The Vaccine

[2kwik4u]

Why the hostility towards me I have never did anything to you. I sense hostility in your tone towards me with that post is that correct

Nope, no hostility, just commenting that your tone feels pretty clear from where I sit, and how I read it.

Communication in the written word is difficult, especially in a heated discussion such as this. Things like sarcasm, tone, inflection, and overall intention can easily get muddled without careful word selection, and appropriate punctuation. Precision of speech (and text in this case) is imperative. This also includes the need for more disclaimers to ensure your point it received in the manner it's intended. What we can't communicate through the audible word, we have to include in the text we use. We can't assume anyone can tell the difference between hostility, and genuine passionate curiosity; So you have to be clear and tell the audience.

I'm not mad, or even upset the slightest, but I wanted to offer a 3rd party view from someone outside the fiery edges of this particular debate. The tone read as hostile from my seat. If you meant it differently, my apologies for misinterpretation. Please take this post in the manner it's intended; objective, clear, constructive criticism. It's NOT meant as a personal attack

 

[Ronnie]

I just celebrated a birthday and decided that I don’t have time for circular/rehashed arguments which are not supported by any credible sources. This is how im handling this situation. (I edited this statement to conform to forum policy. I consider such policies the laws of this forum and I am not above the law. On the contrary, I realize and accept that if I want to remain a forum member I am subject to and must comply with it).

I’m happy to read and respond to any boating related posts from anyone but trying to convince someone the sky is blue or which direction is North when they are hell bent on defending their position just to keep up the argument/fight is lawyers job and this isn’t a paid engagement so it’s a waste of this lawyers time.

however it may be a good debate topic for law students so I will raise it with my law school friends who are also teaching law now. (This is also new and occurred to me as I was editing the first sentence of this post, maybe something good will come out of it).

 

[tabbibus]

I just celebrated a birthday and decided that I don’t have time for BS from BSers anymore. This is how im handling this situation. I’m happy to read and respond to any boating related posts from anyone but trying to convince someone the sky is blue or which direction is North when they are hell bent on defending their position just to keep up the argument/fight is lawyers job and this isn’t a paid engagement so it’s a waste of time.
View attachment 162758

Happy birthday brotherman!

 

[Lurch]

A. Political discussion is prohibited on this forum so we need to be careful to avoid it in this and all threads.

B. AMA is typically considered to form science based opinions while AAPS is less focused on science.

I believe you will find these interesting

AMA - American Medical Association ( AMA)

AAPS - Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS)

Bruce - using mediabiasfactcheck.com is hugely suspect.

Columbia Journalism Review:
The Columbia Journalism Review describes Media Bias/Fact Check as an amateur attempt at categorizing media bias and Van Zandt as an "armchair media analyst".[2] The Poynter Institute notes, "Media Bias/Fact Check is a widely cited source for news stories and even studies about misinformation, despite the fact that its method is in no way scientific.

 

[crazy4life]

Nope, no hostility, just commenting that your tone feels pretty clear from where I sit, and how I read it.

Communication in the written word is difficult, especially in a heated discussion such as this. Things like sarcasm, tone, inflection, and overall intention can easily get muddled without careful word selection, and appropriate punctuation. Precision of speech (and text in this case) is imperative. This also includes the need for more disclaimers to ensure your point it received in the manner it's intended. What we can't communicate through the audible word, we have to include in the text we use. We can't assume anyone can tell the difference between hostility, and genuine passionate curiosity; So you have to be clear and tell the audience.

I'm not mad, or even upset the slightest, but I wanted to offer a 3rd party view from someone outside the fiery edges of this particular debate. The tone read as hostile from my seat. If you meant it differently, my apologies for misinterpretation. Please take this post in the manner it's intended; objective, clear, constructive criticism. It's NOT meant as a personal attack

Pretty sure I told the good Doctor tthere was no hostility directed at him what so ever. Did you happen to read that post or just typing away on the keyboard.

 

[Julian]

so that was worth 1 strike. Could you please tell me how many strikes something like this is worth. Just want some clarity. Would this be considered a personal attack or a couple of legitimate questions just phrased improperly.

When we instituted the warning process we thought it was appropriate to not publish them. You chose to admit you got one-your choice entirely. Others in this thread have gotten warnings too. Its a royal pain in the ass.

"Attack" the message if you must, but not the person. If your post adds no info other than derogatory content about another member-its a personal attack. If it does that buried in other text....its a personal attack.

Perhaps public humiliations will be our next step....but for now we are keeping warnings private.

We very nearly closed this thread last night, actually had decided to do so, then it miraculously got back on track and collegial again. Lets keep it that way....please!

 

[Bizywk]

@Bizywk, please constrain yourself to reputable sources when posting on this forum.

Hey Bruce.

I am not trying to cause trouble, I was merely offering a civil counterpoint to an existing forum statement. I am not sure what the issue really is here with my post other than the information in my citations doesn't fit the thread's narrative or a selected political view.

The story is directly taken from documents that were compelled to be released by the courts from Dr. Fauci's office at the NIH through a long delayed FOIA request, and the video of Dr. Fauci's speach addressing a medical conference in 2018 was posted widely on the internet before being censored by left leaning social media for political reasons.

If Admins are going to begin censoring forums now, I need help in complying with a clearer definition of this arbitrary standard. Is there a list of what news sources Jetboater's.net considers reputable?

 

[swatski]

[USERGROUP=3]@Administrative[/USERGROUP]
Here is the dilemma, as I see it.

It's one thing to keep grasping on straws or engage in outright magical thinking: "The sky is full of rainbow colored flying unicorns - prove me wrong."

It's another to engage in peddling debunked foreign-sourced misinformation on this site; anyone who engages in that is either willingly ignorant or has anti-US agenda; I do not know if a third option exists but perhaps I'm oblivious to something else.

--

 

[Lurch]

[USERGROUP=3]@Administrative[/USERGROUP]
Here is the dilemma, as I see it.

It's one thing to keep grasping on straws or engage in outright magical thinking: "The sky is full of rainbow colored flying unicorns - prove me wrong."

It's another to engage in peddling debunked foreign-sourced misinformation on this site; anyone who engages in that is either willingly ignorant or has anti-US agenda; I do not know if a third option exists but perhaps I'm oblivious to something else.

--

@swatski - I'm genuinely interested in learning, despite your personal attacks. Can you provide your source that states the genetic engineering of COVID has been proven false? The most current information I have is from early this year.

SARS-COV-2 as an artificial creation: scientific arguments and counterarguments

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Based on the results available, it is most probably that this is a natural-born virus that emerged from an animal host, most likely a bat, without any direct pieces of evidence about its intermediate host. Nevertheless, researchers are yet to find a definitive answer to which animal serves as an intermediate host for this virus and disease.

 

[tabbibus]

When we instituted the warning process we thought it was appropriate to not publish them. You chose to admit you got one-your choice entirely. Others in this thread have gotten warnings too. Its a royal pain in the ass.

"Attack" the message if you must, but not the person. If your post adds no info other than derogatory content about another member-its a personal attack. If it does that buried in other text....its a personal attack.

Perhaps public humiliations will be our next step....but for now we are keeping warnings private.

We very nearly closed this thread last night, actually had decided to do so, then it miraculously got back on track and collegial again. Lets keep it that way....please!

Please don't close it. With the booster shots and more in the future, and ongoing variants there is still lots we can learn.

 

[swatski]

The story is directly taken from documents that were compelled to be released by the courts from Dr. Fauci's office at the NIH through a long delayed FOIA request, and the video of Dr. Fauci's speach addressing a medical conference in 2018 was posted widely on the internet before being censored by left leaning social media for political reasons.

You should know, and I suspect you do know this story is a deliberately fabricated twist on Fauci's speech that is meant to imply he engaged in a cover up of Chinese "gain-of-function" efforts on covid virus, abbreviated as "GoF" by some (because they are so proficient in the matter, lol).

There is zero supporting evidence Fauci engaged in a cover up, in fact anyone with direct knowledge of Fauci's work considers it complete bullshit.

There is very little doubt the Chinese were/are hiding information, and did (more likely than not) engage in what could be construed as "gain-of-function" research on sars-viruses (as does every lab in the world because the term "gain-of-function" is extremely broad and in reality can encompass almost any modification of viral genome; infact, you could call covid vaccine an example of a gain-of-function approach if you stretched the definition and still be semantically correct).

That said, implying without evidence that Fauci is somehow a de facto Chinese agent is fraudulent, and unethical to the extreme, and purview of conspiratorial, foreign-peddled, misinformation fringe.

--

 

[swatski]

Based on the results available, it is most probably that this is a natural-born virus that emerged from an animal host, most likely a bat, without any direct pieces of evidence about its intermediate host. Nevertheless, researchers are yet to find a definitive answer to which animal serves as an intermediate host for this virus and disease.

This is a partial answer, an emerging consensus view is that no parts of the viral genome (isolated from covid patients w/ strains from different parts around the world) show any evidence of "GoF" tampering, as some like to call it.

The covid virus, all its strains analysed so far, appear to be naturally evolved species. Similar to what's happening with other viruses, flu viruses, etc.

--

 

[scbruet]

Yeah.....China is only claiming 4600 deaths from covid. Sure, China.

 

[Lurch]

This is a partial answer, an emerging consensus view is that no parts of the viral genome (isolated from covid patients w/ strains from different parts around the world) show any evidence of "GoF" tampering, as some like to call it.

The covid virus, all its strains analysed so far, appear to be naturally evolved species. Similar to what's happening with other viruses, flu viruses, etc.

--

So man-made is not proven false (which would be a neat trick), and admittedly unlikely. Gotcha. No proof it originated in a lab, no proof that it is man-made, and no proof it originated elsewhere. I prefer not to speak in absolutes. Thanks for clarifying.

For the record, I am not proficient in gain-of-function, nor have I ever claimed to be, but I sometimes abbreviate to save time. Back to the vaccine...

 

[2kwik4u]

Pretty sure I told the good Doctor tthere was no hostility directed at him what so ever. Did you happen to read that post or just typing away on the keyboard.

I've read so many posts they all blend together at some level. I'll go reread.

 

[Lurch]

Right. No good evidence that it works. So ONLY use it if you are doing a trial to see if it actually works. So please don't use it in the community.

@tabbibus - I'd argue a no good evidence position on this one. From the NIH in April:

Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19 - PMC

After COVID-19 emerged on U.S shores, providers began reviewing the emerging basic science, translational, and clinical data to identify potentially effective treatment options. In addition, a multitude of both novel and repurposed therapeutic ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Therapeutic Advances:
A large majority of randomized and observational controlled trials of ivermectin are reporting repeated, large magnitude improvements in clinical outcomes. Numerous prophylaxis trials demonstrate that regular ivermectin use leads to large reductions in transmission. Multiple, large “natural experiments” occurred in regions that initiated “ivermectin distribution” campaigns followed by tight, reproducible, temporally associated decreases in case counts and case fatality rates compared with nearby regions without such campaigns.

 

[2kwik4u]

If Admins are going to begin censoring forums now, I need help in complying with a clearer definition of this arbitrary standard. Is there a list of what news sources Jetboater's.net considers reputable?

I think adding a list of "what's reputable" is a slippery slope to censorship, however I think we can all agree that when we read an article from a given source, the manner in which the information is presented is easily established. The presentation of facts, and lack of absolute conclusion are usually good indicators that it's reporting, while few sources and heavy handed "this is what that means" rhetoric is more analysis and opinion.

I'm not an admin, and don't intend to speak for them, however I use this site a lot when reading online. Breaks down the impact quite concisely and is searchable by source name. Interactive Media Bias Chart - Ad Fontes Media

In your defense, all but a couple of your sources have been near the center top (less bias, more facts, less political lean). Most have had a right lean to them, with only one having a left lean. Of those searchable, none have been absurdly low on the above scale. Essentially, I would take most of them with a grain of salt and dismiss their conclusions and draw my own.

 

[2kwik4u]

Therapeutic Advances:
A large majority of randomized and observational controlled trials of ivermectin are reporting repeated, large magnitude improvements in clinical outcomes. Numerous prophylaxis trials demonstrate that regular ivermectin use leads to large reductions in transmission. Multiple, large “natural experiments” occurred in regions that initiated “ivermectin distribution” campaigns followed by tight, reproducible, temporally associated decreases in case counts and case fatality rates compared with nearby regions without such campaigns.

Source?

Follow up to anyone reading.

How does Invermectin work? What's the chemistry/biology at play here? My understanding is that it's a "deworming" agent for livestock. Does it attack the worms, or does it shore up immune system? Anyone have any data on how the interplay between the medication and a virus would play out? Perhaps it's an easy "debunk" and perhaps it's a "We're onto something here and need to watch the trials"? I'm not promoting the use at this point, but I would like to learn more and need some help finding sources on the mechanics of operation to develop an understanding.

 

[Lurch]

Source?

Follow up to anyone reading.

How does Invermectin work? What's the chemistry/biology at play here? My understanding is that it's a "deworming" agent for livestock. Does it attack the worms, or does it shore up immune system? Anyone have any data on how the interplay between the medication and a virus would play out? Perhaps it's an easy "debunk" and perhaps it's a "We're onto something here and need to watch the trials"? I'm not promoting the use at this point, but I would like to learn more and need some help finding sources on the mechanics of operation to develop an understanding.

I linked the source right there in the post. I agree, I'd also like to learn more. Among many human treatments, it's also an anti-parasitic for livestock.

 

[2kwik4u]

I linked the source right there in the post. I agree, I'd also like to learn more. Among many human treatments, it's also an anti-parasitic for livestock.

Thought the link was tied to the comment/paragraph above.....oops. Sorry about that.