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.
I don't disagree, but as much as you're right to be skeptical of anecdotal accounts on a Facebook page, a lot of the data we do have does not support the establishment narrative. In Israel and Singapore, two of the most vaccinated countries on Earth, the number of cases and hospitalizations are rising almost in direct tandem with the vaccination rate. Show me a Flu season with data sets like that.
Why is the establishment working so hard to discredit and suppress reports about Covid cases being successfully treated with Ivermectin and other drugs?
Why are young people and teenagers being strongarmed into taking a vaccine to protect against an illness that would have barely any effect on them even if they got it?
If the vaccines are supposed to immunize people against COVID, why are we being told that unvaccinated people are a threat to vaccinated people?
Why are people not being informed about potential risks of the vaccine before taking it, in violation of the legal principles of informed consent?
How are world leaders, public health officials and politicians ever going to claw back the extreme rhetoric they have directed at the unvaccinated, if it turns out that they are wrong? Given the level of vitriol that people like Biden, Trudeau, Fauci, Scott Morrison, Dan Andrews and others have directed at people who choose to trust their own immune systems, will they ever realistically be able to come our and say they were wrong? Or are we now locked in to the trajectory, bound to follow it to its logical conclusion, whatever the actual facts may be?
I don't disagree, but as much as you're right to be skeptical of anecdotal accounts on a Facebook page, a lot of the data we do have does not support the establishment narrative. In Israel and Singapore, two of the most vaccinated countries on Earth, the number of cases and hospitalizations are rising almost in direct tandem with the vaccination rate. Show me a Flu season with data sets like that.
I know full well they're lying. So much is obvious and it should be obvious to anyone paying even the slightest bit of attention. What I am not always sure about is what they are lying about. My solution for that is to simply not believe anything that they are saying, unless I have verified it myself. But that same thing goes for everything. If a given establishment narrative is a lie, that does not mean that anything contradicting it is necessarily true, as there are an infinite possible number of lies but only one truth.
Why is the establishment working so hard to discredit and suppress reports about Covid cases being successfully treated with Ivermectin and other drugs?
Steelmanning their side, because it's not definitively established that Ivermectin does help. Even in this steelman there is no grounds for them to claim that "it does not help", as that is also not proven. More realistically, they want you to not to not get sick, but to obey.
Why are young people and teenagers being strongarmed into taking a vaccine to protect against an illness that would have barely any effect on them even if they got it?
Good question. If I wanted to steelman it, then you could say that since the vac. are less likely to spread it, this could create herd immunity. But then why shove the vaccine down the throats of those who have already been infected?
If the vaccines are supposed to immunize people against COVID, why are we being told that unvaccinated people are a threat to vaccinated people?
They don't, they just offer 'protection', which everyone around me here in Europe already knows.
Why are people not being informed about potential risks of the vaccine before taking it, in violation of the legal principles of informed consent?
Is there such a principle? I've gotten other vaccines before and no one said anything about potential risks.
How are world leaders, public health officials and politicians ever going to claw back the extreme rhetoric they have directed at the unvaccinated, if it turns out that they are wrong?
That's what a memoryhole is for. Their problem is not what they say their problem is, but that they are not obeyed.
Or are we now locked in to the trajectory, bound to follow it to its logical conclusion, whatever the actual facts may be?
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.
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 don't disagree, but as much as you're right to be skeptical of anecdotal accounts on a Facebook page, a lot of the data we do have does not support the establishment narrative. In Israel and Singapore, two of the most vaccinated countries on Earth, the number of cases and hospitalizations are rising almost in direct tandem with the vaccination rate. Show me a Flu season with data sets like that.
Why is the establishment working so hard to discredit and suppress reports about Covid cases being successfully treated with Ivermectin and other drugs?
Why are young people and teenagers being strongarmed into taking a vaccine to protect against an illness that would have barely any effect on them even if they got it?
If the vaccines are supposed to immunize people against COVID, why are we being told that unvaccinated people are a threat to vaccinated people?
Why are people not being informed about potential risks of the vaccine before taking it, in violation of the legal principles of informed consent?
How are world leaders, public health officials and politicians ever going to claw back the extreme rhetoric they have directed at the unvaccinated, if it turns out that they are wrong? Given the level of vitriol that people like Biden, Trudeau, Fauci, Scott Morrison, Dan Andrews and others have directed at people who choose to trust their own immune systems, will they ever realistically be able to come our and say they were wrong? Or are we now locked in to the trajectory, bound to follow it to its logical conclusion, whatever the actual facts may be?
I know full well they're lying. So much is obvious and it should be obvious to anyone paying even the slightest bit of attention. What I am not always sure about is what they are lying about. My solution for that is to simply not believe anything that they are saying, unless I have verified it myself. But that same thing goes for everything. If a given establishment narrative is a lie, that does not mean that anything contradicting it is necessarily true, as there are an infinite possible number of lies but only one truth.
Steelmanning their side, because it's not definitively established that Ivermectin does help. Even in this steelman there is no grounds for them to claim that "it does not help", as that is also not proven. More realistically, they want you to not to not get sick, but to obey.
Good question. If I wanted to steelman it, then you could say that since the vac. are less likely to spread it, this could create herd immunity. But then why shove the vaccine down the throats of those who have already been infected?
They don't, they just offer 'protection', which everyone around me here in Europe already knows.
Is there such a principle? I've gotten other vaccines before and no one said anything about potential risks.
That's what a memoryhole is for. Their problem is not what they say their problem is, but that they are not obeyed.
I think we both know the answer.
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.
If true, that does seem like quite a good reason to not believe he is biased.