🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@voidabyss The reason im taking this all on good faith and arguing with you and not classifying it under conspiracy theory from a moderation perspective is... well, good faith. For now I am assuming you read the papers, heard some scary language, and reacted as a lay person.. I am assuming you simply didnt understand that the papers you read verified the safety of the vaccine overall and thus am willing to discuss and hoping I can knock some sense into you that way,. At the very least after this conversation you cant blame a lack of understanding for your misinterpritation of the studies.

@splitshockvirus

Thanks for that.

Just to be clear I dont mind people disagreeing with me or even arguing points, no matter how idiotic they may be.

The problem I have with this dude is the bad-faith way he argues which resembles a troll more than a respectful debate.Its the lack of productivity and the inability to even attempt being productive combined with the absurdity that is troubling IMO.

That said I am extremely more tolerant than your typical admin and I think if he acts this way with any other server admin it would stand a good chance of getting your server suspended. So I do understand your concern, just wanted to let you know I'm pretty easy going with this stuff is all.

@2T2@mstdn.starnix.network

@voidabyss

When did I say the scientists havent been published? I said you should be arguing with credible studies that make your case, the opinion of a few scientists with exceedinly fringe opinions is not a credible way to argue.. WHO says it isnt what matters if you want to go agains the consensus, the argument you can make (the studies) are what matters.

Now lets address your studies.. All of them show that there is some, very small, risks associated with vaccines (this was never in dispute).. but to claim they are dangerous is a huge leap, nor supported by anything you posted.

You only posted 3 actual studies, none of which actually agree with anything you said. In fact they all show the vaccine to be exceedingly safe. They do point out actual adverse effects, sure, but thats about as far as it goes, none of it suggests any of the known adverse effects pose any significant risk .

The one exception here is pfizer, which is still perfectly safe but a bit less so than the others. For this reason it is not recommended as a first choice for vaccines. Thus how/when it is administered is still with consideration of these risks and perfectly safe.

@2T2@mstdn.starnix.network

Examine patients? What are you on about. I told you what I do and it has nothing to do with patients... That lack of reading comprehension might be part of your problem.

Someone needs to present that evidence, and has been, countless times... Do I feel a need to repeat what has done many times over already... nope. Plus if your that stupid it means you never even attempted good-faith research, so me presenting it for you is almost certainly going to fall on deaf ears.

@thor That just means everyone falls under the category of "crazy people" :)

@thor Yea crazy people :)

@thor No one in their right mind would describe salmiak as "salty" lol Tastes like amonia, the salt is just a passanger :)

@thor Foreign for me since I wasnt born in the netherlands where I first came across it...

Tastes like spraying window cleaner in your mouth... I actually kinda like and hate it at the same time.

@thor wait till you try salmiak :)

@2T2@mstdn.starnix.network All things you could verify yourself if you cared.. but not suprised at all you just assume things are fiction when they disagree with you rather than bothering to do even the slightest hint of research.

@2T2@mstdn.starnix.network And just so you know WHY you just sound like more and more of an idiot each time you talk..

1) I have funded my own research and get no grants or donations to continue my work, nor am I asking for any... So everything you said is nonsense right off the bat.

2) If vaccines turned out to be harmful or a hoax then it would **benefit** my research, so if I have any conflict of interest it would be in wanting to discredit vaccines, not the other way around.

@2T2@mstdn.starnix.network

@voidabyss I am giving you the benefit of the doubt, which is why the post is allowed of course.

But no this isnt the way to do that.. pointing to some fringe doctors isnt the way to do that.. show well researched science that either passed or should have passed peer review and then you can have a good scientific conversation.

@voidabyss As i explained its not about simply questioning the scientific consesus. Its the fact that you did so in a way that seemed to be both uneducated on the subject and and yet assertive.

@voidabyss I ne er claimed scientific consensus never changed, thats very different than thr picture you suggest where change to the scientific consensus required an individual proposing such change to be in a small minority. Most change is not met with much hostility, assuming the argument has been made correctly.

Take einstein, he proposed a pretty fubdemental and craxy soubdibg proposal but he was met almost immediately with interest and consideration by the majority if the great minds in his field.

@2T2@mstdn.starnix.network Man you must have gotten some wiplash from that 180 you just did... So I can only have an opinion if Im a doctor.. but if im a doctor who has devoted his work to COVID, then its a confict of interest and I cant talk either... lololol

@Hyolobrika@berserker.town we dont ban flat-earth discussion explicitly.. we do ban anti-STEM preaching which almost always seems to include flat-earthers.

If it is well argues as you put it that too would eliminate effectively all flat-earth discussions too.

That said there are some really fringe flat-earth discussions that could in theory be valid.. For example if you did some study that showed thje universe was curved in such a way that the earth might be flat but only appear round.. technically thats "flat-earth" of a sense but not even approaching any sort of flat-earther in existance. But yes, if someone could make a good scientifically sound argument for flat-earth, sure it would be accepted, that just isnt going to happen.

@Hyolobrika@berserker.town Sounds like your looking for a free speech instance, not an academic freedom instance. Academic freedom doesnt include anti-science preaching (which is fundemental to a flat-earth stance).

@voidabyss There are people alive in the world who both existed before humans ever learned to fly AND witnessed us land on the moon. Comparing modern scientific progress with the past is not even remotely comparible interms of progress. Buy comparison there was a 5,000 year gap between inventing writing and inventing the printing press.

@Hyolobrika@berserker.town Well we are probably the closest thing to this on the Fedi... That said I wouldnt say there is "total"academic freedom, we wouldnt allow a typical flat earther to go crazy here for example.. but as long as you are arguing in academic good-faith and following our rules then you are probably good... afterall academic freedom is one of our central principles.