10 minutes ago, atpeace said:

I myself use common sense and make the best choice.

Alas this wasn't the case during the pandemic and the emergency roll out of an experimental mRNA 'vaccine'. Anyone who chose to think for themselves and make their own choice by way of rejecting the experimental 'vaccine' was demonized. Of course there were others who were forced by threat of losing their careers to take it.

38 minutes ago, atpeace said:

Because much of the medical information is later proven to false. This has always happened and has been discussed by other scientists and educational institutions for decades. Below is a summary of an essay written by a Stanford professor at the Stanford School of Medicine.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_Most_Published_Research_Findings_Are_False

 

Your source being a right-wing COVID dismissing academic who infamously predicted early in the COVID pandemic that the U.S. might at most experience 10,000 COVID deaths.   He only ended up being wrong about about 1.25 million U.S. COVID deaths!

 

He really needed to have applied his own premise to his own work.

 

 

12 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

Alas this wasn't the case during the pandemic and the emergency roll out of an experimental mRNA 'vaccine'. Anyone who chose to think for themselves and make their own choice by way of rejecting the experimental 'vaccine' was demonized. Of course there were others who were forced by threat of losing their careers to take it.

 

Anyone who repeatedly puts the term VACCINE in quotes, as if to suggest they really aren't, pretty much tells you the nonsense place where they're coming from.

 

Fact check: The mRNA coronavirus vaccine is a vaccine, and it is designed to prevent illness

February 22, 2021

 

"A video shared on social media has claimed that the mRNA coronavirus vaccine is not actually a vaccine, but a “device” designed to make people sick. This is false.

...

While there are different types of vaccine, they broadly have the same definition.

...

While earlier vaccinations used a weakened or inactivated form of a virus, mRNA vaccines instruct cells to make a specific protein to trigger an immune response (here).  These vaccines have been found to prevent symptomatic and severe effects of COVID-19 (here)."

 

Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN2AM0SF/

 

 

5 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

Anyone who repeatedly puts the term VACCINE in quotes, as if to suggest they really aren't, pretty much tells you the nonsense place where they're coming from.

 

Fact check: The mRNA coronavirus vaccine is a vaccine, and it is designed to prevent illness

February 22, 2021

 

"A video shared on social media has claimed that the mRNA coronavirus vaccine is not actually a vaccine, but a “device” designed to make people sick. This is false.

...

While there are different types of vaccine, they broadly have the same definition.

...

While earlier vaccinations used a weakened or inactivated form of a virus, mRNA vaccines instruct cells to make a specific protein to trigger an immune response (here).  These vaccines have been found to prevent symptomatic and severe effects of COVID-19 (here)."

 

Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN2AM0SF/

 

 

Didn't the CDC change the definition of 'vaccine' on their www? Or was it the decrepit WHO? Or both of them?

 

Personally I don't care whether the clot-shot was/is named a Gene Therapy or a Vaccine. They are all anti-science, anti-nature and if we read Mark Nothing's musings; anti God.

 

Both the CDC, and WHO, should be kicked into touch IMO. Don't need either. I reckon the FDA could be turned around. England's MHRA is a lost cause, and is only fit for the dustbin.

Vaccine definition claim is not immune from the truth

March 28, 2023

 

 

"More than three years into the pandemic, claims are still being made that COVID-19 vaccines are not "real". This time, the claim unsuccessfully tries to re-write the definition of a vaccine.

 

A video posted to Facebook by the Know Your Rights group (archived here1) features a claim that the vaccines "legally and medically don't actually qualify as a vaccine because they don't actually provide immunity … They don't give you immunity and they don't stop transmission, what do they actually do?" (audio mark 16 min 20 sec).

 

But this is false. There is no official legal or medical definition for vaccines, medical and legal experts told AAP FactCheck. Rather, vaccines are qualified by their ability to boost immunity — not completely eliminate risk."

...

AAP FactCheck has previously debunked many other claims about COVID-19 vaccine legitimacy, including false allegations they are "transfection agents", 28"gene therapy"29 and that you can't vaccinate against respiratory diseases. False – The claim is inaccurate."

 

(more)

 

Australian Associated Press

https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/vaccine-definition-claim-is-not-immune-from-the-truth/

 

 

 

10 hours ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

"People who believe health misinformation are not bad people or stupid. Rather, they should be viewed as victims that sellers of misinformation have taken advantage of because of their misplaced mistrust and strong personal autonomy. I use the term “victim” here because the solution to helping misinformed people is to engage with them in personal and emotionally engaging ways."

 

Very interesting shift of the Overton window.

 

We've gone from this in 2021:

 

 

To this in 2025:

 

"People who believe health misinformation are not bad people or stupid. Rather, they should be viewed as victims"

 

Next step (2026? 27?) will be "well yeah they were right, but…"

 

Anyway, please follow this guidance and interact with me "in personal and emotionally engaging ways", John, that should be interesting…

1 hour ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

Your source being a right-wing COVID dismissing academic who infamously predicted early in the COVID pandemic that the U.S. might at most experience 10,000 COVID deaths.   He only ended up being wrong about about 1.25 million U.S. COVID deaths!

 

He really needed to have applied his own premise to his own work.

 

 

The article was written in 2005 -555.  Google is your friend and you can find many other articles and studies about how flawed medical research is and always has been.  I didn't even look into his Covid beliefs.   

 

Discussion is impossible because you don't even consider the other person's perspective. 

 

As for applying his own premise to his work as you suggest.  Would that not verify his essay.  He had an opinion that 10,000 people would die.  Get it - an opinion. Opinions in the end can dominate medical research and this is the problem. 

 

You seem to feel people shouldn't have opinions that are not scientists or authorities.

 

 

 

 

8 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

Vaccine definition claim is not immune from the truth

March 28, 2023

 

 

"More than three years into the pandemic, claims are still being made that COVID-19 vaccines are not "real". This time, the claim unsuccessfully tries to re-write the definition of a vaccine.

 

A video posted to Facebook by the Know Your Rights group (archived here1) features a claim that the vaccines "legally and medically don't actually qualify as a vaccine because they don't actually provide immunity … They don't give you immunity and they don't stop transmission, what do they actually do?" (audio mark 16 min 20 sec).

 

But this is false. There is no official legal or medical definition for vaccines, medical and legal experts told AAP FactCheck. Rather, vaccines are qualified by their ability to boost immunity — not completely eliminate risk."

...

AAP FactCheck has previously debunked many other claims about COVID-19 vaccine legitimacy, including false allegations they are "transfection agents", 28"gene therapy"29 and that you can't vaccinate against respiratory diseases. False – The claim is inaccurate."

 

(more)

 

Australian Associated Press

https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/vaccine-definition-claim-is-not-immune-from-the-truth/

 

 

 

 

The definition of a vaccine was changed in 2021 to replace "immunity" with "immune response."

 

The definition of "anti-vaxxer" was also changed from a person who opposes vaccines to a person who opposes vaccines and/or vaccine mandates.

 

The WHO also changed the definition of herd immunity so it no longer includes immunity developed through previous infection. The new definition says herd immunity is only possible through vaccination.

 

24 minutes ago, atpeace said:

You seem to feel people shouldn't have opinions that are not scientists or authorities.

 

Everyone has opinions. But that doesn't mean they're necessarily informed opinions or opinions based on actual facts and scientific evidence. Some people's opinions are readily proven as nonsense.

 

Opinions are like XXXXX. Everyone has one. That doesn't mean they're all created equal, especially when it comes to scientific / medical topics where some degree of specialized knowledge and understanding is likely to increase their likelihood of being accurate and fact-based.
 

If I want an opinion about why I'm suffering migraine headaches, just as a hypothetical example, I don't go looking for a gynecologist!  If I'm in search of credible information, I don't go relying on sources that have long and documented histories of being misinformers.

 

 

 

11 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

The definition of a vaccine was changed in 2021 to replace "immunity" with "immune response."

 

Experts say changes to CDC’s vaccination definition are normal

 February 9, 2022

 

"CLAIM: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has changed its definition of vaccination because COVID-19 vaccines are ineffective.

 

AP’S ASSESSMENT: Missing context. The CDC has altered the language in the definition of vaccination on its website, including after the development of COVID-19 vaccines, but the changes were made to prevent potential misinterpretations, and did not alter the overall definition, according to the agency. Experts confirmed to The Associated Press that the changes reflect the evolution of vaccine research and technology. [emphasis added]

...

The CDC told the AP in a statement that it made the language shifts to add detail and increase transparency. “While there have been slight changes in wording over time to the definition of ‘vaccine’ on CDC’s website, those haven’t impacted the overall definition,” the statement said, noting that the previous definition “could be interpreted to mean that vaccines were 100% effective, which has never been the case for any vaccine.”
 

(more)

 

Associated Press

https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-976069264061

 

If anyone goes back into the history of this topic, they'll see that the CDC had periodically tinkered with its definition wording for vaccines, both prior to the COVID pandemic, and then during it, as the above AP report recounts.  The hand-wringing over the wording revisions is just another anti-vaxer attempt to attack COVID vaccination.

6 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

Experts say changes to CDC’s vaccination definition are normal

 

Phew!

Here's one "expert" opinion on the topic:

 

(I'll value his opinion on the topic over that of a random gynecologist or gardener, but that's just a personal quirk of mine....   🙂   )

 

"Dr. Ryan Langlois, a microbiology and immunology professor at the University of Minnesota, says the CDC’s changes “make total sense,” and add nuance following emerging vaccine developments such as mRNA technology.

 

“We’ve repurposed this word, vaccination, from 200 plus years ago,” said Langlois, who teaches a course on the history of vaccination. “It’s always difficult when a word is so entrenched but the technology is changing. I think it’s very, very clear that one of the things the CDC is trying to do is to try to update the definition with the updating technology.”

 

Langlois said the changes also help to make the definition more accurate. He said the word “immunity” can be misleading with any vaccine, as “it’s incredibly rare that that immunity is perfect.”

 

Associated Press

https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-976069264061

 

 

1 hour ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

Everyone has opinions. But that doesn't mean they're necessarily informed opinions or opinions based on actual facts and scientific evidence. Some people's opinions are readily proven as nonsense.

 

Opinions are like XXXXX. Everyone has one. That doesn't mean they're all created equal, especially when it comes to scientific / medical topics where some degree of specialized knowledge and understanding is likely to increase their likelihood of being accurate and fact-based.
 

If I want an opinion about why I'm suffering migraine headaches, just as a hypothetical example, I don't go looking for a gynecologist!  If I'm in search of credible information, I don't go relying on sources that have long and documented histories of being misinformers.

 

 

 

Some people's opinions are also based on narratives pushed by governments and media which people consider as truths whithout doubt.

59 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

(I'll value his opinion on the topic over that of a random gynecologist or gardener, but that's just a personal quirk of mine....   🙂   )

 

"Dr. Ryan Langlois, a microbiology and immunology professor at the University of Minnesota

 

Well, unless they say something you don't like, in which case you refuse to consider it and call them "quack doctors":

 

 

 

Only when they ARE a bunch of discredited anti-vaxer doctors and academics associated with the discredited group World Council for Health:

 

That's not MY personal opinion, but rather, the assessments of various reasonably credible sources as spelled out below.

 

 

 

World Council for Health:

 

 

Overall, we rate the World Council for Health a right-biased quackery level pseudoscience and conspiracy organization based on promoting unproven and false claims regarding vaccines, Covid-19, and general health.

 

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/world-council-for-health-bias/

 

"Sucharit Bhakdi is a retired Thai-German microbiologist. In 2020 and 2021 Bhakdi became a prominent source of misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic, claiming that the pandemic was "fake" and that COVID-19 vaccines were going to decimate the world's population.

...

Bhakdi has made a number of false statements about the COVID-19 pandemic, saying that the pandemic is a "fake", that face masks and quarantines are "nonsense" and that the COVID-19 vaccines are deadly and will decimate the global population.^[4]

 

He has been otherwise criticised for his theses on the COVID-19 pandemic; according to Medical Tribune [de], they are considered unscientific by a majority of experts."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sucharit_Bhakdi

 

 

"is Dr. Brigitte Konig credible on COVID issues?

 

Dr. Brigitte König's credibility on COVID-19 issues is disputed, with her work often cited in online communities that question vaccine safety. While she has a scientific background, her claims regarding the contamination of mRNA vaccines are controversial and have been used to generate misinformation."

 

--AI assist

 

And her published research on this topic has generated an "expression of concern" by the journal where it was published:

 

"Following publication [1], concerns were raised to the Editorial Office regarding the appropriateness of methodology and validity of the data presented in this published protocol.

The Methods and Protocols Editorial Board evaluated the concerns and the response from the authors and decided to initiate a Comment and Reply process as per MDPI policy on Updating Published Papers."

 

https://www.mdpi.com/2409-9279/8/4/68?utm_source=researchgate

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

12 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

 

Well, unless they say something you don't like, in which case you refuse to consider it and call them "quack doctors":

 

 

 

If it's not from the CDC or big pharma funded research it doesn't count as reliable. Nothing, absolutely nothing, will change his view. Safe and effective and saved millions of lives and that's that. Any opposing view is simply anti-vax.

2 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

If it's not from the CDC or big pharma funded research it doesn't count as reliable. Nothing, absolutely nothing, will change his view. Safe and effective and saved millions of lives and that's that. Any opposing view is simply anti-vax.

 

Yes, but it's amusing to occasionally point out the sheer absurdity and dogma-fueled blinkeredness that some people are capable of displaying. They claim to trust microbiology and immunology professors on the matter. Okay, great. Show them two statements by microbiology and immunology professors pointing to – and explaining – the mechanisms through which the Covid vaccine is dangerous and it's an immediate shutdown.

 

10 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

"Sucharit Bhakdi is a retired Thai-German microbiologist. In 2020 and 2021 Bhakdi became a prominent source of misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic, claiming that the pandemic was "fake" and that COVID-19 vaccines were going to decimate the world's population.

...

Bhakdi has made a number of false statements about the COVID-19 pandemic, saying that the pandemic is a "fake", that face masks and quarantines are "nonsense" and that the COVID-19 vaccines are deadly and will decimate the global population.^[4]

 

He has been otherwise criticised for his theses on the COVID-19 pandemic; according to Medical Tribune [de], they are considered unscientific by a majority of experts."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sucharit_Bhakdi

 

 

"is Dr. Brigitte Konig credible on COVID issues?

 

Dr. Brigitte König's credibility on COVID-19 issues is disputed, with her work often cited in online communities that question vaccine safety. While she has a scientific background, her claims regarding the contamination of mRNA vaccines are controversial and have been used to generate misinformation."

 

--AI assist

 

 

 

 

 

I do appreciate the real-time illustration of my points.

1 minute ago, rattlesnake said:

 

I do appreciate the real-time illustration of my points.

 

And I appreciate your dedicated contribution to elucidating the topic of this thread:

 

6 Reasons Why People Believe Health Misinformation

@rattlesnake

 

A post has been removed for violating the following forum rule:

 

"5. Do not post text with all capital letters or with over-sized fonts, all bold font, non-standard fonts, colored fonts or unusually large emojis."

 

5 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

 

Yes, but it's amusing to occasionally point out the sheer absurdity and dogma-fueled blinkeredness that some people are capable of displaying. They claim to trust microbiology and immunology professors on the matter. Okay, great. Show them two statements by microbiology and immunology professors pointing to – and explaining – the mechanisms through which the Covid vaccine is dangerous and it's an immediate shutdown.

 

Only one side is allowed as it was during the pandemic. All challenges to the narrative were shut down or shouted down and this was evidenced on this very forum and still is. Some haven't advanced from this myopic mentality and flat out refuse to even consider they might be wrong.  

24 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

If it's not from the CDC or big pharma funded research it doesn't count as reliable. Nothing, absolutely nothing, will change his view. Safe and effective and saved millions of lives and that's that. Any opposing view is simply anti-vax.

Yes, but it's amusing to occasionally point out the sheer absurdity and dogma-fueled blinkeredness that some people are capable of displaying. They claim to trust microbiology and immunology professors on the matter. Okay, great. Show them two statements by microbiology and immunology professors pointing to – and explaining – the mechanisms through which the Covid vaccine is dangerous and it's an immediate shutdown.

2 hours ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

Anyone who repeatedly puts the term VACCINE in quotes, as if to suggest they really aren't, pretty much tells you the nonsense place where they're coming from.

 

Fact check: The mRNA coronavirus vaccine is a vaccine, and it is designed to prevent illness

February 22, 2021

 

"A video shared on social media has claimed that the mRNA coronavirus vaccine is not actually a vaccine, but a “device” designed to make people sick. This is false.

...

While there are different types of vaccine, they broadly have the same definition.

...

While earlier vaccinations used a weakened or inactivated form of a virus, mRNA vaccines instruct cells to make a specific protein to trigger an immune response (here).  These vaccines have been found to prevent symptomatic and severe effects of COVID-19 (here)."

 

Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN2AM0SF/

 

 

This is 100% deflection from my post which was:

Alas this wasn't the case during the pandemic and the emergency roll out of an experimental mRNA 'vaccine'. Anyone who chose to think for themselves and make their own choice by way of rejecting the experimental 'vaccine' was demonized. Of course there were others who were forced by threat of losing their careers to take it.

11 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

And I appreciate your dedicated contribution to elucidating the topic of this thread:

 

6 Reasons Why People Believe Health Misinformation

 

"Misinformation" is a manufactured term, the use of which exploded in 2016 in a (failed) attempt to retain control over the central narrative on a number of topics.

 

Interesting insight by Peter McCullough:

 

 

Peter McCullough, another from your roster of discredited anti-vaxers, in his case, a medical doctor who was stripped of his medical board certifications for peddling COVID and anti-vax misinformation. McCullough now is the chief scientific officer of The Wellness Co., which sells unproven COVID treatments and supposed vaccine detox treatments.

 

 

Overall, we rate The Wellness Company as a conspiracy and pseudoscience website based on the promotion of alternative health claims that are either false, misleading, or unproven.

...

In general, The Wellness Company promotes pseudoscientific disinformation often as a way to promote alternative health products. Realistically, this site does not promote wellness but rather pseudoscience that can be harmful to health if proper medical treatments are not sought."

 

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-wellness-company-bias/

 

 

 

Common sense, that’s all it is needed, and of course resources and ability to choose good sources when it comes to proven science. 

 

Mistrust, mental health and conspiracy is often something that goes hand in hand. Not always, but often 

1 hour ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

Peter McCullough, another from your roster of discredited anti-vaxers, in his case, a medical doctor who was stripped of his medical board certifications for peddling COVID and anti-vax misinformation. McCullough now is the chief scientific officer of The Wellness Co., which sells unproven COVID treatments and supposed vaccine detox treatments.

 

 

Overall, we rate The Wellness Company as a conspiracy and pseudoscience website based on the promotion of alternative health claims that are either false, misleading, or unproven.

...

In general, The Wellness Company promotes pseudoscientific disinformation often as a way to promote alternative health products. Realistically, this site does not promote wellness but rather pseudoscience that can be harmful to health if proper medical treatments are not sought."

 

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-wellness-company-bias/

 

 

 

 

Mediabiasfactcheck.com bases its ratings on Dave Van Zandt’s framework: 40% of the "fact checks" they do are based on Politifact and Snopes, which are both demonstrably far to the left (the former's parent company Poyntner Institute receives money from Soros' Open Society Foundations, the latter is run by open leftifts).

 

 

 

 

15 hours ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Not one person died from covid worldwide. No one even got sick from covid worldwide.

The above statement is a lie. An intentionally false statement that goes against multiple medical examiner findings, coroner reports and conclusions of public health agencies.

 

I don't know if you are intentionally doing this for personal jollies or if you are mentally ill. What I do know is that  Asean Now is providing a platform for you to present lies and to cause harm to others.

 

11 hours ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

11 hours ago, BKKBike09 said:

Some excellent names. Is 'Ben Tapper' also an adult video actor when he's not busy allegedly spreading disinformation?

 

I'm guessing your knowledge of porn actors is unrelated to the Ben Tapper, a chiropractor. who was on the COVID Disinformation Dozen list:

 

It was a (clearly failed) attempt to 'inject' (to stay on topic) some humour into this rather dry discussion.