Or maybe all of them are false, or incorrectly attribute causality.
How come people realize that they should not trust supposed experts and authorities, and yet those same people drop their skeptical attitude with semi-anonymous and unverified claims on the internet?
It comes down to what people have to gain or lose by lying. The pharmaceutical companies have everything to gain by lying, while the people talking on social media about what the vaccines have done to them and their families could lose friends, family members, jobs or any number of other opportunities because they chose to speak out.
The first thing a man will do for his beliefs is lie, as Schumpeter said.
I'm not saying that such things should not be investigated. On the contrary, they should be. Only that you can't believe unverified claims on the internet while also claiming to be a skeptical person.
I think it has less to do with believing them blindly as it does with being curious about what they have to say. People that are against the vaccine, people that think the vaccine causes adverse side effects, have basically even unpersoned. Just like people that challenge the election or censored on YouTube and other major social media platforms. I am going to go out on a limb here and say that the side being gagged is probably closer to the truth than the one doing the gagging.
People that are against the vaccine, people that think the vaccine causes adverse side effects, have basically even unpersoned
Even the CDC and the establishment media have admitted adverse side-effects. I don't think people who think that everyone who takes the vaccine will drop dead should be unpersoned (nor anyone), but they are completely nuts.
I am going to go out on a limb here and say that the side being gagged is probably closer to the truth than the one doing the gagging.
That may be, or it may not be. It's definitely not impossible for them to gag people if what they were saying is false. I think that if you claim that the vaccine will definitely kill people, they will gag you, even though your claim was not true.
Even Pfizer admits only 81% of people experience little to no side effects. The media and hospitals have intentionally downplayed severe side effects despite the point it is still recommended that patients sit in a recovery room after injections. They are worried saying yes people are dying from the vaccine will kill the vaccine push entirely.
They are worried saying yes people are dying from the vaccine will kill the vaccine push entirely.
Seeing how vaccine deaths have even been reported in the lying media, like the BBC, who are 'they'? Do you really think tens of thousands of people are dropping dead due to the vaccine?
Do you really think tens of thousands of people are dropping dead due to the vaccine?
Well, according to the best data we have, yeah. It seems as if there have been at least 10,000 "vaccine"-related deaths in the western world. That we know of.
That's based on self-reports. Now scale that data for the rest of the year and multiply it by the factor of the average under-reporting figure and you might have an idea of how many people have actually died.
Well when there is literally no outlet for them to display their vaccine horror stories without them being censored or banned, it makes sense that they would choose an outlet provided to them that isn't being shut down.
The question is why isn't there an uproar over VAERS not being reported? Why aren't we investigating Doctors who pass off symptoms of the vaccine as 'anxiety' or blame it on the victim?
When there is no human trials there is an incredibly important need to document symptoms, whether or not they are related. Right now the strategy is "if we don't know the side effects it is safe" which is about the most fucked up way to distribute a new medication that exists.
I think there is a greater risk if people are dropping like flies from the vaccine and nothing is done. Because especially when deaths are involved, the truth will eventually come out, and it will come at great cost for those who covered it up.
I'm sure you've heard the saying "the plural of anecdote is not data"
Except it literally is. N = 1 is an anecdote.
Each single story isn't that credible, but at some point sheer weight of numbers becomes it's own credibility, unless you can call it into question or cast some realistic doubt on it.
You seem to suggest that one has to believe anything posted online unless you can "cast some realistic doubt" on it. I have the contrary view: no 'story' should be believed, unless it is verified.
Or maybe all of them are false, or incorrectly attribute causality.
How come people realize that they should not trust supposed experts and authorities, and yet those same people drop their skeptical attitude with semi-anonymous and unverified claims on the internet?
It comes down to what people have to gain or lose by lying. The pharmaceutical companies have everything to gain by lying, while the people talking on social media about what the vaccines have done to them and their families could lose friends, family members, jobs or any number of other opportunities because they chose to speak out.
The first thing a man will do for his beliefs is lie, as Schumpeter said.
I'm not saying that such things should not be investigated. On the contrary, they should be. Only that you can't believe unverified claims on the internet while also claiming to be a skeptical person.
I think it has less to do with believing them blindly as it does with being curious about what they have to say. People that are against the vaccine, people that think the vaccine causes adverse side effects, have basically even unpersoned. Just like people that challenge the election or censored on YouTube and other major social media platforms. I am going to go out on a limb here and say that the side being gagged is probably closer to the truth than the one doing the gagging.
Even the CDC and the establishment media have admitted adverse side-effects. I don't think people who think that everyone who takes the vaccine will drop dead should be unpersoned (nor anyone), but they are completely nuts.
That may be, or it may not be. It's definitely not impossible for them to gag people if what they were saying is false. I think that if you claim that the vaccine will definitely kill people, they will gag you, even though your claim was not true.
Even Pfizer admits only 81% of people experience little to no side effects. The media and hospitals have intentionally downplayed severe side effects despite the point it is still recommended that patients sit in a recovery room after injections. They are worried saying yes people are dying from the vaccine will kill the vaccine push entirely.
You got a source on that 81% number?
Seeing how vaccine deaths have even been reported in the lying media, like the BBC, who are 'they'? Do you really think tens of thousands of people are dropping dead due to the vaccine?
Well, according to the best data we have, yeah. It seems as if there have been at least 10,000 "vaccine"-related deaths in the western world. That we know of.
45,000 deaths between December, 2020 and April, 2021, according to the lawsuit from America's Frontline Doctors: https://img1.wsimg.com/blobby/go/3c6a0774-cfad-46fa-aa97-af5aa5e74f00/M%20for%20PI%20file%20stamped.pdf
That's based on self-reports. Now scale that data for the rest of the year and multiply it by the factor of the average under-reporting figure and you might have an idea of how many people have actually died.
What exact is this 'best data'?
And accepting that arguendo, it would seem that the vaccine is well worth it - considering that it cuts the risk of death by Corona by 90%.
Please tell me you aren’t referring to the larp that is vaers
Literally on par with the trump campaigns online collection of “election fraud” anecdotes.
I remember the actress known as Melissa Carone.
Well when there is literally no outlet for them to display their vaccine horror stories without them being censored or banned, it makes sense that they would choose an outlet provided to them that isn't being shut down.
The question is why isn't there an uproar over VAERS not being reported? Why aren't we investigating Doctors who pass off symptoms of the vaccine as 'anxiety' or blame it on the victim?
When there is no human trials there is an incredibly important need to document symptoms, whether or not they are related. Right now the strategy is "if we don't know the side effects it is safe" which is about the most fucked up way to distribute a new medication that exists.
Aren't they documented?
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2021-08-30/03-COVID-Su-508.pdf
I think there is a greater risk if people are dropping like flies from the vaccine and nothing is done. Because especially when deaths are involved, the truth will eventually come out, and it will come at great cost for those who covered it up.
I'm sure you've heard the saying "the plural of anecdote is not data"
Except it literally is. N = 1 is an anecdote.
Each single story isn't that credible, but at some point sheer weight of numbers becomes it's own credibility, unless you can call it into question or cast some realistic doubt on it.
You seem to suggest that one has to believe anything posted online unless you can "cast some realistic doubt" on it. I have the contrary view: no 'story' should be believed, unless it is verified.
I think you know we’re living in a post truth society.
If it confirms my bias, it must be true.