FP,


Well said. Semantics, shifted goalposts, etc. but they’re safe and effective!

You also make a compelling and accurate point regarding unknowns and the possibility for the unknown to be non-linear in severity. The American people (and the world) really got fukkked over this covid BS and it could actually be really fukkking bad. I hope it isn’t but there are good odds it is. Only time will tell.


Streamer

I fixed the quote for you. So while your perspective is understandable, I’m unsure if I would have made the same decision as you. I also would not be in the same position as you because I would never smoke because it’s a terrible idea and would quit to prioritize my health above temporary, immediate gratification. Hopefully for your sake, it was a wake up call to quit so you don’t feel compelled to take a risk on the unknown instead of facing what was known. Nobody knew (knows) the long term side effects of the vaxxx. 67 with no health conditions or co-morbidities (had you quit smoking) and facing covid head on would have been a better decision than gambling with the potential unknown side effects of the vaxxx. The devil you know is better than the devil you don’t know.


Streamer

What vaccine or food additive or carcinogen has undergone the longitudinal testing being espoused here? I suspect none.

So, what do we do when faced with some sort of crisis whether it be health, climate, or a myriad of other things? Wait to act until a 50-year longitudinal study is completed?

When your argument is so airtight that only a wild strawman argument can be a counter argument. Nobody is saying 50 years.

Longitudinal studies can last anywhere from weeks to decades, although they tend to be at least a year long. Maybe not 50 years but 5 to 10 years is more reasonable. So what I would do when faced with a crisis is wait 10 years and do the study. You might say but what about the crisis. I say the crisis is overblown and you will see that it wasn't quite the crisis you thought it was 10 years ago.

In the meantime while the study is being done. Mandate the vaccine for nobody and avoid giving it to those under 18, pregnant women or those who may become pregnant. So if someone wants to risk the untested vaccine then they can take the risk themselves but not take it for their children or mandate others get vaccinated.

Sort of like your body your choice, of course the your body your choice crowd didn't think this about the vaccine, I do. If you don't want to wait for the study because you think it's a crisis then you can get the untested vaccine. Other people should be allowed to wait and it certainly shouldn't be given to children who can't consent without all testing.

Were you around when the polio and smallpox vaccines were created? A decade of studies would have killed and maimed a whole lot more. Fortunately, at least in my mind, is that I missed polio.

Streamer, I make the assumption that you would agree with the idea that the individual gets to make the decision regarding taking or not taking the vaccine. I'm not certain why you would not make the same assumption for me.

Eddie, we see this mindset across many of our current social divides. I don't hunt, so you can't. I don't own guns, so you can't, I won't marry someone of the same sex, so you can't, I will, or won't, vaccinate so you must do the same.

I subscribe to the idea that my freedom stops when it impacts you. I know it gets dicey when we look at things like public health but I suppose that so long as I don't risk infecting somebody else I'm fine to proceed as I wish.

Well said!

Eddie,


You would be correct with that assumption. You are free to decide what you would like to do, I’m only pointing out that with taking the vaxxx, even in your circumstance, the benefits may not have (likely didn’t) exceed the risks. The risks of the covid infection were overstated while the benefits of the vaxxx were overstated and its risks were understated.

Also, some of us were not even allowed to make that decision without retaliation. “Get the jab or lose your job.”


Streamer

No this is a terrible argument and you are absolutely wrong.

First off polio was on the decline prior to the introduction of the vaccine. Poliovirus spreads via the fecal-oral route, often through contaminated water or food. Mid-20th-century improvements in sewage systems, clean water supplies, and waste management reduced transmission. Improved access to nutritious food, especially in impoverished areas like the Mississippi Delta, bolstered immune systems, reducing the severity of polio infections. Polio cases were declining in U.S. and Europe before the Salk vaccine’s introduction in 1955, driven by socioeconomic improvements, reduced crowding, and public health measures. Polio is also an intestinal virus, that gives children diahrea and does not normally cause paralysis but if your gut/blood barrier if messsed up then the virus can leave your gut and get into your nervous system and cause paralysis. DDT, a widely used pesticide in the 1940s–1950s, exacerbated polio’s neurological effects by destroying your gut/blood barrier, particularly in agricultural regions and its neurotoxicity worsened paralysis in infected individuals.

Secondly, the 1955 Salk vaccine rollout faced issues when improperly inactivated vaccines from Cutter Laboratories contained live poliovirus, causing infections and paralysis in DDT exposed individuals. This led to a temporary suspension and stricter manufacturing standards. Long term studies would have caught this.

Thirdly, between 1955 and 1963, some batches of the polio vaccine (primarily the Salk which is now fully inactivated vaccine but also the early Sabin oral vaccine) were contaminated with Simian Virus 40 (SV40), a virus found in rhesus monkey kidney cells used to grow poliovirus for the vaccine. SV40 was not discovered until 1960, and an estimated 10–30% of polio vaccines in the U.S. during this period were contaminated, potentially exposing millions of people. SV40 is known to cause tumors in animals, and there has been concern about its potential to cause cancer in humans. Epidemiological studies have investigated links between SV40 exposure and cancers like mesothelioma, brain tumors, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. SV40 has been used in experiments to induce cancer in mice, primarily through the injection of the virus. SV40 has also been used to create cancer in transgenic mice with human ACE-2 receptors. Long term studies would have caught this.

So you are absolutely wrong, the poliovirus vaccine did not end polio. The decline of polio was driven by multiple non-vaccine factors: improved sanitation, better nutrition, a pre-vaccine decline, public health education, medical advancements, economic growth, natural immunity trends, quarantine measures and reduced DDT exposure. Early polio vaccine challenges, including the Cutter Incident and SV40 contamination (affecting millions between 1955–1963), complicated rollout but were resolved, allowing vaccines to complement these factors after a couple decades.

Also the covid shot is not a vaccine the polio vaccine is a vaccine. The inactivated polio vaccine is 99% to 100% effective after three doses, the covid shot has much less efficacy. Polio can paralyze you, covid is a mild cold. This is an apples to oranges comparison.

Polio vaccine is a terrible example of a successful vaccine not needing long term studies. You know absolutely nothing about polio or vaccines. Crack a book if DDT exposure hasn't destroyed all your neurons. Try Polio: An American Story by David M. Oshinsky or The Virus and the Vaccine: Contaminated Vaccine, Deadly Cancers, and Government Neglect by Debbie Bookchin and Jim Schumacher, Dissolving Illusions: Disease, Vaccines, and the Forgotten History by Suzanne Humphries and Roman Bystrianyk or The Moth in the Iron Lung: A Biography of Polio by Forrest Maready.

“Is this true or did you hear it on Fox News?”

Just wait for it…


Streamer

Every single thing I wrote there is completely true based on solid fact. Fact check away.

So if the vaccine works, then if you get the vaccine and I don't then I don't have to worry about infecting you because you got the vaccine. If the vaccine works and we both choose not to get it then that is a risk we both choose. If the vaccine doesn't work, then if you get the vaccine and I don't then you do have to worry about getting infected because the vaccine doesn't work, but since the vaccine doesn't work then me taking it won't prevent me from getting it to spread to you. So there is no valid argument for you requiring me to get a vaccine to stop me from infecting you. Another bad argument.