-
Recently Browsing 0 members
- No registered users viewing this page.
-
Topics
-
-
-
Popular Contributors
-
1
-
2
-
3
.thumb.jpeg.d2d19a66404642fd9ff62d6262fd153e.jpeg)
-
4
-
5
-
-
-
Latest posts...
-
57
Epithets for life - do you have any?
Two types of people. Bs artists and liars. -
19
Retirement visa
Probably. Immigration will ask for a long-term lease, which you will not have. You'll need a statement from your girlfriend that you are residing with her, a copy of her ID, and copy of her lease or ownership book. -
1
Accident Speedboat Collides with Longtail Boat Near Phi Phi Islands, Injuring Three
Lady in yellow gets tossed on her backside, hope she didn't hit her head. -
278
Fun Quiz > Covid-19 mRNA Vax harm denial - At which stage are you?
I was in exactly the same situation... though I researched everything I could and was far less cynical of the vaccines. -
278
Fun Quiz > Covid-19 mRNA Vax harm denial - At which stage are you?
That would be a fair critique if public health messaging had claimed perfection from the start - Did it ??? (I don' think it did)... The initial guidance reflected the best available evidence at the time, under immense pressure I might add. Early data showed vaccines reduced transmission and severe illness, not that they eliminated risk entirely. As for side effects, no medical intervention is risk-free, but serious adverse events were and remain statistically rare. Science evolves - its strength lies in self-correction, not omniscience. Expecting flawless foresight in a crisis isn't reasonable; what matters is whether decisions were made responsibly with what was known at the time - again, back to the burden of decision making power. We need to ensure we distinguish his [Dr. Redfield's] take on mRNA vaccines vs the other Covid-19 vaccines and vaccines in general here. ... continuing on... Dr. Redfield’s acknowledgment reflects an important aspect of science: its willingness to evolve and adapt as more data emerges. That’s not a flaw in the process - it’s a feature. Early conclusions weren’t lies; they were provisional judgments based on limited information during a rapidly unfolding crisis. I agree with you in praising Dr. Redfield’s humility - but it should cut both ways. Intellectual integrity also means recognising that early missteps don’t invalidate the overwhelming benefits of vaccination, nor do they justify rewriting history through a lens of absolute certainty after the fact. Unless it's an outright ridiculous conspiracy theory, the most persistent ones tend to cling to a shred of plausibility or truth - that’s what gives them traction. It’s true that some individuals have adverse reactions to vaccines; that’s always been understood. But those cases, while real, don’t outweigh the broader imperative of protecting public health. The risk-benefit balance overwhelmingly favours vaccination, especially during a global crisis. Also, scepticism toward Big Pharma is not only understandable - I think it’s healthy. The pharmaceutical industry has a long and well-documented history of lobbying, profit-driven motives, and, at times, ethically questionable behaviour. And yes, the entanglement between corporate interests, media narratives, and political agendas does erode public trust. But it’s important to separate distrust in the system from distrust in science itself.... The COVID-19 vaccines were developed by scientists across the globe - not just by profit-driven executives - and their efficacy was tested, scrutinised, and independently reviewed by a wide array of regulatory bodies. Public health should never be blindly entrusted to corporations, but neither should it be derailed by cynicism that disregards evidence simply because of its origin. Holding Big Pharma accountable and valuing life-saving science are not mutually exclusive. We got here because, in the chaos of a global crisis, people looked to institutions for stability - not out of blind obedience, but out of necessity. That doesn’t mean scepticism isn’t warranted, especially when power and profit are involved. But not every act of trust is ignorance, and not every alternative view is truth. The challenge is to question critically without throwing out evidence in favour of contrarianism for its own sake. -
57
Epithets for life - do you have any?
“Don’t let your mouth write a check your a** can’t cash “
-
-
Popular in The Pub
-
.thumb.jpg.3ee24d9400fb02605ea21bc13b1bf901.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now