It really hasn't, and it boggles the mind how anyone could even attempt to gaslight about this well-documented topic.
Just as one example, CDC quietly changed the definition of vaccination from producing "immunity to a disease" to producing "protection from a disease". This happened in September when it became clear that covid vaccines do not provide immunity (compare https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.htm in August and September in web.archive.org).
I am sure you will find a reason why this is not gaslighting. For me it is a pure form of exactly that.
Just as one example, CDC quietly changed the definition of vaccination from producing "immunity to a disease" to producing "protection from a disease".
Enough with this bullshit. No one batted an eye when every single year everyone had to take the flu vaccine, and still some who did still ended up catching it. No one batted an eye when the BCG vaccine is advertised to have an effectiveness between zero and 78%. And in spite of that now we are supposed to mobilize out militant ignorance to rail against a specific vaccine because it's not a silver bullet? And this is a vaccine that was quite literally a makeshift, better than nothing, solution for an ongoing problem?
Don’t create a straw man. Nobody here is arguing against the vaccine. As I’ve said elsewhere it’s an absolute miracle and I am fully boosted and have been since I became eligible for the booster.
The argument was whether or not the health authorities are messaging things in a way that is both honest and transparent. The person you are replying to is arguing that they literally “moved the goalposts” of the intent of vaccines all-up to better align with real-world effectiveness. The argument is that the CDC again shot itself in the foot by making a sneaky edit that didn’t need to be made. Of course the goal of a vaccine is to provide immunity. Why change the wording? Just because the current approved vaccines don’t provide perfect sterilizing immunity doesn’t mean that that isn’t the intent. The edit makes it seem like they are changing to goal to make ambition match reality.
Fauci admitting he downplayed masks to make sure doctors had supplied is another such erosion of trust. Yes his cause was noble and yes he may have helped in the immediate term secure supplies but he also created the sound bite that anti-mask people rally behind. Caesar’s wife must be beyond suspicion.
My overall thesis is that public health officials have been treating the population like children since day one. A mix of not trusting the people with real data (cloth masks are minimally effective, vaccines aren’t perfect, children are at a lower risk) and worrying more about messaging than transparency. Another example, being pedantic on what gain of function is. Yes, what the grant proposals were aiming to do may not fit the scientific definition of gain of function but it certainly fits the laymen understanding of the term. So when a layman asks you about it, don’t scoff and try to obfuscate, answer what the layman was essentially asking which was “did the NIH in any way fund research that could have resulted in a virus that is better suited to infect humans”. And Fauci is smart enough to know that that is what was being asked. But instead he argued semantics while FOIA emails showed he knew exactly what the concerns were.
If you act untrustworthy don’t be surprised when people don’t trust you, even if it what are saying is true now.
Comments
Just as one example, CDC quietly changed the definition of vaccination from producing "immunity to a disease" to producing "protection from a disease". This happened in September when it became clear that covid vaccines do not provide immunity (compare https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.htm in August and September in web.archive.org).
I am sure you will find a reason why this is not gaslighting. For me it is a pure form of exactly that.
By the way, CDCs did categorically claim in April 2021 that the vaccinated cannot spread the virus ( https://mobile.twitter.com/FortuneMagazine/status/1377810547... ). This is false as we know today.
Enough with this bullshit. No one batted an eye when every single year everyone had to take the flu vaccine, and still some who did still ended up catching it. No one batted an eye when the BCG vaccine is advertised to have an effectiveness between zero and 78%. And in spite of that now we are supposed to mobilize out militant ignorance to rail against a specific vaccine because it's not a silver bullet? And this is a vaccine that was quite literally a makeshift, better than nothing, solution for an ongoing problem?
Don’t create a straw man. Nobody here is arguing against the vaccine. As I’ve said elsewhere it’s an absolute miracle and I am fully boosted and have been since I became eligible for the booster.
The argument was whether or not the health authorities are messaging things in a way that is both honest and transparent. The person you are replying to is arguing that they literally “moved the goalposts” of the intent of vaccines all-up to better align with real-world effectiveness. The argument is that the CDC again shot itself in the foot by making a sneaky edit that didn’t need to be made. Of course the goal of a vaccine is to provide immunity. Why change the wording? Just because the current approved vaccines don’t provide perfect sterilizing immunity doesn’t mean that that isn’t the intent. The edit makes it seem like they are changing to goal to make ambition match reality.
Fauci admitting he downplayed masks to make sure doctors had supplied is another such erosion of trust. Yes his cause was noble and yes he may have helped in the immediate term secure supplies but he also created the sound bite that anti-mask people rally behind. Caesar’s wife must be beyond suspicion.
My overall thesis is that public health officials have been treating the population like children since day one. A mix of not trusting the people with real data (cloth masks are minimally effective, vaccines aren’t perfect, children are at a lower risk) and worrying more about messaging than transparency. Another example, being pedantic on what gain of function is. Yes, what the grant proposals were aiming to do may not fit the scientific definition of gain of function but it certainly fits the laymen understanding of the term. So when a layman asks you about it, don’t scoff and try to obfuscate, answer what the layman was essentially asking which was “did the NIH in any way fund research that could have resulted in a virus that is better suited to infect humans”. And Fauci is smart enough to know that that is what was being asked. But instead he argued semantics while FOIA emails showed he knew exactly what the concerns were.
If you act untrustworthy don’t be surprised when people don’t trust you, even if it what are saying is true now.