently changed its mind about what's safe and what isn't anymore, I don't know what you're supposed to do as a person needing medication if you believe that all medication might be tainted.

That's not what I'm saying. You're just making stuff up and being your usual self. Where do you get "all medicine should be met with skepticism?" Where was that even alluded to? We're talking about a vaccine...a vaccine that is being pushed really hard by our government for a disease with a very high survival rate. That just doesn't make sense to me. Never in the history of this country has a vaccine been shoved down our throat like that. My point I'm trying to make (and obviously you can't grasp it) is that why would you take something the government is trying to push that hard?

Do you have the intelligence to answer my Tuskegee Experiments question or am I wasting my time?

I used to think you were a pretty smart guy. You've proven me wrong.

I guess I'm making an inference as a result of your post in relation to my question about possible FDA approval. When I mentioned the potential for the vaccine to be fully approved, you responded by saying that the government approved injecting people with Syphilis why wouldn't they be doing the same thing now. But the FDA approves all medication, not just the vaccine. So I took your point to be broad.

It was broad in the sense that I don't care about an FDA (or any other government agency) approval. I don't care if it has Trump's endorsement. I don't care if my momma recommends it. An approval is worthless to me. I don't consume things based on someone else's approval. I'm going to do what I think is best for me. My stance on the vaccine has been very clear from the beginning. I'm going to hang tight at the moment and wait and see if there are any long term side effects. Peter's dementia failed to grasp that even though I told him that multiple times and even referred to the specific post. Maybe you'll get it. I don't know?

To make a stronger argument

Never in the history of this country has a vaccine been shoved down our throat or shoved up our ........... like that. There are several choices for where to shove a vaccine up. Feel free to choose.

Nobody was injected with syphilis. The study began in 1932 and included 399 black men who already had syphilis. The purpose of the study was to determine the full progression of the disease. In 1932, there was no known cure for syphilis. By 1947 penicillin became the recommended treatment. The subjects of the study were never given penicillin so that they could be cured. That is the disgusting, unethical aspect of the study. Not that the government knowingly injected unsuspecting citizens with syphilis. Anyone who thinks the government knowingly injected unsuspecting citizens with syphilis and uses it as an excuse not to get a shot "is a fucking moron."

I've never thought that about you.:eek::D

But seriously you posted this before, in 260.

vintagetoppsguy's Avatar
vintagetoppsguy vintagetoppsguy is online now
D@v!d J@m3s
Member


Join Date: Sep 2009

Location: Houston, TX

Posts: 5,537





Default




Quote:


Originally Posted by packs View Post

Can someone please answer my question about why you’re willing to risk all kinds of side effects for routine prescription medication but you’re not willing to risk them for the vaccine? I would love to know what makes the vaccine different from myriad other medications you’re willing to take that offer remote side effects you may encounter.

Ok, I'll bite. Because prescription medications require stringent testing and are REQUIRED
to meet FDA approval by FEDERAL LAW before going to market.

The vaccines are not.
__________________
Bullionaire

You seemed to be saying FDA approval counted for something. No?

Don't let facts get in the way of a rant. In any case, that was a completely different time, and is hardly a legitimate ground for concern 7 decades later IMO.

Nice copy and paste job because you're obviously not that intelligent to come up with that on your own. The study actually involved 600 black men, 399 who already had syphilis, 201 that did not. So if the purpose of the study was to "determine the full progression of the disease" why would they need 201 participants that didn't have it? That makes no sense. How can you study something in someone that doesn't exist? Here's the ironic part to your stupid post: You're getting your (mis)information from the same government that conducted this " disgusting, unethical...study" you fucking moron.

It was a control group you idiot. You're making an ass of yourself David. Probably the worst I've ever seen from you. You need a time out.

From Tuskegee.

Who Were the Participants

A total of 600 men were enrolled in the study. Of this group 399, who had syphilis were a part of the experimental group and 201 were control subjects. Most of the men were poor and illiterate sharecroppers from the county.

You're cherry-picking, Peter. Packs asked a very specific question and I gave a specific answer. My position has not changed, but you seem to be trying to change it for me. So, let's review again, because we already had to do it once in post 278.

Post 190 - I can't speak for everyone that declines the vaccine, but I think most of us are not antivaxxers. We're just not convinced that enough research and testing has gone into the vaccine to inject ourselves with it. I'm grateful for the previous administration's decision to start working on a vaccine immediately without delay (in January of last year), but it's just way too soon. It hasn't even been approved by the FDA yet. If within a couple of years or so it's determined there are no long term side effects, I'll probably get it myself.

Post 229 - Because it's new. I've said (and others have said too) once it's been around for a while and it's been determined there are no long term side effects, I'll more than likely get it.

Post 269 - Here's where I'm losing you, Peter, and I'm not sure why because you're smarter than that. There hasn't been enough testing on the vaccine to know all the possible side effects. I think most people that decline the vaccine aren't antivaxxers, they're just concerned with the lack of testing and not knowing long term side effects. As I've already mentioned (multiple times now), I'll probably get the vaccine in 2-3 years if there are no known side effects. And, if there are side effects, I'll weigh my options and decide if the benefits outweigh the risks.

You're trying to make something out of nothing. My position has been clear from the very beginning. But I'm sure we'll be having this discussion again and, once again, I'll refer to the same posts. :rolleyes:

Believe whatever you want. Yes, the government cares about your health first and foremost and would never lie to you. :rolleyes:

You're the one making the completely false and preposterous claim that the government injected men with syphillis. You obviously just got the facts wrong because you didn't read carefully, and now instead of just admitting that you're doubling down and clinging to the claim that it's true based on nothing more than general suspicion of the government? That's just awful. Better just to admit you made a mistake and move on.

OK thanks for clarifying. I understand your position, I think, though I'm still not sure how to reconcile it with willingness to take meds, if indeed you are, or eat GMO food, etc.

I'm not going to admit anything because I believe what I wrote. But I will reword Post #558 to suit your narrative of the events.

Let me just say this to sum up my position. Anybody that would trust a government to have concern over their health after that same government withheld medical treatment from its own citizens is a fu$$$$g moron.

Better? Feel all warm an fuzzy now?

I don't agree that Tuskegee is relevant today but that's an accurate statement of what happened back then.

:)

It's relevant today because its a reminder of what a government can do to its own citizens. You can believe what you want to about the events. Heck, some people don't believe the Holocaust happened.

Do you believe the Holocaust is relevant today?

Does taking Airborne count as medication? The most medication I take is probably a handful of excedrin....a year

At that broad level fair enough, and yes we should learn from history including Tuskegee, and yes we always need to be vigilant against the abuse of power. That said, I just think the times are SO dramatically different in terms of media coverage and scrutiny, racial sensibilities, access to information, and many other factors that it's a pretty remote chance the government is going to repeat an experiment calculated to harm its citizens, at least as long as we have a democracy. And I don't see any analogy between Tuskegee and the current vaccines, I don't think this government or the Trump/Biden administrations have had any bad intent.

Indeed, despite how it now seems to be politicized by some, it was President Trump who, once persuaded the vaccine was the way out of the pandemic, went all in and pushed vigorously for a rapid timeline and quick action on emergency approval. Had he been reelected one wonders if the discourse would be the same.

:(

If the government is giving away free vaccines for the health of the nation, then why aren't they giving out free insulin and chemo? :confused:

People can pay for that with the free money the government has been giving out.

They should be.

You are proven to have written misinformation. So, what do you do? You lash out. You attack the intelligence of the person who pointed out your misinformation even though they are right and you are wrong. You accuse them of a “copy and paste job” while doing the same. You attack a source of the correct information (ignoring the fact that there is more than one source with the correct information). You refuse to admit you are wrong because you believe what you wrote (meaning you think being delusional is better than being a liar or wrong).

You are a poster child of the biggest problem facing this country today.

Proven misinformation by who? The same government that kept it under wraps for years? What a joke! And where did I copy and paste? Show me.

And you are a poster child for "I trust 'science' and 'experts' because I lack the cognitive capacity to actually think critically for myself."

Same place I copied and pasted. Show us that.

No, I don't have the capacity to ignore reality and believe lies are true which is what you mean by "think critically for myself".

Loser.

Spot on, David.

Who else are you supposed to trust to oversee something like medicine? Every country has a federal agency that regulates medicine. It is not uniquely American. If there is no government oversight of medicine, who do you propose provides the oversight?

When something like a commom virus is labeled as "unprecedented ", and the experts claim they dont understand it, so they invoke the same response we did 1918, you have to start asking questions.

Bring on the roaring 2020's and we know what happened a decade later. History repeats itself

2 questions for you:

1) I can respect intelligent skepticism, and do not trust everything I read, either by media or government. However, so far you have stated that you don't trust what the government says about health, and you don't trust the science studies presented. You stated you think for yourself. My question is, where do you get the information you trust? You say you wait and see with your own eyes, but there's no possible way to monitor what's going on in the country, let alone the world, with your own eyes. So where do you get the information/data/opinions/anecdotes that you trust?

2) In my opinion, which seems to be a popular one, a big problem with America today is the lack of civil discourse. Too many people choosing "sides" on too many subjects, be it politics or religion or sports teams or vaccinations. Too many people focused on "winning" and "being right" and too few people willing to accept that there might be a valid other side. Too much shouting! My question is, since none of us has the God-like ability to see absolute truth, why does anyone willing to accept a belief that you don't agree with have to be a "f$$$$ing moron"??

Ken

Question 1) From sources with no vested interest.

Question 2) I didn't say anyone willing to accept a belief that I don't agree with is a f$$$$ing moron. My point is that anyone that would trust the government with their health is a f$$$ing moron. I gave one example, let me give another. Just look at the VA.

What sites?

Very few sites. I don't trust most sites. They usually have agendas. I get my information from people that have actual experiences.

You have sources in China? Cleveland? New York?
I'd love to have more unbiased information. Are these in person? I'm confused on how someone could get a worldview from locals. Do you live around a wide range of socioeconomic and cultural diversity?

Actually, yes, I do have a source in China. A lifelong friend of mine owns a furnitire manufacturing plant in China...moved over there 19 years ago. And I'm friends with a local card shop owner here in town that is from China. No sources in Cleveland, but I do have friends in NY. Thanks for asking.

Excellent! First-hand representation. I'm going to assume, however, that none of these people are your go-to on educated expertise on a covid vaccine.

So when you have very strong opinions about the government's ability to monitor health initiatives (and I'm not saying they are good at it in any way,) and you appear to feel that medical journals are all biased, where do you get the knowledge that you form your opinions from? And I'm not just talking this particular vaccine. Where do you get your facts about GMO food or flu shots or acupuncture or electromagnetic waves?

No, Dr. Fauci is. He's a credible source, wouldn't you say?
:rolleyes:

I never said medical journals were all biased. Throughout this entire thread multiple people have either twisted my words or put words in my mouth that I didn't say. So, this is where I end the conversation. You mentioned civil discourse earlier. Civil discourse ends where stupidly and making false accusations begins. But I will answer your last question. Gut instinct and some personal experience.

So if you're prescribed a drug with which you have no personal experience, you'll decide whether to take it based on your gut instinct?

I've given you two chances to tell us sources you respect and all you won't tell us any outside your personal experiences and your gut. PLEASE tell me some respectable medical journals, I'm begging you!!!

Just to be clear, I say you APPEAR to say all medical journals are biased because 1) you have denigrated so many links posted here and 2) you don't say medical journals are to be trusted when I ask you what sources you trust. If that's twisting your words, then I apologize.

Will you apologize to me for the unnecessary sarcasm with the Fauci statement? Or for calling some members"f$$$$ing morons? Or does civil discourse only count when you want it to?

I'm having a hard time here trying to have an intelligent conversation via a forum. So you made the comment about Fauci and put what I interpret is a snarky face. Please correct me if that isn't an eye roll emoji, I'm not well versed on emojis.

If that really is a sarcastic comment about Fauci, I am going to believe you are not a fan, which is fine. But to be in that position, I ask myself, how did you formulate that opinion? According to you (in the same post), you don't get information from biased sources; you said you feel most sites have bias and I agree with that statement. I would say most tv channels, too. So I asked what sources you trust, and you said your gut and personal experiences. So this must mean that either your gut tells you Fauci is no good (at most by seeing a photo, I assume, because you wouldn't be watching or surfing sites that discuss him because they would be biased,) OR, you have personal experience with him.

So: is your gut that intuitive? Or have you met Fauci?? Either way, that's pretty cool!!

Trying to have an intelligent conversation is, IMO, a huge mistake, and one I've made myself too many times LOL.

David's just being a contrarian as he always is. He isn't going to respond on your terms.

I don't blame David one bit as it is clear as it ever could be, that despite what has been presented throughout this thread from him, G1911, myself and others, it simply isn't good enough for you two.
It is futile to continue and despite what you are asking for, I don't think anyone on here should hold your hand and walk you through it just because you're incapable, or unwilling, to do that yourself.


The simple fact that these vaccines alone have been rushed through and are only approved for "emergency use only" should throw up a red flag and should make one question it and look further into it but my gut tells me because you probably watch CNN, MSNBC or read The New York Times, and trust your gov't, you think you are getting truthful, factual and unbiased news so you feel no need to look into things further.

For an attorney, you sure do have a reading comprehension problem. We've been through this, Peter. But you just want to be argumentative. Why would I be prescribed a drug? :confused:

I haven't been sick in 40+ years. I haven't taken a prescribed prescribed meditation in decades. Why would I be prescribed something?