I wish there were people who were not either fanatically pro-vaccine or fanatically anti-vaccine researching these things. I hate to be presented with the ability to pick from two sets of pure propaganda.
Meanwhile, Gateway Pundit reported on Monday that nearly 4,000 vaccination deaths have been reported to the VAERS system since July 24, an average of 70 per day.
From the website:
OpenVAERS is a private organization that posts publicly available CDC/FDA data of injuries reported post-vaccination. Reports are not proof of causality
I wish there were people who were not either fanatically pro-vaccine or fanatically anti-vaccine researching these things.
You haven't bothered to listen to these people, clearly.
For starters, look up Dr. Robert Malone.
Reports are not proof of causality
No shit, Sherlock. You aren't actually informing anyone here of anything because we already fucking know that. You're just giving a smug little speech to demonstrate your superiority.
You might as well tell us black lives matter at this point. Yeah, good for you. You're a wonderful person. But nobody credible is having a discussion that says otherwise.
You haven't bothered to listen to these people, clearly.
For starters, look up Dr. Robert Malone.
Who exactly are 'these people'? And how do I know that Dr. Robert Malone (but you could enter in any name) is not biased and/or insane? Just because someone says what someone wants to hear does not mean that everything he says is Gospel.
You aren't actually informing anyone here of anything because we already fucking know that. You're just giving a smug little speech to demonstrate your superiority.
It's got nothing to do with that. You may know that, but there are some people who are on such an anti-Coronavaccine Jihad that they even condemn Operation Warp Speed.
I don't claim that either the pro-vax or anti-vax argument is 100% accurate. But the side I'm more willing to believe is the side that is being actively, institutionallycensored, made of up of people like Robert Malone, Mike Yeadon, Charles Hoffe, Michael Palmer and Sucharit Bakhdi.
These are men who've earned MDs and PhDs in the fields of immunology, virology and epidemiology. In Malone and Yeadon's cases, they were earning six figures working for Phizer. All of them, and thousands of others, have effectively committed career suicide by speaking out as they have done: they've lost tenure or had their licenses to practice revoked, they've lost friends and colleagues who now refuse to speak to them. None of them (with the possible exception of Yeadon) are deranged lunatics.
So why would they risk the things they've risked? What do they have to gain from it? Attention from a few fringe internet message boards in exchange for professional and personal ignominy? Why is such an effort being made to silence them, and to frighten or bully other medical professionals out of voicing similar concerns? Is this the way science is supposed to be conducted?
The side that seems to be trying the hardest to hide something is usually the side with the most to hide.
But the side I'm more willing to believe is the side that is being actively, institutionallycensored, made of up of people like Robert Malone, Mike Yeadon, Charles Hoffe, Michael Palmer and Sucharit Bakhdi.
By no means do I want to compare vaccine skeptics to Holocaust deniers, but that group is also institutionally censored. The mere fact of censorship is not enough to prove someone to be correct.
I simply have no way to judge any of these claims. It's hard to say that one does not know, but I'd rather be in that position than in making a claim based on prejudices.
These are men who've earned MDs and PhDs in the fields of immunology, virology and epidemiology.
Same for Fauci and God knows how many people who are on the other side, and who we know to be consummate frauds.
All of them, and thousands of others, have effectively committed career suicide by speaking out as they have done: they've lost tenure or had their licenses to practice revoked, they've lost friends and colleagues who now refuse to speak to them. None of them (with the possible exception of Yeadon) are deranged lunatics.
Yes, I did a cursory check on Malone, and he certainly did not sound like any sort of deranged lunatic. That said, he can still be mistaken. Whether or not he is, I admire that he is willing to swim against the tide for what he believes to be correct and in the best interests of humanity. If the morally bankrupt regime can only defend its orthodoxy using terror, then that does not speak well of it, but I never had any faith in it to begin with.
Is this the way science is supposed to be conducted?
It's not even the way medieval theology was done, because there a hearing or council would be held before people were branded as heretics. Now it's just a decree from above, made by people who are accountable to no one.
But that is not automatic proof that every heretic is correct. Heretics disagree among themselves as well. There is no way to adjudicate these, at lesat for me.
You look him up and realize he invented mRNA gene therapy back in the 80s.
I saw supposed "fact checkers" disputing it and didn't have the time to look into it for myself. While I know they're probably lying, I don't know enough to judge either way.
Sure that's a bit of an appeal to authority, but it might help convince you he's not, uh, "biased and/or insane".
He may still be biased. As for insane, probably not, though my respect for the credentialed expert caste has dropped to zero in the past few years.
I wish there were people who were not either fanatically pro-vaccine or fanatically anti-vaccine researching these things. I hate to be presented with the ability to pick from two sets of pure propaganda.
From the website:
You haven't bothered to listen to these people, clearly.
For starters, look up Dr. Robert Malone.
No shit, Sherlock. You aren't actually informing anyone here of anything because we already fucking know that. You're just giving a smug little speech to demonstrate your superiority.
You might as well tell us black lives matter at this point. Yeah, good for you. You're a wonderful person. But nobody credible is having a discussion that says otherwise.
Who exactly are 'these people'? And how do I know that Dr. Robert Malone (but you could enter in any name) is not biased and/or insane? Just because someone says what someone wants to hear does not mean that everything he says is Gospel.
It's got nothing to do with that. You may know that, but there are some people who are on such an anti-Coronavaccine Jihad that they even condemn Operation Warp Speed.
I don't claim that either the pro-vax or anti-vax argument is 100% accurate. But the side I'm more willing to believe is the side that is being actively, institutionallycensored, made of up of people like Robert Malone, Mike Yeadon, Charles Hoffe, Michael Palmer and Sucharit Bakhdi.
These are men who've earned MDs and PhDs in the fields of immunology, virology and epidemiology. In Malone and Yeadon's cases, they were earning six figures working for Phizer. All of them, and thousands of others, have effectively committed career suicide by speaking out as they have done: they've lost tenure or had their licenses to practice revoked, they've lost friends and colleagues who now refuse to speak to them. None of them (with the possible exception of Yeadon) are deranged lunatics.
So why would they risk the things they've risked? What do they have to gain from it? Attention from a few fringe internet message boards in exchange for professional and personal ignominy? Why is such an effort being made to silence them, and to frighten or bully other medical professionals out of voicing similar concerns? Is this the way science is supposed to be conducted?
The side that seems to be trying the hardest to hide something is usually the side with the most to hide.
By no means do I want to compare vaccine skeptics to Holocaust deniers, but that group is also institutionally censored. The mere fact of censorship is not enough to prove someone to be correct.
I simply have no way to judge any of these claims. It's hard to say that one does not know, but I'd rather be in that position than in making a claim based on prejudices.
Same for Fauci and God knows how many people who are on the other side, and who we know to be consummate frauds.
Yes, I did a cursory check on Malone, and he certainly did not sound like any sort of deranged lunatic. That said, he can still be mistaken. Whether or not he is, I admire that he is willing to swim against the tide for what he believes to be correct and in the best interests of humanity. If the morally bankrupt regime can only defend its orthodoxy using terror, then that does not speak well of it, but I never had any faith in it to begin with.
It's not even the way medieval theology was done, because there a hearing or council would be held before people were branded as heretics. Now it's just a decree from above, made by people who are accountable to no one.
But that is not automatic proof that every heretic is correct. Heretics disagree among themselves as well. There is no way to adjudicate these, at lesat for me.
I saw supposed "fact checkers" disputing it and didn't have the time to look into it for myself. While I know they're probably lying, I don't know enough to judge either way.
He may still be biased. As for insane, probably not, though my respect for the credentialed expert caste has dropped to zero in the past few years.
That's roughly a gorillion percent increase over usual vaxx deaths. That doesn't alarm you?
Sure it would. I don't think it is accurate, hence 'arguendo'. That said, it would still be greatly outweighed by the benefits.