Biden Says Platforms Like Facebook Are 'Killing People' With COVID-19 Misinformation (theverge.com) 259
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: The White House escalated its fight against vaccine misinformation on Friday, with President Biden directly criticizing Facebook and other platforms for allowing vaccine misinformation to spread -- and consequently raising the ongoing death toll from the deadly pandemic. Asked for a message to platforms like Facebook, Biden replied, "They're killing people ... the only pandemic we have is among the unvaccinated, and they're killing people." The White House did not immediately respond to a request for clarification of the president's comments. The full exchange is embedded [here]. "We will not be distracted by accusations which aren't supported by the facts," said a Facebook spokesperson. "The fact is that more than 2 billion people have viewed authoritative information about COVID-19 and vaccines on Facebook, which is more than any other place on the internet. More than 3.3 million Americans have also used our vaccine finder tool to find out where and how to get a vaccine."
"The facts show that Facebook is helping save lives," the spokesperson continued. "Period."
"The facts show that Facebook is helping save lives," the spokesperson continued. "Period."
The gov violating the 1st Amendment by proxy? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The gov violating the 1st Amendment by proxy? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, he's not wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sophie Zhang has the best response to this:
https://twitter.com/szhang_ds/... [twitter.com]
What if every defendant responded like FB did?
Prosecutor: "Did you poison twenty people to death by failing to rinse bleach off of dishes?"
Defendant: "I have washed dishes 40,000 times and believe deeply in clean dishes. The facts show that I'm making our dishes cleaner"
Sophie is a former FaceBook employee, current whistleblower and activist that called out Facebook for their roles in genocide in Myanmar and Ethiopia as well as their role in election misinformation and Facebook's lack of interaction and overall concern in policing their own platform. I think I could best sum up her work with her pointing out that spam was considered a bigger problem than genocide.
Re: Well, he's not wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
When Trump tried doing similar crap
Trumps crap was not similar. He posted the BS on the platforms and they banned him from them!!
Re: Well, he's not wrong. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
However the government cannot participate in censorship NOR can they ask a third party to do it for them. What Biden is saying and publicly asking for is countless legal lawsuits. When Trump tried doing similar crap some peoples where very vocal about it, and sadly I see those same people hiding and not speaking out now. Just more examples of the Tribalism they claim to not be part of. FB had the chance to do it on their own. They were probably even asked to do it illegally behind closed doors. Now the government is publicly asking them to do it with hopes that peer pressure forces their hand. None of that absolves them of the liability of asking a third party to perform an act that the government itself is explicitly forbidden from taking.
I'm not sure why you think it is illegal for the government to ask a third party to do something they might not be able to do. They are not asking facebook to do anything illegal, since it is a private platform and they get to decide the rules. Facebook is not required to let anyone say what they want how they want and when they want. Facebook can decide to do it or not do it.
Re: Well, he's not wrong. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
How do you not know this? The government cannot ask someone to do something it itself is explicitly forbidden from doing.
You mean such as telling phone companies they must install wiretap equipment, without a warrant [nytimes.com], and scooping up everyone's phone messages?
Re: Well, he's not wrong. (Score:3)
Re: Well, he's not wrong. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure why you think it is illegal for the government to ask a third party to do something they might not be able to do.
The implication is that if it's behind closed doors, there is a quid pro quo.
Re: (Score:2)
> However the government cannot participate in censorship NOR can they ask a third party to do it for them.
There have always been very narrow exceptions when it comes to public health and safety. It's unlikely but not impossible that the spread of misinformation related to epidemics/pandemics, where the lives of millions of people are at risk, could fall within the purview of government censorship.
Of course every accusation of misinformation would require a lawsuit to settle...
=Smidge=
Re: Well, he's not wrong. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Well that's actually a good example
You're not supposed to rinse the bleach off the dishes.
https://blog.scoutingmagazine.... [scoutingmagazine.org]
The thing is that there will always be those complaining about the 20 failures, and ignoring the 40,000 successes.
The real question is the net benefit, I personally believe that free speech makes a big contribution to society, some good, some bad, but on balance it's positive.
Which trade offs are you willing to make?
Re: (Score:2)
That's an easy decision to make if you are not the one dying because someone is killing you based off of misinformation spread on some social media platform.
The Rohingya genocide only killed 25,000+ people. I guess that's small compared to the number of 2.85 billion Facebook users. I haven't added up information from what happened in Ethiopia, or counted those who died in the Philippines from the Detuerte and his drug war because he credits Facebook for his election. I haven't added people who died from in
Re: (Score:2)
It's not straight bleach, it's a bucket of water with a few drops of bleach in it, just enough to sterilize the rinse water.
Successes compared to what control group?
Re: (Score:2)
I personally believe that free speech makes a big contribution to society
But that's irrelevant, because this isn't about whether freedom of speech is good or bad. That's a false narrative that certain groups have been pushing so they can accuse the government of censorship and opposing free speech.
First, whose speech are we talking about? Facebook's or their users'? I'm not too worried about what Facebook users say. Yes, people tell lies all the time, but I'd be very cautious about trying to prevent it. And I wouldn't blame Facebook for what their users do. The real proble
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately being a plate manufacturer doesn't really jive because Facebook already claims to have a hand in filtering content as Sophie pointed out. She said that spam was more a more pressing issue than genocide. This was because spam created an unpleasant user experience that discouraged people from continued use. The Facebook controlling corporation maintains the program and provides a service instead of a product.
The plate manufacturer would be more akin to firearms manufacturers in that the end r
Re: (Score:2)
All aboard the misinformation train. (Score:2)
Long as we're willing to cast that critical eye towards every other response. There's a lot of hands in the "misinformation" jar.
Sad Response and New Rule. (Score:2, Insightful)
Biden replied, "They're killing people ... the only pandemic we have is among the unvaccinated, and they're killing people."
First off, what a sad response. Shifting blame on social media? Haven't heard shit that weak since Metalli-Napster. As if social media hasn't represented the arms dealer profiting from all sides for years now. I'll bet you'll keep taking those fat campaign contributions while you grant this mega-corp free tax havens around the world, won't you?
Also, try and be realistic and show some empathy for the vaccinated and those who cannot or do not qualify for a vaccine who are still getting sick and sometimes
Re: (Score:2)
You still have 90 days to prove you're not completely full of shit. Otherwise, you're gone.And then what, O great political sage? Another election? Who gets to decide if you're "completely full of shit"? You don't seem to be a big fan of representative democracy, but we're all interested in hearing what you'd actually replace it with, other than a bunch of anger.
How about the voters? (Score:2)
And then what, O great political sage? Another election? Who gets to decide if you're "completely full of shit"?
How about the voters? Recall seems to work moderately well at the state level, why not at the federal?
Same for bad laws: Referendum works moderately well, at the state level, too. Why wait for the the Supreme Court to decide that somebody has enough "standing" to bring a case, and they have enough time and feel like it to let it be argued that it's unconstitutional? Just let enough people be u
Re:Sad Response and New Rule. (Score:5, Interesting)
If we look at the global numbers of COVID-19 deaths, we are locked in at about 2.1% chance of dying. That number is possibly lower because of people not getting tested enough but also potentially higher because of dead people not being tested either. There are states in the U.S. which have actually shrank in population in 2020 because the number of people being born was less than those who died.
Can you tell me what the odds of dying from the from getting the vaccine are? I can tell you that even the vaccine with the worst chance of a reaction is substantially lower than 2.1%. Guillain-Barré cases with the J&J vaccine are currently at 0.0008%.
If you wanted to look at this as a gamble, which play do you want to make? I am not even factoring in long COVID and I know some people that have had to deal with the ramifications of catching COVID-19 and living with long term side-effects. One of those side effects has been linked to COVID-19 is ED. So I guess if you want to gamble with living your life with a defective dangle, be my guest.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh shut up. The death rate from covid is not 2.1%
The worldwide death rate from SYMPTOMATIC OR OTHERWISE DETECTED covid-13 computes to 2.3% (dead / (dead + recovered)) and that's a tad low because recovery (on the average) happens earlier in the disease progression than death.
Your/CDC's 6x guess still puts the death rate at 0.4%. That's still orders of magnitude above the serious side-effect rates for the vaccines.
Hell: Almost exactly one in 41 worldwide has already been detected as having COVID-13. So EV
Re: (Score:2)
VAERS collects and reviews reports of adverse events that occur after vaccination. An "adverse event" is any health problem or "side effect" that happens after a vaccination. VAERS cannot determine if a vaccine caused an adverse event, but can determine if further investigation is needed.
VAERS is an early-warning system that detects problems possibly related to vaccines.
Looking at VAERS raw data yourself and trying to make up your own decision isn't possible because it is raw, unverified reports that may
Re: (Score:3)
No, it's the dangerous lies that are bothering people, the ones that are stopping people from getting vaccinated and resulting in more deaths beyond the 600,000+ that have already happened in the US in large part because Trump didn't take the pandemic seriously.
Idiots on social media (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Idiots on social media (Score:5, Interesting)
What you way would be absolutely true if social media were simply a passive carrier of person to person communication. But it's not passive. Social media in the business of shaping your online behavior, feeding you what it thinks will boost your engagement and ultimately steering you into an online bucket of eyeballs it can sell profitably.
Facebook, not through any malice, mind you, wraps you up in a bubble of confirmation bias, year by year connecting you not just to your friends and family, but like-minded strangers. Facebook presents *me* with a world full of people who are deeply interested in astronomy -- but I know damn well that the actual world isn't like that. The picture of what is "normal" to think has a powerful influence over people's beliefs. If you were born in the 15th Century, chances are you'd take it as fact that witches magicked away the milk when your cow was dry, or at least it was a sensible possibility to consider.
Re: (Score:3)
Facebook, not through any malice, mind you, wraps you up in a bubble of confirmation bias, year by year connecting you not just to your friends and family, but like-minded strangers. Facebook presents *me* with a world full of people who are deeply interested in astronomy -- but I know damn well that the actual world isn't like that. The picture of what is "normal" to think has a powerful influence over people's beliefs. If you were born in the 15th Century, chances are you'd take it as fact that witches magicked away the milk when your cow was dry, or at least it was a sensible possibility to consider.
You unwittingly hit upon exactly the reason that self appointed censors want absolute control over others' agenda. Each thinks that they are the only humans with the wisdom to identify the objective truth (corresponding to their own fears and prejudices, of course) and that the unenlightened, unwashed masses are just simple minded idiots waiting for Facebook to tell them what to do.
Re: (Score:2)
It's hard to find the place where one stops and the other begins.
Which is EXACTLY why social media, should never be considered a valid source of news beyond what your crazy uncle is shooting and cooking this weekend for dinner.
Social media should be in the class of cartoons; fake and unrealistic at best.
Who is going to put in limits? The government? (Score:2)
Wow (Score:3)
Biden "claims with no evidence" (Score:2, Insightful)
This is what the headline would be in the Trump era.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Former employees such as Sophie Zhang provided plenty of evidence to the contrary. So any title like that would be easily refuted. The previous president made thousands of false and misleading claims. This president will make several but no where near the level of the previous president. Your comparison of the two is false.
Smokescreen for their own communication failures (Score:2, Informative)
Yes, misinformation exists on social media, but how do you know it's misinformation? That's a label that can only accurately be attributed to it well after the fact ( as we've seen with things like Hunter's laptop and the lab-leak "conspiracy theory" ), and in any case it's not the government's place to prevent others from seeing that.
What this really boils down to is a remarkable failure of their own messaging. Let's look at their vaccine message; the way they're trying to push it down everyone's throats
Who will fact-check the fact-checkers? (Score:2)
Its a moron removal operation... (Score:5, Funny)
It's an end run around the 1st Amendment (Score:2, Insightful)
A private company can choose to censor as they wish but when they do so at the demand of the government then this becomes a 1st Amendment issue.
Did Trump ask for people to be taken off social media? Someone remind me. I'm seeing "de-platforming" as a common tactic among the Left while the political Right wants everyone to keep talking.
There is a problem with social media causing emotionally charged posts to be shared with greater vigor than those that are factual. I've seen this with IT help forums I vis
Is it a 1st amendment issue (Score:2)
Since when is lying for cash a 1st amendment issue?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is that FB is indifferent to the truth of what its algorithms promote. They aren't committing classic fraud, which has an intent to deceive; they are spreading misinformation because the truth undermines conservative's worldview and hurts their feelings. I suppose Pfizer and Moderna could sue the big 12 originators of this misinformation, like Dominion sued Fox, Oann, and Newsmax. But Pfizer can't sue Facebook because Section 230 gives FB immunity for user content (unlike Fox, which carefully c
I don't know about social media (Score:2)
Social media is completely dominated by the right wing. The top 10 Facebook posts are always right wing, and multiple C Level employees at social media companies have admitted that they cater to the right wing because the right wing doom scroll more (they use the word "engagement") and are therefore more profitable. Furthermore left wing conspiracy theories get rapidly debunked before they can spread (and carry their payload of adv
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm seeing "de-platforming" as a common tactic among the Left while the political Right wants everyone to keep talking.
Everyone except: Colin Kaepernick [theguardian.com], Nikole Hannah-Jones [nytimes.com], People who mock Republican Congressmen [sfist.com], People who write about Republican Presidents business dealings [upi.com], People who report things the President doesn't like [nbcnews.com], People who contradict the official Florida narrative on Covid [msn.com], People who criticize Parler [dailydot.com].People running social media companies that do not have facilities in Florida [reason.org] or Texas [texastribune.org]. When Rightists have the power to silence, they use it. When they lack that power, they try to commandeer other people's p
Re: (Score:3)
Biden's fight against monetized misinformation, however toothless, is costing him politically and will primarily benefit his political opponents.
Being in control of the White House in a mid-term election always benefits the opposition. There would be no surprise if Republicans gain seats in the House and Senate since that's been the norm for Democrat presidents for a long time.
What's costing Democrats is calls to de-fund the police, blatant attempts to keep the borders open (during a pandemic!), support for communists in Cuba, more gun grabs, no real desire to address accusations of election fraud, and most of all a POTUS that has to be reminded ev
Re: (Score:2)
"Election fraud" is a right wing canard designed to give cover to disenfranchising reliably non-Republican voters. The allegations of Trump's attorneys and co-grifters were all thrown out of court--and no, the Republican Secretaries of State were not participating in the Dominion/Hugo Chavez plot. To the extent voter fraud hurts Biden in the midterms, it will be from Trump [thehill.com] supporters [cbsnews.com] voting twice [nbcnews.com] because he asked them to. [msn.com] Certainly it should be prosecuted, but if it costs Dems the House or Senate then the
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, that looks bad. Did Trump order this? Did he even know this was happening?
Unnresponsive Deflection (Score:2)
Too right (Score:2)
At least Facebook has a report false health information. Whether they act on it or not I don't know. But Twitter doesn't even have that option I can re
Carrot and Stick needed - here is a solution (Score:2)
The best antidote to misinformation.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Why politicians won’t reach the vaccine hesi (Score:2)
https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/09... [cnn.com]
“The most recent Kaiser poll helps illustrate that the vaccine hesitant group doesn’t really lean Republican. Just 20% of the group called themselves Republican with an additional 19% being independents who leaned Republican. The clear majority (61%) were not Republicans (41% said they were Democrats or Democratic leaning independents and 20% were either pure independents or undesignated).”
It doesn't matter (Score:2)
It is NOT the platform. (Score:2)
Republicans.
There's your issue; anti vaxxers, anti-maskers, anti-education, anti-fact, anti-election and anti-American.
None of those groups are democrats.
Not just social media (Score:2)
Governor Ron DeSantis of Florida is actively working to kill thousands more in his state. Right now, 20% of all new cases of covid originate in Florida [thehill.com]. But instead of protecting the people of his state, DeSantis is using the surging cases and deaths as a fundraising event [imgur.com].
Governor Abbott of Texas isn't much better. Cases in Texas are soaring [thehill.com]. But instead of protecting the people of Texas, Abbott is going to make sure energy companies who might lose money during blackouts get reimbursed by the taxpayers [texastribune.org]
the USA has gone soft (Score:2)
The US has to use million dollar bombs to kill Syrians, but enemies of the US can kill US citizens by using spicy memes and $10,000 worth of facebook ads. How did the US get so weak?
What if Facebook did censor them? (Score:2)
If Facebook did censor these fools, they'd just take that as confirmation that the vaccines really ARE nothing but a conspiracy by Bill Gates to put a 5G tracking chip in you and give you autism. After all, why censor them unless they're RIGHT; and the Martian-pedophile Democratic lizard people are just scared of the secret truth about the vaccines that they've discovered? And they'd all just move off to gab, parler, infowars, stormfront, or whatever they're pushing now; and have their circle-jerk there.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm aware of a promising survey of trials [nih.gov]. Which maker of ivermectin has submitted clinical trial results to the FDA that the FDA has rejected?
Re: (Score:2)
So the trials have been submitted to FDA and no decision has been made. Is that to promote Vaccinations over this drug? Is the vaccination result a better medicine?
Without going into the drug lobby and the pay for health business, is the availability of ivermectin (generic) for prescription by doctors being denied?
Re:Ivermectin (Score:5, Insightful)
The vaccines are pretty unquestionably the better medicine. When it comes to viral diseases vaccination is the gold standard for treatment because once the virus has taken hold in the body there are limited options for direct treatment, it usually comes down to treating symptoms and keeping the body from destroying itself until the immune system can get things under controls.
We are coming up to over a year for the Phase II/III trials for Pfizer and Moderna, so side effects and durability are becoming very well known. Vaccinations in general by nature of how they work are going to result in less side effects both short term and long term. Dosages are smaller, intervals between doses are much larger, there is just less to worry about.
That certainly does not mean pharma companies are not greedy profit mongers but a traditional drug treatment like we are talking about here needs to go through the process and unfortunately with CV19 there is a big impetus for bad actors to insert themselves in the process and muddy the waters and like HCQ there is reason to be initially skeptical when something is purported to be almost "too good to be true".
Non-obvious benefit of a treatment (Score:2)
All true, but that said, if someone does come up with a good antiviral treatment it will open a door.
If we could offer infected volunteers a treatment known to be effective, like there is for malaria, that would improve the ethics of doing human exposure trials.
We could gather a lot of actionable information by putting measured doses into the noses of people who had given informed consent.
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely, no one is saying to stop researching treatment options. I mean even over the past 18 months we can see how much better the treatment has gotten for covid with many multifaceted approaches.
Doctors would be elated if something as cheap and simple as HCQ or invermectin showed positive results but it's dangerous when people start conspiracy thinking about such things when they have not yet gone through the process. Medicine is a science and science is a process. The vaccines went through that proc
Re: (Score:2)
there is a proven treatment available that will work for 90% of the human population today, as we speak.
No vaccine is yet EUA'd for children under 12 years of age, who make up more than 10 percent of the human population.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Ivermectin (Score:5, Informative)
You don't keep up with the news do you?
Huge study supporting ivermectin as Covid treatment withdrawn over ethical concerns [theguardian.com]
“The main error is that at least 79 of the patient records are obvious clones of other records,” Brown told the Guardian. “It’s certainly the hardest to explain away as innocent error, especially since the clones aren’t even pure copies. There are signs that they have tried to change one or two fields to make them look more natural.”
Meyerowitz-Katz told the Guardian that “this is one of the biggest ivermectin studies out there”, and it appeared to him the data was “just totally faked”.
Kyle Sheldrick, a Sydney doctor and researcher, also independently raised concerns about the paper. He found numbers the authors provided for several standard deviations – a measure of variation in a group of data points – mentioned in tables in the paper were “mathematically impossible” given the range of numbers provided in the same table.
Sheldrick said the completeness of data was further evidence suggesting possible fabrication, noting that in real-world conditions, this was almost impossible. He also identified the duplication of patient deaths and data.
Lawrence said what started out as a simple university assignment had led to a comprehensive investigation into an apparent scientific fraud at a time when “there is a whole ivermectin hype dominated by a mix of right-wing figures, anti-vaxxers and outright conspiracists”.
“Although science trends towards self-correction, something is clearly broken in a system that can allow a study as full of problems as the Elgazzar paper to run unchallenged for seven months,” he said.
The point isn't whether it works or not (Score:5, Interesting)
Ask yourself who gains if America suffers right now? Obviously our international enemies. But who gains domestically? What will happen if low vaccination rates force lockdowns? Who will be blamed for the economic damage? What will happen in the mid term elections? [cnn.com]
Re: (Score:2)
it's to spread the idea that COVID can be easily managed without vaccines so that fewer people will get them. The goal is hurt America as much as possible.
Ask yourself who gains if America suffers right now? Obviously our international enemies. But who gains domestically? What will happen if low vaccination rates force lockdowns? Who will be blamed for the economic damage? What will happen in the mid term elections? [cnn.com]
You're missing the bigger picture. Think, who wants us to be a weakened nation? Two names come to mind, China and Russia. China in particular wants us to be weakened so they can more readily spread their influence around the world.
What these anti-vaxxers and other morons (but I repeat myself) don't realize is they are implementing the goals of a foreign government to undermine the U.S. Every time someone such as Tucker Carlson or the socialist Boebert talk about refusing vaccines, they're really acting
I covered that in my post (Score:5, Insightful)
anti-vaxxers aren't necessarily morons. Look up a video on the origins of the movement from hbomberguy on YouTube. It was started to make money by a quiet clever doctor with no morals. A member of the medical community. Again, the enemy within.
We have much stricter rules on doctors, so that problem is well in hand. But political infighting where one side will actively damage the country to score seats in Congress is something we're either going to have to address or we're not going to be a democracy much longer. Not even in the nominal fashion we have today.
Re: (Score:2)
Link to the video in question, I think it's worth a watch for anybody, really well done in my opinion.
Vaccines: A Measured Response [youtube.com]
An absolutely necessary and entertaining takedown of Andrew Wakefield and his terrible study.
Re:The point isn't whether it works or not (Score:5, Informative)
Who gains? Look at who's paying for anti-vaccine propaganda.
https://www.euronews.com/2021/... [euronews.com]
French influencers were offered serious money from a PR firm which was not at the address given and which would not name its client. They were asked to tell people lies about the Pfizer vaccine.
The LinkedIn profiles of the people from the "PR firm" have disappeared, but the influencers made notes first. Just guess where they were from.
Re: (Score:2)
The hard-sell anti-vaxxers are politicians and batshit-crazy right-wing Evangelical Trumpists who are vaccinated.
A surge, whether among the unvaccinated or other causes, will make Biden look bad. Right now, he's looking pretty good. He didn't get the 70% he wanted but he tried.
Re: (Score:2)
https://journals.lww.com/ameri... [lww.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Ivermectin is an anti-parasite, not an anti-viral. That you would be confused by that speaks volumes.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: Super Genius (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Super Genius (Score:4, Insightful)
I want people to wake the fuck up and see it for themselves without relying on others to tell them what to think.
and I want a pony. But I'm not holding my breath...
Re: Super Genius (Score:5, Insightful)
I want people to wake the fuck up
Yeah, since everyone has a complete staffed lab full of qualified technicians in their basement capable of analyzing medical claims for themselves I don't see why they need actual experts in their field telling them what is correct and what isn't.
Re: Super Genius (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: Super Genius (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose that fraud, like promoting quack cures, would come under 'free speech', as would endangering people by telling them to shoot up bleach. You really don't see any objection to that? Doctor Fred should be able to peddle their homeopathic water drops that they claim will prevent COVID19 infections and the government really has no part in preventing that?
I think we're going to agree to disagree here.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Doctor Fred should be able to peddle their homeopathic water drops that they claim will prevent COVID19 infections and the government really has no part in preventing that?
There is a massive, structural difference between the following two scenarios:
Governmnent: "Dr. Fred, you are hereby forbidden to sell or administer homeopathic water drops with the claim that they are preventative against C19"
Government: "Dr. Fred, you are hereby forbidden to state verbally that homeopathic water drops are preventative against C19, or to discuss a theory that they MIGHT be."
The first is responsible safety regulation. The second is censorship.
Re: (Score:2)
Its just the excuse they want to justify censorship
Yes, that is what Republicans want. They want to censor anything about America which might cause people to think, such as the millions of native Americans murdered and raped by Christians, how Christians literally killed each other because they were the wrong religion, the use of military personnel to enforce racist laws, the (ongoing) oppression of women, and a whole host of other uncomfortable facts such as Davy Crockett (of Alamo fame) was a slave trader [texastribune.org], which to some degree is what Texas independence w
Whatever floats your boat. (Score:2, Informative)
And a UV lamp up your Ass
You be you, I won't judge. I'd rather have the UV lamp in the breathing tube where it can help fight lung infections.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe the breathing tube is in the other place? [cell.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
New drugs for trolls and other fools (Score:2)
When you propagate the trolls' Subjects you may be serving their purposes. However your reply is so ambiguous I can't tell whether or not that was your intention.
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, you hate freedom and speech and the US constitution.
Thank you comrade.
Re: Facts? (Score:3)
The Jansen vaccine uses an adeno virus carrier, only novavax is just the spike protein and adjuvant.
Novavax feels the safest. No viral carrier for which immunity to the carrier could cause problems and all the downsides of mrna vaccines on top. No loose mrna fucking up body cells to produce proteins with questionable pharmokynetics. No whole deactivated virus with lots of different proteins (more autoimmune risk) and risk of production failure to deactivate the virus.
The mrna experimentation will provide lo
Re:Facts? (Score:4, Funny)
Lets point out that natural immunity works perfectly fine to protect you against sars-cov-2. Then they say JnJ and the upcoming Novavax vaccine is just as good. But they are literally just the spike protein. So maybe we need better testing for those who were positive? Maybe they only need a booster? If the government won't present facts, why listen to them?
The real question is.. Why is everyone being forced onto these mRNA vaccines? Why isn't the govt listening to those who are unvaccinated and trying to EUA the novavax vaccine? Make public campaigns about mRNA vs Adenovirus vaccines?
The government is mostly right, but as usual, bumbling the response because their way is the right way(tm)
-dk
Well, when you put it like that, it must be because they want everyone to get a good dose of Bill Gates' 5G nano-chips that are controlled by the Jewish space laser, so that the lizard people, led by George Soros, can rise once again from their evil subterranean lair & take over the world & replace all the remaining white people with black & brown people... because WHITE GENOCIDE!!! Isn't that how it goes? /End sarcasm.
Re: (Score:2)
Never mind it's not a "gene therapy". This is the "misinformation" [bloomberg.com] that everyone's talking about and it's sole purpose is to mislead and prevent people from getting vaccinated.
Re: (Score:2)
"Gene therapy" typically refers to changing the genes in a persons DNA.
In the case of the vaccines, some of them inject RNA, which the body uses to build proteins to fight off the disease. After the proteins are built, the RNA is disassembled by the body. The DNA is not modified.
Currently, gene therapy is not available for anything.
Re: (Score:2)
It is only one of many things that you do not know.
Re: (Score:2)
“Look, having nuclear—my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart —you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I’m one of the smartest people anywhere in the world—it’s true!—but when you’re a conservative Republican they try—oh, d
Re: (Score:2)
And add to them NBC news and others, who consistently generate shocking headlines about insignificantly rare vaccine side effects. Lots of people have already muted Fox from their news feed and are still getting scared off by other irresponsible "news" outlets. It should be a crime, like fraud, to create misleading headlines in the age of Google News, where people are locked (by paywall) out of reading articles, and get all their news from headlines.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, even the non-right-wing press is guilty of scare-mongering because it attacks eyeballs. Thankfully here in the UK nearly 90% have had 1 vaccine dose. Trump has played a large part in making COVID an extremely partisan issue in the US with most democrats getting vaccinated but only half of GOP voters getting vaccinated.