Are you going to take the vaccine?

[Louisabell]

Pharmaceutical companies in collusion with allopathic medicine is just one overt example—keeping people ill and on drugs, and raking in the profits by doing so. I'm not trying to be negative here, just realistic.

It's a mistake to go by the topic, and that's what people both for and against "conspiracies" very often do on social media (which is real-world Idiocracy for the most part).

The problem with "conspiracy theories" is not that they are about conspiracies. There can be good thinking and theories about conspiracies. Rather, the outstanding characteristic which is associated with the label ("conspiracy theory", as opposed to theories about conspiracies) in a generalized way, is a loose, sloppy stream-of-associations way of arguing, which magnifies extremely weak circumstantial evidence and sees it as deciding all, ignoring all higher-quality types of evidence which go against the conclusions which the loose and emotionally-tangled web of associations point towards.

The absence of all the popular "conspiracy theory" leaves a picture very well-known in the mainstream: a picture of greed, incompetence, and PR battles for status and prestige often ending up more important in practice than doing things well and fulfilling responsibilities.

Loving humanity and 3D existence is one thing; trusting that governments (and the corporate entities tied to government or are just so huge they constitute significant control) have our best interests at heart is quite another.

Actually, those who primarily care for profit generally also care to have a functioning economy and workers who are alive rather than dead. Public health measures can in large part be understood as being motivated in that way. Even social democratic measures are based around an old conservative economic idea, namely that keeping the working class healthy and capable makes it possible to get more work out of them (meaning more profit). And originally, public education for the poor around the world has in large part been driven and financed for the benefit of industrialists.

This is a basic part of the picture of civilization as we know it, and it curiously seems to not be understood at all by those who believe in rumors of mass depopulation, or the government wanting to make people extra sick, etc. Those who believe such rumors have forgotten the very widely available knowledge of how rich, greedy, powerful people think and what they want.

There is definitely a profit incentive when it comes to the pharmaceutical industry. I see there being good and bad in that. Having a profit incentive can lead to greater efficiencies and the profit generating Pfizer vaccine was the first to market. The profit incentive is less pronounced in other parts of the world. For example, where I live it is illegal to advertise any prescription drugs. The government here has decided that the danger associated with exposing the populace to this kind of advertising (which can be seen as a form of propaganda) is worth having this protection. On the other hand, it could be seen as a form of control and a limitation to the economic freedom of industry. Incase anyone is curious, there's a wikipedia page on it here: Direct-to-consumer advertising - Wikipedia , and the USA and New Zealand are the only countries in the world that allow direct-to-consumer advertising for prescription drugs. 

Moreover, the AstraZeneca vaccine (most of the population where I live, Australia, has taken this vaccine) was developed alongside Oxford University and is sold at cost price (i.e. not profit generating), and will be sold this way to developing nations in "perpetuity". Article about it here: Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine to be sold to developing countries at cost price | Global development | The Guardian

So, what would be the motivation when profit is removed? I'm sure there are many practical motivations, paid university academics are expected to conduct research as part of their salary agreements, and AstraZeneca the company has gotten a lot of publicity and brand recognition out of it. Also people tend to want to work in jobs that are "making a beneficial difference in the world" so it can be a great thing when one's personal desire for altruism also coincides with what is beneficial on an economic level. The main point I am trying to suggest, is that there are other models of industry that are not predicated on maxing out on profits. 

Of course it could be an elite ploy as well. That would be something that is hard to disprove at the very least. Weak argumentation is inevitable no matter what side you fall in this vaccine situation. This world is too complex to not rely on the specialization and expertise of others. I've worked many jobs, in the private industry, semi-government and a university. The reality of the general everyday running of these enterprises as I saw them were a lot more boring and benign than is usually depicted. It has predisposed me to rely on the specialization of scientists, for I cannot reliably interpret a scientific paper myself (although I certainly try, I could never conduct my own data analysis on the raw data collected). Other people are predisposed to rely on those who operate "outside the system" (i.e. whistleblowers, reports on the street, civilian reporting). I would guess that in those cases more credibility is given to those who don't appear to have a profit motive or forced loyalty to a system in order to keep a job, etc. 

I am waffling. What I really wanted to add to this thread was the following. Anyone interested in the allopathic healing model, but who dislikes vaccines, there is some good news. Looks like there is a new COVID antiviral medication Molnupiravir that has undergone a clinical trial and the results are very promising so far. BBC article discussing it linked to here: https://www.bbc.com/news/health-58764440

I took my second dose of Pfizer a few weeks ago. I got tired after it and ended up taking a nap. Once I woke up, I felt great and had no other symptoms. I had less symptoms after taking my second dose than I did the first, which is opposite to what some have reported here, so I thought I would add it.