Will you get vaccinated against COVID once it's available?

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

There was a time in March when the vaccine was banned in all these countries simultaneously:

Sweden
Germany
France
Denmark
Norway
Iceland
Bulgaria
Ireland
Netherlands
Italy
Spain
Cyprus
Indonesia
Portugal
Latvia
Slovenia
Luxembourg
Tialand
The Democratic Republic of Congo

I don't know which countries (if any) have since resumed use. Nothing to see here though. Keep moving along...

A few things in this thread are not true or contested. For example there is no Tialand (presumably with a capitol of Bang Cock).

Otherwise the information rolled out in this thread is twisted and turned by political agendas and a lack of factual evidence but with evolving ever changing interpretations of data. In our age of disappearing gender identity, I would assert that with his spins and flips, our leader Dr. Fauci would have easily defeated Dorothy Hamill in the 1976 Olympics, and should be remembered for his Gold Medal.

But, alas, I have no photographic evidence of Fauci on ice skates.

Just to add to the mix of hogwash, I was shown a video yesterday of a portly woman in a green dress who claimed that everyone over 70 who had been vaccinated would be dead in three years. I hope to disprove her claim of which I disapprove.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I've never seen more confirmation bias in my life than in the discourse on the virus and the vaccines, and I am not pretending I am (pardon the pun) immune to it. But the way people gravitate towards the people and other sources that support their pre-existing agendas/politics/attitudes is quite clear. Maybe it's always the way I don't know. Who among us can honestly say he has been truly agnostic in evaluating all the information available?

[Republicaninmass]

His flip flopping would rival Nadia Comaneci

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Who among us can honestly say he has been truly agnostic in evaluating all the information available?

I have. From the very beginning, when some politicians said the virus didn't originate from the lab that had been studying (developing) viruses just a few miles from the first victims, I knew there would be a massive cover-up going on with all aspects of the killer virus. It could've been considered a preemptive strike and act of war by China, IMO. But, timed as it was, with our country in a divisive election cycle, China never faced, and never will face, the consequences they deserve for creating and unleashing this thing on the world.

So I took it all with healthy cynicism. When it came to deciding what to do, I looked at the danger posed by the virus, I considered the ethics and expertise of our drug industry, and decided to trust Moderna or Johnson & Johnson. So I got the shot. Politics had zero to do with it.

To sum it up, when I realized I was being lied to, I tuned the noise out. I made my decision based on the reality of the virus, my relative vulnerability, and my confidence in our (mostly) free market drug companies.

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

A few things in this thread are not true or contested. For example there is no Tialand (presumably with a capitol of Bang Cock).

Otherwise the information rolled out in this thread is twisted and turned by political agendas and a lack of factual evidence but with evolving ever changing interpretations of data. In our age of disappearing gender identity, I would assert that with his spins and flips, our leader Dr. Fauci would have easily defeated Dorothy Hamill in the 1976 Olympics, and should be remembered for his Gold Medal.

But, alas, I have no photographic evidence of Fauci on ice skates.

Just to add to the mix of hogwash, I was shown a video yesterday of a portly woman in a green dress who claimed that everyone over 70 who had been vaccinated would be dead in three years. I hope to disprove her claim of which I disapprove.

Beware the Ides of March, and portly women in green dresses predicting the future...

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by Mark17

From the very beginning, when some politicians said the virus didn't originate from the lab that had been studying (developing) viruses just a few miles from the first victims, I knew there would be a massive cover-up going on with all aspects of the killer virus. It could've been considered a preemptive strike and act of war by China, IMO. But, timed as it was, with our country in a divisive election cycle, China never faced, and never will face, the consequences they deserve for creating and unleashing this thing on the world.

+infinity

[G1911]

.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Yeah, the problem is all of the major actors involved in getting information to the public -- on whom one had to rely unless you could somehow get your hands on the primary material -- had and have a bias or agenda resulting in spin. President Trump wanted, among other things and I mostly won't go there, to downplay things (for different possible motives). Drs. Fauci and Birx were walking a tightrope trying (I think) to be relatively truthful but at the same time not going too far to anger President Trump. President Biden wanted to get elected. CNN and MSNBC just wanted to make the Trump administration look bad. Fox News wanted the reverse. The WHO did not want to alienate China. China of course would do anything to hide its negligence (or worse, if they are guilty of worse.) The CDC, God only knows. And so on. When the truth is filtered through bias and agenda, you get a freaking mess.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Incidentally, as to the constitutional point, I don't think we actually got to an appellate decision on First Amendment issues other than freedom of religion, but courts typically go pretty far to uphold so-called "time, place and manner" restrictions on what superficially are absolute First Amendment rights such as speech and assembly. It's a fascinating area of the law, for sure. But the bottom line is that our rights are not nearly as absolute as the Bill of Rights reads ("Congress shall make NO law ……").

In that regard, I believe a few lower courts denied requests for injunctions against some of the COVID-19 regulations but haven't studied that. If it ever got to the Supreme Court, I would think the current iteration of the Court would be very concerned with individual liberties, but that's just informed speculation.

[buymycards]

Putting all of the political bullshit aside - I live in a small city of 3000 people. Yesterday, one of our firefighters died after a short battle with Covid. He was healthy, fit, and 30 years old.

Be careful. Wear a mask. Avoid crowds. Protect yourself.

[buymycards]

After talking to his family today, I learned that he didn't believe in wearing a mask. Even though, as a firefighter, he could have received a vaccine during the initial wave of vaccinations, but he refused to get one.

This mask/vaccine controversy reminds me of when I was in Viet Nam. We were issued flak vests, which were hot and very heavy. Many of the soldiers left them behind. When the mortar shells started exploding around us, those of us who were wearing our vests were thanking God that we wore our vests, while those who didn't wear their vest were probably begging God to keep them alive, while thinking - "why in the hell didn't I wear my flak jacket?" More than a few soldiers were wounded or died because they weren't wearing their flak vests.

The mask/vaccine issue is the same thing, except it is much easier to don a mask or receive a vaccine than it is wear a flak jacket while trudging through a hot, humid jungle. I wonder how many people who were in intensive care wards with a respirator tube shoved down their throat were wondering - "why in the hell didn't I just put on my mask?"

[G1911]

.

[irv]

Originally Posted by G1911

The key difference being that data suggests taking the field in a war zone brings a significant risk of being shot.

I know someone who was attacked by a shark. Does that make it a reasonable thing for me to fear, and refuse to go swimming? No.

Anecdote is still not data. So I just looked it up. The CDC's best estimate for the 18-49 age group is 500 deaths per 1,000,000 infections. The worst scenario is 1,700 deaths per 1,000,000 infections. Every study has found most fatalities have multiple major comorbidities, are centered in the obese and weak, and risk increases with age (49 year's are lumped with 18's, and still only projects at 500 in a 1,000,000). These projections are for the overall, lumping in the healthy and unhealthy. They report a grand total of 6,513 deaths in the 30-39 age group, again, centered in those who were unhealthy to begin with, and studies (we can't question scientists, right?) suggest most of whom were obese. 1 in 2,000 infections is a .0005% risk (actually, the total risk is even less than that. CDC data tells us there are many more deaths in the 40-49 group than 30-39, almost triple in fact, and of course, many people will simply not get infected, but I'll even be generous and completely ignore these factors).

Estimates are estimates, projections are projections. Maybe the real is a bit higher, maybe it's a bit lower. Even if we go ahead and increase it 1,000%, far more than the worst case projections, the risk is still so tiny it's essentially a rounding error.

I sure hope that everyone demanding that healthy 30 year olds change their life is following their own advice and changing their lifestyle over all of the things they have a .0005% projected risk of dying from. Because wow, it's a lot of things for them to keep track of, much less act upon. There's really nothing else to say in this thread, people will feed off the public hysteria and anecdote, or take a look at the numbers and do some basic risk analysis. Neither side is really going to budge at this point.

Another great post, G1911.

I still truly wonder what is going on and why these vaccines are being pushed so hard on people?

Yesterday, I posted some links to stories about some who have gotten ill and were hospitalized after receiving the shots on Face Book and almost immediately I received notice from FB that they didn't meet community standards??
What could possibly be their "community standards" when factual and truthful links/stories from well known media sources are not allowed?

Also, during the recent hockey games and being bombarded with vaccine commercials every 5-10 minutes trying to convince and brainwash everyone into getting the vaccines, alluding to if you don't, life, as we once knew it, will never return to normal unless you do, why is their never any mention of the possible side affects like have already been mentioned in this thread?

If you watch other advertisements regarding other medications, the list of possible side affects and/or possible issues they mention is through the roof!
I believe the listing/the mentioning of possible side affects is a requirement by law but yet there is nothing, zero mention of any with these vaccines?

[packs]

I don't think anyone has said that you have to live a perfect life or that you have to approach something else differently because you've decided to wear a mask. Wearing a mask is still required in many public situations where I live. It is a sign of respect to the people around you. It is not a symbol that you are a saint.

[buymycards]

I sure hope that everyone demanding that healthy 30 year olds change their life is following their own advice and changing their lifestyle over all of the things they have a .0005% projected risk of dying from. Because wow, it's a lot of things for them to keep track of, much less act upon. There's really nothing else to say in this thread, people will feed off the public hysteria and anecdote, or take a look at the numbers and do some basic risk analysis. Neither side is really going to budge at this point.[/QUOTE]

Yes, it is a huge, horrible life changing event to put on that mask. How can people possibly be free and live their life when they are wearing a mask? What a horrible thing to have to endure.

[buymycards]

Originally Posted by G1911

The key difference being that data suggests taking the field in a war zone brings a significant risk of being shot.

I know someone who was attacked by a shark. Does that make it a reasonable thing for me to fear, and refuse to go swimming? No.

Anecdote is still not data. So I just looked it up. The CDC's best estimate for the 18-49 age group is 500 deaths per 1,000,000 infections. The worst scenario is 1,700 deaths per 1,000,000 infections. Every study has found most fatalities have multiple major comorbidities, are centered in the obese and weak, and risk increases with age (49 year's are lumped with 18's, and still only projects at 500 in a 1,000,000). These projections are for the overall, lumping in the healthy and unhealthy. They report a grand total of 6,513 deaths in the 30-39 age group, again, centered in those who were unhealthy to begin with, and studies (we can't question scientists, right?) suggest most of whom were obese. 1 in 2,000 infections is a .0005% risk (actually, the total risk is even less than that. CDC data tells us there are many more deaths in the 40-49 group than 30-39, almost triple in fact, and of course, many people will simply not get infected, but I'll even be generous and completely ignore these factors).

Estimates are estimates, projections are projections. Maybe the real is a bit higher, maybe it's a bit lower. Even if we go ahead and increase it 1,000%, far more than the worst case projections, the risk is still so tiny it's essentially a rounding error.

I sure hope that everyone demanding that healthy 30 year olds change their life is following their own advice and changing their lifestyle over all of the things they have a .0005% projected risk of dying from. Because wow, it's a lot of things for them to keep track of, much less act upon. There's really nothing else to say in this thread, people will feed off the public hysteria and anecdote, or take a look at the numbers and do some basic risk analysis. Neither side is really going to budge at this point.

Why don't you have your name in your post? What are you afraid of?

[vintagetoppsguy]

https://www.newsweek.com/fauci-said-...foeRqCXYIt0hp8

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by buymycards

Why don't you have your name in your post? What are you afraid of?

If the person in post #514 doesn’t have to give their name then the person in post #512 certainly doesn’t have to give their name. Cliff Bowman.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Cliff Bowman

If the person in post #514 doesn’t have to give their name then the person in #515 certainly doesn’t have to give their name. Cliff Bowman.

+1

[frankbmd]

Forget the mask mandates.

A compulsory chastity belt mandate will do the trick.

[irv]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

https://www.newsweek.com/fauci-said-...foeRqCXYIt0hp8

Seems to be a lot of that going on lately. Even the left leaning news is now changing their tune.

"The NIH knew the effectiveness of this drug and its relatives back in 2005 when it comes to Coronavirus'! SARS COV1 (what we know as causing SARS) and SARS COV2 (what we know as the virus that causes COVID 19) are almost 85% genetically the same. They had a drug that had decades of safe use treating other illness' and they refused to use it for political and monetary reasons"
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16115318/

"Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread
Martin J Vincent 1, Eric Bergeron, Suzanne Benjannet, Bobbie R Erickson, Pierre E Rollin, Thomas G Ksiazek, Nabil G Seidah, Stuart T Nichol
Affiliations expand
PMID: 16115318

PMCID: PMC1232869

DOI: 10.1186/1743-422X-2-69
Free PMC article
Abstract
Background: Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) is caused by a newly discovered coronavirus (SARS-CoV). No effective prophylactic or post-exposure therapy is currently available.

Results: We report, however, that chloroquine has strong antiviral effects on SARS-CoV infection of primate cells. These inhibitory effects are observed when the cells are treated with the drug either before or after exposure to the virus, suggesting both prophylactic and therapeutic advantage. In addition to the well-known functions of chloroquine such as elevations of endosomal pH, the drug appears to interfere with terminal glycosylation of the cellular receptor, angiotensin-converting enzyme 2. This may negatively influence the virus-receptor binding and abrogate the infection, with further ramifications by the elevation of vesicular pH, resulting in the inhibition of infection and spread of SARS CoV at clinically admissible concentrations.

Conclusion: Chloroquine is effective in preventing the spread of SARS CoV in cell culture. Favorable inhibition of virus spread was observed when the cells were either treated with chloroquine prior to or after SARS CoV infection. In addition, the indirect immunofluorescence assay described herein represents a simple and rapid method for screening SARS-CoV antiviral compounds"


Isn't the media wonderful.

"Jon Karl says aloud the obvious TRUTH about the BIASED media. They denied Covid FACTS to remain ANTI-TRUMP"

https://therightscoop.com/jon-karl-s...in-anti-trump/

"Emails show Dr. Fauci was WORRIED that NIH might have ties to Coronavirus spread in China last year"
https://therightscoop.com/emails-sho...ina-last-year/

https://twitter.com/IngrahamAngle/st...03904%3Fs%3D21

Seems like a lot of unwelcomed heat is on Fauci lately. Hmm, I wonder why things are improving so fast?

[Peter_Spaeth]

"They."

Why don't you link to the dozens of articles and studies that concluded it wasn't a safe or effective treatment?

https://medcitynews.com/2020/08/why-...-for-covid-19/

Why hydroxychloroquine’s appeal endures despite evidence it doesn’t work for Covid-19

The drug has consistently failed to show a benefit when tested in randomized, controlled clinical trials. Social science may explain why laypeople and doctors alike continue clinging to it.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020...event-covid-19
https://www.statnews.com/2020/07/16/...xychloroquine/

I could go on and on and on posting links.

The pandemic is bad enough without all the conspiracy crap piled on top of it.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

+1

I don't think a name is required for what is said in those 2-3 posts. But we can debate it if we want to.
That said everyone should be careful of the name rule at the top of every page. I look for statements directed at folks or companies, not general statements, in applying the rule.
I do wish everyone had their name next to their posts but it's not mandatory unless they don't follow that rule. Anyone can always pm about this stuff and I will take a look. Also, posts can be edited out by their creator in order not to have to put their names out there. That is always an option. Thanks for everyone's compliance to the most important rule on this forum.

.

[irv]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

"They."

Why don't you link to the dozens of articles and studies that concluded it wasn't a safe or effective treatment?

https://medcitynews.com/2020/08/why-...-for-covid-19/

Why hydroxychloroquine’s appeal endures despite evidence it doesn’t work for Covid-19

The drug has consistently failed to show a benefit when tested in randomized, controlled clinical trials. Social science may explain why laypeople and doctors alike continue clinging to it.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020...event-covid-19
https://www.statnews.com/2020/07/16/...xychloroquine/

I could go on and on and on posting links.

The pandemic is bad enough without all the conspiracy crap piled on top of it.

So the stuff you posted is real and factual but the stuff I post is "conspiracy crap" therefore I'm a conspiracist?
You're a lawyer, aren't you, Pete? Is that how you solve cases or come to conclusions? Just debunk the stuff that doesn't fit with your ideology nor fit your agenda and choose the ones that do?

Tell me, did you fact check any of these names from my post?
Martin J Vincent 1, Eric Bergeron, Suzanne Benjannet, Bobbie R Erickson, Pierre E Rollin, Thomas G Ksiazek, Nabil G Seidah, Stuart T Nichol.

If so, do they look like conspiracy theorists to you who don't know what their talking about?

Tell me, Peter, do you think there is more money to be made with the use of hydroxychloroquine that has been around and safely used for 80 or so odd years or in these new, never used before, non approved, except for emergency use, vaccines?

Yeah, I know, just another conspiracy theory, right?

Hydroxychloroquine is Widely Used Around the Globe

"Death rates in countries that rely on hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) for the treatment of Covid-19 appear to be dramatically lower than death rates in countries that discourage the use of the drug"
https://fcpp.org/2020/11/08/hydroxyc...und-the-globe/

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

"They."

Why don't you link to the dozens of articles and studies that concluded it wasn't a safe or effective treatment?

https://medcitynews.com/2020/08/why-...-for-covid-19/

Why hydroxychloroquine’s appeal endures despite evidence it doesn’t work for Covid-19

The drug has consistently failed to show a benefit when tested in randomized, controlled clinical trials. Social science may explain why laypeople and doctors alike continue clinging to it.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020...event-covid-19
https://www.statnews.com/2020/07/16/...xychloroquine/

I could go on and on and on posting links.

The pandemic is bad enough without all the conspiracy crap piled on top of it.

So what do you think was the motivation of the doctor who claims to have successfully treated 350+ patients at the time? I'm sure that number has grown greatly over the last year, but I'm only going by your year old article. Financial motivation? Seeking attention? Just likes spreading false information? And what about the many, many, many other doctors who've come forward since the publishing of your year old article who also claim to have successfully treated Covid patients with hydroxychloroquine?

[irv]

Medcity news.. Sounds legit.

"Founded by veteran journalists with both health carereporting and online editorial experience, MedCity News is poised to build an innovative new-media enterprise capable of taking advantage of these converging forces while building a profitable national business and brand"
https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/medcity-news

I couldn't even find anything credible for AAS Science? What is that exactly?

And I found this about Stat news. Surprise surprise.
"These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes"

[Peter_Spaeth]

Read the randomized controlled trials. Don't shoot the messenger. Plenty of shit seems to work until it's subjected to real trials. People used to swear by bloodletting. People swear by all sorts of bogus treatments. When you run a real trial they don't hold up. That's how science goes. Anecdotes don't prove much, even lots of them. The plural of anecdote is not data. There are lots of good explanations of this online. You need to control for placebo effects, regression to the mean, other confounding factors, etc.


Who exactly is the "they" who have suppressed this treatment, Dale? And how exactly did "they" go about it? Conspiracy theory. If you want to debate the science and take issue with the trials, fine. But don't throw this conspiracy junk at us.

[Peter_Spaeth]

https://www.apa.org/research/action/...iracy-theories

[irv]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Read the randomized controlled trials. Don't shoot the messenger. Plenty of shit seems to work until it's subjected to real trials. People used to swear by bloodletting. People swear by all sorts of bogus treatments. When you run a real trial they don't hold up. That's how science goes. Anecdotes don't prove much, even lots of them. The plural of anecdote is not data. There are lots of good explanations of this online. You need to control for placebo effects, regression to the mean, other confounding factors, etc.


Who exactly is the "they" who have suppressed this treatment, Dale? And how exactly did "they" go about it? Conspiracy theory. If you want to debate the science and take issue with the trials, fine. But don't throw this conspiracy junk at us.

You're kidding again, right, Peter? You think there was no political nor their funded media interference with its use after Trump began touting it?

"Politics prevented thorough trial
There was every reason to be excited. The drug is incredibly cheap, a generic version is less than 50 cents per pill, and it has been around for more than 65 years. It has been well tolerated by millions as a treatment for various forms of arthritis and as a preventative against malaria.

"But then the bad news began to pour in. With President Donald Trump championing the drug this spring, it became a third rail political issue"

"The political fallout interfered with the science"

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...mn/5397728002/

Anti-Trump Democrats lie about hydroxychloroquine
https://www.galvnews.com/opinion/let...9ad12f900.html

Trump’s use of unproven drug to ward off covid-19 prompts concerns, ridicule. It’s not for the ‘morbidly obese,’ says Pelosi.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...e-coronavirus/

Do you recall govn'r Whitmer threatening to fire any doctor that prescribed it, then some months later did a 180?
"Gov. Gretchen Whitmer drew fire from some on the right after the Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA) sent a letter last week threatening "administrative action" against doctors who prescribed two experimental drugs that could potentially help coronavirus patients"
https://www.metrotimes.com/news-hits...nd-chloroquine

Need more, Pete, or are these enough conspiracy articles for tonight?

[Peter_Spaeth]

I don't care about the left wing noise any more than the right wing noise. It's all BS if you ask me. I care about the studies. Read the studies. Again, many drugs, treatments, etc. appear at first blush to work, but don't hold up to controlled trials. As best I can tell, the controlled trials do not support the safety or efficacy of this drug for this disease. In fact some suggested it made things worse.

And you keep ducking the question Dale. Who is "they"? Don't tee up another straw man, tell me who "they" is.

[irv]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I don't care about the left wing noise any more than the right wing noise. It's all BS if you ask me. I care about the studies. Read the studies. Again, many drugs, treatments, etc. appear at first blush to work, but don't hold up to controlled trials. As best I can tell, the controlled trials do not support the safety or efficacy of this drug for this disease. In fact some suggested it made things worse.

And you keep ducking the question Dale. Who is "they"? Don't tee up another straw man, tell me who "they" is.

You're being obtuse and becoming insufferable, Peter. If I didn't know any better, I'd think you're just looking forward to using the words conspiracy theorist and strawman any chance you get.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by irv

You're being obtuse and becoming insufferable, Peter. If I didn't know any better, I'd think you're just looking forward to using the words conspiracy theorist and strawman any chance you get.

You can't answer the question can you? And how many of the studies have you read? I am SURE you know better than the scientists who conducted them. Oh wait, "they" must have paid off those scientists.

[Peter_Spaeth]

This is what I was looking for, the 2021 meta analysis of the trials.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7885725/


Despite all the controversy about HCQ and CQ use for COVID-19 treatment, this meta-analysis did not show any better outcomes in patients using HCQ or CQ when compared to the control group. The results showed no statistical significance in the treatment with HCQ or CQ in achieving virological cure and faster clinical recovery.


Conclusion.

These results suggest that the use of HCQ or CQ is not associated with decreased viral load, faster clinical recovery, improved survival, decreased need for mechanical ventilation, and decreased hospitalization time for patients with COVID-19. However, it suggests that the use of HCQ or CQ can be associated with an increased risk of adverse effects.

Obtuse indeed.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Another meta analysis.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22446-z

We found that treatment with hydroxychloroquine is associated with increased mortality in COVID-19 patients, and there is no benefit of chloroquine.

[Casey2296]

We Are They

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=goVL5d...ature=youtu.be

[Peter_Spaeth]

Yes, indeed.

What are conspiracy theories? Why do they flourish?

1. What are they?
The belief that certain events or situations are secretly manipulated behind the scenes by powerful forces with negative intent.

2. Conspiracy theories have these 6 things in common
1. An alleged, secret plot.

2. A group of conspirators.

3. ‘Evidence’ that seems to support the conspiracy theory.

4. They falsely suggest that nothing happens by accident and that there are no coincidences; nothing is as it appears and everything is connected.

5. They divide the world into good or bad.

6. They scapegoat people and groups.

3. Why do they flourish?
They often appear as a logical explanation of events or situations which are difficult to understand and bring a false sense of control and agency. This need for clarity is heightened in times of uncertainty like the COVID-19 pandemic.

4. How do they take root?
Conspiracy theories often start as a suspicion. They ask who is benefiting from the event or situation and thus identify the conspirators. Any ‘evidence’ is then forced to fit the theory.

Once they have taken root, conspiracy theories can grow quickly. They are hard to refute because any person who tries is seen as being part of the conspiracy.

5. People spread conspiracy theories for different reasons:
Most believe they are true. Others deliberately want to provoke, manipulate or target people for political or financial reasons. Beware: They can come from many sources e.g. internet, friends, relatives.

[Casey2296]

Click on the link Peter, you'll have a good laugh.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

Click on the link Peter, you'll have a good laugh.

I did.

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

We Are They

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=goVL5d...ature=youtu.be

Saying they suggests the they agree with each other, but in no way precludes another they who disagree with the first they.

Have they (either one) ever been wrong? Both theys would maintain their assertion and suggest that only the other theys are incorrect.

In fact a third group, also a they, could easily contend that both the first two theys are incorrect.

Knowing the size of a they would help. If your they consists of only 4 people, their opinion may be regarded as an anecdote. If your they has a population (better known as “pop” in the hobby,) of 100, it could be several things, a grass roots movement, a conspiracy theory, or even a prescient group of educated individuals who interpret the given data correctly. The latter they however are as equally likely to be persecuted as the conspiracy theorists or a grass roots movement.

If you add sheeple to any they, they do not improve the odds of the given they’s validity. They merely increase the “pop” of their group. Sheeple, however, are not homogenous, nor are they immutable. Politics, simplistically, is a contest of mutating sheeple to increase their “pop”. Sheeple, who think they are making wise decisions by joining a ideological they, are generally not as wise as they think they are. In fact, I would maintain that most sheeple are inclined to agree with sheeple who share some unrelated characteristic with which they identify such as gender, skin color, country of origin, R or D, or ancestry.

A they will often associate another unrelated dispised entity with a belief with which they disagree. The two may be totally unrelated, but guilt by false association can be powerful propaganda.

The bifurcation of the news is a deterrent to common ground. Both theys are competing for sheeple that don’t even know what they are talking about. Ultimately many sheeple throwup their hands in dispair.

A they, any they, can plead for unity as a popular mantra, but since both theys are working from a different set of facts, unity becomes a pipe dream. Both sides, in the name of unity, eschew the other sides “fake news” (if you will) and define unity as “my way or the highway”.

If you are wearing a mask, take it off and reread the post.

If you aren’t wearing a mask, try reading this with a mask on.

If it sounds like meaningless gibberish both ways, I think I have made my point.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I am we and you are we and they are we and we are all together.

[egri]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I am we and you are we and they are we and we are all together.

They are who we thought they were. And we let 'em off the hook!

[irv]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

You can't answer the question can you? And how many of the studies have you read? I am SURE you know better than the scientists who conducted them. Oh wait, "they" must have paid off those scientists.

I already did Peter, but I can't see for you if you're too blind to see for yourself.

Great links, again. Those sure prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that everything you said is 100% factual and true.
Have anymore of these links that are easily debunked?

"Is the NCBI reliable?
That question cannot be answered in general. The databases at the NCBI/DDBJ/EMBL will definitely contain errors as the data comes from various sources and most of the databases are only marginally curated. But that holds true for all big databases without manual curation (and even those are not flawless).


"Wolfgang Rumpf
Nationwide Children's Hospital
Christian is correct. The databases are in large part uncurated - while some metadata will be screened and corrected (e.g. keywords etc.), the sequences itself are definitely not - validation would require far too much time/effort/expenditure. Thus the databases rely on the submitter's information - and subsequent experimental validation if and when it happens"

Wasn't it also you that said these vaccines weren't being pushed on anyone?
Sure hope you haven't got your vaccine yet? I'd hate to see you miss out on any of these things being offered.

"‘Get a shot and have a beer’: Biden touts free brew, pro sports tickets and child care"

https://missouriindependent.com/2021...oost-vaccines/

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...ombat-n1268048
https://www.latimes.com/california/s...id-19-vaccines

[packs]

Moderna just applied for FDA approval. If it is fully approved by the FDA are you still worried about it?

[Peter_Spaeth]

I'm not at all a fan of Biden's approach, by the way. I find it offensive and wrong.

And Dale, I missed it. Do me a favor and identify for me all the actors who have conspired to deny sick people effective treatment.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by packs

Moderna just applied for FDA approval. If it is fully approved by the FDA are you still worried about it?

The United States Public Health Service (PHS) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) approved the Tuskegee Experiments. So what does an approval have to do with anything?

[packs]

Well earlier people had said the reason they are wary of the vaccine was because it was authorized but not approved. Has that changed now?

Also, I don't really understand the Tuskegee reference. All medications face FDA approval so if you discount their approval but also won't take medications that are not FDA approved, what are you left with?

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by packs

Also, I don't really understand the Tuskegee reference.

Then let me explain it to you. If the government (CDC) would knowingly inject unsuspecting citizens with Syphilis, why wouldn't they do the same (with Syphilis or anything else) today? What has changed?

[packs]

Can you explain how that relates to my question? If that is your perspective on medicine then you could never go to the hospital or seek medical treatment of any kind.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

The United States Public Health Service (PHS) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) approved the Tuskegee Experiments. So what does an approval have to do with anything?

I thought from YOUR prior posts your objection was that the vaccines weren't approved yet. You kept banging that point home.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I thought from YOUR prior posts your objection was that the vaccines weren't approved yet. You kept banging that point home.

Can you point me to the post? I may have pointed out that the vaccines weren't FDA approved, but I thought I've made it clear that my reason for not getting the vaccine is there is not enough testing and the long term side effects aren't fully known.