The Covid Jab Jive: a gentle reminder

Daylight63 said:
This is the blessing and the curse of the internet.

A LOT of great information for the educated diluted with a FUCKTON more disinformation leads to people whose only qualification for interpreting the science is the ability to hit keys on a keyboard.

As a scientist it is hard to see people bluster so loudly on topics that CLEARLY they don't understand. The real danger are those people who are NOT scientifically literate thinking the moron who does his own research is ONTO SOMETHING. ANd they don't have the tools to be able to tell shit from shinola.
Click to expand...
Ahh but let us remember that critical thinking/analysis coupled with honest, objective research can and does make the lay person knowledgeable enough to make definitive statements and decisions. This is the problem, as the internet is indeed a blessing and a curse in disseminating information. And let's face it, not all of us have a good dose of "common sense" or are free of intellectual bias .... and that INCLUDES scientist. Just saying.
 
Last edited:
Taichiliberal said:
Ahh but let us remember that critical thinking/analysis coupled with honest, objective research can and does make the lay person knowledgeable enough to make definitive statements and decisions.
Click to expand...

TO AN EXTENT. Yes, people can become informed through their "own research". But it only goes so far. When people start finding out that their research has led them to somehow disagree with the vast majority of the earth's professional experts on a topic, then they should think twice about passing it on or even accepting it for themselves.

Taichiliberal said:
This is the problem, as the internet is indeed a blessing and a curse in disseminating information. And let's face it, not all of us have a good dose of "common sense" or are free of intellectual bias .... and that INCLUDES scientist. Just saying.
Click to expand...

Scientists are going to be more capable of parsing a few important things that the layperson doesn't. We have spent years working with legitimate information resources in the peer reviewed literature. We are trained that if you are looking for shinola, don't go digging around in the toilet.

Also scientists are trained to understand how data is processed and what it means when scientists talk about that data. Scientists understand the provisional nature of a lot of knowledge. They understand the subtlety far better than those without training in the area.

I am reminded of one of my favorite quotes from a patent law case in which the question was put before the court whether interpreting patent claims could be done by a JURY (regular folks) or a trained legal professional.

"The construction of written instruments is one of those things that judges often do and are likely to do better than jurors unburdened by training in exegesis."

"Unburdened by training in exegesis". That's what most people are when trying to do on-line scientific research.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
I was 65 during the COVID pandemic and have all the COVID vaxxes along with all other recommended vaccinations.

I recommend all stupid people to avoid all vaccinations. The world needs smarter people.
Click to expand...
cheers-dwight-the-general-manfredi.gif
 
NiftyNiblick said:
I'm getting my seventh one this month, along with my flu shot.

The first six didn't hurt,
I've never had Covid,
and even if the seventh one does me in,
I've been around for nearly eight decades already.

I'm beyond the third act and into the epilogue anyway.

I trust medical science more than conspiracy theories,
because the fact that I'm still around,
longer than either of my parents were,
is all the evidence I need to justify that trust.

I haven't exactly lived my life as though I was trying to last this long.
I've done it all through the magic of chemistry.
Click to expand...
so boomer.
 
Daylight63 said:
TO AN EXTENT. Yes, people can become informed through their "own research". But it only goes so far. When people start finding out that their research has led them to somehow disagree with the vast majority of the earth's professional experts on a topic, then they should think twice about passing it on or even accepting it for themselves.



Scientists are going to be more capable of parsing a few important things that the layperson doesn't. We have spent years working with legitimate information resources in the peer reviewed literature. We are trained that if you are looking for shinola, don't go digging around in the toilet.

Also scientists are trained to understand how data is processed and what it means when scientists talk about that data. Scientists understand the provisional nature of a lot of knowledge. They understand the subtlety far better than those without training in the area.

I am reminded of one of my favorite quotes from a patent law case in which the question was put before the court whether interpreting patent claims could be done by a JURY (regular folks) or a trained legal professional.

"The construction of written instruments is one of those things that judges often do and are likely to do better than jurors unburdened by training in exegesis."

"Unburdened by training in exegesis". That's what most people are when trying to do on-line scientific research.
Click to expand...
And yet:


1. A medical practice that is about a 1,000 years old is wholly based and functions on spirituality ... and it works cures and treatments that current European/Western medical science cannot duplicate or adequately explain. It's called acupuncture.

2. Essentially, YOU have "faith" in the scientific method, which creates a near fanatical attitude of dismissal of any other explanations of how things work in life (see #1).

3. Human observation is the basis for all medical and scientific endeavors. Remember, the scientific method was convinced that the coelacanth had ceased to exist over 60 million years DESPITE local fishermen in South Africa knowing better. Despite wild exaggerations, the "chupa cabra" exists in spite of various local reports (less crazy) and actual corpses being found by "civilians". No, the damned things practically had to be on national TV before the "scientific community" acknowledged it's existence.

4. About 35 years ago, a hard working congressman finally got a law passed that forced the FDA to mandate that any new drug prescriptions must contain a pamphlet that describes (in layman and clinical terms) what the drug is, what it's supposed to do and its side effects. Also, a caveat stating, "your physician has determined that the benefits of this drug outweigh the potential negative side effects". The patient/family members make the final decision.

5. The medical science community okayed vytorin about 30 years ago. Look that one up and you'll see my point.
 
Taichiliberal said:
2. Essentially, YOU have "faith" in the scientific method, which creates a near fanatical attitude of dismissal of any other explanations of how things work in life (see #1).
Click to expand...

That is true to an extent. I've seen the scientific method produce FAR better outcomes than faith-based methods. In health, in explaining the world, in pretty much everything.

If I am acting in "faith" (and in a real sense ALL of us on here are doing so, since none of us have the requisite training or knowledge in this area) I'm feeling FAR MORE CONFIDENT in placing my "faith" in that which has repeatedly demonstrated its utility to finding truth.

Taichiliberal said:
3. Human observation is the basis for all medical and scientific endeavors. Remember, the scientific method was convinced that the coelacanth had ceased to exist over 60 million years DESPITE local fishermen in South Africa knowing better. Despite wild exaggerations, the "chupa cabra" exists in spite of various local reports (less crazy) and actual corpses being found by "civilians". No, the damned things practically had to be on national TV before the "scientific community" acknowledged it's existence.
Click to expand...

Huh? Are you saying chupacabras are real?

Taichiliberal said:
4. About 35 years ago, a hard working congressman finally got a law passed that forced the FDA to mandate that any new drug prescriptions must contain a pamphlet that describes (in layman and clinical terms) what the drug is, what it's supposed to do and its side effects. Also, a caveat stating, "your physician has determined that the benefits of this drug outweigh the potential negative side effects". The patient/family members make the final decision.
Click to expand...

So? What on earth does that have to do with the concept that science works?

Taichiliberal said:
5. The medical science community okayed vytorin about 30 years ago. Look that one up and you'll see my point.
Click to expand...

I'm looking at stuff related to Vytorin now. All I see is the standard types of possible negative interactions. All meds have something about them. Not sure why this one has you so animated? Is it the danger of liver damage? That's not uncommon in MANY drugs since the liver tends to be the first point where drugs get integrated into the body's systems.
 
Daylight63 said:
That is true to an extent. I've seen the scientific method produce FAR better outcomes than faith-based methods. In health, in explaining the world, in pretty much everything.

If I am acting in "faith" (and in a real sense ALL of us on here are doing so, since none of us have the requisite training or knowledge in this area) I'm feeling FAR MORE CONFIDENT in placing my "faith" in that which has repeatedly demonstrated its utility to finding truth.



Huh? Are you saying chupacabras are real?



So? What on earth does that have to do with the concept that science works?



I'm looking at stuff related to Vytorin now. All I see is the standard types of possible negative interactions. All meds have something about them. Not sure why this one has you so animated? Is it the danger of liver damage? That's not uncommon in MANY drugs since the liver tends to be the first point where drugs get integrated into the body's systems.
Click to expand...
1. What you "see" and what actually transpires beyond your scope are two wholly different things. Essentially, you're just regurgitating what was initially established in your first exchange ... you somewhat pious attitude notwithstanding. There is no "if" in your admitted devoted belief to the religion that no explanation is sound other than that proved through the scientific method. Let's see you handle my addressing your stance. Also, it's very telling how you totally ignored my valid point with regards to acupuncture and your "scientific methodology".

2. Let me get you up to speed: www.texasstandard.org/stories/cuero-texas-chupacabra-ranch-cryptid-sightings/

As I previously said, putting the wild monstrous exaggerations aside, scientific methodology said these creatures don't exist on any level and people were just mistaken, etc. I noticed you ignored my point about coelacanth. Hell, every so often species that scientific methodology KNEW were extinct pop up .. of course with the history of native folk reporting such being brushed away as "folk lore".

3. I'll elaborate: prior to the law, the medical community just blindly relied on (and still does) the scientific methodology of the pharmaceutical companies to produce safe and effective drugs ... with the local doctors determining who should get them and at what dosage. The PATIENTS were effectively left out of the decision making process of prescription. YOU previously asserted/implied that the lay person was ill equipped to make such decisions, and that the internet was too full of bad/misleading information to make a sound decision on such matters. THAT IS NOT TOTALLY TRUE. Since that ruling decades ago (with a healthy assist by the CPA), you had TV commercials telling people that it was their right to get second opinions on various serious operations. Also, they can decide if the listed side effects and risks are worth it, and can seek other methods or procedures. So far, that's been working out pretty well for the general public.

4. :rolleyes: Jeezus, you don't even know what went on past your own birthday, yet you blather on as if you're informed enough to debate the issue? Here, for your education:

www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/doctors-vytorin-cancer-link-can-t-be-ruled-out-flna1c9459963

time.com

Is Vytorin a Failure?

After nearly two years of waiting, the results came out on Monday on the long-awaited heart drug Vytorin — and the news wasn't good. Vytorin's...
time.com time.com

www.forbes.com/2008/03/30/schering-vytorin-merck-biz-cx_mh_0330vytorinearly.html

www.citizen.org/news/drug-companies-fda-lagged-in-warning-public-about-zetia-vytorin/

Vytorin was not completely taken off the market, but its marketing was significantly impacted due to a controversy surrounding studies that showed it did not provide any additional benefit in reducing cardiovascular risk compared to its statin component (simvastatin) alone, leading the FDA to refuse to approve claims that Vytorin could reduce the risk of heart attacks and strokes beyond what simvastatin could achieve on its own; this resulted in a significant decrease in its usage by doctors and patients.

Key points about the Vytorin controversy:
  • Questionable efficacy:
    Studies, particularly the ENHANCE trial, raised concerns about whether adding ezetimibe (the other active ingredient in Vytorin) to simvastatin provided any significant extra benefit in reducing plaque buildup in arteries compared to simvastatin alone.

  • Delayed study results:
    There were accusations that the drug companies involved (mainly Merck) delayed releasing negative results from the ENHANCE trial, further fueling the controversy.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Yeah, because all those folks that are dead or injured (and each year the list grows) shouldn't interfere in the shareholders and company porfolios profit margin. :cautious:
Click to expand...
This might be part depopulation plan, and/or part slave training....there is a good argument that the goal was jab passports and then digital currency and 15 minute slums.

It most certainly was not just about money.

This is about UTOPIA.
 
ZenMode said:
I'm talking about legit info, not conspiracy theory nonsense.....which is what exists in this thread.
Click to expand...
You're full of it, because NONE of the information I linked is "conspiracy" as they relay FACTS from valid, peer reviewed sources. Beyond your blather and myopic parroting, you can't logically prove otherwise.

Case in point: Dr. Peter McCullough is an internationally recognized and respected internist, cardiologist, epidemiologist. But the second he stepped off the Covid vaccine train, he gets sandbagged and slandered.

Much like Dr. Peter Deussberg, internationally recognized and respected molecular biologist & noted professor of molecular and cell biology. He co-founded the HIV virus, but got demonized and sandbagged and slandered the second he pointe out that HIV does NOT equal AIDS.

The same would have bee done to Dr. Kary Mullis, the Nobel Prize winning biochemist who invented the PCR technique for identifying various DNA strands. He stated for YEARS before his death that his technique was NOT diagnostic....but that didn't stop jokers like Fauci from saying different and implementing the PCR to diagnose AID and now Covid.

No, my friend....YOU like many others like you let fear dictate your cognitive reasoning, thus putting your critical analysis skills on hold. That is why you remain willfully ignorant of any information contrary to what you want to believe.
 
Taichiliberal said:
You're full of it, because NONE of the information I linked is "conspiracy" as they relay FACTS from valid, peer reviewed sources. Beyond your blather and myopic parroting, you can't logically prove otherwise.

Case in point: Dr. Peter McCullough is an internationally recognized and respected internist, cardiologist, epidemiologist. But the second he stepped off the Covid vaccine train, he gets sandbagged and slandered.

Much like Dr. Peter Deussberg, internationally recognized and respected molecular biologist & noted professor of molecular and cell biology. He co-founded the HIV virus, but got demonized and sandbagged and slandered the second he pointe out that HIV does NOT equal AIDS.

The same would have bee done to Dr. Kary Mullis, the Nobel Prize winning biochemist who invented the PCR technique for identifying various DNA strands. He stated for YEARS before his death that his technique was NOT diagnostic....but that didn't stop jokers like Fauci from saying different and implementing the PCR to diagnose AID and now Covid.

No, my friend....YOU like many others like you let fear dictate your cognitive reasoning, thus putting your critical analysis skills on hold. That is why you remain willfully ignorant of any information contrary to what you want to believe.
Click to expand...
I was talking specifically about the claims of the people dying from the vaccine.

Myocarditis and pericarditis were known side effects of the vaccine very early on, something I mentioned here and was reported by the CDC. However, myocarditis and pericarditis happen less often from the vaccine than they occur if you actually get Covid. They are less severe from the vaccine than actually getting Covid.

In other words, there's no scandal or secrets here as it relates to side effects. Just more unsupported claims of people dying from the covid vaccine.
 
Last edited:
ZenMode said:
I was talking specifically about the claims of the people dying from the vaccine.

Myocarditis and pericarditis were known side effects of the vaccine very early on, something I mentioned here and was reported by the CDC. However, myocarditis and pericarditis happen less often from the vaccine than they occur if you actually get Covid. They are less severe from the vaccine than actually getting Covid.

In other words, there's no scandal or secrets here as it relates to side effects. Just more unsupported claims of people dying from the covid vaccine.
Click to expand...
Fiction.
 
There are many ways to know, the top two being:

1: Myocarditis hospitalization rates were down in 2020 from previous years....there was no surge....COVID was not a problem.

2: Spike protein has never been found in the heart tissue of a non jabbed autopsy....it is only in the jabbed....it is the immune system attacking the heart because it is making spike protein that is the problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top