1
   

How is this not racist?

 
 
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2021 02:50 am
So, like, dude, read the article.

https://michaelsavage.com/covid-eugenics/

With me so far? Now, they're giving first priority to blacks, "declaring elderly too white." The most susceptible, according ti their own studies are the elderly, but they're instead vaxxing young blacks.

Why do I say this is racist? Well because if you bothered to read the article (you didn't, did ya?) you'd notice they mention male and female sterility as a side effect. A plan to keep blacks from reproducing. All while looking like you're showing favortism. Hmmmmmm....
 
View best answer, chosen by bulmabriefs144
hightor
 
  3  
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2021 05:46 am
@bulmabriefs144,
Quote:
So, like, dude, read the article.

Your link isn't that convincing.
Quote:

With me so far?

Not really.
Quote:
Now, they're giving first priority to blacks, "declaring elderly too white."

Who are "they"? Where are "they" doing this?
Quote:
A plan to keep blacks from reproducing.

Well, that means "they" aren't likely the Democrats, as African American voters are a core part of the party's constituency.

It's not "racist" because it's not even true. The whole story is bunk:

Quote:
No, Pfizer’s head of research didn’t say the COVID-19 vaccine will make women infertile

As people start to receive Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine, social media users continue to share misinformation about the injection.

"Head of Pfizer Research: Covid vaccine is female sterilization," reads an inaccurate headline on a blog called "Health and Money News."

This post was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.)

While the headline refers to sterilization, the post uses softer language, referring to the possibility of infertility caused by the COVID-19 vaccine. Even so, it draws a misleading conclusion from the claims made by the doctors it cites — claims that Pfizer and other experts dispute. The post claims the vaccine contains a spike protein called syncytin-1, "vital for the formation of human placenta in women," that could be targeted by the body’s immune system.

"If the vaccine works so that we form an immune response AGAINST the spike protein, we are also training the female body to attack syncytin-1, which could lead to infertility in women of an unspecified duration," the post says.

The blog cites "ex-Pfizer head of respiratory research Dr. Michael Yeadon and the lung specialist and former head of the public health department Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg."

Wodarg is a German physician, and Yeadon hasn’t worked for Pfizer in nine years, according to the Associated Press. Yeadon’s LinkedIn profile says he was formerly the chief scientific officer of allergy and respiratory research. PolitiFact tried to reach him without success.

The post links to a Dec. 1 letter from the men to the European Medicines Agency seeking to stop clinical trials of the Pfizer vaccine in the European Union.

"Several vaccine candidates are expected to induce the formation of humoral antibodies against spike proteins of SARS-CoV-2," the letter says. "Syncytin-1… which is derived from human endogenous retroviruses … and is responsible for the development of a placenta in mammals and humans and is therefore an essential prerequisite for a successful pregnancy, is also found in homologous form in the spike proteins of SARS viruses. There is no indication whether antibodies against spike proteins of SARS viruses would also act like anti-Syncytin-1 antibodies. However, if this were to be the case, this would then prevent the formation of a placenta which would result in vaccinated women essentially becoming infertile."

Brent Stockwell, a professor studying disease networks and chemical and biological tools at Columbia University, told us that the claim that the COVID-19 vaccines cause infertility isn’t true.

Humans do have a protein called syncytin-1, which is critical in developing the placenta during pregnancy, Stockwell said in an email. "Theoretically, an immune response against this protein could cause increased risk of a failed pregnancy."

But if the claims in the blog post were accurate, that would mean that pregnant women who catch COVID-19 would also become infertile, he said. No increased infertility or pregnancy loss has been observed in women with COVID-19.

"Any hint of similarity between syncytin-1 and the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein (which is used as part of the vaccine) is extremely remote," he said. "There are hardly any parts of the two proteins that are even vaguely similar, and they are far more distinct than would be needed for cross-reactivity of immune responses."

In short, he said there’s no chance that the COVID-19 vaccine would train the immune system to accidentally recognize and fight syncytin-1.

Pfizer told us in a statement that there’s no data to suggest that the company’s vaccine candidate causes infertility.

Experts interviewed by The Associated Press, which also looked into this post, corroborated this.

Our ruling

The blog post says: "Head of Pfizer research: Covid vaccine is female sterilization."

The head of Pfizer research didn’t say this. A doctor whose LinkedIn profile says he worked at Pfizer nine years ago as a chief scientific officer has raised concerns that a COVID-19 vaccine could make women infertile if their immune systems target a certain protein.

But experts say that even the rationale behind that idea is wrong. If a COVID-19 vaccine could cause infertility in the way the post describes, so would having COVID-19 itself, and there’s been no evidence for that so far.

We rate this blog post False.

politifact

These developments are real and much more troubling. Only problem is, you can't stick a the "racist" label on them:

Study Finds Microplastics in Human Placentas

Bottle-fed babies ingest 'millions' of microplastics: study

Sperm counts are on the decline – could plastics be to blame?

The ocean is teeming with microplastic – a million times more than we thought, suggests new research
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2021 07:48 am
@bulmabriefs144,
Michael Savage is racist. I am more interested in your opinions, BulmaBriefs.

If obese people are more susceptible to the covid virus, do you agree that obese people should be given priority? What about old people?

This seems like outrage porn.
maxdancona
 
  2  
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2021 07:51 am
@bulmabriefs144,
Here is an intelligent article on the issue that isn't outrage porn. It is an interesting ethical issue.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2771874
0 Replies
 
bulmabriefs144
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2021 04:59 pm
@hightor,
"They." The people.
(Ummm perhaps I should have included the actual link to the quote)
https://www.westernjournal.com/nyt-floats-idea-elderly-white-get-vaccine-first/

"Elderly are too white to get vaccine first."

(So you trust everything Polifact says?)

Read up on Pascal's wager. Here, I'll make one for ya.

https://i.postimg.cc/nr8MbLGv/Pascals-Vaccine.png
bulmabriefs144
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2021 05:06 pm
@maxdancona,
Old people are more susceptible to the virus.

But young healthy (fertile) black people are first in line.

To give an equivalent argument, this would be seeing that obese people are more likely to get it, and giving it to skinny folk.

If the vaccine works, they passed over those who needed it more. If not, it's war on skinny folk. You see?

Also, outrage porn is the best porn.
maxdancona
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2021 05:25 pm
@bulmabriefs144,
I don't think you are looking for an intelligent discussion on the topic. The article you link to certainly isn't. You are looking to score political outrage points.

There is an interesting topic here (if you are interested in discussing it). You have a limited resource that you want to distribute fairly and efficiently. What is the best way to do this?

I don't know of anyone arguing that young Black people should get the vaccine before elderly White people.... I think you are making this up to generate outrage.

In reality distributing the vaccine is not any easy problem.

Any solution that lets rich people get the vaccine before poor people doesn't seem right to me, and if African-Americans are more at risk of covid than White people than that is also a problem.

There are also problems of distribution... determining where stocks of vaccine are sent is not the same as determining who will get them.

Instead of the outrage porn... it would be interesting to hear your ideas on how to make a fair system that addresses both factors of efficiency (shipping and storing the vaccine isn't easy) and fairness (disadvantaged groups getting the same access as advantaged groups).



(I disagree with your claim that the best porn is outrage porn... but the actual best porn is a topic for another thread)
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2021 05:28 pm
@bulmabriefs144,
At least get your facts right.

No one is taking an untested vaccine. I am looking for an intelligent discussion, I am not sure if you are living in reality.
0 Replies
 
roger
  Selected Answer
 
  3  
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2021 05:39 pm
@bulmabriefs144,
bulmabriefs144 wrote:

Old people are more susceptible to the virus.

I can't prove it, but I suspect there's some misunderstanding going on here. Yes, if old people acquire the disease, we are more likely to have a severe case, and more likely to die. What I question is whether we are more likely than others to acquire it in the first place.
bulmabriefs144
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2021 05:47 pm
@roger,
I feel like I'm talking to ppl from 1984 (you know, the book?), who forget the old propaganda once the new stuff comes out.

They have literally been saying for months that the average COVID demographic is over 70s. And they tend to have more fatal cases and less recovery, ergo if things are like this, they need it more.

I am saying:
1. Those most susceptible (older folk) are being passed over "because racism"
2. ...to give it it to young and healthy blacks who will probably fight it off anyway "because Black Lives Matter."
3. Some articles find link to infertility for the vaccine
4. That is, blacks are being duped and then sterilized by white rich eugenicists (Bill Gates, Soros, etc)
5. I ask, "How is this not racist?"
6. You guys roll your eyes.

7. Ergo, you guys are also racist.
bulmabriefs144
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2021 05:58 pm
@hightor,
You're worried about microplastics.

Quote:
No, Pfizer’s head of research didn’t say the COVID-19 vaccine will make women infertile


You know, the leader of a company doesn't typically admit their own products have harmful effects.

"High fructose may cause diabetes and obesity," says researchers on HFCS

"...You mean how it's made from corn and fine in moderation?" says the corn lobby.

https://ezinearticles.com/?Corn-Syrup-is-Made-From-Corn-and-is-Fine-in-Moderation?&id=3641624

When someone claims some medicine or additive may cause side-effects, I sure as hell don't trust the makers of that medicine/additive. Nor do I trust the FDA's approval.
https://www.cnet.com/health/fda-approved-vs-fda-cleared-whats-the-difference/
Quote:
"FDA approved" means that the agency has determined that the "benefits of the product outweigh the known risks for the intended use."


Read that again. Not "there are no risks." That risks are outweighed.

It gives you cancer, but it's a sweet substitute for sugar, and low in calories.

When in doubt, I trust the naysayers unless they say something like asparagus is dangerous, or I know they are pushing their own product (I wouldn't trust the stevia growers on their opinion of HFCS for instance).

You might wanna consider what the people who are telling you there's no danger are trying to sell. If it's population control, don't say I didn't warn ya....
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2021 08:15 pm
@bulmabriefs144,
1. You are lying with your first two points.

Older folk are not being passed over. The elderly are the first to be vaccinated.

2. You are being ridiculous with your last 4 points.

Some articles say that Aliens are running the UN, and other articles say that mind control rays are in common use to control Americans.

It is clear that you are not open to an intelligent discussion.

0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  2  
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2021 08:38 pm
@bulmabriefs144,
Quote:
Elderly are too white to get vaccine first.

I read the provided link to the source article in the NYT. Your representation of the story seems inaccurate and misleading; it's likely that you have over-simplified a complex problem in order to quickly arrive at your preferred conclusion.
Quote:
(So you trust everything Polifact says?)

I don't trust everything that anyone says.
Quote:

Read up on Pascal's wager.

Why? It's retarded. You've arbitrarily limited the choices involved and once again it's likely that you have over-simplified a complex problem in order to quickly arrive at your preferred conclusion.

bulmabriefs144
 
  0  
Reply Thu 11 Mar, 2021 09:13 am
@hightor,
I could make a bigger one with more theories on what the vaccine does to you (causes seizures and Bell's palsy, some people have died from allergic reaction) but you'd find the more slots I gave, the more stupid taking the vaccine sounds.
https://www.webmd.com/lung/covid-recovery-overview
Especially since not just Trump but actual medical websites (above) predict 97% to 99.5% recovery. So lemme get this straight.
There is a disease, that usually has no symptoms, that just sorta kills you (not in a horrible festering way like black plague but you kinda can't breathe). You probably will recover on your own. You would probably feel fine if you actually went outside and got fresh air. Instead, stay indoor or mask up! You wait it out, and surprisingly you get symptoms that feel suspiciously like pneumonia (cuz you indoors for months on end in stuffy dysty air). You now are sick but not of COVID. You still have zero physical proof of COVID but you feel unable to breathe, and since you won't go to the doctor (social distance! We can't be around people) you're not verifying that it's not COVID. You hear on TV that people are getting side effects, and then someone you don't agree with mentions sterility and shows you a Pascal wager square. You say "that sounds stupid, I'll need more options?" What kind of options do you think you'll get that will actually work in favor of a decision to take this thing?
hightor
 
  2  
Reply Thu 11 Mar, 2021 10:04 am
@bulmabriefs144,
For some people the disease is fatal. And some people react negatively to the vaccines. But there's no way of determining who these people are prior to their contracting the disease or being vaccinated. Public health means protecting the greatest number of people and mass vaccination is the accepted method of dealing with communicable diseases which are spread by social contact. Preventing infection in the greatest number of people is the only method we currently have of protecting the 3% - .5% who would suffer the most serious, perhaps fatal, effects. And it has nothing to do with "racism".
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

2016 moving to #1 spot - Discussion by gungasnake
Black Lives Matter - Discussion by TheCobbler
Racism? - Question by The UPS Man
Is 'colored people' offensive? - Question by SMickey
Obama’s Black Skin Privilege - Discussion by coldjoint
Obama, a Joke - Discussion by coldjoint
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
The ECHR and muslims - Discussion by Arend
Atlanta Race Riot 1906 - Discussion by kobereal24
Quote of the Day - Discussion by Tabludama
 
  1. Forums
  2. » How is this not racist?
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/13/2021 at 09:20:34