rattlesnake

If only this were true…

To me, this analogy was absurd, yet I understood how your bias could lead you to make it. I have showed you what that looks like from the opposite bias. I agree we should probably avoid them altogether.

I wasn't really addressing the definition of atheism, but rather the atheists' own propensity to adhere to dogma, which I think is part of the human condition. For context, I was an atheist myself for a long time. I used to love Richard Dawkins, for example (I read The God Delusion a couple of decades ago). Now, in retrospect, I simply see him as a man with beliefs who uses all sorts of classical rhetorical means to put them forth.

It's a bit OTT, but as you like to use such analogies yourself (c.f. the one about the carwash and the storm – if I recall correctly), I thought I would add it there for good measure, though the gist of my message lies in the previous paragraphs.

Off the top of my head: Thou shall worship Science Thou shall belittle those who challenge Science Thou shall consider mankind to exist only within the visible and physical realms of mortal existence

The phrase "do you consider these figures to be within the scope of acceptability?" is a straightforward question and not an appeal to emotion. The notion in question is the "safe and effective" mantra which was repeated incessantly during a period when these shots were imposed on the population through various "incentivising", and in fact borderline coercive means. I don't disagree with everything else you said regarding the potential flaws of these figures, hence the necessity to assess them in a transparent and irrefutable manner in order to remove – or confirm – any doubt. The causality (or lack thereof) can only be concluded through this thorough process. So the essential issue is whether the above-mentioned process/investigation was carried out. Was it? Because ultimately, no rationalisation can effectively dismiss these figures preemptively. To make an analogy, if the cops show up at a house following neighbours' reports of screaming, and find a man covered in blood and holding a knife running out, though at that point they can't draw any conclusions, they can justifiably take action to investigate and find out what happened (despite the fact that said individual will be presumed not guilty of anything until the proceedings officially reach their conclusion).

Here is an interesting empirical statistic: I have never met an atheist who was not an unwavering believer of the Science dogma. I am sure a few will want to forcefully explain to me why that is and/or what the differences are, and therefore illustrate my point for me.

I am identifying the age-old propensity to look down on others with contempt when they don't share one's beliefs, as you have just illustrated.

Atheism is a belief system, with everything it entails in terms of dogma and hostility towards non-believers (in fact, I have often found atheists to have very little tolerance towards those who don't share their belief).

I'm a bigger conspiracy theorist than people think: Why Trump Pushed the Vax The One Question We All Want Answered https://badlands.substack.com/p/why-trump-pushed-the-vax

Let's delve a bit into this notion of "rare anecdotal evidence": As at February 25, 2023, the European database of suspected drug reaction reports, EudraVigilance, verified by the European Medicines Agency (EMA), had reported 50,663 fatalities and 5,315,063 injuries following injections of the EMA-authorised COVID-19 shots. Even without taking into account the established issue of underreporting, do you consider these figures to be within the scope of acceptability? [Edit after 20 minutes: shout-out to the person who actually laughed at this post, IMO you epitomise everything wrong with today's world.]

It doesn't necessarily reflect an empirical reality, but it is definitely notable, and what is particularly disturbing is the unanimous, immediate and unilateral assurance, by the whole medical class, that these events could not in any way be vaccination-related. These are the excesses (not the rise of social media) which lead to distrust and defiance. I am French (though I was born and have lived in the UK). There is a big conflict of interest problem in France, and this has been documented a lot, including by mainstream media outlets. One of the most infamous stories in this respect is the Mediator scandal: this weight loss pill, produced by pharmaceutical giant Servier, caused serious cardiovascular problems and deaths for thousands of people, and the investigation revealed that the risks were known but withheld for profit, and worse, that the regulatory agencies were involved in conflicts of interest and influence peddling schemes. So far this issue has not been properly addressed.

Wise choice, Sir Knowsalot

A.k.a accusatory inversion, it's true it happens a lot.

US CDC: Recommended Child and Adolescent Immunization Schedule for ages 18 years or younger https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/imz-schedules/downloads/child/0-18yrs-child-combined-schedule.pdf?CDC_AAref_Val=https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/downloads/child/0-18yrs-child-combined-schedule.pdf

Indeed. And that is why I think he is right to wage this battle in the battlespace as it exists, as it is probably the most efficient way to convey the message to the masses. As I said earlier (I believe it was in this thread), the paradigm change will probably have to come from within the HHS and the CDC themselves. The stars seem to be aligning… We will see.

It's easy to rationalise when using abstract notions and representations such as "extremly rare" vs. "overwhelmingly", etc. Empirical observations, however, show a different picture. This notion that "you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs" is problematic to say the least, when you actually have a look at the broken eggs. Watch a couple of testimonies of vaccine-injured people (roughly half an hour each), realise what is actually happening and imagine for a minute if this had happened to you or someone close to you. This is something the vaccine proponents have difficulty doing, in fact I have never managed to convince one to actually go there: it is much preferable and easier for them to remain in the realm of abstract notions and statistics. I encourage you to go on John Campbell's YouTube channel and watch the videos of Mel, Adam and Kyle (three cases among many more), and confront one of the undeniable facets of what you condone. These were young, healthy people before taking the Covid jab. Intellectual honesty demands that every aspect of an issue, even those we don't like or want to see, be taken into account before taking a stance. Also notable is the fact that these seriously injured people often have a very hard time having their injuries officially recognised, and therefore they are not included in those statistics which you hold so dearly…

While I definitely agree with the last sentence, I do have reservations about the "scientific integrity" alleged in the first one: look at that article I posted in this thread about the kickbacks paid to physicians per vaccine given. Do you acknowledge the reality of this, and do you consider it ethical? Fair enough, but I really do think there is an empirical aspect to this. From what I have seen in the "antivaxxer" realm, there are lots of reasonable parents who are not really active on social media (and therefore not that susceptible to it), but who simply realised the temporal causation between their children's vaccination and the appearance of symptoms of autism, hyperactivity, epilepsy etc. They would have to and eventually would, whether they liked it or not. Hence the utmost importance of such studies being carried out.

I could give you more testimonies, opinions and papers, such as from Dr. Paul Thomas or Dr. Sherri Tenpenny (I have "antivaxxer" sources which list them and have them readily available), but ultimately, your comments don't strike me as irrelevant. Of course these people have confirmation bias and everything it entails, in fact I do to, and so do you, that's just the way it is. So what should be done? A good first step would be a methodologically rock solid assessment of this issue, which has not happened so far, there have been too many omissions and manipulations by the pharmaceutical industry, which has led us to where we are today. There are reasons for this exponential growth of mistrust in "science" and I don't think denying it is a productive approach. I hope RFK's coming studies will be beyond reproach from a methodological viewpoint: whatever the results are, they need to be indisputable (especially given his antivaxxer reputation). Let's wait and see.

Anything based on VAERS could be nonsense. Refusal to investigate is dubious to say the least.

True in theory, but in practice, it is notoriously difficult to log an event on this system and therefore the proportion of fake reports is unlikely to be significant. And again, any statistical anomaly is merely a warning signal warranting further investigation, the anomaly itself can't be used to prove anything.

Indeed, and verification there should be, that's the purpose of the tool. VAERS is a tool designed for assessing the safety of vaccines. This data will be assessed and any causation (or lack thereof) with the vaccines will be established. Any significant variation in data, while not proving anything taken alone as you said, is a warning sign to be taken into account and assessed. From the VAERS website: The strengths of VAERS are that it is national in scope and can often quickly detect an early hint or warning of a safety problem with a vaccine. VAERS is one component of CDC's and FDA's multifaceted approach to monitoring safety after vaccines are licensed or authorized for use. There are multiple, complementary systems that CDC and FDA use to capture and validate data from different sources. VAERS is designed to rapidly detect unusual or unexpected patterns of adverse events, also referred to as “safety signals.” https://vaers.hhs.gov/data.html#:~:text=The strengths of VAERS are,licensed or authorized for use.

It is very flawed, that much I agree with. But the main flaw is related to underreporting. So if you have an alarming statistic showing up, that is a red flag warranting investigation. And refusal to carry out said investigation in a second red flag.

Please point me to where it says that. In any case, 900 cases is not significant, and nor are three deaths (one of which is confirmed not caused by measles but by medical malpractice).

I believe that to be relevant, a meme must fulfill two criteria: - Be grounded in truth - Shine light on an issue worthy of debate Regarding this one, let's have a closer look then: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8255173/