[flagged]
https://gist.github.com/stefantalpalaru/b630413da6889c79f795...
Moreover, the majority of those are from 2021. How could decisions made about vaccines in early/mid 2020 even consider taking this information into account during the peak of the pandemic?
It's like complaining that C wasn't designed with borrow detection and that therefore Dennis Ritchie was just trying to cash in with the CIA for introducing security holes for the next 50 years, after all look at all the money Bell was making.
Obviously because it doesn't fit the narrative. I will say it again, if you are still refusing to accept what is happening, you are most likely in the Denial stage. https://web.archive.org/web/20230327020816/https://www.washi... sprinkled with a side of https://thedecisionlab.com/biases/the-sunk-cost-fallacy
The worst part is, in my life I have never more wanted to be wrong, because the cost of being right is so high. The irony that I was involved in promoting awareness of this way back before anyone cared is not lost on me.
Is it so hard to believe that a company with an incredibly large financial incentive to lie, did so? Is it so difficult to believe that these same companies use propaganda to shape discourse online?
The same companies that are happy to promote the body positivity movement resulting in lifelong insulin dependency, yet somehow you refuse to believe that they would try to cash in on a global scale?
This level of discussion isn't constructive. (I was asleep, FYI, not everybody is in west coast US).
The studies listed for the most part all came out after COVID was basically gone. Sure there is plenty that could have been done better in hindsight, but cherry picking a single study showing difficulties with lipids from 2010 "that they should have known about" when the alternative was authoritarian lockdowns is not a helpful position to take.
Have you ever tried arguing with frogs boiling in a pot full of Plato's Cave allegory? That's what this feels like every day for the past 3 years.
The amount of self-censorship required to discuss anything now is so high, as nothing is allowed to be linked to the dreaded flu of 2019 - Influenza A and B (oh wait, we won't talk about those).
Okay, so what can we talk about? How much anecdotal data do I need before I can Ship of Theseus my way to a conclusion? Since every person I know that has taken the shot have been sick frequently over the past 2 years, one of my dearest friends developing ovarian growths within weeks of taking it, another developing those rashes all over his legs (the same rash you could see on the VAERS reports in the early days).
Okay, so anecdotal data is not trustworthy, sure, I will simply close my eyes to the people around and close to me, and allow their choices to let them become chronically ill?
Fine, let me be that fucking heartless. So then the next question is, what about the fact that the VAERS database suddenly ballooned in size exponentially after 2020? It exploded exponentially in size. "Muh data is anecdotal because its not verified by my propagandists."
DO YOU YET UNDERSTAND WHAT HAS BEEN GOING ON?
I am serious when I ask:
WHAT EVIDENCE DO YOU NEED TO SEE TO OPEN YOUR EYES? This is not me being irrational, or unhinged, this is me asking seriously.
What information would make you believe that you are wrong? Is there any information that could lead you to that conclusion, or will you keep defending the sunken cost until the end? If Fauci himself authored a report saying the entire thing was a mistake, would you simply shift the goalposts again, from this being a 100% safe and effective at preventing transmission and fatality, to what, 36%?
And lastly, if you really don't believe I am being genuine when I ask these things, how much are they paying you?
I don't care what Fauci or any other authority figure says. I look at the data from actual science journals, taking the study design into account. Yes, there are side effects from the vaccines, but on the whole they are a wildly net-positive prophylactic, after a few things like nutrient deficiencies and antibiotics the most effective tool we have against disease.
Nobody claimed this yet it is the assumption that there is no middle ground.
I don't have any issue with real vaccinations. These products the pharma companies rushed out within months were not and should not be conflated with vaccination as they use entirely different mechanisms for achieving their claimed efficacy. Even so nobody bats an eye when the literal definition is changed in real time in plain sight.
It's interesting how people are so inherently convinced that pharma companies have any other motivation than bottom line.
Besides, how have we not learned the lesson yet that critical thinking trumps blind allegiance to science which is funded by the same companies producing the product they want you to buy?
Did the cigarette lobby teach us nothing?
PS. I am sorry for your losses. Its too touchy to ask whether the people you lost were put on ventilators, which as we know now were responsible for many fatalities.
There was no guarantee that the world could develop and test an effective, safe vaccine in less than a year.
People seem to be very unaware of the sunken cost fallacy.
The worst part is that people refuse to believe fact to levels which the best nazi propagandists would balk at.
Now, I'm all for vaccines but I want proven vaccines not half-arsed vaccines approved after a 6 month study on efficacy and adverse effects.
Damn it, they should have had a dedicated team studying these exact things fomr the get-go but mr know it all Faucci was adamant he knew what he was talking about.
They should have been forthright and been truthful with people instead of spoon-feeding them and gaslighting them. We're adults, we can understand we're figuring things out and it's an emergent pandemic --but boy, the propaganda.
Remember how the establishment laughed at Sweden, but it turns out they were right, or at least less wrong about how to deal with this past pandemic?
And Switzerland ended up having much higher COVID stats than surrounding parts of Europe, despite having a generally wealthy, fit and healthy population. But people's individual lives were much less impacted since they could still do outdoor activities and travel. It's all a trade-off.
Cognitive problems from masks???
LOL. You are making this up.
"Although all study visits were performed in-person, the inability of infants to see full facial expressions may have eliminated non-verbal cues, muffled instructions, or otherwise impair the understanding of test questions and instructions. Without direct comparison of performance in the same children with and without face masks, it is difficult to rule in or out the potential influence of masks."
Have you seen what happened to Physics Girl? (and she was vaccinated, but still the likelyhood to get it would have been ever greater without the vaccine)
To lower the proba of getting that, I would eagerly accept any gap in the development of my facial recognition abilities.
It's just not at all the same scale of cognitive damage. On one hand (covid) you get quite a brain substance loss (aka premature brain aging), on the other hand a skill is defavored (faces) which the brain is always happy to compensate with skills about other stuff.
So yeah, in a population that is leaning to believe that covid vaccines have 5G chips in it... you have to select the most important bits of science to know for the emergency, and spend all the time and energy in pedagogy on that. Not really worth to do this kind of effusive pedagogy about why not seeing faces impedes becoming good at faces.
Well deserved.