All you are doing here is asking people to expose their own prejudices.
The only one that is purely childish speculation is 5. Others are possible except the odd inclusion of the word âvampiresâ.
The one option you failed to include is that the virus was the result of a cross-species mutation,
No one posting to this Forum is caable of answering this question.
I donât believe that you could support a single word of that. And I would ask you to try but seeing where it is that you get your propaganda - you will merely believe what they want you to want to be true and ignore any effort to find out what really is true - that seems to be the norm around here.
Really one opinion against another is not top bad in a test for truth: where even uses the same logic? Can we not abide by a kind fir kind argument?
The proposition of the reverse paradigm in the simplest terms is reverse.psychology, and why would it be so unheard of. In todays weird political athmosphere ?
You and bigious are trying to out me as a stooge, and I am not at all up for thatâŚ
In fact, the conservatives who lap up any conspiracy theories put out to buttress the heavily supported 2024 reelection, arr the real stooges!
Influenza and SARS-CoV-2 are genetically different RNA viruses; they have different genomes, so are empirically known to be distinct entities.
Do you claim that âgenetics is fundamentally incorrectâ and/or that âthereâs a vast global conspiracy of researchers that faked the coronavirus genomeâ for some reason? These theories depend on many more unproven assumptions, as is the hallmark of conspiracy theories.
Covid-19 is the disease that results from the SARS-CoV-2 virus. It manifests notably different symptoms than the flu/common cold, and more serious illness for some people; it has a longer incubation period (this is a key reason why SARS-CoV-2 is so transmissible, it enjoys a relatively long period of time when no symptoms are present but the virus is already highly transmissible); it has a longer total contagious period; it accounts for the great number of excess deaths; and many are experiencing serious long-term effects from Covid-19.
mRNA vaccines (e.g. Moderna, Pfizer) donât modify your DNA. They contain single-strand messenger RNA which is a one-off, disposable blueprint for making the coronavirus spike protein, but not the virus itself. The spike protein is recognized as a threat and prompts an immune response for protection.
They donât DIRECTLY modify your DNA (just like injecting $billions into your economy doesnât directly create inflation).
And that process makes the vaccine less effective than natural immunity (which recognizes very very many related proteins - including the Delta and almost any imaginable variant).
The theory that I read (months ago) explained that the injected âsingle-strand messenger RNAâ affects the transportation mechanism which then alters newly forming DNA in cells - so very strongly altering infants.
I canât argue anything past that point because I donât know hardly anything concerning that field of science.
They donât modify your DNA. If youâre trying to make it sound plausible that they somehow indirectly alter DNA you should probably provide some support.
Hundreds of thousands of people participated in mRNA vaccine trials and millions have now taken the vaccines after approval. Nothing like that has happened, by design.
Actually, the data shows the mRNA vaccines produce a stronger/longer-lasting immune response. And doctors recommend that previously infected people still get at least one dose of a vaccine. See below.
Can you check again? I couldnât find anything like that at all in a search. Would be interested to know your source for this.
Havenât heard of any pregnant people or infants getting the mRNA vaccines and being âaltered.â
This subject has become so incredibly political that all data concerning the subject is now un-credible - choose a position and you can probably find a âscientistâ who will agree. Politics has destroyed all faith in science in the same way that latter priests destroyed all faith in religion.
All it takes is a little too much corruption.
When they say, âwe are following the scienceâ - what they are deceptively saying is that they are following the political science. That is all you can truly know - as uncomfortable as that might be.
How would I know I havenât heard of it?
Iâve already welcomed you to provide a source if you have one.
Just because thereâs a lot of bias and noise doesnât mean these things arenât knowable or that there isnât a good reason to believe anybody. There are credible sources of information. And itâs important to identify those sources, and to cross-reference between multiple credible sources.
Iâm sorry - I falsely assumed you were more conscious.
âHow would you know if an embryoâs DNA had been altered?â And by âyouâ - I mean âanyoneâ. And even if they could discern that, how long would that study take? And more importantly, what makes you think that they would tell you - or anyone?
What is that âgood reasonâ for believing anybody?
So You say. Are you going for argumentum ad populum? - âa billion Chinese canât be wrongâ?
You probably know more about the medical science of this issue. BUT I am certain that I know far more about the political science concerning this issue and a great many more. And without understanding the politics - any âcredible sourceâ information you might believe - is very suspect.
A current good example is the American Dr Fauci - the highest paid public official in the USA - and in charge of 100âs of $millions and thousands of medical staff and 100s of grantees - who seem to always agree with whatever he says (so âthousands of credible sourcesâ). Without getting into why that is an issue - is that the kind of âcredible sourceâ you are talking about? Or perhaps you are referring to the WHO - having been found to be wrong on very many issues - including COVID - run by a lab technician, Tedros, who was a political medical appointee in Nicaragua - and responsible for a huge epidemic and Chinese takeover of their entire government.
Exactly what makes a âcredible sourceâ for you that cannot have been corrupted by current political science?
I think the scientific method is robust enough to survive politics. And it is generally less dependent on faith than other domains.
There are also good criteria by which to evaluate competing scientific theories:
scope - how much can it explain? logical consistency - is it internally coherent and free contradictions? does it cohere with other things that have good scientific grounding? parsimony - how many assumptions or elements does it rely on? utility - is it useful? what can we reliably do/predict with it? testability - can it be tested? falsifiability - is there some logically possible way to refute it?
However, when people say âfollow the scienceâ they probably mean follow the consensus thatâs being reported. And itâs true that mere consensus in itself isnât a good standard. Unless itâs a consensus of credible sources/studies, where there are reproducible results.
I can easily believe that You havenât lost faith in what is reported as science just as many have not lost faith in religion.
Unless you are one of the scientists involved - and sometime even then - it is entirely dependent upon your faith in the reports that you are allowed to hear. It doesnât matter what the science method is. What matters is - as Stalin put it - ânot the votes but who it is counting the votesâ = who is reporting the results.
You/We are living in a highly highly propagandized political world (at war). Whoever controls the media - controls the âscienceâ.
When one of the founders of a science company tells the public that the company cannot be trusted (especially when that company has hidden a great deal of vital information) - it is time to be highly skeptical of âthe scienceâ they profess.
When there is such extreme - extreme - normally inexplicable - political pressure put on a population to do something that is only experimental - yet gives new critical rights to an authoritarian government while removing freedoms from that population - it is time to be highly skeptical of âthe scienceâ they profess.
Having looked deep into the international - world - political scene (truly a world at war) - all signs point to all information concerning these vaccines (and even more COVID itself) being very untrustworthy - no matter where it came from.
In war time - lies govern all beliefs among the populous.
You should ask someone who specializes in genetics. From what I can understand, the mRNA vaccines by design shouldnât have any affect on a personâs DNA. One of the links in my first reply to you goes into great detail.
Are they fair, consistent, coherent with other credible sources, able to explain key points in a detailed way, open to being wrong, etc. Things like that. I linked some examples of what I consider fairly credible sources.
I mean there are no 100% guarantees for almost anything that isnât purely deductive/definitional. The sun may not rise again tomorrow; the laws of the universe (whatever they are) might not be consistent across time. But there are still ways to distinguish between better and worse theories, better and worse sources of information. See the criteria I suggested:
not if you do not understand the significant power of politics and its current state.
The question in the OP is about politics - not about science. The vaccines are one part of the political war. Just as Mr Trump was not supposed to become the US President, a vaccine was not supposed to be produced for many years - and only by the Chinese (who had already filed for a patented vaccine before the US even began).
This is world war 3 - a war of information, bioweapons, and economics.
COVID was supposed to kill 100âs of millions. It was supposed to totally decimate the Westâs economy. The CCP was to totally control the media (which they largely do anyway). And the CCP was supposed to have sequestered all critical resources (which they are still rapidly acquiring). The US was supposed to have a depleted military arsenal and medical pantry (which Mr Obama accomplished before Mr Trump took over).
OâBiden is doing all he can to get them back on track - including bringing in as much drugs and infected illegal immigrants as sneakily as he can (Obama was much better at being sneaky) - and getting the US in such extreme debt to China that there can be no recovery (just as was done to Nicaragua).
The goal is total global authoritarianism - at any cost.
I mean, for one, although they have been rigorously tested, people donât have to take the mRNA vaccines. The traditional Johnson & Johnson or AstraZeneca vaccines are available.
Second, I donât think the current political pressure to get vaccinated is any more extreme than
existing vaccination mandates for schools in all 50 US states
vaccination mandates for prior outbreaks, e.g. smallpox in the 1800s
If we start to backslide into dangerous territory where virus transmission, cases, and deaths start to get out of hand and pose a serious threat to an entire population, I think itâs reasonable to temporarily restrict privileges from people who put the lives and well-being of the entire population at risk. No one has the unconditional privilege to work for a given company or take public/commercial transportation, for example, if you pose a serious risk to the life and liberty of others and are unwilling to do anything about it.
That is something you cannot know - and do not. There is obvious evidence of the obvious evidence - where is the negative evidence? It is being hidden for sake of public persuasion - politics (admitted by Dr Fauci). So you do not know the downside - all statistics must be assumed to be politically biased.
So in your country you are accustom to -
Putting masks on everyone over 2 years old - even inside their own home all day every day?
Closing schools entirely?
Not being allowed into restaurants, gyms, or any public small business unless proof of vaccination?
Encouragement to shame any non-vaxxer while 30% of medical staff refuses the vaccine?
Banning from social media for questioning the vaccine or origin of COVID?
Prevent people from taking inexpensive preventative medications?
Vaccinating people who are already immune?
Vaccinating the less sensitive before the most sensitive?
Opening up your countryâs borders to highly infectious people and moving them into cities throughout your country?
Did your country do that for smallpox? Or did they instead use âring-vaccinationâ to eradicate smallpox entirely while honestly reporting on the progress?
100% political propaganda - specifically for the purpose of destroying small businesses and the middle class in the effort to establish a socialist/communist authoritarian regime.
[list]âGive us what we demand or get more of the same!â[/list:u]
You either missed my first point or decided not to address it, so Iâll reiterate. If your concern about being pressured to do something âexperimentalâ is about the mRNA vaccines - no one has to take the mRNA vaccines. People can take the traditional viral-vector vaccines (Johnson & Johnson or AstraZeneca) instead.
Second, when talking about additional mitigation measures, I agree that most of your list is unacceptable. But I donât think your list fairly represents the mitigation response to date, or future plans.
No federal or state authority is recommending, much less forcing, healthy people to wear masks in their homes. That makes no sense, and CDC guidance mentions that itâs not necessary unless you are with other people in public or have someone infected with covid-19 at home. Thereâs really no credible interpretation that that could mean âwear a mask inside [your] own home all day every day.â
Schools are not closed. And pretty much everyone wants to do what they can to continue to have students attend school safely in-person.
Each state ultimately controlled their own vaccination rollout program, but I believe all prioritized seniors in long-term care facilities, healthcare professionals, some essential workers, and immunodeficient people among the initial phases, as was recommended by the CDC-supported Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP):
Iâm not in favor of shaming people who havenât yet gotten vaccinated, and I doubt most people want that to be an official policy.
I donât think people should be banned or censored just for questioning the vaccines or the origins of covid-19, but I also think itâs a complex issue. On the one hand, people should be able to express an opinion, voice dissent, or explore a topic. On the other hand, itâs very clear to me that viral misinformation/disinformation at the scale of the largest social networks can be catastrophic to a societyâs information sphere. And it does seem that some of the largest social media companies have proven ill-prepared to implement and enforce a set of rules that are consistent, fair, and generally satisfying to users. So yes, itâs not a great situation at the moment with some people getting censored or banned unfairly while others have been able to do real damage spreading misinformation/disinformation at scale without consequence. But certainly many people have been able to question any number of things, including the vaccines and origins of covid-19. A simple search will prove that plenty is still allowed on Facebook or Twitter, for instance. And people are free to use alternative platforms, of course.
For âPrevent people from taking inexpensive preventative medicationsâ - I donât know what youâre talking about specifically. Hydroxychloroquine, for example, was considered and studied as a potential covid-19 treatment and was even temporarily approved by the government for that purpose. That decision was reversed soon after when a clinical trial didnât find the drug to be of much benefit in treating covid-19 and carried some risk of serious side effects.
The following I think can be reasonable in situations like what we are approaching with the Delta variant:
âNot being allowed into restaurants, gyms, or any public small business unless proof of vaccinationâ
vaccinating people who were infected 6 months ago or more
There is an issue with handling the especially large number of migrants attempting to enter from the southern border this year, and if there isnât a sufficient covid-19 testing/containing program set up on first contact then there absolutely should be.
For smallpox, yes there was a notable vaccine mandate (or a fine if refused) in Boston which was challenged in courts. In 1905, the Supreme Court ruled:
This set the precedent for a âreasonablenessâ test. Do you claim that this ^ is also â100% political propaganda - specifically for the purpose of destroying small businesses and the middle class in the effort to establish a socialist/communist authoritarian regimeâ ?
The âring vaccinationâ strategy you refer to was used much later probably in a somewhat different context. I think whether itâs best to mass vaccinate or do case-by-case vaccination depends on the specific situation at hand. If we had the coronavirus mostly contained, and a decent contact tracing system, then I could see it making sense to only focus on vaccinating those whoâve recently been in contact or are likely to be in contact with infected persons.
First I want to recognize you for discussing this topic with respect and intellectual seriousness - rare on this board. But what I am seeing reflects someone who is promoting the excuses that are being used to instigate a very serious war strategy - âbut there is an excuse for their demandsâ.
This thread is about whether COVID has been used as a weapon. My position is that it certainly has been and a part of that intention is to establish authoritarianism - that is the goal. Due to the construct of the West and the lack of certainty concerning a simple armed takeover - political strategies have to be used - temporarily - in place of bombs. And these political strategies are all about fooling and tricking people into going along with what will create a hopeless position for resisting authoritarianism.
One of the most proliferous strategies for manipulating a population is called âProtectionismâ.
Protectionism is a type of coercive scapegoating when done more secretively. It involves creating a problem then demanding something in return for solving that problem. It is called âscapegoatingâ when the problem is blamed on another party. In the case of authoritarianism what is demanded is something that more ensures authoritarian rule in the future.
Are you familiar with protectionism and scapegoating?