75 replies to this topic

[mmats]

Vaccines cannot help a great deal once you have caught the virus. They work best as preventative agents. I have EBV for example, and an EBV vaccine if it became available will not help me get rid of this virus, as it lives in many of my cells.  

 

But if the young generation were given an EBV vaccine, they would never catch EBV. As a result, they might never suffer any of the diseases EBV is linked to, like MS.

 

There are lots of great vaccines that are now on the vaccine schedule that were not available when I was a kid. This generation may be blessed with fewer chronic diseases when they are older, as a result of being lucky enough to have been given lots vaccines when young which protect them from disease associated viruses.

 

But there is still a long way to go. There are many other nasty viruses for which we still have no vaccine. Like enterovirus, which likely kills around 90,000 people per year in the US via the heart attacks it is linked to. Ref: here.

 

The point was that you have not taken every vaccine, and thus have been spreading variants of the flu and other illnesses that have taken peoples lives. Youre a hippocrit calling everyone else immoral for not taking a vaccine.

 

Also Im guessing you have, and continue, to use fossil fuel technologies and products - willingly contributing to the (alleged) future deaths of billions due to global warming. It seems off-topic but its related to the stance youve taken when labelling others as part of the "me, me, me" generation when even you cant live up to your own standards.

 

"Do as I say, not as I do" - Typical Liberal

Edited by mmats, 07 January 2022 - 07:04 AM.

[Hip]

The point was that you have not taken every vaccine, and thus have been spreading variants of the flu and other illnesses that have taken peoples lives. Youre a hippocrit calling everyone else immoral for not taking a vaccine.

 

Your point is scientifically invalid, as I explained in my last post. 

 

But I agree with the sentiment of your post, as I dislike virtue signaling as much as you appear to do so. 

 

I don't say that people are immoral to refuse the COVID vaccine in this time of crisis in order come across as morally superior. I do not have the slightest interest in appearing holier than thou. I am more of a devilish rogue. 

 

So I agree with the sentiment of your post, your dislike of virtue signaling, even if the scientific facts are not right.

 

 

As for the "me, me, me" generation, this is something we are all part of, as our religious value systems fail, and we are now trained to be good little hedonistic consumers, which advances the cause of materialism and capitalism, whilst the religious or spiritual focus on the soul is lost. Adverts and aspirational TV programs help form our value system these days. 

 

I may criticize the increasing focus on "me, me, me", much typified by those vacuous influencers of social media who preen themselves in front of millions in order to promote their plastic lifestyles, but inevitably I am part of the same generation, because we are all influenced by the consumer lifestyle and its values.

Edited by Hip, 07 January 2022 - 01:19 PM.

[Ames]

I said that many people are not able to think rationally about COVID vaccines. This is because it requires considerable scientific understanding to come to a rational decision about taking a COVID vaccine, and not everyone has this scientific training. So many people sensibly trust that the health services are delivering the right advice. Which they usually do, as that is their business.
 

Thinking rationally about more simple daily subjects is a skill which nearly all people possess.

 

I see that Hip is still plying his old "if you disagree with me, you are undereducated" argument that reads more like the growl of a cornered being than anything a "rational and educated" person would tolerate in face to face discourse.

 

He doesn't let his lack of medical science training stop his separation of the Light from the Dark, in terms of who is included in his acceptable boundary of ability and therefore whose opinions carry de facto credibility. He leaves the boundary just wide enough to include himself in his definition of duly trained.

 

This tactic is neither scientifically nor socially acceptable: a fact that is broadly and almost instinctually understood in society. It leaves me to wonder about its origin and persistence with Hip.

Edited by Ames, 22 January 2022 - 01:38 AM.

[Hip]

I see that Hip is still plying his old "if you disagree with me, you are undereducated" argument that reads more like the growl of a cornered being than anything a "rational and educated" person would tolerate in face to face discourse.

 

How you extracted that conclusion from the text of my post I cannot fathom, but people are strange on Longecity.

[Mind]

Regular people are keeping track of the deaths and injuries from the injections. I know a few. Many people knew this NYT editor. It is not a "sophisticated anti-vax technique" to raise questions when you see people who are negatively affected or who have died shortly after being injected

[Hip]

 It is not a "sophisticated anti-vax technique" to raise questions when you see people who are negatively affected or who have died shortly after being injected

 

Yes it is antivax, unless you make your statements in the context of a balanced view. 

 

For example, you can say that the vaccine as been associated with X number of deaths, but you can also mention that it has saved millions of lives, and thus its overall effect on society is very positive.

 

If you do not provide such a balanced view, then it is antivax propaganda. Such propaganda is rife on Longecity, because it is not a science based forum. 

[Daniel Cooper]

Yes it is antivax, unless you make your statements in the context of a balanced view. 

 

For example, you can say that the vaccine as been associated with X number of deaths, but you can also mention that it has saved millions of lives, and thus its overall effect on society is very positive.

 

If you do not provide such a balanced view, then it is antivax propaganda. Such propaganda is rife on Longecity, because it is not a science based forum. 

 

 

What's the definition of propaganda? "Someone advocating for a position with which I do not agree"?

 

People look at the evidence, they take a position, and they advocate for it. It is exceedingly rare that someone that is an advocate accurately presents the opposing position and gives their best arguments. That typically is left to the opposing side (though Plato would disagree with that approach). Most people will not feel obligated to give your arguments for you. That's your job.

 

This is a complex issue, there are many pieces of evidence, many of them contradictory. It's entirely possible for people to draw different conclusions in good faith.  And "science" has always been contentious and almost never cut and dry till long after the fact. Just because you don't agree with someone's conclusions, it doesn't follow that they are guilty of "not doing science".

 

Get out there and make your case. Slinging terms around like "anti-science" and "propaganda" really don't help much at getting to the truth.

 

I looked at the numbers today. Worldwide daily deaths are now at their lowest point since April 1 2020 (3,971 vs 4146 - 7 day moving average). That is, we are now back where we were at the initial uptick of the pandemic. I'm really hoping that all these issues will become academic (but not unimportant) in the near future.

[Daniel Cooper]

Here's the graph I referenced above. If you dig through the data, it's clear that omicron is far less lethal that the earlier variants. Hopefully the heat of the vaccine debate will cool as the need for a vaccine diminishes.

[Hip]

What's the definition of propaganda? "Someone advocating for a position with which I do not agree"?

 

People look at the evidence, they take a position, and they advocate for it. It is exceedingly rare that someone that is an advocate accurately presents the opposing position and gives their best arguments. That typically is left to the opposing side (though Plato would disagree with that approach). Most people will not feel obligated to give your arguments for you. That's your job.

 

Perhaps you are looking at this through the lens of US cultural norms. The US is quite a polarized society, meaning that as you mention, people take a position (on any topic or debate), and then not only advocate strongly for that position, but also fiercely criticize people holding different or opposing views.

 

This is apparent in politics, and in law, but occurs elsewhere also. For example, advocates of alternative health may not just promote alternative health views, but will also heavily criticize conventional scientific approaches to health.

 

 

I don't think this culture of fierce oppositional stances is very subtle, because it means nobody is able to give you a balanced, carefully considered opinion. People are only able to provide their extreme views. This does not help an individual who is trying to make a personal decision, and understand the competing views that are out there.   

 

For example, myself, as someone with health issues, I am interested in improving my health, and finding the best treatment, whether that is an alternative treatment or conventional treatment. I am not interested in jumping into the war between alternative and conventional health practitioners, as that's of no help to me. I am interested whether something works or not for my health, and am not interested in promoting any given health philosophy.

 

This polarized debate also comes across as dishonest, because usually the players in the debate have some financial or political motives to promote their view, and to criticize another person's views. So they are not doing it with regards to truth, but in order to advance their own personal position.

 

 

I think in recent decades this polarized oppositional model of debate has also started appearing more in other Western nations. Perhaps polarization and capitalism go hand in hand, since capitalism is often about advancing one's one financial position at the expense of your rivals. So as capitalism intrenches itself deeper into Western society, we may see polarization increasing also. I think capitalism is a good thing, but I am less enamored with cultural polarization that results as a side effect.

[Daniel Cooper]

I think in recent decades this polarized oppositional model of debate has also started appearing more in other Western nations. Perhaps polarization and capitalism go hand in hand, since capitalism is often about advancing one's one financial position at the expense of your rivals. So as capitalism intrenches itself deeper into Western society, we may see polarization increasing also. I think capitalism is a good thing, but I am less enamored with cultural polarization that results as a side effect.

 

It's interesting to me that a person can on the one hand decry the polarization of politics and public discourse, whilst on the other hand throw around words like "propogandist" and "science denier".

 

You might pause and think on that a bit.

[Mind]

What I find interesting is that many in the life extension community have routinely scrutinized medical and health research over the years. They have scrutinized the profit motive of "big-pharma". They are generally risk averse. They want to see multiple animal and human studies before saying anything definitive about the prospects of a new supplement or therapy.

 

The majority of life extensionists think this way. Of course, there are a few adventurous souls, who jump right in on speculative treatments.

 

The COVID injections should face the same scrutiny. If there are side effects, they should be discussed. The research should be scrutinized. The results should be evaluated. This type of activity is not anti-vax propaganda.

 

Even the CEO of Pfizer said in a recent interview that the mRNA technology never delivered a product/medicine until 2020. Moderna was on the brink of failing. Bourla was surprised about the suggestion of mRNA "vaccines". He was skeptical because of all the past failures. It is reasonable to ask why the mRNA injections so suddenly became "accepted" in such a short time and why no dissent or discussion was allowed.

 

 

(Bourla) Adding that Pfizer had less experience with mRNA technology, having only worked on it for two years, and that “mRNA was a technology that never delivered a single product until that day, not vaccine, not any other medicine. So it was very counterintuitive.”

In the interview Bourla further distanced himself from the technology by saying he “was surprised when they suggested” to go this route with the product's development, and questioned the justification for using mRNA technology

 

[Hip]

It's interesting to me that a person can on the one hand decry the polarization of politics and public discourse, whilst on the other hand throw around words like "propogandist" and "science denier".

 

 

Being anti-propaganda is in keep with being anti-polarization. 

 

Propaganda always comes from polarized camps of thought, it never comes from someone with a well-considered balanced view that has taken into account the full picture of the circumstances. Propaganda by nature hypnotizes you into one way of thinking, and tries to prevent you from knowing about any alternative perspectives of the situation. 

 

Propaganda comes from polarized people who view the world in one particular way, and cannot understand other points of view. 

Edited by Hip, 30 March 2022 - 10:20 PM.

[Hip]

Even the CEO of Pfizer said in a recent interview that the mRNA technology never delivered a product/medicine until 2020.

 

Are you sure you got that quote right, since mRNA vaccines have been used clinical practice for 12 years, as a cancer therapeutic.

[Daniel Cooper]

Being anti-propaganda is in keep with being anti-polarization. 

 

Propaganda always comes from polarized camps of thought, it never comes from someone with a well-considered balanced view that has taken into account the full picture of the circumstances. Propaganda by nature hypnotizes you into one way of thinking, and tries to prevent you from knowing about any alternative perspectives of the situation. 

 

Propaganda comes from polarized people who view the world in one particular way, and cannot understand other points of view. 

 

 

Of course it's always the other guy that engages in propaganda. Never those who are on the side of light.

 

You really don't understand that each side thinks they have a "well-considered balanced view that has taken into account the full picture of the circumstances"?

[Daniel Cooper]

Are you sure you got that quote right, since mRNA vaccines have been used clinical practice for 12 years, as a cancer therapeutic.

 
I don't think that is true.
 
There have been investigational research into using mRNA vaccine in cancer treatment, but to my knowledge none of those has ever resulted in an approved therapy. As far as I can tell, the Pfizer covid-19 vaccine was the first mRNA vaccine to receive regulatory approval.
 
Nature - The Tangled History of mRNA vaccines
 
Wikipedia - mRNA Vaccines

 

In RNA therapeutics, messenger RNA vaccines have attracted considerable interest as COVID-19 vaccines.^[1] In December 2020, Pfizer–BioNTech and Moderna obtained authorization for their mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines. On 2 December, the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) became the first medicines regulator to approve an mRNA vaccine, authorizing the Pfizer–BioNTech vaccine for widespread use.^[9][10][11] On 11 December, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an emergency use authorization for the Pfizer–BioNTech vaccine^[12][13] and a week later similarly authorized the Moderna vaccine.^[14][15]

 

It was always curious to me why during an emergency situation like the recent pandemic there was a push to use what was up till that time unproven technology. There are other routes to a covid-19 vaccine after all - for instance splicing the spike protein into a modified adenovirus, a la J&J.

 

I have a suspicion that it was viewed by the mRNA vaccine players as a means to get over the hump of the first regulatory approval of a mRNA vaccine. You can after all do things quickly in an emergency that would take ages in normal circumstances. We now certainly have an extremely large scale clinical trial of a mRNA vaccine.

 

Hopefully this will pay off. One suspects that the barrier to getting future mRNA vaccines approved is now significantly lower, assuming there are no long term issues with these first two vaccines. As the recipient of two doses of the Pfizer vaccine, I hope that is the case. This may result in cancer therapies arriving sooner than they would have otherwise. But I think the fact that this was something of an experiment is inescapable. 

[Hip]

Of course it's always the other guy that engages in propaganda. Never those who are on the side of light.
 
You really don't understand that each side thinks they have a "well-considered balanced view that has taken into account the full picture of the circumstances"?

 
Detecting whether something said by a given person is propaganda, or a balanced pragmatic view, often comes down to understanding the personality and philosophy of life that person has.

 

Because often what people believe, and what they promote online, often relates to the philosophy they live by. 
 

 

For example, some people, the alternative health nuts, are philosophically opposed to conventional scientific medicine, and will always criticize anything conventional, and will always promote an alternative treatment for any illness, even if those alternative treatments do not work. 
 
There are lots of people who follow the alternative health "religion" online, and their views are always propaganda, because they are not out to find the truth, they are out to destroy the reputation of conventional medicine, and are out to promote the philosophy of alternative medicine. They are completely biased in this way. I am not mentioning any names, but those alternative health nuts on this forum know who they are!
 

 

You also find the reverse situation, where you get science nuts who are opposed to any form of alternative treatment, even though some alternative treatments can be effective. But these science nuts will not admit that, because they are not after the truth, but are in a philosophical war against alternative medicine.
 
Now if you are ill, and need some treatments to improve your health, neither the alternative health nuts nor the science nuts are going to give you the complete picture, because they are only out to promote their own side. Myself, when it comes to health, I do not have such a bias, because my priority is a pragmatic one: I want to improve my health, and I don't care what system of treatment I use, as long as it works.
 
 

So you have to understand the philosophies of the person to know whether they are pushing propaganda.
 
Mind for example has stated he has a libertarian philosophy on life. Most of Mind's comments and views can be traced back to that libertarian view. For example, he is against enforced use of masks or enforced lockdowns, not because these things don't work, but because they run against his beliefs of libertarian freedom. Even if it were proven beyond doubt that these measures have saved millions of lives, their enforcement still runs counter to libertarian freedom, so they will never be accepted by those of a libertarian philosophy.  
 
So you see how personal philosophy can lead to propaganda and bias.

 

But not everyone puts their personal philosophy first. Some people just have a pragmatic approach, and simply want to go down the route which works best. These pragmatists have no "ism" to push on the world, they just want a practical, effective solution.
 
So this is what I look at when reading the comments of people: I look for any underlying philosophy first, and then judge whether they are just looking for a practical solution, or whether they are actually surreptitiously just trying to push their philosophy onto me.

 

 




 

I don't think that is true.
 
There have been investigational research into using mRNA vaccine in cancer treatment, but to my knowledge none of those has ever resulted in an approved therapy. As far as I can tell, the Pfizer covid-19 vaccine was the first mRNA vaccine to receive regulatory approval.
 
Nature - The Tangled History of mRNA vaccines
 
Wikipedia - mRNA Vaccines

I think you are right. 

 

I read that mRNA vaccines have been used for over a decade as cancer treatments, but it seems this is being done in clinical trials, rather than being a licensed therapy.

 

 

 

Edited by Hip, 31 March 2022 - 03:40 PM.