Why do you need to be an “authority” to talk about what you saw with your own eyes on a search engine?
That's what I'm referring to.
He pushes ivermectin as a valid alternative to the vaccines when the data does not currently back that up.
That being against mandating these emergency experimental COVID-19 vaccines for all individuals is being conflated as being an "anti-vaxxer" shows how much propaganda has caused some people to lose all rationality on this topic.
> That being against mandating these emergency experimental COVID-19 vaccines
They are not "experimental" by the way, THAT is propaganda/misinformation.
It is clear
> emergency experimental COVID-19 vaccines
They're not "experimental" and the emergency approval process is still extensive.
https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/vaccines/emerge...
> What is the process that manufacturers are following to potentially make a COVID-19 vaccine available by EUA?
> Vaccine manufacturers are undertaking a development process that includes tens of thousands of study participants to generate non-clinical, clinical, and manufacturing information needed by FDA for the agency to determine whether the known and potential benefits outweigh the known and potential risks of a vaccine for the prevention of COVID-19.
> When the phase 3 portion of the human clinical trial reaches a predetermined point that informs how well a vaccine prevents COVID-19, as discussed and agreed to in advance with FDA, an independent group (called a data safety monitoring board) will review the data and inform the manufacturer of the results. Based on the data and the interpretation of the data by this group, manufacturers decide whether and when to submit an EUA request to FDA, taking into consideration input from FDA.
> After FDA receives an EUA request, our career scientists and physicians will evaluate all of the information included in the manufacturer’s submission.
> While FDA’s evaluation is ongoing, we will also schedule a public meeting of our Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, which is made up of external scientific and public health experts from throughout the country. During the meeting, these experts, who are carefully screened for any potential conflicts of interest, will discuss the safety and effectiveness data so that the public and scientific community will have a clear understanding of the data and information that FDA is evaluating to make a decision whether to authorize a COVID-19 vaccine for emergency use. > Following the advisory committee meeting, FDA’s career professional staff will consider the input of the advisory committee members and continue their evaluation of the submission to determine whether the available safety and effectiveness and manufacturing data support an emergency use authorization of the specific COVID-19 vaccine in the United States.
Hmmmm, who to trust...a so-so actor from a 90's sitcom, or hundreds of scientists
His core audience are conspiracy theorists from his early days, which has a very big overlap with full on anti-vaxers.
It wouldn't surprise me if he still believed the moon landings were faked, he just realises you don't get million plus listens and a Spotify deal making that sort of thing public.
I'm baffled by this comment and how that alone isn't concerning to you. All the experts say the vaccine is safe and effective, and yet we have people listening to Joe Rogan on the topic.
Joe Rogan also claimed to have taken ivermectin and experimental antibodies and yet seems to claim that ivermectin is what did the trick. I don't know what his motivations are but he's clearly confused/misinformed.
edit: to clarify, I'm not defending CNN in this instance at all. Both cases of information are terrible.
He’s said repeatedly that he doesn’t see the point of young fit and healthy people getting the Covid “vaccine”. And especially not for kids. If you are old or have medical conditions or obese, then it might help you. The current shots are merely a potential severe symptom mitigator.
Being opposed to a non-long term tested, short lasting, unaccountable shot which doesn’t even prevent catching and transmission of the virus doesn’t make someone anti-vax. Also opposing mandates of such a "vaccine" doesn't make someone "anti-vax".
This is very specific to the Covid “vaccine”, not for other typical vaccines like polio, measles etc which are long term tested for over 70 years (smallpox for 2 centuries) and are also super effective at preventing catching and transmitting the virus.
The current Covid shots don’t even fit the definition of a vaccine as they don’t prevent catching and transmission of the virus in any meaningful way. And even mild and asymptomatic cases have the same viral load as the unvaccinated which basically creates the problem of “silent spreaders”.
The definition of a "vaccine" is supposed to be: "The term “vaccine” means any substance designed to be administered to a human being for the prevention of 1 or more diseases."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/4132#a_2
The Canadian definition is: "When you're vaccinated, you build immunity (ability to resist infection). This protects you from getting the disease and prevents you from spreading it to others. Some vaccines protect you for several years and some protect you for the rest of your life."
When something isn't preventing the disease, nor effective after 3-6 months, how can it be considered a "vaccine"? And how can one mandate it?
As for “safe and effective”, that’s just become a false marketing term. How can you say that when 10 months after pushing the shots, they are discovering new rising side effects and Sweden, Iceland, Denmark are banning Moderna and Canada is not allowing it for under 24 year olds? Or 6 months later, they are restricting AstraZeneca and Johnson and Johnson? How can something be considered “safe” in this case? When something hasn’t been long term tested, how can you trust the “experts” for it being safe? And since they wane off in 3-6 months, how are they “effective”?
> claimed to have taken ivermectin and experimental antibodies
He took what his doctor prescribed him. He specifically said that both the monoclonal antibodies and maybe ivermectin too could have helped him. He didn’t say only ivermectin helped him. He also said that him being fit and healthy must have helped him, something most people don't even talk about.
Just a few years ago, same people pushing the Covid “vaccine” used to say that drugs shouldn’t be rushed and fda can’t be trusted because one-third of the drugs approved by the FDA and (by inference) Health Canada from 2001 through 2010 had major safety issues years after the medications were made widely available to patients. This was more common for those given "accelerated approval". Follow-up period was 11.7 years and it took 4.2 years after the drugs were approved for these safety concerns to come to light. Given longer lifespans for youth, there is a potential for harm. So, it is perfectly valid for youth to be concerned about the lack of long-term safety data for the COVID-19 vaccines. Lack of this data makes informed consent impossible.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/26253...
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/05/09/5275750...
https://www.cnn.com/2017/05/09/health/fda-approval-drug-even...
In the UK for example, the rate of cases is now higher in the fully vaccinated group in anyone over 29 age group. The 18-29 group will also soon be higher in fully vaccinated as the vaccine wanes off in 3-6 months. Yet everyone's blaming the unvaccinated instead of the ineffective "vaccine". Page 13 table:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
Please observe the nuances.
No, it's absolutely different thing. One is derogative racial slur, carrying a baggage of slavery, violence, rapes, and systemic injustice that's present in the society to this day; and the other one is a description of people who choose to ignore science and are willing to risk life of others basing on their anecdotal evidence.
> who choose to ignore science and are willing to risk life of others basing on their anecdotal evidence
You clearly did not read the rest of my comment other than the first line which you also read incorrectly. And I didn't mention a single anecdotal thing in my comment so not sure what that's all about. So it seems like you are commenting for a specific agenda.
If you feel the need to obfuscate one word, and don't feel the need to obfuscate the other, it's obviously clear which one is worse.
But I wouldn't waste much more time replying to this person, because they were recently asking HN for advice on how to use software to write a lawsuit they're self-litigating. Fifty bucks says it's some "MUH FREEDUHM" anti-mask/vaccine requirement lawsuit.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28440576
You're not changing their mind on something like this.
Also if you read that post you dug up carefully, I wasn't asking for "how to use software to write a lawsuit". I was asking what alternatives to Google Docs and Word do lawyers use. Those are 2 very different things.
And you are agreeing with the person who clearly incorrectly thought of the wrong word even though I said "4 letter word". So you are okay with misinformation for your agenda. Nuance and facts are clearly not an expertise as you missed in my original comment.
Ask the GGP commenter? Why name drop if only the observation is important?