The Lucrative Business of Spreading Vaccine Misinformation is Being Crowdfunded (slate.com) 155
"Part of the reason that misinformation about vaccines is so intractable is that it can be very lucrative," argues a new article in Slate:
For years anti-vaccine figures have made money publishing books and giving speeches, and only in the past couple of years have major sites like YouTube started preventing anti-vaxxers from directly earning revenue from advertising. During the pandemic, as the coronavirus created new markets for health hoaxes, conspiracy theorists have been able to make money online by using the misinformation that they publicize on major sites like Facebook to sell supplements and books to followers via e-commerce shops. Now, vaccine skeptics with large followings are turning to crowdfunding platforms — both the relatively obscure GiveSendGo and the decidedly mainstream GoFundMe — to monetize their activities, often to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars...
On GiveSendGo and GoFundMe, vaccine truthers often portray themselves as little guys in a fight against the pro-vaccine tyranny of big pharma, big tech, and big government, and in doing so rake in money from thousands of sympathetic donors. They're able to do it in part because of lax standards and moderation blind spots, and in part by operating in gray areas... Over the past few months, GiveSendGo has been hosting fundraisers for causes casting doubt on vaccines that have racked up huge sums... But it isn't just GiveSendGo, though, that's facilitating donations for efforts to resist coronavirus vaccines. GoFundMe is also providing services to these causes. There, however, skeptics have a workaround: They're not raising money to oppose vaccines, per se, but to oppose vaccine mandates... [T]here are numerous other GoFundMe campaigns to support people who are choosing to leave their jobs instead of getting the vaccine.
GoFundMe does, however, appear to be placing banners with links to information from the CDC and WHO on fundraising pages that promote vaccine hesitancy, unlike GiveSendGo. "Fundraisers raising money to promote misinformation about vaccines violate GoFundMe's terms of service and will be removed from the platform," GoFundMe's senior communication manager Monica Corbett wrote in an email. "Over the last several years, we have removed over 250 fundraisers attempting to promote misinformation related to vaccines. Fundraisers for legal challenges do not violate our terms of service...." As the Daily Beast reported, users have in the past found ways to get around GoFundMe's ban on vaccine misinformation by crafting their campaigns in the name of anti-vax dog whistles like "medical freedom" and "informed consent...."
[T]he platform has tried to crack down on vaccine misinformation, finding itself walking the content-moderation tightrope that other large social media platforms are familiar with, which inevitably leaves loopholes in place that purveyors of misinformation try to exploit.
On GiveSendGo and GoFundMe, vaccine truthers often portray themselves as little guys in a fight against the pro-vaccine tyranny of big pharma, big tech, and big government, and in doing so rake in money from thousands of sympathetic donors. They're able to do it in part because of lax standards and moderation blind spots, and in part by operating in gray areas... Over the past few months, GiveSendGo has been hosting fundraisers for causes casting doubt on vaccines that have racked up huge sums... But it isn't just GiveSendGo, though, that's facilitating donations for efforts to resist coronavirus vaccines. GoFundMe is also providing services to these causes. There, however, skeptics have a workaround: They're not raising money to oppose vaccines, per se, but to oppose vaccine mandates... [T]here are numerous other GoFundMe campaigns to support people who are choosing to leave their jobs instead of getting the vaccine.
GoFundMe does, however, appear to be placing banners with links to information from the CDC and WHO on fundraising pages that promote vaccine hesitancy, unlike GiveSendGo. "Fundraisers raising money to promote misinformation about vaccines violate GoFundMe's terms of service and will be removed from the platform," GoFundMe's senior communication manager Monica Corbett wrote in an email. "Over the last several years, we have removed over 250 fundraisers attempting to promote misinformation related to vaccines. Fundraisers for legal challenges do not violate our terms of service...." As the Daily Beast reported, users have in the past found ways to get around GoFundMe's ban on vaccine misinformation by crafting their campaigns in the name of anti-vax dog whistles like "medical freedom" and "informed consent...."
[T]he platform has tried to crack down on vaccine misinformation, finding itself walking the content-moderation tightrope that other large social media platforms are familiar with, which inevitably leaves loopholes in place that purveyors of misinformation try to exploit.
Unfortunately telling lies is not illegal (Score:4, Insightful)
(most of the time) so there is not a way to come after these scum with some kind of warrant and confiscate their ill gotten gains or put them in clink.
If lying were illegal it would catch many politicians and CEOs of large companies - so: lying will never attract much of a penalty.
Re: (Score:2)
How about, my detergent is better than your detergent, or my product will attract the opposite sex to you?
That's covered by existing law (Score:3, Insightful)
"My competitor's detergent causes a transmissible disease" [reuters.com] or that it ill cause infertility [asrm.org] less so.
And these vaccine deniers are very much competitors of our existing, real medical system. They'll go on and on about natural cures [youtube.com]. When they're just loons on FB they're not, but as so
Re: (Score:2)
Advertisers are very careful to word things to sound different then the words actually say.
My detergent is better doesn't say what it is better at, perhaps it is better at ruining clothes. More often it is new and improved with no mention of what is new (actually a new font used on the label) and what the improvement is (making it harder to read the warnings so more likely to sell).
And just because a commercial implies attracting the opposite sex through imagery etc doesn't mean that that's the claim, just
Re:Unfortunately telling lies is not illegal (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately telling lies is not illegal
I don't think it should be illegal to tell lies. However, it should be illegal to tell lies for profit. The second you profit from dispensing information, you should take on the liability for the results of dispensing false information.
Re:Unfortunately telling lies is not illegal (Score:5, Insightful)
"However, it should be illegal to tell lies for profit."
It is; that's called "fraud."
Re: (Score:2)
"However, it should be illegal to tell lies for profit."
It is; that's called "fraud."
Only if you're lying about why people should give you money. If you sell them content and deliver what you promised there's no fraud, even if the content is nothing but lies.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The real problem is the social networks and search engines that promote the lies. They are the reason why these lies get so much attention.
I nearly fell down that rabbit hole when looking for genuine information and vaccines and CFS. There is some good stuff out there but you can feel the algorithm trying to suck you into a world of BS.
By the way, if you have CFS/ME don't get the AZ vaccine. Pfizer is okay.
Re: (Score:3)
The real problem is the social networks and search engines that promote the lies.
They don't promote lies, they promote what people click on regardless of the content. They need something like IBM's WATSON to cross-reference information to determine which websites are unreputable.
Re:Unfortunately telling lies is not illegal (Score:4, Informative)
Big pharma is not allowed to tell lies either. You can get in serious trouble claiming your medicine does things that it doesn't. Just because it's not prosecuted as often as it should does not mean they are actually telling lies with impunity.
Re: (Score:1)
Privyet, comrade
Re: (Score:2)
A fresh new troll account, I see. There is nothing intrinsic to medications that would prevent pharmaceutical companies from functioning.
Re:Unfortunately telling lies is not illegal (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Every single TV evangelist is doing it for the money.
I don't know about all of them. However, people that preach the "Prosperity Gospel" [wikipedia.org] are totally in it for the money. They believe wealth is evidence of God's blessing, even though the Bible specifically states, several times, that isn't true.
“Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”
-Matthew 19 [biblehub.com]
There are a lot o
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The Catholic church and Scientology are the only for-profit religions I am aware of.
Add the Latter Day Saints to that list.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/18... [cnn.com]
https://www.ldsdaily.com/churc... [ldsdaily.com]
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
All the rest of them are decidedly non-profit.
You really think so?
It is when money's involved (Score:2)
We have plenty of laws regarding false advertising. We don't enforce them because companies _like_ doing it, and their afraid if we crack down on the anti-vaxxers they're next. So they buy off Congress and we all suffer.
Re: (Score:2)
If lying were illegal ...
It's illegal to lie to the FBI, so just have them buy all these sites and add a checkbox for users/posters that says, "I attest that this information is true and not misinformation." (or something) ... problem solved. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Telling lies IS illegal.
If I affirm you told me you killed someone (being false that affirmation) is a crime "against your dignity", thus illegal.
If I affirm you that drinking bleak will cure your sickness (being a false statement) is a crime "against your health", thus illegal.
Etc.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is in proving the creators of the lies are indeed the creators and not just fools unwittingly perpetuating the disinformation. I'm guessing that because this is hard to do that the gov't haven't tried yet. I think they should start to try to prosecute and try very hard now, even if they don't win, long court cases would likely deter others from spreading the lies and also highlight the lying and those that perpetrate the lies.
They can start with Trump, he's recorded in a phone conversation near
Re: (Score:2)
I actually attribute at least 1/3rd of the deaths to Trump, so 200,000+. And I think I'm being very conservative with that estimate.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
If lying were illegal it would catch many politicians and CEOs of large companies - so: lying will never attract much of a penalty.
I kinda wish lying once a politician takes an oath of office was considered lying under oath.
Re: (Score:1)
I kinda wish lying once a politician takes an oath of office was considered lying under oath.
This gets me worked up pretty badly - as elected officials they speak for our government when they speak from their office. But you also have the problem of TFG: he used Twitter because anything he said there he and his cronies would say was "protected by his First Amendment rights as a citizen". So... when was a person to know when TFG vomited out tweets in the middle of the night if he was exercising his Presidential duties, or if it was the incoherent ramblings of a citizen? It's just nuts to allow that
well (Score:2)
People whose relatives died need to sue the cunts (Score:1, Troll)
Make them pay.
Re: (Score:1)
Make them pay.
In more and more cases, the very people denying covid [newsweek.com] is an issue or propagating lies, are dying from it [imgur.com]. With luck, they'll kill themselves off.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is the people they will take down with them. If Covid were something like HIV/AIDS where it's difficult to spread accidentally, then sure, but with Covid all you have to do is be within about 6ft of someone who's infected and breathing.
Being collateral damage to someone else's stupidity has got to be one of the worst ways to go.
Re: People whose relatives died need to sue the cu (Score:2)
It is a little more than that, you will not catch it easily from someone just breathing. Once they start projecting saliva (speaking, coughing, sneezing) the likelihood of transmission skyrockets.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7518250/figure/Fig2/?report=objectonly
Re: (Score:1)
News flash: you and everyone like you have had ample opportunity to convince people to take the vaccines. If people still don't want the vaccines, they can get sick and die (or not). It isn't in your hands anymore. Stop meddling and leave them be.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
There is collateral damage here, and it's real, and it's serious. They're not just killing themfuckingselves.
When businesses tell lies (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
The FDA and FTC have tolerated hucksters of many stripes over the years while doing little to stop them. Homeopathy, colloidal silver, you name it. What makes you think they will (or, by precedent, should) do anything different here?
Medicare for All now (Score:5, Interesting)
But millions of Americans don't have access to doctors. Even if they've technically got "insurance" it's of such poor quality and their so broke they can't afford to see a doctor unless they're extremely ill.
The result is people seek out quacks like this because they can't afford real doctors and they want to feel like they're doing something. It's not enough to make the vaccine free. These people don't trust modern medicine because it's complicated and they never get to use it.
A single payer healthcare system solves that. It means these people get used to seeing doctors, and they get used to trusting science. Because they can see the very real way science helps them.
If you care for science and want to it to flourish you need everybody on the same page. Otherwise the rabble is going to drag us back to the dark ages. If that's something you don't want, call your Congressman and tell them to support M4A, and vote in your primary elections for politicians that support it.
Re: (Score:1)
To quote the late George Carlin: We don't have time for rational solutions!
Re: (Score:2)
Nice off-topic political screed. Never let a crisis go to waste!
Just because you can't follow it (Score:2)
1. 40% of people today distrust science.
2. Distrust for science is bad because it increases the odds of our civilization collapsing.
3. The #1 way regular people interact with science is by seeing doctors.
4. Our current healthcare system makes it difficult if not impossible for regular people to see doctors.
5. A single payer healthcare system, such as M4A, would allow regular people to see doctors.
6. This would restore thei
Re: (Score:2)
We have single payer healthcare in Canada, still lots of people without a Doctor.
Re: (Score:2)
Canada also is sitting at ~62% fully vaccinated compared to the US at ~51% fully vaccinated. So there may still be a lot of Canadians without a doctor but it doesn't seem to be keeping them from getting vaccinated like it is in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, we have gone through the pandemic without really politicizing it so very few refusing vaccines due to politics. I don't think Doctors have even come into it too much (vaccine clinics mostly) until very recently as we hit the 20% or so who are very hesitant and half of them likely can't be convinced.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To be frank, because the behavior of viruses falls completely outside the logic of politics , I'm almost at the point with these denialist pricks that I'd be comfortable with them being told "Get the vaccine or stay inside till the virus is extinct. That , by the way, could be decades." and enforcing it with cops. That goes against my usual ideological leanings, but if we take the usual gold standard of freedom as "up till your nose", in other words "I can do whatever I want until my actions prevent you fro
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Because all the conservatives would be lined up around the block? Like the ones who are always bitching about the government when times are good, but the second things go pear shaped for them, they're first in line for a handout and bitching about how the government isn't doing enough. You see thousands of examples of this every time there's a major disaster, such as Katrina, or you know members of congress who vote against emergency relief funds for other states but are then walking around the capitol buil
You're mistaking the right wing (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
Get back on-topic. Save your soapbox for when it's appropriate. You're not much better than the swastika spammers.
This entire thread is political (Score:2)
But if you're that desperate for me to spell it out: Equating the right wing and conservatives is why this kind of vaccine misinformation can spread so fast. Conservatives mistakenly identify as right wing because the right wing owns the media they consume and can control the messaging. The result is people like me who just want to keep things on a steady path advancing civilization get ticked into supporting batshit crazy ideas.
Separating the right wing and the conservatives w
Never taking your experimental DNA already drug. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The experiments were completed by the end of 2020 and proved the vaccines safe and effective to standards of proof I am happy to bet my life on. The results were published in peer-reviewed journals.
The vaccines never enter the cell nucleus and are missing every single ingredient that would be required to modify DNA. Within days, there is nothing left but memories -- memory B cells and T cells.
I see no loss if owners of private property choose not to let it be used to spread blatant lies.
All part of the plan (Score:3)
Event 201: planning the plandemic [youtu.be]
I'm only half joking
How is this not yelling fire in a crowded theater? (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm a big proponent of free speech, even when I don't agree with it, but even the most nutty of libertarian nutters tend to agree that my rights end where they infringe upon yours. So if I'm telling you to do something that is going to dramatically increase your chances of getting sick and dying, that should not be considered free speech. It is, after all, very difficult to exercise your rights if you're dead or hooked up to a ventilator in a hospital.
People who get sick from and survive covid should be fre
Re:How is this not yelling fire in a crowded theat (Score:5, Insightful)
I want a policy in place where the vaccinated people GET THE HOSPITAL BEDS FIRST. If a vaccinated person gets bad covid, they're at the front of the line for treatment. The unvaccinated people can publicly struggle for air on the front lawn of the hospital for a few hours and then die.
The problem will solve itself, and the hopsital lawns will get a bit greener. Also a few bonus bones for the squirrels to chew on.
I realize that I used to be a nicer person, but this is getting out of hand. Once you have a critical mass of idiots, it's better to simply stand back and let them earn their Darwin awards. The vaccination rate in my local town is VERY high. I'll be fine.
Re: (Score:2)
It kills slower and attribution is hard. Also, in theory, people could use their intelligence to find out they are being lied to. Sadly, many do not seem to know what to do with that "intelligence" thing and simply go for emotion instead. Easy victims.
This works both ways though.... (Score:5, Interesting)
It's endlessly frustrating when people pay to get misinformation out there about controversial topics, because it creates so much noise that nobody is sure anyone what to believe.
As I've commented before on other Slashdot COVID-related stories? I find myself somewhere in the middle on some of this stuff. I absolutely support people's choice to get vaccinated, and I think if you're one of the people who would be in a higher-risk category for COVID putting you in the hospital (whether you're obese, have high blood pressure, smoke cigarettes, or anything like that), you should be seriously looking at getting one of them.
On the flip-side? There's some misinformation coming from the "pro vaccination" crowd too! For example, I keep seeing ads on Facebook from a group called "All In Illinois", trying to advocate Illinois residents getting the COVID shots. One of the slides they keep showing says the following; "All vaccines available in the U.S. provide 100% protection against hospitalization and death, and are highly effective against severe illness." You mean to tell me that NOBODY ever was hospitalized for COVID after getting the vaccine!? You mean to tell me doctors out there are comfortable guaranteeing someone 100% protection against hospitalization or death if they just get this thing? Come on, man! That's utter B.S.
Re: (Score:3)
Meh, at what point can a number be rounded to 100 percent? What that ad has been claiming has been true for tens of millions. Hardly equivalent to anti-vaxer B.S.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/31... [cnn.com]
We have mandatory vaccinations for quite a few illnesses, what's the harm in adding the covid vaccines to list? We'd save tens of thousands of lives. and ten times as many from getting lasting organ damage.
Re: (Score:2)
Only ever observed in animals for ANY corona virus vaccine, never seen in humans, certainly not with the covid19 vaccines.
17,000 hospitalizations of kids with covid19 thus far, how many more?
Re: (Score:2)
What does Dengue have to do with anything? Virus of different phylum even than coronavirus let alone class, order...apples and orange colored baseballs.
You only link the expected situation in a highly vaccinated population, the few percent get hospitalized, yes. Most do not.
And worrying about ADE why? because people are flopping over dead from the many MERS-covid and SARS-covid vaccine trials that were done? Nope, they aren't. Not a concern at all. Never happened in humans with any coronavirus vaccin
Re: (Score:2)
Currently the risk/benefit ratio favours getting the vaccine. You can use any number you want for theoretical future cases of ADE but then your risk/benefit analysis isn't valid since you are using made up figures.
I could just as easily argue that in the future people that have gotten covid will experience heart or lung problems that will kill them. Unfortunately, I don't have any proof of this just like you don't have any proof that ADE will be a problem in the future.
Absence of evidence does suggest absen
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not going to watch the video but I have an alternate theory to this summer's peak over last year. Last year we didn't have the delta variant. This alone skews any correlation between last summer and this summer.
The fact that the number of children hospitalized with the virus has increased 500% in the last couple of months still means that the benefit of vaccinating children is zero? Could you show the science on that statement?
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely false, reinfection is happening and documented. You do nothing but generate nonsense devoid of fact and observation.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volum... [cdc.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure where you got your science from but "natural" immunity doesn't necessarily provide any better protection from variant than the vaccine does. I say the it doesn't necessarily provide any better protection because there isn't currently enough data to say one way or the other. Based on past viruses though I would say that "natural" and vaccinated immunity to variants is about 50/50.
The main reason that vaccines alone don't protect against variants evolving is because:
1) not everyone is getting the
Re: (Score:2)
Preventing what would otherwise be death and maiming is beating natural immunity.
Re: (Score:2)
We have hundreds of millions of people as evidence that what I'm saying is true. The benefits also far outweigh risks as case history shows. You have no argument nor logic.
Re:This works both ways though.... (Score:5, Informative)
It's endlessly frustrating when people pay to get misinformation out there about controversial topics, because it creates so much noise that nobody is sure anyone what to believe.
As I've commented before on other Slashdot COVID-related stories? I find myself somewhere in the middle on some of this stuff. I absolutely support people's choice to get vaccinated, and I think if you're one of the people who would be in a higher-risk category for COVID putting you in the hospital (whether you're obese, have high blood pressure, smoke cigarettes, or anything like that), you should be seriously looking at getting one of them.
On the flip-side? There's some misinformation coming from the "pro vaccination" crowd too! For example, I keep seeing ads on Facebook from a group called "All In Illinois", trying to advocate Illinois residents getting the COVID shots. One of the slides they keep showing says the following; "All vaccines available in the U.S. provide 100% protection against hospitalization and death, and are highly effective against severe illness." You mean to tell me that NOBODY ever was hospitalized for COVID after getting the vaccine!? You mean to tell me doctors out there are comfortable guaranteeing someone 100% protection against hospitalization or death if they just get this thing? Come on, man! That's utter B.S.
"All In Illinois" is the slogan for a promotion run by the Illinois Department of Public Health https://allin.illinois.gov/ [illinois.gov] they have vaccine information at https://coronavirus.illinois.g... [illinois.gov] but nothing similar to your quote appears there nor can I find it on google. If you ever see it again I suggest you report it on facebook, grab a screenshot and send a mail to the Illinois Department of Public Health making them aware of the situation.
Re: (Score:2)
It's endlessly frustrating when people pay to get misinformation out there about controversial topics, because it creates so much noise that nobody is sure anyone what to believe.
Would this even be controversial if there wasn't so much misinformation? It seems the color of the sky is a controversial topic these days.
Did anyone read this article before approving it? (Score:1, Troll)
This is such an obvious hit piece abound with hyperlinks to encourage raid-style retribution and very light on evidence, relying solely on accusations seasoned liberally throughout. So many different accusations, it's impossible to imagine they actually did their homework, unless that work was a hit-list.
This site hasn't been news for nerds for some time. But I guess that's not a big surprise since we have seen technology development slow to a crawl. What's there really to report on? The next social medi
hmm (Score:2)
On GiveSendGo and GoFundMe, vaccine truthers often portray themselves as little guys in a fight against the pro-vaccine tyranny of big pharma, big tech, and big government/
Hmm. To be fair, they are little guys up against an array of big foes.
Doesn't mean they are right about anything. The little guy isn't always right.
It's the cost of freedom (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
As far as individual rights go, there has been more than one libertarian analysis coming down in favor of measures more coercive than anything that we've tried for COVID.
Here's one: https://jme.bmj.com/content/44... [bmj.com]. Notice the date. It was published in virus peacetime.
That's not about "no shot no shoes no service", that's supporting legal requirements to get vaccinated, like the Supreme Court upheld 7-2 in 1905 in Jacobson v. Massachusetts.
I can see a right not to get vaccinated, if the person is a lightho
Re: (Score:2)
I remember a time... (Score:2)
...when people read different views and opinions on a topic, and then made up their own minds as to which were true. I did not and do not need or want some self-appointed nanny to do that for me, thank you.
The scientific process does not exclude dissenting opinions, especially those who raise valid issues with the prevailing opinion. You know what stifles, stigmatizes, and criminalizes dissenting opinions? Fascism.
Re: (Score:2)
The scientific process does not exclude dissenting opinions...
People profiting off of the suffering and death of other people are not engaging in the scientific process. They're grifters, and to address your second point, they are not raising valid issues. They're making shit up. For MONEY.
Tomato Truthers unite! (Score:2)
92.4% of juvenile delinquents have eaten tomatoes.
87.1% of the adult criminals in penitentiaries throughout the United States have eaten tomatoes.
Informers reliably inform that of all known American communists, 92.3% have eaten tomatoes. 84% of all people killed in automobile accidents during the year 2006 had eaten tomatoes.
Those who object to singling out specific groups for statistical proofs require measureme
what an amazing sleight of hand. (Score:2)
anti-vaxxer (pre covid): "i don't want my child to get life saving vaccines from real diseases like polio, rubella, mumps, etc. these vaccines are decades old and perfectly studied and safe -- but autism!"
Scamming not crowd funding (Score:2)
The victims of anti-vaxxors are being scammed by anti-vaxxors, they have always been scammers right back to Andrew Wakefield the researcher that faked his results to falsely prove the MMR vaccine was the cause of autism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Just like drunk drivers (Score:2)
We have already made the decision that it is good for society to restrict the rights of drink drivers for risking the lives of others.
They are the ones claiming it is their rights, but their rights stop at the point it endangers others, others have rights. The limit is the humanist rights test. Your rights end where they risk the rights of others.
We restrict the rights of business to endanger their staff, and mandate health and safety laws.
It is time that we used exact same principles to restrict the rights
Re: (Score:3)
Just toss a liberal celebrity into the ring with a couple of Marines, and spend about an hour filming him getting the living shit beat out of him.
So... you have a really low opinion of liberals/celebrities *and* Marines -- who you think would do that, for amusement?
Also, Marines come in all political shapes and sizes.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm wondering if a disturbed person posted this or it's some kind of troll.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm wondering if a disturbed person posted this or it's some kind of troll.
I'm not a psychiatrist so I can't tell you either way, but the same thing has been posted for a few months on various sites: https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com] I find it quite fascinating as I can't really imagine myself posting something like that and with the level of persistence.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Notice the summary doesn't give any example of what these are considered to be.
Is it someone who is saying vaccines give you the 5Gs?
Partially, but also falsely attributing deaths to vaccines [politifact.com]
Or is it someone asking, aside from already getting a vaccine, why our national health agencies are not telling people to lose weight (>70% of Covid related deaths in the US)
Huh, so are you saying people should get fat to survive COVID? Because that is what it kinda looks like: [cdc.gov]
Percent of adults aged 20 and over with overweight, including obesity: 73.6% (2017-2018)
Anyways, are you suggesting that national health organizations aren't encouraging people to lose weight, eat healthier, and exercise? Because they are constantly doing exactly that. And regardless, are you somehow suggesting a program that will cause the US pub
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Please provide the name of the individual that you're referencing.
Re: (Score:2)
They don't even know themselves. They're just repeating whatever they heard on Fox News or some article linked on Drudge.
Re:Slashdot is vaccine misinformation (Score:5, Informative)
"They're just repeating whatever they heard on Fox News"
BTW Murdoch was vaccinated as one of the very first.
Re: (Score:2)
But wait, there's more!
At Fox's US headquarters, they're requiring vaccine passports.
https://www.businessinsider.co... [businessinsider.com]
Re: (Score:2)
"Repeating" is the modern way of showing that you know something you don't.
Re: (Score:2)
Holy shit, the Drudge Report still exists, and it looks exactly like did in 1999.
Re:Slashdot is vaccine misinformation (Score:5, Insightful)
Before you can say whether "X is the inventor of mRNA vaccine technology", you have to establish whether it even makes sense to claim that what you're talking about has a *single* inventor. And if it does make sense, and you can identify someone as the "inventor", that doesn't make him an authority on all the research that built upon his invention. After all, James Watson of Watson and Crick fame is still alive, but he's not an expert in the genome of SARS-COV-2, even though all such experts are building on his (and others') discovery.
RW Malone published a very important paper back in 1989, titled "Cationic liposome-mediated RNA transfection." In other words he found a way to transmit foreign mRNA into a cell, something that all mRNA vaccines have to do. But it's not the same as creating a working mRNA vaccine; a lot of additional work is needed. Does his discovery of one critical aspect of making an mRNA vaccine entitle him to be called the "inventor of mRNA vaccines"? If it did, would it make him an authority on vaccine research he hasn't been part of?
A lot of the problems that came up in getting from "transfection" to a working mRNA vaccine were solved by Karikó and Weissman. Does this entitle them to be called the "inventor" of mRNA vaccines? Does that make them more of an authority on vaccines based on that work than the first person to demonstrate transfection?
Re: (Score:2)
But it's not the same as creating a working mRNA vaccine; a lot of additional work is needed. Does his discovery of one critical aspect of making an mRNA vaccine entitle him to be called the "inventor of mRNA vaccines"? If it did, would it make him an authority on vaccine research he hasn't been part of?
No, it does not remotely qualify him to be called the inventor of mRNA vaccines. It certainly does not make him an authority on vaccine research he hasn't been a part of. To claim otherwise, would be like saying Marie Curie was the inventor of the atom bomb and was a renowned authority on such devices.
A lot of the problems that came up in getting from "transfection" to a working mRNA vaccine were solved by Karikó and Weissman. Does this entitle them to be called the "inventor" of mRNA vaccines? Does that make them more of an authority on vaccines based on that work than the first person to demonstrate transfection?
Yes, this entitles them to be called the inventor of the vaccines, much the same as EVERY other invention in existence belongs to the person(s) who crossed the finish line, while building on knowledge from t
Re:Slashdot is vaccine misinformation (Score:5, Informative)
Nope. That was not the finish line. If you want to play that game, the "finish line" was safe LNP encapsulation. There were mRNA vaccines that worked before Kariko's contribution, they just were improved by Kariko and Weissman's advance. But even with that, the vaccines were not safe. That's literally like saying Ferrari, and not Benz, invented the automobile because a Benz couldn't exceed 10 miles per hour. Also, you literally know nothing about what was needed to make an mRNA vaccine work. Without a safe delivery mechanism, you don't have a vaccine. That didn't happen until the 2010s. Also, it's dumb to say that the inventor of one of the steps is an expert on everything. Do you think Kariko is an expert on designing the lipids that encapsulate the vaccine so it can enter the cells? Without that the mRNA is useless, and that is not her expertise. It's a hell of a thing, that you declare RNA methylation as the critical "final" step without any awareness of the importance of a safe LNP based delivery mechanism using specially designed cationic lipids. The vaccine depends on the ability of the mRNA to be delivered into the cell, it's out of ignorance that you deny that.
Re: (Score:2)
The Greek logicians taught that argument from authority was valid if there were authorities in a subject and if they agreed.
Science teaches that if an authority says one thing and evidence says another, evidence wins.
The evidence about the vaccines is extraordinary in quantity and quality.
Re: (Score:2)
She contributed to figuring out how to help the synthetic mRNA persist longer in the cell, but didn't "invent" the mRNA vaccine. mRNA vaccines have existed since the early 1990s. Natural mRNA has modifications that synthetic RNA didn't have. Although they had done a few experiments that revealed clues, scientists hadn't narrowed down which modifications were needed and which ones weren't. Kariko was the first (in 2005) to find out which specific modification was needed to synthetic RNA to make it persist in
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Correct. People who question Fauci et al are lumped into the same category as the 5G conspiracy nuts.