Were any of the COVID-19 vaccines designed to cause infertility, contain microchips, or have any other secret effects?
121
450
495
resolved Jan 1
Resolved
NO

Resolves Yes if this is reported by Reuters, the BBC, NPR, or the AP, opinion sections excluded, before the end of 2023.

I will not be trading this market due to the potential conflict of interest.

Send this market to your antivax family members!

Get Ṁ1,000 play money

🏅 Top traders

#NameTotal profit
1Ṁ901
2Ṁ747
3Ṁ628
4Ṁ604
5Ṁ454
Sort by:
predicted NO

This market was unlisted but I've relisted it

bought Ṁ5 of NO

@Sinclair why was it unlisted?

predicted NO

The purpose of this market is to get Dr. P to pay you money.

Title is not really matching description.

If COVID-19 vaccines would be actually designed to cause infertility or contain microchips then it is unlikely to be reported so soon.

predicted NO

@M I think someone would have noticed the microchips by now. And infertility would be showing up in the birth rate.

@MartinRandall In world where vaccine contains evil microchips (so there is supressed info how microchips actually work) it would be kept secret.

(I am well aware that microchips are not actually inside vaccines)

bought Ṁ710 of YES

@M There’s a large domain of possibilities falling into the category of “or have any other secret effects” e.g. myocarditis, heart disease, strokes, immune system deterioration, prion disease, etc. - that could qualify for this to resolve to “yes” IF it is clear that the manufacturers/creators designed it that way on purpose.

You're not willing to accept one of the magazines that does long-form investigative reporting? That seems interesting, to me. What if the Intercept got some interesting files from a whistleblower on the lizardman conspiracy or whatever - but the wire services chose to ignore it? Would that not in itself be very curious and more than a little suspicious, yet would not meet the resolution criteria?

I mean, I certainly don't think the vaccine was designed to cause infertility, or myocarditis, or whatever else the conspiracies are about these days. But suppose it was uncovered that the Pfizer execs had figured out it would cause those effects and kept it quiet? That seems like it would in spirit be a victory for team conspiracy, but also would not meet the resolution criteria as stated.

predicted NO

@AndrewHartman No opinion on magazines, but I think that there's a big difference between greedy executives hiding side effects and a deliberate conspiracy to cause an effect and slip it into the COVID vaccine. If you care about the former, maybe you could create another market for it?

predicted NO

@extent_of_foxes s/greedy/cowardly/

@extent_of_foxes Well, I just mean that the conspiracy people, in the event that such a revelation came to light, are definitely not going to say "oh, looks like it was just normal malfeasance and not lizard people" instead of tossing their tinfoil hats skyward and saying "SEE!?! WE TOLD YOU!"

You can argue nuance all you want, and if nuance is what you want from a market then sure (though it strikes me as weird to make a binary market for that). But given the title to the market, I kinda of assumed the essence was "how likely are the conspiracy nuts to be gesturing in the correct direction?"

I suppose, in part, I make the quibble because without it, this market's correct value is very nearly 0% and that isn't very interesting.

predicted NO

@AndrewHartman Ah I see. I had indeed interpreted this market to be "will there be widely-accepted proof of a conspiracy". You make a good point that is not very interesting. Maybe a better criterion would be "is there good evidence of a conspiracy", which hopefully people can agree regardless of their prior on there being a conspiracy.

predicted NO

@extent_of_foxes I think there's a big difference between intentionally designing side effects into a vaccine vs. covering up an accident. The former is vastly more malicious and less likely than the latter. (The latter happens all the time.) I think there'd be value in having a market for the latter, but this market's title is clearly about the former. (How exactly would one put microchips in a vaccine by accident?)

This market doesn't work, because it uses Reuters, BBC, NPR or AP for resolution. Of course big media is controlled by big pharma, and so they will never report the truth about these horrific killer-vaccines! It's all a big conspiracy 😲

😂

@Sjlver By the way, please send me all the details about the cheap injectable microchips. That technology could revolutionize factory farming. If only my company could be the first to mass-produce these chips, I would become super rich while also reducing animal suffering. A clear win-win.

predicted NO

@Sjlver You think animals suffer. They do not. Animals are constantly in the Buddhist concept of enlightenment. Simple machines, as they say.

predicted NO

@EnopoletusHarding That said, bioengineering might make sense from the standpoint of cost. And I support anything (within reason) that reduces protein cost.

@EnopoletusHarding Ah, that's why dairy cows make those "mooh" sounds when their calves are taken away. I had always understood that to be a sign of sadness, but it's actually their way of saying "ohm" and expressing their enlightenment bliss. I had never realized that before... ;-)

bought Ṁ800 of YES

Pampu deez nuts. 🥜

bought Ṁ10 of NO

This effect wouldn't be as strong if the incentives were better calibrated, i think

predicted YES

predicted NO

@Gigacasting Biden actually has good aerobic fitness. Look at his eyes. He'll have no issues.

His brain function, though, is pretty weak.

Just noticed the description note, lol. @Adrian, what do you suppose the venn diagram of people who are staunchly anti-vax and people who trust prediction markets on the internet to influence their beliefs is? xD

predicted NO

@MattP I thought you meant the other note. @Adrian, what do you suppose the venn diagram of people who are staunchly anti-vax and people who trust Reuters, the BBC, NPR, or the AP to influence their beliefs is?

I think assigning probabilities to concrete outcomes with deadlines, and then seeing those deadlines come to pass, helps people think more rationally and confront how much they actually believe what they say. I think getting these people to betting on prediction markets has a better potential to change their minds long term than debating with them, and I wish we could trade real money because that would have a bigger emotional impact.

But no, I don't think anti-vax people trust either prediction markets or these news sources very much, and I'm open to ideas for better resolution criteria for these type of markets. I figured they trusted these news sources more than the opinion of me, random guy on the internet.

bought Ṁ10 of YES

@ahalekelly Keep drinking that kool-aid brao.

predicted NO

@DrP You're one of this site's best trolls. Nevertheless, you will not be tipped.

predicted YES

@EnopoletusHarding The soon to be anointed king of manifold does not require your chump change. That’s for the plebs.

predicted NO

@DrP King? You call yourself a king?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDiqNnNKbY0

Monarchy is for the Arabs.

bought Ṁ10 of YES

@EnopoletusHarding Do you struggle with reading comprehension... I said soon to be anointed King.

And that is racist... so I am reporting you for racism.... and also misogyny, sexism, anti-semitism, homophobia, transphobia, and gender-binarism.

predicted NO

@DrP I deny all charges... except the most damaging to authority.

bought Ṁ50 of NO

@ahalekelly Even if they do not trust this market's design and resolution criteria, it opens a path to asking "What observation do you expect? Would you bet on that?" which at least encourages people back towards falsifiable claims.