Comments by "Thurso Berwick" (@thursoberwick1948) on "Pro Vax vs Vaccine Hesitant | Middle Ground" video.
-
6
-
@varyolla435 Can you tell me where I used the phrase "alternative vaccine"? Oh that's right. I didn't. Another person trying to get me to defend something I didn't say.
There are several varieties of the current shot, and most of them are not based on traditional vaccination techniques, therefore it is questionable if they can be called or defined as such. They are based on radically different premises, regardless of what one thinks of their efficacy. That is by the admission of those administering them, who say the tech in them has been under development for years.
It would have been more honest to call them something else, but most of the time the public have been treated like cretins through this whole crisis, so why confuse their pretty little heads even more? So no, doesn't walk or quack like a duck, as your metaphor goes. It's more like a seagull, since one can go around saying it's a bird that nests near water, and eats what lives in it, but it's not closely related at all.
You fell straight into the trap mentioned in b) above, because you think in black and white terms about this matter, and prefer to use a one-size-fits-all label. The stupidity of such black and white thinking is made all the more obvious by the fact that dozens of countries have put restrictions on one of the shots, while continuing to adminster others. It is also made even more complex by the fact that some people have had their Covid shots but oppose the tracking IDs most countries are bringing in or the political shenanigans going on just now.
1
-
@varyolla435 Doing it again. Please quote me where I mentioned a "conspiracy theory" in those posts?
What you list as c) is not a vaccine, it is something new. . That is regardless of what one thinks of it. Using your metaphor above, your argument is that because a seagull has webbed feet and eats fish, it should be called a duck. They're both aquatic birds, but they are not both ducks. C) is an injection against an illness, but it is not close enough to a) to be a vaccine (which is old hat.)
In real science, the names for things are very precise, and highly categorised, and you have essentially portrayed two very different things as the same. But one shouldn't be surprised because you seem to do the exact same thing with people as well.
But it is funny see people bandy around the word "science" as a kind of trump card while clearly demonstrating that you do not agree with scientific principles. If you are qualified in some area of STEM yourself, you have even less excuse for this.
Science is not a monolithic belief system - that leads down the road to stupidities like Lysenkoism and Welteislehre. Any respectable scientific or medical journal, will feature scientists debating one another, criticise each other's methodologies and so on. Real science requires peer review, some disgreement over details and constant improvement if problems are found in the methodology, practice or interpretation etc, it certainly aims to rectify problems, not to diminish them or deny them outright.
The scientific ideal is also certainly not something to be passed down from on high by governments or corporate sources. Nor is it something to be used for profiteering or undermining the right to free expression (which runs counter to liberal democracy).
1
-
@varyolla435 Quibbling? Have a word with yourself! Most of what we have seen recently in the mass media & social media is concerning because it disallows the multiplicity of opinions that both real science and a democratic society need to function. We're lucky if we hear 275 "young men" in Israel have had severe heart trouble after the jag even though that figure comes from their Health Ministry, and if we do, we're told it's "neglible". That is an unacceptable rate for any drug usually and no comfort to those affected and their families.
Your techniques are not scientific at all. Firstly, you exclude the middle and lump together all people who disagree with you. Science is not something to be handed down from the political authorities, yet that is exactly how you present it. I take it you know that at least twenty countries have placed restrictions on AZ? The same concerns have emerged about others. Yet if a private citizen in one of the other countries voices some of those exact same concerns, you label them CT, Flat Earther, AV or whatever.
I am extremely high risk for strokes and heart disease due to age and genetics. These can be found on both sides of my family, all of my father's siblings, both my parents, and at least one cousin - probably more if I look into it. This is much worse than the general population and often occurs in our forties and fifties. I have dodged that bullet so far, other than angina... Yet you patronise me for being concerned about this. I was offered AZ with no alternative, and when I express concern I'm poopoo'd by folk like you, even though some places are withdrawing the same drug for younger people under the same concerns, and others already have. (There are also similar issues with at least one other.) Thanks to people like you, I am supposed to put myself at risk from something some governments have already banned. I bet you probably also accept these digital IDs as well even though they have no convincing scientific backing and are a form of authoritarianism. They're causing chaos in Israel too and a hundred other countries want them.
As for Flat Earth, as I've said elsewhere, those folk have been around all my lifetime, but one almost never heard of them. Then suddenly ?ten or so years ago, they get mass coverage and their previously obscure groups seemed to become mysteriously well funded. No idea why all that happened, but they are a very useful group in the sense that anyone who falls out of line with the status quo can be claimed to be associated with them.
p.s. I do not profess to know much about Gulf War Syndrome (and nor do you by the way), but it was certainly real, not just some CT, as many have died from it. The authorities and media denied its very existenxe for a long time, before finally trying to blame it on battlefield contamination of some kind. The only problem with this is that some of the victims were never deployed to the Gulf. Therefore, one should look for environmental, medical, food etc causes for it nearer to home, and see what links all these people together. Militaries are always loathe to admit their mistakes.
1
-
1