The entire CDC Vaccine Advisory Panel has been fired.

[Rockdiamond]

The issue is the concept of fact versus opinion.
Chocolate ice cream is too sweet.”
Opinion. Clearly
“ The Earth is flat”
That, my friends , is a fact.
It’s a wrong fact but a fact to those who believe it nonetheless.
I mean look outside - don’t see a curve???
And nowadays I’ll find many thousands of others who will agree and add their own experience to prove this “fact”.
We see this all over now.
“Alternative Fact”. We’ve even got a name for it!

 

[Gloria27]

So if I got the virus, survived no issues, then I got the shot and got myocarditis after, it's defo the virus that got me sick, that kind of fact?

 

[seaurchin]

The issue is the concept of fact versus opinion.
Chocolate ice cream is too sweet.”
Opinion. Clearly
“ The Earth is flat”
That, my friends , is a fact.
It’s a wrong fact but a fact to those who believe it nonetheless.
I mean look outside - don’t see a curve???
And nowadays I’ll find many thousands of others who will agree and add their own experience to prove this “fact”.
We see this all over now.
“Alternative Fact”. We’ve even got a name for it!

(Sorry so long before. I tried to shorten it here).

True. And when it comes to important issues, it's horrifying when people who lack critical thinking skills or have other agendas are allowed to spread dangerous misinformation freely. It can't be completely stopped but it can definitely be checked.

As I mentioned earlier, just a couple of general, very helpful rules that I've seen on a heavily information-based site (Websleuths), are:

(1) You must provide a source to back up your claims when asked to.

(2) Only certain categories of sources are considered valid. No personal blogs, for ex., etcetera.

Repeat offenders AKA trolls are banned, rather than allowed to continue dominating and destroying productive discussions.

This is a different kind of site from Websleuths of course, but perhaps we could post rules of engagement on a sticky. Then, those who don't go by them could easily be called out, reported, all others asked to put them on "ignore" or whatever.

 

[Rockdiamond]

I don't think it can be completely eradicated but it can definitely be checked and it definitely should be checked.

I’m afraid the horse is so far from the barn…
Old friends- smart people - are parroting party line lies.
I’m having trouble accepting that people I know and love have taken the bait. Hook line and sinker.
So very sad. Flat world It’s a fact

 

[Matata]

The issue is the concept of fact versus opinion.
Chocolate ice cream is too sweet.”
Opinion. Clearly
“ The Earth is flat”
That, my friends , is a fact.
It’s a wrong fact but a fact to those who believe it nonetheless.
I mean look outside - don’t see a curve???
And nowadays I’ll find many thousands of others who will agree and add their own experience to prove this “fact”.
We see this all over now.
“Alternative Fact”. We’ve even got a name for it!

No, absolutely categorically no. There is no such thing as a wrong fact. When there is copious evidence that a thing "is", those who believe that it isn't do not have a different opinion, they are deluded and that is dangerous to society as a whole. The death of expertise has been a topic since the first time the current administration came to be pushing lies to people who, for whatever reason, were gullible and believed them. Experts in every field of science, medicine, climate etc were called all sorts of names and became the enemy and it became a test of loyalty to believe the voice of one person with absolutely no clue about most of those things.

Experts make mistakes and advances in research reveals previously unknown aspects that might change current approaches and when that happens, experts fix the error and plot new courses. Deluded people do not change. They dig in and deny and they are a danger to the greater good.

 

[seaurchin]

So, I guess there are two separate conversations going on here.

I've posted twice re the smaller and more practical issue of trying to make these "Hang Out" forum discussions more productive and factual.

But doing that in the world at large is outside the scope of my abilities. :/

 

[Gloria27]

(Sorry so long before. I tried to shorten it here).

True. And when it comes to important issues, it's horrifying when people who lack critical thinking skills or have other agendas are allowed to spread dangerous misinformation freely. It can't be completely stopped but it can definitely be checked.

As I mentioned earlier, just a couple of general, very helpful rules that I've seen on a heavily information-based site (Websleuths), are:

(1) You must provide a source to back up your claims when asked to.

(2) Only certain categories of sources are considered valid. No personal blogs, for ex., etcetera.

Repeat offenders AKA trolls are banned, rather than allowed to continue dominating and destroying productive discussions.

This is a different kind of site from Websleuths of course, but perhaps we could post rules of engagement on a sticky. Then, those who don't go by them could easily be called out, reported, all others asked to put them on "ignore" or whatever.

Kinda low....trying to insinuate things because you don't agree.

Funny how people that never stepped into a gym (meaning people who care about their bodies on a daily basis, not calling anyone fat just to be clear) are suddenly experts in health and the immune system telling other what to do with their bodies and what treatments they MUST take!

I really don't have anything against anyone getting their jabs.

YOU DO YOU, end of story

 

[Rockdiamond]

No, absolutely categorically no. There is no such thing as a wrong fact

I wish it weren’t so. I hate it. But that’s where we are.
25 years ago a guy holding a sign on the street corner- “The world is flat!!!”
Everyone walked by and giggled.
Now the sane guy has 1million followers
I hate it but it’s our current reality.
And the people in charge are firing anyone who counters the “alternate facts “

 

[Matata]

I wish it weren’t so. I hate it. But that’s where we are.
25 years ago a guy holding a sign on the street corner- “The world is flat!!!”
Everyone walked by and giggled.
Now the sane guy has 1million followers
I hate it but it’s our current reality.
And the people in charge are firing anyone who counters the “alternate facts “

There is no such thing as alternative facts. It's putting lipstick on a pig. Alternative facts are lies and they need to be called out rather than tolerated. We should not permit lies to proliferate when we have opportunities to call them out, to show liars that not everyone is stupid enough to believe them, and that their lies will be challenged. Silence is complicity.

 

[telephone89]

Kinda low....trying to insinuate things because you don't agree.

Funny how people that never stepped into a gym (meaning people who care about their bodies on a daily basis, not calling anyone fat just to be clear) are suddenly experts in health and the immune system telling other what to do with their bodies and what treatments they MUST take!

I really don't have anything against anyone getting their jabs.

YOU DO YOU, end of story

Literally no one in this thread has said they are experts in health and the immune system nor are they telling others what to do with their bodies. I think we all want people to stop posting misinformation.

This seems to be part of the playbook. Post a fake "fact". When someone asks for citation, throw it back on them. When someone posts clarification, move the goal post and change the "fact". When someone calls that out, say it's not your job to educate people. When someone asks for clarity, say they are trying to silence your opinion. Move on to a new fake "fact", rinse and repeat.

People who care about facts are always a step or two behind, having to fact check and dispel all the false information being spread. By the time it's debunked, the liars are already on to another lie. It's a system designed to keep people dumb and in the dark. It's exhausting, but I'm thankful for all the others trying to keep facts at the forefront.

 

[HockeyMama]

No, absolutely categorically no. There is no such thing as a wrong fact. When there is copious evidence that a thing "is", those who believe that it isn't do not have a different opinion, they are deluded and that is dangerous to society as a whole. The death of expertise has been a topic since the first time the current administration came to be pushing lies to people who, for whatever reason, were gullible and believed them. Experts in every field of science, medicine, climate etc were called all sorts of names and became the enemy and it became a test of loyalty to believe the voice of one person with absolutely no clue about most of those things.

Experts make mistakes and advances in research reveals previously unknown aspects that might change current approaches and when that happens, experts fix the error and plot new courses. Deluded people do not change. They dig in and deny and they are a danger to the greater good.

Thank you for sharing this. I looked up some sources on the "death of expertise" and this really resonates with me as a health care worker. I have never felt so hopeless as I have since Covid. I have been practicing since 1998 and have always done my best to meet the standard of care and do what is best for my patients, certainly to do no harm. Since Covid (and political stuff around it, not the illness itself) I am met on a daily basis by skepticism and hate and it has gotten exponentially worse in the past few months. I don't foresee it improving and I plan to retire as soon as I can, but having it framed this way helps me not feel like I'm going crazy. I shared the Tom Nichols article with several of my colleagues and we all feel like a light bulb has gone off.

@Matata, truly thank you, I'm not sure what your background is, but on these contentious threads yours is a voice of reason and balance and I am so grateful for it.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Alternative facts are lies and they need to be called out rather than tolerated

You’re preaching to the choir here. I’m extremely disheartened by the flood of lies being promoted as facts.
Just that realizing the basis of it…. Maybe if there’s any way to combat this dilution of truth. …., it’s grasping the reality of now.
The emperor has no clothes. Welcome to America

 

[Rockdiamond]

and this really resonates with me as a health care worker

Thank you for doing what you do. Sorry you have to deal with ….. current circumstances

 

[Matata]

@HockeyMama It's heartbreaking what you and other health care workers have to endure. Thank you for your dedication and for hanging in there when no one could blame you for walking away.

 

[Matata]

Here's the link to the Tom Nichols article that @HockeyMama referred to in her post. It provides excellent insight into why alternative facts are BS.

The Death Of Expertise

To reject the notion of expertise, and to replace it with a sanctimonious insistence that every person has a right to his or her own opinion, is silly.

thefederalist.com

 

[Rockdiamond]

Facts And Opinions: Half Of Americans Don’t Know The Difference

Do you know the difference between a fact and opinion? According to a recent study, 45.7 percent of Americans don't – and that makes it hard to make good decisions.

www.forbes.com

We agree that “alternative facts” are total BS.
The problem isn’t us.

 

[Matata]

Facts And Opinions: Half Of Americans Don’t Know The Difference

Do you know the difference between a fact and opinion? According to a recent study, 45.7 percent of Americans don't – and that makes it hard to make good decisions.

www.forbes.com

We agree that “alternative facts” are total BS.
The problem isn’t us.

Nichols expertly excoriates those who are problematic.

 

[LightBright]

Not being heartless, I don't think, but if you volunteer for a trial, you know it's a risk, and sign a waiver. If you don't want the risk, you don't enter the trial. It's not that no one cares, it is that it is an assumed risk. They were willing to risk their children and it didn't turn out for one of them. But they made that gamble, and unfortunately lost. Same as if you get behind the wheel of a car or get in an airplane. Bad things can happen, but it's rare and generally safe for most. It's a risk you choose to take.
And was it really the drug company's duty to determine if the child had an autoimmune disease? Does everyone who submits to a trial have to go through a battery of tests for goodness knows what before they are part of study? Nothing would ever get tested.

The trial excluded study subjects with autoimmune disease. It was one of three exclusions (being treated with an immunosuppressing medication, being pregnant, having an autoimmune disease).

I think, cynically, that they were excluding people with a higher risk of vaccine injury from the new technology, which is known to be inflammatory, because they -did- allow people with HIV.

If a child has a serious reaction to a novel vaccine during a clinical trial, I believe the moral responsibility should lie with the government sponsors and manufacturer. I’m wondering what legal liability they had and what was owed.

It’s clear that both government and manufacturer refused to acknowledge or meticulously document post vaccine injuries from the clinical trials onwards. And they refused to acknowledge widespread injuries after the trial, saying they were rare.

As for knowing you have autoimmune disease and knowing it might be a risk for V injury- I know of four prominent men who publicly talked about their unexpected COVID vax adverse events. Three are very very famous and the fourth was recently appointed to the Advisory Panel and is famous in the mRNA science community (see Nature article Missy posted above). All of them had serious autoimmune reactions to the vaccine **with no known autoimmune disease beforehand**.

I’ve heard several people comment here that it’s not actually true that people were getting serious adverse events. I’ve referenced Dr. Iwasaki’s research at Yale showing it is true. There’s a massive study from Israel’s health database that shows t’s true. Search for the paper in NEJM “The safety of XXX in a Nationwide setting”.

It’s unfortunately a problem. The study in NEJM on the Israel database also shows post COVID disease adverse events as well. And didn’t report some of the adverse events (a lot of them actually, for example Long COVID wasn’t reported). AND a huge portion of Israel was mandated to be vaxed, and there were repeated infections, so I’m not sure how they pulled apart the data. For example, the study isn’t clear about which disease strain caused the injuries in which demographics. Israel has meticulous health records aside from a few outside clinics, so it would be easy to report. Also Taiwan has great national health data and noted in a paper some similar events.

Sorry I got off track responding to a comment.

I’ve never talked about any other vaccine concerns eg the childhood schedule because that’s not relevant to this conversation. So no one should assume I’m antivax. I’m looking forward to clearing up the data and science.

My point is that the Advisory Panel might benefit from fresh experts. The “appointee” people are slandering is actually an mRNA expert, biochemist and medical doctor, who was also vaccine injured. He’s certainly as qualified as the people who were fired.

 

[LightBright]

(Sorry so long before. I tried to shorten it here).

True. And when it comes to important issues, it's horrifying when people who lack critical thinking skills or have other agendas are allowed to spread dangerous misinformation freely. It can't be completely stopped but it can definitely be checked.

As I mentioned earlier, just a couple of general, very helpful rules that I've seen on a heavily information-based site (Websleuths), are:

(1) You must provide a source to back up your claims when asked to.

(2) Only certain categories of sources are considered valid. No personal blogs, for ex., etcetera.

Repeat offenders AKA trolls are banned, rather than allowed to continue dominating and destroying productive discussions.

This is a different kind of site from Websleuths of course, but perhaps we could post rules of engagement on a sticky. Then, those who don't go by them could easily be called out, reported, all others asked to put them on "ignore" or whatever.

Banning is gross.

Yes, ask people for their sources. Ask them personally to cite sources and data to support their ideas.

But limiting to only valid sources, no. Who decides what the medical journals publish? It’s controlled. Search for “”Name of Medical Journal” controversy” to see that even elite medical journals who get their ad revenues from Pharma, are manipulable and fallible, even if they are also helpful. Peer review is same.

Personal experience in blogs is often the canary in the coal mine or the tip of the iceberg. You can link an anecdote to data the least would be a medical case study. I’m sure of it. Also non peer reviewed studies or withdrawn studies are worth scrutinizing.

Thinking about banning trolls? I was repeatedly kicked off of Facebook for posting valid studies that destroyed the government’s narrative. One was an early study showing the COVID spike was designed in a lab. It’s very interesting. The correct response would have been to rebut me with your own data (eg fact check is good).

You want to shut people up saying we are dangerous. Who told you that we are dangerous? Why are we dangerous? Let people decide their own medical fate.

I believe in medical freedom which is why I also support a woman’s right to choose. For example, I don’t agree that making abortion stories public and “involving no shame” is dangerous and should be shut down via intimidation.

Ultimately SOMEONE decides what speech to ban. I’m against it. Let people make fools of themselves in public, then it’s our duty to push back freely with no vitriol or violence. That’s what we are about. USA is not Europe, Australia or Canada. <3

 

[LightBright]

No, absolutely categorically no. There is no such thing as a wrong fact. When there is copious evidence that a thing "is", those who believe that it isn't do not have a different opinion, they are deluded and that is dangerous to society as a whole. The death of expertise has been a topic since the first time the current administration came to be pushing lies to people who, for whatever reason, were gullible and believed them. Experts in every field of science, medicine, climate etc were called all sorts of names and became the enemy and it became a test of loyalty to believe the voice of one person with absolutely no clue about most of those things.

Experts make mistakes and advances in research reveals previously unknown aspects that might change current approaches and when that happens, experts fix the error and plot new courses. Deluded people do not change. They dig in and deny and they are a danger to the greater good.

The idea that Experts are the only and final arbiters of truth is risky.

Experts have NIH grant money they and their team and colleagues depend on. Experts I know tailor their research to EXACTLY what the NIH wants. Outsider science doesn’t get funded by the NIH, it gets blacklisted.

I appreciate experts who are powerful enough and well funded enough to make criticism or suggest changes (for example the extremely well connected and well funded director of CHOP’s Vaccine Education Center was allowed to express his concerns and ideas about giving the COVID forth and onwards boosters to young people and even himself.) But he could have stayed silent if he felt like his career and funding was on the line, for example what happened with the COVID Origins paper.

So I think allowing non expert opinion is at least informative. In a free society allowing dialogue is not the greatest risk, silencing people is.

 

[seaurchin]

@LightBright - I think you make some well-reasoned points. Lots to unpack there. I will mull it over. Thanks.

 

[LightBright]

@LightBright - I think you make some well-reasoned points. Lots to unpack there. I will think about it. Thanks.

Goodness no need to respond, it would take too long. I was just making a counterpoint.

 

[Matata]

The idea that Experts are the only and final arbiters of truth is risky.

I agree. And I also agree with your comments about those who receive grants being beholden to those you give them the money. That's why I stated earlier that we're not off the hook linking to studies without first evaluating the who what when where and why of the studies. Most people aren't interested in digging that deep; they either believe the one expert they hear or read or they dismiss any expert who doesn't agree with them. The fact remains that those with education and experience in a subject (experts) know more about the subject than the average person on the street.

 

[seaurchin]

Banning is gross.

Yes, ask people for their sources. Ask them personally to cite sources and data to support their ideas.

But limiting to only valid sources, no. Who decides what the medical journals publish? It’s controlled. Search for “”Name of Medical Journal” controversy” to see that even elite medical journals who get their ad revenues from Pharma, are manipulable and fallible, even if they are also helpful. Peer review is same.

Personal experience in blogs is often the canary in the coal mine or the tip of the iceberg. You can link an anecdote to data the least would be a medical case study. I’m sure of it. Also non peer reviewed studies or withdrawn studies are worth scrutinizing.

Thinking about banning trolls? I was repeatedly kicked off of Facebook for posting valid studies that destroyed the government’s narrative. One was an early study showing the COVID spike was designed in a lab. It’s very interesting. The correct response would have been to rebut me with your own data (eg fact check is good).

You want to shut people up saying we are dangerous. Who told you that we are dangerous? Why are we dangerous? Let people decide their own medical fate.

I believe in medical freedom which is why I also support a woman’s right to choose. For example, I don’t agree that making abortion stories public and “involving no shame” is dangerous and should be shut down via intimidation.

Ultimately SOMEONE decides what speech to ban. I’m against it. Let people make fools of themselves in public, then it’s our duty to push back freely with no vitriol or violence. That’s what we are about. USA is not Europe, Australia or Canada. <3

Okay, I don't disagree with a lot of what you've said but it's not exactly what I was talking about. I was addressing possible agreement on rules of engagement for this smallish forum only. You seem to be talking about the much larger and wider issue of free speech.

All forums have moderators, so there already is that person who decides things, not wide open, anything-goes free speech. And they do have the power to ban repeat or egregious offenders, hopefully as a last resort, but as is considered appropriate and necessary. I have been on forums without moderation and they soon devolved into gutters of frustration or worse that no one would want to hang around in.

I was also not talking about being banned for taking or not taking a certain position on a topic. If you were banned for that, then I definitely think that's wrong. But what I'm talking about is the "rules of engagement" that keep discussions as informative, fair and productive as possible.

As I mentioned elsewhere, things like stating a personal opinion based on nothing, as if it's a fact, and otherwise refusing to engage productively shouldn't be allowed, in my opinion.

I mentioned earlier that, in my experience, a forum that functions at a high level of productivity in practice is Websleuths. That's where the rules I suggested come from.

Opinions ARE allowed to be stated there, as I said, but they can't be false facts. Common sense applies. For ex. you couldn't say, "More people have died from the Covid vaccination than have died from Covid," and refuse to provide a valid source to back that up, if asked to.

In my experience, just letting trolls be trolls on a forum is not typically a good solution at all, in practice. They aren't just ignored. What often happens instead is the troll/s dominate the discussions and the discussions deteriorate. Then you have a bunch of circular, pointless bickering and then people just leave. It's not productive or enjoyable at all imo.

So, that's what I was talking about. That would be my preference, after being on many forums with various rules of engagement and lack thereof. Of course, others are free to prefer something else.

 

[Rockdiamond]

It’s such a slippery slope.
The word “troll”……
I don’t think it applies to anyone participating here in this thread.
Michael Jordan one commented how he wanted to sell sneakers to Republicans too.
I agree- and not for pocketbook issues. It’s just the right thing to do. Respect everyone.
It’s getting much more difficult- I’ll tell you that. For sure some readers will not like what I’ve said. But I try to be respectful.
Not accusing anyone of not being respectful…..

 

[seaurchin]

It’s such a slippery slope.
The word “troll”……
I don’t think it applies to anyone participating here in this thread.
Michael Jordan one commented how he wanted to sell sneakers to Republicans too.
I agree- and not for pocketbook issues. It’s just the right thing to do. Respect everyone.
It’s getting much more difficult- I’ll tell you that. For sure some readers will not like what I’ve said. But I try to be respectful.
Not accusing anyone of not being respectful…..

So sorry you didn't like one of my word choices.

 

[Rockdiamond]

It's not like I'm a moderator.
I really appreciate the community as a longtime member.
We're finishing up the mechanics of adding DBL as a sponsor.
I still wouldn't want to be a moderator.
Remember when we had a functioning government?
There's a rule in the US House of Representatives that members address each other in respectful terms.
Not that that matters these days.

But as a member and participant- even though I may vehemently disagree...I wish we could all show restraint so the real moderators don't have to end discussions.
LEt's face it- on FB for example, when you start reading the comments...you can really start to understand the meaning of the word "troll"
PS has always done a great job of keeping out spammers- or the equivalent in terms for people posting things under false pretenses.
I've had some real disagreements with members - I'd really miss them if they left because they add so much to the discussion.
Just sayin.....

Peace

 

[seaurchin]

It's not like I'm a moderator.
I really appreciate the community as a longtime member.
We're finishing up the mechanics of adding DBL as a sponsor.
I still wouldn't want to be a moderator.
Remember when we had a functioning government?
There's a rule in the US House of Representatives that members address each other in respectful terms.
Not that that matters these days.

But as a member and participant- even though I may vehemently disagree...I wish we could all show restraint so the real moderators don't have to end discussions.
LEt's face it- on FB for example, when you start reading the comments...you can really start to understand the meaning of the word "troll"
PS has always done a great job of keeping out spammers- or the equivalent in terms for people posting things under false pretenses.
I've had some real disagreements with members - I'd really miss them if they left because they add so much to the discussion.
Just sayin.....

Peace

TBH I'm confused as to why you've singled out that one word to take issue with, out of a couple of long posts that were meant to suggest an actual solution to so many threads going off the rails and being deleted.

I'm not sure what you think an internet troll is but LightBright and I both used the term in a discussion of what should be done about "trolls," whether here or in general. In my understanding, a troll is just someone who provokes and doesn't engage in good faith.

If you're talking about earlier disagreements on this thread in a veiled way, I'd say those are best left in the past unless the moderator decides to revisit them.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Guilty of not reading the entire thread.
Also guilty of possibly not being aware of the meaning of the word troll.
The whole fact vs opinion argument seems to apply. We’re never all going to agree on some very crucial points
In “real life” I truly avoid people who can’t seem to grasp fact vs falsity.
Or in social situations make sure not to bring up anything which will turn the discussion to things like vaccines.

I welcome the opportunity to discuss under the limitations of a moderated forum. I’d like to hear the other side even if it’s what I consider “misinformation”
Peace

 

[Lookinagain]

If a child has a serious reaction to a novel vaccine during a clinical trial, I believe the moral responsibility should lie with the government sponsors and manufacturer. I’m wondering what legal liability they had and what was owed.

As I stated in my post, I would think that all participants signed a waiver, relieving the manufacturer, and perhaps the government, of liability. The government probably has immunity unless the action fits into one of the few exclusions. I haven't researched that, so it is an assumption on my part. Participants in studies are generally paid so there is financial gain as well, which is the consideration for the waiver and submission to the study. Morally, perhaps there is responsibility, but I still think that it was an assumed risk by the parents. Unfortunately one with a bad outcome, but assumed. If you sign a paper saying that you understand there is a risk and that there could be a bad outcome, accept the payment, then it's kind of hard to then go back and still sue the group conducting the study unless you can show some kind of negligence. You went into it with your eyes open and were compensated. If you don't want the risk, you shouldn't join the study. That seems pretty straightforward to me.