Oddbean

factcheck articles are good for summarizing the scientific sources — I can also send you them as a bunch of links on separated studies and publications criticizing McCullough as well. if you provide your sources about vaccines and they won't be poor or straight-out fake, I'll agree fact check was wrong. I can also send you lots of sources (strong as meta-analyses without government or bank funding) of vaccines lowering the transmission myself, if you wanna.

it's not even a scientific problem, you wanker. it's a logistical problem. the government can put whatever it wants in the vials and hold up a piece of paper that says "yankee doodle fuck my ass" and you just have to take it. and governments have done that before. https://m.primal.net/LVkB.webm

Well that was easy, I'm literally sending the first result from one search on Bill Gates Bing Medical news today: The COVID-19 vaccine does NOT stop a person from contracting SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/does-the-vaccine-prevent-you-from-getting-covid So this is a change in the definition of the word "vaccine", when its really being promoted as a treatment.

your words in previous messate: "I will give you a source proving that vaccines do not stop the transmission" citing FIRST paragraph in YOUR link: "[vaccine] helps reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2" please read yourself the sources you send, lol. I don't know, what are you trying to disprove by saying "vaccines does not actually stop a person from getting sick, it reduces the chances and consequences of getting sick". I wonder, if anything in this world would 100% stop you from something, lmao. nobody (including me) ever argued, that vaccines make you a superman. if I told, that legalizing guns actually WON'T stop crimes (it will just dramatically reduce them) — will you agree on governments banning the guns? :D

are we fighting about terms now? vaccine is something what provides you so called "adaptive immunity" towards something. depending on how good is the vaccine, it may reduce, treat or cure. there are no reasons for denying vaccines just by saying that «they are actually not 100% good but only 80% good». also, the word vaccine comes from Latin vaccīnus (“of or derived from a cow”), so a "vaccine" can be whatever reduce/cure/treatment/lilhelp shit it is. it's not a «panacea» (from Ancient Greek "all-healing")

The word vaccine was changed by the CDC/FDA for this. Step 1. This isn't a vaccine, it's a treatment. Treatments don't stop spread. Step 2. If it's a treatment, why do you care if I take it, only those who want it should. Step 3. It's only effective against certain variants, which are always changing Step 4. This would require constant drugs, which surrenders your privacy and freedom, to the government and drug companies Which part of the logic are you not seeing?

1. according to the link you sent, the treatment stops the spread... once again, call it whatever you want — a vaccine, treatment, panacea or poison — if it reduces the risk, severity, and rapidness [1][2] (and thus reducing the number of people who get sick, get sick at the same time, and die), it's neat 2. I don't care if you take it — nor I even would, if it would be a "real vaccine" — I care that you discourage people from taking it. analogy: I don't care that you drive without seatbelt, but if you discourage people using it, saying that science is wrong about its safety, I'll argue with you. 3. Efficacy wanes over time indeed, but can be maintained with boosters [3]. Still, ain't that important if you use 'em, because you still drop your chances to die 11x just with the "treatment", and booster does not make a huge difference [4] https://image.nostr.build/f4e7e69bd25b879f2eeb1bfb9f02cca838e419ad0ed6cf6ef07284db94e3dfc6.jpg 4. This is the first serious argument so far — without insisting fake data about vaccines, you ask, is it worthy to be healthy by depending on drugs or (big) capitalism. I shall think about it. P.S. By the way, did you know that authoritarian governments manipulated with the COVID data? Yet, not in the way you would think... They actually *downplayed* the significance of the problem for the sake of economic advantages: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2007.09566 [1] https://www.britannica.com/science/COVID-19-vaccine [2] https://doi.org/10.1038%2Fd41586-021-03686-x [3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9974155 [4] https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/10/health/us-coronavirus-friday/index.html

Everything you said was either outright manipulated or bullshit. Even the Pfizer CEO and EU regulators admit this: COVID vaccine was never meant to ‘protect those around you’ says EU regulator https://www.thegoldreport.com/news/covid-vaccine-was-never-meant-to-protect-those-around-you-says-eu-regulator & https://frontline.news/post/pfizer-exec-admits-no-data-on-preventing-transmission-before-vaccine-went-to-market The government is lying, it's fraud. The drug companies sponsor the studies and the government. Look at the Lancet study that was fraud.

How can I debate with you, if everything I send "is a fraud, it's sponsored by the government, it's a fraud, they're lying and doing frauds"? I mean, I don't know how to argue with you, if you prefer trusting some random politically-supporting-your-views blogs more than peer-reviewed neutrally sponsored studies, made in countries with weak or strong governments, social-democracy or wild capitalism, still all coming to the same conclusions. It really feels like an ideological attempt to resist the facts for protecting something you used to believe in. It's incorrect to say that Pfizer "admitted" that the company and its partner BioNTech did not test whether their mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine reduced virus transmission prior to rolling it out, because Pfizer was always clear it did not test whether the vaccines reduced the risk of transmission among already-infected individuals. But the trial did show the vaccines reduced infection risk in the first place, so reduced the risk of onward infection. Within months of the vaccine hitting the market, researchers in the UK (https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-health-coronavirus-pfizer-vaccine-tra-idUKKBN2AQ1A7) and Israel (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanepe/article/PIIS2666-7762(21)00127-7/fulltext) began publishing studies suggesting that the Pfizer vaccine was reducing transmission of the virus. In February 2021, for example, Israeli data (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)00448-7/fulltext) showed a sharp drop in infections among healthcare workers within 15-28 days of receiving the two-shot Pfizer vaccine series, indicating the vaccine was not just preventing symptomatic disease, but also preventing the virus from being passed from person to person. I can send more data. I can also send some blog text with an eagle flying in front of the yellow flag on the article image, which sources the claims with "just think about it fam" saying same shit, if you trust that more. Step out of the bubble. P.S. According to right‐libertarian literature there is a considerable divergence between the application of consistent libertarian principles to this issue by academic libertarians and the strident opposition to vaccination programmes and vaccine mandates expressed by people who profess to be libertarians in the public‐political debate: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9111279/

Cool, when the journal does not deny something being being disproved by more studies, and retracts the paper, aye? I wish we all could be so science-, not ideology-based. Also, that's why I trust meta-analyses more than single studies. If you want to hear sources with no history of fraud, I can send them. Personally though, I don't think that one shitty point 26 years ago proves something to be not trustworthy forever-from-now-on — Signal was hacked once, but we don't think it's now always vulnerable, or furthermore sponsored by CIA. Tor was traced once, same shit, etc etc.

Ah! Pardon my mistake, I thought you talking about the 1998 fraud where they claimed false link between vaccines and autism. Changes almost nothing about my message tho: Still cool, when the journal does not deny something being being disproved by more studies, and retracts the paper without denialism and ideological protecting Still that's why I trust meta-analyses more than single studies. Still, if you want to hear sources with no history of fraud, I can send them. Perhaps two mistakes in 25 years is actually too much for a journal to be trustable.