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

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

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?

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan

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.

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

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan

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?

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

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?

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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?

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?

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

[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]

.

[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.

[G1911]

.

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

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




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.

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?

[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.

[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.

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

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




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.

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!!

[Peter_Spaeth]

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.

[irv]

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan

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!!

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.

[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!"

[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.