41 replies to this topic

[pamojja]

Risky vaccination experiments https://www.wodarg.com/impfen/

Dr. Wodarg and Dr. Yeadon request a stop of all corona vaccination studies and call for co-signing the petition.

We ask that as many EU citizens as possible co-sign our petition by sending the e-mail prepared here to the EMA.

Here is the suggestion for your e-mail

to: press@ema.europa.eu

Copy to: petitionEMA@corona-ausschuss.com

Subject: Co-signing the petition of Dr. med. Wolfgang Wodarg, Germany (submitted on 30-Nov-2020)



Dear Sir or Madam,

I am hereby co-signing the petition of Dr. Wodarg to support his urgent request to stay the Phase III clinical trial(s) of BNT162b (EudraCT Number 2020-002641-42) and other clinical trials. The full text of the petition of Dr. Wodarg can be found here:

https://2020news.de/...th_Exhibits.pdf

I hereby respectfully request that EMA act on the petition of Dr. Wodarg immediately.

Regards



name of supporter





Together with ex-Pfizer's head of research, Dr. Michael Yeadon, I filed an application with the EMA, the European Medicine Agency responsible for EU-wide drug approval, on December 1, 2020 for the immediate suspension of all SARS CoV-2 vaccine studies, in particular the BioNtech/Pfizer study on BNT162b (EudraCT number 2020-002641-42).



We demand that the studies - for the protection of the life and health of the volunteers - are not continued until a study design is available that is suitable to address the significant safety concerns expressed by an increasing number of renowned scientists against the vaccine and the study design.

As petitioners, we demand on the one hand that, due to the well-known lack of accuracy of the PCR test, a serious study must use a so-called Sanger sequencing. This is the only way to make reliable statements on the effectiveness of a vaccine against Covid-19. On the basis of the many different PCR tests of highly varying quality, neither the risk of disease nor a possible vaccine benefit can be determined with the necessary certainty. For this reason alone, such tests of vaccines on humans are unethical per se.

Furthermore, we demand that it must be ruled out beforehand that risks already known from previous studies, some of which stem from the nature of corona viruses, may have a dangerous effect. Our concerns are directed in particular at the following points:

The formation of so-called "non-neutralizing antibodies" can lead to an exaggerated immune reaction, especially when test persons are confronted with the real, "wild" virus after vaccination. This so-called antibody-dependent amplification, ADE, has long been known from experiments with corona vaccines in cats, for example. In the course of these studies, all cats that initially tolerated the vaccination well died after being infected with real corona viruses. This overreaction is further encouraged by potentiators.

The vaccinations are expected to induce antibodies against spike proteins of SARS-CoV-2. However, spike proteins also contain syncytin-homologous proteins, which are essential for the formation of the placenta in mammals such as humans. It must be absolutely excluded that a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 triggers an immune reaction against syncytin-1, as otherwise infertility of indefinite duration could result in vaccinated women.


The mRNA vaccines from BioNTech/Pfizer contain polyethylene glycol (PEG). 70% of people develop antibodies against this substance - this means that many people can develop allergic, potentially fatal reactions to the vaccination.
The much too short duration of the study does not allow a realistic estimation of the late effects. As in the narcolepsy cases after the swine flu vaccination, if emergency approval were planned, late effects would only be observed when it is already too late for millions of vaccinated people. Governments plan to expose millions of healthy people to unacceptable risks and force them to be vaccinated through discriminatory restrictions on unvaccinated people.

Nevertheless, BioNTech/Pfizer apparently filed an application for emergency approval on December 1, 2020. Scientific responsibility compels us to take this action.

CALL FOR AID: Dr. Wodarg and Dr. Yeadon ask as many EU citizens as possible to co-sign their petition by sending the e-mail prepared here to the EMA.

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

Edited by pamojja, 01 December 2020 - 07:57 PM.

[Hip]

All new vaccines carry some risk, because phase III clinical trials only test vaccines on thousands of people, and if a vaccine caused an adverse effect in say 1 in every 50,000 people who are given it (this is typical sort of adverse effect figure for vaccines), it can be hard to pick that up in the clinical trial that only tests 1000s.

 

So it's not beyond the realms of possibility that one or more of these new coronavirus vaccines, although they passed phase III trials, might cause issues in something like 1 in every 50,000 people. 

 

However, given that around 1.5 million people have died from coronavirus so far this year, if we wait another year, we can expect a similar number of deaths. 

 

Therefore the vaccine, even if it caused adverse effects, still seems like the preferable option.

 

Of course we hope that the vaccines will not lead to any adverse effects, but it's not possible to totally guarantee that.  

Edited by Hip, 01 December 2020 - 11:10 PM.

[Dorian Grey]

Vaccines typically have a 2 year observation period following clinical trials to evaluate potential latent adverse events, before distribution to the general population.  

 

What we're facing with the new SARS vaccines is a massive campaign to dose hundreds of millions of people with experimental vaccines over a very short period of time under Emergency Use Authorization (in order to bypass the 2 year safety evaluation).  

 

The experimental format of the mRNA vaccines is obvious, but I don't believe the the more traditional adjuvanted protein vaccines have ever been attempted with coronavirus, so we're sailing a very large convoy of humans into uncharted waters rather blithely.  

 

Perhaps all will go well, but picture for a moment half a billion or so folks with various levels of autoimmune disease a couple of years down the road, or perhaps a mutated virus that learns to evade detection, hiding behind vaccine immunity to the previous incarnation.  

 

I'm not dead-set against getting one of the jabs eventually, but you won't see me at the front of the line!  

Edited by Dorian Grey, 01 December 2020 - 11:45 PM.

[Hip]

A friend of mine was vehemently and ideologically against coronavirus vaccines, saying they were dangerous and that he would never under any circumstances take them. 

 

Now my friend has lots of money and enjoys several expensive holidays per year, and he just learnt that airlines may not accept passengers that have not been vaccinated. So all of a sudden he has changed his mind, and wants to get vaccinated, so that he can continue to enjoy his vacations. 

 

How can you be so vehemently and ideologically against something, but then as soon as your lifestyle is affected, you completely change you mind?

 

Any coronavirus anti-vaxers here care to comment?

[Dorian Grey]

I worked in healthcare for 35 years (surgical tech), my gal an RN for over 40 years.  We often chuckle about non-medical laymen's faith in the infallibility of doctors & medical science.  

 

By some estimates, medical error is the third leading cause of death, right behind cancer & heart disease.

 

https://www.bmj.com/.../bmj.i2139.full

 

Medical error—the third leading cause of death in the us

 

This global pandemic is something never encountered by modern medicine.  As it is an infectious disease, the vaccine option quickly became the moonshot miracle, medical laymen saw as the obvious solution.  No worries that previous attempts at SARS-CoV-1 or dengue vaccine all ended in disaster, or that the previous world speed record for safe vaccine development was around 4 years.  This was the golden orb, & big pharma said "sure, we'll whip something up in no time provided we have legal indemnity if something goes wrong".  

 

Now politicos are gettin' giddy about the new potions delivered at warp speed.  "Let's make them mandatory if you want to work, go to school, travel, or leave your house".  A couple hundred million doses by Springtime!  What could possibly go wrong?  

 

I actually hope dearly that they work, & perhaps they will.  I'll be watching & waiting, & may just get the jab myself; but you won't see me at the front of the line.  The latest data on ivermectin indicates it can keep just about anyone out of the ICU, & I've already got my stash.  A mild infection with natural immunity appeals to me.  To each his own.  

 

Good luck with your vaccines, & let's review this time next year.  

Edited by Dorian Grey, 04 December 2020 - 08:02 AM.

[Hip]

There are two separate issues here: (1) the scientific question of whether a given vaccine is safe, and (2) the general public's often misinformed view on whether a given vaccine is safe. 

 

The first is informed by scientific analysis and studies, the second is informed by Facebook hearsay and groupthink, not to mention the natural rebellious nature of Western culture, where people just love to rebel against anything, whether is it wearing masks, vaccines, or whatever.   

 

It is well known that when the general public are exposed to Facebook hearsay regarding vaccines (vaccines of any sort, not just coronavirus vaccines), even though there is no scientific evidence contained in that hearsay, they become less likely to want to have a vaccine. 

 

 

 

Mental health also comes into it. My anti-coronavirus vaccine friend I mentioned above seems to have developed some mild schizotypy in recent years: he tends to see conspiracy theories behind everything, which is one of the main symptoms of schizotypy. So he thinks there is some huge global conspiracy behind the coronavirus vaccines, with some mysterious powers orchestrating it all for some nefarious purpose that he can't quite put his finger on. 

 

Once some has developed such mental health issues, it's no good discussing with them, because they have a slightly distorted picture of reality, as is known to occur in schizotypy.

 

Amazingly, schizotypy affects around 4% of the population, or 1 person in 25. So this explains why there are so many nutty conspiracy theories online. 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Hip, 04 December 2020 - 02:49 PM.

[Hip]

A mild infection with natural immunity appeals to me.

 

Have you not read that coronavirus has the unusual property of not creating long-lasting herd immunity? This has been extensively covered in the media. 

 

If coronavirus created herd immunity like other pathogens, it would be so much easier. 

[Dorian Grey]

Virtually all Americans have received the same outpatient treatment for COVID.  Go home & take Tylenol; call 911 if you start turning blue.  No mystery why many have persistent sequela.  

 

Mild (properly treated!) disease may or may not provide lasting immunity.  Same with the vaccines.  Don't see a great advantage or disadvantage immunologically either way, though artificial immune modulation is known to have inherent risks; particularly when it comes to coronavirus & vaccines.  https://www.scienced...201971220307311

 

[Mr Serendipity]

I won’t get vaccinated, I had it in April for around a month pretty bad, so I don’t see any difference between getting it naturally and becoming immune, and getting a vaccine and becoming immune, isn’t it just like chicken pox?

 

Regardless, there is already plenty of evidence these vaccinations are a pathway toward totalitarian governments. There’s been talk by several countries you won’t be able to move freely, go to shops, pubs, cinemas, and are forced to continue to wear a mask if you don’t have a health passport, regular tests, or the vaccine etc... This kind of talk is coming out of several countries right now, the latest being the chief medical officer of Canada: 

 

 

 

"What may be mandatory, is proof of vaccination, in order to have latitude and freedom to move around without wearing personal protective equipment." - Chief Medical Officer, Dr. Williams

 

Regardless I’d rather die from COVID than live in a dystopia people think is okay for the greater good. But unfortunately I’m immune lol

[Mind]

Have you not read that coronavirus has the unusual property of not creating long-lasting herd immunity? This has been extensively covered in the media. 

 

If coronavirus created herd immunity like other pathogens, it would be so much easier. 

 

This opinion is based upon early unfounded and unscientific speculation by health bureaucrats...and never made any sense to me.

 

Now that actual data is coming in, it looks like immunity will last several months or even years, which should be expected: https://www.msn.com/...ars/ar-BB1bmemY

[Hip]

This opinion is based upon early unfounded and unscientific speculation by health bureaucrats...and never made any sense to me.

 

Now that actual data is coming in, it looks like immunity will last several months or even years, which should be expected: https://www.msn.com/...ars/ar-BB1bmemY

 

Immunity lasting just for several months is extremely short.

 

Typically with infectious pathogens, antibody immunity lasts for decades, and often lasts the entire lifetime of a person. 

 

This study of the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic, for example, found that 90 years later, Spanish flu survivors still had robust levels of antibodies against the Spanish flu virus. For these people who caught the Spanish flu virus as infants, their immune systems were still pumping out good levels of anti-Spanish flu antibodies even after 90 years. Spanish flu immunity lasts the lifetime of an individual. 

 

Thus you should be able to appreciate that coronavirus antibody immunity lasting only months or maybe a year is an extemely short time.  

 

It may therefore be necessary to give the entire world's population coronavirus vaccine boosters once every year, in order to refresh and maintain immunity.

 

 

 

I have not been able to find any studies or literature that explain the actual mechanism of the very short coronavirus immunity. There must be a reason why the antibody immune response to this pathogen is so short lived. 

Edited by Hip, 05 December 2020 - 06:32 PM.

[Mr Serendipity]

The coronavirus just like the vaccines are too new to determine the long term effects, so you never know, give it a couple of years and it may be discovered people who naturally got it still have the antibodies all that time.

Even face masks haven’t been determined to be effective yet, for example the recent large Danish study on it.

Btw I’m not anti vaccine from a scientific point of view as I have no authority to speak on that subject, whether they work or not or are dangerous or not is not something I could argue for or against. However I’m for individual freedom, and everyone should have the choice whether to receive the vaccine or not, it’s as simple as that.

At the end of the day, if vaccines are meant to make you immune by helping you body develop anti bodies, then why are people worried if someone else isn’t vaccinated?

[Hip]

The coronavirus just like the vaccines are too new to determine the long term effects, so you never know, give it a couple of years and it may be discovered people who naturally got it still have the antibodies all that time.

 

We have already had studies showing that coronavirus antibodies rapidly decline after a few months in people infected with coronavirus. It's the B-cells in the blood which pump out antibodies, and for every pathogen you have been exposed to in your life, you will have a corresponding group of B-cells in your blood, which are responsible for making the antibodies that target each specific pathogen.

 

B-cells are part of the adaptive immune system. It's called adaptive, as the immune system learns how to target and fight each new pathogen, and then remembers how to fight a given pathogen typically for decades, or a whole lifetime.  

 

The other side of the adaptive immune system is T-cell immunity. T-cells do not make antibodies, but nevertheless learn how to recognize and target a given pathogen, and once they have learnt this, like B-cells, they remember normally for decades, or a lifetime.

 

T-cells are one of the unknowns in the coronavirus pandemic, as it is not know how effective T-cell immunity will be in preventing you from being reinfected after you were infected once. 

 

 

 

At the end of the day, if vaccines are meant to make you immune by helping you body develop anti bodies, then why are people worried if someone else isn’t vaccinated?

 

With any vaccine, there may be a very slight risk of adverse effects (typically you find adverse effects from vaccines in the order of 1 in 50,000 people). If we vaccinate a large percentage of the population, that will hopefully end the pandemic, and everybody benefits.

 

And that includes those who did not take the vaccine: these vaccine refusers get the benefits, but without shouldering any of the risk. 

 

Obviously that's not fair. That's why I think the choice whether to take the vaccine should be an individual one. But if you don't take it, there should be some repercussions, like not being able to fly, otherwise everyone will leave it to others to bear the (very slight) risks.

 

Edited by Hip, 05 December 2020 - 07:50 PM.

[Mr Serendipity]

With any vaccine, there may be a very slight risk of adverse effects (typically you find adverse effects from vaccines in the order of 1 in 50,000 people). If we vaccinate a large percentage of the population, that will hopefully end the pandemic, and everybody benefits.

 

And that includes those who did not take the vaccine: these vaccine refusers get the benefits, but without shouldering any of the risk. 

 

Obviously that's not fair. That's why I think the choice whether to take the vaccine should be an individual one. But if you don't take it, there should be some repercussions, like not being able to fly, otherwise everyone will leave it to others to bear the (very slight) risks.

 

So if the whole population benefits (even non vaxxers) because enough people take the vaccine and we eradicate the disease, just like the polio vaccine did with polio. Then why restrict the freedoms of people who refused to take it? We don’t do this if people refuse to take the polio vaccine today.

Edited by Jesus is King, 05 December 2020 - 08:26 PM.

[genX]

At the end of the day, if vaccines are meant to make you immune by helping you body develop anti bodies, then why are people worried if someone else isn’t vaccinated?

 

A) Because we don't want the hospitals and health system to be overwhelmed with sick patients (along with the resulting short-term economic effects and long-term financial and economic effects)

 

B) Because until enough people are vaccinated then the risk of spread of further disease, especially from asymptomatic people remains large

[Hip]

So if the whole population benefits (even non vaxxers) because enough people take the vaccine and we eradicate the disease, just like the polio vaccine did with polio. Then why restrict the freedoms of people who refused to take it? We don’t do this if people refuse to take the polio vaccine today.

 

Well one issue is the antivax groups, whose online scaremongering is putting the willies into people regarding taking the coronavirus vaccine. We don't know whether enough people will take the vaccine. 

 

Another issue is that the unvaccinated present a health risk to others, even to vaccinated people. The coronavirus vaccines have been shown 90% to 95% effective at preventing death. But not 100%. So if you are a person at high risk of death from COVID, even if you are vaccinated, that only reduces your risk of death by around 10-fold. But it does not entirely protect you from death.

 

So unvaccinated people not only present a risk to themselves, but also to others. 

 

 

 

In any case, placing restrictions on unvaccinated people may not be done at government level, but by different private organizations. So it is out of the government hands, as private organizations are free to do what they want. Airlines like Qantas are already placing restrictions, because it is easy to spread coronavirus in the confined space of an aircraft. And I imagine an airline could get is arse sued off if someone died as a result of catching coronavirus during a flight.

Edited by Hip, 05 December 2020 - 08:45 PM.

[Ekatostis]

Can someone explain to me the function of ACE2 receptor and whether or not the mRNA vaccine will inhibit anything that looks like the coronavirus spike from docking there?

[Mind]

We have already had studies showing that coronavirus antibodies rapidly decline after a few months in people infected with coronavirus. It's the B-cells in the blood which pump out antibodies, and for every pathogen you have been exposed to in your life, you will have a corresponding group of B-cells in your blood, which are responsible for making the antibodies that target each specific pathogen.

 

B-cells are part of the adaptive immune system. It's called adaptive, as the immune system learns how to target and fight each new pathogen, and then remembers how to fight a given pathogen typically for decades, or a whole lifetime.  

 

The other side of the adaptive immune system is T-cell immunity. T-cells do not make antibodies, but nevertheless learn how to recognize and target a given pathogen, and once they have learnt this, like B-cells, they remember normally for decades, or a lifetime.

 

T-cells are one of the unknowns in the coronavirus pandemic, as it is not know how effective T-cell immunity will be in preventing you from being reinfected after you were infected once. 

 

 

 

 

With any vaccine, there may be a very slight risk of adverse effects (typically you find adverse effects from vaccines in the order of 1 in 50,000 people). If we vaccinate a large percentage of the population, that will hopefully end the pandemic, and everybody benefits.

 

And that includes those who did not take the vaccine: these vaccine refusers get the benefits, but without shouldering any of the risk. 

 

Obviously that's not fair. That's why I think the choice whether to take the vaccine should be an individual one. But if you don't take it, there should be some repercussions, like not being able to fly, otherwise everyone will leave it to others to bear the (very slight) risks.

 

You need to get up to speed. Why are you relying on old data? COVID immunity lasts a long time (no one is sure how long, but some speculate years) according to recent studies... and the immunity involves multiple parts of the immune system. https://www.msn.com/...ial/ar-BB1bFJco

[Hip]

You need to get up to speed. Why are you relying on old data? COVID immunity lasts a long time (no one is sure how long, but some speculate years) according to recent studies... and the immunity involves multiple parts of the immune system. https://www.msn.com/...ial/ar-BB1bFJco

 

First of all, in immunological protection terms, years is not a long time. A long time means decades or an entire lifetime. 

 

Secondly, picking out just one paper as your MSM article has done is not the way to get a full perspective. I could show you this article about a recent paper which found that "level of protective antibodies falls quite rapidly after a patient has been infected with coronavirus". That paints a different picture.

 

Thirdly the paper your MSM article refers to has not proven COVID immunity lasts for years. Indeed, the paper says "direct conclusions about protective immunity cannot be made".

[Daniel Cooper]

 

B) Because until enough people are vaccinated then the risk of spread of further disease, especially from asymptomatic people remains large

 

Well if the vaccine is 95% effective then if you are vaccinated that shouldn't be much of an issue, agreed?

 

I'm going to get vaccinated as soon as it is available. Most likely the biggest danger is throwing the immune system into overdrive and creating an autoimmune disorder. But of course, this chance exists with any vaccine or indeed any particular virus you might contract.  Everything involves risk and in the long run we're all dead.

 

But, I care not one wit if anyone else gets vaccinated. That is their business. You might at least have some sort of argument for universal vaccination if the vaccine was much less effective. Say 60%. In that case even if you are vaccinated you might still have some substantial chance of being infected and the herd immunity effect might be more important than your individual immunity.  But that is not the case here according to the published data. 95% effectiveness is about as good as it gets for any vaccine.

 

I simply do not agree that my fears or yours should compel behaviors or action from your fellow man.  Given the number of fears people hold - both rational and irrational - chasing that rabbit down the hole leads to a place I want no part of.

[genX]

But, I care not one wit if anyone else gets vaccinated. That is their business. You might at least have some sort of argument for universal vaccination if the vaccine was much less effective. Say 60%. In that case even if you are vaccinated you might still have some substantial chance of being infected and the herd immunity effect might be more important than your individual immunity.  But that is not the case here according to the published data. 95% effectiveness is about as good as it gets for any vaccine.

 

I simply do not agree that my fears or yours should compel behaviors or action from your fellow man.  Given the number of fears people hold - both rational and irrational - chasing that rabbit down the hole leads to a place I want no part of.
 

This seems like a selfish position.  I assume that you're not a health-care provider.  Also, it's a bit simplistic to assume that you (as a citizen and taxpayer) will not eventually pay if the pandemic rages on because enough people did not take vaccines (once they're deemed safe) just because they were afraid or were being rebellious.  I'm not compelling anything. I'm just pointing out the obvious.  If enough people do not get vaccinated then the health-case system will be overwhelmed as will the U.S. economy. Bottom line, as far as I can tell you have no point. 

[Daniel Cooper]

This seems like a selfish position.  I assume that you're not a health-care provider.  Also, it's a bit simplistic to assume that you (as a citizen and taxpayer) will not eventually pay if the pandemic rages on because enough people did not take vaccines (once they're deemed safe) just because they were afraid or were being rebellious.  I'm not compelling anything. I'm just pointing out the obvious.  If enough people do not get vaccinated then the health-case system will be overwhelmed as will the U.S. economy. Bottom line, as far as I can tell you have no point. 

 

Respecting my fellow man's liberty is not a selfish position. If I feel strongly that he should take the vaccine I might try to persuade him, but I have no right to force him.

 

And if we are to use healthcare costs to justify government intrusions like this, where does that principle logically end? 655,000 Americans die of heart disease every year in the US. Year in, year out, decade after decade. Covid deaths pale in comparison.

 

So does the government have the right to force people to diet for their own good and to save the taxpayer the cost of their care? Maybe the government should force people to do a certain amount of mandatory exercise each day? Perhaps the government should just outlaw junk and fast food. It would save money after all. And what's your right to eat a quarter pounder with cheese up against the cost to the healthcare system?

[genX]

Respecting my fellow man's liberty is not a selfish position. If I feel strongly that he should take the vaccine I might try to persuade him, but I have no right to force him.

 

And if we are to use healthcare costs to justify government intrusions like this, where does that principle logically end? 655,000 Americans die of heart disease every year in the US. Year in, year out, decade after decade. Covid deaths pale in comparison.

 

So does the government have the right to force people to diet for their own good and to save the taxpayer the cost of their care? Maybe the government should force people to do a certain amount of mandatory exercise each day? Perhaps the government should just outlaw junk and fast food. It would save money after all. And what's your right to eat a quarter pounder with cheese up against the cost to the healthcare system?

 

Did I say anything about forcing anyone?
 

[Daniel Cooper]

Did I say anything about forcing anyone?
 

 

Well, if I've misconstrued your position you have my apologies.  But, please explain to me how my position that it is your business whether or not you take the vaccine is "selfish".

[Mr Serendipity]

Both my parents are pharmacists and we have a family owned pharmacy, me and my wife worked throughout the pandemic, zero lockdown for us, no furlough (not that it bothered us). In other words we were key workers. But if you want to broadly stroke ever person who is against vaccination as selfish (me and my wife), then so be it. In fact we’re trying for children and official guidelines warn against taking the vaccine in this case: https://www.gov.uk/g...r-breastfeeding

So does that mean that she should be forced to wear a mask, continue to have her freedoms restricted, and be labeled as selfish, while everyone else can have their “freedoms” back because they were vaccinated and have a health passport?

 

Also my father owns a large care home for the elderly who suffer from dementia, which is 100x more challenging to run and provide care for than an ordinary care home. When one of the residents was suspected to be sick with COVID early on in the pandemic showing clear symptoms, they sent him to the hospital, but the hospital then tried to send him back after a week or so with some lame excuse, thankfully he was smart enough to refuse for fear of infecting other vulnerable residents and getting sued for it, and he said they were so adamant about it, but I’m glad he stood his ground.

 

This was the NHS, the golden calf everyone claps for every Thursday, pushing to get this covid patient back into the care home. Many others could have died if he just rolled over and did whatever the NHS said. Later on it was revealed 1000’s of covid patients were sent back. Here’s a recent article: https://www.google.c...care-homes.html

 

Care homes are once again being asked to take in elderly hospital patients infected with coronavirus to protect the NHS from being overwhelmed this winter.

The sensational decision has sparked widespread fears No 10 has not learnt from its catastrophic errors during the first wave of the pandemic, which led to the disease killing tens of thousands of elderly residents.

 

10,000’s of deaths because the NHS/government were forcing infected covid patients back into their care homes (and they want to do it again! Insanity!), and this could have happened to our residents also if it hadn’t been for his common sense to say no that’s a stupid idea.

 

Personally I’d rather make my own choices when it comes to my health, and not take every word from the government, NHS, studies, and experts as authoritative truth. That’s not to say I disregard it altogether, but with what little critical thinking skills I have, I try to determine what I think is credible and what’s not.

 

At the end of the day I may not make the best choices in life, but at least they’re my choices to make.

Edited by Jesus is King, 08 December 2020 - 05:04 AM.

[Mr Serendipity]

First minister of Australia fakes getting the vaccine on television? 

 

https://mobile.twitt...838979136618496

[Hip]

It's time for the general public to be made more accountable for its words and actions.

 

Since the advent of the Internet, the public has got increasingly involved in the democratic process, by spreading opinions online (eg anti-vaxer websites and organizations), by organizing street demonstrations via Facebook, and so forth. So the public is more empowered than it used to be.

 

This may be a good thing, but with power must come responsibility and accountability. 

 

We hold governments accountable for their actions, and if they make mistakes, they suffer the consequences (journalists will rub the mistakes in their faces, which has a major effect at the next election). If corporates screw up, they may get hit with a lawsuit.

 

We need to start applying the same accountably to the general public, now that the general public are playing a large role in shaping human behavior.

 

If some kids die of measles because of the antivaxer message, then antivaxer groups should be liable to being sued, because with the power that the Internet provides the public, there must come responsibility.

 

If people die of COVID because of the antivax message, the antivaxer groups should also be sued.

 

 

 

Similarly, conspiracy theory websites, which make money from peddling conspiracy stories, should face any legal consequences of the way they inject misinformation into the arena of public opinion. I was pleased to see Alex Jones being hit with a lawsuit for his role in propagating the Sandy Hook conspiracy theory.

[Hip]

Here's another idea I had: micro-fines for everyone on the Internet who posts or shares information which is later shown to be false or misinformation. But at the same time, a small financial reward for everyone who posts information which is later shown to be true.

 

The micro fine system would work like this: everyone who joins a major platform like Twitter or Facebook would be required to place a small deposit. For example, it could be $50. This $50 remains yours, and you can get the money returned to you at any time, should you wish to close your Twitter or Facebook account.

 

However, that $50 gets reduced by a tiny fine every time you post information that is later shown to be false. The actual fine would depend on the size of your following on Twitter or Facebook. If you only have 100 followers, then the false information fine might only be $0.01 per post. But if you have 10,000 followers, the fine might be $1. 

 

 

 

But here's where it gets interesting: if on the other hand you post information which is later shown to be true, then you actually earn money. The money you earn will come from the fines levied. 

 

So this system is a bit like playing the stock market with truth: nobody knows for sure in advance what might be proven true. We don't with 100% certainty that the coronavirus vaccine will turn out to be relatively safe, but we can make a prediction based on our knowledge of medical science (for those who are so educated). So if do you analysis, and your posts turn out to be true, you are rewarded for your good brains.

 

If on the other hand you are someone who always gets things wrong, then you are going to be fined. 

 

So this is a system which rewards intelligence, and penalizes stupidity. Just the like real world, in fact.

 

 

 

Edited by Hip, 18 December 2020 - 03:56 PM.

[Dorian Grey]

Divining absolute truths or fiction is easier said than done. 

 

There is still no "scientific proof" (randomized controlled trials in humans) that smoking actually causes lung cancer, though a preponderance of evidence exists.  

 

Who will be the judge of what is proven to be fact or fiction, and could his/her omnipotent power not be highly prone to abuse?  

[Hip]

Who will be the judge of what is proven to be fact or fiction, and could his/her omnipotent power not be highly prone to abuse?  

 

That's a good question. The practicalities of this micro-fine and micro-reward scheme are harder to figure out than the original idea. You would have to set up a system which is workable for the social media platforms. 

 

One way might just be for the general public who subscribe to these platforms to vote for the truth of falsity of a given statement, but not immediately, only after some time when it becomes clearer whether something is true or not. For example, we will only know for sure whether the coronavirus vaccines are safe in about 6 months time, when they have been given to millions of people.