re: "I Went to the Hospital with chest pains. The reality in the ER was interesting..."

quote:

---

Was grace pimping your mudflood theory as well?

---

Red herring fallacies occur when an arguer metaphorically drags a stinky dead fish across the logical path.

Many people believe a plethora of different theories, but my question to BuckyCheese is, Why exactly does a persons pontifications of possible Earth Events, exclude the original posters opinion?

You have been told a million theories, public education's entire school curriculum is based on theories.

Dinosaurs lived 10 billion years ago, which is evidenced by rocks from different ages, but the question always remains for real scientific methods, how did they give the rock layers mathematical time ranges of millions of years, without actual study of one entire layer of rock formation for...you guessed it, one million years.

Hypotheticals and theories are everywhere and most religious zealots, don't even know that they are, which includes big bang theorist, evolution theorist, socialist, communist, etc...etc...

Theory
Theologian
Theoretical
Theorize

THEOLO'GIAN, n. [See Theology.] A divine; a person well versed in theology, or a professor of divinity.

Theory is distinguished from hypothesis thus; a theory is founded on inferences drawn from principles which have been established on independent evidence; a hypothesis is a proposition assumed to account for certain phenomena, and has no other evidence of its truth, than that it affords a satisfactory explanation of those phenomena.

THE'ORY, n. [L. theoria; Gr. to see or contemplate.]
1. Speculation; a doctrine or scheme of things, which terminates in speculation or contemplation, without a view to practice. It is here taken in an unfavorable sense, as implying something visionary.

So you see, everyone has speculations, however, this does not ostracize them from being able to speak on current events, happening before our eyes, that we all are living witness and testimony to.

quote:

---

40-50% of doctors are Republicans.

---

You understand the distinction between "doctors" and the politicians masquerading as public health experts in the various agencies and the AMA?

Because doctors are supposed to generally follow diagnosis and treatment guidelines that are handed down based on studies, publications and guidance from those "experts".

If the public health experts cant admit they were wrong about the vaccines they can't conduct honest studies which means they can't effectively update cardiac diagnosis or treatment guidelines for vaccine related injuries.

quote:

---

refusing to prescribe meds for a treatment that had been around for decades

---

Which meds?

quote:

---

They had zero evidence it was “safe and effective” but kept parroting it.

---

Well cuz, no.
No, not really.

The initial vax matched adequately against CV19, which at the time was a more deadly bug. The vax was far more “safe and effective” than pulmonary covid and a vent.

quote:

---

Meanwhile they were also refusing to prescribe meds

---

When they prescribed those meds, pharmacists were given carte blanche to refuse filling them, which was/is a medical obscenity.

quote:

---

They try to pass the message that COVID isn't dangerous, but the vaccine is, and that vaccine advocates aren't trustworthy while they are.

---

Are they all? really?

quote:

---

Doctors, scientists and public health professionals choose their fields because they want to help people and do good science.

---

Most, but some want to get filthy rich and will do anything to get there.

quote:

---

The onus should be on antivaxxers to prove their claims because they're extraordinary claims.

---

Did they claim that the vaccine was safe and effective when it clearly is not safe and effective for many people?

No, there are no universally trustworthy fields or institutions, and part of the anti-vax strategy is to use people with credentials to sell doubt in general medical consensus. You're right that desire for money is a confounder, but it motivates antivaxxers too! Joseph Mercola has been cited on this thread and he's been banking off vaccine doubt for years. And yes, the antivaxxers have been claiming things that are contrary to the evidence about the safety and effectiveness of vaccines.

That analogy is fine, but the previous track record of automobile safety matters and the credibility of the reports matter when one decides whether to get in a new-model automobile.

If a new model came out and the chief objections were coming from chronic auto-safety skeptics that had been discredited in previous claims, it should lead one to discount the evidence.

Your basic point is right, though. New medical products should be monitored and the pharmaceutical industry does heavily influence the monitoring space. If these critiques came from a Merchants of Doubt-style critique, I'd be with them, but the techniques of the movement echo the same critiques from antivaxxers from the 19th and 20th c's and like other old, stale theories, they don't sell.

quote:

---

They are different vaccines with different mechanisms and different side effect profiles. Just like different blood pressure medications have different mechanisms with different side effect profiles.

---

BP meds make sense to me.

The safest drugs ever made (Covid “vaccines”), not so much.

One is logical, the other (if we are to believe what we have repeatedly been told by the WHO, CDC, NIH, FDA, etc.)...not so much.

quote:

---

but the techniques of the movement echo the same critiques from antivaxxers from the 19th and 20th c's and like other old, stale theories, they don't sell

---

So why are they asking the question (if that is the case)?

Your answer from above:

quote:

---

to help guide index of suspicion for vaccine-specific harms, if possible.

---

doesn’t compute for a vaccine(s) with no side effects.

The language was simple and precise:

“Safe and effective.”