They Promised “Safe and Effective”, We Got “Sudden and Unexpected”

originally posted by: igloo

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: Maxmars


fullfact.org...

Fullfact.org is problematic. I wouldn't trust them.

Their funding is largely the tech companies, mostly FB and Google, who work very hard to suppress alternate media and opinions. Considering that the population was completely censored by FB during the pandemic and Google filtered out anything but gov. approved covid info... why would you trust them? I could understand if there had been no censorship/propaganda during this event but our right to free speech and transparent medical information was suppressed. I wouldn't use them as an independent fact checker as they simply are not independent of the big players in the whole sham.

Don't FB and Google advocate against misinformation too? ETA: Yes, they hire third party fact checkers...FACT CHECKERS.

fullfact.org...

blog.google...

transparency.fb.com... Fprohibited_content%2Fmisinformation

a reply to: quintessentone
Google and FB advocate against anything that contradicts the official narrative. Truth and facts are irrelevant, the narrative must be maintained. All media in lockstep

If you even casually followed the Twitter dumps you would know that.

originally posted by: underpass61
a reply to: quintessentone
Google and FB advocate against anything that contradicts the official narrative. Truth and facts are irrelevant, the narrative must be maintained. All media in lockstep

If you even casually followed the Twitter dumps you would know that.

Truth and facts are in the eye of the beholder, it appears, here anyway.

a reply to: quintessentone

They have all been caught lying and withholding information multiple times, so why would anyone trust them?

originally posted by: underpass61
a reply to: quintessentone

They have all been caught lying and withholding information multiple times, so why would anyone trust them?

Put up sources to justify those claims, please, I am open to both sides, but I will judge for myself.

a reply to: quintessentone

Literally 30 seconds of searching -

How Facebook uses "Fact Checking" to Suppress Scientific Truth

Seriously, do some looking yourself. Unless you're afraid of seeing something you don't like.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: igloo

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: Maxmars


fullfact.org...

Fullfact.org is problematic. I wouldn't trust them.

Their funding is largely the tech companies, mostly FB and Google, who work very hard to suppress alternate media and opinions. Considering that the population was completely censored by FB during the pandemic and Google filtered out anything but gov. approved covid info... why would you trust them? I could understand if there had been no censorship/propaganda during this event but our right to free speech and transparent medical information was suppressed. I wouldn't use them as an independent fact checker as they simply are not independent of the big players in the whole sham.

Don't FB and Google advocate against misinformation too? ETA: Yes, they hire third party fact checkers...FACT CHECKERS.

fullfact.org...

blog.google...

transparency.fb.com... Fprohibited_content%2Fmisinformation

More like third party gaslighters, amirite

But seriously, their job is to make you look crazy.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: igloo

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: Maxmars


fullfact.org...

Fullfact.org is problematic. I wouldn't trust them.

Their funding is largely the tech companies, mostly FB and Google, who work very hard to suppress alternate media and opinions. Considering that the population was completely censored by FB during the pandemic and Google filtered out anything but gov. approved covid info... why would you trust them? I could understand if there had been no censorship/propaganda during this event but our right to free speech and transparent medical information was suppressed. I wouldn't use them as an independent fact checker as they simply are not independent of the big players in the whole sham.

Don't FB and Google advocate against misinformation too? ETA: Yes, they hire third party fact checkers...FACT CHECKERS.

fullfact.org...

blog.google...

transparency.fb.com... Fprohibited_content%2Fmisinformation

Big pharma funded fake checkers. Yep we know all about "fact checkers"

a reply to: quintessentone

I don't find the prosecution of sources as terribly valuable in many cases of threads and claims within them.

First off, regardless of how you find this source (believe me I have no special 'faith' in any of them) the data they are presenting and commenting on belies no bias that is extraordinary, in fact the bias they might be accused of harboring is no less than the bias of the entities' counter arguments produced by the same processes that would have us believe that "all of these observations are wrong."

Pollsters and academic statisticians have proven on too many occasions to be unreliable by the nature of who sponsors their words to the public... and what jobs they are "up for" when career choices loom on the horizon.

Scientific papers are in fact addressing pertinent aspects of this event... but they are not useful for the public which cannot appreciate the embedded biases that plague scientific research reporting. Scientists may be able to make use of a report because they can see where processes may be weak or uncomprehensive. Scientists can discern the P value of statistical data which becomes critically important (especially in meta research.) Scientists, more than anyone, know there are ways to obscure tenuous results in analysis. It is why we need scientists ... to know.

Fact checking organizations are a failed model for public discourse because they can be bought and used against 'factual' purposes... they are marketing creations to massage public opinion... most often without expertise whatsoever... just a huge stable of amenable resources who are willing to assert whatever needs to be said to "create optics" about reality.

Disagree with it if you will, but please rely on something other than unaccountable 'fact checkers' and a bias against a particular source unless you can determine that they are apt to lie and can explain it. I am generally unmoved by any sources for the sake of their "name." I have found no source to be unimpeachable... and this source may be just as poor as you seem to think... but the information merits examination... at least for now.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: underpass61
a reply to: quintessentone
Google and FB advocate against anything that contradicts the official narrative. Truth and facts are irrelevant, the narrative must be maintained. All media in lockstep

If you even casually followed the Twitter dumps you would know that.

Truth and facts are in the eye of the beholder, it appears, here anyway.

Well... Not really! Truth and facts are not that subjective as you are saying especially when it comes to evidence based research and scientific facts.

And example is the claim you have made about herd immunity which you cannot support but every now and then you still try to argue herd immunity can be achieved through vaccination. But this claim is debunked. This official narrative has been abandoned by the mainstream long time ago.

Here is the proof for it, however you only need to apply common sense to understand if herd immunity can be achieved or not. It's very much related to the campaign to get vaccinated and very relevant to this thread as if people believed herd immunity is possible and the vaccines are safe and effective it makes the entire process much easier to handle and many more to sign up for these shots.

Let's see the evidence

From my to thread: The Myth of Herd Immunity to SARS-CoV-2 l. Links in the opening page




January 27, 2022
Kevin Kavanagh, MD

Those Who Believe in Herd Immunity Cannot Do the Math.

COVID-19 mutations are evading our immunity and at the same time our immunity is waning. Herd immunity to disease and the eradication of SARS-CoV-2 is no longer possible.

The developer of the AstraZeneca shot says the Delta variant has made herd immunity impossible because vaccinated people can still transmit the virus

Prof Devi Sridhar is chair of global public health at the University of Edinburgh

Herd immunity now seems impossible. Welcome to the age of Covid reinfection

The virus is now embedded in our world. But there are steps we can take to keep it at bay while we continue to live our lives

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: igloo

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: Maxmars


fullfact.org...

Fullfact.org is problematic. I wouldn't trust them.

Their funding is largely the tech companies, mostly FB and Google, who work very hard to suppress alternate media and opinions. Considering that the population was completely censored by FB during the pandemic and Google filtered out anything but gov. approved covid info... why would you trust them? I could understand if there had been no censorship/propaganda during this event but our right to free speech and transparent medical information was suppressed. I wouldn't use them as an independent fact checker as they simply are not independent of the big players in the whole sham.

Don't FB and Google advocate against misinformation too? ETA: Yes, they hire third party fact checkers...FACT CHECKERS.

fullfact.org...

blog.google...

transparency.fb.com... Fprohibited_content%2Fmisinformation

And what do you think fact checkers are?!
A range of uneducated gaslighters and propagandists with degrees in bs-logy and gender studies.

Title alone wins internet for the week. Bravo.

I mean, get real if you already ain't children, because that's the whole truth distilled.

originally posted by: The GUT
Title alone wins internet for the week. Bravo.

I mean, get real if you already ain't children, because that's the whole truth distilled.

They never promised anything, they advised that the vaccine would help prevent severe illness, which it does, and for the most part with a proper understanding of how the vaccines work and your susceptibility to potential severe adverse reactions (which your doctor should be on top of) or your comorbidities, it's a risk vs. benefit scenario, and always has been since the onset of the rollout of vaccines. That would be after the vaccine studies and where all issues were reported and transparent.

a reply to: Maxmars

I don't find the prosecution of sources as terribly valuable in many cases of threads and claims within them.

I do if they are CT, right-wing, anti-vaxx and void of science at all. To me they are just opinion pieces.

a reply to: quintessentone
Why do you keep lying? From day one they were saying you would be safe if you got vaccinated. The story only changed as the problems increased.

originally posted by: quintessentone
They never promised anything, they advised that the vaccine would help prevent severe illness, which it does, and for the most part with a proper understanding of how the vaccines work and your susceptibility to potential severe adverse reactions (which your doctor should be on top of) or your comorbidities, it's a risk vs. benefit scenario, and always has been since the onset of the rollout of vaccines. That would be after the vaccine studies and where all issues were reported and transparent.

I don't think we were listening to the same people. I don't want to go into the tiresome and much-repeated instances of being assured exactly the words 'safe and effective' but really, how could you have missed that? Seriously.

Not picking on you, but perhaps you didn't see the iron-clad assurances which I would regard as promises... made over and over (while saying to believe otherwise was just sick and the product of an inferior mind.)

originally posted by: underpass61
a reply to: quintessentone
Why do you keep lying? From day one they were saying you would be safe if you got vaccinated. The story only changed as the problems increased.

Lying would be giving incorrect facts, I don't do that. What I notice here with many vaccine hesitant people are twisting facts and reality. Or grasping onto slogans instead of doing research to find out what is true and what is not true.

For the majority of people, yes, it is effective - is it safe? yes, for most people.

I won't post statistics and data because it will only be ignored.

So, is it safe and effective for everyone, without specific medical comorbidity context, obviously not for some groups of people, but the transparency has been there all along.

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: Maxmars

I don't find the prosecution of sources as terribly valuable in many cases of threads and claims within them.

I do if they are CT, right-wing, anti-vaxx and void of science at all. To me they are just opinion pieces.

But of course they are opinion pieces though. They are posted on the internet by paid for producers, branded and marketed... just like almost everything else you might consider a source.

But these opinions are about citable facts, and discerning between the two is what I put it here for. We are not mindlessly absorbing words ... this isn't a place of indoctrination... I made this thread to explore the topic. I respect that the source isn't to your (or maybe anyone else's) liking, but when this information gets recycled... and it will... perhaps you will find that elements of this appear in something you can accept as 'valid.' What then?

I think you might be throwing out the baby with the bathwater on this approach. But I can't fault your sensitivity to the issue. Perhaps one day you'll read something you agree with from a source you dislike... What then?

originally posted by: Maxmars

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: Maxmars

I don't find the prosecution of sources as terribly valuable in many cases of threads and claims within them.

I do if they are CT, right-wing, anti-vaxx and void of science at all. To me they are just opinion pieces.

But of course they are opinion pieces though. They are posted on the internet by paid for producers, branded and marketed... just like almost everything else you might consider a source.

But these opinions are about citable facts, and discerning between the two is what I put it here for. We are not mindlessly absorbing words ... this isn't a place of indoctrination... I made this thread to explore the topic. I respect that the source isn't to your (or maybe anyone else's) liking, but when this information gets recycled... and it will... perhaps you will find that elements of this appear in something you can accept as 'valid.' What then?

I think you might be throwing out the baby with the bathwater on this approach. But I can't fault your sensitivity to the issue. Perhaps one day you'll read something you agree with from a source you dislike... What then?

It has nothing to do with disliking a source, it has to do with bias within the sources posted by vaccine hesitant people here. Never have they posted a source from a virologist, immunologist or microbiologist working with vaccines on humans, not once.