Vaccine

[watfly]

One thing that I find fascinating about this thread is the amount of caveats, rationalizations and mental gymnastics required by sciency types to justify the guidance of science. Science apparently needs to issue secret decoder rings to the public so we can understand what science "experts" mean when they say things like the vaccine will prevent the spread of infection.

I have serious concern that science is going down the same road as journalism. Science is just a process, not fact as some would lead you to believe, but many practitioners (particularly those in govt) are abusing or ignoring the process. This problem is compounded by the fact that the science community tends to circle the wagons when anyone questions the consensus. All this has lead to a giant credibility gap with the public which is no more clearly illustrated with the low number of parents that are vaccinating their children.

The science community needs to do a serious self evaluation based on the last couple of years. Some new, best practices are in order.

 

[espola]

One thing that I find fascinating about this thread is the amount of caveats, rationalizations and mental gymnastics required by sciency types to justify the guidance of science. Science apparently needs to issue secret decoder rings to the public so we can understand what science "experts" mean when they say things like the vaccine will prevent the spread of infection.

I have serious concern that science is going down the same road as journalism. Science is just a process, not fact as some would lead you to believe, but many practitioners (particularly those in govt) are abusing or ignoring the process. This problem is compounded by the fact that the science community tends to circle the wagons when anyone questions the consensus. All this has lead to a giant credibility gap with the public which is no more clearly illustrated with the low number of parents that are vaccinating their children.

The science community needs to do a serious self evaluation based on the last couple of years. Some new, best practices are in order.

What color is the sky in your universe?

 

[crush]

Which begs the question, how does this impact fertility? This issue has been known for over a year and was initially dismissed by so-called experts.

They want to defund the population bro. Trust me on this. My wife has a friend with dd around 22. She wants Grand kids on her time and when her dd wants to have kiddos. Both are fully jabbed and 100% Pro-Choice and the dd has gone out and yelled for her rights and her body. Well, now she can;t get pregnant because and Grandma will never have grand child. I have stayed out of all the debates because I am emotional and some girls have a hard with me when I speak on the subject. I make them uncomfortable they say. She will never have to worry about that decision. I am sad because their really nice people but took the bait. Soul's are trying to come here to help and a certain group of people on the earth don't want them to come. I know, it's hard to believe but you can take that to the bank.

 

[crush]

LIVE action Trailer for "The Plot Against The King" starring

Kash asked me to do a video for "The Plot Against The King'" Hope this is what he had in mind lol

rumble.com

 

[Happened again]

What color is the sky in your universe?

depends - such is science. I mean, is the vaccine weirdly impacting women? what does the science say? better questions, what did the keepers of the science not tell you?

 

[espola]

depends - such is science. I mean, is the vaccine weirdly impacting women? what does the science say? better questions, what did the keepers of the science not tell you?

Idiot.

How COVID-19 (and the Vaccine) Can Impact Your Fertility

Let’s cut to the chase: There’s no credible scientific evidence showing the COVID-19 vaccine has a negative impact on fertility. What can impact your fertility, though, is getting COVID-19, which means there’s just one more reason to get vaccinated.

health.clevelandclinic.org

 

[dad4]

One thing that I find fascinating about this thread is the amount of caveats, rationalizations and mental gymnastics required by sciency types to justify the guidance of science. Science apparently needs to issue secret decoder rings to the public so we can understand what science "experts" mean when they say things like the vaccine will prevent the spread of infection.

I have serious concern that science is going down the same road as journalism. Science is just a process, not fact as some would lead you to believe, but many practitioners (particularly those in govt) are abusing or ignoring the process. This problem is compounded by the fact that the science community tends to circle the wagons when anyone questions the consensus. All this has lead to a giant credibility gap with the public which is no more clearly illustrated with the low number of parents that are vaccinating their children.

The science community needs to do a serious self evaluation based on the last couple of years. Some new, best practices are in order.

There is no secret decoder ring. Science is just hard. If you want easy, there are plenty of healing crystals and homeopathic remedies waiting for you.

The science community doesn’t circle the wagons so much as ignore you. They can run experiments and publish the results. But, at the end of the day, there isn’t much they can do if you prefer to believe the latest twitter conspiracy theory.

So, if you like, you can believe that masks do nothing, that bars and restaurants don’t spread covid, or that vaccines cause infertility.

You are also allowed to treat cancer by having a mystic realign your energy centers.

 

[watfly]

There is no secret decoder ring. Science is just hard. If you want easy, there are plenty of healing crystals and homeopathic remedies waiting for you.

The science community doesn’t circle the wagons so much as ignore you. They can run experiments and publish the results. But, at the end of the day, there isn’t much they can do if you prefer to believe the latest twitter conspiracy theory.

So, if you like, you can believe that masks do nothing, that bars and restaurants don’t spread covid, or that vaccines cause infertility.

You are also allowed to treat cancer by having a mystic realign your energy centers.

Again I'm not basing it on any conspiracy theories, I'm basing it on actual results, but thanks again for the mischaracterization. At least your consistent.

I'm 100% for vaccine by choice. My objection is as to mandates and restricting movement based upon vaccine results that are only preliminary. If we are going to mandate we need another level of review for FDA approvals and a public use for a certain time prior to mandating. The vaccine is effectively experimental until is proven safe by mass public use. If you choose to get vaccinated like I did based on FDA approval that's great, but to mandate it is not only poor health policy its wholly inappropriate.

Like I said masks, indoors in public places, annoying but big deal.

 

[kickingandscreaming]

One thing that I find fascinating about this thread is the amount of caveats, rationalizations and mental gymnastics required by sciency types to justify the guidance of science. Science apparently needs to issue secret decoder rings to the public so we can understand what science "experts" mean when they say things like the vaccine will prevent the spread of infection.

I have serious concern that science is going down the same road as journalism. Science is just a process, not fact as some would lead you to believe, but many practitioners (particularly those in govt) are abusing or ignoring the process. This problem is compounded by the fact that the science community tends to circle the wagons when anyone questions the consensus. All this has lead to a giant credibility gap with the public which is no more clearly illustrated with the low number of parents that are vaccinating their children.

The science community needs to do a serious self evaluation based on the last couple of years. Some new, best practices are in order.

My concern is the increasing trend to separate ourselves physically and socially from those who believe differently. More than ever, we appear to be willing to demean and dismiss those who disagree with us on a single point. We have already seen the split of journalism based on ideological bias. If what is happening at the CDC and NIH is true - people are leaving due to "bad science" - it only increases the chances of more "bad science". Diversity of thought is not desired or promoted. I'd guess (we'll see) that many who have moved from the heavily "blue" states - NY, CA, etc. - are the more moderate ones, further reducing the diversity of thought. And, as much as we want to think science is above biases, the problem is there is no science without people and people have biases. The Atlantic article below had some interesting points about why left-wing authoritarianism was missed. The findings themselves are interesting, but I think more significantly in terms of the importance of the diversity of thought was the following.

"That psychologists have been slow to acknowledge the existence of left-wing authoritarians at all is “puzzling,” Costello and his colleagues write. But here, I would argue, is where the pronounced leftward orientation of researchers in social psychology comes in. “Academic psychology once had considerable political diversity, but has lost nearly all of it in the last 50 years,” according to a comprehensive 2014 review. Universities have long tilted to the left, but that tendency has deepened as education has become ever more highly correlated with political ideology. Whatever its origin, this political imbalance makes truth-seeking harder. Studies have repeatedly shown that investigators’ sociopolitical views influence the questions they ask. What’s more, ideologically concordant reviewers are more likely to rate abstracts and papers highly if the findings comport with their own beliefs, all else being equal."

The Experts Somehow Overlooked Authoritarians on the Left

Many psychologists wrongly assumed that coercive attitudes exist only among conservatives.

www.theatlantic.com

 

[espola]

Again I'm not basing it on any conspiracy theories, I'm basing it on actual results, but thanks again for the mischaracterization. At least your consistent.

I'm 100% for vaccine by choice. My objection is as to mandates and restricting movement based upon vaccine results that are only preliminary. If we are going to mandate we need another level of review for FDA approvals and a public use for a certain time prior to mandating. The vaccine is effectively experimental until is proven safe by mass public use. If you choose to get vaccinated like I did based on FDA approval that's great, but to mandate it is not only poor health policy its wholly inappropriate.

Like I said masks, indoors in public places, annoying but big deal.

You're trying so hard to be logical. but you fall short.

 

[espola]

My concern is the increasing trend to separate ourselves physically and socially from those who believe differently. More than ever, we appear to be willing to demean and dismiss those who disagree with us on a single point. We have already seen the split of journalism based on ideological bias. If what is happening at the CDC and NIH is true - people are leaving due to "bad science" - it only increases the chances of more "bad science". Diversity of thought is not desired or promoted. I'd guess (we'll see) that many who have moved from the heavily "blue" states - NY, CA, etc. - are the more moderate ones, further reducing the diversity of thought. And, as much as we want to think science is above biases, the problem is there is no science without people and people have biases. The Atlantic article below had some interesting points about why left-wing authoritarianism was missed. The findings themselves are interesting, but I think more significantly in terms of the importance of the diversity of thought was the following.

"That psychologists have been slow to acknowledge the existence of left-wing authoritarians at all is “puzzling,” Costello and his colleagues write. But here, I would argue, is where the pronounced leftward orientation of researchers in social psychology comes in. “Academic psychology once had considerable political diversity, but has lost nearly all of it in the last 50 years,” according to a comprehensive 2014 review. Universities have long tilted to the left, but that tendency has deepened as education has become ever more highly correlated with political ideology. Whatever its origin, this political imbalance makes truth-seeking harder. Studies have repeatedly shown that investigators’ sociopolitical views influence the questions they ask. What’s more, ideologically concordant reviewers are more likely to rate abstracts and papers highly if the findings comport with their own beliefs, all else being equal."

The Experts Somehow Overlooked Authoritarians on the Left

Many psychologists wrongly assumed that coercive attitudes exist only among conservatives.

www.theatlantic.com

"Sally Satel is a psychiatrist, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute"

 

[NorCalDad]

Let's step back a second. The statement about the Fauci "flip-flop" was not an important part of the article in terms of claims. It does give insight into the perspective of the individual writing it, though. The important parts of the article were the claims that the NIH and CDC were losing employees, and some employees left due to the agencies putting politics above science or putting forth "bad" science (paraphrasing).

If you believe mask policy works, you bring it out when you need it. My problem with Fauci is that he intentionally misled people when at the beginning of the pandemic stating that masks are not helpful only because he was afraid everyone would buy up masks and front-line workers. It's funny because I went back and read the stories now, and the common rationalization is, "This was also early in the pandemic before public health experts fully knew how contagious the disease was and how it spread." This is total f'ing BS. In science, you don't make a claim if you don't have enough information. Are they telling us they learned that this is the first virus ever that masks would have helped, or, that they actually believed the Chinese government that the virus was not aerosolized? It makes no sense considering how epidemiologists err on the side of playing it safe w.r.t. viruses (no surfing, remember?). The appropriate response should have been, "We don't know if they help, but they might. Wear one to be safe." Or possibly, "We don't know if they help, but we have front-line workers that need to wear masks, and we are having a shortage, so hold off on buying masks now." I know, I know, you can't trust people to do the right thing when you say the second one, right? If that's the case, don't consider a mandate because you must trust people to perform it for it to work.

To be fair the entire Trump administration played down the virus in the beginning -- they all lied. Mask hoarding was already happening when we just had 5 covid-19 cases: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/29/health/coronavirus-masks-hoarding.html

I personally think the biggest failing, and I have no ida where this lands, is why wasn't our national stockpile ready to go? If there was confidence around that, surely they could've been more transparent with the population.

 

[crush]

No Dr. F, your own party and Independents will be coming after you.
BREAKING: Fauci says he’ll retire at the end of Biden’s term - claims Republicans will 'come after him' if they retake House so I'm sure they will look to cheat, lie and steal or stop the Mid terms.

 

[watfly]

I personally think the biggest failing, and I have no ida where this lands, is why wasn't our national stockpile ready to go? If there was confidence around that, surely they could've been more transparent with the population.

Without getting into the politics of why that may have been, I think this is a valid complaint. We should have been better prepared, but in hindsight would having had more PPE changed things much? We know that the need for ventilators turned out to be misguided. Maybe if we had a stockpile of N95's that could have made a difference.

 

[dad4]

Again I'm not basing it on any conspiracy theories, I'm basing it on actual results, but thanks again for the mischaracterization. At least your consistent.

I'm 100% for vaccine by choice. My objection is as to mandates and restricting movement based upon vaccine results that are only preliminary. If we are going to mandate we need another level of review for FDA approvals and a public use for a certain time prior to mandating. The vaccine is effectively experimental until is proven safe by mass public use. If you choose to get vaccinated like I did based on FDA approval that's great, but to mandate it is not only poor health policy its wholly inappropriate.

Like I said masks, indoors in public places, annoying but big deal.

Before you protest too loudly defending your faith in the scientific process, read what you write:

Which begs the question, how does this impact fertility? This issue has been known for over a year and was initially dismissed by so-called experts.

If you want to dismiss the “sciency types” and “so-called experts“, that’s fine. But don’t complain too loudly when someone points out how it makes you sound.

You can ask reasonable questions about the strength of the impact on menstrual cycle timing, and whether this has other implications for women’s health. Or you can imply that the vaccine causes infertility and all the so-called experts are just lying to you. But the two responses are not the same.

 

[crush]

Before you protest too loudly defending your faith in the scientific process, read what you write:



If you want to dismiss the “sciency types” and “so-called experts“, that’s fine. But don’t complain too loudly when someone points out how it makes you sound.

You can ask reasonable questions about the strength of the impact on menstrual cycle timing, and whether this has other implications for women’s health. Or you can imply that the vaccine causes infertility and all the so-called experts are just lying to you. But the two responses are not the same.

Well, you guys all learned your BS form this cats that came over and infiltrated our country. Operation Paperclip. Tel A Vision was Operation Mockingbird. Now we have control the tables will be flipped. Jeffrey and Hunter got all the goods and they flipped because. Ghost in the Machine is real and all your Science is BS and full of lies and now has caused death & distuction. You, Husker, Espola and few others are on the wrong side of Science because you're a fraud too. You are no math teacher. Come clean with the group, fess up and go away.

 

[dad4]

"Sally Satel is a psychiatrist, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute"

Sure. As right leaning academics get squeezed out, the complaints will come from the right.

Similarly, when left wing academics got forced out in the 1950s, the complaints came mostly from the left.

That doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

 

[crush]

MSNBC hack (Katy Tur) admits that nobody trusts them and wonders out loud whether she is doing more harm than good. This is being honest Dad.

“People don’t trust us. They don’t believe us, and it makes me wonder if this job - as I’m currently doing it - is effective, but if it’s doing more harm than good.”

 

[Happened again]

Idiot.

How COVID-19 (and the Vaccine) Can Impact Your Fertility

Let’s cut to the chase: There’s no credible scientific evidence showing the COVID-19 vaccine has a negative impact on fertility. What can impact your fertility, though, is getting COVID-19, which means there’s just one more reason to get vaccinated.

health.clevelandclinic.org

silly goose, good thing you arent a girl doctor - and there are many out there. Thank you for your male boomer response. Tell me again how what the long term studies show? take a peek at the latest science on vaccines and menstruation. You'll have to swim through the nonsense science of who/what can menstruate but you get the picture. Not only can fever as a result of covid cause infertility, but so can any fevers. You linky is quite dated by the way, science tends to move fast for some in the boomer world.

I dunno, maybe menstruation is tied to reproduction. But thanks again for being a boomer - this one I will treasure. Besides, long term studies are long term studies but we've only been doing this for a few years. Increased blood flow for post menapausal women just normal right. Go boomer..

 

[Happened again]

You can ask reasonable questions about the strength of the impact on menstrual cycle timing, and whether this has other implications for women’s health. Or you can imply that the vaccine causes infertility and all the so-called experts are just lying to you. But the two responses are not the same.

But both can be true - history demostrates it. It can be questioned and you can be lied to...has happened and will continue to happen.