Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe

Discussion on the "Vaccine"


oldiesman
 Share

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, Allan said:

Yes my dear kiddies and grandkiddies...just get jabbed because it will save you from...covid...even though covid doesn't affect you and your own immune system is galloping ahead as you mature. It may also stop you passing on the virus to me and grandma, even though you still will even after your jab. Hopefully it won't affect you further down the track BUT you should still get it even though the 'scientists' and 'medics' are very unsure as to why you need to get it...but, you know, it will just give me such peace of mind...some perspective..pfftt 

Know what will give me a little peace of mind?  the ability to have the option to sue drug companies for damages: but these drug companies have immunity from liability in the event the shot causes some damages and death.   As the story goes, in the mid-80's the U.S. govt. gave pharmaceutical companies liability protection against lawsuits because the drug companies lobbied and complained they were losing too much money on lawsuits and may go out of business.   And now the govt. is on the verge of forcing the shots on kids so what happens if someone's kid get hurt in some way?  According to this piece there's some recourse thru the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program but they haven't approved the covid-19 shot for this program:   https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/16/covid-vaccine-side-effects-compensation-lawsuit.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the Advanced Class, Wierwille talked about how, when they were about to enter kindergarten, he was informed his kids would need to be up to date with their shots. He said he told the authorities that God would protect them from the harm of any disease by virtue of his believing. They weren't persuaded. It was then, he said, that it occurred to him that, if he could believe for them to be untouched by disease, he could just as easily believe for them to be unharmed by the shots. This is, of course, simply rationalization.

 

I, personally, no longer subscribe to the so called "law of believing". For those who do, however, it raises the specter on how it all fits with the current situation. Can you believe away the damages of Covid? Can you believe away any potential harm from a vaccine?

 

Food for thought.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That’s some deep thoughts and good analysis, Waysider !

…and you got me thinking about the nuanced differences between religious faith and conspiracy theories. One of the following articles mentions briefly religious faith as a wish to believe. For me that is an interesting idea I’d like to follow up. Religious faith – it’s NOT using something equivalent to the The Force in Star Wars – that works for saint and sinner alike. Religious faith may be more like a wishto feel or express a strong desire or hope for something that is not easily attainable; want something that cannot or probably will not happen (dictionary def.). Because a metaphysical truth is a reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses – I tend to think a person of any particular faith probably has some level of doubt about their own religious persuasion. Since I left TWI, I’ve gone from seeing myself as a true believer and more like a Christian Agnostic – I accept the things of the Bible as true – I don’t know for sure but I hope they are.  

You also got me thinking about the ideology of wierwille that was presented in the PFAL class and later comprehensively detailed out in The Advanced Class. It tended to foster a false sense of intellectual superiority. We were the enlightened ones. We were the ones who really knew what was going on and were aware of all the forces in play – we bought into wierwille’s conspiracy theory that supposedly linked the spiritual realm with interpersonal and even political situations.

The spiritualism/Gnosticism of wierwille is a lot like conspiracy theories in that they seem to have the same engine as the driving force behind it – being based on prejudice (preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience) and insufficient evidence.

…anyway…some more “thought food” in articles below:

“Many who believe and then propagate false conspiracy theories are also failing to own their intellectual weaknesses. One aspect of this is that we must learn to accept our intellectual limitations. For example, as a friend of mine recently and rightly pointed out to me, those who believe in a minority view in a particular field (e.g., climate change) or who believe in one or more conspiracy theories (e.g., the COVID vaccines are designed to allow the government to track our movements) ought to question why they, as a layperson, are intellectually capable of discerning that some outliers in a particular field are correct, rather than the overwhelming consensus of experts. This is a failure of intellectual humility because it is a failure to accept that one is simply not sufficiently equipped to make these kinds of judgments, at least in a reliable manner.”

From: Psychology Today – the cure for belief in conspiracy theories

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/ethics-everyone/202110/the-cure-belief-in-conspiracy-theories

 

 

Why do you think some people latch onto conspiracies that are so clearly against commonly held beliefs? What’s the psychology behind that?

There are many findings from psychology research that suggest that people who believe in conspiracy theories are more likely to have a variety of cognitive quirks.

But the question touches on exactly how I like to think about conspiracy theories, which is that they begin with a rejection of authoritative accounts and generally accepted beliefs.

That makes conspiracy theories different from, for example, religious beliefs that are grounded in faith and arguably a wish to believe. Conspiracy theories, in contrast, start with disbelief in conventional wisdom in favor of a kind of secret, malevolent, “real story” that’s being hidden from the public through some cover-up. There’s good evidence that this disbelief is rooted in mistrust, although I think that’s an underappreciated aspect of how conspiracy theories arise.

What does it really mean to believe in something on a psychological level?

That’s a great question. The reality is that it’s hard to find a consistent definition of what a belief is in psychology.

I like to define a belief as “a cognitive representation of the nature of reality that includes our inner experiences, the world around us, and the world beyond.” Just don’t ask me to define “cognitive representation.”

But when we talk about the act of believing, it can be helpful to break it down into components. For example, one important dimension of believing is conviction, which is the degree to which we hold onto beliefs in the face of different opinions or evidence to the contrary. The extent to which we believe something varies widely depending on a specific belief or a specific individual. And it’s these differences in conviction that are often more psychologically relevant than differences in the content of beliefs.”

From Psychology Today Understanding the Psychology of Conspiracy Theories Part 1

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/psych-unseen/202001/understanding-the-psychology-conspiracy-theories-part-1

 

“What’s the difference between scientific skepticism and denialism?

Skepticism in science is about not believing in something unless there is objective evidence and being skeptical about the reliability of one-time, subjective observations.

While conspiracy theories often claim to be skeptics, they’re often really more denialists who are actively rejecting the evidence. There’s a core feeling that authority and experts aren’t to be trusted, which then paves the way towards embracing more outlandish ideas. In this way, when mistrust manifests as denialism, it leaves us vulnerable to misinformation.”

From Psychology Today Understanding the Psychology of Conspiracy Theories Part 2

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/psych-unseen/202001/understanding-the-psychology-conspiracy-theories-part-2

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, oldiesman said:

Know what will give me a little peace of mind?  the ability to have the option to sue drug companies for damages: but these drug companies have immunity from liability in the event the shot causes some damages and death.   As the story goes, in the mid-80's the U.S. govt. gave pharmaceutical companies liability protection against lawsuits because the drug companies lobbied and complained they were losing too much money on lawsuits and may go out of business.   And now the govt. is on the verge of forcing the shots on kids so what happens if someone's kid get hurt in some way?  According to this piece there's some recourse thru the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program but they haven't approved the covid-19 shot for this program:   https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/16/covid-vaccine-side-effects-compensation-lawsuit.html

Here in Australia the government has been forced (through Senate voting) to enlarge the compensation claims for side effects of the covid 'drug'
Government widens vaccine injury compensation scheme to win peace with Gerard Rennick - ABC News

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Allan said:

So sorry you never saw any signs, miracles, wonders in your Christian walk and never got any results from your believing !

If you're that convinced believing works, you should have no problem believing the jab won't hurt you.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And now, there's a new, more aggressive variant to be concerned about.  Still very rare at the moment, but for how long?  Flights from six African countries to the UK have now been temporarily suspended from today noon and anyone returning will have to go into quarantine. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Allan said:

Here in Australia the government has been forced (through Senate voting) to enlarge the compensation claims for side effects of the covid 'drug'
Government widens vaccine injury compensation scheme to win peace with Gerard Rennick - ABC News

It's not much but better than nothing.    Is it the same as here in the U.S. in that the pharmaceutical companies can't be sued and having a jury look at damages and compensation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted by a friend who is a nurse in ICU:

QUOTE: I'm sharing this because it is an excellent example of the BBC providing the truth - the science, at a deep level, with perfect balance. It explains the potential for concern but also the uncertainty which enables us to prepare for anything to happen with knowledge and understanding. END QUOTE

New Covid variant: How worried should we be? - BBC News

Naysayers need not respond; it doesn't exist, for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Twinky said:

Posted by a friend who is a nurse in ICU:

QUOTE: I'm sharing this because it is an excellent example of the BBC providing the truth - the science, at a deep level, with perfect balance. It explains the potential for concern but also the uncertainty which enables us to prepare for anything to happen with knowledge and understanding. END QUOTE

New Covid variant: How worried should we be? - BBC News

Naysayers need not respond; it doesn't exist, for them.

well I guess the drug companies will come up with 50 vaccines eventually...wonder when they'll start charging for them...wasn't it Waysider who said unlike the 'flu' annual, emerging new strains of covid will have vaccines for it in a timely fashion ??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Allan said:

well I guess the drug companies will come up with 50 vaccines eventually...wonder when they'll start charging for them...

They already charge for them. You didn't know that? They don't produce major scientific breakthroughs for public health with magical thinking, or someone simply snapping their fingers.

Edited by Rocky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I for one would be glad of a more "tuned" vaccine to the new Omicron variant, should it be necessary; for that and other variants.  No point in using last year's model.  Just like you don't clean your teeth with last year's ratty old past-its-sell-by-date toothbrush.

It should go without saying, but (ahem, Allan) one cannot formulate a vaccine against a variant that has not yet occurred.  That's why the annual flu vaccine is a slightly different mix every year (apparently).  Because the "normal" flu mutates and throws up new variants all the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We made a good faith effort to allow this discussion to proceed, and for the most part, you guys were able to do that without getting into the political weeds.

That said, as the opening post noted, it is difficult to tell these days where the medical topic stops and the political content begins.

Of this much we are sure: Everyone has spoken their piece. The thread has become redundant and the temptation to fall into a political debate grows with every post.

Thank you, everyone, for respecting the space we are trying to maintain at GSC.

On to the next topic...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...