a reply to: NightCall
I think you have asked a very good question, but there are no easy answers.
In regards to news media in general and other sources of information, there are no neutral sources. Everyone has an angle, a confirmation bias, or
even an agenda. Whatever information is provided almost always serves their established position or purpose. While they provide some facts and
truth, they will never provide ALL the facts and the WHOLE truth, and they may mix in opinions as facts, or even misinformation or disinformation with
Adjectives and adverbs and descriptors of all kinds usually represent opinions, not facts. At the very least, it indicates that any facts are colored
by opinions. Qualifiers -- such as "may be" or "apparently" or "presumably" -- are sometimes appropriate, sometimes not. When the facts and the
whole truth are not known or are not clear, then qualifiers are necessary as well as appropriate, to indicate that. When qualifiers are used to come
to hard and fast conclusions, they are not not necessary and not appropriate. The conclusions may or may not be correct, but there is no way to know
for sure, and no way to trust that they are.
With regards to medical information, actual clinical studies are best, but are not perfect. Studies can be geared towards achieving a certain result
thus limiting the scope of what and how much truth can actually be discovered, they can be faulty in their methodology and execution thus providing
flawed findings, they can be manipulated to show limited or inaccurate results, they can deliberately omit pertinent and even crucial information for
a full understanding, and so many other things. Very often, even well planned and executed clinical studies answer some questions, only to raise even
more questions -- which isn't always a bad thing.
It's also important to remember in all health related matters that studies can only tell us so much. Every body is different.
Every body has
its own metabolism, its own tolerances and intolerances, allergies, pre-existing conditions, predisposition to illnesses and diseases, etc. This
isn't static either -- it changes with internal and external conditions and circumstances. When it comes to the vax and other medications, every body
will respond in its own way. Some people will have adverse reactions and adverse outcomes, both long and short term. We may be able to identify some
conditions and circumstances in which certain people will react badly, who will be able to fight and recover completely, who will not be able to
recover completely or even survive. But we'll never be able to know all. The best we can hope for is to identify and be aware of unfavorable
conditions or circumstances, and act accordingly to minimize adverse outcomes.
Nevertheless, I always -- ALWAYS -- check for relevant medical studies at Pubmed.com whenever I am researching anything health related. If I am
researching a specific substance for a specific condition, I use both terms to refine my results, because 99 times out of 100 the same substance can
be studied for various conditions. So, for example, if I was wanting info on the Covid vax, I could add "blood clotting" or "myocarditits" or "spike
protein" or "mRNA" to narrow down the results to whatever I'm researching. I did a search on "cbd" and "mRNA" this morning and got exactly what I was
I will add -- although this isn't exactly what you asked -- it is because we know that every body will react differently to any medication or
treatment that it is unconscionable to force any medical treatment on anyone, because we don't know how each individual will respond/react, and we do
know that it can be (and most likely will be) a death sentence for some, if not many. This is why it is unconscionable for anyone to say that the vax
is "safe" because while it might be "safe" for MOST people, it will not be safe for ALL people. And this doesn't even take into account nefarious
purposes by nefarious persons...