My Response To the PBS article by Isabella Isaacs-Thomas titled, The powerful technology behind the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, published April 2, 2021

5/22/2021 | Vanity

[logi_cal869]

Well done.

(Watch the keywords)

[no-to-illegals]

Thank you ! Extremely informative !

[CheshireTheCat]

And this is why my response to those pesky people who would ask if I got the vax is thus:

“No, I accepted an opportunity to be in the control group and am being compensated handsomely for taking on the very small risk that I will contract the virus and get very sick or die. Statistically-speaking, someone my age and in my condition has about a 5 in 1000 chance of this happening. That is what the scientific data shows.

Since we don’t know what long-term effects the vaccines will have in people, especially the ones using mRNA technology for the first time in humans, and especially after such technology has had such bad results in animals, it is important we have a large enough control group of unvaccinated people with which to come up with statistically-significant results when comparing the two groups.

There is no scientific data as yet on longer-term problems that vaxxed people might have. For instance, we don’t know if the vaccine will prime their immune systems to specialize in fighting off the virus at the expense of not being able to ward off all the other usual viruses out there, such as the flu virus, rhinoviruses and other corona viruses.”

People I tell this too don’t have to know that the opportunity to be part of the control group is one I granted to myself and the compensation I am receiving is peace of mind.

[BDParrish]

There was name calling, and/or ad hominem, in the original post.
Not that I mind, it just shows emotion.
R-note fails to show a mechanism of harm, at least to me, as I have studied extensively on this. There are some things he does not understand and may not want to, his mind is made up. He worked hard on this and needs not to be discouraged in his labor. All respect to him.

We now know the vaccines were rushed out, non controversial statement. We now know that the treatments much maligned in the press would have saved lives, still controversial but the proof is behind the Ivermectin. We know that all vaccines cause harm, non controversial also but the problem is with decisions involving risk assessment. If the anti vaccine argument boils down to saying that Moderna is just as risky as the shots we give 6 year olds then the position will be lost, right or wrong.

Bagster takes a consistent “government bad” position. Ransomnote here adds a “corporations bad” position to that. Anyone who has lived beyond the years of youthful optimism will sympathize of course. If the problem with vaccines is that government force is involved, then I fear that must be addressed on a more basic heart level with the people.

Name calling is important when your desire is to combat men, not convince them.

[ransomnote]

If there is some kind of feedback loop to stop it eventually, I’d like to read about it, but so far, I haven’t found anything
~~~~~~~~~~~~
I agree. None of the content I’ve reviewed on either side of the issue proposes a feedback loop. The vaxx hawks make assertions but no one knows. Vaccine development expert Geert Vanden Bossche focuses the spotlight on this issue but the vax industry doesn’t offer rebuttal, just assertions.

[ransomnote]

Admits this trial is the first human use of BNT162(mRNA) but that it looks good on paper.(non-clinical data)
~~~~~~~
Interesting post. I found PFizer’s trial description convoluted.
Both PFizer and Moderna have trial date timelines that don’t make sense. I believe both could have made clear coherent diagrams of timelines and phase descriptions but instead you have to piece it together, and then the pieces sometimes dont’ fit.

The sentence I quoted above the line seems to be their MO. Fauci does it too, “We’re seeing indications that...” or “We’re seeing evidence that...” It’s not clinical data or standard methodology - they just find a data point that when cherry picked, can be used to float the sham along farther.

[ransomnote]

My opinion has been earned the old fashioned way - researching. I’ve researched enough to have made up my mind prior to today.

I normally post more on the science side of things (research, trial data, methodology, accuracy) and the physical impacts (VAERS, analysis of VAERS, comparisons to other countries etc.) and the strategic deployment of these fake vaccines (policy violations, regulation violations, revisionist behaviors, psychological extortion etc.)

” There are some things he does not understand and may not want to, his mind is made up” I’m astounded at how much the vaxx hawks don’t understand, yet they routinely assume I am a blank slate in need of tutelage, or else willfully ignorant for refusing to ignore my own research and embrace others opinions on demand.

I am used to being told I don’t understand when I disagree with others assertions; I think I first noticed that debate tactic in 7th grade and grew attentive to its use over the course of my life.

[bagster]

Bagster takes a consistent “government bad” position. Ransomnote here adds a “corporations bad” position to that.

Its never good to speak in such general terms.

Governments and corporations are not bad in and of themselves. People are bad, and when bad people control governments and corporations, then those entities become bad.

At the moment, the US government is bad because bad people comprise it, from the tippy top to many state and local levels.

Many corporations are bad because those running them have agendas other than selling products or services and those agendas are bad, as are the people with the agendas, as they use the power, influence, and money of the corporation to further their bad agendas.

Never simplify the Bagster's position down to child-like slogans.

Name calling is important when your desire is to combat men, not convince them.

Name calling (especially if accurate) is very desirable when combatting men. Those men you are not attempting to convince, for they are entrenched in their position.

The point of 'name calling' is to convince the unconvinced or neutral observer. To turn the tide of public opinion to its proper course. To paraphrase Alinsky, isolate and ridicule. No one wants to be pointed and laughed at, so they will very often stay silent and retreat, leaving the field to the righteous 'name caller'.

Things are not as simple as you portray them, despite your virtue signaling. Its a complicated world, full of nuance and strategies.

[ransomnote]

Good post. I do think he is dismissing us as unidimensional and prone to knee-jerk biases. He did oversimplify it right down to ‘orange man bad’ pretty quickly, didn’t he? This is more subtle than calling us names, I think.

[bagster]

Good post.

Have I ever made an ungood post?

I do think he is dismissing us as unidimensional and prone to knee-jerk biases. He did oversimplify it right down to ‘orange man bad’ pretty quickly, didn’t he? This is more subtle than calling us names, I think.

Very subtle indeed. It relegates us to trogladyke status. People very often think their ideological adversaries are incapable of deep thought and try to box them in to their own thought paradigms.

They are often surprised that people (like us) are very capable of complex thought, because very often they are not, and most people think ALL people are just like them.

[BDParrish]

Yes I am happy for you to speak for yourself.

[BDParrish]

I see what you are saying. You may not be seeing how you come across. I don’t think you are doing harm, but I will be very interested if part of your post proves convincing to someone. If you are willing to listen to correction, a man knows his own mind, then that is all anyone could ask.

You said debate tactic, but I think you meant arguing tactic or propaganda tactic or something like that. Did you debate in school? If you know debate then I could help you understand me that way.

I will enjoy scrolling your comment history for some more of your thoughts.

FReegards.
BrianD

[BDParrish]

I got the “government bad” handle or name for your argument and position from you. You are unable to see that this does not “simplify” the position. You were commenting a while back now on something from gas_dr and pointed out that he was a flubro, therefore government bad, but he was pro-vaxx so “go figure,” as if there was some inconsistency in him for this.

You admit in this comment that you are a bully, not an astute observation on my part, but in your childish simplicity, you will reply in ineffective insults as usual. You project your weakness on to others as you sincerely state that others are intimidated by your name calling. There is no nuance in this simple-minded strategy, especially this idea that name-calling intimidates a third party observer. Perhaps you noticed that gas_dr is now referring to anti-vaxxers using “Alinsky tactics”. I here ping him that he may note the candid admission on your part, and because I wish not to talk about him without his knowledge.

I can smell the ozone Bagster. They ain’t comin’ for me, but we’ll see, won’t we?

[bagster]

You admit in this comment that you are a bully, not an astute observation on my part, but in your childish simplicity, you will reply in ineffective insults as usual.

Here's the thing, daffodil.

One man's 'name calling' is another man's 'truth telling'. Telling somebody what they are is honesty, which soft people like you can't seem to handle. They like to prance through the world, naively believing there should be no strong opinions, no judgement, and that all opinions are equally valid.

Its weak meats like you, snivelling about 'name calling' that are responsible for the state we are in, in which evil flourishes and dominates the innocent.

I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it.

I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up your tongue and call names. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think you're entitled to!

There is no nuance in this simple-minded strategy.

What is it with the importance you mamby pamby men place on 'nuance'? You sound like a Starbucks sipping, bearded hipster. Give me brutal honesty any day, thank you very much.

Watching people like you lift your nose and sniff in fake outrage makes me happy.

I can smell the ozone Bagster. They ain’t comin’ for me, but we’ll see, won’t we?

I think that's your funky draws.