-
Friendly reminder: The politics section is a place where a lot of differing opinions are raised. You may not like what you read here but it is someone's opinion. As long as the debate is respectful you are free to debate freely. Also, the views and opinions expressed by forum members may not necessarily reflect those of GBAtemp. Messages that the staff consider offensive or inflammatory may be removed in line with existing forum terms and conditions.
What sources back up the anti-vaccine movement?
- Thread starter The Catboy
- Start date
- Views 20,321
- Replies 337
- Likes 6
- Status
I don't see anyone here trying to convince anyone to not get vaccinated. I see mostly people saying that they fully respect others' views and want to respect them, voicing their own anecdotal reasons for feeling wary.
Being on the "wrong" side of the evidence can have dire consequences, yes, so I see your point. But everyone has their own tolerance for what is or isn't convincing, and we can help people reach stronger positions by laying out the evidence.
If you push back by attacking their character, you're far, far less likely to be listened to.
You mean like, by maybe, just as a thought here... Offering a thread for those with a different opinion to come together and put forward their arguments and sources so they can be addressed?
Yeah, and everyone who has posted their story has been met with "but where's the peer reviewed sources?". I didn't read every page but I doubt there was any sincere attempt at discussion.
Edit: apart from @appleburger very recently
Edit: apart from @appleburger very recently
I didn't go into detail on purpose as I'm not interested in getting any further into this as it's too controversial but the FDA and CDC are tainted by those with financial interest. This doesn't prove anything but that's why I am not quick to trust them.
The "outdated" vaccine thing is referring to the push to get this current vaccine when in my personal experience with the vaccinated people in my personal network (not randos on social media I don't even have) are getting really sick, one even hospitalized. Once again, proves nothing but it seems like they're trying to get rid of their current stock instead of actually developing something new. What's being blabbed on the news networks (who are funded by vaccine makers) just doesn't match up with what I've seen personally.
My decision was ultimately for my family and I'm just a little gutted things didn't work out the way we all hoped they would.
My apologies for not reading everything you've posted as it all gets me pretty upset and I've worked hard to avoid this topic in conversation as much as possible.
This is my fragmented stream of thoughts and I apologize again for confusing anyone.
Please feel free to pm me if you or anyone would like to discuss further, I just can't do it here.
You're all wonderful, really.
I'll PM you if you'd like, but I want to lay out some points here for other folks that come across your posts.
- I didn't go into detail on purpose as I'm not interested in getting any further into this as it's too controversial but the FDA and CDC are tainted by those with financial interest
- It's challenging for us to understand your viewpoint if we can't get a full picture of what's in your head. If this is something you want to refrain from discussing, then I'd be wary of posting about it at all, unless you're prepared to explain how you reached that belief
- This makes me ask myself, for instance: "Why does financial interest ruin the integrity of a vaccine?". "How do we determine that this has affected quality control?".
- it seems like they're trying to get rid of their current stock instead of actually developing something new
- I don't understand this. The blueprint in the vaccines is sourced from a protein in the virus. We also know it still provides antibodies that are effective against current mutations. What would the "update" be?
- What's being blabbed on the news networks (who are funded by vaccine makers) just doesn't match up with what I've seen personally.
- How did you determine media outlets are receiving funding that will be pulled if they don't sing the good graces of vaccine manufacturers? Is this all media outlets? Would you expect a whistle blower in this scenario? Has there been one?
- This is my fragmented stream of thoughts and I apologize again for confusing anyone
- You're free to say what you want here, and don't need to apologize. However, if I were you, I'd ask myself how much I know about the vaccines, and how I'm determining the motives behind it. Can I follow a bread crumb trail to actually determine these positions are reasonable? How did I know that the vaccines made my friends so ill, even hospitalized? Could it have been timing, or was it in fact the vaccine itself? How does the vaccine make people sick, if it does? Is that different from the way the body creates antibodies (which makes most people feel ill, this is immune response is what causes symptoms, often) Is there any way I can determine that vaccines can actually do this?
Last edited by appleburger,
Just wanted to check if somebody had already posted this video.
Even though it is almost 2 hours long, it is just a joy to watch, never gets boring.
That just proves hbomberguy is really talented at creating content on a well researched complex topic while making it an easy watch.
This thread is about the sources to back up the anti vaccine movement.You mean like, by maybe, just as a thought here... Offering a thread for those with a different opinion to come together and put forward their arguments and sources so they can be addressed?
It's not about opinion, or for offering pro vaccine sources.
Not trusting vaccines because of big pharma, the government, bill gates, etc is not a source.
I'll repeat the question.
What sources lead you to that conclusion and how verifiable are those sources? What medical research is used in the sources? Is it more than just anecdotal evidence?
Obviously this isn't for hesitancy caused by some kind of medical condition.
The vaccine has been tested, the official results is that it reduces the chance you'll die by 11 times & the number of deaths caused by the vaccine is far less and FWIW less than the number of food allergy related deaths each year (where is the food hesitancy movement?)
Any medical source underpinning the anti vax movement would have to show that this is wrong, or that there is something additional that has not been considered.
Last edited by smf,
Following things along the way I did is how I came to the conclusions I have regarding everything is going on, which proves nothing.
My thoughts and opinions are just as susceptible to misinformation floating around and for this reason, I feel no one person's opinion (emphasis on my own) will be absolutely correct, especially mine being rooted in insanity and mild paranoia because my personal experiences.
I am a big advocate of doing the work of forming your own opinion and I think that's the most important thing to do with this or anything really. Always try to find the information that is right and good, which has been especially difficult with this thing.
Free and open discussion of everyone's (hopefully) well informed opinions, seeing where we line up and where we don't is how we can collectively shave of any nonsense we may have picked up along the way. Lightly challenging (like you did) the thoughts of others to provoke further conversation.
The reasons for avoiding this particularly recently is I believe this topic is now being used to put people against each other. It has become political and I've always avoiding political discussion. I'm ducking low for a little longer and waiting for all of this dust to settle.
The madness of the outside world is too great and I've turned to look inward. It's been a stressful few years for me. Straight off of a combat deployment, I almost died and then we headed right into this insane pandemic. The mental toll has been tremendous. For this reason especially I know my conclusions are not part of the cream at the top.
Thank you for taking the time to provoke discussion respectfully.
The existence of side effects for the COVID19 vaccines is a scientific fact. You have to acknowledge this fact with a signature before agreeing to get one.
The judgement whether you should take this risk is non-scientific. Science can tell you how bad air pollution is. It cannot tell you whether to do something about it. How difficult is this to understand?
Your statements are not consistent with each other. The first sentence refers to an individual. The last refers to society.
Your wording is also interesting. Let´s break it down.
Am I convinced that vaccines are potentially more risky than not receiving them?
Yes, POTENTIALLY! So are you!
If somebody gets the vaccine and suffers from serious side effects, he or she could have been better of without the vaccine, especially if he or she had managed not to get infected.
Am I convinced that vaccines are
No. That´s why I have been vaccinated twice. I don´t care either way. I am not afraid of the virus nor the vaccines. Once the (scientific!) numbers were out about the death rate and average age, I thought if I can´t handle it, I don´t deserve to live anyway. You have to take risks in life. Taking part in daily traffic is much more risky and we still do it. The only alternative is isolation - which I would do if I was old.
With such a will to live I wonder how you're still around. I guess we live in a very forgiving era where people just survive without the will to fight adversity.
We live in a world that promotes parasitism and low expectations. Successful men used to have the most amout of children. Today drug addicts do. Thanks to the attack on patriarchy. I once made a splendid thread about it. The good news is, this system will always be defeated by a patriarchal society in the long term. In matriarchy female sexuality is not limited, therefore alienating a large part of the male population, i.e. it has a weak army and does not oppose foreign takeovers. Men from muslims countries will slowly take control of of the permissive Europa (which is what she subconsciously desires anyway).
Oof, this is a train wreck of a response. Sorry to be rude, and I don't know if you're young or English isn't your first language, so my goal isn't to insult you, but I'll do my best to help out with the reading comprehension here (we could be talking about baking cakes and this would still stand - regardless of your take on vaccines/COVID).
Yeah, I know, and I already mentioned this in my other comments, which I'd recommend reading before responding to me. You're arguing against nobody on this point.
I also literally, and explicitly agreed with your point on the ability of making a decision without Science in the very quote you pulled from my post, lol (you copied the first half of the sentence and left out the part where I said we agreed on that, because it's obvious). How on Earth did you miss that?
Homie, me saying COVID is taking out more people that vaccines is not referring to "society", it's referring to people. You know... a collection of individuals, which is incredibly relevant. People die when they jump off buildings, too. Are you going to tell me that doesn't prevent you wanting to jump off a building? Or would you figure if you don't survive the fall, you don't deserve to live? (Sorry, couldn't help it)
This is redundant - see above. I already acknowledged this and you keep acting as if people are disagreeing with you on this point. We aren't. Read our posts!
And for some data, here's the current rate of serious side effects from the COVID vaccine:
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/info-by-product/pfizer/reactogenicity.html
If you don't want to read it, it's 0.4%.
What's the rate of serious side effects from COVID? Clearly more than 0.4%
Also, the fact that you keep trying to instill this notion we think Science is some sort of autonomous entity that we think can make decisions on our behalf is asinine. Nobody is saying that, and you're wasting your keyboard strokes telling me that "Science" can't tell you to not jump into traffic. Uh.... yeah no kidding(?)
* I get that you can still decide to not get it regardless of the numbers, which is what I think you're trying to get at. But that's a pretty non sequitur point to bring up in this discussion, and you're arguing against points that literally none of us are making. Again - read our posts!
Last edited by appleburger,
It is even worse than that. You believe it has official representatives which is why you keep asking for peer-reviewed studies. The world has been a sphere before anyone agreed. Race exists and girls who think they are boys are still girls. The latter two obvious facts are disputed by current science (the very last one perhaps not yet, but we are getting there). Logic trumps peer-reviewed studies. That´s why I don´t jump off buildings.
English is indeed not my first language and I have read your posts.
Regarding the 0,4% number by the CDC about the likelihood of side effects from vaccination: You made a comparison with the likelihood of side effects from getting the virus. You are missing two things here. First, vaccination requires medical intervention. So you are comparing the risk of something which has not happened and does not necessarily need to happen (i.e. getting COVID19 or at least one of the current versions of it which most likely will be more harmful than later ones) with sth that has to happen if you enforce vaccination.
Second, the 0,4% number refers to 15-18 year olds who reported serious side effects. Since Pfizer uses mRNA technology, you are actually comparing apples to oranges. You do not know how the affected teenagers would have dealt with the virus. Probably easily, which is why many countries do not want to take the risk (and some even ban some vaccines for teenagers).
Never said that, and I have no idea where you’re pulling that from lol
The study also clearly says the age range is 18-55.
You aren’t paying attention to what anyone is saying. You’re creating arguments out of thin air from points nobody is making. Literally, nobody here has said anything about peer reviewed papers having… “representatives”.
You also failed to even properly read the title of the study’s tables, or multiple paragraphs where the age range is discussed. It’s in big, bold letters with a table showing all the data, for God sake.
Im not going to continue this conversation with you, only because the communication barrier is too high. I can’t carry a conversation with somebody who can’t even comprehend what anybody is writing to them.
At a minimum everyone else in this thread has possessed the ability to comprehend what we’re saying to each other, so I’ll happily respond to any other points. Gotta throw the towel in on this one, though.
Maybe it’s the language barrier or something, but regardless of the reason we can’t get anywhere if you’re going to fail to display a reasonable amount of reading comprehension. Sorry.
My post history dude. We've been talking about exactly this shit the whole time. When an antivax comes in here with "but the vaccine doesn't work because vaccinated people can spread", we point out the cherry picked wording, pointed out shorter infection time, pointed out how rare breakthrough cases are in comparison to unvaccinated cases. We point out how much lower the chance of side effects is compared to covid deaths (which DIRECTLY addresses one's concern about side effects).
They argue. We call out their bullshit and provide them with perspective. Most don't listen. There's nothing else we can do to help.
- Status
Similar threads
-
- Portal
-
- Portal
- No one is chatting at the moment.
-
-
@
Sonic Angel Knight:
Or, I also heard that if you use flash memory, it can act as more "RAM" at least windows tell me when I stick a flash drive into it. -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
@
K3Nv2:
I can think of the design teams process another joystick and no audio or a joystick and mono audio -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
