> “Inquiry” is not this “gosh just asking questions” bullshit you’re doing. If you want to go out and actually add to the body of human knowledge by doing yet another study or vaccine safety, then by all means, go for it. But dropping into online conversations to say “I can’t believe you idiots trust Big Pharma” isn’t inquiry.
This is where you're confused.
I'm not here making some big claims, adding to the body of human knowledge about how vaccines are actually bad.
I've mentioned many times that I think vaccines are a net positive, and don't want them discontinued. I myself am 3x vaccinated against covid (all mRNA), and will continue to get vaccinated in the future.
By simply mentioning skepticism in pharmaceutical companies' claims that vaccines are safe, even though we all acknowledge the dire financial incentives by which they propagate such claims, I have induced zealous attacks rivaled only by the most fundamentalist theologians.
I guess I have answered my own initial question (flagged into a memory hole) - people have adopted these beliefs in the same way that others adopt religion, and any attack on the belief is interpreted as a personal attack. The amount of ad hominems levied against me on this post here are incredible - childish, bad faith, burner account, and so on.
I remain curious and intellectually honest, I don't fault you or anyone else for their beliefs - only the way you treat others when they dare question them.
I didn’t say you’re making big claims. You’re doing the “just asking questions” schtick. And you’re acting surprised that people realize what you’re doing.
“By simply mentioning skepticism” in the face of massive evidence to the contrary, you are supporting people who want to get millions killed.
You don’t have to believe Big Pharma. There’s plenty of independent evidence that vaccines are safe.
> By simply mentioning skepticism in pharmaceutical companies' claims that vaccines are safe,
You are mentioning your skepticism without any evidence or any valid reason to question the existing mountain of evidence in favor of their safety and efficacy. This makes it very hard to take your claims of sincerity seriously. Yours is a ploy that is often used to call into question established facts.
For example, the oil industry loves to prop up puppets who, in bad faith, "just ask questions" of the type: "How do we know that fossil fuels really contribute to global warming? Did you know that carbon dioxide is actually really good for plants? Don't you want the weather to be a little bit warmer? Why are you believing all of the anti-oil propaganda created by big-budget climate scientists?" All of these points are easily debunked, of course, and the fact that the speaker pretends to not already know their answers is evidence that their questions are not sincere, but rather an attempt to spread misinformation.
As the other poster has already said: if you have a sincere question about vaccines, great. But in practice, the questions you're asking have already been answered. The only plausible explanation for your continued pretenses of skepticism is that you have some other agenda.
Long-term follow-up data from a new NCIRS study have revealed low hospitalisation rates, improved health-related quality of life over time and no deaths among individuals with myocarditis associated with mRNA COVID-19 vaccination who were followed up over 18 months following their diagnosis.
‘This is the longest and most comprehensive prospective follow-up study of individuals diagnosed with myocarditis following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination to date that includes direct assessment of the individuals’ clinical progression and health-related quality of life.’
‘Our study suggests that while a proportion of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine-associated myocarditis cases remained symptomatic at 12–18 months, they were clinically mild compared with myocarditis caused by viral infections – including SARS-CoV-2 – and the subsequent impact on health-related quality of life was also mild,’ concluded Dr Deng.
From Australia, a country of ~ 25 million where ~ 98% of the population were triple vaccinated for COVID with pre-existing comprehensive population wide medical records going back to at least the 1970s.
Despite the "flood" of vaccine there was no significant increase of myocarditis in the population before | after mass vaccination.
A genuine desire to understand reality would lead you to examine this incongruence.
I think maybe you've missed my point. I'm not sure if you read my initial question (flagged into hidden now), but I was trying to discuss blind faith in big pharma.
You can link to your initial question if you wish (one of the other green accounts?)
I don't have blind faith in big pharma, I don't know anyone who does.
I do trust the epidemiologists I've personally met and worked with, I do see the many separate and independent studies across multiple countries that all conclude mRNA myocardial risk is real but minor, not deadly if addressed, and associated with one class of mRNA vaccine (not all), and conclude that vaccine risk is less than no vaccine risk.
Given Australia ceased using the specific mRNA vaccine that demonstrated a correlation with a very slight increase in hospitalization is moot in any case.
Beautiful strawman, bravo.