Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : ajtj's Post-Lobotomy Market Charts and Thoughts -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sun Tzu who wrote (70328)	9/27/2022 7:25:06 AM
From: jpdunwell	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 97597

Anyone with even rudimentary understanding of immunology knows that no vaccine - in fact no medical procedure - is 100% effective or without side effects. But saying that to the populace would have risked them bulking against a procedure that by and large is beneficial to the society where the benefits far outweigh the risks. And no vaccine can guarantee that a person will not be a carrier. This article was a glaring contradiction of your statement above- this "internationally renowned immunologist" apparently had no idea. And we are not talking 100% here, we are talking total ineffectiveness as far as transmission goes. That's a far cry from any "vaccine" we've had before. So much so that the CDC felt compelled to change its definition of vaccine. If that doesn't say something and illustrate my point, I don't know what does. I think you're being disingenuous with these kind of dismissals. I believe you once mentioned "bias-confirmation" to me. I do believe that's applicable here, and in the case of the vaccines in general. Facts and statistics have been twisted to support the "vax is good for everyone" narrative at all costs, instead of taking an objective look and doing an individual risk/reward assessment. And we'll agree to disagree here regarding the overall benefit (as applied to the population as a whole vs. specific age/condition groups). Time will tell which of us have the correct perspective on this. I never believed those myths and I don't think most people here did either. Based on what I witnessed first-hand when presenting hard data, I don't think I can agree with you. Many people stated otherwise and claimed those who didn't get vaxxed were not thinking of others. Many were also in support of the mandates, which makes no sense unless you believe the vax prevented transmission. JMHO and I probably should have stayed away from this topic, but I have strong feelings and opinions about it. For the record, I've never initiated discussion on this topic, but I do respond sometimes when I feel another perspective is needed.

To: Sun Tzu who wrote (70328)	9/27/2022 9:16:41 PM
From: jpdunwell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 97597

But saying that to the populace would have risked them bulking against a procedure that by and large is beneficial to the society where the benefits far outweigh the risks. Hi Sun, as I said, I really respect and appreciate your viewpoint, so I've got a sincere question for you. I understand if you don't want to answer, so don't feel obligated. Given what we know about the vaccines and their ineffectiveness at stopping transmission, do you believe that the risk/reward of the vaccines for children is in favor of the vaccines, and if not, why do you think this is still being promoted? Given your belief quoted above, I'm sure you can see why I'm asking this.