That's not Science, that's Religion

in #science8 years ago (edited)

I ran into this article. Now I could talk about how vaccines aren't safe, I could talk about medical ethics and the Nuremberg code, I could even talk about conflicts of interest by having ex pharmasutical and Monsanto employees in public office or how big pharmasutical companies and agricultural companies like Monsanto donate to politicians. I'm not going to go into any of that in this post. None of it. Instead I'm going to talk about something very simple.

If you are practicing medicine and are not concerned with safety you are a danger to your patients and should not be practicing medicine.

If you are practicing science and do not want to be criticized or questioned you are not practicing SCIENCE but rather RELIGION and should start a church rather than continue to claim to be practicing science.

quote1

I am all for patient choice. In fact I believe it should be the patient that makes a choice as to the risks to take with their health. But they need to make an informed choice. Which requires studies into how safe any given procedure might be and the risks involved. The moment you care more about making profit than you do about giving your patients an informed choice then you are no longer practicing medicine OR science. The moment you are more worried about getting elected than you do about giving patients an informed choice you are no longer allowing medicine OR science. This vaccine thing has crossed the line beyond "Do vaccines work?" into "Can we practice medicine or science without government or corporate approval?" And let's not forget this isn't about safety anymore, this is about power. This is about not preventing those in power from aquiring more power. This is about compromising people's health for the sake of profits and votes.

quote2

It doesn't matter if you think vaccines work or don't work at this point. The fact of the matter is if you can't QUESTION whether they work or not should be of concern to anyone who dares to claim they even care about science. The fact that they don't want to have safety studies should be of serious concern to anyone who cares about their health or health of others. If you can't question the answers given by the authority it is not science! If you can't question it then it's a religion! Vaccination is a religion! Statism is a religion.

quote3

A deity does not need to be supernatural or superhuman. Buddha was neither superhuman nor supernatural. Buddha was a man yet he became deified and a religion formed around him: Buddhism. And even HE encouraged people to question. But the thing with deities is we DON'T question them. That's what worship and reverence IS! It is the focus of one's attention, the reverence for and deferment to, and most importantly, and most importantly one does not question their deity. One might ask why God does something but they don't question God's authority TO do something. If one questions a deity's authority then that results in a lack of worship, hence TO worship is not to question. Get it? To revere without question is not science, it's faith!

quote4

The argument is often made that the laymen is too uneducated to possibly engage in scientific discourse. I would argue that the scientific method be applied to this assumption. If one assumes one is too uneducated then knock down their argument and educate them. If one can't then educate oneself. Simple experimentation and rational debate. A degree does NOT mean one is beyond question. Neither does a political office. This is an assumption that is also made in academia: "Oh he has a degree and therefore what could you possibly know to question him on the matter?" And from there we get academic institutions and medical institutions that are "beyond question." And that's how we got into this mess in the first place. No one is above question. No one. We need to make this crystal clear and we need to remove the stigma around the asking of questions.

quote5

There is an assumption that an academic authority is beyond question because it has been tested and criticized to get where it is. What one fails to realize is the questions never end. Answering them may be delegated but the questions never end. And to try and silence them is to abandon science itself. Politician, kings and priests would have us have FAITH in them and not question their authority. So let me ask should a medicine be allowed because the king or God declares it so or it be accepted because it has been tested to work and is considered safe by those who would use it and have been informed of the possible risks? In short should we have an authority dictate terms to us or should we decide for ourselves?

If a deity would compel you to worship them are they worthy of your worship? If they would disregard your well being and safety are they worthy to hold authority over you? What is life without freedom? If we are so picky about our Gods why then are we not equally so about the mortals that would attempt to rule us? If we would fight fierce battles over choosing not to worship any God or be particular about worshiping a particular God or even multiple Gods and Goddesses, why oh why do we allow mortal rulers to be dictated to us? And why would anyone stand to not be informed of their health safety risks or their rights to pursue such knowledge? If the state is your God then what kind of God requires to pursue power over the well being of his worshipers? And if the state is your God and does pursue power despite your well being WHY do you worship it?

Science is never settled. If it can't be questioned it isn't science it's religion. If your doctor doesn't care if it's safe do you really want them practicing medicine on you? If you can't be fully informed how effectively can you give consent or make health decisions for yourself? If any health or state personal try to silence your ability to ask questions about your health review the previous questions.

Sort:  

I caught this post last night but, hadn't the time to respond so I just resteemed it instead. I have come back today to leave my comment and seen that it has been flagged, which I wholeheartedly disagree with. I ask that you don't get discouraged by this, because the comments are testimony to the value of your post and to Steemit. I expect you have made a fair few followers from this post alone, including myself.

As for the post.. It's great to see something like this on here. I have found it rather ironic that the big bang theory and evolutionary theory require just as much faith to believe in as creationism, yet advocates of the former find it acceptable to ridicule those who adhere to latter.

Modern science has become a cult, whereby to speak in contradiction to the agreed upon theories is to commit career suicide and make yourself a target for humiliation. Science and politics have become one and the same, and it is no longer about questions, which was the initial principle that science was founded upon.

A truly exceptional piece and I am eager to see what your next post brings. Have a great day.

Your post was thought provoking to say the least. I would like to attempt to comment on your final paragraph:

Science is never settled. If it can't be questioned it isn't science it's religion. If your doctor doesn't care if it's safe do you really want them practicing medicine on you? If you can't be fully informed how effectively can you give consent or make health decisions for yourself? If any health or state personal try to silence your ability to ask questions about your health review the previous questions.

I quit the medical profession because “informed decision” and “choice” has been essentially removed from both the patient as well as the physician. The ability to “silence” both the patient and physician is currently in place. Treatment of the patient is now solely based on “mandatory” options which cannot be deviated from.

These options are directed by the insurance companies and the government through the Value Based Payment Model.

Medical providers are now subject to a fee for service (FFS) delivery system where they are paid for each service separately (e.g., office visit, test, or procedures.)

The Quality Payment Program called Macra and Mips basically enslave providers in the medical profession and remove their decision making. It is impossible for a medical provider to practice out of that circle of control because they would simply be unable to remain licensed or at least maintain their present salary.

If the patient chooses to decline an ordered vaccine or medical test, that ultimately costs the physician and his employer the hospital system he or she is affiliated with money. That action ultimately can place the patient in a position where the physician can “dismiss them from the practice” because they are not following medical advice.

The following TED Talk is enlightening on the problem of Overdiagnosis and Overtreatment

you mean to say that doctors aren't forced to take this oath

and actually follow by it

1
2

They probably take the oath due to tradition but, unfortunately regulations stand in the way.

well goodwill and wisdom I suppose, I would argue that is better than regulations, self regulation trumps everything. You can't make people do anything either way. At least when they aren't concerned with their health. The problem is regulations are playing on people's fear and on the other end of the spectrum people are preying on people's lack of understanding for the sake of their own wants and needs. so I guess oaths are good as long as you hold by it.

What if all the medical professionals stopped dealing with the endless slew of bullshit and the threats of less pay and started treating the patients as real human beings. Taking their needs into account. Sure a hospital here and there would be needed for emergencies. But "A ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" so rather than spending millions on research and pills, why not educate everyone on well-being and nutritional balances, benefits of exercise, the links between the mind and the body and so on. Why is it almost impossible to find a good education. Either there are bureaucracies waiting to drain you or some ideologies waiting to paint you as evil. The media is no help either, rehashing old stories and bringing in more exaggerations thus widening the divide.

You and I have like views regarding the healthcare system for sure. As I said in my introduction post the healthcare system was entirely different 20+ years ago and because of all the "bullshit" as you say. I quit my job far from retirement age. Better no income from the "control group" than to go to work every day and be unhappy with the healthcare I was was forced to provide to my patients.
As for the media, that is another profession that has gone down the tubes. Instead of doing their job of accurate investigative reporting they are told what to say and they comply.

Great article blindsite!

You are so right. I have often said that the people who won't accept ANY criticism of vaccines have a religion that they don't even recognize.

The science is NEVER settled!

Upvoted and Resteemed!
p.s. spell the tag 'vaccines'

most people don't question vaccine safety because its been proven many times to be safe. its kinda like i don't question that the earth is round... because its been proven that its round. if you get on google and search "vaccines not safe" and then click the first article that agrees with your preconceived opinion and ignore the other 500000000 that disagree there's a good chance you are wrong. If they were dangerous and scientists knew, don't you think someone would have blown the whistle by now? the study's are out there readily available for you to look at. The issue here is not that people don't question vaccines, its that people wont accept the answers when they don't align with their current beliefs.

If vaccines are so safe why are professional doctors and nurses questioning them? Why aren't high ranking politicians that champion vaccines for the general public getting their own vaccines? You say the studies are out: Please cite these studies. Over what duration of time were they and who funded them? Were they double blind studies?

" If they were dangerous and scientists knew, don't you think someone would have blown the whistle by now?"

No, quite the contrary, in fact data that showed the risks of vaccines were destroyed because it would endanger profit margins. Yes there have been doctors blowing the whistle, they're called anti-vax activists and largely ridiculed and often put their careers on the line just to do so. Yes there are doctors out there that are against vaccines.

"most people don't question vaccine safety because its been proven many times to be safe. " So every time a new vaccine comes out it's "safe", hmmm I wonder if we replaced the word "vaccine" with "drug" and that same sentence would work. "Most people don't question drug safety because it's been proven many times to be safe." Tell that to the fentynal victims that are hopelessly addicted or dead. Yes every new drug is safe alright. See what I mean by faith not science? Aluminum is a known neurotoxin, so is mercury, both can be found in vaccines. Nevermind all the animal and human DNA, fermaldehyde and other noxious chemicals. Have you looked at a vaccine ingredient list lately?

"The issue here is not that people don't question vaccines, its that people wont accept the answers when they don't align with their current beliefs."

Let's assume for the same of argument vaccines could be made 100% safe. All the adjuvents taken out, no foreign DNA, no nothing. That STILL doesn't entitle the state to mandate a medical procedure. Mandated medicine of any kind is a violation of the Nuremburg code pure and simple. It's a violation of your medical freedoms. Even if you were giving out bubble gum, that would not entitle you to lock someone up or forcibly shove a stick of bubble gum down their throat against their will.

This is not a case of cognitive dissonence or confirmation bias. There are many highly rational and logical people opposed to vaccines and real evidence to support vaccines do in fact do harm. Do you think a doctor with a PhD just wakes up and says "I think I'd rather go against the mainstream position that vaccines are safe thus endangering my career and reputation."? Do you think anyone would do that without real valid evidence to support that? I mean come on.

I'm just happy that he didn't simply turn out to be another troll with that mild diatribe, but then again, we shall see if he looks at the evidence that Robert F Kennedy compiled about thimerosal specifically, and I am curious what he has to say about the rest of the proof that vaccines aren't efficacious. I don't know if it was needed, to compile all those sources about his "vaccines work and here's proof" article, when in the very first source of that article there is a study sourced which shows the decline of measles at an extensive rate before vaccination, and tack onto that the fact that many of these viruses have never been isolated, that the mechanism by which they work has never worked as hypothesized and I doubt there will be any logical and critical thinker who will consider vaccinations as anything but a fraud.

Like he said, the information is out there, but blindly accepting scientific fraud and arguing that doctors and scientists and everyday people haven't been alarmed by that fact for over 200 years and have published numerous studies, articles and books, gave testimony before congress and in court and even those who have been on the vaccination payroll or worked to develop them and have switched sides only to dedicate their effort and time to inform and warn people and detail the scientific fraud that vaccines have been is the tale tell sign that he has not taken the time to inform himself and so speaking about something which he has no position or perspective of.

Hi whitezombie.
Vaccine Safety has been questioned and shown lacking in ALL of these 50 Scientific Studies.
That's a LOT of scientists, plus the journals accepted and published these studies.
Maybe you don't question vaccine safety, but LOTS & LOTS of scientists do.
I am considering doing a series of posts that goes through each of these scientific studies, one by one.
http://vaccinesafetycommission.org/studies.html

50 Studies the AAP Avoided to Mention

There is a robust, worldwide body of published science from highly esteemed scientists questioning the safety of many different aspects of vaccines-how come we never hear from them? The majority of the most compelling science has been published since 2010. Below find 50 such studies to consider, sorted chronologically, and note that these studies only represent a portion of the published work implicating vaccinations in a wide variety of negative health outcomes.

soooo you want your kids 50 vaccines because they are safe, I might be overboard, but 50 per year is a bit, much don't you think? There are even vaccines for the flu, because it's worthless to do that with 50000 strands? So logic again, where is it. are we born with needles in our asses? Are you saying you can build a body without taking anabolic "medications" , cheesus are you saying people have proven fifteen hundred million times that vaccines are good for you, why aren't we eating them anyways? I'm missing out on my vaccine shot since the air is filed with aluminum. Ever wonder about that ? :D why is there aluminum in the ground, did it grow out of it, are there metal trees around, since when, who proved what? where is your case,.

The issue here is you are being forced to do something! like you have been with your disbelief :D I was going to say science is religion at this point with people going around and repeating the same stuff. But it's true ok mate, still just a opinion.

@j3dy ...yeaaaah -slowly backs away-

sure -plays dungeons and dragons- next time I will hold you with the same disregard :) -rolls the dice-

ouch.. right in the feels. in regard to the aluminum you were talking about... its probably coming from your hat.

yeah those microwaves have fried your brains, would you like a hat? at least I'm recycling :D

Cheers mate you win I'm going to get back in my pod so I can vaccinate some more people later in time :D they need to be immune to stupidity and learn to smell it from far away

I'd like to hear your thoughts on another topic, one that I do actually care about and that is the leftist disconnect from reality.

give me an example of "the leftist disconnect from reality"

https://steemit.com/millenials/@schattenjaeger/my-rant-on-the-millenial-left-language-warning

here I was 20 days ago it seems then a wild pink eyeglasses appears and what do you know he wasn't even there, to say anything, wanted a talk, but couldn't speak, played the philosopher and the victim and acted like nothing was out of the ordinary.

I did scare him I agree :D

https://steemit.com/millenials/@j3dy/re-bacchist-re-stevescoins-re-schattenjaeger-re-stevescoins-re-schattenjaeger-my-rant-on-the-millenial-left-language-warning-20170219t174041018z

I guess people speaking out on topics gets to me. Especially if they have a predisposition to defend their "beliefs" and sadly we all do that. We are always right. Most of the time people can't stop and rarely do they think for themselves.

btw about hummmerica and health "care" :D:D:D:D
https://steemit.com/life/@brianphobos/personal-obamacare-experience-revisited-prepare-to-be-triggered-into-a-rage

About charity and "service"

https://steemit.com/life/@gardenofeden/feeding-people-is-unlawful-in-the-us-we-don-t-comply

so as you can see what we think is going on and what really is are different.

Btw I hear Canadian health care is shit too so people go to get their treatments in the us because of better professionals and the ability to not be stalled for months.

i dont really want to go through all those posts dood. i can assure you im aware of the flaws of the left though as well as the flaws of the right. im in a weird place right now it terms of where i stand on a political level. i used to like anarcho communism but have since moved away from that. im kind of in political no mans land lol. if you want to actually ask a question or something go for it but im not going to read through all those posts... i already told the guy below id read through the metric fuck ton of his lol. Health care here is pretty good i find... its all i know though so im prob a bit bias. the wait times can suck sometimes but i think its a fair trade for knowing that ill be able to get medical attention no matter what.

Voicing motions and mannerisms when you cannot argue, another one bites the dust.

Care to source ONE vaccine study that proves they work.
I have made this challenge in the past and it still stands:
Prove that vaccines are efficacious, any vaccine and I will donate all my meager steam to you after I power down, not acquired by voting or curating but by commenting and being rewarded by people from my comments, if that means anything.

There was one instance where someone decided to post an article from Wikipedia and I have thoroughly proven those claims as false, unfounded or ridiculous beyond even my imagination, so please show us the science, because as it stands your comment is clearly unfounded and not sourced, dogmatic and dismissive to the whole article. Borderline trollish behavior, and there is a good chance that you will not take up the challenge and instead resort to regurgitate ad nauseam vaccines work because the earth is round.

@baah no i dont care to source one. you can find them on your own. i don't care to argue with you about it buddy lol. I love the whole I spent an hour watching youtube videos and now im a doctor thing you got going though. never change lol.

Actually you don't have any sources, and apathy is what you ascribe to. Assuming you know anything about me is just the most epic of fallacious minds.
I'll tell you what, if you don't care why come in here and comment, obviously you do care, just not enough to have the semblance of informed perspective, a perspective where you examine both the pro and cons of what you're preaching, so your whole rigamarole is your time and effort gone to waste, nobody will take you seriously simply because of that, but again you probably don't care.

easy now champ.... jesus christ lol

CHAMP, you posted the article after what it looks like a cursory internet search, and did you not in fact post 3 "studies", which as you know I didn't even scrutinize but simply dismissed with newer knowledge.
Did you look at the blog from that very questionable mom: all full of pro vaccine bias posts from a "concerned" mom?

Did you know there is a history of vaccinations being scientific fraud that goes back 200+ years, with statistics being under reported for over 150 years?
If you are a real individual and not another shill/troll paid by the vaccine industry I can excuse your bullshit, ok you didn't research, you didn't inform yourself, you didn't question, this article that you decided to comment with your rigamarole is imploring you to do just that, it's understandable that it triggered you into some kind of defense for your beliefs, akin to your argument about why people don't research vaccines being safe, but regardless of what you researched at this point or what you didn't because you chose to not look at anything counter to your beliefs or investigate further, no matter how well read you might be, no matter that you said you didn't care, that then right off the bat without examining the first link I posted, you say that A LOT of my sources look very sketchy, well then we can take it there, obviously you don't want that, obviously, so don't call me champ/patronize me because it's demeaning, ok.

If you care about any of this than great, I'm all for helping my fellow man to understand what scientific fraud is but right now Lots of Lunacy from you is not going to get you anything but my scorn, it's not funny, you walk a fine line between troll and uninformed, your choice in words, lack of candor and respect for my time and effort is showing.

If you care about logic and critical thinking you should look at the following fallacies you fell prey to:
Half Truth Fallacy/Default Bias : posting only information about thimerosal not being dangerous.
False Analogy: the earth is round so that means vaccines are proven efficacious.
Bandwagon Fallacy: There's 500000000000000 studies out there.
Argument from Silence: Don't you think someone would have blown the whistle by now.
A priori Argument: Doing a google search "on vaccines not safe".

A lot of those sites you linked seem prettttty sketchy. ill look through a few anyway. ill get back to you.

Are we arguing the information provided or the sources themselves? Because we can take it there right now: you posted a link to a blog first of all, to argue that vaccines are efficacious, AFTER trying to strawman/non sequitur that thimerosal doesn't cause autism to which I posted an article compiling numerous NUMEROUS citation to verifiable sources which have no question of credibility or collusion, which show a clear link between autism and thimerosal, and then I used the first source in that BLOG show that vaccination didn't account for the massive decline in morbidity or mortality from your own articles (dubious) source's citation, but now that you brought up the validity of my sources, that blog relied heavily on numerous dubious claims by the CDC and other vaccine collusion actors, which have a thorough history of under-reporting and misreporting incidences of vaccine induced infections and mortality, let alone the numerous other fraudulent activities which over the last 4 years I have become aware of with those "sources" your very sketchy blog article by A MOM, non professional who parroted those statistics as fact (fallacy of lying with statistics) and now you want to hint that my sources look sketchy, GET THE FUCK OUT, I will happily source all my claims (cdc under-reporting, collusion with vaccine manufactures/developers, fraud and lying with statistics) and determine exactly what?

Or do I just need to point you to the study that says and I repeat:

This means that, predicting an antibody has high affinity for the immunizing antigen is extremely difficult if not impossible

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4160575/

its like this... i dont think there is a big conspiracy by the CDC ect ect. I still trust scientists. one if your links was a wordpress blog so yeah man im sorry but that's a red flag in my book. to be deadly honest yes i am kind of trolling you not because im a shill (LMFAO) but because i find anti vaxxers funny for the same reason i find flat earthers funny. i will honestly read through some of that stuff you posted though i give you my word.. hell maybe you will even change my mind... doubt it but maybe. so just take a few breaths now and relax.

You just basically stated you don't respect me by telling me I am just like flat earthers by stereotyping me, which is another logical fail by grouping/pigeonholing me as anti-vaxxer, after you admitted you blindly trust authority, which is the fallacious appeal to authority and then you used a double standard for your "red flag", sourcing a blog to begin your proof and so you base your concern/red flag on a hypocritical standard, and now you want me to take your word after that and then tell me to "relax"? Tone policing is also another fallacy, do the numerous statements I have made become invalid now that you perceive my tone as aggravated? You can larf all you want at me bro, you can larf at my insinuations about trolls/shills and that's ok, you have no leg to stand on as an individual or someone that cares about what they speak, what they believe, you have no concern and the proof is in the pudding.

Also you are backpedaling on what you said before: a lot of the sites
Which is it? A lot of the sites or one of my links?
Also, you want to argue you aren't a shill but a troll, you really want to stand on that hill now, after I pointed out that you're walking the line?
I don't find flat earth theorist funny, I find them confused, and confused people will confuse reality and real world scenarios, they are my fellow man, they seek to understand but have been given a false narrative. I expressed that there is a conspiracy with vaccinations for a LONG TIME, documented under reporting, documented collusion, and you don't want to look at that, why? Because you DON'T THINK!

If vaccines are so bad if and the evidence is so undeniable why don't the majority of doctors and scientists agree with you already? I would change my opinion in a heart beat if more then a handful of scientists came out and said yes vaccines are bad and do not work. If vaccines don't do what they are intended to do what is the purpose? why do they make them? how do you account for the elimination of things like polio, measles, small pox ECT ECT if it wasn't vaccines? they didn't just go away on their own. i want these answers in your words pref. i don't have time to go through 1000 diff web sites. Im aware that vaccines are not perfect but nothing is perfect. there are rare cases of bad side effects in just about any drug you can think of. when it comes to vaccines the good far out weighs the bad. sorry for being rude and what not i just don't get how you could think the things you do. also sorry to reply on diff posts... this is getting a bit messy.

If more than a handful? You haven't looked at the evidence for vaccines being dangerous, not just bad, so you don't have any ground to stand on when you make such statements, its not a handful, its thousands of scientists doctors, all kinds of professionals, people that worked to develop vaccines themselves. Why are you asking me what is their purpose if they don't work, you can come to your own conclusions but what evidence do you want me to bring for "what is their purpose if they don't work like intended?" Same for why do they make them? Any number of reasons.
I provided evidence that none of those diseases were eliminated, polio was reclassified, people still suffer from all these diseases, the evidence is there but you would rather dismiss it again and again instead of looking at it because it conflicts with your beliefs, a hypocrite if I ever saw one.

In your own "proof" for vaccines working there is the first source which that mom used to prove that measles was eradicated because of vaccine. In that source the very first citation is from a study which shows in it's very first diagram the massive decline of measles for 50 years before the vaccine. Did you understand that, or are you simply attempting to troll again? Did you not read that? Did you not form your own conclusion from that evidence? Did you even bother to read through the article you posted and verify the material you posted? You posted the evidence that vaccines don't work and you don't even know it.

I provided a pertinent study that says that antibodies don't work anything like it was theorized, meaning that vaccines don't have any mechanism to induce immunity if the antibodies that should be produced because of the viral material don't get produced or can stop the virus.

This means that, predicting an antibody has high affinity for the immunizing antigen is extremely difficult if not impossible

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4160575/

i want these answers in your words pref. i don't have time to go through 1000 diff web sites

Sure you do, you want me to spoon feed you the information in my own words because you don't have the time to do it yourself, you promised you would read but it turned out that you're a liar and a fake because you put down your convictions and said "you win", you ceded your position when pressure was put on your flimsy pillars of sand, you admitted to being a troll and you would rather laugh at some confused flat earth theorist instead of challenging them to explain things like lunar eclipse or any other number of inconsistencies probably because like you said in your very first remarks repeatedly, you don't care, but you want me to care, you want me to answer your questions after you disrespected me, patronized me, and refused to answer for the numerous fallacies that you formed. After all that you want to argue that vaccines aren't "perfect" because you still cling onto your beliefs that "the good far out weighs the bad", no off the cuff sorry will do, that was a pathetic general sorry and you hope it will gain my respect? you have made your choices and have only yourself to answer to, I don't want your answers to anything, all my questions are hypothetical and they will remain as such.

Again!
You are hypocrite who says there is evidence of vaccines being safe but won't look at the evidence of them being completely dangerous, without any redeeming value at all might I add, but will argue that the evidence is out there for their safety, you just won't provide evidence, especially evidence that can stand up to even cursory scrutiny! You didn't even bother to read the sources that your double standard red flag proof from a blog cites or the citations of those sources! You have pigeonholed me, patronized me, admitted to being a troll! To pile on to the cacophony that this has turned out to be you won't even bother to consider/read/understand that the basic mechanism by which vaccines theoretically work, or antibodies, is completely and utterly flawed and unreliable, impossible to predict any kind of immunity with! You then seek still to argue that vaccines are safe while relying heavily on the numerous fallacies that I have pointed out, the number one being the argument from silence, which now looks just a tiny little less fallacious as you're willing to consider a handful of scientists/doctors/professionals might have evidence of their danger, but that would be some kind of fallacy that doesn't exist: a fallacy is not a degree of false, it's either true or false, so it's a huge leap of logic to even extend that to your argument that why aren't there more people, because a handful is not enough, even though it's clearly fallacious to say that even, lets beg the question "why didn't you hear about this from the mass media and science community at large?" which remains a moot point as numerous theories have been taken as fact and just like the theory for antibodies and antigens working has been proven false, it still doesn't stop vaccines from being pushed as safe by hypocrites that won't bother to look at the evidence or even read ONE study ,but instead are happy to apply their double standard on the credibility of sources to flee from the overwhelming evidence of the dangers vaccines. O I could go on but you don't have the time.

The other awesome point that needs to be express is that in the blockchain your choices are forever remembered, so don't lament over my "I spent an hour watching youtube videos now im a doctor thing" because you will be left like the dinosaurs, a fossil in the record of the internet, the internet where admins don't scrub posts and comments and where ad revenue isn't the driving factor behind the hardware that keeps the record of what happened and who said what.

ok man you got me. im here to make $hill bux. its all a huge conspiracy to inject mind control drugs into the population. we paid off the majority of doctors and scientists to keep this under wraps. the few that have spoken out against us are currently on our hit list and will soon be eliminated. lol. you win.

Why not actually inform yourself and then engage in discussion like a sensible person instead of trolling?
I never accused you of being a shill, I commented on your behavior as borderline trollish and I said that you're the victim of fallacious reasoning instead of outright calling you stupid and ignorant for your arguments and before that I told you that you were walking a fine line between troll and uninformed individual.

I never called you a troll, you did that, you admitted that you troll, so those were your words, your choices. Did I impress onto you anything?

I didn't label you, I didn't demean you by patronizing you, I didn't resort to feigning concern like you have and I didn't cede from my convictions, but you did.

It was you that came in here saying that people don't look at the mountains of evidence, making disingenuous claims about research on vaccine safety, and didn't even bother to digest the post itself because you ignored the very first link and it's valid concerns, and if you laughed at that or dismissed that then shame on you.

You excused yourself from the discussion by lying and saying you're a shill, because you thought I called you a shill and said you're not a shill, I know you're not a shill because a shill will not say anything about that themselves or say they are trolling, their credibility is paramount to their paycheck, so you cannot be both a self proclaimed troll and a shill, a shill is never interested in discussion or in remarking anything but their opinionated emotional reactionary remarks. It's quite evident to me as I have seen this happen on facebook where I was following over 1200 pages and hundreds of people. I don't even waiver on speculation on a shill's mondus opernadi, I understand the business of vaccinations is all propaganda, ALL OF IT, look at the science bro, it's telling you that they don't know how antibodies work, do you understand that? Shills are one dimensional where as you are akin to many bored individuals looking to laugh at antivaxers or anything they consider stupid/ignorant.

What you did is nothing short of wasting your effort and time on a dialogue that is fallacious to the core, where a shill is always seeking to place people into an emotional response to bypass logic and reasoning. Even if I uttered the word shill, look at the context I used it in, I gave you the benefit of doubt numerous times and you chose to admit that you're a troll.

You might regret ever taking up the challenge of proving vaccines as efficacious but all you really have to do is admit to yourself not me, not the blockchain, that you are uninformed, that like the flat earthers you have been duped and misled and it's not that difficult, there are numerous vaccine researchers that have rallied against vaccines for a long time, people that gave up their careers and even their life to speak the truth because they too were misled, they too fell victim to blindly accepting theory as truth, they believed they were doing good but when they started questioning and came the conclusion they had to admit only one thing: I was duped, I was wrong, I should have been more inquisitive, I should have taken the time to investigate my doubts and not cede to my belief structure, and so in closing don't be the victim of your arrogance and ignorance, there is redemption in taking up the love of truth and putting down the lulsec reactionary response, investigate, inquire, and this is also paramount: physicians heal yourselves first.

Whose job is it to calculate the risks to the patient? Informed choice is part of being a free individual.

In my opinion, you can question religion. Of course, in many cases it's difficult to do so by talking to someone who will not dare to do it publicly. But one thing is certain : it's possible to question his religion and the one of others in a personal way !

Would you go up to a Buddhist and say "What if Nirvana is simply a fantasy you have after prolonged psychological stress?" Or go up to a Christian and say "How can one have free will without moral agency and self ownership? What if this whole repentence thing just inhibits your spiritual development?" Or to a Muslim and ask "What if you die and find out Allah is actually a woman?"

Or here's a real kicker what if you're a theist and question if God exists or an Atheist and question the assumption that he does not exist? See it's all well and good to question someone else's religion but God forbid you question your own. And if you start questioning someone's religion odds are they'll get very upset with you because you are questioning the underlying beliefs they've based their life on.

As I said, it's not easy to question someone's faith, especially if you ask such questions, which go against the deep beliefs. But what are you looking for by asking a controversial question? Do you really think that the person is going to tell you, yes Allah is a woman ? He won't and will probably be upset by your question. But the fact is that he'll probably think about it by himself, and therefore question his faith somehow, in a personal way. Moreover, what's the problem with asking God existence, when you are a theist ? And question the assumption for an atheist ? I don't think that the Manichaean view is appropriate to these questions. One can always find nuances and intermediaries. In fact, it's quite normal to ask questions, and if God exists, he is not forbidding anyone to do it ! Let us take the fact that a theist questions his faith with what he has been able to see and hear and then decides to no longer believe in the same way as before or even no more at all. Would God be furious and vengeful ? There would be no point do that, because the mere fact that there is no undeniable proof of its existence, proves that questioning is allowed !

I remember reading somewhere that the only difference between a religion and a cult is if the "God" figure that is worshiped is alive or dead. So is statism a cult? Quite possibly. To me that's even worse than a religion.

I usually think of the difference between religion and a cult as a difference in scale. After all Christianity used to be considered a minor cult at one point in time and now look at it. By those definitions Government is definitely a religion, and a perverse and dangerous one at that.

Wise insight! Dogma is dogma, regardless of the book used for reference.

A degree does NOT mean one is beyond question.

This can't be said enough. Great article!

Downvoted to reduce reward from excessive and concentrated whale voting. This post contains votes from at least four members of the development team. It boggles my mind to think that the developers of this system think that it is a good idea for their votes to collectively pile on to the highest rewarded posts and therefore deprive hundreds of posts and the bulk of the user base of any meaningful chance at being rewarded.

This is really shitty of you, @smooth. Did it not occur to you that perhaps they all voted on it because it is a great post which is not only thought-provoking, but educational. In your attempts to justify the downvote, you did not so much as mention the post or its value to Steemit. I wonder if you even bothered to read it.

I haven't been making very much as of late, and I'm sure there are plenty others out there who haven't either. But I do not look at a post like this getting whale votes and think, I wish he would have less of a payout so that I could have more. I am--correction, was--very happy to see that this posted had large rewards because I found it to be far more deserving than a lot of other things I see with higher payouts.

I told you once before not to downvote someone else's post in my name, and by doing it to "redistribute rewards" you have essentially done so. No one elected you chief of police on Steemit. And even if they did, downvoting a post based on who else has voted it rather than the content of the post is not helpful to anyone on this platform. It seems you are just doing it to piss off the other whales who upvoted it that you do not like, and @blindsite and his terrific article have paid the price for your pettiness.

I urge you to take the time to read through this post so that you can see how helpful it could be to some people, and why it is more than deserving of the higher visibility that a larger payout provides.

I know that you probably do not like me. And I'm certain that you do not like the majority of the development team. But this is not about us. This is about the user you are trampling on to make an insignificant point. If you are able to see this and remove your downvote it will be a demonstration of your character that I know I, and many others would love to see.

I told you once before not to downvote someone else's post in my name, and by doing it to "redistribute rewards" you have essentially done so.

Whether you wish it done on your behalf or not, it is unavoidable that the math leads to that result. As rewards are shifted away from being allocated in a concentrated manner to a few top posts by a few whales all voting on the same things, it means that all other upvoted posts earn more, and it also means all other voters have more influence in deciding on rewards based on their own individual preferences.

Thanks you for sharing your point of view. I appreciate the input even though I respectfully disagree.

You disagree that posts should be rewarded based on their quality?

You use your vote politically far too often, and considering a great deal of users came to this site to escape the injustices of politics and make use of a supposedly better model of self governance, I am bewildered by the fact that you are unable to see the damage you are doing after all of this time.

You disagree that posts should be rewarded based on their quality

Rewarded, yes. Excessively rewarded no.

It's easy for someone with a $280,000 account value to determine what an excessive reward is?

Not everyone has a quarter million in the bank. Some people are trying to eat, or feed their families, and one trending post can make a huge difference to them.

The $0.01 that gets added on to everyone else's posts when you downvote a trending post makes absolutely no difference to them. You always attempt to justify this shit by saying that you are helping others by the downvote, but the hurting far outweighs the alleged helping. So perhaps you could find a better way to be of assistance, like actively finding posts that you think deserve higher rewards and upvoting them.

You're far too quick to use the hammer and far too inconsiderate of the potential consequences of its blow.

I think we have engaged enough times now to be sure that we are likely never going to agree on anything of importance. Not when it comes to the use of flags at least. I just wonder how you are able to find joy in this platform from doing what are doing. Do you really feel no remorse at all for the rewards you have stripped from hardworking authors?

He's only making $21 now! The last time I looked it was at $40.
How is $40 an excessive award for an EXCELLENT POST?
Can't you at least give a smaller % flag?
He/she have been only posting for a month, with very few followers, and yet managed to put out such extraordinary content that it attracted all those votes!

Also, 11 people Re-Steemed this post!
That means that it was considered exceptional to do so.
I do know that I am very selective in what I resteem.
If that many people value this post that much, than $40 is not at excessive reward. It is insulting to lower his payout to only $20.
https://steemdb.com/science/@blindsite/that-s-not-science-that-s-religion/reblogs

[nesting]

The $0.01 that gets added on to everyone else's posts

That's not how it works. When rewards are redistributed other posts gain proportionately. So tamping down on the excesses at the top can make a real percentage-gain difference (likely at least 20-30% if enough Trending posts are brought down to size a bit) to posts earning a dollar or a few dollars. It likewise proportionately increases the power of smaller votes. It does not spread out as 0.01 per post across a thousand posts.

You are missing my point.

You said the following;

it means that all other upvoted posts earn more, and it also means all other voters have more influence in deciding on rewards based on their own individual preferences.

All other upvoted posts earn more? No. Not really. Definitely not enough worth mentioning. As you said, it is distributed according to current payout, so really the only people who benefit from it to any level of significance are the few top trending posts.

Speaking of the top trending post, it is your friend. A post that has concentrated whalevotes beyond belief, but I don't see your downvote on that one. And he benefited from you downvoting this post more than anyone else did, but surely that was not on your mind when you downvoted... Just a happy coincidence.

All other voters have more influence on deciding rewards? No. Not really. Definitely not for the 95% of voters who's upvote means absolutely nothing. Perhaps their vote might be able to add on a few cents to the trending posts... ie, your friend. But, to anyone else, their vote would have no effect.

So, no. Any time you downvote a post. You're not helping everyone. You are helping the top two or three trending posts. I should probably pay more attention to who is currently trending or heading there whenever you do downvote a post like this in future.

[nesting]

As you said, it is distributed according to current payout, so really the only people who benefit from it to any level of significance are the few top trending posts.

You are incorrect. There are hundreds of posts earning a meaningful amount. Just scroll down Trending (it isn't one page). You can go pages and pages and see posts getting rewarded. Those users are no less deserving of a fair change for a larger share of the reward pool than a few whale favorites at the very top.

Other than the very few at the top of the trending list, the amount added on to each post will be insignificant. Less than $0.50 for many, and less than $0.10 for most. This is not worth mentioning, but the $20 you stole from this author is worth mentioning, because you can actually do something $20. You can't do shit with $0.10.

Edit, it's really more than 20 you stole from them, because you impacted the following upvotes as well as reduced its visibility.

[nesting]

Other than the very few at the top of the trending list, the amount added on to each post will be insignificant. Less than $0.50 for many, and less than $0.10 for most.

We will have to agree to disagree, both numerically and in terms of the impact. One of the most-heard comments from non-stacked users on Steemit is "I only wish my vote were worth 0.01". That $0.50 or $0.10 (even if they were correct) that you dismiss as insignificant is nothing of the sort for the people earning it. Get out a little.

I too wish my vote was worth a penny. But, that is not because someone I upvote will be happy as fuck to receive it, they wouldn't be. That is because I would at least feel that I'm giving something, rather than nothing.

I feel that everyone who wishes they could give a cent say this with the same sentiment, not because they think anyone needs or can possibly do anything with a cent.

I think you're aware of this. I hadn't yet seen @krnel's post and realised just how often you have been using this excuse before I pulled you up on this. Now I realise that it is a waste of my time, because you have no intent on correcting your behaviour. I no longer believe that it is because you think you're in the right, though. I think it's become very obvious that there is an agenda at play here. I won't be wasting any more of my time trying to talk sense to you. Either you see the damage you're causing and just don't care, or you will never see it and continue to convince yourself that you're doing good, even when everyone other than arselickers who want whalevotes are telling you otherwise.

Enjoy the rest of your night.

I too wish my vote was worth a penny. But, that is not because someone I upvote will be happy as fuck to receive it, they wouldn't be. That is because I would at least feel that I'm giving something, rather than nothing.

And that is indeed among the results of reversing some of the excess concentration of rewards at the top. More people have votes worth a penny, and feel they have accoplished something. i.e. more happy users. We will have to agree or disagree whether that is more valuable than a few posts already earning a lot more than most of the others earning even more than that. I personally think it is.

If this is how you feel, then why did you not downvote atsdavids most recent post which was trending at $200+ dollars, and basically consisted of things he had already said in comments, which you are aware of, because you upvoted a ton of them. So he should be getting another payout for something he was already paid for sharing, but this guy shouldn't because there was concentrated whalevotes(that came at the hands of a curation trail)?

You should rephrase your excuse to "concentrated voting of whales I don't like." Or better yet, come up with an entirely new excuse because this one is illogical and I don't think anyone with a bit of common sense is buying it.

[nesting]

If this is how you feel, then why did you not downvote atsdavids most recent post which was trending at $200+ dollars

Because as this exchange illustrates, improving the incentive structures on Steemit is extremely important and, as such, effective presentation and discussion of these issues adds more value than any routine personal blog post. Especially more so than paying concentrated rewards to a large number of personal blog posts day after day, week after week. That is my opinion, and I'm entitled to use my vote power according to my opinion as is anyone else.

This does not explain why you haven't downvoted many of the trending posts that are saturated with whalevotes in spite of the content being far from deserving.

Yes, @smooth. You are entitled to use your voting power in whatever you like. But, you are certainly not entitled to my respect as long as you continue to use it in this way. If you had an ounce of morality, you would send the author of this post the 20 dollars that you took from him, as neither you nor I know how much they may have needed it.

Chances are, they might not have. But, they just might of. Everyone of our talks has been on the same topic. Consideration. You have none of it, and someone in your position ought to have a lot of it. I hope, I really do, that you will take some time to reflect on your actions and think of the potential afflictions your flags may be having on users who are working hard for the hope that they might one day get rewards deserving on their time and efforts.

Now, I mean not to be rude. But, I am busy, so I would rather not continue this conversation as it has proven itself unproductive.

Good night.

So.... you want to moderate what other people choose to vote on? Isn't that kind of against the spirit of Steemit given it's supposed to be a form of decentralized social media?

No, I want to vote as well, based on my views of how rewards are being allocated. That's very much part of the spirit of Steemit. But I also have a view that for developers of the system to support pile-on voting and concentrate rewards on one post out of a thousand is unfortunate. Couldn't they at least find four different good posts to support instead of all piling on, or failing that simply step away and let the community votes have more influence? That, to me, is a lot more decentralized.

sadly there is so much to go around, we cant all get 1000 per day. at least unless the first 60 people do and then the rest get their other days to hope for :D

For clarity, it was voted on by a curation guild (Curie) which uses voting power from Steemit developers such as Val-a and Val-b, then voted by Jamesc.

Likely the only vote that can from a Steemit dev himself was jamesc.

When a stakeholder delegates his or her vote, I still consider the stakeholder responsible for how that delegation is used. What deals they may make with other parties is their business, not mine.

Any meaningful chance at being rewarded

is a very very big stretch @smooth.

I understand that there is only so much to go around but I think that it is excessive what you did, maybe consider downvoting with a lot less than 100%, please consider that.

A lot of people are here to do the social thing, to simply post things about their day to day life, or their art and creative process, and it's wonderful and they do get rewarded far more than any other, ANY OTHER place in the world for doing that, even if it is a meager .000001 of a cent, it still is more reward than the nothing that will be rewarded in forums and other media platforms, I know because I have been there, as I am sure you have too.

That they do it regardless of being paid or purely for profit is inconsequential: there's numerous websites that cater to patronage which means you can turn your art/creative endeavor into a real sustainable source of income based on merit and actual peoples trading their valuable time and effort in form of one commodity or another for their art/work but the engagement that those post provide is close nil, yes, almost zero. Commenting on an artwork, a story, a book, is akin to walking a gallery and musing at the art, complimenting the artist, and maybe getting their contact, or writing a letter to the editor to commend how powerful that book was, how inspiring their story and entertaining reading their work turned out to be, the reply will be a gesture, not a discussion, their praise will be the end of conversation. They can do that here, they can post their art, they can post their blogs, they have a chance to be merited if they chose to invest in the long run, otherwise they turn tail and run, if they don't chose to invest back into SP points, then the points they get will remain useless, they won't realize their potential and hurt the community by leaving the investors with a sour taste in the their wake.

The other posts that cater to the socialites who enjoy to talk about what they have done today, yesterday, or last year, their personal preferences or what they want/wish to do offer the community engagement in that direction and it's very narrow, it pertains to individualistic circumstances and rarely explores the conversation outside of that. Here we are though, in a post exploring philosophy, science, medicine, and that's engagement, these people here commenting are for the most part full of conviction for what they say, some have mentioned making major life decisions around these issues, they express their concern for their fellow man, they don't post to be rewarded, they are not looking for patrons, or a pat on the back, a congratulation on what you accomplished today so the engagement they provide is equally eclipsing any other engagement here on steem and elsewhere. Please consider downvoting with a lot less than 100%, simply because you are fucking with people's convictions, not some trivial bullshit.

whale wars :) :D this is a bit too much tho, I don't mind what you are doing, but I do find a flaw in the thinking now that I started to do it, first of all some posts get recognition after the whale votes, then get the community votes, after all it doesn't matter how many people resteem and upvote when the goal is the trending page.
So you break the chain that gets people there, at least soft downvote if you can, it would be sad to see all the high payout posts getting a few downvotes by whales, it's going to start looking like a tug of war :D
Still many have done it many are doing it, I don't mind as long as it's not every day. And btw they vote on a trail, so your vote countered all of theirs probably, the payout went from 40 to 20 :D now if 300 people vote on it it might get to 30 :D

There will always (without exception) be posts on the Trending page, and on their way to the trending page. There is nothing I can do to change that, nor would I want to if I could. The only real question is what share of the reward pool is gobbled up by those posts. Too much is too much.

sometimes it is, but fixing the leaks and the problems coupled with the drop in price by ~10-15 times would do a great deal, I was seeing 2k, then I saw even 8k and 16k payouts even more. SO it wasn't always so I agree with you, but even moderation should be moderate :D

Now the field of battle has gone to krnel and bernie :D first guy that can stand up to him :D and probably won't be much of a scuffle