Discussion about this post

User's avatar
AwakeNotWoke's avatar

Let’s examine the methods available to pharmaceuticals companies and regulators to critique this research and how one could expect that these methods would be used:

1. Cherry Picking (Selective Evidence)

• How it would be used: Pharmaceutical companies or their defenders might highlight studies that support the safety and efficacy of the vaccine, while ignoring the data presented in this study that shows a potential link between vaccines and excess deaths.

• Example: "While this study shows some concerning patterns, let's focus on the dozens of other studies that confirm the COVID-19 vaccines saved millions of lives. These outlier claims don’t change the overall picture."

2. Appeal to Authority

• How it would be used: They might cite respected health authorities, like the WHO, CDC, or even well-known epidemiologists, who maintain that the vaccines are overwhelmingly safe and effective, dismissing this study as out of touch with expert consensus.

• Example: "The WHO and the CDC have continuously stated that the vaccines are safe. Raphael Lataster is not an authority in vaccine safety, and this paper contradicts the vast body of expert opinion."

3. Ad Hominem

• How it would be used: Rather than engaging with the study’s data, the pharmaceutical industry could attack the credentials or motives of the researcher or any publication with a dissenting view.

• Example: "Raphael Lataster, while having a background in pharmacy, has no proven expertise in epidemiology or vaccine safety, and his claims should be taken with a grain of salt."

4. False Dichotomy (Either-Or Fallacy)

• How it would be used: Framing the issue as an either/or situation—either the vaccines are responsible for excess deaths, or the pandemic and its effects were much worse than we thought.

• Example: "Either we accept that the vaccines are safe and effective and continue with our vaccination programs, or we risk an overwhelming wave of COVID-19 deaths. We cannot afford to entertain these conspiracy theories about vaccine harm."

5. Post hoc ergo propter hoc (False Cause)

• How it would be used: Arguing that just because excess deaths increased after the introduction of the vaccine, it doesn’t necessarily mean the vaccine is the cause.

• Example: "The timing of the vaccine rollout and the rise in excess deaths are coincidental. Just because they occurred around the same time doesn’t mean the vaccines are the cause."

6. Appeal to Ignorance

• How it would be used: Suggesting that because we don’t have definitive proof of the vaccines causing excess deaths, we should assume they don’t.

• Example: "There’s no definitive proof that vaccines directly cause excess deaths. Until you can prove this conclusively, we should assume the vaccines are safe."

7. Anecdotal Evidence

• How it would be used: Highlighting the experiences of individuals or groups who have not been adversely affected by the vaccine, thus dismissing the broader, less anecdotal data.

• Example: "I personally know dozens of people who had the vaccine with no issues. This data is just outlier cases that don't represent the majority of people who benefit from the vaccine."

8. Overgeneralization (Hasty Generalization)

• How it would be used: Using a small subset of data from a specific region to make broad claims about the global impact of the vaccines.

• Example: "Just because a few regions in Australia saw a slight uptick in deaths doesn’t mean this applies to the entire population. The global vaccine rollout has been overwhelmingly beneficial."

9. Argument from Incredulity

• How it would be used: Rejecting the findings as implausible, arguing that it’s hard to believe the vaccines could have caused the excess deaths when the benefits have been so widely promoted.

• Example: "It’s hard to believe that a vaccine that has been so extensively tested and administered worldwide could actually be causing widespread deaths. This seems far-fetched."

10. Confirmation Bias

• How it would be used: Ignoring or dismissing evidence that contradicts the claim that vaccines are safe, while focusing on any study that supports the idea that the vaccines are harmful.

• Example: "There’s a reason this paper is getting attention—it's exactly what people who are already anti-vaccine want to hear. But we have hundreds of other studies that show the vaccine's safety."

11. Appeal to Popularity (Bandwagon)

• How it would be used: Arguing that since the vaccine is universally recommended by global health organizations, it must be safe, and this study is an outlier.

• Example: "The vaccines are endorsed by almost every health organization in the world. If there were any major issues, they would have come to light long ago."

12. Falsifiability Objection

• How it would be used: Claiming that the study’s conclusions are not falsifiable or are based on insufficient evidence to be reliable.

• Example: "There are too many variables in the data presented here to draw solid conclusions. Without clear, falsifiable evidence, this study cannot be considered definitive."

13. Appeal to Complexity (or "It’s More Complicated")

• How it would be used: Suggesting that the situation is too complex to be reduced to the simple narrative that the vaccines are causing harm.

• Example: "The reasons behind excess deaths are multifaceted, involving socio-economic factors, healthcare access, and more. This paper oversimplifies the issue by blaming the vaccine."

14. False Equivalence

• How it would be used: Drawing false comparisons between the vaccine and other interventions or factors without addressing their differences in impact.

• Example: "We’ve seen adverse effects from all kinds of medications and interventions. Just because there are concerns about the vaccine doesn’t mean it’s any worse than other common drugs that carry risks."

15. No True Scotsman

• How it would be used: Reinterpreting the argument to exclude studies that show negative effects, making the data harder to contest.

• Example: "If the vaccines were truly harmful, it would show up in properly conducted, peer-reviewed studies. This paper is not part of the legitimate body of scientific work, so it can be disregarded."

16. Loaded Language or Framing

• How it would be used: Using emotionally charged terms or framing to make the study seem less credible or too extreme.

• Example: "This study is filled with alarmist language, making sweeping, unfounded claims about the vaccines. The real science tells a much different story."

17. Shifting the Burden of Proof

• How it would be used: Demanding that the researchers prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the vaccine caused the excess deaths, rather than acknowledging the existing evidence.

• Example: "You can’t just claim the vaccine caused excess deaths—you need irrefutable evidence linking the two. Until then, the vaccine’s safety stands unchallenged."

18. Appeal to Tradition

• How it would be used: Relying on the long history of vaccines as a form of reassurance that the new COVID vaccines must be safe.

• Example: "Vaccines have been saving lives for over 100 years. We know they’re effective, and this new COVID-19 vaccine is just following that established tradition."

19. Undistributed Middle

• How it would be used: Drawing connections between the vaccine and excess deaths based on incomplete or unrelated data.

• Example: "Excess deaths are increasing in regions with high vaccination rates, so the vaccine must be the cause—this assumes that vaccines are the only factor, which is not necessarily true."

20. Slippery Slope

• How it would be used: Suggesting that even considering the possibility that vaccines might be linked to excess deaths could lead to extreme, negative consequences.

• Example: "If we start questioning the vaccine's safety, it will lead to widespread vaccine hesitancy, public panic, and the collapse of public health efforts globally."

Conclusion:

In response to this study, defenders of the COVID-19 vaccines could employ any of these fallacies to discredit the findings, deflect attention from uncomfortable truths, and preserve the vaccine’s public image and financial value. The fallacies would be designed to frame the study as unimportant, unreliable, or unfounded, allowing the pharmaceutical industry and its stakeholders to maintain confidence in their products and avoid the consequences of questioning the vaccine’s safety.

David White (Oz Dave)'s avatar

Thanks so much for your efforts.

The data on countries such as Cuba are glaringly obvious - it’s astounding that so many people are indifferent about the numbers when you tell them:

https://substack.com/@meshwork3232/note/c-214365904?r=20pd6j&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action

121 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?