Maybe you aren’t writing as clearly as you think you are, which would explain a whole lot of your comments in other threads.

“Good one Norma, but watch out, Robert doesn’t like name calling. And it doesn’t really help you make your point.”

Does this mean that you are the former, not the latter? Otherwise you would only be playing one, not being one and there would be no insult, so perhaps Norma made her point.

“I’m not quite convinced because nobody in their right mind should consider trump an authority in the vaccine.”

I’m pretty sure that this was Robert’s point. If scientists can’t get their information to the public without some politician or celebrity, then there is something wrong with the information distribution system.

“I really am disappointed that there are so many scientIfically illiterate people in the US.”

At least you are not surprised that an education system fails us all when it emphasizes Woke over reality and teaches that woke is scientific and reality is not.

“Already we’ve seen that Covid was more dangerous than some wanted to portray, masks helped, the vaccines worked and we’re not harmful”

Oh, look at that! A perfect example of someone scientifically illiterate who depends upon politicians and celebrities for his scientific information. At least he was smart enough to not depend upon Orange Man Bad for his information. Or did he get vaxxinated?

To the colonel, maybe you’re right, I’m not quite convinced because nobody in their right mind should consider trump an authority in the vaccine. He was president when vaccines were developed, he didn’t develop them. Nor does he understand what the Covid vaccines are or how they work. The report said in the test cases trump either recommended the vaccine or said he took it himself. Im not convinced that’s an authoritative position, but could change my mind. Maybe I need to watch the ads to see how he stated whatever he did. So I’m hesitant to accept that’s the fallacy here. It might be less sophisticated than that. I think this study was kind of dumb really, it proved the obvious, but I suppose everything needs to be proven. For some people so set in their ideology, hearing positive experiences from people they want to listen to made the difference. Groundbreaking stuff there.

To Phil, simple. What you’re stating is just not true. You need to question your data and sources. Sorry, I can’t spend time proving what you’ve been told or are interpreting is wrong, but that’s the case.

Good one Norma, but watch out, Robert doesn’t like name calling. And it doesn’t really help you make your point.

Deebee, again another case of bad information. The whole myocarditis thing has been addressed and shown to not be the issue the anti Antivax crowd was trying to make it out to be.

I really am disappointed that there are so many scientIfically illiterate people in the US. The system has failed them in some way and it’s a tragedy. I don’t expect everyone to be experts or have advanced level understanding of topics, but basic abilities to parse data, think critically, grasp trends and big picture take always, and investigate the sources of the data they consume are lacking.

It will be interesting to continue to watch the US, and this page, as more information about the vaccines and Covid come in. Already we’ve seen that Covid was more dangerous than some wanted to portray, masks helped, the vaccines worked and we’re not harmful, various antivax and grifter types were misrepresenting info for monetary gain, ivermectin and hq had no significant benefit, etc. Little by little every talking point in the conspiracy, antivax, personal freedom camp has failed, and continues to fail.

‘Vaccines work” — work has to be defined. The myth under which FDA emergency authorization was obtained was 95% efficacy at stopping infections. No person in either arm of the study died, so efficacy at reducing hospitalization and death are a happy circumstance.
In the 19-30 group death rate by Covid is about 50 per million, while death rate due to myocarditis is about 75. Seems like old farts (me included) started falling like proverbial flies and created a solution that is beneficial to them at the expense of youngster. Sort of like the ass-whooping we are giving the young one with Social Security.

Robert’s conclusion is valid. Hucksters as well as legitimate businessmen have known about the power of celebrity endorsements for millennia. I’ve read things that indicate the practice was alive and well even in ancient Rome. It’s why you see celebrity photos on the walls of restaurants they’ve visited, as well as so many celebs in media advertisements for absolutely dismal products. If your product is dismal it’s a lot easier to generate income with psychological manipulation and the illusion of legitimacy than with hard facts.

Celebrity endorsement of a product is not de facto proof that the product is mediocre, but it’s the only surefire way to milk profit from a mediocre product.

Trump’s ongoing support of the dismal Covid vaccines is unfortunate, but like everyone he makes mistakes and is entitled to a few misguided opinions. I just hope these hucksters got his permission before they did this. If they didnt, I hope he finds out and makes them pay. Ditto Fox News, from whence they apparently ripped the clip of Trump that they used. Profiteering is definitely prohibited by Fair Use, even if they misspelled profiteering as “research”.

I’m curious, sincerely, how you mentally process the Pfizer data disclosing the fact that the vaccine trial placebo arm experienced fewer deaths than the vaccinated arm. Not even a twinge of doubt about how it’s efficacy is “obvious”?

When I took a course on logic and debate in college that was known as the “Argument From Authority” fallacy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

“We were so thrilled,” says Marc Hetherington, a political scientist at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, who helped create the ad and co-authored the study. “How often do political scientists and economists do anything that helps the world? The answer is, like, 0% of the time.”

Break it down:

Can’t speak for PoliSci, but economists have made major contributions to human welfare and mathematics. Some very elegant math proofs came from economists.

‘Like, 0%. . .’ Such a level of precision from a ‘scientist’.

“Opinion, Spock?”

“Captain, there is, like, 0% chance I would say this.”

All kidding aside, I know you know this. The real question is why are you being deliberately misleading about this report?