Vaccine Suspicion thread (split from Trump in Charge)

Arwon

Arwon

stop being water
Joined
Oct 5, 2006
Messages
21,021
Location
Canberra
Archon8 said:
Yes, that is called expressing an opinion, likewise covered by the first amendment. There's plenty of evidence of the Biden administration trying to bully social media into censoring people challenging the idea that people should accept new vaccinations without question. Challenging Big Pharma became "misinformation" and subject to deplatforming under the oligarchical Biden administration.
Click to expand...
Please tell us more of your beliefs about pharmaceutical products
 
Arwon said:
Please tell us more of your beliefs about pharmaceutical products
Click to expand...
You can try to paint me into a box or stereotype me as some ignorant hillbilly but in reality there's a lot of nuance in this issue.

With any new medication, any new treatment, any new vaccination, you cannot know decisively what the negative effects are until years down the line. That is not really in dispute, it just takes times for negative effects to manifest. Having said that, I consider it a person's personal choice regarding whether or not they get new, untested medical treatment. I'm fine with saying that established, safe treatments like the MMR vaccine should be required for children. But when it's a brand new treatment, I'm not going to say that people must get it, particularly when it's someone like a pregnant woman when we really cannot know what impact it will have on them or their unborn baby. And I'm supposed to just trust that the big pharmaceutical companies have my best interest in mind, and this will be safe? Yes, that's what they said about thalidomide. Ultimately, I believe people should have their choice whether or not to get treatments for themselves, and everyone should retain the right to express an opinion about these treatments, and their benefits and safety. Any attempt to stifle this debate is a large problem to me, because it comes across that the treatment cannot withstand scrutiny.
 
Archon8 said:
You can try to paint me into a box or stereotype me as some ignorant hillbilly but in reality there's a lot of nuance in this issue.

With any new medication, any new treatment, any new vaccination, you cannot know decisively what the negative effects are until years down the line. That is not really in dispute, it just takes times for negative effects to manifest. Having said that, I consider it a person's personal choice regarding whether or not they get new, untested medical treatment. I'm fine with saying that established, safe treatments like the MMR vaccine should be required for children. But when it's a brand new treatment, I'm not going to say that people must get it, particularly when it's someone like a pregnant woman when we really cannot know what impact it will have on them or their unborn baby. And I'm supposed to just trust that the big pharmaceutical companies have my best interest in mind, and this will be safe? Yes, that's what they said about thalidomide. Ultimately, I believe people should have their choice whether or not to get treatments for themselves, and everyone should retain the right to express an opinion about these treatments, and their benefits and safety. Any attempt to stifle this debate is a large problem to me, because it comes across that the treatment cannot withstand scrutiny.
Click to expand...

Do you believe that you are competent to interpret technical literature on medical intervention side effects?
 
Lexicus said:
Do you believe that you are competent to interpret technical literature on medical intervention side effects?
Click to expand...

You don't need to unnecessarily gatekeep making personal medical decisions. I absolutely lack the medical knowledge to make any medical decision for others, but I consider people to have the freedom to make their own decisions. Whether they can interpret the technical aspects, or they consulted a Ouija board, or flipped a coin, it really doesn't matter. They can make their own decision about receiving untested treatments. I would not mandate that they be forced to receive an untested treatment, as that would be much more fascist than anything Trump has ever done.
 
Archon8 said:
You don't need to unnecessarily gatekeep making personal medical decisions. I absolutely lack the medical knowledge to make any medical decision for others, but I consider people to have the freedom to make their own decisions. Whether they can interpret the technical aspects, or they consulted a Ouija board, or flipped a coin, it really doesn't matter. They can make their own decision about receiving untested treatments. I would not mandate that they be forced to receive an untested treatment, as that would be much more fascist than anything Trump has ever done.
Click to expand...
What untested treatment?
 
Gorbles said:
What untested treatment?
Click to expand...
COVID vaccines. The crux of the issue is I consider it essential freedoms for someone to be able to reject a vaccine for themselves if that is their choice, and they should be able to freely express their opinion of the vaccines without the government attempting to censor them. Trying to force people to accept vaccines in order to enrich large pharmaceutical companies and censoring their ability to dissent is something I consider oligarchical, and was one of a great many reasons I gladly voted for Trump.
 
Archon8 said:
You can try to paint me into a box or stereotype me as some ignorant hillbilly but in reality there's a lot of nuance in this issue.

With any new medication, any new treatment, any new vaccination, you cannot know decisively what the negative effects are until years down the line. That is not really in dispute, it just takes times for negative effects to manifest. Having said that, I consider it a person's personal choice regarding whether or not they get new, untested medical treatment. I'm fine with saying that established, safe treatments like the MMR vaccine should be required for children. But when it's a brand new treatment, I'm not going to say that people must get it, particularly when it's someone like a pregnant woman when we really cannot know what impact it will have on them or their unborn baby. And I'm supposed to just trust that the big pharmaceutical companies have my best interest in mind, and this will be safe? Yes, that's what they said about thalidomide. Ultimately, I believe people should have their choice whether or not to get treatments for themselves, and everyone should retain the right to express an opinion about these treatments, and their benefits and safety. Any attempt to stifle this debate is a large problem to me, because it comes across that the treatment cannot withstand scrutiny.
Click to expand...
Can you elaborate on which, if any, medical conditions are not real?
 
Arwon said:
Can you elaborate on which, if any, medical conditions are not real?
Click to expand...
I didn't say any medical conditions aren't real. I said that we cannot immediately know the safety of a new medical treatment.
 
Archon8 said:
I didn't say any medical conditions aren't real. I said that we cannot immediately know the safety of a new medical treatment.
Click to expand...
Yes but I'm now asking which ones you believe in and which ones you don't
 
Gorbles said:
Oh. They were tested, though.
Click to expand...
In my opinion, you cannot completely know what potential negative effects that vaccinations will have on people until several years after they are administered. And the source of this reassurance of safety - large pharmaceutical companies - is not one I am inclined to blindly trust. As such, I do not think it is either moral or ethical to try to compel people to receive new vaccines. By all means, make the vaccines available and let people take them if that is their choice, but also let people freely discuss and debate them, without the government attempting to censor dissidents by pressuring social media companies to deplatform them.
 
Archon8 said:
I didn't say any medical conditions aren't real. I said that we cannot immediately know the safety of a new medical treatment.
Click to expand...
Should measles and polio vaccines be required for children?
 
Archon8 said:
You don't need to unnecessarily gatekeep making personal medical decisions. I absolutely lack the medical knowledge to make any medical decision for others, but I consider people to have the freedom to make their own decisions. Whether they can interpret the technical aspects, or they consulted a Ouija board, or flipped a coin, it really doesn't matter. They can make their own decision about receiving untested treatments. I would not mandate that they be forced to receive an untested treatment, as that would be much more fascist than anything Trump has ever done.
Click to expand...

You're now pivoting from "it takes time to understand the harms of a medical intervention" to "people have absolute freedom to make their own medical decisions regardless of harm." Okay, fine. Do you agree that some medical decisions we make can affect other people, like choosing whether or not to get vaccinated for a contagious disease?
 
Birdjaguar said:
Should measles and polio vaccines be required for children?
Click to expand...
Yes.

Lexicus said:
You're now pivoting from "it takes time to understand the harms of a medical intervention" to "people have absolute freedom to make their own medical decisions regardless of harm." Okay, fine. Do you agree that some medical decisions we make can affect other people, like choosing whether or not to get vaccinated for a contagious disease?
Click to expand...
Established precedent with respect to some communicable disease (such as HIV) has been that you do not have to seek treatment but you cannot knowingly attempt to infect others. That seems like a reasonable standard.
 
Archon8 said:
Established precedent with respect to some communicable disease (such as HIV) has been that you do not have to seek treatment but you cannot knowingly attempt to infect others. That seems like a reasonable standard.
Click to expand...

So, what exactly would be the analogy with covid here? Something tells me you don't think getting on a crowded subway car without a mask on is morally equivalent to [snip] having HIV or something, but maybe you can shed some light for us.

Moderator Action: Edited by Birdjaguar for inappropriateness.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Lexicus said:
So, what exactly would be the analogy with covid here? Something tells me you don't think getting on a crowded subway car without a mask on is morally equivalent to [snip] having HIV or something, but maybe you can shed some light for us.
Click to expand...
Intentionally coughing on someone while having covid would be a serious criminal act, worthy of jail time. But if you're on a subway car, that's not really a concern for me. Others can wear masks if they desire additional protection.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Wearing a mask does more to protect others from you than it does protecting you from others.
 
Birdjaguar said:
Wearing a mask does more to protect others from you than it does protecting you from others.
Click to expand...

If you want to say it is the moral and ethical choice to either self quarantine or wear full protective gear if you know you have Covid then you very well may be correct. I certainly wouldn't argue against that. My concern is the role of the government though in dictating medical choices, and then restricting freedom based on medical decisions that people make. Compounding this is the role of the government in stifling dissent against its mandates. The concept of freedom of speech is entirely designed to protect citizens from reprisal from the government for criticizing the government. We saw the US government under Biden actively pressure social media companies to deplatform citizens who dissented from the government, which I consider to be an unacceptable breach of civil liberties.
 
Archon8 said:
You don't need to unnecessarily gatekeep making personal medical decisions. I absolutely lack the medical knowledge to make any medical decision for others, but I consider people to have the freedom to make their own decisions. Whether they can interpret the technical aspects, or they consulted a Ouija board, or flipped a coin, it really doesn't matter. They can make their own decision about receiving untested treatments. I would not mandate that they be forced to receive an untested treatment, as that would be much more fascist than anything Trump has ever done.
Click to expand...

So I'm guessing you're rather strongly opposed to restricting access to gender-affirming medical care, then.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom