How Do We Practice Gracious Dialogue When Talking about COVID-19 Vaccines?

There are numerous other agencies that disagree. What we need to see is the evidence.

A pretty good summary of where it stands: https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/3877893-why-a-final-answer-on-covid-19s-origins-remains-out-of-reach/

1 Like

The pursuit of happiness is, according to the Declaration of Independence, an unalienable right. It is not a matter of convenience.

The vaccines were imposed by mandates before there was time for data to be accumulated and evaluated, and those data are still coming in.

The data on the great damage done to the academic progress of school children are also still coming in, and the data are dreadful.

Didnā€™t you support lockdowns and vaccine mandates before you saw the evidence?

Asking for classified evidence before considering conclusions of the intelligence agencies on the origin of Covid while accepting a loss of liberty and restrictions on movement without evidence on vaccinations is a curious difference in acceptance criteria.

That really doesnā€™t address the meat of my post. What I am saying is that you are biased against vaccines and masks because of the policies you donā€™t like. You are more likely to claim that vaccines and masks donā€™t work simply because you donā€™t like those policies.

I donā€™t see how those two things are related.

And I expect just the opposite of your views.

I follow the evidence.

1 Like

Evidence on masks-
Iā€™m sorry! I may have overstated the limited effectiveness of masks based on the studies discussed in the following Youtube video from Dr John Campbell who simply follows the evidence without a political agenda- Masks, the jury returns - YouTube

from wikipedia " John Lorimer Campbell is an English YouTuber and retired nurse educator known for his videos about the COVID-19 pandemic. Initially, the videos received praise, but they later veered into misinformation.[2] He has been criticised for suggesting COVID-19 deaths have been over-counted, repeating false claims about the use of ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment, and providing misleading commentary about the safety of COVID-19 vaccines.[3][4][5] As of January 2023, his YouTube channel had 2.65 million subscribers and over 598 million views.

2 Likes

From a recent comment on the video:

ā€œMasks, the jury returnsā€ ā€“ a jury of one who is predisposed to heavy shading.

How much does one make from ads in such a situation? Giving information to tickle his listenersā€™ ears is pretty profitable!. Mercola gets the same thing. CDC gets abuse and the income is not wonderful there. It is painful to tell people what they donā€™t want to hear. Itā€™s a pity that rancor about not wanting to be told what to do has let us ignore all the wonderful work they do. I just had to look up their growth charts again (2-20 yo). Great stuff.

2 Likes

It is interesting that his Ph.D is in internet marketing. Apparently he is pretty good at it. He also has a nursing doctorate, but no real science creditials.

4 Likes

That doesnā€™t surprise me. When I first came across John Campbell a couple of years ago, he seemed mostly reasonable but at the same time something seemed a bit off with what he was saying. I got the impression that he was jumping the gun with ivermectin and he seems to have gone downhill from there.

It sounds like heā€™s found that covid scepticism (to put it politely) gets him views and subscribers, and in YouTube land, that means advertising revenue. Since YouTubers who monetise their channels can earn $1-$2 per 1,000 views, and he has nearly 600 million views in total, that must all amount to some pretty nice gravy.

5 Likes

Wikipedia is not an unbiased source of information, especially when it comes to politically charged issues, and biographical information of those the editors want to discredit.

Any inaccuracies in that one? In reading excerpts of his work, seems pretty spot on. True, being crowd sourced, it is Wiki is subject to errors, but is largely self correcting for the same reason. And is usually much more accurate and objective than the webpages of partisan sources.

3 Likes

You discuss the topic the same way you would with someone holding a differing Christian denomination.