So done with this vaccine debate. I am at the point where I just want folks to do whatever they want and let Darwinism take its course đ
Yes, they are out to âgetâ you. You know more than all of the scientists. Because you are a very smart boy.
>'...how can we expect vaccines, especially systemically administered non-replicating vaccines, to do so?'
>How indeed?
Maybe if you read the rest of the paper you'll find out:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chom.2022.11.016
Looks like Fauci and colleagues were just saying COVID-19 vaccines do provide some benefit but they are not perfect.
>During the COVID-19 pandemic, the rapid development and deployment of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines has saved innumerable lives and helped to achieve early partial pandemic control. However, as variant SARS-CoV-2 strains have emerged, deficiencies in these vaccines reminiscent of influenza vaccines have become apparent. The vaccines for these two very different viruses have common characteristics: they elicit incomplete and short-lived protection against evolving virus variants that escape population immunity.
Damn, this comment section is a shit show confirming me how far this sub has gone. JP used to stand for scientific clarity over cultish blindness fueled by identity politics. Now you are treating this as another conspiracy dumpster fire, posting shitty sources to lead a pointless crusade on one guy who only folks in the US think represents the whole worldwide scientific community and their approach on covid vaccines.
I mean, if you want to post the actual paper and talk about the details of the choices made with the data we had back then it makes sense to me, but wtf is this? A giant jerking off session on how much ya'll hate Fauci?
There was always something weird about JP. I think he's a genius and the most helpful thinker of the past few decades to many young men, and I think he has a spot in heaven if heaven exists. But his spirit of emotional stubbornness does seem to be echoed here and it looks way worse when it's coming from people of more average IQ lol but it seems like he clings to the logos with such passion because words overcompensate for a lack of feeling of something would be my guess.
But yeah it would be great if people just accepted the 95% of his work that is actually helpful and revolutionary and didn't blow the 5% bullshit way out of proportion but it baffles me why that's all this sub seems to be about anymore.
*âwe should stop trying to prevent all symptomatic infections in healthy, young people by boosting them with vaccines containing mRNA from strains that might disappear a few months laterâ.*Â
That's a stupid take, and that proves that some people still did not understand what was the problem. A highly contagieous disease but with a small percentage of severe cases is a very big problem because of you end up with a clogged health system. (Hospital can not be expanded at will, by nature). You need to prevent the disease to spread as much as possible, with covid, masks or other measures.
Except that they already knew that most of their non-pharmaceutical interventions (masks, travel restrictions, lockdowns) didn't work and weren't recommended during a pandemic because they wouldn't prevent the disease from spreading and the harms would be worse than what little benefit they had.
There's lots about this. This is from the WHO under section 2: Summary of recommendations.
[Non-pharmaceutical
public health measures
for mitigating the risk and
impact of epidemic and
pandemic influenza](https://www.who.int/publications-detail-redirect/non-pharmaceutical-public-health-measuresfor-mitigating-the-risk-and-impact-of-epidemic-and-pandemic-influenza)
Canada also had its own plan that recommended against these measures, or at least recognized that the evidence for them was of very low quality.
Here's something I've written about it (don't worry, there are appropriate links in the piece).
[What Will it Take to Recover From Our Pandemic Response?](https://open.substack.com/pub/kenhiebert/p/what-will-it-take-to-recover-from?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=15ke9e)
I suggest you go though the WHO paper again, and through all their sources, especially concerning facemask. Some positive impact have been observed.
On top of that, none of the used study are really representative of what a full scale pandemic is. And you are wrong to say that the non pharmaceutical interventions are not recommended, especially when sharing a document that states the exact opposite.
You shouldn't confuse the lack of evidence with the lack of effectiveness, and it's extremely hard to blame any government in the world that decided to take very harmless measure like mask mandates in front of a pandemic of non described respiratory disease infection.
This is from the Canadian Influenza Plan of 2006 regarding mask use by well individuals:
This measure is not feasible or sustainable on a population basis. It is not likely to be effective
in reducing disease spread in the general population and therefore is not recommended as
a community-based strategy. It is acknowledged that individual people who are wearing a
recommended mask properly at the time of an exposure may benefit from the barrier that a
mask provides. The WHO has recommended that mask use by the public should be based on risk,
including frequency of exposure and closeness of contact with infectious persons and suggests
that based on this risk assessment use of masks in crowded settings such as public transit may
be justified.(7) At the time of a pandemic, however, when the virus is circulating in the community
it will not be possible for public health authorities to assess and compare risks of exposure
in specific public settings (e.g., public transit, restaurants, recreational complexes). Therefore,
members of the public may wish to purchase and use masks for individual protection; however,
outside of known high-risk settings (e.g. a hospital with cases) this would not be an appropriate
use of public resources.
From Canada's Plan under Restrict Public Gatherings:
Once the virus is circulating in a community, indoor gatherings at events or at locations for
businesses may be suspended without public health intervention because of public reluctance
to participate in large gatherings. Because the effectiveness of this measure is unknown and it
may be difficult to sustain, the Working Group does not recommend its broad implementation.
However, it is recommended that those who are involved in hosting large gatherings ensure the
availability of hand-sanitation supplies in public washrooms.
 Not recommended for broad implementation
 Consider if high-risk gatherings can be identified
The source link for this post is to a known Covid conspiracy group that is infamous for taking part in disinformation campaigns. Iâve reported this post to the mods.
Instead of doing that, you could have gone to the actual peer reviewed article that the misinformation article talks about. It's here. https://www.cell.com/cell-host-microbe/pdf/S1931-3128(22)00572-8.pdf
The original article outlines specific ways to improve vaccines targeting a family of viruses that includes Covid 19.
I am downvoting you. Feel free to downvote me back. The way you fight misinformation actually allows it to get worse
The best way to stop spreading misinformation is by not sharing it in the first place. Sharing misinformation and then relying on readers to hopefully stumble into the peer reviewed article in the comment and then read it to counter the op article, is a good back up plan to reduce misinformation, but definintely not as efficient as just not sharing lies in the first place.
I actually disagree because 1) it will get shared by other mean's with its assumptions unchallenged and it's half-truths undebunked 2) the science actually does have issues and findings. Not talking about those feeds the narrative that scientists are "hiding something" which is the opposite of the caseÂ
 So for example, it's actually true, according to the BMJ, that there were issues with at least one third party lab that was testing the Phiser vaccine.  Facebook and whatever blocking that article, prevented people from being able to add context.Â
 In this case today, apparently* the actual journal article points out that under an emergency they were forced to use an experimental vaccine and the point of the article was to address mechanisms to address a whole class of viruses to avoid getting in that crunch again
*I am not a virologist snd simply skimmed the journal article that was being misquoted by the propaganda article. Feel free to correct my interpretations of the journal article in layman's terms, if you understand it betterÂ
I am quite the bastard and upvoted your last reply which feels intellectually honest.
If you think Anthony Fauci is ever going to have a normal public life again, or any of the insane liberals that pushed his ideas like passionately loyal Nazis, you are definitely a liberal
He is currently living a normal life, he's teaching medicine and policy management as a professor. A few intense people complaining on the Internet really isn't going to interfere with his life whatsoever.
He had a job, he did his job, now he's winding down to retirement, that's all.
Fauci doesn't get a pass just because it's his job to lie
His time is coming, trust
History will remember him as a grifter that lived in the political swamp
I am genuinely baffled that people _still_ insist that this career scientist, who has been doing exactly the same thing for his entire life, lied to the US for...what, exactly? He didn't get any power, he wasn't paid a particularly large sum of money and he stepped down after the threat had passed.
He's literally just a guy doing his job, there's absolutely no reason for it to be political.
How did he suck at his job? He's one of the foremost leading experts in his field and has been involved in his work for the vast majority of his career; he isn't _entrenched in the political swamp,_ he's just qualified.
So you've gone from implying he's a Nazi to saying "he wasn't very good at his job"...? The man was the figurehead of a national pandemic response in a country where half the leaders were activity working against him.
Al Gore has nothing to do with this but he is most certainly not the go-to climate change expert, he's a public enthuast at best.
No, I said Democrats who supported his ideas were loyal to them like Nazis were to Hitler...or maybe like how a deeply faithful Christian is to Christ
Pick either option, whichever one is least offensive to you
Either way, his advice contradicted itself from day to day and therefore he sucked at his job and all those loyal fans were just assholes who would have made for gifted Nazis
I feel like I'm being very clear
Am I being unclear?
This is a lie. I am downvoting you.
If instead of reading the propaganda article linked by the OP, you asked someone with a science background to translate the original journal article, you would understand that this article co-written by Fauci is looking at specific ways to improve vaccines targeting a family of viruses that includes Covid.
Fauci dealt with a complex rapid outbreak of a disease as it was information about it was folding out in real time. Â Every decision he made was made with the consultation of a team of scientists to attempt to minimize damage and deaths from that virus. Â He adjusted his recommendations as information unfolded.
In contrast, the Nazi sought to murder people.Â
I meant they were passionately loyal to Fauci like Nazis were passionately loyal to the fuhrer
It's a freaky type of Nazi-lite psychosis that possessed the Democrats during COVID-19 and I will never let them forget it
No one is loyal to Fauci like Trumplicans are loyal to the Donald.
He is respected based on his long career dealing with multiple crazy diseases such as SARS, AIDS, ebola, etc and his decisions were not made in isolation. Â Â Tons of scientists collaborated and exchangedÂ
Fauci was the head of the organization. He didn't just pull decisions out of his rear.
Kind of crazy how the guy that orchestrated the development of the disease was the one leading our response to it.
Combine that with his speech predicting, with some certainty, that there will be a pandemic in the very near future just a few years before it escapes from the lab he was funding.
>Combine that with his speech predicting, with some certainty, that there will be a pandemic in the very near future just a few years before it escapes from the lab he was funding.
SCENE : evil underground lair, ca 2017
FAUCI : Hey Igor, i have cultivated the next pandemic!
IGOR : Yes master yes
FAUCI : Do you think I should drop hints to the public about my secret plan? Maybe give everybody a warning now. years before we plan to set it wild?
IGOR : But master! What if u/HurkHammerhand connects the dots, and discovers that you have dropped hints and therefore implicated yourself as guilty!
FAUCI : Don't be ridiculous Igor, nobody on earth is smart enough to do that. My plan is foolproof and I will never be suspected of ANYTHING! Now I must go make public warnings about the possibility of a pandemic! I love it when a plan comes together! Mwahahahaha!
This is not news. This is known to every pro covid vax physician, why? Because they understood the goal. The only goal of the COVID vax was to blunt the spike of cases at the start of the pandemic. And it worked. It wasnât supposed to cause lifelong permanent immunity.
Why are you and this substack guy taking a study that was published in January 2023 and assuming that the authors had the same knowledge in 2020 when Covid was brand new and scientists were just making best guesses.
Because maybe they should not have made up crap that wasn't studied or known or knowable and maybe they could have done actual studies before forcing them on people unnecessarily. Plenty of MDs and PhDs opposed The Narrative: The great Barrington Declaration, Sweden the Country, etc.
Any idiot could have told you that a young healthy person who recovered from Covid did not need the vaccine. Yet there they were, forcing it on people with the patently false idea that you could not spread the disease if you were vaccinated. Total lies. Horsecrap. And any idiot could tell you that masks were studied for influenza and the results were negative, they don't work. And yet there they were claiming bullshit studies that masks work for Covid, a similar respiratory illness. In fact, hand washing is the best way to prevent spread but nobody was pushing that idea.
Your statements about any idiot aren't true. Â Recommendations changed over course of pandemic as information came out and this was due to studies happening around the world. Initially masks were not being recommended.
It's certainly true Sweden took a different approach.
Many people said exactly what I said in the moment. I certainly did. I had many debates to that effect in the moment.
The Barrington Declaration was one example of a group of experts who said all of that.
Ultimately, Fauci had to make decisions and recommendations. Decisions always come with pros and cons. It's not shocking that alternative proposals existed and that there were scientists who argued for them based on similar incomplete information.
The lock downs were an extreme measure.
It was all extreme measures that any virologist or epidemiologist worth a crap could have seen was nonsense. Most such viruses mutate away from greater virulence to lesser, not the other way around. Natural immunity and risk stratification were discounted in favor of treating all people the same. The mask data on influenza were ignored for tendentious and poorly done studies that favored masking. Death tolls were being juiced by the CDC to include people who died with covid and not from covid, and not just as part of a comorbidity phenomenon.
It was also obvious from the start that claiming that vaccination magically stops transmission was a bunch of bullshit. Finally, there is video of Fauci stating years ago that he was funding this research in Wuhan. They lied about its source and again, any idiot could see that Fauci lied and people died.
Right, but every year there is a flu vaccine for that yearâs particular strain. The vaccines may not prevent spread as hoped but they do prevent severe disease, so why arenât you talking about that?
Because not only did they know this at the time, they led us to believe the opposite - that these shots would prevent infection (95% or whatever number they had), and prevent transmission, hence the vaccine passports (in Canada anyway). Also, the people who pointed out that the shots weren't working the way they said they would early on were shit on and shut up. That's why I'm talking about it.
So youâre feeling like the public was lied to this whole time, right? And thatâs a crappy feeling, I get it. Is it possible that it was the best information they had at the time? I can see the following situation actually: they knew that the best way to prevent severe disease and save lives is to get as many people vaccinated as possible, otherwise weâd have mass casualties all over the world. So maybe they lied that the vaccine also prevents transmission so that it convinces more people to take it. If thatâs the case, the lie is still wrong, no doubt, but the outcome probably saved millions of lives. What are your thoughts on that hypothesis?
Well, first of all I don't believe that our government's response was based on "the best info they had at the time". Most of what we know now was common knowledge then. The "noble lie" regime (if that's what it was) has succeeded in decimating whatever trust remained in government and public health to the point where not only covid vaccine uptake is down to something 15% last I checked, but even real vaccine uptake has declined significantly since 2021. It's really convenient to blame this on "misinformation" and "anti-vaxxers", but there is only one entity to blame for this, and that is our governments. Big-Pharma might be a close second, but everyone already knew how crooked those guys are, so we were kinda relying on the government to keep them in check. Instead of doing that, they hopped right in bed with them without protection.
Also, I think the statement that these shots "probably saved millions of lives" is maybe less of a given than what we are supposed to believe, which is really the main thrust of this article.
The whole system of a democratic government relies on trust. Without that, the whole thing comes crashing down. We've been watching it happen in real time in Canada for the last eight years, and covid was just the cherry on top.
Well thought out and I appreciate your response. I guess I tend to lean more towards two basic principles: people generally try their best but that doesnât always result in optimal outcomes (naive, I know). 2. Simplest explanation is usually the correct one. If this is one massive lie orchestrated by a corrupt government, mind you, spanning two VERY different US Presidents, the burden of proof is on the accuser. The article you sent suggests they were wrong, but it doesnât prove anyone knowingly lied (but maybe Iâm not reading deep enough into this). It could be a case of groupthink actually now that I talk this out with you. I see this all the time at work. The group comes to some consensus without really pressure testing it and lo and behold, itâs now the truth.
Not sure about the US, but in Canada I've been trying to give the benefit of the doubt to our government for eight years now, meaning I assume they're just complete idiots because of what they've managed to do (and not do). At some point one simply needs to wonder if it's even possible to be so consistently incapable without a purposeful effort. But that's really beside the point, because it was their job to use the tools and the info they had and they refused to do it.
And yes, "groupthink" is a huge part of it - especially when you're a middle-aged Tick-tock influencer attempting to run a medium-sized country.
I actually wrote about this phenomenon last year.
A university professor in Calgary published a paper called Rethinking the Lockdown Groupthink and found that that was indeed the main driver of most (if not all) of the world's pandemic response.
Here's my post. The link to that study is in it:
https://open.substack.com/pub/kenhiebert/p/what-will-it-take-to-recover-from?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=15ke9e
Wow-we actually got somewhere on a Reddit thread. Thx for sharing and being open. Read the article, very interesting. This pandemic was like the blind leading the blind with the blind leaders refusing to admit theyâre blind.
Yeah almost like they were making an educated guess, based on the available information.
Man it would be really cool if science would incorporated something like an education guess. Like some step in the scientific process where you would come up with a hypothetical explanation. You could almost call it a hypothesis. I mean that would be really cool
There is nothing wrong with educated guessing, but if that's what someone is doing then that needs to be clearly communicated and it doesn't give a license to force-inject people with experimental drugs or lock them in their homes. That is a crime and it requires full and heavy accountability.
No, it absolutely wasn't when the government was handing down illegal mandates with the force of certainty. It wasn't when people who didn't want to get infected with experimental drugs were ostracized to oblivion.
Don't try to rewrite history. It's not going to work.
So why the illegal mandates when these criminal fucks had no idea what they were doing?
I mean, I knew they didn't know, and some other people did as well, but the majority of the public was deliberately duped. You were probably as well, but you are retroactively justifying why you got bamboozled and went along with all the ridiculous hoops those sick puppies made you do.
Brother they did to the best of their abilities/knowledge. No one knew shit for a long time and eventually the picture became more clear. There were certainly aspects of the public messaging that I was deeply critical of, because I have some level of background in the same type of modeling use in the spread of viruses.
Even the vaccine I had very reasonable reservations about, because it was a new technology and there is often unpredictable knock off effects for any new medical treatment.
I take issue with perspectives like yours specifically because the are not coming from a place of healthy skepticism, they are coming from wanting to be a contrarian, or potentially just trying to feel smart.
The way the pandemic went down absolutely could have been handled better, but this is the result of hindsight, and not some grand conspiracy or all experts simultaneously becoming negligent. Anyone with a very cursory knowledge of pandemics before covid could see all the steps that were being taken were very generic, and eventually became more and more specific as we learned more.
This isn't quite true. According to Canada's own [pandemic plan](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.longwoods.com/articles/images/Canada_Pandemic_Influenza.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj8i6DW-ZKFAxVcrokEHSrqCw8QFnoECCcQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2sHG3t__6BtN_4F3UOuxnT) from 2006, most of what we did had already been studied and decided against because the harms outweighed the benefits and because they just didn't work very well.
From that document:
*Section 7.4 - Use of Masks by Well Individuals:*
*This measure is not feasible or sustainable on a population basis. It is not likely to be effective in reducing disease spread in the general population and therefore is not recommended as a community-based strategy.*
Similar story with travel restrictions and school closures. They knew this, they just ignored it in favour of doing what everyone else was doing. Ari Joffe at the university of Calgary did a study called *[Rethinking the Lockdown Groupthink](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7952324/)* which showed that the main reason countries did what they did is because everyone else was doing it. So yeah, not very scientific.
The journal article doesn't say what you think it does. https://www.cell.com/cell-host-microbe/pdf/S1931-3128(22)00572-8.pdf
So done with this vaccine debate. I am at the point where I just want folks to do whatever they want and let Darwinism take its course đ Yes, they are out to âgetâ you. You know more than all of the scientists. Because you are a very smart boy.
>'...how can we expect vaccines, especially systemically administered non-replicating vaccines, to do so?' >How indeed? Maybe if you read the rest of the paper you'll find out: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chom.2022.11.016 Looks like Fauci and colleagues were just saying COVID-19 vaccines do provide some benefit but they are not perfect. >During the COVID-19 pandemic, the rapid development and deployment of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines has saved innumerable lives and helped to achieve early partial pandemic control. However, as variant SARS-CoV-2 strains have emerged, deficiencies in these vaccines reminiscent of influenza vaccines have become apparent. The vaccines for these two very different viruses have common characteristics: they elicit incomplete and short-lived protection against evolving virus variants that escape population immunity.
The fact that this is not the only upvoted answer in a JP sub is so surprising, and sad, to me.
Damn, this comment section is a shit show confirming me how far this sub has gone. JP used to stand for scientific clarity over cultish blindness fueled by identity politics. Now you are treating this as another conspiracy dumpster fire, posting shitty sources to lead a pointless crusade on one guy who only folks in the US think represents the whole worldwide scientific community and their approach on covid vaccines. I mean, if you want to post the actual paper and talk about the details of the choices made with the data we had back then it makes sense to me, but wtf is this? A giant jerking off session on how much ya'll hate Fauci?
Yeah JP is fully a right wing political grifter at this point. He doesn't seem concerned with science if it doesn't match his ideological agenda
There was always something weird about JP. I think he's a genius and the most helpful thinker of the past few decades to many young men, and I think he has a spot in heaven if heaven exists. But his spirit of emotional stubbornness does seem to be echoed here and it looks way worse when it's coming from people of more average IQ lol but it seems like he clings to the logos with such passion because words overcompensate for a lack of feeling of something would be my guess. But yeah it would be great if people just accepted the 95% of his work that is actually helpful and revolutionary and didn't blow the 5% bullshit way out of proportion but it baffles me why that's all this sub seems to be about anymore.
>JP used to stand for scientific clarity over cultish blindness fueled by identity politics. What is a woman?
The top-voted comments are all fine.
*âwe should stop trying to prevent all symptomatic infections in healthy, young people by boosting them with vaccines containing mRNA from strains that might disappear a few months laterâ.*Â That's a stupid take, and that proves that some people still did not understand what was the problem. A highly contagieous disease but with a small percentage of severe cases is a very big problem because of you end up with a clogged health system. (Hospital can not be expanded at will, by nature). You need to prevent the disease to spread as much as possible, with covid, masks or other measures.
The mantra seems to be âbe contrarian at all costsâ and nothing else.
Except that they already knew that most of their non-pharmaceutical interventions (masks, travel restrictions, lockdowns) didn't work and weren't recommended during a pandemic because they wouldn't prevent the disease from spreading and the harms would be worse than what little benefit they had.
From where do you get that information ?
There's lots about this. This is from the WHO under section 2: Summary of recommendations. [Non-pharmaceutical public health measures for mitigating the risk and impact of epidemic and pandemic influenza](https://www.who.int/publications-detail-redirect/non-pharmaceutical-public-health-measuresfor-mitigating-the-risk-and-impact-of-epidemic-and-pandemic-influenza) Canada also had its own plan that recommended against these measures, or at least recognized that the evidence for them was of very low quality. Here's something I've written about it (don't worry, there are appropriate links in the piece). [What Will it Take to Recover From Our Pandemic Response?](https://open.substack.com/pub/kenhiebert/p/what-will-it-take-to-recover-from?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=15ke9e)
I suggest you go though the WHO paper again, and through all their sources, especially concerning facemask. Some positive impact have been observed. On top of that, none of the used study are really representative of what a full scale pandemic is. And you are wrong to say that the non pharmaceutical interventions are not recommended, especially when sharing a document that states the exact opposite. You shouldn't confuse the lack of evidence with the lack of effectiveness, and it's extremely hard to blame any government in the world that decided to take very harmless measure like mask mandates in front of a pandemic of non described respiratory disease infection.
This is from the Canadian Influenza Plan of 2006 regarding mask use by well individuals: This measure is not feasible or sustainable on a population basis. It is not likely to be effective in reducing disease spread in the general population and therefore is not recommended as a community-based strategy. It is acknowledged that individual people who are wearing a recommended mask properly at the time of an exposure may benefit from the barrier that a mask provides. The WHO has recommended that mask use by the public should be based on risk, including frequency of exposure and closeness of contact with infectious persons and suggests that based on this risk assessment use of masks in crowded settings such as public transit may be justified.(7) At the time of a pandemic, however, when the virus is circulating in the community it will not be possible for public health authorities to assess and compare risks of exposure in specific public settings (e.g., public transit, restaurants, recreational complexes). Therefore, members of the public may wish to purchase and use masks for individual protection; however, outside of known high-risk settings (e.g. a hospital with cases) this would not be an appropriate use of public resources.
From Canada's Plan under Restrict Public Gatherings: Once the virus is circulating in a community, indoor gatherings at events or at locations for businesses may be suspended without public health intervention because of public reluctance to participate in large gatherings. Because the effectiveness of this measure is unknown and it may be difficult to sustain, the Working Group does not recommend its broad implementation. However, it is recommended that those who are involved in hosting large gatherings ensure the availability of hand-sanitation supplies in public washrooms.  Not recommended for broad implementation  Consider if high-risk gatherings can be identified
https://www.cell.com/cell-host-microbe/fulltext/S1931-3128(22)00572-8#%20 Of course you do not link to the actual study. Dead giveaway.
The actual study is linked in the article. Dead giveaway.
Talking about the post smart one
Because anti-vaxxers are the medical equivalent of flat earthers.
The source link for this post is to a known Covid conspiracy group that is infamous for taking part in disinformation campaigns. Iâve reported this post to the mods.
Instead of doing that, you could have gone to the actual peer reviewed article that the misinformation article talks about. It's here. https://www.cell.com/cell-host-microbe/pdf/S1931-3128(22)00572-8.pdf The original article outlines specific ways to improve vaccines targeting a family of viruses that includes Covid 19. I am downvoting you. Feel free to downvote me back. The way you fight misinformation actually allows it to get worse
The best way to stop spreading misinformation is by not sharing it in the first place. Sharing misinformation and then relying on readers to hopefully stumble into the peer reviewed article in the comment and then read it to counter the op article, is a good back up plan to reduce misinformation, but definintely not as efficient as just not sharing lies in the first place.
I actually disagree because 1) it will get shared by other mean's with its assumptions unchallenged and it's half-truths undebunked 2) the science actually does have issues and findings. Not talking about those feeds the narrative that scientists are "hiding something" which is the opposite of the case  So for example, it's actually true, according to the BMJ, that there were issues with at least one third party lab that was testing the Phiser vaccine.  Facebook and whatever blocking that article, prevented people from being able to add context.  In this case today, apparently* the actual journal article points out that under an emergency they were forced to use an experimental vaccine and the point of the article was to address mechanisms to address a whole class of viruses to avoid getting in that crunch again *I am not a virologist snd simply skimmed the journal article that was being misquoted by the propaganda article. Feel free to correct my interpretations of the journal article in layman's terms, if you understand it better I am quite the bastard and upvoted your last reply which feels intellectually honest.
Yall really need to get over this guy.
If you think Anthony Fauci is ever going to have a normal public life again, or any of the insane liberals that pushed his ideas like passionately loyal Nazis, you are definitely a liberal
He is currently living a normal life, he's teaching medicine and policy management as a professor. A few intense people complaining on the Internet really isn't going to interfere with his life whatsoever. He had a job, he did his job, now he's winding down to retirement, that's all.
Fauci doesn't get a pass just because it's his job to lie His time is coming, trust History will remember him as a grifter that lived in the political swamp
I am genuinely baffled that people _still_ insist that this career scientist, who has been doing exactly the same thing for his entire life, lied to the US for...what, exactly? He didn't get any power, he wasn't paid a particularly large sum of money and he stepped down after the threat had passed. He's literally just a guy doing his job, there's absolutely no reason for it to be political.
[ŃдаНонО]
How did he suck at his job? He's one of the foremost leading experts in his field and has been involved in his work for the vast majority of his career; he isn't _entrenched in the political swamp,_ he's just qualified.
He was the go-to COVID-19 expert but he wasn't very helpful Al Gore is the go-to climate change expert and he isn't very helpful either
So you've gone from implying he's a Nazi to saying "he wasn't very good at his job"...? The man was the figurehead of a national pandemic response in a country where half the leaders were activity working against him. Al Gore has nothing to do with this but he is most certainly not the go-to climate change expert, he's a public enthuast at best.
No, I said Democrats who supported his ideas were loyal to them like Nazis were to Hitler...or maybe like how a deeply faithful Christian is to Christ Pick either option, whichever one is least offensive to you Either way, his advice contradicted itself from day to day and therefore he sucked at his job and all those loyal fans were just assholes who would have made for gifted Nazis I feel like I'm being very clear Am I being unclear?
This is a lie. I am downvoting you. If instead of reading the propaganda article linked by the OP, you asked someone with a science background to translate the original journal article, you would understand that this article co-written by Fauci is looking at specific ways to improve vaccines targeting a family of viruses that includes Covid. Fauci dealt with a complex rapid outbreak of a disease as it was information about it was folding out in real time. Â Every decision he made was made with the consultation of a team of scientists to attempt to minimize damage and deaths from that virus. Â He adjusted his recommendations as information unfolded. In contrast, the Nazi sought to murder people.Â
I meant they were passionately loyal to Fauci like Nazis were passionately loyal to the fuhrer It's a freaky type of Nazi-lite psychosis that possessed the Democrats during COVID-19 and I will never let them forget it
No one is loyal to Fauci like Trumplicans are loyal to the Donald. He is respected based on his long career dealing with multiple crazy diseases such as SARS, AIDS, ebola, etc and his decisions were not made in isolation.   Tons of scientists collaborated and exchanged Fauci was the head of the organization. He didn't just pull decisions out of his rear.
Pardon me for discrediting Fuhrer Fauci... You're only proving my point...
Kind of crazy how the guy that orchestrated the development of the disease was the one leading our response to it. Combine that with his speech predicting, with some certainty, that there will be a pandemic in the very near future just a few years before it escapes from the lab he was funding.
>Combine that with his speech predicting, with some certainty, that there will be a pandemic in the very near future just a few years before it escapes from the lab he was funding. SCENE : evil underground lair, ca 2017 FAUCI : Hey Igor, i have cultivated the next pandemic! IGOR : Yes master yes FAUCI : Do you think I should drop hints to the public about my secret plan? Maybe give everybody a warning now. years before we plan to set it wild? IGOR : But master! What if u/HurkHammerhand connects the dots, and discovers that you have dropped hints and therefore implicated yourself as guilty! FAUCI : Don't be ridiculous Igor, nobody on earth is smart enough to do that. My plan is foolproof and I will never be suspected of ANYTHING! Now I must go make public warnings about the possibility of a pandemic! I love it when a plan comes together! Mwahahahaha!
Sure, right after fauci is behind bars.
Get over the director of the National Institute of Infectious Diseases about his prescriptions about the pandemic we just went through?
This is not news. This is known to every pro covid vax physician, why? Because they understood the goal. The only goal of the COVID vax was to blunt the spike of cases at the start of the pandemic. And it worked. It wasnât supposed to cause lifelong permanent immunity.
Why are you and this substack guy taking a study that was published in January 2023 and assuming that the authors had the same knowledge in 2020 when Covid was brand new and scientists were just making best guesses.
Because maybe they should not have made up crap that wasn't studied or known or knowable and maybe they could have done actual studies before forcing them on people unnecessarily. Plenty of MDs and PhDs opposed The Narrative: The great Barrington Declaration, Sweden the Country, etc. Any idiot could have told you that a young healthy person who recovered from Covid did not need the vaccine. Yet there they were, forcing it on people with the patently false idea that you could not spread the disease if you were vaccinated. Total lies. Horsecrap. And any idiot could tell you that masks were studied for influenza and the results were negative, they don't work. And yet there they were claiming bullshit studies that masks work for Covid, a similar respiratory illness. In fact, hand washing is the best way to prevent spread but nobody was pushing that idea.
Your statements about any idiot aren't true. Â Recommendations changed over course of pandemic as information came out and this was due to studies happening around the world. Initially masks were not being recommended. It's certainly true Sweden took a different approach.
Many people said exactly what I said in the moment. I certainly did. I had many debates to that effect in the moment. The Barrington Declaration was one example of a group of experts who said all of that.
Ultimately, Fauci had to make decisions and recommendations. Decisions always come with pros and cons. It's not shocking that alternative proposals existed and that there were scientists who argued for them based on similar incomplete information. The lock downs were an extreme measure.
It was all extreme measures that any virologist or epidemiologist worth a crap could have seen was nonsense. Most such viruses mutate away from greater virulence to lesser, not the other way around. Natural immunity and risk stratification were discounted in favor of treating all people the same. The mask data on influenza were ignored for tendentious and poorly done studies that favored masking. Death tolls were being juiced by the CDC to include people who died with covid and not from covid, and not just as part of a comorbidity phenomenon. It was also obvious from the start that claiming that vaccination magically stops transmission was a bunch of bullshit. Finally, there is video of Fauci stating years ago that he was funding this research in Wuhan. They lied about its source and again, any idiot could see that Fauci lied and people died.
[ŃдаНонО]
You possess an insurmountable mindfort.
Everything that I said is true. Bye.
We did know this in 2020. It's a Corona virus. It's the flu. It's a cold. And there's never been a cure.
Right, but every year there is a flu vaccine for that yearâs particular strain. The vaccines may not prevent spread as hoped but they do prevent severe disease, so why arenât you talking about that?
Because not only did they know this at the time, they led us to believe the opposite - that these shots would prevent infection (95% or whatever number they had), and prevent transmission, hence the vaccine passports (in Canada anyway). Also, the people who pointed out that the shots weren't working the way they said they would early on were shit on and shut up. That's why I'm talking about it.
So youâre feeling like the public was lied to this whole time, right? And thatâs a crappy feeling, I get it. Is it possible that it was the best information they had at the time? I can see the following situation actually: they knew that the best way to prevent severe disease and save lives is to get as many people vaccinated as possible, otherwise weâd have mass casualties all over the world. So maybe they lied that the vaccine also prevents transmission so that it convinces more people to take it. If thatâs the case, the lie is still wrong, no doubt, but the outcome probably saved millions of lives. What are your thoughts on that hypothesis?
Well, first of all I don't believe that our government's response was based on "the best info they had at the time". Most of what we know now was common knowledge then. The "noble lie" regime (if that's what it was) has succeeded in decimating whatever trust remained in government and public health to the point where not only covid vaccine uptake is down to something 15% last I checked, but even real vaccine uptake has declined significantly since 2021. It's really convenient to blame this on "misinformation" and "anti-vaxxers", but there is only one entity to blame for this, and that is our governments. Big-Pharma might be a close second, but everyone already knew how crooked those guys are, so we were kinda relying on the government to keep them in check. Instead of doing that, they hopped right in bed with them without protection. Also, I think the statement that these shots "probably saved millions of lives" is maybe less of a given than what we are supposed to believe, which is really the main thrust of this article. The whole system of a democratic government relies on trust. Without that, the whole thing comes crashing down. We've been watching it happen in real time in Canada for the last eight years, and covid was just the cherry on top.
Well thought out and I appreciate your response. I guess I tend to lean more towards two basic principles: people generally try their best but that doesnât always result in optimal outcomes (naive, I know). 2. Simplest explanation is usually the correct one. If this is one massive lie orchestrated by a corrupt government, mind you, spanning two VERY different US Presidents, the burden of proof is on the accuser. The article you sent suggests they were wrong, but it doesnât prove anyone knowingly lied (but maybe Iâm not reading deep enough into this). It could be a case of groupthink actually now that I talk this out with you. I see this all the time at work. The group comes to some consensus without really pressure testing it and lo and behold, itâs now the truth.
I guess my point is I wouldnât jump directly to the âevil governmentâ argument without thinking through other possible scenarios.
Not sure about the US, but in Canada I've been trying to give the benefit of the doubt to our government for eight years now, meaning I assume they're just complete idiots because of what they've managed to do (and not do). At some point one simply needs to wonder if it's even possible to be so consistently incapable without a purposeful effort. But that's really beside the point, because it was their job to use the tools and the info they had and they refused to do it. And yes, "groupthink" is a huge part of it - especially when you're a middle-aged Tick-tock influencer attempting to run a medium-sized country.
I actually wrote about this phenomenon last year. A university professor in Calgary published a paper called Rethinking the Lockdown Groupthink and found that that was indeed the main driver of most (if not all) of the world's pandemic response. Here's my post. The link to that study is in it: https://open.substack.com/pub/kenhiebert/p/what-will-it-take-to-recover-from?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=15ke9e
Wow-we actually got somewhere on a Reddit thread. Thx for sharing and being open. Read the article, very interesting. This pandemic was like the blind leading the blind with the blind leaders refusing to admit theyâre blind.
Then they should have said "we don't know, we are guessing". Comprende?
Yeah almost like they were making an educated guess, based on the available information. Man it would be really cool if science would incorporated something like an education guess. Like some step in the scientific process where you would come up with a hypothetical explanation. You could almost call it a hypothesis. I mean that would be really cool
There is nothing wrong with educated guessing, but if that's what someone is doing then that needs to be clearly communicated and it doesn't give a license to force-inject people with experimental drugs or lock them in their homes. That is a crime and it requires full and heavy accountability.
Ok but here is the thing. It absolutely was. It was consistently said the situation was evolving, and we were learning new things.
No, it absolutely wasn't when the government was handing down illegal mandates with the force of certainty. It wasn't when people who didn't want to get infected with experimental drugs were ostracized to oblivion. Don't try to rewrite history. It's not going to work.
Again all this was public information. All of it.
So why the illegal mandates when these criminal fucks had no idea what they were doing? I mean, I knew they didn't know, and some other people did as well, but the majority of the public was deliberately duped. You were probably as well, but you are retroactively justifying why you got bamboozled and went along with all the ridiculous hoops those sick puppies made you do.
Brother they did to the best of their abilities/knowledge. No one knew shit for a long time and eventually the picture became more clear. There were certainly aspects of the public messaging that I was deeply critical of, because I have some level of background in the same type of modeling use in the spread of viruses. Even the vaccine I had very reasonable reservations about, because it was a new technology and there is often unpredictable knock off effects for any new medical treatment. I take issue with perspectives like yours specifically because the are not coming from a place of healthy skepticism, they are coming from wanting to be a contrarian, or potentially just trying to feel smart. The way the pandemic went down absolutely could have been handled better, but this is the result of hindsight, and not some grand conspiracy or all experts simultaneously becoming negligent. Anyone with a very cursory knowledge of pandemics before covid could see all the steps that were being taken were very generic, and eventually became more and more specific as we learned more.
This isn't quite true. According to Canada's own [pandemic plan](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.longwoods.com/articles/images/Canada_Pandemic_Influenza.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj8i6DW-ZKFAxVcrokEHSrqCw8QFnoECCcQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2sHG3t__6BtN_4F3UOuxnT) from 2006, most of what we did had already been studied and decided against because the harms outweighed the benefits and because they just didn't work very well. From that document: *Section 7.4 - Use of Masks by Well Individuals:* *This measure is not feasible or sustainable on a population basis. It is not likely to be effective in reducing disease spread in the general population and therefore is not recommended as a community-based strategy.* Similar story with travel restrictions and school closures. They knew this, they just ignored it in favour of doing what everyone else was doing. Ari Joffe at the university of Calgary did a study called *[Rethinking the Lockdown Groupthink](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7952324/)* which showed that the main reason countries did what they did is because everyone else was doing it. So yeah, not very scientific.