Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "A Contagion of Bad Ideas: A Conversation with Eric Topol (Episode #256)" video.

One of my (non-FDA-approved) vaccine hesitant friends just volunteered for a COVID monoclonal antibody study. What "group" does she belong to?
4
@billweir1745 Except that those aren't "anti-vaxxers," nor are they people who do not plan to become vaccinated. Many already are. Their concerns are on another level. This is a small number of people, and they are not spreading rumors to dissuade anyone else from getting vaccinated. You'll also notice that some civil rights lawyers do not like EUA vaccine mandates; Dr. Topol gave them a subtle nod toward the end. . . Whole different ball of wax.
4
@Leksa135 Why are so many Americans so infuriated by intelligent, fair-minded people? Why, in other words, do they keep imitating Trump? He's not president any more.
3
CDC just said 8 months. That would be three boosters every two years.
2
@TheThriftShopSampler I think Dr. Topol has been by far the most honest pro-vaccination person. His more recent interviews are MUCH better. Here, he says there is enough evidence to do more trials of ivermectin, but not yet enough to recommend it broadly (true); then also this: 1:17:27 Dr. Topol recently called the American approach excessively "vaccine-centric." THANK YOU.
2
He isn't very bright, frankly. I've heard these persuaders before.
2
Yeah, they produced Sputnik V, the first vaccine.
2
The decent part starts at 1:17:37.
1
Long wait, granted.
1
This.
1
@OliverFFM90 I don't dispute that at all.
1
Sam Harris may know how to please, but if you listen closely, you'll realize he's not very bright.
1
@ham burges I like Dr. Topol much better than Bret Weinstein, BUT I find nothing lower in rhetoric than well-crafted innuendo, not to mention all the other logical flaws in this presentation.
1
@ham burges Here is one that pops right out. When Harris pointed out that something like 5% of Democrats, but over 20% of Republicans were "vaccine hesitant," he made not one but at least three obvious mistakes: first, the "vaccine hesitant" include those adamantly against any vaccine, those with grave doubts about THESE vaccines, those who believe their legitimate concerns have not been properly addressed, and those who want the vaccines to be fully approved before giving them to kids or to most people under 40. Pretty diverse bunch. Second, is everyone a Republican or a Democrat? Maybe most seniors are, but most young people are Independents. Left those out, I see. Finally, you can't presume correlation means causation. At least there, they were able to identify some rotten actors on Fox that flatter their viewers with antivax garbage, while they themselves enjoy concierge service for all their immunizations, including especially these. The innuendo about the alleged insanity of any scientist or research physician with doubts about mRNA vaccines was egregious. The point could have been made without calumny. But getting people emotional is how he makes his money now, too. In that, he's not so different from Ingraham et al. It's too sweet not to pick up. These are all well-known fallacies of informal logic.
1
@ham burges More to the point, you didn't notice?
1
@ham burges Blocked. And your "arguments" are pure Trumpian. That's what passes for argument, now. And why not? It's what makes money.
1
@ham burges P. S. SO glad I'm also multi-lingual, and emigrating by mid-decade. You need to care about your society.
1
Precisely.
1
Dr. Eric Topol recently gave an interview where he said that the US has been overly "vaccine-centric" and that taking a multipronged approach would be preferable. I though he was great. I'm surprised to hear this. And blaming the Russians? The Russians produced the first vaccine. You can get it across the border in Mexico.
1
I think it's true that VAERS has been contaminated with false data. This should worry every doctor, because it is ruining our picture of how risky the vaccine might be.
1
@Leksa135 What would that really stupid thing be? Concern that these still not fully approved vaccines cause unusual patterns of reactivity and seem to lose effectiveness too rapidly, or that Russian disinformation is behind all anti-vaxxer nonsense? The former is not stupid; while no educated person really believes the latter anyway. If they give that impression, they are just exasperated and misspoke.
1
@Leksa135 You poor thing.
1
@Leksa135 Now I envy you!
1
@do_care919 The CDC just acknowledged it.
1
@do_care919 "PBS Vaccinated People With Breakthrough Infections Can Spread The Delta Variant, CDC Says July 30, 2021 3:34 PM ET" And since then we've learned their viral load is higher than previously believed, making them as contagious, not to mention that they are more likely to be asymptomatic carriers. Vaccines work, just not to protect those who don't get them.
1
@do_care919 Where did I use the word infectious? I said people with identical viral loads are presumed to be equally contagious. Look it up yourself. My city is back to universal masks. -- and what of it? We need to be.
1
@do_care919 By August 19, reported everywhere. Pfft.
1
@do_care919 https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/08/grim-warning-israel-vaccination-blunts-does-not-defeat-delta
1
1:17:37 Most important part
1
@Sam-gy3ok In my experience, a woman I know who will not take these vaccines before full FDA approval has just volunteered for a COVID monoclonal antibody study.
1
@thegreen2504 This is nonsense. All vaccinations, and all medicines in general, are tested for "safety" and "effectiveness." Safety always entails evidence of no significant harm, either in the short term or over the long term. This MUST be investigated in vivo, not just based on things like "no apparent mechanism for long-term harm to be produced." I wonder if you believe your own schtick. I also wonder about false flags -- are you actually trying to make the vaccinated look stupid? (If so, a decent start.)
1
@thegreen2504 Why do you think they test vaccines on animals having significantly shorter lifespans than humans do? It provides some evidence of absence of long-term side effects.
1
@smozhright789 It depends on how you view the animal data, and the degree of confidence that may be ascribed to the animal studies for a particular kind of drug. For example, drugs are now tested on "humanized" mice, which go through a life cycle quickly. So, we don't need a generation to be sure of a vaccine's safety. But do we have long-term human safety information on the COVID vaccines based purely on observing humans? Uhh . . . no. No kidding. How big of a deal is that? Well, that's why I believe in individualized medical decisions. (Is it a real big deal for a 70 year old man with Type II diabetes? Is it a big deal for 15 year old kids? I mean come on!)
1
@smozhright789 Oh, missed this business about "idiot," etc. Blocked.
1
@smozhright789 You had no reason to say I sound like an idiot. What I don't agree with is throwing all ethics out the window. This country is having "emergency" after "emergency," giving up more privacy and more freedom, "just this once." "Just once more, we promise." I don't believe in mandating vaccines. I believe in individualized medical advice. Testing on animals and observing their entire life cycle gives important information. Otherwise, no vaccines could be approved until 40 years went by. I mean, what's ten years, after all? You give a baby a vaccine, ten years later they haven't even passed through puberty.
1
This did not age well. We now know that vaccinated people can be asymptomatic carriers of the delta variant, with enough virus to be contagious, to everyone. Universal mask mandates just returned to my city. A vaccine primarily protects the vaccinated. A mask protects others more than it protects the wearer, and universal compliance increases the global efficacy of masks. Why has all of this been politicized?
1