Nope, you’re still an antivax crank, and invoking broad claims of dehumanization are rhetorical devices to insulate yourself from legitimate criticism of your verifiably false claims.
That wasn’t the point
uh-huh, lol. It was the point of the parent commenter, you praised ivermectin without qualification while criticizing getting additional shots based on misinterpretation of an article, and only after pointing out that the website doesn’t recommend it as a replacement do you acknowledge it. If this were reddit you’d be sent to /r/quityourbullshit over this one alone.
Fair point, they do say less effective.
This is a fundamental misconception you are bringing to this thread. The article affirms that it protects, but to a lesser degree than previous shots and you falsely claimed without qualification that it is “ineffective”, and you erroneously concluded it shouldn’t be administered, and made an incorrect bad faith interpretation about “claims” associated with the promises of the vaccine that aren’t attributed to real people or based on an honest accounting of cause and effect of which forces drove the pandemic.
If it’s three strikes and you’re out, you’re at like seven strikes. You’re a crank and you should be banned.
I don’t think it’s constructive to assume the motives of others
you erroneously concluded it shouldn’t be administered,
That’s a nice strawman you got there
*and *made an incorrect bad faith interpretation about “claims” associated with the promises of the vaccine that aren’t attributed to real people or based on an honest accounting of cause and effect of which forces drove the pandemic.
President, head of CDC, head of NIAID didn’t say on tv it would prevent infection? Was that memory holed already?
You’re a crank and you should be banned.
You trying to build a safe space where no one disagrees?
I’m speaking sincerely and not in bad faith. I’m concerend by the amount of power gov is trying to get via mandates and the transfer of wealth that is happening due to shutdowns.
It’s an honest diagreement, but if you want to assume I have negative motives, nothing I can do about that.
I personally don’t want anyone censored and think humanity thrieves when we can have difficult conversations out in the open.
You’re a crank and should be banned, and your performative claims of being “dehumanized” and insisting I need to “calm down” are indisputably in bad faith.
President, head of CDC, head of NIAID didn’t say on tv it would prevent infection? Was that memory holed already?
Vaccines are one of a number of causal forces at play in the fight to prevent covid. Vaccines are an input that does indeed prevent infection. However, people have to be vaccinated, and have to coordinate effectively to mask, avoid gatherings, and resist the spread of misinformation. Instead we had poor coordination, and open defiance of mandates.
Instead of acknowledging the positive and negative roles played by independent forces, you merge them all together and use it to suggest vaccines themselves don’t prevent infection. Instead of looking at studies proving the efficacy of vaccines, you attribute unsourced vague claims that aren’t specifically about vaccine efficacy in order to imply they’re not effective. That’s bad faith.
So you misrepresented an article, referenced a website that didn’t agree that ivermectin is a replacement for vaccines, made vague references to non-existent quotes to falsely suggest vaccines are ineffective, and like any typical troll, are trying to insulate yourself from criticism with grandiose claims of rights to free speech and not being dehumanized. You’re a crank and you should be banned.
Anyway, I’d say this is a complex situation and there is some validity in your point of view and mine as well. I think it was a mistake to censor, smear early treatment and fire people even if they had acquired immunity. Seems cruel to me.
I also think it is cruel to deny people early treatment due to gov edict instead of allowing doctors to treat their patients how they see fit.
I think the policy of turning people away from the hospital until symptoms worsened instead of using early treatments was a massive mistake.
I don’t pretend to have absolute infallible knowledge and wouldn’t advocate for censorship as the princple of free speech is precisely tested during strong disagreement.
are trying to insulate yourself from criticism with grandiose claims of rights to free speech and not being dehumanized
I personally would advise you not be so casually contemptous of those principles. I’m not trying to insulate myself from criticism. Only one of us has expressed a desire that the other be censored.
Nope, you’re still an antivax crank, and invoking broad claims of dehumanization are rhetorical devices to insulate yourself from legitimate criticism of your verifiably false claims.
uh-huh, lol. It was the point of the parent commenter, you praised ivermectin without qualification while criticizing getting additional shots based on misinterpretation of an article, and only after pointing out that the website doesn’t recommend it as a replacement do you acknowledge it. If this were reddit you’d be sent to /r/quityourbullshit over this one alone.
This is a fundamental misconception you are bringing to this thread. The article affirms that it protects, but to a lesser degree than previous shots and you falsely claimed without qualification that it is “ineffective”, and you erroneously concluded it shouldn’t be administered, and made an incorrect bad faith interpretation about “claims” associated with the promises of the vaccine that aren’t attributed to real people or based on an honest accounting of cause and effect of which forces drove the pandemic.
If it’s three strikes and you’re out, you’re at like seven strikes. You’re a crank and you should be banned.
I don’t think it’s constructive to assume the motives of others
That’s a nice strawman you got there
President, head of CDC, head of NIAID didn’t say on tv it would prevent infection? Was that memory holed already?
You trying to build a safe space where no one disagrees?
I’m speaking sincerely and not in bad faith. I’m concerend by the amount of power gov is trying to get via mandates and the transfer of wealth that is happening due to shutdowns.
It’s an honest diagreement, but if you want to assume I have negative motives, nothing I can do about that.
I personally don’t want anyone censored and think humanity thrieves when we can have difficult conversations out in the open.
You’re a crank and should be banned, and your performative claims of being “dehumanized” and insisting I need to “calm down” are indisputably in bad faith.
Vaccines are one of a number of causal forces at play in the fight to prevent covid. Vaccines are an input that does indeed prevent infection. However, people have to be vaccinated, and have to coordinate effectively to mask, avoid gatherings, and resist the spread of misinformation. Instead we had poor coordination, and open defiance of mandates.
Instead of acknowledging the positive and negative roles played by independent forces, you merge them all together and use it to suggest vaccines themselves don’t prevent infection. Instead of looking at studies proving the efficacy of vaccines, you attribute unsourced vague claims that aren’t specifically about vaccine efficacy in order to imply they’re not effective. That’s bad faith.
So you misrepresented an article, referenced a website that didn’t agree that ivermectin is a replacement for vaccines, made vague references to non-existent quotes to falsely suggest vaccines are ineffective, and like any typical troll, are trying to insulate yourself from criticism with grandiose claims of rights to free speech and not being dehumanized. You’re a crank and you should be banned.
Interesting mantra.
Anyway, I’d say this is a complex situation and there is some validity in your point of view and mine as well. I think it was a mistake to censor, smear early treatment and fire people even if they had acquired immunity. Seems cruel to me.
I also think it is cruel to deny people early treatment due to gov edict instead of allowing doctors to treat their patients how they see fit.
I think the policy of turning people away from the hospital until symptoms worsened instead of using early treatments was a massive mistake.
I don’t pretend to have absolute infallible knowledge and wouldn’t advocate for censorship as the princple of free speech is precisely tested during strong disagreement.
I personally would advise you not be so casually contemptous of those principles. I’m not trying to insulate myself from criticism. Only one of us has expressed a desire that the other be censored.