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

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan

Just to be clear, I say you APPEAR to say all medical journals are biased because...

Well, let me be clear too. You APPEAR to be a f*cking moron. I tried to avoid this, but you kept on.

Your original questions in post 587 were more just general questions. I answered them satisfactorily. Now you're narrowing your questions to be specifically medical related and twisting my words (but I still answered them). So, I can continue to play your game and let you continue to twist my words, or just tell you to f*ck off. I choose the latter. I told you where civil discourse ended. You've reached that point.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by irv

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.

This

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by irv

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.

Wrong guy, Irv! Nowhere on this thread have I said people should get the vaccine. Nowhere! All I'm saying is, David is blasting people and calling them rude names (See post right above this one) because they follow the government's lead. I know David's side, I do get it, I am just asking how he got there. David (and others) blast much of the research presented as biased. (Again, you don't see me defending the research, do you?) My direct and polite question for David has repeatedly been: If you blast others for following biased information, what UNbiased information do you listen to? Please notice that all he will tell us is his gut and personal experience.

You, Irv, have presented many columns and research and such showing how you've come to your views. I may or may not agree with you, but I can see how you got there. Peter has presented columns and research, shown his side, and I can agree or not. David, well, he just insults those who don't think like him, but claims everyone else is "biased." I actually like to read views different from what I currently hold, that's the only way I can grow.

And FWIW, I think the last paragraph you posted started off quite spot-on, until you went making assumptions. I don't watch TV news of any kind. I read the NYT and the WSJ. I don't blindly trust the Gov't. So what do you make of me? Also, you say people who watch CNN and read the NYT don't think for themselves, do you also say the same to people who only watch Fox News and read the WSJ?? I have someone in my own family that will parrot Fox repeatedly, then tell me I don't have an open mind.

You brought up G1911, I would like to give him a shout out: I'm sure I wouldn't agree with him on every subject, but each post he made here was, IMHO, well-written and logical. No inflammatory language, just a great debate. The kind people used to have before shouting down an opponent and "winning" became the way. He appears to be the kind of guy to have a few beers with, argue non-stop, then walk away saying "That guy has some dumbass views, but I love him!"

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Well, let me be clear too. You APPEAR to be a f*cking moron. I tried to avoid this, but you kept on.

Your original questions in post 587 were more just general questions. I answered them satisfactorily. Now you're narrowing your questions to be specifically medical related and twisting my words (but I still answered them). So, I can continue to play your game and let you continue to twist my words, or just tell you to f*ck off. I choose the latter. I told you where civil discourse ended. You've reached that point.

You must be right about me, because I have repeatedly asked where you get your unbiased information. Politely and civilly. And yet, I still don't know the answer.

[irv]

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan

Wrong guy, Irv! Nowhere on this thread have I said people should get the vaccine. Nowhere! All I'm saying is, David is blasting people and calling them rude names (See post right above this one) because they follow the government's lead. I know David's side, I do get it, I am just asking how he got there. David (and others) blast much of the research presented as biased. (Again, you don't see me defending the research, do you?) My direct and polite question for David has repeatedly been: If you blast others for following biased information, what UNbiased information do you listen to? Please notice that all he will tell us is his gut and personal experience.

You, Irv, have presented many columns and research and such showing how you've come to your views. I may or may not agree with you, but I can see how you got there. Peter has presented columns and research, shown his side, and I can agree or not. David, well, he just insults those who don't think like him, but claims everyone else is "biased." I actually like to read views different from what I currently hold, that's the only way I can grow.

And FWIW, I think the last paragraph you posted started off quite spot-on, until you went making assumptions. I don't watch TV news of any kind. I read the NYT and the WSJ. I don't blindly trust the Gov't. So what do you make of me? Also, you say people who watch CNN and read the NYT don't think for themselves, do you also say the same to people who only watch Fox News and read the WSJ?? I have someone in my own family that will parrot Fox repeatedly, then tell me I don't have an open mind.

You brought up G1911, I would like to give him a shout out: I'm sure I wouldn't agree with him on every subject, but each post he made here was, IMHO, well-written and logical. No inflammatory language, just a great debate. The kind people used to have before shouting down an opponent and "winning" became the way. He appears to be the kind of guy to have a few beers with, argue non-stop, then walk away saying "That guy has some dumbass views, but I love him!"

Well, I guess you don't see it, but, imo, your posts to David were very condescending, childish and uncalled for so I completely understand why he replied to you in the manner in which he did.

On pg6, David reveals what he did in the Army. Imo, and only my opinion, I assume David might know a thing or 2 about meds/vaccines and the like but unless they just randomly choose some individual who the Doc is going to be, I could be wrong?

As far as the news goes, I said "my gut tells me". which means it was a guess/an assumption so I apologize if it sounded like I meant you did a 100%.

Anyways, this thread is going nowhere anymore, if it ever was, so from this point on "I think" I will just avoid anymore interaction, as, like I said above, it is nothing more than just an exercise in futility and is becoming a waste of time.

Throughout this thread, all I've tried to do is show the other side of story, which, like I've said, isn't talked about near enough, imo, but because some don't like that, or think I am just a conspiracy theorist, a strawman arguer, or an anti-vaxxer, I guess they don't understand that nor ever will.

[Peter_Spaeth]

As I've said in this thread, I think both CNN and MSNBC are too agenda-driven. I do, however, trust for the most part a site called science based medicine which focuses on data analysis and is very very good at deconstructing bogus claims.

[G1911]

.

[Peter_Spaeth]

G-man, I don't endorse this article at all but I think you would like it.

https://journals.plos.org/plosmedici...l.pmed.0020124

Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
John P. A. Ioannidis

He has a similar piece a decade or so later.

https://journals.plos.org/plosmedici...l.pmed.1002049

[Peter_Spaeth]

BTW, Dr. Ioannidis published early in the pandemic basically arguing the dangers were overstated. Here's a fascinating piece on him from my favorite science website.

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/wha...ohn-ioannidis/

[G1911]

.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

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 knowingly injected unsuspecting citizens with Syphilis is a fucking moron.

None of the people responsible for an unethical experiment 90 years ago are evens till alive.

Next you'll be on about how that darn Roosevelt won't let us own gold, or how those newfangled hydraulic shock absorbers are evil, or talkies and color movies stifle our imagination.

[steve B]

It's funny how some people are "oh, don't trust the government"
But the number of things they trust the government to regulate the safety of is huge.

Do you grade your own beef?
Decide what things will make your car safe to drive?
Or what can be in paint?
Or how many bug parts are allowed in a pound of each sort of vegetable?

Just where do you find the time?

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by steve B

Next you'll be on about how that...

No, next I'll tell you to go f*ck your fatass self.

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by steve B

None of the people responsible for an unethical experiment 90 years ago are evens till alive.

Really Steve? So the slave owners, racists, and heros of the past should just be forgotten about or given a pass because they arent alive? I've heard some privileged talk in my day, but that really takes the cake.


Fyi the government is still alive and well which had conducted those experiments, as well as current ones. Unless you think they dont still conduct experiments.

I think you've been licking too many mk-ultra "stamps"

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by steve B

Do you grade your own beef?

Of course not. It goes straight to PSA. I like to see if they notice it's been trimmed.

[irv]

https://youtu.be/l9EOc9SFCdg

[Leon]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

No, next I'll tell you to go f*ck your fatass self.

Infraction given. Cut that kind of trash talk out. Not cool....thanks

.

[irv]

Moderna and Pfizer are using lipid nanoparticles that contain polyethylene glycol (PEG)2 for this purpose. The mRNA is wrapped in lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) that carry it to your cells, and the LNPs are “PEGylated” — that is, chemically attached to PEG molecules to increase stability.

This experimental mRNA gene therapy and its lipid nanoparticle-based delivery system have never been approved for use in a vaccine or drug. This includes Pfizer’s and Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccines, which were only “authorized” for emergency use by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration — not “approved.”

Significant concerns have been raised over the technology, including the lipid nanoparticles, and Moderna actually abandoned it in 2017 after studies revealed a high rate of adverse effects

[T]here can be no assurance that our LNPs will not have undesired effects. Our LNPs could contribute, in whole or in part, to one or more of the following: immune reactions, infusion reactions, complement reactions, opsonation reactions, antibody reactions . . . or reactions to the PEG from some lipids or PEG otherwise associated with the LNP. Certain aspects of our investigational medicines may induce immune reactions from either the mRNA or the lipid as well as adverse reactions within liver pathways or degradation of the mRNA or the LNP, any of which could lead to significant adverse events in one or more of our clinical trials.

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/lip...o-antivaxxers/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24715289/

Superparamagnetic nanoparticle delivery of DNA vaccine
Fatin Nawwab Al-Deen 1, Cordelia Selomulya, Charles Ma, Ross L Coppel
Affiliations expand
PMID: 24715289

DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4939-0410-5_12
Abstract
The efficiency of delivery of DNA vaccines is often relatively low compared to protein vaccines. The use of superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles (SPIONs) to deliver genes via magnetofection shows promise in improving the efficiency of gene delivery both in vitro and in vivo. In particular, the duration for gene transfection especially for in vitro application can be significantly reduced by magnetofection compared to the time required to achieve high gene transfection with standard protocols. SPIONs that have been rendered stable in physiological conditions can be used as both therapeutic and diagnostic agents due to their unique magnetic characteristics. Valuable features of iron oxide nanoparticles in bioapplications include a tight control over their size distribution, magnetic properties of these particles, and the ability to carry particular biomolecules to specific targets. The internalization and half-life of the particles within the body depend upon the method of synthesis. Numerous synthesis methods have been used to produce magnetic nanoparticles for bioapplications with different sizes and surface charges. The most common method for synthesizing nanometer-sized magnetite Fe3O4 particles in solution is by chemical coprecipitation of iron salts. The coprecipitation method is an effective technique for preparing a stable aqueous dispersions of iron oxide nanoparticles. We describe the production of Fe3O4-based SPIONs with high magnetization values (70 emu/g) under 15 kOe of the applied magnetic field at room temperature, with 0.01 emu/g remanence via a coprecipitation method in the presence of trisodium citrate as a stabilizer. Naked SPIONs often lack sufficient stability, hydrophilicity, and the capacity to be functionalized. In order to overcome these limitations, polycationic polymer was anchored on the surface of freshly prepared SPIONs by a direct electrostatic attraction between the negatively charged SPIONs (due to the presence of carboxylic groups) and the positively charged polymer. Polyethylenimine was chosen to modify the surface of SPIONs to assist the delivery of plasmid DNA into mammalian cells due to the polymer's extensive buffering capacity through the "proton sponge" effect.

[Peter_Spaeth]

You should read the entire science based medicine piece you posted. It debunks the concern. The part in bold you posted is a quote from what Dr. Gorski goes on to debunk. Reminds me of younger lawyers who pull soundbites from cases based on Westlaw searches without actually reading the case.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Leon

Infraction given. Cut that kind of trash talk out. Not cool....thanks

.

Understood, Leon. I've tried to be done with this thread. Then, Bicycle Boy wants to pop back in and tell me what I'm supposedly going to say next.

Originally Posted by steve B

Next you'll be on about how that darn Roosevelt won't let us own gold, or how those newfangled hydraulic shock absorbers are evil, or talkies and color movies stifle our imagination.

I won't be so nice to him next time. The only difference is, it will come in the form of a PM so the rest of the board doesn't have to see it.

[irv]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

You should read the entire science based medicine piece you posted. It debunks the concern. The part in bold you posted is a quote from what Dr. Gorski goes on to debunk. Reminds me of younger lawyers who pull soundbites from cases based on Westlaw searches without actually reading the case.

So, the opinion of a breast cancer surgeon, who has many other questionable opinions about medicine and the like, is to be taken as truthful, factual and therefore it's end of the story because he said so?
Just like some other response I heard sometime ago that the science is settled, you also believe this based on this one man's opinion?
Gotcha, Pete.

"At the same time the academics admit, almost in a puzzled fashion, that these “anti-maskers” do their investigations in a very scientific manner. “Indeed,” the paper claims, “anti-maskers often reveal themselves to be more sophisticated in their understanding of how scientific knowledge is socially constructed than their ideological adversaries, who espouse naïve realism about the ‘objective’ truth of public health data.”

The MIT academics go on to admit that those opposed to masks are not afraid to get down and dirty in looking at statistics, nor are they afraid to increasingly question the media and government authorities, a trait MIT researchers call “a weaponization of critical thinking.” Even more surprising is the revelation that anti-maskers’ “approach to the pandemic is grounded in a more scientific rigor, not less.”

https://www.intellectualtakeout.org/...ally-rigorous/

[Leon]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Understood, Leon. I've tried to be done with this thread. Then, Bicycle Boy wants to pop back in and tell me what I'm supposedly going to say next.



I won't be so nice to him next time. The only difference is, it will come in the form of a PM so the rest of the board doesn't have to see it.

If I catch wind of that, and it's unprovoked from here on out, you will be suspended or banned. Just let it go.

.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by irv

So, the opinion of a breast cancer surgeon, who has many other questionable opinions about medicine and the like, is to be taken as truthful, factual and therefore it's end of the story because he said so?
Just like some other response I heard sometime ago that the science is settled, you also believe this based on this one man's opinion?
Gotcha, Pete.

"At the same time the academics admit, almost in a puzzled fashion, that these “anti-maskers” do their investigations in a very scientific manner. “Indeed,” the paper claims, “anti-maskers often reveal themselves to be more sophisticated in their understanding of how scientific knowledge is socially constructed than their ideological adversaries, who espouse naïve realism about the ‘objective’ truth of public health data.”

The MIT academics go on to admit that those opposed to masks are not afraid to get down and dirty in looking at statistics, nor are they afraid to increasingly question the media and government authorities, a trait MIT researchers call “a weaponization of critical thinking.” Even more surprising is the revelation that anti-maskers’ “approach to the pandemic is grounded in a more scientific rigor, not less.”

https://www.intellectualtakeout.org/...ally-rigorous/

Nice deflection Dale. You didn't read the article and cut and pasted an excerpt thinking it supported your point of view. Instead of admitting it, you pivot to your favorite tactic, the straw man. Where did I ever say I took Dr. Gorski as gospel? My point was that the article doesn't support your point of view.

And funny how when you thought Dr. Gorski was supporting your point of view YOU had no issue quoting him despite that he was a breast cancer surgeon. LOL. In fact, you were quoting Joseph Mercola, an extremely controversial alternative medicine osteopath who makes a fortune selling supplements.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Leon

If I catch wind of that, and it's unprovoked from here on out, you will be suspended or banned. Just let it go.

.

Leon,

I understand completely what you're saying. But when I haven't posted in this thread in 3 plus days and then he wants to chime in and (mis)quote me and tell me what I'm going to say next, that is provoked.

I'm letting it go. Will others?

[AustinMike]

I agree with quite a bit of what you wrote and I also disagree with quite a bit. The major issues are as follows:

Originally Posted by G1911

Another thing that I use to try and pull out what is and is not, or may be and may not be, true is to look at the order of events, and, if we must rely on experts, what was said by experts before it became a heavily politicized issue people lined up on. For example, in 2019 pretty much everyone agreed that surgical masks do not do much for flu-like diseases, Fauci, the CDC, numerous studies with controls, there was little debate here, they agreed. No new studies found the opposite, until after the public narrative flipped an immediate 180 in late March, 2020. There was no new discovery at this time, the government changed narratives and then studies were conducted (mostly without controls) that found the opposite of what they had before. New science to replace the old science happened after the narrative switch, not before.

First off, I agree - surgical masks and cloth masks do very little to help the wearer regarding viral transmission. That was the reasoning behind the original guidance of not having to wear masks. However, the mask guidance was not changed because people are now saying masks are a great way to protect the wearer. The mask guidance changed because wearing a mask can help reduce the distance the "breath" of a wearer will travel, thus reducing the risks to others from an infected person and reducing the spread of the infection. This is not new information. A couple of examples:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24229526/ Testing the efficacy of homemade masks: would they protect in an influenza pandemic? 2013 “Our findings suggest that a homemade mask should only be considered as a last resort to prevent droplet transmission from infected individuals, but it would be better than no protection.”

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22295066/ Facemasks, hand hygiene, and influenza among young adults: a randomized intervention trial, 2012 “Face masks and hand hygiene combined may reduce the rate of ILI and confirmed influenza in community settings. These non-pharmaceutical measures should be recommended in crowded settings at the start of an influenza pandemic.”

Originally Posted by G1911

My generation is told to fear Global Warming, for my fathers it was an Ice Age that was going to soon come and end the world as we know it.

According to this article, it wasn't scientists scaring people about a coming ice age, it was the media:

https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age...termediate.htm

Of the 68 peer-reviewed climate studies from 1965-1979, 10% predicted cooling, 28% had no stance, and 62% predicted warming. Six times as many studies predicted warming versus cooling.

Originally Posted by G1911

I have never in my life seen such censorship as there is of anything even questioning the narrative of Covid. It is in many ways brilliantly done censorship, often outsourced by the state to the private realm. It is big tech removing posts and banning people, jobs firing people who do not go agree, neighbors shunning their neighbors and informing the state that they may be, god forbid, socializing with friends like its 2019. When a reasonable theory (is agreeing with controlled studies in 2019 really such an absurd proposition? Is using the CDC's own figures and math to calculate my risk really an insane theory?) is so heavily assaulted, by the state and the elements of the private realm profiting from the narrative, I find it hard to see it as a reason to dismiss these thoughts.

Regarding censorship, when was the last time you saw an ad for cigarettes on TV? Do you consider that censorship? Do you think commercials for cigarettes should be allowed on TV? Regarding the censorship related to big tech and covid, I am not on Facebook, Twitter, etc., so I really don't know specifically what was targeted. All I know is what I've read. What I read said that covid misinformation was targeted. I personally think it was a good move to remove misinformation while the country was trying to limit the spread of a contagious virus. Specifically, what information was removed that you do not feel was misinformation and was something the public should know?

Originally Posted by G1911

I am saying that I do not know if it is harmful or not because no long term studies have been done, its death toll is calculated in the complete opposite way that Covid's is making statistical comparison essentially impossible, and as a result I don't want to take it right now because I have almost 0 statistical risk from what it purports to protect against anyways. My position is essentially that of the moderate, "I do not know, the evidence is too fragmentary and incomplete", which is now apparently one heck of a hot take when everything is politicized and the narrative socially unquestionable.

I fully understand your rationale behind not wanting to get the vaccine. But with that choice comes responsibility. You need to try to minimize the chances of you infecting someone else in case you get it and are asymptomatic, i.e., wear a mask.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Federal law, signed in 1970 by President Nixon, prohibits TV ads for cigarettes with nicotine. My guess is the cigarette companies didn't mind at all, it saved them tons of money they would have had to spend to keep pace with the competition.

[irv]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Nice deflection Dale. You didn't read the article and cut and pasted an excerpt thinking it supported your point of view. Instead of admitting it, you pivot to your favorite tactic, the straw man. Where did I ever say I took Dr. Gorski as gospel? My point was that the article doesn't support your point of view.

And funny how when you thought Dr. Gorski was supporting your point of view YOU had no issue quoting him despite that he was a breast cancer surgeon. LOL. In fact, you were quoting Joseph Mercola, an extremely controversial alternative medicine osteopath who makes a fortune selling supplements.

You're right, Pete. I did exactly that. I was in a hurry/busy today and clearly should have first before posting.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by irv

You're right, Pete. I did exactly that. I was in a hurry/busy today and clearly should have first before posting.

You should read that site more often my friend, it will set you straight on science!!

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Federal law, signed in 1970 by President Nixon, prohibits TV ads for cigarettes with nicotine. My guess is the cigarette companies didn't mind at all, it saved them tons of money they would have had to spend to keep pace with the competition.

1970?!? That long ago? I was thinking it was late '70s. What about in magazines? I can't say that I recall seeing cigarette ads in magazines in a while either. Were they banned as well or am I just not looking at the "right" magazines?

[Republicaninmass]

Hand hygiene, who would have thought? I mean in 1918 they didnt understand that, but here in modern times, I guess we needed a wake up call

[G1911]

.

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by G1911

1 - I will just accept your version as if it is undoubtedly true. Still, what risk is there to vaccinated people? Everyone who wants a vaccine and has embraced the fear narrative, has one in the United States. The small chance their vaccine doesn't work (unless you believe it's a big chance, in which case it's a pretty pointless vaccine) x the small chance I am infected and contagious x the small chance that someone will suffer severe consequences = a real and present danger to you? Once again, recurring theme here, people are worrying about statistical possibilities that are absolutely tiny. How do you live life taking action against any risk of this tiny, tiny, tiny odds? There's limited value in repeating these circles, many in this thread are scared of very unlikely events (even using the statistics and figures from the pro-fear faction without any critical analysis but simply taking them at straight face value), I and others are not. You may do as you see fit, I get to do as I see fit. Ain't freedom beautiful?

The point of my initial response was to show that your claim, “New science to replace the old science happened after the narrative switch, not before,” is not correct. Period.

Yet, you deflect and make more false claims. “Embraced the fear narrative.” Really? You don’t think people are capable of getting the vaccine without embracing the fear narrative? “(M)any in this thread are scared of very unlikely events (even using the statistics and figures from the pro-fear faction without any critical analysis but simply taking them at straight face value)?” Again, those in favor of the vaccine are in favor because they’re “scared?” We came to our conclusion “without any critical analysis?” And you know this how, exactly? Is it your Aristotelian thinking that enables you to make these judgements?

But, tell you what. I’ll allow you to deflect and I’ll discuss why I got the vaccine. There are two reasons that come readily to mind.

Reason 1. My wife and my father. Even though I’m 67, I’m in good health with no health issues. I’m not concerned about myself. My wife is a couple of years older than me, has asthma and high blood pressure. I got the shots for her. My dad is 91. Is three years removed from bladder cancer. Has high blood pressure and had a stroke 1-1/2 years ago. I got the shots for him.

Reason 2. To help stop mutations. As the virus continues to spread, it continues to mutate. As it continues to mutate, it increases the chances of it becoming even more deadly and more resistant to the vaccine. You may call that “the fear narrative,” I call it a potential reality. The sooner we can stop it, the better.

Originally Posted by G1911

2- I'll again just assume you are 100% unconditionally correct, I don't feel like digging through the scholarship to find counter examples. Unless you are alleging that scientific consensus has never been wrong (a difficult position to take as it is constantly shifting), it makes absolutely no difference to what I am saying, it just removes the symmetry of a rhetorical example used.

The point of my initial response was to show that your claim that people were told to fear a coming ice age did not apply to the scientists. Period.

But again, you deflect and ponder if I’m alleging scientific consensus has never been wrong. How in the world could that possibly follow from what I wrote?

I agree with you regarding the potential use of fear mongering to sell a particular point. It has been done many times and will probably continue to be practiced because it is so successful. However, I don’t agree that Climate Change is one of them. I happen to believe that man’s actions are causing the climate to change. Instead, I would use some of the following as examples of fear mongering: (a) an invading migrant horde attacking us from the south, (b) buy all the guns you can now because elected officials are coming after your guns, (c) voting for X is voting for socialism. Those appear to be very popular “fear narratives,” especially during election cycles.

Originally Posted by G1911

3 - I don't 'consider' that censorship. It's not an opinion. The state telling a person or group what they cannot say, or that they cannot say it in certain settings is, definitionally, censorship. You seem to think censorship is a good thing. That's fine. I do not. I am against the censorship of speech. No if's, no and's, no but's. I don't support free speech only when I agree with the speaker. People say things that are factually incorrect or I think are stupid and even dangerous all the time. I do not think I, you, or the state should be able to remove the ability of others to agree or disagree, no matter what.

The point of my initial response was to provide an example counter to your claim, “I have never in my life seen such censorship as there is of anything even questioning the narrative of Covid.” Basically, we agree, it is censorship. Yet even though we’ve had 50 years of cigarette ads being censored from reaching the public via TV, you don’t think that’s as bad as a few months of censoring false information from some social sites? Interesting.

“You seem to think censorship is a good thing.” I do in some limited instances. It depends upon the circumstances, primarily if lives are in danger.

Originally Posted by G1911

I hate smoking. I think it's stupid. I think people who make their living selling cancer sticks to addicts (who are in the end 100% responsible for their addiction and actions) are scum. I watched my grandfather die slowly of smoking-induced lung cancer. I have never touched a cigarette in my life. I do collect T cards. But my thoughts are merely my thoughts, and I am not so vain or self-important as to think that my thoughts should be the only thoughts allowed in the public sphere. My natural-born right to speech is the same natural-born right to speech that an executive for a cigarette company has.

Wow, anyone who agrees with the decision to restrict false information from social media is “vain or self-important.”

Anyone who agrees with the decision that people should be censored from screaming “FIRE!!” in a darkened theater is “vain or self-important.”

Anyone who agrees that during wartime, certain information should be censored to keep it out of the enemy’s hands is “vain or self-important.”

Anyone who agrees that cigarettes should not be peddled to people, including kids, on TV is “vain or self-important.”

Originally Posted by G1911

One example for you is the censorship and banning by big tech of anyone who endorsed the theory that the virus escaped from a Chinese lab. Censorship that was ended within a day of Fauci changing his mind and saying it is quite possible, as the government now seems to be shifting to support of this theory the last couple weeks. Yesterdays dangerous misinformation, so dangerous it must be censored from the public sphere, is today's plausible and state-allowed, possibly endorsed, theory.

As I said earlier, I’m not on social media so I don’t know everything that was censored. I’ll accept your premise that people who only claimed the virus escaped from a Chinese lab were censored. I’ll also accept your premise that that particular censorship ended the day after Fauci changed his mind. I do not think that the claim that the virus escaped from a Chinese lab kept/is keeping people from getting the vaccine. Therefore, I don’t think that particular piece of information/misinformation (whatever it turns out to be) should have been censored.

Originally Posted by G1911

If you want the state and big corporations to censor whatever they consider misinformation, that view is your right. I think it is a terrible idea, a threat to freedom and the foundational values of the Republic, but I believe in free speech, no matter how much I disagree. The natural born right to say what you think protects even those who are against free speech itself. I'm sure that censorship of opposing ideas will only be used justly by the state and big tech, being the shining beacons of morality, fairness, and factual accuracy that they are.

Again, you’re making gross assumptions in order to conjure up a strawman argument. I never said I “want the state and big corporations to censor whatever they consider misinformation.” Taking one single example and generalizing it to an all-encompassing view is cheap and lazy. Your arguments against something I never said are a complete waste of time.

Originally Posted by G1911

4 - No. I will not wear a virtue signal because I am declining to be a test subject for an experimental vaccine. I do not have a duty to ignore my own thoughts and to replace them with yours. I do not have a duty to muzzle myself because you are scared of a statistically minuscule risk. I am not going to stay 6 feet away from my friends, wear a face shield or mask, or change my life in any way whatsoever over a tiny, tiny, tiny risk no greater than numerous risks all of us have ignored in our lives until now. This conversation was already had a couple weeks ago, and actually led to a pretty good open debate. My views are unchanged since then, I see limited possible value in doing it again with the exact same talking points on each side.

Even though you see limited possible value in continuing the discussion, I see none. Trying to have a discussion with someone who takes pride in attacking strawmen is not beneficial to anyone. But, before I take my vain, self-important, scared, non-critical thinking self and walk away from this discussion with you, let me leave you with this.

In your mind, you envision a better country, better than what we have now. And in that country kids wake up on Saturday mornings to watch cartoons filled with commercials from cigarette companies extolling the virtues of smoking – smoking makes you better looking, it makes you smarter, it makes you live longer, it makes you stronger, etc. Because to do otherwise, is “a threat to freedom and the foundational values of the Republic.”

Now if you’ll excuse me, I need to get these damn keys off my forehead.

[G1911]

.

[bnorth]

I got the 6 month booster shot today.

[Seven]

Originally Posted by bnorth

I got the 6 month booster shot today.

Hope things go well, I've heard of a few people getting some minor aches and pains afterwards but nothing too bad.

I actually came down with Covid, myself, despite being fully vaccinated. Knocked me on my ass for two weeks. Had the full range of symptoms. Thankfully everything came back, including smell and taste. Have some general fatigue, still, but it will eventually clear itself up, according to my doctor.

I'll be scheduling mine in a few months. I have a feeling this will turn into the new flu shot.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Seven

Hope things go well, I've heard of a few people getting some minor aches and pains afterwards but nothing too bad.

I actually came down with Covid, myself, despite being fully vaccinated. Knocked me on my ass for two weeks. Had the full range of symptoms. Thankfully everything came back, including smell and taste. Have some general fatigue, still, but it will eventually clear itself up, according to my doctor.

I'll be scheduling mine in a few months. I have a feeling this will turn into the new flu shot.

I felt tired/achy after the second shot the next day, so did the wife. She felt fine after her booster the next day.

I hope your fatigue goes away. My younger brother got it right away and still has fatigue and achy joints over a year later.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Oh no. Not the whole debate again.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Oh no. Not the whole debate again.

I hope not but it was as fun to read.

[Seven]

Originally Posted by bnorth

I felt tired/achy after the second shot the next day, so did the wife. She felt fine after her booster the next day.

I hope your fatigue goes away. My younger brother got it right away and still has fatigue and achy joints over a year later.

Thankfully the fatigue issue has seem to gotten much better. On the whole I was very thankful that even though I got it, I did not spread it to anyone. There was a small window where I saw my parents and a few close friends where I could've given it to them. Especially my parents because they are older. If this fatigue was the worst of it, well that's okay in my book. Everyone else in my life has remained healthy, that's all that matters to me. I've been able to take longer walks again. Did a couple of miles earlier today, and I felt okay. Little by little it'll get better, thank you for the kind words.

Glad to hear you and the wife, feel okay. Hope you have a wonderful Thanksgiving.

[Pjere]

Not if I can help it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[irv]

Still no vaccines for me and not a chance in hell in the near future either.

I have no idea what any of your guys States numbers are but up here we are now seeing more cases in the fully vaxxed than we are in the unvaxxed.

Our Province is now over 86% fully vaxxed and our numbers are going up each and everyday.

Tremendous vaccines!

https://www.durhamradionews.com/archives/147696

Makes zero sense to me but I'm sure there are plenty of spins on it to explain it all.

[G1911]

.

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by G1911

We agree now, on this point!

Left, right, and centrist!

[Seven]

Originally Posted by irv

Still no vaccines for me and not a chance in hell in the near future either.

I have no idea what any of your guys States numbers are but up here we are now seeing more cases in the fully vaxxed than we are in the unvaxxed.

Our Province is now over 86% fully vaxxed and our numbers are going up each and everyday.

Tremendous vaccines!

https://www.durhamradionews.com/archives/147696

Makes zero sense to me but I'm sure there are plenty of spins on it to explain it all.

Totally understandable. I'm sorry to hear your numbers are climbing, it's unfortunate. While I can't speak for the other states, life here in NY seems to be progressing back to normal. I've been in packed bars, concert venues, restaurants and schools. Gotta do what's best for you in your situation.

[ibuysportsephemera]

-49 year old woman, perfectly healthy (purchased our house in May), only member of the family (husband, 18 year old and a 12 and 10 year old) not to be vaccinated, 3 weeks on vent, wasn't able to say goodbye to family and died.
-mid 40's member of this forum, perfectly healthy, long hauler with as he puts it "covid fog" and other problems. This is at least 8 months later.
-local plumber, mid 40's, overweight, has done work for me in the past, anti vax and mask on his facebook page, going on 3 weeks on a vent, dire condition.
-a good friends brother in law who I am also friendly with, late 50's, also anti vax, multiple weeks in the hospital, came home for a week and is now back in the hospital with organ failure. Really good guy who is questioning why he didn't get the vaccine everytime I check in on him.

Just some examples of people that I actually know....not anecdotal stories from strangers. Believe what you want...hopefully I won't add you to my list.

Jeff

[irv]

Originally Posted by ibuysportsephemera

-49 year old woman, perfectly healthy (purchased our house in May), only member of the family (husband, 18 year old and a 12 and 10 year old) not to be vaccinated, 3 weeks on vent, wasn't able to say goodbye to family and died.
-mid 40's member of this forum, perfectly healthy, long hauler with as he puts it "covid fog" and other problems. This is at least 8 months later.
-local plumber, mid 40's, overweight, has done work for me in the past, anti vax and mask on his facebook page, going on 3 weeks on a vent, dire condition.
-a good friends brother in law who I am also friendly with, late 50's, also anti vax, multiple weeks in the hospital, came home for a week and is now back in the hospital with organ failure. Really good guy who is questioning why he didn't get the vaccine everytime I check in on him.

Just some examples of people that I actually know....not anecdotal stories from strangers. Believe what you want...hopefully I won't add you to my list.

Jeff

And just as many stories about perfectly healthy people getting the vax then being hospitalized and some dying due to blood clots and other now known side affects.

I laugh at the "anti-vax" label that is placed on people like me. I know many, like myself, who have had every vax required to date but since we don't agree with this first time ever used, rushed through, with no long term side affect studies, experimental vaccine, we are labelled anit-vaxxers.

If it weren't for the gov't overreach, the extreme push from the gov't to get these vaccines, the back and forth, the flip flopping, the lies, the censorship, the incentives and everything else questionable, imo, that should throw up a red flag to many, way more would be vaccinated than what there currently are.

In my opinion, the whole thing reeks and has since the very beginning.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by irv

And just as many stories about perfectly healthy people getting the vax then being hospitalized and some dying due to blood clots and other now known side affects.

I laugh at the "anti-vax" label that is placed on people like me. I know many, like myself, who have had every vax required to date but since we don't agree with this first time ever used, rushed through, with no long term side affect studies, experimental vaccine, we are labelled anit-vaxxers.

If it weren't for the gov't overreach, the extreme push from the gov't to get these vaccines, the back and forth, the flip flopping, the lies, the censorship, the incentives and everything else questionable, imo, that should throw up a red flag to many, way more would be vaccinated than what there currently are.

In my opinion, the whole thing reeks and has since the very beginning.

I would rate discussing Covid the same as talking politics, religion, or having some crazy loser that won't shut up telling you how bigfoot is real. Still way better than another PWCC thread or the best lefty thread.

[irv]

Originally Posted by bnorth

I would rate discussing Covid the same as talking politics, religion, or having some crazy loser that won't shut up telling you how bigfoot is real. Still way better than another PWCC thread or the best lefty thread.

I hear ya, Ben. There is no winning no matter what each side presents. Nothing but an exercise in futility. Which, based on what has already been covered/talked about in this thread, I'll likely exit from it from here on out.

Hope all is well.

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by bnorth

I would rate discussing Covid the same as talking politics, religion, or having some crazy loser that won't shut up telling you how bigfoot is real. Still way better than another PWCC thread or the best lefty thread.

Bigfoot is real. What section is the Bigfoot thread in?

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

Bigfoot is real. What section is the Bigfoot thread in?

Goldin soon to auction authentic hair with his barbers Provenance via NFT