It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Debate over the Vax - which sources are neutral

page: 2
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 24 2021 @ 12:22 AM
link   
a reply to: tamusan

You read the entire thing?

Three sides of this argument. One side says yes to the covid vax, the other says no. The middle is unsure. That article does try to make an argument about the efficacy of these vaccines, but it leaves out extremely important information. As like you did.

Now, you’re not wrong, or rather I am not saying your thoughts on it are wrong, but what I would argue is that these types of articles, from “trusted” sources, do not give the entirety of context or data.

****Example: safe, defensive driving can save you from a bad crash.****
nothing much to argue here. True statement. If someone didn’t know any better, they would believe that for as long as they followed this, they would be safe while driving.

Now, add in the entire scenario that could happen, and does happen:
****Safe defensive driving can save you from a bad crash, however, not always. Lots of moving parts(pun intended) out of your control, and the only way to not be involved in a vehicle crash for sure, is to not go in one, or around them.****


My point is that when deciding how much real estate the information we take in daily holds, how can someone, anyone form any educated and thoughtful opinions or resolutions without taking in all relevant information....?


Researching and looking for truth is very much every bit about navigating whats being said and whats not. To believe otherwise is a failure on yourself, and your peers who are affected by your ignorant actions and words(not you literally).

So this article, from about as trusted as one might find, clearly avoids the truths of the entire situation and focuses on the truths of a tiny tiny small area, intentionally. So, how trusted can a trusted source be.....if they omit the truths that go against the other truths?
edit on 24-11-2021 by NightCall because: Grammar



posted on Nov, 24 2021 @ 01:00 AM
link   
a reply to: NightCall

I read it completely a couple of weeks ago. I just skimmed it tonight to jog my memory. You've forgotten about the 4th side, those like me who are relatively indifferent to whether or not people get vaccinated. I feel it's probably a good idea for people with one or more comorbidities to get vaccinated, but I don't think that people should be forced into getting a vaccine for something that doesn't even make most people sick. Especially, after Delta made breakthrough infections much more common. Even with the breakthrough infections, it is still mostly the high-risk people in the icu's. I feel that many people who do fine with a breakthrough infection would have likely been just fine without being vaccinated. I also think we need to learn more about who exactly is at risk for getting blood clots.

I don't know which truths of the situation you are talking about without you telling me. I see a lot of stuff on this forum that I think is total b.s. and other stuff that is spot on. My comments about the article were only relevant to what I felt its highlights were and did not take anything outside the article into consideration.
edit on 24 11 2021 by tamusan because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2021 @ 06:06 AM
link   
a reply to: NightCall

I think you have asked a very good question, but there are no easy answers.

In regards to news media in general and other sources of information, there are no neutral sources. Everyone has an angle, a confirmation bias, or even an agenda. Whatever information is provided almost always serves their established position or purpose. While they provide some facts and truth, they will never provide ALL the facts and the WHOLE truth, and they may mix in opinions as facts, or even misinformation or disinformation with facts.

Adjectives and adverbs and descriptors of all kinds usually represent opinions, not facts. At the very least, it indicates that any facts are colored by opinions. Qualifiers -- such as "may be" or "apparently" or "presumably" -- are sometimes appropriate, sometimes not. When the facts and the whole truth are not known or are not clear, then qualifiers are necessary as well as appropriate, to indicate that. When qualifiers are used to come to hard and fast conclusions, they are not not necessary and not appropriate. The conclusions may or may not be correct, but there is no way to know for sure, and no way to trust that they are.

With regards to medical information, actual clinical studies are best, but are not perfect. Studies can be geared towards achieving a certain result thus limiting the scope of what and how much truth can actually be discovered, they can be faulty in their methodology and execution thus providing flawed findings, they can be manipulated to show limited or inaccurate results, they can deliberately omit pertinent and even crucial information for a full understanding, and so many other things. Very often, even well planned and executed clinical studies answer some questions, only to raise even more questions -- which isn't always a bad thing.

It's also important to remember in all health related matters that studies can only tell us so much. Every body is different. Every body has its own metabolism, its own tolerances and intolerances, allergies, pre-existing conditions, predisposition to illnesses and diseases, etc. This isn't static either -- it changes with internal and external conditions and circumstances. When it comes to the vax and other medications, every body will respond in its own way. Some people will have adverse reactions and adverse outcomes, both long and short term. We may be able to identify some conditions and circumstances in which certain people will react badly, who will be able to fight and recover completely, who will not be able to recover completely or even survive. But we'll never be able to know all. The best we can hope for is to identify and be aware of unfavorable conditions or circumstances, and act accordingly to minimize adverse outcomes.

Nevertheless, I always -- ALWAYS -- check for relevant medical studies at Pubmed.com whenever I am researching anything health related. If I am researching a specific substance for a specific condition, I use both terms to refine my results, because 99 times out of 100 the same substance can be studied for various conditions. So, for example, if I was wanting info on the Covid vax, I could add "blood clotting" or "myocarditits" or "spike protein" or "mRNA" to narrow down the results to whatever I'm researching. I did a search on "cbd" and "mRNA" this morning and got exactly what I was looking for.

I will add -- although this isn't exactly what you asked -- it is because we know that every body will react differently to any medication or treatment that it is unconscionable to force any medical treatment on anyone, because we don't know how each individual will respond/react, and we do know that it can be (and most likely will be) a death sentence for some, if not many. This is why it is unconscionable for anyone to say that the vax is "safe" because while it might be "safe" for MOST people, it will not be safe for ALL people. And this doesn't even take into account nefarious purposes by nefarious persons...



posted on Nov, 24 2021 @ 07:23 AM
link   
The vaccines are easy to decide if they can be trusted.

If they are safe and effective the manufacturers will give you that guarantee and thus allow themselves to be sued by a consumer of the vaccine if it negatively affects them. If the number of adverse events is truly limited, there won't be many claims they have to pay.

But, if they tell you it is safe and effective, but then shield themselves from liability against adverse events; then it is not safe and effective.

If they won't put there money where their mouth is, no way will I ever put my arm where their needle is.

For me I guess it's really quite simple. There's plenty of study from respected institutions that shows the vaccines are safe. There's plenty of study from other respected institutions, even the same institutions in some cases, that shows the vaccines cause significant and concerning damage.

Obviously Big Pharma believes in the latter, atleast with the data we have up to this point, as they still request immunity from liability.



posted on Nov, 24 2021 @ 08:04 AM
link   
Maybe stop debating? You won’t change their mind no more than they will change yours.



posted on Nov, 24 2021 @ 08:10 AM
link   
a reply to: asabuvsobelow

I like your rules, and I would like to add one more, from James Madison: "In truth, all men holding power OUGHT to be mistrusted."



posted on Nov, 24 2021 @ 08:10 AM
link   
a reply to: NightCall

I could tell you everything you need to know but I'd just be removing all doubt.

edit on 24-11-2021 by Randyvine2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2021 @ 05:13 PM
link   
a reply to: NightCall

A lot of it is common sense and logic.
Pfizer itself says their vaccine is still in experimental trials until 2023. That alone tells me that anyone who injects themselves is a test subject. That alone tells me that it has not been tested enough and nobody knows the long term effects.

I don't need a news source to tell me anything else.

Then there are the multi thousands of VAERS reports. Then the reports from doctors and nurses and victims of the injections.

Bill Gates has said enough and done enough for me to know, he is not a valid source.

I certainly will not believe the MSM nor anyone with financial gain from the pharmaceutical industry.
So anyone who has NO GAIN from them, I will entertain what they have to say....and then use my own ability to use common sense and logic.
edit on 2021 by shaemac because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join