1.1 One of those employees is probably https://www.linkedin.com/in/brandon-schadt-48577053/ , Regional Deliver Operations for New York metropolitan area. I will just eliminate what this one said because his oppinion is irrelevant. His oppinion about the subject (safety, efficacy, importance, target of the vaccine) is irrelevant. It is worth just as much as the opinion of someone in the legal department on whether someone in a backend development team should use Python or C++ for a new company project.
1.2 That person (BS) is the only one actually claiming you don't need to vaccinate kids. He is not even claiming you should not vaccinate kids, just claiming as a personal oppinion that it is not necessary for kids.
1.3 The other one (JD) says to not vaccinate BABIES but to actually vaccinate kids once they are socialized.
1.4 JD in the video is actually pro-vaccine. The only sentence they managed to take out of context ("Don’t get the Johnson & Johnson [COVID vaccine], I didn’t tell you though,"), was in the context that he actually did get vaccinated and he got the Moderna vaccine because he believes that one is better.
1.5 So for the first point, the actual people interviewed do not even support your point. Even if the people editing the video did their best to make you believe that. Maybe you are the one who didn't watch the video. The people who made the video are so obviously selling a narative and so obviously lying through the power of video editing.
1.6 You never even claimed that all of J&J employees shared the same position. Do not get sidetracked.
1.7 You absolutely deserve to get downvoted for posting manipulative misinformation that is not even supported by the people being interviewed. You deserve to be downvoted for posting shit. This is the kind of material that does not belong on HN. And while I am against banning, it is YouTubes right to ban people/content from their platform.
2.1 Yes the claim is that vaccines in general are mostly (but not perfectly) safe. And that vaccines in general are a lot safer than the disease they prevent. And that the COVID vaccines follow the same trend and are mostly safe and definitely safer than the disease. (Note: In countries that managed to actually eliminate the disease through lockdowns, the risk calculation is different for obvious reasons) This, claim is not refuted by the link you posted. This claim has so far proven to be true.
2.2 The record of the company does not change whether the J&J vaccine is safe or not. (Is has so far proven - by third parties - to be mostly safe like the other COVID vaccines, and certainly safer than COVID.) You are however justified to be suspicios of the claims the company makes.
2.3 Even if you don't trust J&J, there is still Pfizer and Moderna. And if you don't trust mRNA technology, there is AstraZeneca. And if you don't trust the US and UK government, there is Sputnik V and some others. Your link, besides not actually supporting your point, is not relevant to all the other options.
3.1 Do not get the discussion sidetracked. The FDA/Alzheimers debate is a separate debate.
3.2 Please respect this structure when countering my arguments
P.S.: I need to rant!! While writting this rebuttal was not a waste of time, watching that video definitely was. It was so unbelievably cringe. I do not know who these (your original link) conspiracy peddlers are, but they are with certainty shit. The most shit they can be. They are shit from a human pov, shit from a professional pov, shit from a integrity pov, shit from a communication pov. just shit. shit faced pieces of shit. It is unbelievably frustrating that trolling has actually become a profession. Trolling was many things pre-2010 but it was not this.
Posting stuff like this is actually something you should apologize for. You should apologize to @pg, to @dang, to the rest of HN and to me for posting shit on HN. It is the kind of thing that is bound to get someone, who does not immediately dismiss you as a troll, nerd sniped in an (easy but ultimately useless and pointless) attempt to demolish such content.
Some of these are Technical employees some of them Managers familiar with
the internal company processes. Some you decided to disclaim their opinion
as personal opinion. Others because they are not high enough in the hierarchy
of the company. That is an acceptable attitude. However ignores the reasons
why they fundamentally would be making those statements.
These claims are just data points, but its bit like saying:
A Volkswagen sales person or Company car mechanic says their
cars are crap. I am going to ignore those data points because what
do they know about car engineering...I will listen instead to the
Chief Company Engineer...
Maybe, its because they are not that high in the hierarchy,
that they allowed themselves to make those statements.
Your argument seems to be that they dont know what they are talking about.
You ignore the fact,that one of them is clearly stating not to take their vaccine.
And you are the one misstating facts. JD says the older kids should only taking
as their "civic duty", does not say the vaccine is really required.( for kids)
> 1.6
I wont. I was reminding you upfront that I did not make the statement.
>1.7
If that is true or not the readers of this thread are welcome to decide by watching the
videos themselves and do further research. I would like to remind you, that
many facts now accepted, used to get people banned from Facebook and
YouTube months ago.
You are claiming I am posting something that does not belong to HN and I deserve to be
downvoted, as I am posting shit. If its all shit, dont worry, the downvotes will come. :-)
But you went further than that. I take your comment, that although you dont
endorse banning, you think YouTube is entitled to ban who they want from their platform,
as a veiled threat, that for some shit post here, you would also like to engage in a
similar type of scientific and political arbitrage.
The problem with that attitude is that it tends to backfire.
>2.1
You seem to forget or ignore that in many countries millions of people are
facing vaccine mandates, with no exceptions accepted, that include threat of job loss
unless they comply.
You ignore that vaccines used to have 5 to 7 years experimental trial periods.
You make a blank statement that vaccines have been shown to be safe based on what
were "warp" speed operations, on the face of unprecedented pandemic. And you make that statement
you forget or ignore the fact that all safety studies exclude the immunocompromised.
Compared to your somewhat blank statement of vaccine safety, lets see what the WHO says on
their website, for example about AstraZeneca. These are partial quotes but I think they
support my argument that you cannot make the statement you just made:
Thank you for agreeing with me concerning the company claims. About Pfizer,
yes I trust them even less, as until the pandemic they had a toxic reputation:
> 2.3
About Pfizer, yes indeed, I trust them even less. Until the pandemic
they had the most toxic of the toxic reputations.
"Pfizer is likely to make huge profits from its COVID-19 vaccine
but the greatest long-term benefit to the company may well
be the positive PR it has received as a result. That PR was
much-needed: before COVID-19, Pfizer had a toxic reputation
even compared to other pharma companies. "
"1986: Pfizer had to withdraw an artificial heart valve from
the market after defects led to it being implicated in over 300 deaths."
"2003: Pfizer has long been condemned for profiteering from AIDS drugs."
"2011: Pfizer was forced to pay compensation to families of children killed
in the controversial Trovan drug trial. During the worst meningitis epidemic
seen in Africa, in 1996, Pfizer ran a trial in Nigeria their new drug Trovan.
Five of the 100 children who took Trovan died and it caused liver damage,
while it caused lifelong disabilities in those who survived"
"2012: Pfizer had to pay around $1billion to settle lawsuits
claiming its Prempro drug caused breast cancer."
"2013: Pfizer paid out $273 million to settle over 2,000 cases in the US that
accused its smoking treatment drug Chantix of provoking suicidal and homicidal
thoughts, self harm and severe psychological disorders. Pfizer was also accused
of improperly excluding patients with a history of depression or
other mental disturbances from trials for the drug."
"2020: Pfizer reached an agreement with thousands of customers
of its depo-testosterone drug in 2018 after they sued it for increasing
the likelihood of numerous issues, including heart attacks."
I agree that for some, the risks of vaccine might be smaller than the
risks caused by COVID-19.
But governments and health organizations implementing obligatory legal mandates, are also
responsible for fatal outcomes like these Pfizer related examples:
"Young people’s deaths after Pfizer vaccines are new worry"
I wont get sidetracked. I tried to prevent you, mentioning things like organizations
like the FDA are watching out for the health of consumers. You implied that other 3rd parties are
watching out for vaccine safety. In reality they review material presented by the
vaccine producers. Its a very similar process to Boeing and the FAA reviews.
> 3.2
I tried to respect it as you made the effort to reply to my comments.
PS...rant...shit shit..rant...rant.. :-)
The problem with rants is that they can come to bite you in a few months.But now its here for posterity.
Hopefully these virus mutations will fade to progressively less threatening flavors.
My money however is on that they wont. Infections will be back.
As everybody agreed vaccines are "safe", and it will be politically and scientifically difficult to contradict
what was stated until now, you wont escape a mandated 4th, 5th and 6th dose.
You will be mandated to take it, as the principle is accepted in spirit and in law.
When the side effects start, I am sure the argument then will be:
"Oh we never said vaccines were absolutely safe, they were always risks..."
I acknowledge that you have responded to my comment and therefore I do not consider you were trolling. I do not acknowledge that you have addresed my points (especially 1.1 to 1.5). Actualy answering to this will however take significantly more time. I do not know if I will actually allocate that time, it's past midnight.
I tried to focus on your 2 points and how the initial link did not actually support either of them and it was mere video editing trickery. You have instead brought a good chunk of your world view on the subject into the discussion and even some accusations.
I decided to answer just to 1.x points because the rest is already off the rails and I consider discussing those points further to lead nowhere.
I will first reiterate my points to encapsulate them in an even more concise form and then address your response:
1.1 BS is Regional Deliver Operations. His opinion about vaccination is irrelevant.
1.2 Although BS's opinion is irrelevant, your point is not supported by what he says. He is sceptical that kids need them, not that they are safe and effective.
1.3 JD says kids should get vaccinated. This contradicts the narative of the article. Why kids should get vaccinated is offtopic.
1.4 JD did't get J&J because he got Moderna. JD does NOT recommend staying unvaccinated instead of getting J&J. JD actually recommends people to get Moderna instead of J&J. The video is edited to make it appear that he is against vaccines in general.
1.5 is just summarizing 1.1 - 1.4
-------------------------------------------------
As for your response:
> Some of these are Technical employees
FTFY: 1 of 2 is
> some of them Managers
FTFY: also 1 of 2, maybe a manager but irrelevant due to department
> familiar with the internal company processes.
maybe, but most probably irrelevant due to department. Also irrelevant because the debate is about the safety and efficacy of the J&J vaccine, not about the crimes of J&J the company.
> Some you decided to disclaim their opinion as personal opinion.
FTFY: 1 namely BS. Due to being in an irrelevant department.
> Others because they are not high enough in the hierarchy of the company.
Bullshit. I did not disclaim JD's answers. I said they do not support your point.
> That is an acceptable attitude.
Offtopic
> However ignores the reasons why they fundamentally would be making those statements.
Are you claiming they made declarations under duress?
> These claims are just data points
They do not support your point. One out of two is irrelevant the other actually says kids should get vaccinated
> , but its bit like saying: A Volkswagen sales person or Company car mechanic says their cars are crap.
Your analogy is not even an analogy. The correct analogy is: one is the delivery man and the mechanic says Porsche is better.
> I am going to ignore those data points because what do they know about car engineering...
I ignored the delivery man
> I will listen instead to the Chief Company Engineer...
Bullshit. I did no such thing. You are strawmanning me.
> Maybe, its because
Why they answerd the interview is irrelevant. You seem to think they are the Snowden of J&J. They are not.
> they are not that high in the hierarchy, that they allowed themselves to make those statements.
Bullshit. I never once mentioned hierarchy.
> Your argument seems to be that they dont know what they are talking about.
Bullshit. my argument is that regardless of knowledge, the oppinion of the delivery man is irrelevant. It was an interview with his oppinion. BS did not reveal anything, he just gave his oppinion and speculated. He is not a whisleblower. He is irellevant.
And JD says kids should get vaccinated. The reason is offtopic
> You ignore the fact,that one of them is clearly stating not to take their vaccine.
Yes, because BS is in a irrelevant department.
> And you are the one misstating facts.
Which one? The one bellow? I am not, he litteraly said: "Once you go out and you've got to go to preschool, ....., that's when you need to vaccinate"
> JD says the older kids should only taking as their "civic duty", does not say the vaccine is really required.( for kids)
Irelevant. I will not try to explain to you why that is important because it is offtopic and we do not start from the same base assumptions.
--------------
Also, with regards to 1.7, I made no veiled threats. You claiming I did is a nasty accusation and it is bullshit I will not accept. But 1.7 is actually offtopic from 1.x
1.2 That person (BS) is the only one actually claiming you don't need to vaccinate kids. He is not even claiming you should not vaccinate kids, just claiming as a personal oppinion that it is not necessary for kids.
1.3 The other one (JD) says to not vaccinate BABIES but to actually vaccinate kids once they are socialized.
1.4 JD in the video is actually pro-vaccine. The only sentence they managed to take out of context ("Don’t get the Johnson & Johnson [COVID vaccine], I didn’t tell you though,"), was in the context that he actually did get vaccinated and he got the Moderna vaccine because he believes that one is better.
1.5 So for the first point, the actual people interviewed do not even support your point. Even if the people editing the video did their best to make you believe that. Maybe you are the one who didn't watch the video. The people who made the video are so obviously selling a narative and so obviously lying through the power of video editing.
1.6 You never even claimed that all of J&J employees shared the same position. Do not get sidetracked.
1.7 You absolutely deserve to get downvoted for posting manipulative misinformation that is not even supported by the people being interviewed. You deserve to be downvoted for posting shit. This is the kind of material that does not belong on HN. And while I am against banning, it is YouTubes right to ban people/content from their platform.
2.1 Yes the claim is that vaccines in general are mostly (but not perfectly) safe. And that vaccines in general are a lot safer than the disease they prevent. And that the COVID vaccines follow the same trend and are mostly safe and definitely safer than the disease. (Note: In countries that managed to actually eliminate the disease through lockdowns, the risk calculation is different for obvious reasons) This, claim is not refuted by the link you posted. This claim has so far proven to be true.
2.2 The record of the company does not change whether the J&J vaccine is safe or not. (Is has so far proven - by third parties - to be mostly safe like the other COVID vaccines, and certainly safer than COVID.) You are however justified to be suspicios of the claims the company makes.
2.3 Even if you don't trust J&J, there is still Pfizer and Moderna. And if you don't trust mRNA technology, there is AstraZeneca. And if you don't trust the US and UK government, there is Sputnik V and some others. Your link, besides not actually supporting your point, is not relevant to all the other options.
3.1 Do not get the discussion sidetracked. The FDA/Alzheimers debate is a separate debate.
3.2 Please respect this structure when countering my arguments
P.S.: I need to rant!! While writting this rebuttal was not a waste of time, watching that video definitely was. It was so unbelievably cringe. I do not know who these (your original link) conspiracy peddlers are, but they are with certainty shit. The most shit they can be. They are shit from a human pov, shit from a professional pov, shit from a integrity pov, shit from a communication pov. just shit. shit faced pieces of shit. It is unbelievably frustrating that trolling has actually become a profession. Trolling was many things pre-2010 but it was not this.
Posting stuff like this is actually something you should apologize for. You should apologize to @pg, to @dang, to the rest of HN and to me for posting shit on HN. It is the kind of thing that is bound to get someone, who does not immediately dismiss you as a troll, nerd sniped in an (easy but ultimately useless and pointless) attempt to demolish such content.