If you willingly typed in the web address to this server, you are part of the “You people”.
Lmao how is it misinformation?
It draws a conclusion that is false. The most notable logical fallacy of this is the old campaign during WWII where propaganda posters were put up that said “If you ride alone, you ride with Hitler.”
Obviously, no one in WWII was doing that, but America needed gas and oil during war time, it worked to guilt people in drawing a conclusion when the premise was false to begin with.
He didn’t make any claims about risk compared to getting covid.
Then why remove the information? If I was making an argument that was based on a scientific method, I would want more information that disproved my claim, not removing them.
My question is why do you assume that the default conclusion to be “and therefore the vaccine is worse than the disease” instead of “and therefore we should focus on the safety of vaccines recommended for literally billions of people worldwide”.
I will give you that, I don’t think it is wrong to ask questions about health safety, that being said, I don’t think people understand what things like MRNa have done to speed up the medicine industry. Or what it will do going forward.
We are going to see cures for cancers using this method.
So do the populace have a point? Of course. Safety should be the backbone of science.
Does that mean the vaccine is unsafe because we can produce it faster? Not at all. That is progress. it means humans are getting better at fighting these kind of diseases.
Because it isn’t relevant to the claim. Would you consider it reasonable to (mind the dated reference, it’s an easy example) go under a tweet about the 737 max being grounded to tell everyone that car accidents are more prevalent?
It might be a footnote, but it is relevant to the science observer who is trying to take your safety question seriously. That means looking at all facts, even the ones that are deemed “pointless” or “Inappropriate” by most people.
Information is how we understand conclusions. And when information is hidden the conclusion has a chance of being wrong.
Which is not fair to you or me who just want to know the truth. Even if it is an ugly truth.
If you willingly typed in the web address to this server, you are part of the “You people”.
It draws a conclusion that is false. The most notable logical fallacy of this is the old campaign during WWII where propaganda posters were put up that said “If you ride alone, you ride with Hitler.”
Obviously, no one in WWII was doing that, but America needed gas and oil during war time, it worked to guilt people in drawing a conclusion when the premise was false to begin with.
Then why remove the information? If I was making an argument that was based on a scientific method, I would want more information that disproved my claim, not removing them.
deleted by creator
I will give you that, I don’t think it is wrong to ask questions about health safety, that being said, I don’t think people understand what things like MRNa have done to speed up the medicine industry. Or what it will do going forward.
We are going to see cures for cancers using this method.
So do the populace have a point? Of course. Safety should be the backbone of science.
Does that mean the vaccine is unsafe because we can produce it faster? Not at all. That is progress. it means humans are getting better at fighting these kind of diseases.
It might be a footnote, but it is relevant to the science observer who is trying to take your safety question seriously. That means looking at all facts, even the ones that are deemed “pointless” or “Inappropriate” by most people.
Information is how we understand conclusions. And when information is hidden the conclusion has a chance of being wrong.
Which is not fair to you or me who just want to know the truth. Even if it is an ugly truth.
deleted by creator