so edgey, so serious, msnbc
1 response | 0 likes
Started by mcfarm - Aug. 18, 2025, 6:17 p.m.

wow what a grand idea. MSNBC has changed it name in order to regain those 12 viewers that had previously. Things like "this vaccine will end covid" Take the vaccine and you cannot get covid or pass the virus" , "Trump is a Russian asset". "trump colluded with Russia", "Hunters lap top is Russian disinformation" , "Biden never took a dime from China" "there was never cocaine in the WH" , "biden's mental ability has never been better". "51 national security experts verified", .....I bet many ordinary people could set here and list from memory just how many times MSNBC has so terribly wrong...unapologetic about, and arrogant enough to think we would not notice.

Comments
By metmike - Aug. 18, 2025, 6:57 p.m.
Like Reply

Thanks, mcfarm,

I agree with you on most of that stuff.

However:

Things like "this vaccine will end covid" Take the vaccine and you cannot get covid or pass the virus"

That never happened!

The vaccine was promoted as a way to strengthen our immune systems so that it was armed with COVID antibodies. Not that it would prevent COVID or make us immune from COVID. To arm our immune systems so that WHEN WE GOT/GET COVID, our bodies could defeat it with much less severe symptoms. In the case of older people and those with compromised health, SAVE MANY MANY LIVES. Which is exactly what it did.

In many cases, it caused people to never get COVID which meant less people passing on COVID. And those with less severe symptoms, also shed less virus and are less contagious.

That was the science before, now and always will be mcfarm!

NOT the anti vaccine science we are getting from RFK who is doing great damage in this particular field. This article comes from MSNBC. Read the quote/article. They  stated the AUTHENTIC science, not the made up versions which the far right made up using a straw man attack. 

RFK Jr. is attacking the very science that saved millions

HHS Secretary Kennedy’s decision is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of vaccinology that could cost lives in future pandemics.

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/rfk-jr-defunds-mrna-vaccine-research-covid-rcna223504

No vaccine for respiratory viruses has ever provided complete, lasting protection against all infections. Not the flu vaccine. Not RSV vaccines. That never should have been the expectation. Some vaccines, like those for measles or polio, can effectively prevent infection and transmission, but these target fundamentally different viruses that don’t constantly mutate and reinfect the respiratory tract. The purpose of respiratory virus vaccines is to prevent severe disease, hospitalization and death. By that measure, mRNA vaccines have been revolutionary.

The data confirms what I witnessed firsthand. According to research by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, unvaccinated individuals had 53 times the risk of death compared to those who had been fully vaccinated during the Delta wave in 2021. A New England Journal of Medicine study analyzing over 6 million Covid cases found that protection against death remained above 90% and remarkably durable, even as protection against infection declined.

+++++++++++

This is what the far right does(their sources) is doing with these fake COVID benefit claims:

Straw man

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

Overview

The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:

  1. Person 1 asserts proposition X.
  2. Person 2 argues against a superficially similar proposition Y, as though an argument against Y were an argument against X.

This reasoning is a fallacy of relevance: it fails to address the proposition in question by misrepresenting the opposing position.

For example:

  • Quoting an opponent's words out of context—i.e., choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent's intentions (see fallacy of quoting out of context).[3]
  • Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then denying that person's arguments—thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.[2]
  • Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.
  • Exaggerating (sometimes grossly) an opponent's argument, then attacking this exaggerated version.