Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
Wrong. He wasn't a guy with a crazy idea. He was a guy with evidence of an idea other people thought crazy. They thinking him crazy was based on their rejection of the notion based on their religious beliefs, or just based on inertia and their refusal to look at his evidence, not his idea.
It depends entirely on why they are saying it is unsafe. Do they have evidence? Published in journals? Discussions of actual data among peers? Not pseudo-scientists. Anecdotal evidence from their practice? Saying it's unsafe because people then pay attention to them? Playing the media because "they are persecuted by big pharma?" Pseudo-scientist.
|
Okay, so if I connect the dots from Reply 1 to Reply 2, I believe you actually help my case. If not completely prove it. They realistically have evidence of it being unsafe and yet the rest of the population would rather sit around with fingers in their ears singing and refusing to look into it.
Like you said yourself
"They thinking him crazy was based on their rejection of the notion based on their religious beliefs, or just based on inertia and their refusal to look at his evidence, not his idea"
No one wants to look into it because it doesn't support the general thoughts of the here and now, therefore its wrong. Or because there is belief we have to act fast or else? Or else what? If these people are right, you just incited mass panic. And if we can get a flu vaccine so quick, how come cancer and other diseases that have been around much longer are still an issue? 10+ years to work on a lung cancer drug but what 6 months for a flu vaccine for a brand new, super dangerous flu? BS. Total BS. This alone shows how untested and unresearched this thing is.
And don't even hand me that media attention stuff. Really, whose playing the better game. The doom and gloomers or the naysayers. Judging by several media outlets, its easily 10-1 doom and gloomers. No one wants to hear from anyone saying anything outside of get your shot to stay alive.