No. Questioning is fine (matter of fact, required). But intentionally avoiding facts and obfuscating / conflating issues and utilizing "science words" (that are irrelevant) to steer people away from what needs to be done to deal with a public health emergency -- now that is just wrong.
Yes, they are, when engaged in discourse where you are using them as a shield. I note that you have not responded to the key questions asked: (a) what qualifies you to spout scientific terms? (b) what data from what sources support your assertions about Zika viruses (an area where I happen to know someone with a lot of experience) and other assertions? (c) do you understand that your style of тАЬquestioningтАЭ is the style of the anti-vaxx conspiracists (the trifectaтАж.)?
This epidemiologist's substack is not the appropriate place for further communication. If you would like to engage in further discourse I am @RStievenart on twitter where I will happily question your qualifications and provide data and references to your questions, and you can likewise answer the three I directed to you.
1) nice deflection 2) what "three questions" are you referencing? I don't duck questions 3) am confused about why you would deflect to your twitter account instead of just answering the question with a simple declarative sentence. Here, I'll start it for you: "I am qualified to opine on epidemiology or virology because ....". Really not that difficult.
1. I am a donor 2. You are spending more time avoiding answering the question (on "her dime") than it would take to issue that simple declarative sentence... that you keep avoiding (while attacking me for being "completely wrong" etc). Why do you want to play "20 Questions" ?? This kind of evasiveness lends further credence to the "skepticism of the skeptics"...
The only way to convince you that I am qualified to address the topic is to demonstrate my knowledge as you would denounce any "simple statement". So, ask some questions that you feel someone qualified and knowledgeable should know the answers to, make them hard, something a quick google search won't find.
Tells us all what we need to know about you. Appeal to authority dogma. After much consideration I have concluded that you are a pysop agent. Good day.
Do you mean these three questions? "Do you know the biodistribution of the mRNA vaccines? Do you know where the generated (possibly malformed ) spike proteins go? Do you know the long term effects of IM PEG? Do you have any information regarding the vaccines effect on prepubescent children?". I have directly answered these questions by pointing out that using pseudo-scientific jargon (IM PEG?) as a shield for a conversation among lay people is typical of vaxx skeptics. Ane that experts I trust dismiss much, if not all, of the vaxx-skeptic scientific "theses" as incomprehensible noise used to confuse the matter and "sound scientific" to the uninitiated.
am guessing related to: If You Are Allergic to Polyethylene Glycol (PEG) or Polysorbate
PEG and polysorbate are closely related to each other. PEG is an ingredient in the mRNA vaccines, and polysorbate is an ingredient in the J&J/Janssen vaccine.
If you are allergic to PEG, you should not get an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. Ask your doctor if you can get the J&J/Janssen vaccine.
If you are allergic to polysorbate, you should not get the J&J/Janssen COVID-19 vaccine. Ask your doctor if you can get an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.
and regarding "pre-pubescent children", the are apparently sufficient data (even more now post the 5-11 approval) regarding both the efficacy and the lack of meaningful adverse reactions associated with this class.
you will note that you have wandered yet again into the "long term effects" chimera again... Your questions are all based on that "last refuge of the anti vaxx skeptic"...
"those who are susceptible"? You mean people who question?
No. Questioning is fine (matter of fact, required). But intentionally avoiding facts and obfuscating / conflating issues and utilizing "science words" (that are irrelevant) to steer people away from what needs to be done to deal with a public health emergency -- now that is just wrong.
"science words" are irrelevant? We are done here.
Yes, they are, when engaged in discourse where you are using them as a shield. I note that you have not responded to the key questions asked: (a) what qualifies you to spout scientific terms? (b) what data from what sources support your assertions about Zika viruses (an area where I happen to know someone with a lot of experience) and other assertions? (c) do you understand that your style of тАЬquestioningтАЭ is the style of the anti-vaxx conspiracists (the trifectaтАж.)?
This epidemiologist's substack is not the appropriate place for further communication. If you would like to engage in further discourse I am @RStievenart on twitter where I will happily question your qualifications and provide data and references to your questions, and you can likewise answer the three I directed to you.
1) nice deflection 2) what "three questions" are you referencing? I don't duck questions 3) am confused about why you would deflect to your twitter account instead of just answering the question with a simple declarative sentence. Here, I'll start it for you: "I am qualified to opine on epidemiology or virology because ....". Really not that difficult.
You don't understand that we are on this nice womans dime? How about you ask me questions to determine if I am qualified.
1. I am a donor 2. You are spending more time avoiding answering the question (on "her dime") than it would take to issue that simple declarative sentence... that you keep avoiding (while attacking me for being "completely wrong" etc). Why do you want to play "20 Questions" ?? This kind of evasiveness lends further credence to the "skepticism of the skeptics"...
The only way to convince you that I am qualified to address the topic is to demonstrate my knowledge as you would denounce any "simple statement". So, ask some questions that you feel someone qualified and knowledgeable should know the answers to, make them hard, something a quick google search won't find.
No. A statement of your qualifications as an expert in the field is all that is required. Your inability to do so tells us all we need to know.
Tells us all what we need to know about you. Appeal to authority dogma. After much consideration I have concluded that you are a pysop agent. Good day.
Do you mean these three questions? "Do you know the biodistribution of the mRNA vaccines? Do you know where the generated (possibly malformed ) spike proteins go? Do you know the long term effects of IM PEG? Do you have any information regarding the vaccines effect on prepubescent children?". I have directly answered these questions by pointing out that using pseudo-scientific jargon (IM PEG?) as a shield for a conversation among lay people is typical of vaxx skeptics. Ane that experts I trust dismiss much, if not all, of the vaxx-skeptic scientific "theses" as incomprehensible noise used to confuse the matter and "sound scientific" to the uninitiated.
You still did not answer the questions. Do you know what "IM PEG" means?
am guessing related to: If You Are Allergic to Polyethylene Glycol (PEG) or Polysorbate
PEG and polysorbate are closely related to each other. PEG is an ingredient in the mRNA vaccines, and polysorbate is an ingredient in the J&J/Janssen vaccine.
If you are allergic to PEG, you should not get an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. Ask your doctor if you can get the J&J/Janssen vaccine.
If you are allergic to polysorbate, you should not get the J&J/Janssen COVID-19 vaccine. Ask your doctor if you can get an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.
and -- so -- ??
The vaccine providers at CVS and Walgreens do not ask this question.
and regarding "pre-pubescent children", the are apparently sufficient data (even more now post the 5-11 approval) regarding both the efficacy and the lack of meaningful adverse reactions associated with this class.
Sorry, you are completely wrong. Can they procreate? Can they give birth to defect free children? You cannot answer because there is no data.
of course there is no data... because we are back in the "impossible to prove" long term effects gambit
PS -- not just wrong, but "completely"
so?? feeling self-confident aren't we...
you will note that you have wandered yet again into the "long term effects" chimera again... Your questions are all based on that "last refuge of the anti vaxx skeptic"...
and I ask again -- why do you feel qualified to opine on the science?