Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Have any of you gotten a vaccine?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
    This is a bit scary. Those who get the mRNA shots are exposed to the possibility of prions leading to the human equivalent of mad-cow disease. The study exposing this possibility is found at: https://carterheavyindustries.files....sease-1503.pdf
    "Study"? One could certainly call this a "paper" but it's hardly a "study" as there appears to not actually be an actual study in it. Calling it a "study" is just a way to try to prop it up and make it look like there's more evidence behind it than there is. There are additional warning flags. The author, J. Bart Classen, is a noted anti-vaxxer. We're not talking about someone who's a neutral party. And a little research indicates that the the journal it's in, "Microbiology and Infectious Diseases", isn't thought of very well. It was on Beall's list of predatory journals here although in fairness the list was last updated in 2017, but it also isn't listed in PubMed which is an indication that it's not regarded well as a journal. (more information on the issues of this "study" are available here)

    So this "study" is really just a brief essay by a noted anti-vaxxer in a journal that is of questionable quality.

    A brief discussion on the report is found at: https://www.bitchute.com/video/nRTkUYxuV5vo/
    A video with a title of "CDC warns Zombie Apocalypse is Coming! - COVID Vaccines and the Risk of Prion Disease" is not something that makes me think I should take it seriously.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
      "Study"? One could certainly call this a "paper" but it's hardly a "study" as there appears to not actually be an actual study in it. Calling it a "study" is just a way to try to prop it up and make it look like there's more evidence behind it than there is. There are additional warning flags. The author, J. Bart Classen, is a noted anti-vaxxer. We're not talking about someone who's a neutral party. And a little research indicates that the the journal it's in, "Microbiology and Infectious Diseases", isn't thought of very well. It was on Beall's list of predatory journals here although in fairness the list was last updated in 2017, but it also isn't listed in PubMed which is an indication that it's not regarded well as a journal. (more information on the issues of this "study" are available here)

      So this "study" is really just a brief essay by a noted anti-vaxxer in a journal that is of questionable quality.


      A video with a title of "CDC warns Zombie Apocalypse is Coming! - COVID Vaccines and the Risk of Prion Disease" is not something that makes me think I should take it seriously.
      Should we label all scientists who find a problem in certain vaccine to be an anti-vaxxer? Or is this terminology only applied to those whose children have drastically lost their ability to talk or communicate shortly after getting a vaccine? Do you cling to the anti-vaxxer terminology so that you do not have to investigate the VAERS reports of all the injuries and deaths that have been connected with vaccines? It is a happy life where one just wishes away all the dark things in the world.

      Sorry about the title of the video. The CDC was trying to capture people's attention with the spoof. But you may take your own advice and avoid the CDC website and information that comes from there.

      It is nice to hear about your biases against the "paper." Maybe we can get a scientific-based response. If you have anything to discuss on the points presented in the study or paper, that would be helpful.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post

        Should we label all scientists who find a problem in certain vaccine to be an anti-vaxxer? Or is this terminology only applied to those whose children have drastically lost their ability to talk or communicate shortly after getting a vaccine? Do you cling to the anti-vaxxer terminology so that you do not have to investigate the VAERS reports of all the injuries and deaths that have been connected with vaccines? It is a happy life where one just wishes away all the dark things in the world.
        The guy is mostly known for writing stuff attacking vaccinations--and not just a "certain vaccine" but a lot more of them. If a clear anti-vaccination bias doesn't qualify someone as an "anti-vaxxer" then exactly what does? Isn't that what the term is supposed to mean? Now, maybe you think it's a pejorative or whatever, and in that case, go with "anti-vaccination" or if even that's too much, "criticizes vaccination." The point is that he's known for attacking vaccinations so him claiming a new vaccination is bad is par for the course for him. We're not talking about a neutral source here.

        Now, someone having a bias doesn't mean their arguments or conclusions are inherently wrong. But it makes them more suspect. That's my point. In other words, before getting into any kind of analysis of whether the claims themselves are true or not, there's already a number of flags that say this isn't necessarily on the up and up: His biases, the lack of a real study being done, and the journal itself. Due to those considerations, already there seems much less reason to find this "a bit scary" than if it was by a more neutral source in a respected journal that had hard and clear data backing it up (i.e. an actual study).

        To be fair, it doesn't refer to itself as a study--that was your claim. But the point is that trying to present it as a "study" gives it far more credit than it deserves.

        It is nice to hear about your biases against the "paper."
        This can hardly be called a study, it's by someone with a major bias, and the validity of the journal it was published in is unclear. I suppose those technically are "biases" on my part but only in the same way that if I get an e-mail telling me that an African prince is going to give me a million dollars if I give them my bank account, I'm "biased" against it because those things have a tendency to be totally false.

        Maybe we can get a scientific-based response. If you have anything to discuss on the points presented in the study or paper, that would be helpful.
        You mean you want an actual doctor's response? Okay. Try here. There is a good amount of preparatory material so if you want specifically the answer to Classen's paper so if you want that then scroll down a bit into the "Enter J. Bart Classen" heading.
        Last edited by Terraceth; 04-12-2021, 12:43 AM.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
          The guy is mostly known for writing stuff attacking vaccinations--and not just a "certain vaccine" but a lot more of them. If a clear anti-vaccination bias doesn't qualify someone as an "anti-vaxxer" then exactly what does? Isn't that what the term is supposed to mean? Now, maybe you think it's a pejorative or whatever, and in that case, go with "anti-vaccination" or if even that's too much, "criticizes vaccination." The point is that he's known for attacking vaccinations so him claiming a new vaccination is bad is par for the course for him. We're not talking about a neutral source here.

          Now, someone having a bias doesn't mean their arguments or conclusions are inherently wrong. But it makes them more suspect. That's my point. In other words, before getting into any kind of analysis of whether the claims themselves are true or not, there's already a number of flags that say this isn't necessarily on the up and up: His biases, the lack of a real study being done, and the journal itself. Due to those considerations, already there seems much less reason to find this "a bit scary" than if it was by a more neutral source in a respected journal that had hard and clear data backing it up (i.e. an actual study).

          To be fair, it doesn't refer to itself as a study--that was your claim. But the point is that trying to present it as a "study" gives it far more credit than it deserves.


          This can hardly be called a study, it's by someone with a major bias, and the validity of the journal it was published in is unclear. I suppose those technically are "biases" on my part but only in the same way that if I get an e-mail telling me that an African prince is going to give me a million dollars if I give them my bank account, I'm "biased" against it because those things have a tendency to be totally false.


          You mean you want an actual doctor's response? Okay. Try here. There is a good amount of preparatory material so if you want specifically the answer to Classen's paper so if you want that then scroll down a bit into the "Enter J. Bart Classen" heading.
          You kind of discredit your response by referring to an "actual" doctor. You also neglect that vaccine studies are done by biased groups. The manufacturers who do the trials are known not only as pro-vaxxers but also as recipients of great sums of money for vaccines which are approved. Some of the junk on the link you gave makes it sound like people are cautious against vaccines without basis. However, people are typically against, for example, childhood vaccines, because they have had a child die from an injection or have suddenly become unable to talk anymore -- entering into depths of autism. If Gorski brought those issues into view, he might start to gain some credibility.

          The site supports the idea that rtPCR tests are accurate. Maybe the article was posted too early to consider the https://cormandrostenreview.com

          Gorski lost all focus on Classen by arguing about flu shots and other prion theories. We saw a similarly bad article (maybe from The Atlantic) which talked about Nazis and then about Trump. There was no real connection between Trump and Nazis but an impression of this was made by putting the two topics together in the same article. Even worse is that Gorski's article calls Classen's position disinformation.

          Maybe there is a viewpoint that you want to share that does not nullify itself so badly.

          Comment


          • I can concur that Classen has failed to include some vital details about his methodology. So Gorski has not totally failed to make a point.

            Comment


            • Fauci the Fraud says that even if you've received the experimental China flu vaccine, you still need to wear a mask, socially distance, and avoid indoor activities.

              So basically, the vaccine is worthless?

              https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2021...re-vaccinated/
              Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
              But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
              Than a fool in the eyes of God


              From "Fools Gold" by Petra

              Comment


              • Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
                This is a bit scary. Those who get the mRNA shots are exposed to the possibility of prions leading to the human equivalent of mad-cow disease. The study exposing this possibility is found at: https://carterheavyindustries.files....sease-1503.pdf
                Here is part of the abstract:


                A brief discussion on the report is found at: https://www.bitchute.com/video/nRTkUYxuV5vo/

                We could have hoped that this was discovered before getting the covid shots out to so many people. The effect may not be expected until 1 to 3 years later. And this is only one of the mechanisms for potential harm by the covid shots.

                The prions are discussed at: https://www.cdc.gov/prions/cjd/

                J. Bart Classen
                John Barthelow Classen is an anti-vaccine advocate who has published research falsely linking vaccines to diabetes, Alzheimer's, and other diseases.
                https://www.politifact.com/personali...-bart-classen/


                John Barthelow Classen is an American immunologist and anti-vaccinationist. He received his M.D. from the University of Maryland, Baltimore in 1988, his M.B.A. from Columbia University in 1992 and obtained his medical license in October 1997.[1][2] He is best known for publishing research concluding that vaccines, in particular the Hib vaccine, cause insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus,[3] a hypothesis he proposed based on experiments he conducted on mice in 1996.[4] His views are disputed and considered unverified.

                A widely-reposted 2021 Facebook post claiming that the mRNA vaccines against COVID-19 could cause prion diseases was based on a paper by Classen. The paper was published in Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, whose publisher, Scivision Publishers, is included in Beall's list of publishers of predatory journals. Vincent Racaniello, professor of microbiology and immunology at Columbia University, described the claim as "completely wrong".[5][6][7]
                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Bart_Classen


                Comment


                • Why the constant appeals to the ad hominem fallacies? Surely if there was evidence against Classen's study then people should be posting that instead of merely attempting to smear the author's character. I mean, I understand why people who have already gotten the China flu vaccine would find such a report alarming and would wish to have it discredited, but let's discuss the actual evidence and not the man who presented it. In fact, when someone publishes a report, and all people can do is attack his character without once addressing his arguments, it actually makes me more and not less inclined to think his position could be valid.

                  And seriously, Sparko, Wikipedia? You should know better.
                  Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                  But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                  Than a fool in the eyes of God


                  From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                    Why the constant appeals to the ad hominem fallacies? Surely if there was evidence against Classen's study then people should be posting that instead of merely attempting to smear the author's character. I mean, I understand why people who have already gotten the China flu vaccine would find such a report alarming and would wish to have it discredited, but let's discuss the actual evidence and not the man who presented it. In fact, when someone publishes a report, and all people can do is attack his character without once addressing his arguments, it actually makes me more and not less inclined to think his position could be valid.

                    And seriously, Sparko, Wikipedia? You should know better.
                    see the blue numbers in my post? That is what they link to. But here:

                    https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/can...prion-disease/
                    https://factcheck.thedispatch.com/p/...nes-lead-to-an

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Sparko View Post

                      see the blue numbers in my post? That is what they link to. But here:

                      https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/can...prion-disease/
                      https://factcheck.thedispatch.com/p/...nes-lead-to-an
                      Both links are little more than an attack on the man's character, an attempt to smear him as an "anti-vaxxer", and the parts in the first link that actually deal with Classen's claims directly are delivered with the sort of unprofessional mocking tone I'd expect from a tabloid journal. Where is the sober and reasoned discussion about the potential dangers of products that were rushed to market with zero long-term testing for the simple reason that they haven't been around long enough for such testing to occur? Why did we go so quickly from "approved for emergency use only" to sticking needles in as many arms as possible regardless of a person's individual risk?
                      Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                      But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                      Than a fool in the eyes of God


                      From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

                        Both links are little more than an attack on the man's character, an attempt to smear him as an "anti-vaxxer", and the parts in the first link that actually deal with Classen's claims directly are delivered with the sort of unprofessional mocking tone I'd expect from a tabloid journal. Where is the sober and reasoned discussion about the potential dangers of products that were rushed to market with zero long-term testing for the simple reason that they haven't been around long enough for such testing to occur? Why did we go so quickly from "approved for emergency use only" to sticking needles in as many arms as possible regardless of a person's individual risk?
                        Coming from someone who's M.O. on tweb is mocking other users instead of giving them a serious response, I think I will take your criticism with a grain of salt.

                        The guy is a known antivaxxer who has been debunked for years. He is a quack. He is one of those who claims that vaccines cause diabetes and autism.


                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                          Why the constant appeals to the ad hominem fallacies? Surely if there was evidence against Classen's study then people should be posting that instead of merely attempting to smear the author's character. I mean, I understand why people who have already gotten the China flu vaccine would find such a report alarming and would wish to have it discredited, but let's discuss the actual evidence and not the man who presented it. In fact, when someone publishes a report, and all people can do is attack his character without once addressing his arguments, it actually makes me more and not less inclined to think his position could be valid.

                          And seriously, Sparko, Wikipedia? You should know better.
                          There are valid and invalid ad hominem arguments.

                          If I said that Classen's study is wrong because he has a big nose, that would be an invalid ad hominem argument.

                          If, however, I pointed out that Classen's current anti-vax study is suspect due to his long history of false anti-vax claims, that would be a valid argument.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                            Coming from someone who's M.O. on tweb is mocking other users instead of giving them a serious response, I think I will take your criticism with a grain of salt.
                            And now, ironically, you resort to attacking my character instead of defending the sources you referenced.
                            Last edited by Mountain Man; 04-12-2021, 03:31 PM.
                            Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                            But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                            Than a fool in the eyes of God


                            From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by kccd View Post

                              There are valid and invalid ad hominem arguments.

                              If I said that Classen's study is wrong because he has a big nose, that would be an invalid ad hominem argument.

                              If, however, I pointed out that Classen's current anti-vax study is suspect due to his long history of false anti-vax claims, that would be a valid argument.
                              No, that's still an ad hominem fallacy because it attacks the man rather than his arguments.
                              Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                              But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                              Than a fool in the eyes of God


                              From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Sparko View Post

                                Coming from someone who's M.O. on tweb is mocking other users instead of giving them a serious response, I think I will take your criticism with a grain of salt.

                                The guy is a known antivaxxer who has been debunked for years. He is a quack. He is one of those who claims that vaccines cause diabetes and autism.
                                I read the article before I went looking to see how bad this guy's damage was. Because reading the article was enough to spot the damage. No need for any fancy training or credentials to see that article was whack. I mean, really, you're barely in before he's talking about pathways for prions — from the mRNA chain that's exactly what you're dealing with if you get infected. If you get it from being infected, that doesn't matter. There's no way to miss that.

                                And then it was some guff about the Gates foundation, and then off the deep end onto nuclear weapons. It just got worse and worse. I mean, really, in a microbiology paper, what was that!

                                Dude is a couple screw factories short of having his crap hang together.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                160 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                400 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                114 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                198 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                379 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X