Random Thoughts About The Covid Vaccine

Ponca Dan

Heisman Candidate
Gold Member
Dec 7, 2003
9,253
6,749
113
I have not hidden the fact that I do not intend to get the vaccine. I am not a scientist, academic or intellectual, just a small businessman in OKC trying to scratch out a comfortable middle class existence. Even though I know next to nothing about the "science" involved in the disease or the vaccine I have tried to educate myself as best as possible, which I admit is pretty shallow.

As best as I can gather there are scientists who balleyhoo the vaccine, insist it is perfectly safe and strongly recommend as many people as possible get the shot. On the other hand there are scientists with equally valid credentials saying exactly the opposite, that it is experimental, no one knows the long term consequences, and therefore we should be very hesitant to get the shot.

I have been persuaded by the side arguing for hesitance. But that is my personal decision, and I am happy there is a vaccine for those that embrace the technology.

I can't help but notice, however, that many of the "pro-vaxers" have adopted the same tactic as the climate change advocates and besmirch the scientists that argue for caution, essentially calling them out as deniers. That says to me they are not serious about following the science, because science is supposed to be an honest back and forth between opposing viewpoints. Unfortunately politics has invaded the hallowed forms of scientific endeavor.

Please understand my observations are not aimed at any particular poster on this board, but are based on an accumulation of pro-vaccine opinions that have formed an aggregate of many voices both on and off this board. So I plead with you not to take anything I say as a personal affront.

My major concern with some on the pro-vaccine side of the debate is the seeming willingness to involve the police power of the state to enforce their opinion. I find it offensive to hear I should be forced to get the vaccine. I am especially insulted by the notion the I may have to get some kind of "passport" proving I have been vaccinated before I will be allowed by state enforcers to travel or go to a public event, or in some cases whether I will even be allowed to leave my house. As a hardcore libertarian I find such ideas to be far more dangerous than any disease.

I don't know of anyone on this board that advocates such tactics, maybe extreme statists like Syskatine of Pilt, but I don't recall hearing them make any comments in that regard. But here's something that popped in my head this morning - and I admit right up front this will be very controversial - but what the hell controversy is what drives this board, so here goes.

For anyone who advocates the state be granted the authority to monitor and authorize movements by citizens based on proof that there has been vaccination, that the state and science have teamed up to enforce what they believe is in the public's best interest, I ask you to explain the moral difference between what you advocate and the practice of the Auschwitz "Angel of Death," Josef Mengela, who practiced "scientific experiments" on his citizens. Mengela, I am sure, was fascinated to know the results of his experiments, the long term consequences of which he had no idea. I think we can all admit the Covid vaccines are experimental and no one has any idea what will be the long term consequences. I gues we know the short term is it eradicates the disease. But no one knows what to expect five, ten, twenty years from now. But the vaccine is the result of scientific experiments made under the guidance of the state apparatus, and the people being experimented on are not volunteers (provided we would have to show proof of vaccination before being allowed to participate in activities.) Exactly the same thing applies to Mengela and his state sponsored experiments.

So I'm having a little difficulty reconciling the two. I am hoping if there is anyone on this board that agrees we should be required to have "vaccine passports" threy can point me to the moral reasoning behind it, and how it differs from Mengela's experiments. Please understand in advance I am NOT comparing the degree of evil involved, so don't waste our time by saying vaccine tyranny is okay because it is not as bad as Auschwitz tyranny. I know that already. I'm looking for the moral principle that shows the difference between the two. Damned if I can find one.

I have a very busy day at work today, so I will not be able to revisit this thread until this evening. I am looking forward to some polite and objective responses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dirk4177

NeekReevers

Heisman Candidate
Gold Member
Dec 17, 2002
5,857
2,797
113
No one knows what to expect 5, 10 or 20 years from now on any medication. Nor have I seen anyone on this board advocating what you are describing. I am sure comparing them to Josef Mengela will stimulate an open and honest discussion though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: osuintx

Ponca Dan

Heisman Candidate
Gold Member
Dec 7, 2003
9,253
6,749
113
No one knows what to expect 5, 10 or 20 years from now on any medication. Nor have I seen anyone on this board advocating what you are describing. I am sure comparing them to Josef Mengela will stimulate an open and honest discussion though.
Yes, I specifically said I don’t know of anyone on this board advocating such a thing. I also specifically said my observations are based on an aggregate from many sources. In today’s news, for example, the governor of New Jersey floats the idea of requiring vaccine passports. The comparison to Josef Mengela was not comparing the degree of evil - as I specifically said (did you even read my post?) - but the philosophic principle that would be the foundation for both. In both cases the state authorized itself to authorize certain scientists to perform certain experiments on non volunteering citizens not knowing the long term outcome of said experiments. The principle in both cases is the same, at least that’s how it seems to me. I’m asking anyone to show me the error in my thinking.


 

blbronco

Heisman Candidate
Gold Member
Jan 9, 2002
10,774
2,280
113
I will say on this “long-term effects” aspect. What are the long term effects of any vaccine? If you have a severe, acute reaction (more than “just” the anaphylactic reaction), there are potential severe and irreversible consequences. Fortunately, those are rare, but matters significantly if it is you are someone you know. If there is no severe, acute reaction, there are no long term consequences. The goal of any vaccine is to get in, cause the immune system to react, recognize, and get rid of the components.

As for comments against the scientists and “scientists” that promote against the vaccine. I have issues with lies, such as “mRNA vaccines change your DNA.” That is false, and many of the medical doctors that are going with that logic are mot doctors in a relevant field. They have been cardiologists and neurologists, mostly. They may be stellar in their field, but are way out of their expertise in immunology. There are good reasons to not vaccinate, go there, not outright falsehoods.

I am certainly pro-vaccination (as a veterinary preventative medicine specialist), but see it as a fool’s venture and bad policy, especially with all things considered, to require/mandate vaccines. Everybody wants normal, the quickest way there is enough (not necessarily everybody) people being vaccinated.
 
Last edited:

osuintx

All-American
Gold Member
Jan 31, 2004
4,131
2,151
113
I will say on this “long-term effects” aspect. What are the long term effects of any vaccine? If you have a severe, acute reaction (more than “just” the anaphylactic reaction), there are potential severe and irreversible consequences. Fortunately, those are rare, but matters significantly if it is you are someone you know. If there is no severe, acute reaction, there are no long term consequences. The goal of any vaccine is to get in, cause the immune system to react, recognize, and get rid of the components.

As for comments against the scientists and “scientists” that promote against the vaccine. I have issues with lies, such as “mRNA vaccines change your DNA.” That is false, and many of the medical doctors that are going with that logic are mot doctors in a relevant field. They have been cardiologists and neurologists, mostly. They may be stellar in their field, but are way out of their expertise in immunology. There are good reasons to not vaccinate, go there, not outright falsehoods.

I am certainly pro-vaccination (as a veterinary preventative medicine specialist), but see it as a fool’s venture and bad policy, especially with all things considered, to require/mandate vaccines. Everybody wants normal, the quickest way there is enough (not necessarily everybody) people being vaccinated.
Oh there's plenty of scientist that say the mRNA vaccine or gene therapy changes your DNA. I'm not a virologist but there are many qualified scientist that say yes- heck that's the idea of the whole thing from what I understand is to change your cells to make them adapt somehow- count me the heck out of that stuff
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dirk4177

osuintx

All-American
Gold Member
Jan 31, 2004
4,131
2,151
113
I don't know how it works but but person is an expert
 

blbronco

Heisman Candidate
Gold Member
Jan 9, 2002
10,774
2,280
113
Oh there's plenty of scientist that say the mRNA vaccine or gene therapy changes your DNA. I'm not a virologist but there are many qualified scientist that say yes- heck that's the idea of the whole thing from what I understand is to change your cells to make them adapt somehow- count me the heck out of that stuff

The goal is not gene therapy, and certainly not to change the DNA. The goal is to get the mRNA in cells so the cellular mechanics can produce the antigen (what stimulates the immune system and provides the target that antibodies or T-cells attack). Part of that process is called translation. Translation is the process of the mRNA being read, producing proteins (or other products). Those proteins are then transported to the cell surface. Cells that do this within immune system are called APC’s (antigen presenting cells). Without going in to full detail (and likely wasting my time explaining this to you), this is a normal process with a slight twist. Under normal antigen presenting, the APC breaks down the foreign agent/antigen into small fragments, then presents these fragments on the surface. An mRNA vaccine simply produces that antigen, then presents it In the same manner. This process occurs in the cytoplasm (aka, outside the nucleus). I suppose you can liken the process to the way viruses take over the cellular mechanics (like natural infection or attenuated vaccine). The big difference is that the virus kills the cell in the process. That does not happen with an mRNA vaccine. At no point in the vaccine process does it enter in to the nucleus, inserting its self into the DNA, thus “changing the genetics.”

ANY “expert” that interchangeably uses mRNA and DNA (like in your linked video) loses all credibility and is either a quack, or a paid portrayer of misinformation. Transcription is the process of DNA to mRNA. Translation is the process of mRNA to product (protein, hormone, etc). Reverse transcription is a process by which RNA converts to DNA. This requires an enzyme called “reverse transcriptase” (also referred to as RNA-defendant DNA polymerase) which does not occur naturally in mammalian cells. Viruses such as HIV and Hepatitis B are the only organisms that carry this.

I do know how they work and I do have experience in virology. That does not make me an expert, but I do know what I am talking about on this. Not that I think you have any genuine goal of learning about this, but if you are, I am sure I can find some videos (I may have some from when I taught college microbiology) that can illustrate some of these processes.
 

osuintx

All-American
Gold Member
Jan 31, 2004
4,131
2,151
113
The goal is not gene therapy, and certainly not to change the DNA. The goal is to get the mRNA in cells so the cellular mechanics can produce the antigen (what stimulates the immune system and provides the target that antibodies or T-cells attack). Part of that process is called translation. Translation is the process of the mRNA being read, producing proteins (or other products). Those proteins are then transported to the cell surface. Cells that do this within immune system are called APC’s (antigen presenting cells). Without going in to full detail (and likely wasting my time explaining this to you), this is a normal process with a slight twist. Under normal antigen presenting, the APC breaks down the foreign agent/antigen into small fragments, then presents these fragments on the surface. An mRNA vaccine simply produces that antigen, then presents it In the same manner. This process occurs in the cytoplasm (aka, outside the nucleus). I suppose you can liken the process to the way viruses take over the cellular mechanics (like natural infection or attenuated vaccine). The big difference is that the virus kills the cell in the process. That does not happen with an mRNA vaccine. At no point in the vaccine process does it enter in to the nucleus, inserting its self into the DNA, thus “changing the genetics.”

ANY “expert” that interchangeably uses mRNA and DNA (like in your linked video) loses all credibility and is either a quack, or a paid portrayer of misinformation. Transcription is the process of DNA to mRNA. Translation is the process of mRNA to product (protein, hormone, etc). Reverse transcription is a process by which RNA converts to DNA. This requires an enzyme called “reverse transcriptase” (also referred to as RNA-defendant DNA polymerase) which does not occur naturally in mammalian cells. Viruses such as HIV and Hepatitis B are the only organisms that carry this.

I do know how they work and I do have experience in virology. That does not make me an expert, but I do know what I am talking about on this. Not that I think you have any genuine goal of learning about this, but if you are, I am sure I can find some videos (I may have some from when I taught college microbiology) that can illustrate some of these processes.
Dude you NOR I NOR anyone else knows what the hell this new $hit is gonna do to people. You can message the heck out of translation and polymerase and transcription et al but none of us know what this will do to everyone in 1-10 years- y'all have been sold a bill of goods- F the lame Stream media and F big Pharma and F unkie Sam.

I love Trump but he caved to the pressure of cancel culture media and turbo charged this unneeded experimental gene therapy- BIG MISTAKE.

But at some point each individual that is parading around in 3 face diapers and taking this unneeded experimental shot has to be held accountable.

Word is the next outbreak the people buying into this bill of goods is not going to fair as well as if you would have trusted Gods gift to us with our defense mechanisms. Trust God or trust Gates And Fauci?! My God thats an easy one.

Once again the Amish are not affected by covid Bc they don't watch TV- it's THAT SIMPLE.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dirk4177

blbronco

Heisman Candidate
Gold Member
Jan 9, 2002
10,774
2,280
113
Dude you NOR I NOR anyone else knows what the hell this new $hit is gonna do to people. You can message the heck out of translation and polymerase and transcription et al but none of us know what this will do to everyone in 1-10 years- y'all have been sold a bill of goods- F the lame Stream media and F big Pharma and F unkie Sam.

I love Trump but he caved to the pressure of cancel culture media and turbo charged this unneeded experimental gene therapy- BIG MISTAKE.

But at some point each individual that is parading around in 3 face diapers and taking this unneeded experimental shot has to be held accountable.

Word is the next outbreak the people buying into this bill of goods is not going to fair as well as if you would have trusted Gods gift to us with our defense mechanisms. Trust God or trust Gates And Fauci?! My God thats an easy one.

Once again the Amish are not affected by covid Bc they don't watch TV- it's THAT SIMPLE.

Believe it or not, we can, in fact, make some presumptions and long term predictions. The mRNA from the vaccine, once it gains entry does not move or spread to other cells. So, let us say that the mRNA from the vaccine does what no other mRNA does and survives long term, such as the life of the cell, think about the life span of that cell. Once the cell dies, mRNA is gone. mRNA in general does not last a long time. The mRNA from the vaccine behaves as mRNA does.
 

osuintx

All-American
Gold Member
Jan 31, 2004
4,131
2,151
113
Believe it or not, we can, in fact, make some presumptions and long term predictions. The mRNA from the vaccine, once it gains entry does not move or spread to other cells. So, let us say that the mRNA from the vaccine does what no other mRNA does and survives long term, such as the life of the cell, think about the life span of that cell. Once the cell dies, mRNA is gone. mRNA in general does not last a long time. The mRNA from the vaccine behaves as mRNA does.
Is this serious? It's a 99.9 percent certainty or greater that NO ONE knows what is gong to happen. I hope all is super successful but no one knows.
 

Ponca Dan

Heisman Candidate
Gold Member
Dec 7, 2003
9,253
6,749
113
I will say on this “long-term effects” aspect. What are the long term effects of any vaccine? If you have a severe, acute reaction (more than “just” the anaphylactic reaction), there are potential severe and irreversible consequences. Fortunately, those are rare, but matters significantly if it is you are someone you know. If there is no severe, acute reaction, there are no long term consequences. The goal of any vaccine is to get in, cause the immune system to react, recognize, and get rid of the components.

As for comments against the scientists and “scientists” that promote against the vaccine. I have issues with lies, such as “mRNA vaccines change your DNA.” That is false, and many of the medical doctors that are going with that logic are mot doctors in a relevant field. They have been cardiologists and neurologists, mostly. They may be stellar in their field, but are way out of their expertise in immunology. There are good reasons to not vaccinate, go there, not outright falsehoods.

I am certainly pro-vaccination (as a veterinary preventative medicine specialist), but see it as a fool’s venture and bad policy, especially with all things considered, to require/mandate vaccines. Everybody wants normal, the quickest way there is enough (not necessarily everybody) people being vaccinated.
As always when I see you have commented I look forward to hearing what you have to say. I appreciate that we can differ in our opinions and remain civil. I have noted that on more than one occasion you have referred to the lying by the anti-vaxxer crowd, and have shown evidence of the lies. But surely you recognize the pro-vaccine crowd has lied at least as often. Fauci has admitted he has lied multiple times in an effort to get people to follow his advice.

Here is my primary barometer when figuring out which expert to trust on a matter about which I know very little. When one side of a debate calls for the police power of the state to force its opinion on society my alarms go off, and I realize that side of the debate does not trust its justifications enough to believe it is persuasive on its own merits. Which leads me to think if they don’t trust the legitimacy of their argument then probably I shouldn’t either.

That’s why I say I am glad there is a vaccine available for people that believe in the “science” and are comforted that it is safe. I just don’t happen to be one of those people. Calling for the state to issue mandates, and to create legal requirements designed to drive me into their camp against my better judgement flies in the face of reason and leaves me thinking the pro-vaccine crowd is more likely to be lying than the anti-vaxxers.
 

blbronco

Heisman Candidate
Gold Member
Jan 9, 2002
10,774
2,280
113
As always when I see you have commented I look forward to hearing what you have to say. I appreciate that we can differ in our opinions and remain civil. I have noted that on more than one occasion you have referred to the lying by the anti-vaxxer crowd, and have shown evidence of the lies. But surely you recognize the pro-vaccine crowd has lied at least as often. Fauci has admitted he has lied multiple times in an effort to get people to follow his advice.

Here is my primary barometer when figuring out which expert to trust on a matter about which I know very little. When one side of a debate calls for the police power of the state to force its opinion on society my alarms go off, and I realize that side of the debate does not trust its justifications enough to believe it is persuasive on its own merits. Which leads me to think if they don’t trust the legitimacy of their argument then probably I shouldn’t either.

That’s why I say I am glad there is a vaccine available for people that believe in the “science” and are comforted that it is safe. I just don’t happen to be one of those people. Calling for the state to issue mandates, and to create legal requirements designed to drive me into their camp against my better judgement flies in the face of reason and leaves me thinking the pro-vaccine crowd is more likely to be lying than the anti-vaxxers.

Personally, I think that is a terrible way to “decide,” but that is not my call. That said, I am as sick of “Fauci says...” as anyone. He needs to go away. He has become a polarizing, tunnel-visioned, egotist that has lost his way. He is an expert in respiratory disease as anyone, but he cannot see the mental health, financial health, etc, and has ignored those experts which are as important in the decision-making process as a respiratory expert, virologist, etc. I will say that he has weaponized the term “public health” to a point that he is no longer using the practice of public health.

That being said, many anti-vaxxers also have skin in the game. Look how many supplements, etc have been sold over the years in the name if “curing” autism that they claim was caused by vaccines. As it relates to COVID-19, it has become a battle of political ideology. It has, unfortunately become a republican versus democrat battle, and those stakes are very high. Look at the GOPers on this very board. How many marginalized COVID-19 until it affected them or their loved ones. It is not different than the democrats who cry out in support of higher taxes, more spending, all until it affects their wallet. Their tune changes just as fast.

I make every effort, especially regarding COVID to stick with provably accurate information. I support mask-wearing indoors (preferably an indoor environment that doesn’t just recycle the same air. I do have experience investigating this on sites). I do not support mask-mandates. I have been very against shut downs from the beginning (you would have to trust my wife on that one, enough I probably posted it here a few times). I fully support the vaccines, as I do have the background to have a good understanding of them. There are enough people that want the vaccine, that if we can get it in those arms, we will have enough protection especially if you add in previously infected. A mandate on a conditionally approved vaccine is just bad policy. But, make no mistake about it, both of the fringe-group sides absolutely have something to gain from their positions. You can dislike the mandates coming from the left, as do I, but the anti-vaxxer “information” is provably false.

That said, in the end, it does not matter how you or I politely agree or disagree, the vaccination efforts are paying off, and we are generally gaining some control of the pandemic. Look at the countries that repeatedly shut things down but have lesser vaccines and poor vaccination efforts (looking at you, France and Italy) and look where they are now. They have done nothing but trash our methods, but we are looking at the ability to return to semi-normal as vaccination percentages increase.

Where you and I are in complete agreement is being able to prevent unfair and unreasonable government interference in the future by taking lessons from this pandemic.
 

osuintx

All-American
Gold Member
Jan 31, 2004
4,131
2,151
113
Personally, I think that is a terrible way to “decide,” but that is not my call. That said, I am as sick of “Fauci says...” as anyone. He needs to go away. He has become a polarizing, tunnel-visioned, egotist that has lost his way. He is an expert in respiratory disease as anyone, but he cannot see the mental health, financial health, etc, and has ignored those experts which are as important in the decision-making process as a respiratory expert, virologist, etc. I will say that he has weaponized the term “public health” to a point that he is no longer using the practice of public health.

That being said, many anti-vaxxers also have skin in the game. Look how many supplements, etc have been sold over the years in the name if “curing” autism that they claim was caused by vaccines. As it relates to COVID-19, it has become a battle of political ideology. It has, unfortunately become a republican versus democrat battle, and those stakes are very high. Look at the GOPers on this very board. How many marginalized COVID-19 until it affected them or their loved ones. It is not different than the democrats who cry out in support of higher taxes, more spending, all until it affects their wallet. Their tune changes just as fast.

I make every effort, especially regarding COVID to stick with provably accurate information. I support mask-wearing indoors (preferably an indoor environment that doesn’t just recycle the same air. I do have experience investigating this on sites). I do not support mask-mandates. I have been very against shut downs from the beginning (you would have to trust my wife on that one, enough I probably posted it here a few times). I fully support the vaccines, as I do have the background to have a good understanding of them. There are enough people that want the vaccine, that if we can get it in those arms, we will have enough protection especially if you add in previously infected. A mandate on a conditionally approved vaccine is just bad policy. But, make no mistake about it, both of the fringe-group sides absolutely have something to gain from their positions. You can dislike the mandates coming from the left, as do I, but the anti-vaxxer “information” is provably false.

That said, in the end, it does not matter how you or I politely agree or disagree, the vaccination efforts are paying off, and we are generally gaining some control of the pandemic. Look at the countries that repeatedly shut things down but have lesser vaccines and poor vaccination efforts (looking at you, France and Italy) and look where they are now. They have done nothing but trash our methods, but we are looking at the ability to return to semi-normal as vaccination percentages increase.

Where you and I are in complete agreement is being able to prevent unfair and unreasonable government interference in the future by taking lessons from this pandemic.
Agree with most you said except you have a good understanding of the vaccines- no one knows it's a big experiment- they were rushed and are new and we won't know the effects of them for years.
Numbers are going down mainly Bc they dialed back the PCR tests- they're so disgusting how they test and report. In November's they admitted to turning back the cycles on the tests- the numbers started dropping. Again anyone that trusts the media is a pure D sucker

agree they don't need to "mandate" anything and Fauci is a moron
 

blbronco

Heisman Candidate
Gold Member
Jan 9, 2002
10,774
2,280
113
Agree with most you said except you have a good understanding of the vaccines- no one knows it's a big experiment- they were rushed and are new and we won't know the effects of them for years.
Numbers are going down mainly Bc they dialed back the PCR tests- they're so disgusting how they test and report. In November's they admitted to turning back the cycles on the tests- the numbers started dropping. Again anyone that trusts the media is a pure D sucker

agree they don't need to "mandate" anything and Fauci is a moron


I won’t go in to the vaccine discussion with you as you are dead set on your view. On the case rate coming down, yes, there is less testing, but more importantly, the positivity rates have come way down. That is a good measure as to how many cases are out there. Hospitalization rate, another method that some could make a good argument that it is a better method, is also way down. I am interested in seeing how the next 3 weeks go. I am optimistic for the first time in a long time, that we have decent control of this thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: iasooner2000

osuintx

All-American
Gold Member
Jan 31, 2004
4,131
2,151
113
I won’t go in to the vaccine discussion with you as you are dead set on your view. On the case rate coming down, yes, there is less testing, but more importantly, the positivity rates have come way down. That is a good measure as to how many cases are out there. Hospitalization rate, another method that some could make a good argument that it is a better method, is also way down. I am interested in seeing how the next 3 weeks go. I am optimistic for the first time in a long time, that we have decent control of this thing.
Yes sir- well put
 

Ponca Dan

Heisman Candidate
Gold Member
Dec 7, 2003
9,253
6,749
113
Personally, I think that is a terrible way to “decide,” but that is not my call. That said, I am as sick of “Fauci says...” as anyone. He needs to go away. He has become a polarizing, tunnel-visioned, egotist that has lost his way. He is an expert in respiratory disease as anyone, but he cannot see the mental health, financial health, etc, and has ignored those experts which are as important in the decision-making process as a respiratory expert, virologist, etc. I will say that he has weaponized the term “public health” to a point that he is no longer using the practice of public health.

That being said, many anti-vaxxers also have skin in the game. Look how many supplements, etc have been sold over the years in the name if “curing” autism that they claim was caused by vaccines. As it relates to COVID-19, it has become a battle of political ideology. It has, unfortunately become a republican versus democrat battle, and those stakes are very high. Look at the GOPers on this very board. How many marginalized COVID-19 until it affected them or their loved ones. It is not different than the democrats who cry out in support of higher taxes, more spending, all until it affects their wallet. Their tune changes just as fast.

I make every effort, especially regarding COVID to stick with provably accurate information. I support mask-wearing indoors (preferably an indoor environment that doesn’t just recycle the same air. I do have experience investigating this on sites). I do not support mask-mandates. I have been very against shut downs from the beginning (you would have to trust my wife on that one, enough I probably posted it here a few times). I fully support the vaccines, as I do have the background to have a good understanding of them. There are enough people that want the vaccine, that if we can get it in those arms, we will have enough protection especially if you add in previously infected. A mandate on a conditionally approved vaccine is just bad policy. But, make no mistake about it, both of the fringe-group sides absolutely have something to gain from their positions. You can dislike the mandates coming from the left, as do I, but the anti-vaxxer “information” is provably false.

That said, in the end, it does not matter how you or I politely agree or disagree, the vaccination efforts are paying off, and we are generally gaining some control of the pandemic. Look at the countries that repeatedly shut things down but have lesser vaccines and poor vaccination efforts (looking at you, France and Italy) and look where they are now. They have done nothing but trash our methods, but we are looking at the ability to return to semi-normal as vaccination percentages increase.

Where you and I are in complete agreement is being able to prevent unfair and unreasonable government interference in the future by taking lessons from this pandemic.


My way of “deciding” has worked well for me in the past, so I don’t plan on abandoning it any time soon, and certainly not in this instance.

But I fear we have gotten off the original intent of the thread. We can argue back and forth about the efficacy of the vaccine. I concede you are far more knowledgeable about the topic than me. But I do not concede that you are an expert. Even you have said you are not. In this thread the efficacy of the vaccine is moot. There are “experts” arguing both sides, and dehumanizing or going ad hominem on an opponent is not helpful. You at least have steered clear of this for the most part.

My contention is as follows: when actors within the state declare for themselves the authority to bestow power to a select group of “scientists” permission to conduct experiments on unwilling individuals, granting them immunity should their experiments prove deadly, a step has been taken down a path that can ultimately lead to the horrors perpetrated by Mengela . He, too, was granted the same authority that today's government’s have provided selected groups of favored scientists. As far as I can see the principle is the same. Not the degree of evil - I beg of anyone reading this not to come to that erroneous conclusion. But the action is sanctioned by the same principle, the principle holds.

And for that reason, and that reason alone, a society of free people should spontaneously and emphatically reject the action. Our liberty - our very sovereignty as individuals - is at stake. It is astounding to me that this is being mostly ignored, as we argue over whether the vaccine works. This is a deflection from what should be the topic of discussion, and only emboldens those who seek power.
 

blbronco

Heisman Candidate
Gold Member
Jan 9, 2002
10,774
2,280
113
My way of “deciding” has worked well for me in the past, so I don’t plan on abandoning it any time soon, and certainly not in this instance.

But I fear we have gotten off the original intent of the thread. We can argue back and forth about the efficacy of the vaccine. I concede you are far more knowledgeable about the topic than me. But I do not concede that you are an expert. Even you have said you are not. In this thread the efficacy of the vaccine is moot. There are “experts” arguing both sides, and dehumanizing or going ad hominem on an opponent is not helpful. You at least have steered clear of this for the most part.

My contention is as follows: when actors within the state declare for themselves the authority to bestow power to a select group of “scientists” permission to conduct experiments on unwilling individuals, granting them immunity should their experiments prove deadly, a step has been taken down a path that can ultimately lead to the horrors perpetrated by Mengela . He, too, was granted the same authority that today's government’s have provided selected groups of favored scientists. As far as I can see the principle is the same. Not the degree of evil - I beg of anyone reading this not to come to that erroneous conclusion. But the action is sanctioned by the same principle, the principle holds.

And for that reason, and that reason alone, a society of free people should spontaneously and emphatically reject the action. Our liberty - our very sovereignty as individuals - is at stake. It is astounding to me that this is being mostly ignored, as we argue over whether the vaccine works. This is a deflection from what should be the topic of discussion, and only emboldens those who seek power.

Again, we are simply stuck in an agree to disagree. I think what you are doing is akin to selective outrage. Instead of trying to understand, you are simply allowing the actions of others to direct you. Miss steps from one “side” that bothers you more simply make you anti. That is something I cannot understand, but it does not require me to get it. You do you :)

I will spend any amount of time explaining things to someone with an honest i tent to understand, outside of that, I won’t waste my time. Changing someone else’s mind is not necessarily the goal, and not changing minds is not a waste of time. I can point to many areas that “my” side has gotten things wrong, done wrong, and misled (intentional or not). I can point out many of the same as the “other” side. Intent is a bit harder to discuss, as I can only account for myself and the discussions that I have been involved in.
 

Ponca Dan

Heisman Candidate
Gold Member
Dec 7, 2003
9,253
6,749
113
Again, we are simply stuck in an agree to disagree. I think what you are doing is akin to selective outrage. Instead of trying to understand, you are simply allowing the actions of others to direct you. Miss steps from one “side” that bothers you more simply make you anti. That is something I cannot understand, but it does not require me to get it. You do you :)

I will spend any amount of time explaining things to someone with an honest i tent to understand, outside of that, I won’t waste my time. Changing someone else’s mind is not necessarily the goal, and not changing minds is not a waste of time. I can point to many areas that “my” side has gotten things wrong, done wrong, and misled (intentional or not). I can point out many of the same as the “other” side. Intent is a bit harder to discuss, as I can only account for myself and the discussions that I have been involved in.
That’s all good and well, and I agree with almost everything you say. But you seem to be avoiding the intent of the thread. Do you not recognize the principle is the same?
 

blbronco

Heisman Candidate
Gold Member
Jan 9, 2002
10,774
2,280
113
That’s all good and well, and I agree with almost everything you say. But you seem to be avoiding the intent of the thread. Do you not recognize the principle is the same?


I think you are falling into a bit of a trap on that. You are comparing the immunology opinions of cardiologists with that of immunologists, virologists, and vaccine experts. A cardiologist that interchangeably discussed mRNA in the same context as DNA is flat out wrong. Provably wrong. Outside of that, you may need to more succinctly explain what you are going for.
 

Ponca Dan

Heisman Candidate
Gold Member
Dec 7, 2003
9,253
6,749
113
I think you are falling into a bit of a trap on that. You are comparing the immunology opinions of cardiologists with that of immunologists, virologists, and vaccine experts. A cardiologist that interchangeably discussed mRNA in the same context as DNA is flat out wrong. Provably wrong. Outside of that, you may need to more succinctly explain what you are going for.


I really don’t think I could put it in simpler terms. I’m not talking about the “science,” never have been. I’m talking about the favoritism given by entities of the state to a preferred group of scientists to develop experiments on unwilling human beings, and protecting that segment of scientists from facing any negative consequences should their experiments prove “faulty.” If people in society are willing to succumb to “benign” tyranny on something so inconsequential as being required to get a Covid vaccine, they are establishing a precedent that could ultimately develop into another Mengela experience. I’m talking about the lust for power inherent in politicians, and the exasperating indifference most people show toward that lust, the seemingly deliberate unwillingness to recognize the potential by accepting the applicable principle.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 100TonsofOrangeFury

Tulsaaggieson

All-American
Gold Member
Mar 29, 2010
2,249
1,526
113
Stillwater
The back and forth is interesting. My questions for both sides. Why is it every time we discuss herd immunity it is only in relation to getting the vaccination? Why are we ignoring those who have had it as part of that immunity? Which is better, getting the vaccine or getting the virus and your immune system works it out? Lastly if you have already had it why should you get the vaccine?
 
  • Like
Reactions: osuintx

Tulsaaggieson

All-American
Gold Member
Mar 29, 2010
2,249
1,526
113
Stillwater
Oh and Ponca. So you know your not alone in your assesment of the state in this. I am very leary of the side that is pushing for draconian vaccination methods. I think they are few in nunber but loud and controversial so they get attention. Your comparison is valid, but may go-to far in trying to get a response. Shot records for passports to another country would be different than state to state. Don't think papers for crossing state lines is constitutional anyway. Right to assembly issues as well. You are not alone in the very measures beeing proposed making one take a very close look at what is being pushed. I will side in the not taking the vaccine crowd. If both sides are lying their rears off, I'm just not going to buy into anything, for either side. This means no vaccination, this also means I'm not going to push anti vaccination. If someone trusts the science then go for it.
 

Ponca Dan

Heisman Candidate
Gold Member
Dec 7, 2003
9,253
6,749
113
Oh and Ponca. So you know your not alone in your assesment of the state in this. I am very leary of the side that is pushing for draconian vaccination methods. I think they are few in nunber but loud and controversial so they get attention. Your comparison is valid, but may go-to far in trying to get a response. Shot records for passports to another country would be different than state to state. Don't think papers for crossing state lines is constitutional anyway. Right to assembly issues as well. You are not alone in the very measures beeing proposed making one take a very close look at what is being pushed. I will side in the not taking the vaccine crowd. If both sides are lying their rears off, I'm just not going to buy into anything, for either side. This means no vaccination, this also means I'm not going to push anti vaccination. If someone trusts the science then go for it.
You said what I have been saying, only you said it much better than I have.
 

osuintx

All-American
Gold Member
Jan 31, 2004
4,131
2,151
113

osuintx

All-American
Gold Member
Jan 31, 2004
4,131
2,151
113

Latest posts