Teens in California mock anti maskers on video along with, "I love Communism".

lewisnotmiller · Oct 19, 2021

InChrist said:
It may be that a lot of what’s been shut down are organized anti-vax voices. That is not what I am referring to, though. There are reputable physicians and scientists with degrees, expertise and years of experience who when expressing concerns are silenced and/or slandered. From what I read these are not in anyway anti-vaccine. They simply have serious safety concerns about the mRNA vaccines. For actually practicing proper science and medicine and expressing their views or findings they are being taken down, censored or even fired.

I'd need specific examples. I have accessed material put up by people with concerns on mRNA vaccines previously, but it's not something I'm trawling around after.
What was notable about the material I accessed...much like scientific material in FAVOUR of vaccines...is that it's not simple or black/white in nature. It talks about risk profiles, target groups, and testing protocols before adminstration. Not so much the 'vaccines are bad, we shouldn't do this' type rhetoric we are often subjected to.

I have little doubt that some rational voices have been silenced at times through this. I also have no doubt that there are costs to unclear messaging, and vaccine hesitancy.

Twilight Hue · Oct 19, 2021

InChrist said:
I am sorry, but I cannot agree with you. I see the NIH, FDA and CDC as highly compromised and following the profit method, rather than the scientific method. The pharmaceutical industry has a huge amount of control over these agencies and it about better business and making money, not public health in my view.

https://jpands.org/vol25no3/huntoon.pdf

“The FDA, obviously, has to work with the industry, and that's good. But when the FDA starts getting taken over in many ways by the industry, that's not good. In response to the questionnaire that we sent out to the physicians at the FDA, they themselves told us that, many times, they believe that industry influence was operating on the people above them, and getting their bosses to overturn some of the decisions that they had made against approving a drug.

So there are lots of sources of evidence about the fact that the pharmaceutical industry has an almost unprecedented finger or thumb on the FDA in the last few years, compared with any time in the past. ...“
The Fda - How Independent Is The Fda? | Dangerous Prescription | FRONTLINE | PBS

So... FDA advisors vote to recommend Moderna booster.

“The data are not perfect, but these are extraordinary times and we have to work with data that are not perfect,” said Eric Rubin, MD, editor-in-chief of TheNew England Journal of Medicine and a temporary voting member on the committee.

Patrick Moore, MD, a professor at the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute who is also a temporary voting member, said he voted to approve the Moderna boosters based “more on a gut feeling than on truly serious data.”

Is this following the scientific method? “gut feeling”?

In the meantime...
The success of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine has minted three new billionaires who had early stakes in the biotech startup, leading to their debut on this year’s Forbes list of the 400 richest people in the US.

https://nypost.com/2021/10/07/moderna-founders-make-forbes-list-of-400-richest-americans/

I have researched this collusion between government agencies and industry for several years since seeing the revolving door connection between Monsanto executives and the FDA. So, honestly, I can only conclude there is a conflict of interest and profit is the priority, not health.

There is a direct relationship involving big pharma, politictions, and CDC as well.

Follow the money.

ecco · Oct 19, 2021

InChrist said:
I think it more a situation of too many people ( mostly Dems, but plenty of Republicans, too, as well as bureaucratic government agencies and pharmaceutical corporate entities) pushing and following consensus-driven political science, which is at odds with the scientific method that encourages debate and dissenting evidence as a way of discovering objective scientific truth.

The scientists who uncovered the pandemic and the scientists who found it was primarily airborne and the scientists who developed the vaccines had no political axes.

"Government agencies" like Donald Trump heavily influenced the course of things in this Country by repeatedly denying the seriousness of the pandemic.

Apolitical scientists like Dr Fauci and Dr Berks often said things that were contradicted by Trump.

With Trump out of office, "Government agencies" published factual information about the disease, the vaccines, the "alternative medicines", etc. They were not "pushing and following consensus-driven political science", they were publishing facts.

InChrist said:
Any differing views or discussion besides the party line mantra, even from highly qualified scientists or physicians, are immediately shut down.

That was true while Trump was in office. If you think that was the case during the Biden administration, give some solid examples from legitimate sources.

InChrist said:
Therefore, legitimate science has also been shut down.

Trump shut down passing legitimate science on to the public by declaring that the pandemic was no big deal and would be over by summer.

Now it's your turn to provide specific examples.

InChrist · Oct 19, 2021

lewisnotmiller said:
I'd need specific examples. I have accessed material put up by people with concerns on mRNA vaccines previously, but it's not something I'm trawling around after.
What was notable about the material I accessed...much like scientific material in FAVOUR of vaccines...is that it's not simple or black/white in nature. It talks about risk profiles, target groups, and testing protocols before adminstration. Not so much the 'vaccines are bad, we shouldn't do this' type rhetoric we are often subjected to.

I have little doubt that some rational voices have been silenced at times through this. I also have no doubt that there are costs to unclear messaging, and vaccine hesitancy.

So tell me what specific examples may I provide without breaking rule 9 and/or having content removed?

InChrist · Oct 19, 2021

ecco said:
The scientists who uncovered the pandemic and the scientists who found it was primarily airborne and the scientists who developed the vaccines had no political axes.

"Government agencies" like Donald Trump heavily influenced the course of things in this Country by repeatedly denying the seriousness of the pandemic.

Apolitical scientists like Dr Fauci and Dr Berks often said things that were contradicted by Trump.

With Trump out of office, "Government agencies" published factual information about the disease, the vaccines, the "alternative medicines", etc. They were not "pushing and following consensus-driven political science", they were publishing facts.

That was true while Trump was in office. If you think that was the case during the Biden administration, give some solid examples from legitimate sources.

Trump shut down passing legitimate science on to the public by declaring that the pandemic was no big deal and would be over by summer.

Now it's your turn to provide specific examples.

Look, I don’t like Trump and I’m not interested in any discussion on him. If you want to re-write your post without obsessing on him go ahead.

As far as I see it, the corruption between government agencies and the pharmaceutical industry for profit over health crosses over both political parties.

Wildswanderer · Oct 19, 2021

InChrist · Oct 19, 2021

Twilight Hue said:
There is a direct relationship involving big pharma, politictions, and CDC as well.

Follow the money.

I agree.

lewisnotmiller · Oct 19, 2021

InChrist said:
So tell me what specific examples may I provide without breaking rule 9 and/or having content removed?

Sorry, I was unclear. I'm not suggesting you post it here (or even try to convince me here).
I just mean that to come to the conclusion you seem to have, I'd need to see instances of credible research and opinion being quelled. I've been able to access a variety of research and opinion.

I think in terms of public debate, and political positioning, there is some element of truth in what you say, but I think the purpose behind that is less nefarious than some seem to assume. It is not a matter of telling everyone the details of in flight research and letting them make up their own mind. You may obviously disagree on the latter.

InChrist · Oct 19, 2021

lewisnotmiller said:
Sorry, I was unclear. I'm not suggesting you post it here (or even try to convince me here).
I just mean that to come to the conclusion you seem to have, I'd need to see instances of credible research and opinion being quelled. I've been able to access a variety of research and opinion.

I think in terms of public debate, and political positioning, there is some element of truth in what you say, but I think the purpose behind that is less nefarious than some seem to assume. It is not a matter of telling everyone the details of in flight research and letting them make up their own mind. You may obviously disagree on the latter.

Thank you for the clarification and your thoughts.
There appear to be thousands of physicians around the world who have come to the conclusion that the situation may be nefarious. I suppose, if they feel informed consent is not being adequately provided concerning short or long term risks associated with the mRNA/ Covid vaccines, violating the Hippocratic Oath and rights of patients, they would consider it wrong. Or if public policy makers are enforcing the vaccine treatment as the only strategy for financial gain, rather than individualized, personalized approach to patient care, they may see it ad evil. And if
thousands of physicians are being prevented from providing treatment to their patients, due to barriers put up by government funded pharmacies, hospitals, and public health agencies, causing a vast majority of healthcare providers to be helpless in protect their patients resulting in hundreds and thousands of unnecessary patient deaths, due to failure-to-treat... then I would say some have valid reasons to see nefarious activity taking place.
Just some thoughts, I realize you may not agree.

Subduction Zone · Oct 19, 2021

InChrist said:
Thank you for the clarification and your thoughts.
There appear to be thousands of physicians around the world who have come to the conclusion that the situation may be nefarious. I suppose, if they feel informed consent is not being adequately provided concerning short or long term risks associated with the mRNA/ Covid vaccines, violating the Hippocratic Oath and rights of patients, they would consider it wrong. Or if public policy makers are enforcing the vaccine treatment as the only strategy for financial gain, rather than individualized, personalized approach to patient care, they may see it ad evil. And if
thousands of physicians are being prevented from providing treatment to their patients, due to barriers put up by government funded pharmacies, hospitals, and public health agencies, causing a vast majority of healthcare providers to be helpless in protect their patients resulting in hundreds and thousands of unnecessary patient deaths, due to failure-to-treat... then I would say some have valid reasons to see nefarious activity taking place.
Just some thoughts, I realize you may not agree.

Perhaps a tiny percentage, by your numbers well below one percent, may have come to a conclusion that they cannot justify. Being a doctor does not make one an expert on viruses or vaccines. And there are many that barely got through med school.

You know what would be impressive? If some people following the scientific method showed that there was something nefarious about this disease. And yet with countless scientists actually working on this at that level none of them seem to have found such evidence.

So who do you believe? The experts that say that they cannot find any such evidence or the unqualified people that just have a "feeling"?

InChrist · Oct 19, 2021

Subduction Zone said:
Perhaps a tiny percentage, by your numbers well below one percent, may have come to a conclusion that they cannot justify. Being a doctor does not make one an expert on viruses or vaccines. And there are many that barely got through med school.

You know what would be impressive? If some people following the scientific method showed that there was something nefarious about this disease. And yet with countless scientists actually working on this at that level none of them seem to have found such evidence.

So who do you believe? The experts that say that they cannot find any such evidence or the unqualified people that just have a "feeling"?

I find your post a little disjointed and unclear. If you want to clarify your thoughts, go ahead. I probably won’t be online again until tomorrow, though.
Anyway, I don’t think “feelings” should take the place of legitimate science, nor do I think decisions impacting health should be based on “gut feelings”, like the recent FDA vote if approval for Moderna’s booster...

The data are not perfect, but these are extraordinary times and we have to work with data that are not perfect,” said Eric Rubin, MD, editor-in-chief of TheNew England Journal of Medicine and a temporary voting member on the committee.

Patrick Moore, MD, a professor at the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute who is also a temporary voting member, said he voted to approve the Moderna boosters based “more on a gut feeling than on truly serious data.”
FDA Advisors Vote to Recommend Moderna Boosters

Subduction Zone · Oct 19, 2021

InChrist said:
I find your post a little disjointed and unclear. If you want to clarify your thoughts, go ahead. I probably won’t be online again until tomorrow, though.
Anyway, I don’t think “feelings” should take the place of legitimate science, nor do I think decisions impacting health should be based on “gut feelings”, like the recent FDA vote if approval for Moderna’s booster...

The data are not perfect, but these are extraordinary times and we have to work with data that are not perfect,” said Eric Rubin, MD, editor-in-chief of TheNew England Journal of Medicine and a temporary voting member on the committee.

Patrick Moore, MD, a professor at the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute who is also a temporary voting member, said he voted to approve the Moderna boosters based “more on a gut feeling than on truly serious data.”
FDA Advisors Vote to Recommend Moderna Boosters

You forgot your own post so rapidly? You said this:

"There appear to be thousands of physicians around the world who have come to the conclusion that the situation may be nefarious"

Physicians are hardly more qualified than the average Joe when it comes to where the disease came from. Why listen to a very tiny minority of people that are likely to be a bit off the deep end? You should got to the experts in the field. Experts on viruses, how they arise, how they evolve, etc.. Physicians are not experts when it comes to that. I do not know of any reliable peer reviewed articles by those that do understand viruses that support those claims. And even if you found one, that is not nearly enough. There may be a lone loon or two in the science world. The question is can they support their beliefs. We know that physicians cannot.

metis · Oct 20, 2021

ecco said:
The scientists who uncovered the pandemic and the scientists who found it was primarily airborne and the scientists who developed the vaccines had no political axes.

"Government agencies" like Donald Trump heavily influenced the course of things in this Country by repeatedly denying the seriousness of the pandemic.

Apolitical scientists like Dr Fauci and Dr Berks often said things that were contradicted by Trump.

With Trump out of office, "Government agencies" published factual information about the disease, the vaccines, the "alternative medicines", etc. They were not "pushing and following consensus-driven political science", they were publishing facts.

That was true while Trump was in office. If you think that was the case during the Biden administration, give some solid examples from legitimate sources.

Trump shut down passing legitimate science on to the public by declaring that the pandemic was no big deal and would be over by summer.

Now it's your turn to provide specific examples.

Amen to the above, and the element that's been more political about this is the one now more out of office in D.C.

metis · Oct 20, 2021

Conspiracy theories abound from the right on this, such as the bogus charges that the CDC is in cahoots with big pharma.

There are around 300 countries worldwide, but only a relative few produce a vaccine. And yet we basically see all countries trying to get access to the vaccines, so are we to believe all their leaders and constituents are in cahoots with big pharma?

Vaccines and masks work, that we know with certainty, but nothing is perfect, including them.

ecco · Oct 20, 2021

Twilight Hue said:
He decimated many ridiculous and dangerous regulations the democrats used to control people with.

Is this just another unsupported opinion of yours or can you actually cite some dangerous regulations that the Democrats used to control people?

ecco · Oct 20, 2021

InChrist said:
There are reputable physicians and scientists with degrees, expertise and years of experience who when expressing concerns are silenced and/or slandered.

So you say. But can you actually list some of these "reputable physicians and scientists with degrees, expertise and years of experience who when expressing concerns are silenced and/or slandered"?

Your argument is very similar to those made by creationists: Creationist scientists write papers challenging evolution and can't get published and are slandered.

Is there a connection?

ecco · Oct 20, 2021

Twilight Hue said:
There is a direct relationship involving big pharma, politictions, and CDC as well.

Follow the money.

If there is such a "direct relationship" as you assert, you should be able to document it instead of saying we should follow the money. You made the assertion, you support it. If you can. If you don't, perhaps it's because you have nothing - again.

ecco · Oct 20, 2021

InChrist said:
Look, I don’t like Trump and I’m not interested in any discussion on him. If you want to re-write your post without obsessing on him go ahead.

Why do you write that I am obsessing over Trump?

You are the one who made spurious allegations directed at members of political parties...

InChrist said:
As far as I see it, the corruption between government agencies and the pharmaceutical industry for profit over health crosses over both political parties.

You went further...

InChrist said:
I think it more a situation of too many people ( mostly Dems, but plenty of Republicans, too, as well as bureaucratic government agencies and pharmaceutical corporate entities) pushing and following consensus-driven political science, which is at odds with the scientific method that encourages debate and dissenting evidence as a way of discovering objective scientific truth.

Since you brought the aspect of political parties into the conversation, why do you object if I use the heads of those parties to point out how incorrect your comments really are?

InChrist said:
As far as I see it, the corruption between government agencies and the pharmaceutical industry for profit over health crosses over both political parties.

You have yet to demonstrate any example of corruption between government agencies and the pharmaceutical industry in relation to the pandemic.

This is just another instance of you making assertions and not supporting them with any facts.

ecco · Oct 20, 2021

InChrist said:
There appear to be thousands of physicians

InChrist said:
if they feel

InChrist said:
if public policy makers

InChrist said:
if
thousands of physicians are being prevented

A lot of "if"s. Nothing supported with facts. All leading to your baseless conclusion...

InChrist said:
causing a vast majority of healthcare providers to be helpless

When are you going to even try to support your arguments and allegations with actual facts?

Twilight Hue · Oct 20, 2021

ecco said:
If there is such a "direct relationship" as you assert, you should be able to document it instead of saying we should follow the money. You made the assertion, you support it. If you can. If you don't, perhaps it's because you have nothing - again.

Money is involved. It's not very hard to not to see that it's the case.

Teens in California mock anti maskers on video along with, "I love Communism".

Grand Hat

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.

Veteran Member

Free4ever

Free4ever

Veteran Member

Free4ever

Grand Hat

Free4ever

Veteran Member

Free4ever

Veteran Member

aged ecumenical anthropologist

aged ecumenical anthropologist

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.